Kitty Hawk 1/48 F2H-2 Outboard Flap

I've seen some very nice built-up Kitty Hawk 1/48 F2H-2 kits. Unfortunately, in some the modeler attached the outboard flaps according to the kit instructions. In fact, the part identified as the lower half of the flap (A15 and 16) should really be glued on as the upper surface of the wing and the part identified as the upper half (A14 and 18) attached under it, either extended or up. This is the Kitty Hawk build, which shows the outboard flap attached correctly per the instructions but incorrectly with respect to the actual airplane:

This is what the extended outboard flap should look like:

The aft portion of the upper surface of the outboard flap is also part of the upper surface of the wing when the flaps are up.

For more on the Kitty Hawk kit, see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2016/09/kitty-hawk-148-f2h-22p-banshee.html and http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2016/12/kitty-hawk-148-f2h-banshee-kit-redux.html

Kitty Hawk 1/48 F2H Banshee Kit Redux

20 December 2016: Added a picture by Michael Rieth comparing the kit main landing gear doors to the kit landing gear wells.

Click HERE for my first post on the Kitty Hawk 1/48 Banshee kit.

Michael Rieth subsequently provided me with illustrations of his more detailed assessment of more notable shape errors in the kit in addition to the upper inner wing interface with the fuselage, which is excessively bulged upward, and the shape of the inlet.

Both the upper and lower wing engine fairings are misshaped, the shortened upper likely forced by the high inner wing contour.

A true bottom view of the lower fairing is not available, either as a McDonnell drawing or a photo, but there are good enough photos to establish that the Kitty Hawk interpretation is incorrect.

To check my observation that the inboard pylons were not staggered, Michael overlaid a photo of an F2H-3/4 inner wing (identical in this regard) to confirm that the Kitty Hawk pylons (red outlined squares) are incorrectly staggered and the inner one is slightly too far outboard, although it appears to be correctly positioned longitudinally.

However, what becomes obvious from this overlay is that the inner main landing gear doors are oversized, extending too far forward.

The kit doors also don't match the incorrect kit wells, so building the model gear up and rescribing the outline of the wells involves some additional work.

The Hawk kit, deemed by some to be superior in shape to the Kitty Hawk offering, has its pylons even more out of position and the main landing gear well may be, although that could be due to the kit part being at an angle to the camera in the following comparison.

Bob Norgren

The significant lateral indentation of the bottom of the fuselage of the Hawk kit toward the front of the wing inner section is also incorrect. The Kitty Hawk kit is more accurate in this regard.

Blackburn Buccaneer

For a little background on the Royal Navy's Blackburn Buccaneer versus its U.S. Navy contemporary, see http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2016/12/horses-for-courses-intruder-vs-buccaneer.html.

CMR (short for Czech Master Resin) Models has released an excellent kit of the Buccaneer S.Mk.1, the original underpowered "Banana" (from its initial proposition as the Blackburn Advanced Naval Aircraft).

For a detailed build article by master modeler, Bill Gilman, see: http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235007140-172-scale-resin-blackburn-buccaneer-smk1/

Finished model photos and comments are HERE

The kit is the result of research provided by Buccaneer subject-matter expert Andy White in the form of drawings, illustrations, and as importantly, involvement in the review of test castings (definitely state of the art) and creation of the assembly instructions. See his website: http://www.blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk/

F9F Armament Installation - A Cautionary Tale

11 January 2017: Added comments by David Collier


A new model kit of an aircraft is invariably found to have at least a few errors if not downright fatal ones. I don't wonder as much about how they could get it wrong as how they could possibly avoid error. The F9F armament installation is an example. This is an excellent picture of it, taken in 1949, showing the four cannon, the feed chute to the inboard ones, the avionics shelf, the black boxes above the cannon, etc.

The ammo boxes were located behind the nose wheel well, easily accessible from within it.

The only problem from a modeling standpoint is that this installation was only applicable to a total of 10 of the very first F9F-2s and -3s. For some reason, the installation was almost immediately changed to one with only two of the ammo boxes located behind the nose wheel well with the other two mounted above the cannon on the equipment shelf.

My guess is that the original location of the ammo boxes was predicated on center of gravity considerations. The change might have had something to do with problems with jamming in the feed chutes that went to either the inboard or outboard cannons. Or weight reduction. And perhaps locating 1950s avionics above cannons was a bad idea.

The F9F-6/7 Cougar used the same armament installation as the Panther. Note that the feed chutes from the aft-mounted ammo boxes are not shown.

David Collier provided a comment from his experience working on the F9F-7, which was identical to the -6 from an armament standpoint, at NAS New York during the summer of 1955:

Re the center of gravity, the two  ammo cans in the nose were fitted with metal weights which were installed when no ammo was loaded. All expended cartridges and links ended up in the lower portion of the nose below the guns. If no metal weights could be found, sandbags were used as weights. I remember cleaning sand out of the area where the cannons and feed mechanisms were installed and the shelf above the cannons where the ammo cans and chutes, batteries and cables were installed. A real mess!

Naturally, you would assume that the F9F-8 Cougar would have the same armament installation as the -6/7. You would be wrong.

According to the flight manual, all four ammo boxes were located above the cannon.

For other differences between -6 and -8 Cougars, see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2010/11/f9f-6-vs-f9f-8-cougars.html

For details on the nose cones of the Panther and Cougar, see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2016/02/grumman-f9f-nose-cone-variations.html 

McDonnell XF2H-1 Banshee BuNo 99860

Ron Downey is a retired McAir engineer who has an excellent blog, Aviation Archives, here: http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/

He frequently posts high-resolution pictures, drawings, and illustrations, most but not all of McAir aircraft. I look at it about once a week and frequently see something that is new to me. In this case, it was a repost of an XF2H-1 drawing that I hadn't taken a close look at the first time: http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/2015/07/xf2h-1-aerodynamic-three-view.html

There were three XF2H-1 (né XF2D-1) prototypes. This is the first one, BuNo 99858:

 Note the "thick" engine nacelle and the significant dihedral on the horizontal tail.

Several changes were required to solve aerodynamic problems. (see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2009/12/f2h-banshee-modeling-notes.html). This is the second prototype after wing, nacelle, and empennage changes and the addition of the tip tanks similar to the ones that would be incorporated on the production F2H-2:

The production F2H-1 design was also lengthened a foot forward of the engine intakes to increase the amount of internal fuel. As it turns out the XF2H-1 drawing shows that the third prototype, BuNo 99860, incorporated this change. I hadn't noticed that until now because it retained the distinctive short XF2H canopy.

Note that it still has the handholds and steps on the right side of the forward fuselage and does not have an ejection seat.

North American FJ-4/4B Fury Notes

 28 June 2025: For the FJ-4 main landing gear notes, click here: https://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2019/07/north-american-fj-44b-main-landing-gear.html

27 January 2017: In response to a question about the tail bumper;
Unlike most tail bumpers, the FJ-4's was very narrow - basically a blade - and not retractable. There was a fixed guard in front of the bumper, which could pivot to absorb the shock of a tail-low touchdown. There was almost certainly a damper involved, since the bumper is always extended except on museum examples (see second picture) where the damper is missing or inoperative. There was a tie-down hole in the bumper.

23 January 2017: Some notes on and pictures of the 1/72 Emhar kit can be found here:
http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235015791-emhar-fj-4-fury-172/

 October 2016: Updated to revise the horizontal tail discussion and correct other details.

In the process of preparing an information package requested by a kit maker, I revisited a question raised several years ago, the size and shape of the horizontal stabilizer. The problem is a fundamental inconsistency among the drawings and data available to me, which include the excellent North American FJ-4 four-view drawings, the FJ-4/4B Standard Aircraft Characteristics (SAC) charts, two NACA spin tunnel test reports, and a couple of measurements of an actual FJ-4B stabilizer by Jim Robbins. Thanks to FJ-4 maintenance manual data provided by Frank Truchi, a volunteer at the National Naval Aviation Museum, I can confirm that the NAA drawing of the horizontal tail is correct except for the span and the location of the elevator.

Note that the FJ-4 empennage was subjected to development changes.

The original FJ-4 horizontal tail was swept at 35° at the 25% chord. At some point in flight test, the sweep was changed to 35° at the leading edge, probably to reduce the overall length of the airplane, an important consideration from the standpoint of compact parking on aircraft carrier flight and hangar decks. The span was subsequently reduced by 18 inches on each side for production due to structural problems found in flight test.

In the process of reviewing the documentation I have, I discovered a detail that I wasn't aware of before. The major change between the FJ-3 and the FJ-4 was the wing. The new one provided more area to lift more weight, much of which was fuel. The knock on the FJ-3 was that performance suffered when it was carrying external tanks and endurance suffered when it was not. As a result, the FJ-4 was to have the same internal fuel capacity when clean (no external tanks) as the FJ-3 configured with external tanks. The ailerons were also to be moved inboard to avoid weight that would otherwise have been needed to stiffen the wing torsionally, which didn't leave much trailing edge available for flaps. As a result, the FJ-4 had narrow-chord leading edge flaps to further increase camber and a panel hinged to the bottom of the flap to scoop air into the slot between the leading edge of the flap and the aft spar of the wing.

This panel isn't shown on the NAA drawing bottom view.

One tidbit about the FJ-3 versus the FJ-4 that I'd forgotten was the increase in tread. This didn't result from the main landing gear struts being relocated more outboard: the wheels were simply located on the outboard side of the strut rather than the inboard side.

The FJ-4 had excellent handling qualities, eliminated the FJ-2/3's gunnery inaccuracy that resulted from the excessive downward angle of their cannon, and was almost certainly one of the best jet fighters from a performance and maneuverability standpoint that didn't have an afterburner.  Unfortunately, fighters with afterburners had an innate interception and air-to-air combat advantage so the Navy gave all the FJ-4s to the Marine Corps, which was happy to have them until Vought produced more F8U Crusaders than the Navy needed.

However, that wasn't the end of the FJ-4. The Bureau of Aeronautics decided that Douglas' Ed Heinemann wasn't paying proper attention to its concerns about the A4D Skyhawk program so it contracted with North American for an attack variant of the FJ-4.

Note the spoilers added to the upper surface of the wing for increased roll-control power required for the asymmetric loading of the heavy nuclear weapon that was the raison d'etre for the A4D/FJ-4B. Most descriptions of the FJ-4B state that these were located forward of the flaps, which I had presumed to be correct since that is where they would normally be.

It turns out that they were on the upper surface of the flaps as shown in the SAC drawing above. Note the partially open spoiler on this FJ-4B's damaged flap.

They are also evident in this FJ-4B walkaround photo taken by Fotios Rouch (for the complete set, see http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/awa01/401-500/awa463-FJ-4-Rouch/00.shtm).

This is an excellent picture depicting the additional pair of speed brakes  (in this case, possibly more accurately described as dive brakes):

Note that this is a "warbird" with post-service antennas. Also see http://tetonaviation.com/2013/03/fj-4-fury/#!prettyPhoto

For an FJ-4B configuration with the left-hand cannon removed, see: http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2012/03/modelers-guide-to-sabre-fury.html

For some detail under the canopy see http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2012/12/fj-4-detail-under-canopy.html. Note that the FJ-4B was in service long enough to be retrofitted with the Martin-Baker ejection seat.

For an excellent set of annotated photos with configuration and other information, see this Phil Friddell post: http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2012/12/fj-4-detail-under-canopy.html

For a summary of all the different FJ Furies, see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2009/10/fj-fury.html

And, of course, there's great information and drawings in Steve Ginter's FJ-4/4B monograph, Naval Fighters Number Twenty Five, which is regrettably out of print.

Grumman AF-2W Guardian Redux

In a 25 May 2015 post to a Special Hobby 1/48 AF Guardian thread on Britmodeler (HERE), "Homebee" noted that there appeared to be two different radomes for the AF-2W. To my chagrin, I must report that I hadn't notice the difference before I tripped over his unanswered post yesterday.

Here is an early AF-2W in Grumman flight test (it is configured with an ejection seat):

Here is a Navy Reserve AF-2W:

My post on the AF Guardian (HERE) failed to note that. I overlooked the obvious yet again.

The interface of the radome with the fuselage on the early version is smoothly faired between the bomb bay opening and the radome. The later interface (possibly an added sheet-metal fairing) is flat sided and appears to terminate abruptly. Unfortunately, I don't have a good picture of the aft end of the later radome.

I have no idea when or why the change occurred. It appears to have been a production change as evidenced by this picture of BuNo 124783 on the Grumman flight line.