ESCI 1/48th FJ-2/3

29 October 2016: It turns out that I was wrong about being wrong with respect to the FJ-4 horizontal tail so I revised the top view drawing at the bottom of this post. Thanks to maintenance manual data provided by Frank Truchi, a volunteer at the National Naval Aviation Museum, I now know that the production FJ-4 horizontal tail leading edge was swept at 35°. The NAA drawing of the horizontal tail is therefore accurate except for the span.  (Also see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2016/10/north-american-fj-44b-fury-notes.html.)

Some people are desperate for a good injection-molded kit of the North American FJ-2/3 Fury, so desperate that they consider building the ESCI 1/48th kit. While I'm sure that a fairly accurate model can be built from it, some changes will be necessary.

The most notable errors are in the forward fuselage,

as detailed here:

Note that the ejection seat is located too low and far aft in the cockpit.

It fairs even worse as an FJ-3, because its inlet was even deeper. (And that scoop on the aft fuselage needs to be cut down and a recessed ramp added ahead of it.)

Note that the aft nose landing gear door is not wide enough.

Since the bottom of the sliding canopy has the distinctive "dip" of the FJ-2/3's at its forward end (added to allow the pilot to sit higher for takeoff and landing while closing and opening the canopy) and the inlet is an undersized version of the FJ-2's, it doesn't make for a good XFJ-2 out of the box either. The XFJ-2 had the standard F-86 sliding canopy with a modified windscreen for better over-the-nose visibility. For an overview of the North American FJ Fury family, see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2009/10/fj-fury.html

However, even given its shortcomings, the kit has possibilities. Deepening the forward fuselage wouldn't be too difficult. "Impatient Pete" modified an F-86 with this cut on the way to an FJ Fury in an ARC forums post.

The bottom of the windscreen and sliding canopy could possibly be filed down to lower them to the right height. A F-86 canopy might be even better.

I don't have the kit so I can't say what has to be done to the wings, horizontal stabilizer, etc to improve its accuracy. For those details, see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2011/04/fj23-fury-redux.html

While most of us are content to imagine the possibilities or hope for a new FJ-3 kit, Jon Kunac-Tabinor has not only sallied forth with the Esci kit, he is posting his progress here: http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234981173-north-american-fj-3-fury-148th-esci-with-added-elbow-grease/#

However, Jon is having trouble with the quality of Esci plastic and Bob Sikkel reports that the Esci wing has the incorrect sweep and aileron location. The desperate might want to consider another 1/48th scale alternative, a mash up of the Grand Phoenix FJ-4 and a Monogram F-86.  The FJ-4's fuselage was very similar to the FJ-3's (see Jon Krol's comments below and the following illustrations). Bob Sikkel also provided the following comparison of 1/48th kit inlets to which I've added photographs of the actual airplanes.

Somebody has measured the FJ-4 at Tyler, Texas as having an inlet width and height at the location of the inlet plug of 23".

The FJ-3 and FJ-4 fuselages were almost identical, except of course where it is obvious that they aren't as well as the small difference in downward angle of the 20 mm guns. While the main landing gear was very different, the nose gear appeared to be the same except that the shock strut was more extended at rest.

Note that the North American draftsman had to wing it with details like access panels, speed brakes, etc. (obvious when comparing the FJ-3 and FJ-4 side views) so there may be some variation in their location from the above. Your guess is as good as mine on the vertical fin: were the leading and trailing edges different or not?

The wings and horizontal tails were very different, which is where an F-86 kit is required.

Note the difference in span between the prototype and production FJ-4 horizontal tails:

Cockpits

A work in progress:

Before World War II, Navy carrier-based airplane cockpits were painted with aluminum lacquer or interior green except for the instrument panel, side consoles, and radio equipment. This is the cockpit of the one and only XF4U-1 (your guess is as good as mine as to the color of the light areas):

Interior Green became the preferred color for the cockpit structure early in the war (less reflective) but at some point during the war and before March 1954 (see http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2004/05/stuff_eng_interior_colours_us_part3.htm), the cockpits of Navy carrier-based airplanes were to be semigloss Black from the level of the bottom of the instrument panel and the top of the side consoles and nonspecular Interior Green below. Ejection seats were usually interior green. After this, the cockpits were to be Dark Gull Gray (DGG)  with black instruments and consoles. Ejection seats were either black or DGG as will be discussed. Of course, the basic changeover from black cockpits to DDG ones took time and the devil is in the details. It also did not correspond directly with the change in the exterior paint scheme from overall blue to gray/white, which was decreed in February 1955, almost a year later. For more on that, see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2009/12/changing-from-blue-to-graywhite.html.

BuAer color specifications often left room for interpretation or to paraphrase Captain Barbossa, are "more of what you'd call guidelines than actual rules". For example, did painting the console black refer only to its top or also to its sides? A company would incorporate its interpretation of the spec in its manufacturing documents, which were incorporated by reference in its production or spares contract with the Navy. The aircraft would subsequently go through repair and overhaul at a Navy facility every few years (sooner if it was badly damaged in an accident but considered repairable); the painting instructions at the Navy facility were not necessarily the same as the manufacturer's. As a result, the wheel wells on blue airplanes might be painted zinc chromate when it was delivered but the repair and overhaul facility would paint them blue. Also see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2012/10/painting-crush-points-red.html

Basic Black

AD-4 Skyraider:  The floor is not obviously Interior Green but the lower section of the control stick appears to be. Note that the instrument faces are a darker black than the instrument panel itself.

FJ-1 Fury: This is a National Air and Space Museum photo of a restoration (I'm not sure that it was one of theirs).

F9F Panther: This is another restoration but it appears to be fairly accurate. Note that the seat is interior green. However, in service, it would have a seat cushion or parachute in the bucket. If the seat was designed for a backpack parachute, it would be in the seat. Carrier pilots did not wear their parachutes to and from the airplane due to the consequences of it inadvertently being deployed.

F7U-3 Cutlass: This is the cockpit of the F7U-3 being restored at Paine Field, Washington. It appears to be original. Note that it is almost completely black except for the control column.

The ejection seat was Interior Green.

For more on the F7U cockpit and a caution on using museum airplanes for reference, see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2012/12/cockpit-confusion.html

For some reason, North American FJ-2 Furys and at least some FJ-3s were delivered with cockpits in a very different shade of green, including the ejection seats.

 
Although the change in the specification to Dark Gull Gray was issued in early 1954, this Naval Aviation News article on cockpit colors appeared in the January 1957 issue, about a year and a half later given publishing lead time.

Note that it mentions light green instrument panels, which might be the case with the FJ-2/3 as discussed above.

For more on the FJ-2/3 "green" cockpit, see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2021/08/north-american-fj-23-cockpit-and.html

Basic Grey

The basic black cockpit was eventually faulted as being too dark. After some experimentation, the specification was revised to change the instrument panel to dark gull gray along with the sides of the consoles and the floors. This FJ-4 cockpit (not a museum airplane) is an example.

 

 There was subsequently some variation in the color of the ejection seats in the gray/white airplanes. Douglas installed black ejection seats even in blue airplanes and initially in F4Ds since the color of the seat was not initially specified as part of the change from overall blue.

In May 1963, the Navy finally decreed that ejection seats be dark gull gray.

However, Grumman painted the headrest of some seats black and of course, all Martin Baker seats are overall black.

TBU/TBY Wing Fold

Somebody asked for details on the TBU/TBY wing fold area because it isn't covered in detail in Steve Ginter's monograph. Note that there are two hinge points, one on the main spar and one on the forward spar, and a large bellcrank that is driven by two actuators, one in the inboard wing and the other in the outer.

There was one confusing element, an oval panel with pointed ends on the upper surface of the wing over the wing-fold area. The panel was necessary to provide an opening for the outer wing to fold past vertical.

I initially assumed that the panel was metal and part of the outer wing but I couldn't figure out how it didn't interfer with the hinge on the main spar. I finally realized that it was something like canvas (perhaps a rubberized fabric) and simply folded in on itself.

Here the cover appears to be bulging upward from aerodynamic pressure in flight.

This illustration shows the location of the main spar hinge relative to the forward hinge point and the cover

This was the only other picture that I could find of the fold area. It shows the lower half of the wing-fold actuator bellcrank and the inboard actuator.

F8U Underwing Details

There isn't much to be seen under the wing of an F8U when it is raised, even the underside of the wing itself.

Note that there was only one actuator to raise and lower the wing (the F8U-3 had two).

The top of the fuselage can barely be seen although this is what it looks like with the wing removed, looking forward from the pivot point.

There's a lot of white overspray on this derelict fuselage. The forward bulkhead should be red. The duct on the right side is covered with a silver insulation. Some of the piping was green zinc chromate. There is also a red fuel filter or something along the right forward side.

Tom Weinel has done some research and concluded that the area was green up through the early 1960s (e.g. F-8Es) and then painted white during Navy overhaul at some point or when the F-8s were rebuilt by Vought.

Lockheed XP-80

24 January 2015 Update: There continue to be questions about the topside color based on close examination of the color photos of the prototype in the Air and Space monograph. However, Dana Bell is of the opinion that it is most likely Army Air Forces Dark OD but possible that it is RAF Dark Green or ANA OD.

19 January 2015 Update: Bob Sikkel noted that the horizontal stabilizer data for the XP-80 and the P-80A were the same so my overlay of the P-80A stab appeared to be incorrect. It turns out that I had used an inaccurate drawing for the overlay. I've revised the top view with one that matches the data.

9 January 2015 Update: Bob Sikkel, who got me interested in this project in the first place, provided the link to another walkaround that provides excellent pictures of the landing gear, among other things: http://aircraftwalkaround.hobbyvista.com/p80/p80.htm 

8 January 2015 Update: It turns out that the color scheme as reported in the monograph that I relied on was incorrect. I've updated the following accordingly.

The Lockheed XP-80 was a one-off prototype powered by a different engine than the P-80A and subsequent Shooting Stars. It was a bit shorter and lighter than the P-80A. This photo was taken in conjunction with the first flight.

The more powerful but heavier engine required rebalancing the airplane by extending the fuselage forward. It probably allowed an increase in internal fuel as well since the main fuel tank was located in the fuselage between the cockpit and the engine.

Gerry Asher, aka Fox Three, described his conversion in the April 2001 issue (Vol 23 No 3) of Scale Aircraft Modeling. I don't think that he had the benefit of the National Air and Space Museum monograph on the P-80 Shooting Star.

The monograph includes a three-view of the XP-80 as well as several pictures, including some of the cockpit and some taken during the restoration process.

The difference in overall length between the XP-80 and the P-80A was 20 inches but the location of the aft end of the tail pipe is not the same for both airplanes so that is only an approximation of the stretch. After closely comparing the XP-80 three-view to those of the production Shooting Stars, I decided that the most accurate way to reduce the length was to remove 20 to 24 inches in two places. (Gerry removed 27 inches and after I drew this illustration, Bob Sikkel used the drawings I had to determine that it was very likely 25 inches.) Note that the XP-80 did not have a pair of speed brakes under the fuselage approximately where the lower section needs to be removed.

Craig Kaston subsequently provided me with some screen shots of photographs of XP-80 drawings that had fuselage station information but a combination of distortion and low resolution didn't allow an exact determination of the stretch. Overlays of the XP-80 fuselage station drawing with an F-80 fuselage station drawing established the stretch as 23 inches, plus or minus an inch; Moreover, there was a pencil notation on the XP-80 drawing at one fuselage station that suggests the increase was 23 inches. However, as noted above, Bob Sikkel's careful evaluation of the XP-80 and production P-80 fuselage stations results in a very likely stretch of 25 inches. (The good news is that two inches in 1/72nd and 1/48th is a little less or more than 1/32 of an inch respectively, which is probably less than the accuracy you can achieve when sectioning and rejoining the parts.)

The XP-80 drawing in the NASM monograph is clearly wrong with respect to the canopy and simplistic with respect to the engine inlet. I've added some other details to it as well based on photographs. Note that although the wells for the main landing gear wheels are in the same location in the wing, when the landing gear is extended, the wheels don't move quite as far aft. The XP-80 main landing gear tires were slightly bigger in diameter (27" versus 26") and appear to be wider.

(The inboard main landing gear doors are shown as the true size; they actually angled outboard and so would appear to be less deep in a three view than as shown above.)

The top view of the XP-80:

The XP-80 was restored by the National Air and Space Museum to the configuration it was in when retired by the Air Force, including markings. Unfortunately, an error was made in determining the color of the upper surfaces.* It had in fact been painted the standard olive drab and light gray of the time, but then polished to minimize drag.

Note that the rounded wing tips and tail were added early on in flight test. A wing leading edge fillet was scabbed on at some point after the first flight. The tailpipe on the restoration also extends farther aft than it did on the airplane at first flight.

The most difficult part of the conversion will be the relocation of the engine inlets forward on the fuselage and and changing the inlet shape to that of the XP-80 configuration.

The sliding canopy, but not the windscreen, was tinted. However, pictures of the aircraft before its first flight do not have the aft end of the canopy standing proud of the fuselage like it does now. (This discrepancy is noted in the NASM monograph.) I suspect that it is not the XP-80's original canopy (some of the first P-80As had tinted sliding canopies as well) and since the prototype was hand built, the replacement doesn't quite fit.

Some detail pictures are provided here: http://www.cybermodeler.com/aircraft/t-33/xp-80_walk.shtml

* Dana Bell: The story had been that as the XP-80 was being completed, the Lockheed paint shop was told to camouflage it. The painter told the NASM project curator they had just been camouflaging Venturas (he actually said Hudsons, though that production had long since been completed) and simply used up the last of the green that was already in the spray gun. The curator decided that the closest equivalent for British Dark Green was US Medium Green - the original color was actually specified to be Dark Olive Drab. The XP-80 was also polished and waxed to lessen wind resistance. Years later, the wax oxidized, as did the underlying paint - the entire upper surface and sides of the aircraft turned a burnt orange, and remained so until restoration. OD will turn brownish orange with age, but Medium Green won't.

F9F-8 Variations

Kitty Hawk is shipping its 1/48th F9F-8/8P kit:

For the Cybermodeler in-box review, see http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/kh/kit_kh_80127.shtml

Paul Boyer has built one for a modeling review (note that Kitty Hawk did not fix the flat nose strut from its F9F-8T kit; Paul modified it to give his Cougar model the correct sit):

He also only folded one wing to illustrate the kit option and notes that it sits at an angle (it's hard to tell from a photo if it's the correct angle for an F9F-8, which was 80 degrees):

Note that there should only be a clear window for the approach light (an angle of attack indicator) in the left inner wing leading edge. Like the deflated nose strut, this error was carried over from the Kitty Hawk F9F-8T.

One of the questions that has arisen is the effectivity of the inlet splitter plate. This was a prominent feature added at some point during the production run to improve performance.

After looking at lots of pictures, my guess is that it was incorporated at some point between BuNo 141157 (no splitter plate) and 141172 (splitter plate) and was not retrofitted to earlier Cougars except for at least two -8s that were used for Grumman flight test. (The F9F-8Ps and F9F-8Ts were all produced with splitter plates.)

With two exceptions, I've not seen a picture of a overall-blue Cougar with the splitter plate. One is BuNo 131894, which appears to be dedicated to test, and the other is the sole Blue Angels' single-seat F9F-8 with a splitter plate, BuNo 144279 (it also had the mounting point for the inflight refueling probe).

Early gray/white F9F-8s did not have the splitter plate. Another exception to BuNo 141157 or earlier not having it is BuNo 141140, which did, shown here. Again, my guess is that this was a Grumman test article.

Many of the F9F-8s were relegated to advanced training Navy squadrons after their service with deployable squadrons. The ones delivered prior to the introduction of the splitter plate had almost certainly been through enough overhaul cycles that if the splitter were retrofitted, they would have it. I've not seen one that does; BuNo 141155 is an example.

Also note another -8 variation in the picture above, the Martin-Baker ejection seat (the kit comes with it as well as the original one). I'm not sure when the Grumman seat was replaced with Martin-Baker's, but I don't recall seeing them in pictures of deploying F9F-8s and it's usual to see them in the training-command Cougars. It may have been a requirement.

In addition to not providing any information on the presence or absence of the splitter plates or when to use which ejection seat, the Kitty Hawk instructions reportedly don't specify which instrument panel to be used in the fighter versus the photo-reconnaissance version of the kit. The F9F-8 fighter had a gun sight:

The F9F-8P had a large periscope view port in lieu of a gun sight:

Corogard: This was the "silver paint" on the leading edges of the wing and empennage. For more see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2012/01/corogard.html

The width of the coating doesn't appear to be consistent, other than much wider on the wing leading edge of the blue Cougars than the gray/white ones (the original requirement was back to the first line of rivets). Your Cougar may vary (this one is more like the blue Corogard application and was probably repainted at a Navy overhaul and repair facility; the Corogard on the leading edge of the vertical fin also extends further down that typical even on blue Cougars).

It does appear that the width was usually a little greater on the top of the leading edge than the bottom of factory-new grey/white Cougars:

Note that on this factory-new F9F-8P, the horizontal tail is all white, the spoilers are not painted white, and there is no trimmer surface on the right wing, only the left and it is painted white. The spoilers were subsequently painted white like the rest of the control surfaces.

For the differences between the F9F-6/7 and -8 Cougars, see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2010/11/f9f-6-vs-f9f-8-cougars.html

More later as reports and questions roll in...