Grumman F9F Panther/Cougar Canopy

The Panther and Cougar canopies were basically the same from a structural standpoint and the defrost system, which was not initially on the very early Panthers. The frame detail (white fiberglass reinforcement) changed over time and a radio antenna was added on the inside of the canopy on a separate sheet of Plexiglas.

Note the canopy's internal structure that arched over the canopy actuator. Its forward edge was slanted so it butted up against the armor plate when the canopy was closed.

The defrost duct was open on its forward end when the canopy was open; when the canopy was closed, it connected to a supply hose on the aft cockpit bulkhead alongside the ejection seat.

The red insulated hose assembly teed off at its aft end to supply defrost air to two tubes, one for each side of the canopy.

Color photos of the F9F-6 at the National Naval Aviation Museum by Don Hinton

Not shown on the airplane above is an electrical cord on the right side of the canopy that connects to the antenna on the underside of the aft end of the canopy glass. It is fully extended in this picture of an F9F-2. (Note that the headrest is angled forward, which is why the "rope" handles that pull down the face curtain are not laying on the front of the headrest.)

This shows the electrical cord, defrost hose, and other components mounted on the aft bulkhead of the cockpit of an F9F-5 (the other Panthers are similar if not identical).

Droppable Survival Kits

Because of the harsh Korean weather in winter during the Korean War, droppable survival kits were developed, with one aircraft in a strike carrying one. This is an example.

Republic F-84 Thunderjet Fuselage Length

I can't remember why I did this illustration of the fuselage difference between the F-84A/B/C/D and the F-84E/F or who I did it for, but it was a typical update to early jets to provide better range and/or endurance, although in this case, given the relatively small increase in fuselage fuel capacity (36 gallons), it might have been a center of gravity adjustment:

Note that the fuselage change also involved different fairings at the wing root, access panels, etc.

The differences among the F-84s over time was extensive. The ejector around the engine tailpipe changed along with changes in the tail-light installation and the ventral-fin fairing. The pitot tube was in difference places, the landing gear doors were redesigned for the D and its landing gear compression mechanism changed from hydraulic to mechanical, etc.

The go-to guy for the F-84 was Bruce Craig but his web site appears to have gone walkabout.

F-18A Main Landing Gear

Bell P-39 Wing Planform

In my post on the Bell XFL-1 (see https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2015/09/modeling-bell-xfl-1-airabonita.html), I included a sketch to show the difference between the P-39 and XFL-1 wings. It was created before I had become proficient with Illustrator and regretably, I wasn't very rigorous about the shape of the P-39 wing (the XFL-1's is pretty good but I'll redo that illustration in the near future).

It turns out that some modelers gave me more credit for the drawing's accuracy that it deserves and lacking a better one of the P-39, have used it to evaluate the wings in various Airacobra kits. As a result, I have created a pretty accurate drawing of the planform using Bell data and a piece of a Bell P-39 drawing in my collection.

Wing planforms are generally defined by span, root and tip chords, and the location of the root and tip chords along a span-wise line. Usually the root chord is located at the aircraft centerline for the benefit of the aerodynamicists but not in the case of the P-39. It was located at the side of body, which is where non-aeronautical engineers would think the root chord would be. The span-wise line in the case of the P-39 is perpendicular to the centerline and at 30% chord. That data establishes the location of the leading and trailing edges. The tip can be defined in different ways; based on an XFL-1 wind-tunnel model drawing, it was probably a portion of a pair of circles that were faired into the leading and trailing edges. Unfortunately, I did not have a drawing with that data but I did have a Bell drawing of the Model 4A wing tip that is probably close to right. On the other hand, the shape of the aileron is iffy; I don't have a Bell drawing for it and the ones on the internet differ.

Note that I didn't correct for dihedral or incidence but those would be very small differences. 100" is given as the root chord for the Model 4 proposal (and a wing span of 35'), the P-39E and the XFL-1. In the case of the latter, however, it is located at 17" from the centerline and might therefore be consistent with the P-39D root chord value.

EKA-3B Aft Fuselage

Yet another question about the accuracy of the Trumpeter 1/48 A-3 Skywarrior kit has been brought to my attention, in this case the location of the main landing gear wheel well, which is reportedly a bit too far aft. Leaving it where it is creates a problem with national insignia placement. Moving it forward 4-5 mm means the big antenna fairing on the aft fuselage now appears to be too short.

One problem with addressing the accuracy of the kit is establishing a baseline from which to determine the proper placement of major details. In this instance, I've shown the location of the trailing edge of the wing on the fuselage, the vertical fin fold joint, the interface of the rudder with the fin, and a few fuselage station locations (in inches from just forward of the tip of the nose).

The outline of the fuselage and the location of the wheel well and the speed brake are from
pretty good Douglas drawings. The location of the antenna pod is from a sketch of unknown provenance. This is from a set of Luc Colin walkaround pictures:

For many more, see http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/luc_colin3/eka-3b_skywarrior_142251/

NAEL F9F-2KD

By coincidence, I received questions last month from two different modelers about this particular airplane that was a profile in Scale Aircraft Modeler Vol 7 No 5. It was also a subject on Blackbird Models decal sheet BMD 72013.

Unfortunately, some critical information was missing. This was a former F9F-2KD (no BuNo) that had been stricken (no national insignia) but instead of being scrapped, it was transferred to the Navy test facility for Ship Installations, e.g. development of aircraft carrier catapult and arresting systems. Here is a picture of it in a display of a barricade at an open house.

If you look closely at the nose landing gear, it clearly isn't stock. That's because it was used in the development and evaluation of the nose-tow launch system (see http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/01/catapult-innovations.html)

Note that it didn't fly away after the catapult stroke since it was no longer airworthy.

Other configuration details: the tip tanks had been removed but they weren't replaced by the wing tip fairings; the fence outboard of the engine inlet is present; and the antenna fairing under the nose cone has either been added or the nose cone from another Panther/Cougar has been substituted.

Paul Bless reminded me that this particular F9F-2 (or a stablemate at NAEL or its nose gear) survived and may still be displayed in a bogus paint scheme at Aviation Heritage Park at NAS Oceana. See http://warbirdsnews.com/warbirds-news/fun-facts/this-day-in-history/happy-birthday-grumman-f9f-panther.html