 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Models / January 2008F-11 Blue Angels 1/48 ???
Is this some ancient Lindberg kit? Saw this in the Historic Aviation catalog...Curious plane that would be a good addition to the Blue Angels kits I try to find... Did they use a different color blue back then? this looks a lot more toy like than today's darker blue. thx - Craig http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=LND70542 > Is this some ancient Lindberg kit? Saw this in the Historic Aviation > catalog...Curious plane that would be a good addition to the Blue [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=LND70542 Monogram used to make a BA F-11F kit, but that ain't it. Yeah, it don't look right as far as "Blue Angel Blue" goes. FWIW - an old F-4 dude at the plant in STL once told me that the first BA F-4s were just painted with blue Rustoleum from the local hardware store when they were first converted.  Signature- Rufus > Is this some ancient Lindberg kit? Saw this in the Historic Aviation > catalog...Curious plane that would be a good addition to the Blue [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=LND70542 > Yes, that is indeed a ancient 1/48th scale Lindberg kit that I must have at least four times as a kid. The only difference between that and their stock F-11 Tiger was this one has something that looks like a probe and drogue refueling probe on the nose rather than the pitot tube and lacks the underwing rockets, it was also molded in blue rather that the stock Tiger's white. Pat On Jan 10, 7:59 pm, aikido...@gmail.com wrote: > Is this some ancient Lindberg kit? Saw this in the Historic Aviation > catalog...Curious plane that would be a good addition to the Blue [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.horizonhobby.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=LND70542 That thing ( toy ? ) is so ' odd ' looking. Wrong shapes and sizes for an F-11 Tiger. Landing gear is way out of scale. Wrong shape of the vertical tail. Take a look for yourself at some Blue Angel Tiger photo's. Keep in mind this is the ' long nose ' Tiger varient. Come to think of it the F-11 has always been ' odd ' looking to me. Look at the way the wing tips fold down. http://www.blueangels.org/Aircraft/Stick/F11/Stickm4_6.htm Chris > http://www.blueangels.org/Aircraft/Stick/F11/Stickm4_6.htm > Looks like they clipped the sides of the elevator on the way up to the flight deck. ;-) Here's a classic old Monogram kit: http://www.gasolinealleyantiques.com/kits/images/Aviation/mono-blueangels.JPG Pat > >http://www.blueangels.org/Aircraft/Stick/F11/Stickm4_6.htm > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Pat I will never understand why the Blues didn't adopt the F-8 Crusader for their mount. I think it would have been an awesome show bird. It would have looked cool in Blue Angel livery too. These are some reasons that I have come up with : - The Blues were loyal to Grumman - They had a bad experience with Vought and the Cutlass - The Crusader may not have handled as well as the Tiger at low altitude. - Crusaders were needed in the fleet and not available - F-8 might have been more of a maintenance headache However : - The F-11 had a short service life in the fleet ( the Crusader was better ) - The F-8 went on to become the " Mig Master " in Vietnam ( Last of the Gunfighters ) - The Thunderbirds were using the latest and greatest at the time ( F-100 ) - The Thunderbirds even gave the F-105 a try for a bit. Hmmm. Chris >>> http://www.blueangels.org/Aircraft/Stick/F11/Stickm4_6.htm >> Looks like they clipped the sides of the elevator on the way up to the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I will never understand why the Blues didn't adopt the F-8 Crusader > for their mount. <snip> > Hmmm. > > Chris ...all you ever have to do is talk to anyone that ever actually flew F-8s, and you'd understand. I ran into a former F-8 jock when I was at NAS Kingville, and he described "surviving F-8s" vice "flying" them. He also had time in F-4s an F-14s. Signature- Rufus > >>>http://www.blueangels.org/Aircraft/Stick/F11/Stickm4_6.htm > >> Looks like they clipped the sides of the elevator on the way up to the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Ahh ... the Blue's Navy jet jocks were cream of the crop. Highly skilled high time aviators. But yeah you are right, the F-8 was a handfull. Skip Umstead who became a team leader in the F-4 in the early 70's had a couple of combat tours in Vietnam in the F-8. Later he was killed in an accident with the Blue's in an F-4. Go figure. http://www.umstead.org/marvinskip.html Chris >>>>> http://www.blueangels.org/Aircraft/Stick/F11/Stickm4_6.htm >>>> Looks like they clipped the sides of the elevator on the way up to the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Chris The BA F-4s were my all-time fav show jets. Nothing I've seen since them comes close. They actually considered moving to T-45s for a bit while I was working Fleet intro on that platform. Obviously didn't happen, though. Signature- Rufus > I will never understand why the Blues didn't adopt the F-8 Crusader > for their mount. I think it would have been an awesome show bird. It [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > - They had a bad experience with Vought and the Cutlass > That's putting it mildly - they hated that plane, like the rest of the Navy pilots did also. It didn't even make this desk model set: http://www.modelairplanefactory.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=4 > - The Crusader may not have handled as well as the Tiger at low > altitude. > - Crusaders were needed in the fleet and not available > - F-8 might have been more of a maintenance headache. > I think the small size of the Tiger also argued in its favor, as small aircraft tend to be more maneuverable and look like they are going faster at air shows. I saw the Budweiser BD-5J flying at a air show, and although it was only doing around 250 MPH, you were expecting a sonic boom when it went by due to its diminutive size...you were also expecting it to be wearing a two-tone green splinter scheme and swastikas, because it sure looked like something the Luftwaffe would have deployed in 1946, possibly the "Kleinevolksjager". The Tiger was sort of the last of the breed of fairly straight-forward postwar jets before all the complex avionics started to hit, with the Crusader and Demon being the transition to the new generation. (Speaking of the Demon, this is one odd way to fold a aircraft's wings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:F3H_F11F_CVA-19_1960.jpg sort of a throwback to Grumman WW II designs. You don't want to leave it unshackled to the deck in high winds, or it might be blown overboard.) I was really amazed to find out the Super Tiger actually cracked Mach 2, because the design didn't look right aerodynamically for those speeds. I read that one of the Tiger's shortcoming was fairly short range. That a problem for fleet service, but not for air shows. Besides which they would have a ton of spares for it due to the short operational life. > However : > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > - The Thunderbirds even gave the F-105 a try for a bit. > Well, it would have been loud, that's for sure. I suspect they like their F/A-18s a lot better than their old F-4s. The Skyhawk probably worked quite well for them; again, a small maneuverable aircraft with fairly low maintenance needs. Although people love building models of it, a Blue Angels F-14 would have been a disaster area from the maintenance point of view. From the above website: "...apparently the Skyhawk was not the first choice or even the second choice of the Blue Angels team, however in 1974 they had first requested for F-14 and A-7 but both requests were denied. The F/A-18A Hornet is the present fleet in the Blue Angels team; the Hornet first flew in 1978. The Hornet F/A-18 was perfect for demonstration team work and allowed the Angels to include new maneuvers in their routine. The F/A-18 Hornet has the longest service record with the Blue Angels team and one of the best safety records." The A-7 would have probably done quite well also. I suspect they will be flying some variant of the F/A-18 for many years to come. Now the Thunderbirds in F-117s...the Air Force could say they'd already flown the air show, and the crowd just hadn't seen them. ;-) Pat > That's putting it mildly - they hated that plane, like the rest of the > Navy pilots did also. And here's why: http://www.naval.com.br/dossie/jatos_naes/cutlass.jpg The low powered engines and high AOA on landing meant the pilot couldn't see where he was going on final approach nor wave off if things weren't going as planned, due to too much drag...and that meant it really could be his final approach in every sense of the word. There's another view of that Cutlass crash on this YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmXD8HlwMuk You can see large stills of it here: http://www.usshancockcv19.com/gallery7/faulkner.htm Funny, the F7U's engines turned out a lot of flame, if not power: http://www.vusn.org/trawing/images/cutlass.jpg Looks like it had rockets back there. Pat > > I will never understand why the Blues didn't adopt the F-8 Crusader > > for their mount. I think it would have been an awesome show bird. It [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > Pat The Tiger was too underpowered. Even Blue Angel pilots admit that the F11 excelled in the dive. They had to climb back up to altitude after maneuvers to get up enough speed to do the next one. That J-65 in afterburner only put out about the same amount of thrust as an F-8's J-57 dry thrust. That's where the F-8 in my opinion would have excelled. If the Blue's had adopted the early models ( F-8 A,B,C or D ) before the design gained too much weight ( F-8E ) a stripped down F-8 with fuel burned down ... and in afterburner would have had close to a one-to-one thrust weight ratio. Yeah I bet the Blues would have loved to get their hands on the ' Super-Tigers ' but the Tiger design was a loser. Interesting that Vought had the upper hand in beating out Grumman with a better aircraft. It was due to the J-57. Vought was a close partner with United who built the J-57. I can't believe the Blue's actually considered using the A-7 Corsair. Boy talk about underpowered. Yeah ... sure ... would have been neat ... but what a pig. Chris > I can't believe the Blue's actually considered using the A-7 Corsair. > Boy talk about underpowered. Yeah ... sure ... would have been > neat ... but what a pig. > Let's face it, the Canadair Tutor isn't exactly a rocketship, but the Snowbirds do some very nice flying in them, although I imagine they could have gone with F-101s if they had wanted to. Now the Blue Angels in Vigilantes... ;-) Pat >> I will never understand why the Blues didn't adopt the F-8 Crusader >> for their mount. I think it would have been an awesome show bird. It [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > Pat From what Tomcat drives have told me the F-14 would make a terrible choice for a BA show jet because it's tricky to hold station in formation because of the swing wing just for admin type flying - you end up using the stab for your sight picture. Big, heavy, expensive, a maintenance nightmare on top of that, yeah. Personally, I haven't really been impressed by the BA or T-Birds shows since the F-4 days. Glad I got the chances to see both of those shows. Signature- Rufus > Personally, I haven't really been impressed by the BA or T-Birds shows > since the F-4 days. Glad I got the chances to see both of those shows. The BA scored a one-up on the T-Birds here in Jamestown on two successive year's airshows. The first year, the BA brought their F-4s in and gave a great show. The next year, the T-Birds showed up, but had to fly their F-4s in from Fargo, 100 miles away, because Jamestown's runways were "too short" for F-4s to operate from. Score one for the Navy. It really was something to see those F-4s roaring all over the place. ;-) Pat > > Personally, I haven't really been impressed by the BA or T-Birds shows > > since the F-4 days. Glad I got the chances to see both of those shows. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Pat how long have they used F-18's ? What bird will replace the Hornet? Craig > how long have they used F-18's ? What bird will replace the Hornet? > > Craig I believe the first season for the Blues using the F-18 was around 1986. Currently it's a record for both the Thunderbirds and the Blue Angels for length of use with current aircraft. I think the T-birds switched to the F-16 in 1983. Previously I think the record with the Blue's was the F-11. ( 1957 - 1969 ). For the Thunderbirds it was the F-100. ( 1956 - 1969 with a brief period of using the F-105 before switching back to the F-100 ) So now it's around 24 years for the T-birds ( F-16 ) and 21 years for the Blues ( F-18 ). Definitely some of the best years of demonstration teams for both services IMHO. What's next and when will they switch ? Good question. F-35 ? Chris >> how long have they used F-18's ? What bird will replace the Hornet? >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Chris If they build it...and the majority of the US buy is for the USAF. The Marines want it, but the Navy don't...something about that single engine... Signature- Rufus > If they build it...and the majority of the US buy is for the USAF. > The Marines want it, but the Navy don't...something about that single > engine... The Israelis want it also; Lockheed is trying to make the F-35 the new F-16 as far as overseas sales go; and it had better work, or there are going to be a lot of PO'd military services worldwide as many are counting on it to replace existing and deployed aircraft types. The Royal Navy in particular is counting on the V/STOL version working as advertised to arm their new Queen Elizabeth class carriers, and if it doesn't do what its supposed to, it will be the Skybolt missile fiasco all over again. Pat >> If they build it...and the majority of the US buy is for the USAF. >> The Marines want it, but the Navy don't...something about that single [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Pat Yup - but the problem is the long lead time to get the aircraft to production. I was at an industry gathering a couple years back where a speaker commented on just that...nations can't afford strategically to have such long lead times to bring hardware to the Fleet and then expect it to be in step with developing countermeasures. Super Hornet, Typhoon, and Grippen (and even the venerable F-16 and/or F-15E) are here NOW, and now is when the need is. If dollars are spent to meet today's need, they may not be there for tomorrow's airplane...particularly in the international market. That's what I'm skeptical about. That, and that it's an "X" development and not a "Y"..."X" programs are far easier to cancel... Signature- Rufus >> The Royal Navy in particular is counting on the V/STOL version >> working as advertised to arm their new Queen Elizabeth class [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to have such long lead times to bring hardware to the Fleet and then > expect it to be in step with developing countermeasures. 1962: "I say! What do you blokes mean you are canceling the Skybolt? We were counting on it to arm our Vulcans!" "Would you like some Polaris missiles and the sub technology for them instead?" "Well, now that you mention it old boy, that would be just smashing." 2010: "I say! What do you blokes mean the VSTOL version doesn't work? We were counting on it to arm our new carriers!" "How would you like some Super Hornets and two Nimitz class carriers to put them on?" "Well, now that you mention it old boy, that would be just smashing." (Later, at Whitehall) "Worked like a charm both times; what do we want them to gives us next? We're saving a fortune in defense spending here and really pissing off the French to boot. Bloody marvelous if I do say so myself." :-) Pat >>> The Royal Navy in particular is counting on the V/STOL version >>> working as advertised to arm their new Queen Elizabeth class [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Pat Yeah - that or something like it is about the size of it. Signature- Rufus > What's next and when will they switch ? Good question. > As far as the BA goes, they'll probably be in some version of the F/A -18 for some years to come, moving up to the Super Hornet a decade or so from now. As for the T-Birds, probably the F-16 for some time, although the F-15s could do some great stuff, especially in the vertical plane of acrobatics. Budget is one thing that certainly favors the F/A-18 and F-16; being small and highly aerobatic, they lend themselves to impressive maneuvers on a reasonable budget, and with fairly low maintenance requirements - particularly in their stripped aerobatic team form. Now if the Marines were to take some of their Harrier IIs and strip those of all excess equipment to get their weight down to minimum, they could really wow a crowd with some nifty VTOL and VIFF maneuvers at airshows. Pat >>> Personally, I haven't really been impressed by the BA or T-Birds shows >>> since the F-4 days. Glad I got the chances to see both of those shows. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Craig The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, if you haven't noticed... I believe the Hornet first flew in 1978 (which would make them 30 this year), but it really gets down to how and when each Block was delivered and how many were in each Block before you can talk about how long they may be around. Super Hornets are going to be around a very long time - I'll probably die before they do, at this point in the game. I think Canada was the first FMS Customer, and their As would be the oldest serving in the Fleet next to the USMC and USN As, unless I've got that backwards with Spain - and both the CAF and RAAF have just upgraded to the A+(+) config and will keep them going for some time longer. Now that the RAAF have bought the Super Hornet and opened things up for sales, other countries are looking at it as well, but it's a choice between the Super Hornet, Typhoon, Grippen, and waiting for JSF in the NATO marketplace at the moment...which is why I'm very skeptical about JSF. Signature- Rufus > aikido...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Here is a quote from the Blue Angels web site : Q : " Will the Blue Angels fly the Super Hornet ? " A : " The decision to transition to the Super Hornet has yet to be determined. " http://www.blueangels.navy.mil/faq_iframe.htm#Q_55 Chris >> aikido...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> Personally, I haven't really been impressed by the BA or T-Birds shows [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Chris If they do, it probably won't be for some time - due to budgetary considerations. Signature- Rufus > > aikido...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > http://www.blueangels.navy.mil/faq_iframe.htm#Q_55 this site says it can climb 30,000 feet a minute? TOP What is the top speed and rate of climb of an F/A-18? The F/A-18 can reach speeds just under Mach 2, almost twice the speed of sound or about 1,400 mph. The maximum rate of climb of the F/A-18 is 30,000 feet per minute. TOP >> Personally, I haven't really been impressed by the BA or T-Birds shows >> since the F-4 days. Glad I got the chances to see both of those shows. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Pat Yup. Big, fast, loud, and ugly...and low. Magnificent! Signature- Rufus > >> Personally, I haven't really been impressed by the BA or T-Birds shows > >> since the F-4 days. Glad I got the chances to see both of those shows. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Reminds me of one of my favorite video's ( films ). Threshold: The Blue Angels Experience. Have you guys see it ? Spectacular photography, and excellent look at the F-4 Phantom. Also has that great funky early 70's music. =] And you have to bite your tongue to keep from laughing as Leslie Nielsen narrates. But also ... sad at the same time. The team leader Harley Hall later went MIA in Vietnam. And Skip Umstead died in a mid-air later also. =[ Chris > On Jan 10, 7:59 pm, aikido...@gmail.com wrote: > > Is this some ancient Lindberg kit? Saw this in the Historic Aviation [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Chris Possibly it represents one of the early prototypes that started as F9Fs. Eventually the changes made to the airframe made a designation change necessary, one of the few times something like that happened. ;) Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. > Possibly it represents one of the early prototypes that started as F9Fs. > Eventually the changes made to the airframe made a designation change > necessary, one of the few times something like that happened. ;) > Lindberg tended to bring out model jets as soon as they could after they were revealed, so a lot of their models were of the prototypes of the plane. Their F-104 for instance lacked the ventral fin, and the Skyray, Crusader, Cutlass and Skyhawk all sported nose pitot tubes in their original issue and other features only found on the prototypes and very early versions of the aircraft http://www.lindberg-models.com/air_model70212.html http://www.lindberg-models.com/air_model70506.html (note original low canopy) In the case of their XF-88 and Pogo, the aircraft never made it past prototype stage. Although a pain for anyone wanting to do a operational version of the aircraft, it's actually kind of nice to have the prototype form. as it brings back memories of just how fast aircraft technology was advancing in the 1950's. (BTW, for the F7U Cutlass fans out there, nifty wallpaper: http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/USPics14/25051.jpg ) Anyone ever have this Crusader kit?: http://www.lindberg-models.com/air_model72523.html That's way better than the original one. The original one had a rubber band powered ejection seat in it IIRC. And it would be fun to know if they souped up the old mold or pretty much started from scratch. Pat |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.