More on the T-33April 4 2012 at 3:29 AM
|Paul (Login Paul1953)|
from IP address 22.214.171.124
Having read with interest yesterday the review of the new Platz T 33, I took my knife to the Sword kit and made a start on it. I found in my references the 1970s Bunrin -Do publicatiopn on the T-33 and it has 1/72nd plans. How accurate they are I'm not sure but it does reveal that the tailplanes of the Sword kit are very much undersizedand quite 'pointy and tapered'!! (if the plans are to be believed). However the rest of the outline is very good to the drawings such as the wing outline and shape matching very well. But the fuselage appears to be around 2mm too long and it seems to start from where the angled panel on the nose forwards. This incorporates the nose wheel bay as well. The rest and at the rear end, is very good with the fin just about spot on.
My progress on the model about an hours work, so far, has been quite swift with not a lot of parts preparation with just some light sanding of the mating surfaces of the wings, fuselage and tip tanks.
If the Platz kit comes to the UK I may well try one too.
Thanks for the info Paul, interesting to know that the...
|April 4 2012, 4:21 AM |
clean up and prep of the Sword kit is not too daunting. Interesting about the tail too.
Re: Thanks for the info Paul, interesting to know that the...
|April 4 2012, 5:57 AM |
Could be that the drawing in the book is wrong having had another look. It looks to be wider towards the tip, a bit like the prototype P-80 maybe? But the kit part does look a bit odd. I'll check it against the Hasegawa kit.
Tommy H Thomason
For What It's Worth
|April 4 2012, 6:15 AM |
These are from a Lockheed drawing provided for the Navy TO-2 Standard Aircraft Characteristics chart. Can't say how accurate they. This is an overlay of a couple of Lockheed P-80 drawings and my P-80A forward fuselage drawing that shows the inconsistency and outright error that may exist even in drawings created by the manufacturer:
bob in Maine
Hey Tommy, while you're here-
|April 4 2012, 6:33 AM |
can you (or anyone else) recommend a particularly good book about the period when the AAF was getting familiar with jets? Something along the lines of your Navy fighters book, for example. I don't need O-club "war stories", but I'd like to know what the real experience was- accident rates, lessons learned, lessons NOT learned yet, and so on. And, of course, development nitty gritty is welcome, too!
Tommy H. Thomason
Experimental & Prototype U.S. Air Force Jet Fighters
|April 4 2012, 8:50 AM |
However, I don't have it so I can't say for sure that it meets your requirement.
I don't know that I've ever seen a comparison of the services' accident rates or that they are directly comparable during that era. Certainly the Air Force had nothing as risky as operation to and from aircraft carriers, introducing a degree of difficulty difference for starters.
I'm pretty sure that the Air Force procurement agency was more receptive initially to jet fighter introduction than BuAer as a whole. My monograph on the F7U-1 will cover more of this, contrasting its development and early operational history with that of the F-86.
In my research and analysis for Naval Air Superiority, I found it interesting that in first 15 years or so of jet fighter development, the Navy and the Air Force both initiated about 24 jet fighter programs and 15 reached operational status. The reasons for the failures were similar. Up until the X-15, the services engaged in parallel research airplane programs and came up with basically the same lessons learned, ranging from the need for ejection seats and pressurization, the benefits and drawbacks of swept wings, design and system requirements for transonic and supersonic flight, etc.
|April 4 2012, 9:36 AM |
Are these figures of interest?
Re: Aircraft losses
|April 4 2012, 11:24 AM |
A touch of thread hi jacking going on here!!!!????
bob in Maine
Yep, I confess- thanks for indulging me! (n/t)
|April 4 2012, 12:14 PM |
bob in Maine
They are indeed-
|April 5 2012, 7:03 AM |
I've seen them before, but probably lost them when I switched computers, or rather software. Thanks!
You can believe the numbers, not the outlines
|April 4 2012, 8:09 AM |
That type of drawing is not meant to be a scale drawing with accurate contours. Even modern stuff from Boeing doesn't have accurate outlines on the station diagram drawings. Trusting them to be accurate is a mine field.
|Current Topic - More on the T-33|