F-104 Starfighter

[PR19_Kit]

...... and maybe a fin top RWR  

Been there, done that.  



My first ever Whiff, back in 1972.

[Captain Canada]

Gorgeous. I just saved that pic to my model picture folder, so hopefully I won't forget it. Again.

[KiwiZac]

I would quite like to do a Speyfighter. The Academy 1/72 F-104G is cheap and plentiful...

[ChernayaAkula]

<...> The Academy 1/72 F-104G is cheap and plentiful...

It's also utterly, utterly horrible!  I suppose it's to jets what the Starfix Spitfire is to props. Really, you'd be better off investing a couple more quid in an ESCI/Italeri, Revell or Hasegawa kit. They're all miles ahead of Academy's abomination!

[Dizzyfugu]

<...> The Academy 1/72 F-104G is cheap and plentiful...

It's also utterly, utterly horrible!  I suppose it's to jets what the Starfix Spitfire is to props. Really, you'd be better off investing a couple more quid in an ESCI/Italeri, Revell or Hasegawa kit. They're all miles ahead of Academy's abomination!

Second that. Crude thing, cockpit and canopy are especially ugly. The old ESCI kit is cool (raised details, though), as well as the Heller kit which comes with alternative single and two seat cockpits. Compared with the Academy thing even the simple Matchbox F-104 is gold!

[PR19_Kit]

.....you'd be better off investing a couple more quid in an ESCI/Italeri, Revell or Hasegawa kit. They're all miles ahead of Academy's abomination!

While insuring it's not the early Hasegawa kit, which has a canopy wide enough for a side-by-side 2 seater!

Compared with the Academy thing even the simple Matchbox F-104 is gold!

But tarnished gold. That's the one I started with to build the F-104K pictured above, and it's a Whiff just because I didn't reckon it was good enough to build a decent RW model from!

[Captain Canada]

Yes I'll agree with the above sentiments......don't waste your time on that 'thing' you'll be disappointed 

[zenrat]

But if you already have an Academy F104G then what better fate for it than to be Whiffed?
It all fits together fairly well, it's accuracy where it suffers.  That and having nothing inside the wheel bays.  OH, and a deformed pilot IIRC.

[PR19_Kit]

Excellent job there Fred.  

I'd be a real PITB to plug into a tanker with the probe underneath the nose!

What's the backstory on it?

[zenrat]

Kit, it's on the side.  You were a consultant on this one.
This should nudge your memory.

[PR19_Kit]

Kit, it's on the side.  You were a consultant on this one.
This should nudge your memory.

Duuuhhhh, I remember now, sorry. 

That was the 'Pru Blue' aeroplane of course  and now I look at the pic above I can see the line of the probe against the fuselage (just...)

[Dizzyfugu]

Anyway, I have a Chinese interceptor design in agenda that never left the real drawing board, but looked a lot like a Starfighter with low wings and tail. Maybe an Academy F-104 might find a good use in this case: looks similar, but just like a crude copy of the real thing... 

[KJ_Lesnick]

I was thinking about a couple of things: From what I remember, the aircraft was given 10-degrees of anhedral because of a pronounced wing on rudder effect.  If the wing-span was a bit larger would the dihedral be reduced?

[Gondor]

I was thinking about a couple of things: From what I remember, the aircraft was given 10-degrees of anhedral because of a pronounced wing on rudder effect.  If the wing-span was a bit larger would the dihedral be reduced?

The size of the wing(span-wise) would not change the effect on the rudder where the angle of anhederal would. Lockheed would have had a very good reason for coming up with the solution that they did.

Gondor

[Geoff]

While insuring it's not the early Hasegawa kit, which has a canopy wide enough for a side-by-side 2 seater!

Hmmm