SPA Modeler

Getting my mind wrapped around the wheel well situation has left me wanting some mental relief so I took a break from that troublesome area to cobble together some ordnance. All of the missiles and drop tanks are comprised of multiple parts, so I wanted to assemble them and see how they look.

Each short range AIM-9G Sidewinder missiles are comprised of five parts. Curiously, Tamiya chose to break the missile body in two. However, the positive fit of the pieces ensures you get a straight missile.



The mid-range AIM-7E Sparrow missiles are more conventionally separated into missile body and fin components.



The long-range AIM-54A Phoenix missiles are a little more complicated and it took several steps to assemble since I wanted to take care of the seam along the missile halves before attaching the other body components and fins.


Here are the missiles after construction. In addition to carefully tending to all of the mold and glue seams, I filled in any small gaps at the base of the glued-on fins with White Milliput. I think the missiles look fine. Yes, the fins could be thinner but sanding them would remove the subtle airfoil cross section that Tamiya has molded onto the fins.


The propulsion ends of the missiles were dressed up using punched discs and rings of sheet plastic. The hard part was centering the rings so that they were concentric.


I also added some detail to the arrestor hook assembly including hollowing out the elliptical port.

Nice work on dressing up the missiles John! I suspect that Tamiya molded the Sidewinders as they did, so that they could provide a separate seeker head assembly to make the later AIM-9L/M for their F-14D kit. And actually the A carried that variant as well once they were introduced into service around 1980/81

I believe you are right about Tamiya's strategy for the Sidewinders. As long as the molding is as precise as Tamiya is capable of producing, this is not an issue from a model construction aspect.

After assembling the ordnance, I shifted over to the jet exhausts. I have a set of resin exhaust tubes and nozzles from Eduard that I wanted to check.


The resin is nicely cast and offers what looks to be great detail. Unfortunately, there was a small chip in the edge of the open nozzle that needs to be fixed. A bit tricky since the notch corresponds to a thinnest part of the resin.


I busted out the BIG razor saw to cut the casting blocks off.


There is a definite detail advantage with the Eduard resin over the kit parts but that will be somewhat negated by the limited view into the exhausts.




When mounted on the rear fuselage parts, the Eduard nozzles are just slightly oversized.


The kit nozzles, of course, are a perfect fit.


In terms of detail on the nozzles, the Eduard does have more detail but the fit issue bothers me.



Once mounted, the oversized aspect of the Eduard nozzles can be made to almost disappear, if they are centered exactly. But this might be easier said than done since the join surfaces are simple butt joints with no positive location aids. The Eduard exhaust tubes are also too large in diameter to fit into the fuselage openings without shaving down the locating rings within the fuselage, which further decrease the odds of perfect alignment.



I'll have to think this over. One compromise would be to mount the higher detailed front portion of the exhaust tubes to the kit tube and nozzles.

hmmmm tough choice…. The resin does look better… and it looks like if you rotate the nozzles, you might get past some of the fit problem.

Stikpusher wrote: hmmmm tough choice…. The resin does look better… and it looks like if you rotate the nozzles, you might get past some of the fit problem.

The way that the resin exhausts are designed, you are supposed to glue the nozzles to the ends of the tubes and then slide the exhaust assembly into the rear fuselage opening. The tubes are supposed to have a definite orientation based on the delicate afterburner framework inside so rotating the tubes to get a better fit would throw off that orientation. But then again, you're probably not going to be able to tell unless you shine a flashlight in there and compare to the Eduard instructions so.... I guess that is an option. One way or another, I'll figure something out.

Still avoiding the main landing gear wells for now, I jumped over to the markings. I have three sets of decals to work with. The kit decals, I've been told, are accurate for the VF-84 bird that I am building. But I have some concerns over the thickness of the Tamiya decals based on my experience with the 1/32 F4U-1A kit that I built a while ago.


So, for a back-up, I picked up a set of Hungarian Aero Decals for circa 1980's VF-84 Jolly Roger unit. Based on what I have read, these should be thinner than the Tamiya decals but I have not verified that.


I have some concern over what appears to be a registration issue with these decals. You can make out the two shades of yellow around the border of the AJ letters and the VF-84.


Lastly, I also picked up a set of data stencils for the F-14A from Furball Aero Designs. Positive reviews on the internet but again, I haven't verified the quality first-hand.


I also have the ability to cut my own masks. This has worked well on my 1/32 scale builds but I wasn't sure if the smaller markings of this 1/48 scale jet would be do-able with masks. One way to find out... I scanned the Tamiya decal sheet and imported it into AutoCAD. I traced the larger markings and produced a test sheet of masks.


I did a quick and dirty test paint with the masks on the more problematic markings. This test was quite sloppy as I rushed between paint colors... normally, I would give each color coat more ample time to dry prior to application of the next color. Based on these tests, masked markings are an option with a couple of caveats. For one, I cannot get as fine a border for the yellow AJ markings as found on the decals. This is probably the limit for how fine a line I can produce with paint.


Secondly, the multi-color markings start stacking up paint layers and the advantage over a good set of decals starts to decrease.


I will probably use a combination of the Hungarian Aero and Furball Aero decals with some masks, avoiding the use of the kit decals whenever possible.

Looks like a lot of good options. I would stay away from using any of the Tamiya decals they are always on the thick side.

Again, a tough call, but I agree with your choice for markings. Pick and choose the best from among all three of your options.

Thanks guys! Does anyone know if BuNo 160393 of VF-84 circa 1979 had the vertical tail reinforcements?

I think I answered my own question. I found an online photo of BuNo 160393 circa 1978 on the USS Nimitz. A crop of the photo seems to indicate the lack of the stiffener.