USS Enterprise, CVN-65, in 1/350 scale, Tamiya Kit #78007
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Re: My build and review of Tamiya's 1/350 scale USS Enterprise, (CVN-65)
Beautiful pictures bd, of a beautiful airplane, the A-7 is a simple airplane compared to the F-8, that is a close formation, an art in and of itself, and I love that paint job on the Clansmens A-7. Very Sweet, I'd say the Navy gave you very superior education, and I'd say you gave the Navy a Sailor to be proud of, like the real popeye, kinda a larger than life, its a pleasure to have you sharing all that smarts with us. Brat
Beautiful pictures bd, of a beautiful airplane, the A-7 is a simple airplane compared to the F-8, that is a close formation, an art in and of itself, and I love that paint job on the Clansmens A-7. Very Sweet, I'd say the Navy gave you very superior education, and I'd say you gave the Navy a Sailor to be proud of, like the real popeye, kinda a larger than life, its a pleasure to have you sharing all that smarts with us. Brat
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: My build and review of Tamiya's 1/350 scale USS Enterprise, (CVN-65)
Every word heartfelt my brother, between You and Jeff, player, scratch, and our brothers,you've made this a home away from home for us all, my own Dad has been gone ten years this past September you've kind of become the big brother I never had. I would say more, but apologies to Jeff for hi-jacking your model thread, since my Dad has been gone, the Air Force Brat was rather homeless until I landed on Sino Defense, so I guess we all owe the webmaster a debt of gratitude. Now back to you Master Jeff, what a beautifull labor of love, and thank you so much for sharing these models with us, kind of helps me to get my mind around these beautifull vessels, and when you can see all the details, and bd fills us in on with the "straight skinny", I'm more n more amazed by the engineering, execution, and Sailors, who make all this look so easy. brat it is I, who is truly humbled by my friends.
Every word heartfelt my brother, between You and Jeff, player, scratch, and our brothers,you've made this a home away from home for us all, my own Dad has been gone ten years this past September you've kind of become the big brother I never had. I would say more, but apologies to Jeff for hi-jacking your model thread, since my Dad has been gone, the Air Force Brat was rather homeless until I landed on Sino Defense, so I guess we all owe the webmaster a debt of gratitude. Now back to you Master Jeff, what a beautifull labor of love, and thank you so much for sharing these models with us, kind of helps me to get my mind around these beautifull vessels, and when you can see all the details, and bd fills us in on with the "straight skinny", I'm more n more amazed by the engineering, execution, and Sailors, who make all this look so easy. brat it is I, who is truly humbled by my friends.
Re: My build and review of Tamiya's 1/350 scale USS Enterprise, (CVN-65)
Well, overall, the F-8 was not an easy aircraft to fly. Early on it actually earned the nickname "Ensign Killer." It was known to be very unforgiving in carrier landings because it has some yaw difficulties. As a result, early on in its operations, the Crusader's mishap rate was relatively high compared tothe A-4 and the F-4.
F-8 pilot ejecting after a hard landing aboard the USS Franklin D Roosevelt, CV-42 in 1961
Having said that, the aircraft had some really good capabilities too. On several occassions, due to pilot error, the F-8 actually took off with its wings folded and was able to fly back and recover! In one such incident, in August of 1960, an F-8 with the wings folded took off from land at the Napoli Capodichino Airport in Naples in full afterburner, climbed to 5,000 ft and then returned to land successfully. The Crusader was also a very nimble and manueverable aircraft and could mix it up with enemy aircraft extremely well. Another nick name it developed was simply, "Mig killer," for obvious reasons By the time the F-8E was in full production, and it was the main production model throughout its life, the errors of the early version had been corrected and it had a very good overall service record.
As you say, scratch, the most innovative part of the design was the variable incidence wing which was able to pivot upwards by up to 7° for take-off and landings. This gave the aircraft increased lift due to a higher angle of attack without compromising forward visibility because though the aircraft had the higher angle of attack with is wings, the fuselage stayed level. At the same time, additional lift was added through the use of leading-edge slats drooping by up to 25° and inboard flaps extending up to 30°. All of this combined with the normal operations of the aircraft to give it a very high efficieny rate in landings and takeoffs aboard carriers. Add to that the liberal use of titanium in the airframe and you had a very nimble aircraft from take-off, through all aspect of flight, clear to landing. The Crusader was also the last US fighter designed to have its main armament consist of cannons, It carrierd four 20mm cannons, two on either side of the fuselage. The F-8 also carried four AIM-9 sidewainder missiles on two pylons along the fusealge on either side. It was designeds (as stated above) whether using cannons or missiles to be a dog fighter and to mix it up at close range with the enemy, and it did so very well. IN addition, on its wing pylons, the Crusader could also carry various munitions for surface attacks, including various bombs and missiles. So it had an attack role as well.
Well, overall, the F-8 was not an easy aircraft to fly. Early on it actually earned the nickname "Ensign Killer." It was known to be very unforgiving in carrier landings because it has some yaw difficulties. As a result, early on in its operations, the Crusader's mishap rate was relatively high compared tothe A-4 and the F-4.
F-8 pilot ejecting after a hard landing aboard the USS Franklin D Roosevelt, CV-42 in 1961
Having said that, the aircraft had some really good capabilities too. On several occassions, due to pilot error, the F-8 actually took off with its wings folded and was able to fly back and recover! In one such incident, in August of 1960, an F-8 with the wings folded took off from land at the Napoli Capodichino Airport in Naples in full afterburner, climbed to 5,000 ft and then returned to land successfully. The Crusader was also a very nimble and manueverable aircraft and could mix it up with enemy aircraft extremely well. Another nick name it developed was simply, "Mig killer," for obvious reasons By the time the F-8E was in full production, and it was the main production model throughout its life, the errors of the early version had been corrected and it had a very good overall service record.
As you say, scratch, the most innovative part of the design was the variable incidence wing which was able to pivot upwards by up to 7° for take-off and landings. This gave the aircraft increased lift due to a higher angle of attack without compromising forward visibility because though the aircraft had the higher angle of attack with is wings, the fuselage stayed level. At the same time, additional lift was added through the use of leading-edge slats drooping by up to 25° and inboard flaps extending up to 30°. All of this combined with the normal operations of the aircraft to give it a very high efficieny rate in landings and takeoffs aboard carriers. Add to that the liberal use of titanium in the airframe and you had a very nimble aircraft from take-off, through all aspect of flight, clear to landing. The Crusader was also the last US fighter designed to have its main armament consist of cannons, It carrierd four 20mm cannons, two on either side of the fuselage. The F-8 also carried four AIM-9 sidewainder missiles on two pylons along the fusealge on either side. It was designeds (as stated above) whether using cannons or missiles to be a dog fighter and to mix it up at close range with the enemy, and it did so very well. IN addition, on its wing pylons, the Crusader could also carry various munitions for surface attacks, including various bombs and missiles. So it had an attack role as well.
Re: My build and review of Tamiya's 1/350 scale USS Enterprise, (CVN-65)
Is that where the ventral fins came along, even Learjets ended up with ventral fins to address yaw instability at higher angles of attack. As I noted the A-7 probably had the best safety record of the time, so lots of costly lessons were learned rapidly and as you note fixes implemented in the field, but these were very high performance aircraft, that did require a lot of aeronautical savvy to operate safely, even land based aircraft such as the F-104 were more than a handfull when slowed down for landings, they did not suffer fools well? Brat
Well, overall, the F-8 was not an easy aircraft to fly. Early on it actually earned the nickname "Ensign Killer." It was known to be very unforgiving in carrier landings because it has some yaw difficulties. As a result, early on in its operations, the Crusader's mishap rate was relatively high compared tothe A-4 and the F-4.
F-8 pilot ejecting after a hard landing aboard the USS Franklin D Roosevelt, CV-42 in 1961
Having said that, the aircraft had some really good capabilities too. On several occassions, due to pilot error, the F-8 actually took off with its wings folded and was able to fly back and recover! In one such incident, in August of 1960, an F-8 with the wings folded took off from land at the Napoli Capodichino Airport in Naples in full afterburner, climbed to 5,000 ft and then returned to land successfully. The Crusader was also a very nimble and manueverable aircraft and could mix it up with enemy aircraft extremely well. Another nick name it developed was simply, "Mig killer," for obvious reasons By the time the F-8E was in full production, and it was the main production model throughout its life, the errors of the early version had been corrected and it had a very good overall service record.
As you say, scratch, the most innovative part of the design was the variable incidence wing which was able to pivot upwards by up to 7° for take-off and landings. This gave the aircraft increased lift due to a higher angle of attack without compromising forward visibility because though the aircraft had the higher angle of attack with is wings, the fuselage stayed level. At the same time, additional lift was added through the use of leading-edge slats drooping by up to 25° and inboard flaps extending up to 30°. All of this combined with the normal operations of the aircraft to give it a very high efficieny rate in landings and takeoffs aboard carriers. Add to that the liberal use of titanium in the airframe and you had a very nimble aircraft from take-off, through all aspect of flight, clear to landing. The Crusader was also the last US fighter designed to have its main armament consist of cannons, It carrierd four 20mm cannons, two on either side of the fuselage. The F-8 also carried four AIM-9 sidewainder missiles on two pylons along the fusealge on either side. It was designeds (as stated above) whether using cannons or missiles to be a dog fighter and to mix it up at close range with the enemy, and it did so very well. IN addition, on its wing pylons, the Crusader could also carry various munitions for surface attacks, including various bombs and missiles. So it had an attack role as well.
Is that where the ventral fins came along, even Learjets ended up with ventral fins to address yaw instability at higher angles of attack. As I noted the A-7 probably had the best safety record of the time, so lots of costly lessons were learned rapidly and as you note fixes implemented in the field, but these were very high performance aircraft, that did require a lot of aeronautical savvy to operate safely, even land based aircraft such as the F-104 were more than a handfull when slowed down for landings, they did not suffer fools well? Brat
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: My build and review of Tamiya's 1/350 scale USS Enterprise, (CVN-65)
The one for the proposed Crusader III was huge, here's a pic of it. This was Voughts answer to the bid for the follow-on which ultimately went to the F-4 Phantom.
...and here's a video:
Max Speed: Mach 2.4
Service Ceiling: 60,000 ft.
Armament:
- 4 x 20mm cannon
- 4 x AIM-7 Sparrow Missiles
- 4 x AIM-9 Sidewinder Missiles
She was going to be one very hot aircraft...and very manueverable to boot for mixing it up at knife range.
John Konrad (shown in the video above), who was Vought's chief test pilot, and whom my father knew very well, stated that the Crusader III could fly circles around the Phantom II. But she was a single seat, single engine aircraft and that ended her because the US Navy was moving to twin engined and dual seater fighter aircraft...even though just a few years later the A-& Corsair II, which was a single engine, single seat attack aircraft won its bid hands down.
After losing the fighter competition, all five F-8U III aircraft were transferred to NASA for high altitude testing as her service ceiling was so high. While there, NASA pilots flying out of NAS Patuxent River routinely intercepted and defeated U.S. Navy Phantom IIs in mock dogfights, until complaints from the Navy put an end to it. LOL!
Even back then we selected the less qualified aircraft for political and expediency, instead of giving our personnel the best tools they could possibly have. At this point, however, in the F-22, the F/A-18E and F Superhornets, and the upcoming F-35 variants, I believe we either have, or are going to get the best entries in those bids. Especially the F-22...we just need three times as many of them at least.
That ventral fin was a life saver...literally. I do not know if it was the first innovation from the Crusader, but I do know that is how they helped address some of their issues.
The one for the proposed Crusader III was huge, here's a pic of it. This was Voughts answer to the bid for the follow-on which ultimately went to the F-4 Phantom.
...and here's a video:
[video=youtube;t6V8kvI6vrA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6V8kvI6vrA[/video]
Max Speed: Mach 2.4
Service Ceiling: 60,000 ft.
Armament:
- 4 x 20mm cannon
- 4 x AIM-7 Sparrow Missiles
- 4 x AIM-9 Sidewinder Missiles
She was going to be one very hot aircraft...and very manueverable to boot for mixing it up at knife range.
John Konrad (shown in the video above), who was Vought's chief test pilot, and whom my father knew very well, stated that the Crusader III could fly circles around the Phantom II. But she was a single seat, single engine aircraft and that ended her because the US Navy was moving to twin engined and dual seater fighter aircraft...even though just a few years later the A-& Corsair II, which was a single engine, single seat attack aircraft won its bid hands down.
After losing the fighter competition, all five F-8U III aircraft were transferred to NASA for high altitude testing as her service ceiling was so high. While there, NASA pilots flying out of NAS Patuxent River routinely intercepted and defeated U.S. Navy Phantom IIs in mock dogfights, until complaints from the Navy put an end to it. LOL!
Even back then we selected the less qualified aircraft for political and expediency, instead of giving our personnel the best tools they could possibly have. At this point, however, in the F-22, the F/A-18E and F Superhornets, and the upcoming F-35 variants, I believe we either have, or are going to get the best entries in those bids. Especially the F-22...we just need three times as many of them at least.
Last edited:
Re: My build and review of Tamiya's 1/350 scale USS Enterprise, (CVN-65)
Interesting history lectures there al around, gents.
Popeye, you said you witnessed that one F-8 crash while looking for unexpanded ordnance on those jets. Did they actually recover with the ordnance still on board?
I seem to remember that carrier borne fighters had / have to jettison all/some of the unexpanded ordnance due to weight & safety constraints.
On the F-8U vs. F-4 issue, for all I know, I don't really think that with the Phantom II the navy deliberately chose the inferior aircraft for political reasons.
When that aircraft came along, it was probably something like a gateway into a new era. It was big, highly technical in it's operation (had a 2nd guy for radar work) and it brought along new (BVR) missiles.
I guess people really expected it to be a revolution in air warfare. Initially it didn't even come with a gun, because the idea was to shoot it's foes down from miles away using it's advanced radar / missiles combo. But as so often, that revolutianary transition didn't go so well, as that BVR advantage didn't really come to play operationally so soon.
So the F-4 eventually got a gun. Initially as a pod mounted below the fuselage.
In hindsight, for Vietnam the Crusader III might have been the better plane for the then current air warfare reality. But I think in the long run, the F-4 really did point into the future, as it went on to become a very succesfull and long serving aircraft. Both in A-A and A-G, also delivering early LGBs.
Interesting history lectures there al around, gents.
Popeye, you said you witnessed that one F-8 crash while looking for unexpanded ordnance on those jets. Did they actually recover with the ordnance still on board?
I seem to remember that carrier borne fighters had / have to jettison all/some of the unexpanded ordnance due to weight & safety constraints.
On the F-8U vs. F-4 issue, for all I know, I don't really think that with the Phantom II the navy deliberately chose the inferior aircraft for political reasons.
When that aircraft came along, it was probably something like a gateway into a new era. It was big, highly technical in it's operation (had a 2nd guy for radar work) and it brought along new (BVR) missiles.
I guess people really expected it to be a revolution in air warfare. Initially it didn't even come with a gun, because the idea was to shoot it's foes down from miles away using it's advanced radar / missiles combo. But as so often, that revolutianary transition didn't go so well, as that BVR advantage didn't really come to play operationally so soon.
So the F-4 eventually got a gun. Initially as a pod mounted below the fuselage.
In hindsight, for Vietnam the Crusader III might have been the better plane for the then current air warfare reality. But I think in the long run, the F-4 really did point into the future, as it went on to become a very succesfull and long serving aircraft. Both in A-A and A-G, also delivering early LGBs.
Last edited:
Re: My build and review of Tamiya's 1/350 scale USS Enterprise, (CVN-65)
The F-8 U Crusader III and the F-4 Phantom II were competing against each other to replace the F-8 Crusader.
The Crusader III was not picked principally because the Navy wanted a dual engine dual pilot aircraft.
Well, now we have dual engine Hornets flying all over the place with single piltos, and we are about to make the largest purchase in the history of the US Military with a single engine aircraft. So...full circle.
[
If you have ever wondered why there were so many similarities in the external design of the F-8 Crusader, the F-8U Crusader III, and the A-7 Corsair II, it was because my Dad was the lead dynamics engineer on all of them. He was also the lead on the XC-142A STOVL cargo aircraft for the Navy which actually won a competition but then was cancelled by McNamara back then. Another aircraft before its time. He was very involved on the F-7 Cutlass before the F-8 Crusader, but was not the lead at that time. He ultimately finished his career after Lockheed acquired Vought, in designing and producing hyper-velocity missiles for attack aircraft. Knetic energy warhead weapons to be used as tank killers and the like.
That program allowed for very accurate direct fire missiles, at hypervelocity speed, with shaped depleted uranium warheads that could cut through spaced homogenoeus tank armor like a knife through butter and spall off on the inside filling the compartment with hot plasma shrapnel. They debuted in the 1st Gulf War and were improved upon since.
Those units, which have the range and effectiveness of a Maverick missile, cost about $100,000 each instead of well over a million dollars each. Anyhow...he worked on some neat stuff and was constantly out in New Mexico at the various ranges testing it against captured Russian hardware provided by Israel and the CIA.
At any rate, back to the aircraft discussion....here we are many, many years later, and we we are back to many single pilot fighters, and going to a huge purchase of single engine aircraft...the F-35C for the Navy.
This does not mean the F-35 is bad in the least...no more than the F-8U III was. It just means that some of those "ideas" and conclusions that figured so heavily into decisions in the late 1950s and into the 1960s have been proven over the years, to not be as necessary as they though back then.
The F-8U Crusader III also carried the same BVR missiles. It was capable, like your last picture of the F-4 of carrying four Sidewiders (AIM-9) and four Sparrow (AIM-7). It was also going to be capable, like the F-8 Crusader before it, of carrying air to ground ordinance.
The F-8 U Crusader III and the F-4 Phantom II were competing against each other to replace the F-8 Crusader.
The Crusader III was not picked principally because the Navy wanted a dual engine dual pilot aircraft.
Well, now we have dual engine Hornets flying all over the place with single piltos, and we are about to make the largest purchase in the history of the US Military with a single engine aircraft. So...full circle.
Exacty, the F-4 Phantom was actually losing some dog fights because when it came to knife fighting range, it had no gun, and the gun was necessary...and it still is.
[
The F-8U could have led to that same spot, IMHO. It was faster, higher flying and far more manueverable. It could carry the same AA missiles and was A2G capable. I remember the competition and after the loss, I remember my dad (who would move on to the very successful A-7 Corsair II competition) talking about it very directly. The Navy wanted a dual engine, dual pilot aircraft, and that was the deciding factor. Clearly the F-4 had to be adequate in the air to air role...but an aircraft that was masterful in it was turned away.
If you have ever wondered why there were so many similarities in the external design of the F-8 Crusader, the F-8U Crusader III, and the A-7 Corsair II, it was because my Dad was the lead dynamics engineer on all of them. He was also the lead on the XC-142A STOVL cargo aircraft for the Navy which actually won a competition but then was cancelled by McNamara back then. Another aircraft before its time. He was very involved on the F-7 Cutlass before the F-8 Crusader, but was not the lead at that time. He ultimately finished his career after Lockheed acquired Vought, in designing and producing hyper-velocity missiles for attack aircraft. Knetic energy warhead weapons to be used as tank killers and the like.
That program allowed for very accurate direct fire missiles, at hypervelocity speed, with shaped depleted uranium warheads that could cut through spaced homogenoeus tank armor like a knife through butter and spall off on the inside filling the compartment with hot plasma shrapnel. They debuted in the 1st Gulf War and were improved upon since.
Those units, which have the range and effectiveness of a Maverick missile, cost about $100,000 each instead of well over a million dollars each. Anyhow...he worked on some neat stuff and was constantly out in New Mexico at the various ranges testing it against captured Russian hardware provided by Israel and the CIA.
At any rate, back to the aircraft discussion....here we are many, many years later, and we we are back to many single pilot fighters, and going to a huge purchase of single engine aircraft...the F-35C for the Navy.
This does not mean the F-35 is bad in the least...no more than the F-8U III was. It just means that some of those "ideas" and conclusions that figured so heavily into decisions in the late 1950s and into the 1960s have been proven over the years, to not be as necessary as they though back then.
Re: My build and review of Tamiya's 1/350 scale USS Enterprise, CVN065
The "trials" are simply how good it looks to the naked (no pun intended) eye. These babies will not touch a lake or water. Too much time and work and dollars invested.
Now...I have been seriously considering getting at least one nice Radio Controled vessel. Probably will not go as far as this (too expensive, but very, very nice):
But I am considering something in the 1/350 scale or 1/196 scale to actually take out in the summer time on local lakes and waterways. The one shown above, by the way is about a 1/25 scale model of the real thing. Big enough for two people to sit in her as she tools around. Can either be controlled from the position you see in the vessel, or remote controlled.
Hehehe...LOL! Not going to happen.Yep, good as Jeff's stuff looks (and it looks GREAT!), the ultimate test of the modeller's craftsmanship is in the SEA TRIALS! (Pictures, please...)
The "trials" are simply how good it looks to the naked (no pun intended) eye. These babies will not touch a lake or water. Too much time and work and dollars invested.
Now...I have been seriously considering getting at least one nice Radio Controled vessel. Probably will not go as far as this (too expensive, but very, very nice):
[video=youtube;g-Fe3oH0F8A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-Fe3oH0F8A[/video]
But I am considering something in the 1/350 scale or 1/196 scale to actually take out in the summer time on local lakes and waterways. The one shown above, by the way is about a 1/25 scale model of the real thing. Big enough for two people to sit in her as she tools around. Can either be controlled from the position you see in the vessel, or remote controlled.