1/48 Avro Arrow

[K2Pete]

I started this build a couple months ago thinking I'd have it done by now. But the fuselage is causing me a lot of grief.

Talk about awful seams. I didn't know what you guys meant by poor fit, but this Hobby Craft HG 1651 takes the cake! I'm also building the newer Arrow, Hobby Craft HC 1659 kit and it'll have the Iroquois engine pulled out of it. But no pix of that here.

Anyway, I enjoy scratchbuilding so I cut out the palette and plan to stuff it with the Weapons payload. I'll droop the flaps and move the rudder and scratchbuild the MLG.

After sanding down the trailing edges, the corners were rounded off, so I made a couple patches to sharpen 'em up again.

Same with the intakes. I cut a piece of sheet styrene and glued 'em to the back of the intakes and made nice sharp corners again.

I also removed the solid material from the back end of the intakes to show the boundary layer bleed vent, or whatever they're called.

Thanx for taking a peek ... I'll post a few more pix.

Pete

[K2Pete]

Here's a few more pix.

This will be the weapons delivery mechanism for Sparrow missiles.

MLG scratch built with Brass, Aluminum and styrene tubing,, with the kit part in the middle. I've still got a lot of detailing to do on these.

This is another example of a fit issue. Rather than sand down the exhaust cone to fit the fuselage, I decided to glue a small sheet of 5 thou styrene to the fuse and sand and shape it.

This fuselage has demanded a lot of attention. I'll remember to support the sides of the fuselage with styrene on my next Arrow build.

There was quite a gap between the canopy and the fuse which was filled with some styrene

And I just bought a book on the Arrow which shows the boundary layer plate on the intakes, so I had to build 'em. One set, dry fit to the intakes is made from sheet aluminum, and the lower set is 5 thou styrene, for the next Arrow.

Here's the book I'll use for reference.

That's it for now. I wanted to have these done so I could get some Spits done for a Group build ... I guess they'll just hafta wait.

Pete

[madmanrick]

Pete,

I just recently bought the "new tool" HC Arrow and even though I haven't started the build, I've noticed the fit issues during some preliminary dry fitting. Thanks for sharing your pics, I will be avidly watching your progress in the hopes that I can avoid some of the problems you've encountered. Where did you obtain that Arrow roll-out book, if I may ask? I could use one of those myself! TIA,

Rick

P.S. I am going to use the Xtradecal Canuck TSR-2 "What-if" decals on my CF-105 and paint it as a "What-if" service machine. Any idea what markings you'll use on yours yet?

Edited January 9, 2009 by madmanrick

[madmanrick]

Oh and are you aware of these resin sets for the CF-105? They look good, albeit expensive!

http://www.mastercasters.co.uk/3.html

Rick

[K2Pete]

I also wanted to show the 'coke bottle' shape of the fuselage better, so I added some 40 thou plastic card to the sides and sanded and filled to shape.

... and I'm still sanding and filling ...

Pete

(near Niagara Falls)

[K2Pete]

Hi Rick

I got the book on the discount table last week at the local bookstore, Chapters. I also picked up the 2nd in the author's series, just on the Iroquois engine ... some outstanding photos of that engine for reference.

And as far as markings go, I only know there won't be any day-glo on it. This Arrow will be in-flight with the Sparrows deployed, and the newer tool Arrow will be on the ground, radome detached, air brakes down, Iroquois engine in full view and structure added to the inside of the engine compartment.

And I contacted Master Casters, he used to live just down the highway from me, and his castings weren't available, so I picked up a cockpit set from a 'local' hobby shop, north Star. I'll be using them on the newer Arrow.

Pete

[phantom]

The amount of improvements you are doing is amazing!! Great job!!!!!

The Arrow "can" be built OOB but as you have found it takes MASSIVE amounts of putty.

The fits are awful and I gave up on mine. Decided to make it in flight which took care of Hobby Craps most glaring errors.

My "easy route" worked, but yours looks like it will end up as a show winneer you can be proud of.

[Emvar]

Hi Rick

I got the book on the discount table last week at the local bookstore, Chapters. I also picked up the 2nd in the author's series, just on the Iroquois engine ... some outstanding photos of that engine for reference.

And as far as markings go, I only know there won't be any day-glo on it. This Arrow will be in-flight with the Sparrows deployed, and the newer tool Arrow will be on the ground, radome detached, air brakes down, Iroquois engine in full view and structure added to the inside of the engine compartment.

And I contacted Master Casters, he used to live just down the highway from me, and his castings weren't available, so I picked up a cockpit set from a 'local' hobby shop, north Star. I'll be using them on the newer Arrow.

Pete

Got the newer kit and the NS Resin set also have all the Master Caster sets too...... Just waiting for my abilities to catch up with what I have......

Nice build so far. I'm watching this one.

Emil

Edited January 10, 2009 by Elmo

[Stratospheremodels]

Brings back souvenirs...

but of a different kit (and definitely not as much filler).

Maybe you should have used my inlets, and my fuselage, and my missile bay, etc... (well, the whole kit why not). But too bad, the molds are now destroyed due to old age.. Talking of fuselage halves seams.. next time i should make that kit in resin not vacform (my seam edges were too thin). Though it made for a very lightweight model.

Stephane.

I started this build a couple months ago thinking I'd have it done by now. But the fuselage is causing me a lot of grief.

Talk about awful seams. I didn't know what you guys meant by poor fit, but this Hobby Craft HG 1651 takes the cake! I'm also building the newer Arrow, Hobby Craft HC 1659 kit and it'll have the Iroquois engine pulled out of it. But no pix of that here.

Anyway, I enjoy scratchbuilding so I cut out the palette and plan to stuff it with the Weapons payload. I'll droop the flaps and move the rudder and scratchbuild the MLG.

After sanding down the trailing edges, the corners were rounded off, so I made a couple patches to sharpen 'em up again.

Same with the intakes. I cut a piece of sheet styrene and glued 'em to the back of the intakes and made nice sharp corners again.

I also removed the solid material from the back end of the intakes to show the boundary layer bleed vent, or whatever they're called.

Thanx for taking a peek ... I'll post a few more pix.

Pete

Edited January 12, 2009 by Stratospheremodels

[F4DPhantomII]

I tried to build my later issue kit and gave up!What a piece of crap that kit is.It gives new meaning to the acronym Hobby Crap. I'll wait for a better kit although I still have one in 1/72 that I suspect won't be any better.

[K2Pete]

I tried to build my later issue kit and gave up!What a piece of crap that kit is.It gives new meaning to the acronym Hobby Crap. I'll wait for a better kit although I still have one in 1/72 that I suspect won't be any better.

When I got back into modeling about 2 years ago, the 1/72 Arrow was my first model. I used it to experiment on. Things like filling and sanding seams, Bare Metal foil, airbrushing, decal solution, the basics, but for me were something new. Anyway, the model's wings were made upside down, so watch for that.

Here's a little update.

The weapons delivery mechanism. This is largely speculation, I had just one technical illustration to work from.

This one shows the wing installation and the flaps in an adjusted position. And the huge gap at the wingroot on the underside.

And this is a big model. I haven't worked on something this large before.

I adjusted the flaps, but before I installed the wings I had placed some thick styrene between the wing halves to make 'em a little thicker. But ... I forgot to thicken the flap too, so after gluing it up, there was an 1/8" difference in levels ... so I had to remove one flap and glue on a nice thick piece of plastic and will sand it down to correct its shape.

More gaps to fill.

I've made some crude indications of exhaust hardware with some styrene strip.

I'm also working on the newer tool CF-105 and will start another topic when I've got some pix.

Pete

[K2Pete]

I forgot to ask two questions in the last posting ... do you guys know what the "RL" designation signifies?

And the black stripes on the wing topsides indicate ... what? Walkways? Would those stripes be there on an operational aircraft?

Thanx

Pete

[Aggressor Supporter]

Sorry to hear it is a pain to build, but it looks like you're doing a good job there. Keep at it as I'm sure the end result will be well worth it.

[Emvar]

I forgot to ask two questions in the last posting ... do you guys know what the "RL" designation signifies?

And the black stripes on the wing topsides indicate ... what? Walkways? Would those stripes be there on an operational aircraft?

Thanx

Pete

The RL I believe stood for Roe Limited as the aircraft were not handed over to the RCAF and were oned by the Company.

As for the stripes, not all of the Aircraft had them. Yes they did indicate walkways.

[Deino]

Hey ... what an interesting build !!

MAybe that would help You too:

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,17875.75.html

CHeers, Andreas

[Alvis 3.1]

I forgot to ask two questions in the last posting ... do you guys know what the "RL" designation signifies?

And the black stripes on the wing topsides indicate ... what? Walkways? Would those stripes be there on an operational aircraft?

Thanx

Pete

As far as I know, the RL designation has no connection to A.V. Roe ltd, as the Arrows were RCAF designated aircraft. In fact, they numbers up to the high 60s were already allocated out on the planes (RL 25201-2526X)(I can't recall exactly how high the numbers went to). This was standard RCAF aircraft coding of the day, known as the AB+3 scheme. In operational service, however, they would have gone to the RCAF+3 scheme (ie: RCAF 201 would be the number instead of RL 201). RL followed in a long series of two letter prefix designations, and as far as I know, the letters were picked in sequence. Somewhere, I had a book that listed all RCAF letter codes and the planes they were attached to, but it's vanished...drat!

As was answered here already, the black stripes were walkway markings. Whether they would have been on operational aircraft is hard to say for sure, but since the plane wasn't meant as a fighter, and thus not requiring camouflage, they likely would be there...IMHO.

Hope this helps

Alvis 3.1

*By the way, it's great to see somebody attempting a build on the 1/48 Arrow kit. It's a beast, but you're coming along nicely. I like the plumbing in the weapons bay too!

Edited January 14, 2009 by Alvis 3.1

[K2Pete]

Thanx guys!

Deino, thanx for the link to the "what ifs" ... I didn't see any images, but I'll take some time and look at that forum later on, and at what you guys are doing.

Alvis 3.1 ... and here I thought all you did was funny little models ... who knew you knew. Well now I know! Thanx a lot for the info!

Pete

(near Niagara Falls)

[rcaf_100]

I forgot to ask two questions in the last posting ... do you guys know what the "RL" designation signifies?

And the black stripes on the wing topsides indicate ... what? Walkways? Would those stripes be there on an operational aircraft?

Thanx

Pete

Yep, RL does indeed stand for 'Roe Limited' This was to give the prototypes an RCAF 'look' with the AB+3 coding. The RCAF already had the 252** block cleared for them, but the RL was to designate Avro's aircraft. If they had made it to squadron service, they certainly wouldn't have been all RL-***, but instead whatever the squadron's code was (ie BT for 441, UD for 419, etc). However, the change to the RCAF+3 coding changed all this. This RCAF 'look' is also why all the CF-100 prototypes were coded VC-FBD, K, H, etc to fit in with the then current VC coding (although I'm not sure what FB stands for, maybe 'fighter-bomber' or something) Had the Diefenbaker government not listened to the US (insert USAF, CIA, or whoever you want here) and kept the program going, the prototypes would have most certainly been repainted in the RCAF+3 coding scheme which took effect in 1959.

As for the black stripes, they were on all the prototypes except 25204, which is probably the reason why it is modeled so much. :P

:lol:

Edited January 14, 2009 by rcaf_100

[Toad]

Wow......glad I was directed to this thread. Awesome work ! I love the way you've thickened the fuslegae to give her that coke bottle look....great idea ! The weapons bay is really coming along nicely as well.

BTW-how long ago did you grab those books ? I've always wanted them but wasn't willing to shell out the $100 price tag.

[K2Pete]

Wow......glad I was directed to this thread. Awesome work ! I love the way you've thickened the fuslegae to give her that coke bottle look....great idea ! The weapons bay is really coming along nicely as well.

BTW-how long ago did you grab those books ? I've always wanted them but wasn't willing to shell out the $100 price tag.

I picked up the books just a couple weeks ago. They ( Arrow Rollout and Iroquois Rollout) were on the discount table at the local Chapters for $10 each. A buddy of mine told me they were there and ... I didn't even know these books were available.

And where did you get directed from? It must be an Arrow specific site or sumthin', 'cuz all of a sudden, views have shot up over 500!

I hope you guys aren't expecting anything special, 'cuz I'm just learning ...!

Pete

[Barneydhc82]

Had the Diefenbaker government not listened to the US (insert USAF, CIA, or whoever you want here) and kept the program going, the prototypes would have most certainly been repainted in the RCAF+3 coding scheme which took effect in 1959.

As for the black stripes, they were on all the prototypes except 25204, which is probably the reason why it is modeled so much. :mellow:

The US had nothing to do with the cancellation of the Arrow! It was on the advice of George Pearkes General (retarded) that pushed old John over the edge on this project. In fact the Liberals were going to scrap the thing just prior to their defeat by the Conservatives but decided to let Diefenbunker take the heat.

The Arrow was a long way over budget, costing the Canadian taxpayers $880 Million and another $293 million for the Sparrow weapons system. The over-runs were squarely on the shoulders of our own senior officers in Air Force Headquarters who kept wanting more bang for their buck

I did considerable research on this program while attending the military staff school in 1974 and it is amazing how many people believe the CBC POC movie version of the Arrow.

Barney

[Toad]

I was directed from here.....at the What-If site. Be sure to sign up !

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,17875.75.html

What Chapters are you talking about ? The closest one to me is in London, so I'll have to make an excuse to try and get up that way !

Cheers !

[Alvis 3.1]

Yep, RL does indeed stand for 'Roe Limited' This was to give the prototypes an RCAF 'look' with the AB+3 coding. The RCAF already had the 252** block cleared for them, but the RL was to designate Avro's aircraft. If they had made it to squadron service, they certainly wouldn't have been all RL-***, but instead whatever the squadron's code was (ie BT for 441, UD for 419, etc). However, the change to the RCAF+3 coding changed all this. This RCAF 'look' is also why all the CF-100 prototypes were coded VC-FBD, K, H, etc to fit in with the then current VC coding (although I'm not sure what FB stands for, maybe 'fighter-bomber' or something) Had the Diefenbaker government not listened to the US (insert USAF, CIA, or whoever you want here) and kept the program going, the prototypes would have most certainly been repainted in the RCAF+3 coding scheme which took effect in 1959.

As for the black stripes, they were on all the prototypes except 25204, which is probably the reason why it is modeled so much. :D

I was going by Patrick Martin's book "RCAF Markings 1947-68".

The AB +3 series of prefix codes had no real sequence to them, and yes, they were related to specific squadrons, such as BQ=438 (aux), OJ=4 Flying School. RL was designated for 12 Technical Services Unit.

The VC series of letters coded planes was reserved by the ICAO for RCAF aircraft, not civilian ones (Those would be CF, Navy being VG). The next two letters, ie: VC-FB* meant that the aircraft was designated for the Central Experimental and Proving Est. (FB) The last letter would be the individual aircraft number. So CF-100 coded VC-FBD would by aircraft number 4 at the CEPE. I would assume they were in charge of new aircraft being test flown at the manufacturer.

You may have different info however. I am just going from this one source.

The whole run of the Arrows (at least those that had advanced to being built up enough for it) had the RL series of numbers applied to them. Once they had entered squadron service, they would have been re-marked in the RCAF+3 scheme. Of course, given the nature of Canada's Armed Forces, they would have gone through all the newer iterations right up to FIP era..or later.

Killing the Arrow when it did happen made sure it stayed perfect and unflawed in peoples minds, kind a James Dean thing. If he had lived to be a bloated, fat has been selling wine (Orson Wells anyone?) his mystique would be lessened. Same with the Arrow, it died before it could prove to have flaws.

Diefenbaker would have likely made MORE Arrows if he knew it would have angered the Americans. He wasn't a big fan of our neighbors to the south, and was prone to being ...erratic about that sort of thing. This is the guy who refused to put our forces on high alert during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Most of the documents realesed several years ago point to the chiefs of defence ordering the ending of the program, it had run terribly over budget, and AVRO hadn't inspired confidence in the RCAF with their CF-100s initial in-service problems and delays in service. It's pretty easy to see a slick sales campaign from the US telling us dumb hicks that they have the better things and at a much cheaper rate. It would not be the last time we got substandard gear for our military at what turned out to be not necessarily rock bottom prices. The whole Arrow program loss was a shame, a blow to our skills and pride, but it came down to budgetary concerns during a bad economy...hard choices for any politician.

Too bad we tossed all the prototypes away however...:)

Alvis 3.1

Edited January 15, 2009 by Alvis 3.1

[Alvis 3.1]

Thanx guys!

Deino, thanx for the link to the "what ifs" ... I didn't see any images, but I'll take some time and look at that forum later on, and at what you guys are doing.

Alvis 3.1 ... and here I thought all you did was funny little models ... who knew you knew. Well now I know! Thanx a lot for the info!

Pete

(near Niagara Falls)

The What-If modeling forum has some of the best, craziest model ideas around. I highly recommend it.

One of the reasons I do "funny little models" is due to excessive building of "real" stuff. I've built the HobbyCraft 1/72 arrow over 30 times so far, and over 40 of the Monogram F-18 in 1/48th...in each case they were mostly done in one big go as well. I still awake with the cold sweats...

I've been an Arrowhead since the late 70s, when I saw a CBC Program called "There never was an Arrow". One day, I'm going to win a stupidly huge lottery and have Boeing build me a flying 1/1 scale Arrow...yeah...right!

Alvis 3.1

[K2Pete]

The What-If modeling forum has some of the best, craziest model ideas around. I highly recommend it.

One of the reasons I do "funny little models" is due to excessive building of "real" stuff. I've built the HobbyCraft 1/72 arrow over 30 times so far, and over 40 of the Monogram F-18 in 1/48th...in each case they were mostly done in one big go as well. I still awake with the cold sweats...

I've been an Arrowhead since the late 70s, when I saw a CBC Program called "There never was an Arrow". One day, I'm going to win a stupidly huge lottery and have Boeing build me a flying 1/1 scale Arrow...yeah...right!

Alvis 3.1

I'm not a 'what-if' kinda guy. Having only been in this hobby for a couple years, I'm still getting used to being able to augment a kit with brass and plastic and kleenex! All tolled, I've built 16 models, all Real Space ( check the ARC Space Gallery, and you've probably seen my 1/48 LM Cutaway here on ARC) ... this is my first aircraft. But still having a blast!

And, let's try to keep this thread opinion free regarding the poor old Arrow program. I've worked with about 9 guys who worked on both the Arrow and the Bras D'or (a cancelled sub chasing hydrofoil ) and have also read what I could get my hands on, and just in the last week re-read "There Never was an Arrow" book. Lots of numbers in there ( like having customers for 300 Iroquois engines ). Selling the results of our R&D and design and development would've at least offset what was perceived as high cost overruns, but it never should've seen cancelled at all. What a waste.

So I have very strong opinions on this program, and the Jetliner, and the Bras D'or and the Bomarc and the aircraft we bought ( F-5, F-104, F-101, F-18) that couldn't and still can't out-perform what the Arrow had already demonstrated it could do. And the government of the day ... and ... and ... and ... it just breaks my heart ... I'm done now ...

Anyway Toad, the Chapters is in St Catharines. No idea if these books are available chain-wide.

Pete