Hobbyboss F/A 18 A

Post by **Andreas** » Sat Apr 04, 2015 2:30 pm

Hello everybody. my name is Andreas, and this is my first ever SIG. My entery is this hobby boss F/A 18A in 1:48.
I started modeling last summer after watching a episode of little britian with a skit of a man trying to buy a gift in a toy store a.s.o.
and in the background i noticed a stack of airfix kits. this reminded me of when i was a child, i used to build model airplanes. And i thought
to my self. that would be fun to try again. So for the rest of that evening i trawled all over youtube, watching everything from how to`s to
technique videos. i was sold!
so olease be patient with me. and feel free to give me some feedback. I would in fact appreciate that.
So, whish me luck... I am going to need it.
And thank you for haveing a look.

Post by **Paul** » Sat Apr 04, 2015 2:40 pm

This is a great kit i have several in the stash myself, look forward to seeing you build it.

Post by **martin57** » Sat Apr 04, 2015 4:58 pm

good luck with it and welcome to the forum

Website · Post by **TonyCnyc** » Sat Apr 04, 2015 5:27 pm

Welcome to the SIG and back to modelling!

Post by **Andreas** » Sat Apr 04, 2015 6:06 pm

@ Tony . Subscribeing now

Website · Post by **TonyCnyc** » Sat Apr 04, 2015 6:18 pm

Andreas wrote:@ Tony . Subscribeing now

Thanks for the sub!

Post by **Andreas** » Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:56 am

Aftermarket decals is needed to add details to the model

Post by **Nige201980** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 8:38 am

Great looking kit mate. Good luck with the build mate.

Post by **Russ72** » Mon Apr 06, 2015 10:10 am

Good luck with the kit Andreas, look forward to seeing it come together.

Website · Post by **Gav0909** » Tue Apr 07, 2015 12:42 pm

Looking forward to this. Just started the Revell 1/48 FA/18E Super Hornet myself.

Good luck!

Post by **UKguyInUSA** » Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:09 pm

That looks like a sweet kit with lots of styrene inside the box! Enjoy building her!

Post by **Andreas** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 9:00 pm

i finally managed to start the build. The first step is as in most cases the cockpit. I am putting in a eduard zoom set in this model. So the raised details needs to be sanded down.

Post by **Andreas** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 9:06 pm

The first IPM incident. Some filling and sanding is in order

Post by **Andreas** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 5:07 pm

That's the Eduard zoom cockpit done..

Post by **Andreas** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 5:11 pm

The stick was out of scale so it had to be trimmed down a bit.

Looks better now. Cut down and painted

Post by **Andreas** » Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:32 am

There's the cockpit tub done.

Post by **Andreas** » Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:39 am

The next thing to address is the flaws in the mold. There are some more than usual on this hobby boss kit.

Post by **Andreas** » Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:51 am

These pieces under the glowe vane make up the cockpit sidewall.

They make a hefty seam line that needs to be filled

Done

Post by **Andreas** » Sun Apr 26, 2015 3:16 pm

Hello again. Here is a update on my build. I am sorry to say it, but this kit a bit of a pig. There are fit issues and cockpit details are out of scale. But I have decided to
Press on an make the best out of it, to the best of my abilities.

The intakes were challenging on this one.. Badly molded

Post by **Andreas** » Sun Apr 26, 2015 3:27 pm

The ejection seat vent along nicely. I tried to texture the seat with a razor saw and give it a wash with mud. The Eduard zoom PE livened it up perfectly.

when fitting the seat I found out that it was to tall.so I sanded it down about 4mm to be more in "scale"

Post by **Goose** » Sun Apr 26, 2015 4:24 pm

Oh gosh, when I see this and i know that i've got the C to do from the same brand....i'm scared now....

good luck for the rest of it

see u

Goose

Post by **Nige201980** » Sun Apr 26, 2015 4:25 pm

Great build so far mate.

Post by **Paul** » Sun Apr 26, 2015 4:36 pm

Nice work mate, i know this has been fighting you along the way, but your turning it into a nice model

Post by **Andreas** » Sun Apr 26, 2015 5:23 pm

Some more pictures of the build. To be fair to the kit. There are a few good points to it asvell

The boarding ladder is a sorry piece . The worst figment of the whole kit

Post by **Andreas** » Sun Apr 26, 2015 5:28 pm

The kit has a outline for the spot light on the ammo door. It's only the Canadian version that has that, so I had to fill it in.

Post by **rwsmith14** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 1:12 am

I heard that this kit has flaws. I have a few "A" plus the "C" in my stash. I think they will sink deeper in the stash now... You have done a great job so far. The Intakes look great !! Talk about ab out of scale control stick.. JEEZZZZ

Post by **corpsman23k2** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 8:15 am

This not a faint of heart kit but looks like you are well on your way to wining pleas keep us posted
Frank

Post by **Andreas** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 9:42 am

Bad news! Wouldn't you know it. I managed to snap the canopy in half.

If anyone knows of a replacement, I would appreciate that

Post by **Lego** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 10:19 am

Is there no way to contact Hobby Boss customer services?

Really nice work on miss piggy

Looking good.

Post by **chief5437** » Mon Apr 27, 2015 11:42 pm

PM me if you want the vacform canopy I have.

Post by **Andreas** » Tue Apr 28, 2015 7:50 am

Thank you all for your response. I ordered a falcon canopy sett yesterday, so that will be something new again for me to try out. Crossing my fingers I don't make a mess out of it. I have continued assembling the kit the last days. And I have to say that it has gone a lot smoother now.
The kit isn't brilliant. But maybe not so bad as I first belived. But there are 3 or 4 things that is letting it down.
The cockpit details are out of scale, no doubt about that. Maybe one could go fo a replacement resin set? I think that is up to every modeler to deside for him self.
The intakes are a nightmare. Flawed molds and a pig to fit flush in the fuselage, a lot of putty.
Thirdly, there are a few IPMs in all the landig gear bay doors, in all the detail.
And there is some warping. But just a little

But there are a few good points with this kit .
The wheel wells are beautifully detailed. The panel lines are crisp and the rivets Will take a wash really nice.
It's stuffed with ordinance. The landig gear is full of detail. Antennas and pitot tubes seems to be in good nick as well.
So all in all. It's a ok kit. But I would not buy one again.

Thank you - come again

Post by **Andreas** » Sun May 10, 2015 10:47 am

hello fellow modelers. It's about time for a nother update. I decided that I would press on with the build in the meantime, while I waited for the canopy to arrive.

The first order of business was to sort out that ridiculous boarding ladder. After thinking about it, I decided just to fill and scribe the recess in the glowe vane.

[/URL [URL=http://s1296.photobucket.com/user/andre ... 2.jpg.html]

Post by **Andreas** » Sun May 10, 2015 10:59 am

Next I cleaned and assembled all the armament and landing gear. The landing gear doors are full of epm's and needed loads of work.

Post by **Andreas** » Sun May 10, 2015 11:25 am

Next on the to do list. Primer and pre shadeing. I have only got Vallejo gray primer. So it will have to do.

I pre shaded using mr hobby flat black

I decided to try the Akan paints on this build. And I have no regrets what so ever. The coverage is stupid good and the color matches the real thing

Post by **Andreas** » Sun May 10, 2015 12:00 pm

Vacuum formed canopies are not for the faint of heart! They are so unforgiving. And when it doesn't fit it really does not fit at all. I will not harp on about it. But what I can confirm is: different manufacturers of kits, of the same type of plane, are slightly different. And you need proper skills to cut correct.

But all is not lost. Even though I messed up the vac form canopy, there is still hope for the kit. And it will finish in time.
I am so fortunate to have a great buddy in the "hangout" gang. Charles from down under. He has got a spare canopy in is immense stach. Witsh he so kindly donated for my project... Thank you Charles! You are a life saver.!

Post by **heel** » Sun May 10, 2015 12:11 pm

You're doing a bang up job Andreas. I'm sure you'll get the canopy sorted.

Post by **Andreas** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 3:51 pm

Ok! It's crunch time now. The canopy is sorted and I am on the home stretch now I am currently on vacation at our cabin up in the mountains, which makes finishing it even more challenging. Following is some photos of my progress up til now

These low visibility aftermarket decals went on nicely. It's just such a shame they hardly appear

Post by **rwsmith14** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:07 pm

Paint looks fantastic !! well Done !!

Post by **Andreas** » Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:52 pm

The build contiues. Not much time left now. The alclad gloss coat is finally dry enough to smear on some Ultimate dark dirt. I have to press on if am going to finish this SIG

Post by **Andreas** » Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:23 pm

Today has been a interesting modeling day. Lacking a good working environment I managed to get the bugger finished.
Here is a nice write up on the F/A18A. Starting from its development stages. The McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) F/A-18 Hornet is a twin-engine supersonic, all-weather carrier-capable multirole combat jet, designed as both a fighter and attack aircraft (F/A designation for Fighter/Attack). Designed by McDonnell Douglas and Northrop, the F/A-18 was derived from the latter's YF-17 in the 1970s for use by the United States Navy and Marine Corps. The Hornet is also used by the air forces of several other nations. The U.S. Navy's Flight Demonstration Squadron, the Blue Angels, has used the Hornet since 1986.

The partnership between McDonnell Douglas and Northrop soured over competition for foreign sales for the two models. Northrop felt that McDonnell Douglas would put the F/A-18 in direct competition with the F-18L. In October 1979, Northrop filed a series of lawsuits charging that McDonnell was using Northrop technology developed for the F-18L for foreign sales in violation of their agreement, and asked for a moratorium on foreign sales of the Hornet via McDonnell Douglas. The case was resolved in 1985 when McDonnell agreed to pay Northrop $50 million for complete rights to the design, with no admission of wrongdoing. By then Northrop had ceased work on the F-18L, and most export orders were captured by the F-16 or the F/A-18.[9]
The F/A-18 has a top speed of Mach 1.8 (1,034 knots, 1,190 mph or 1,915 km/h at 40,000 ft or 12,190 m). It can carry a wide variety of bombs and missiles, including air-to-air and air-to-ground, supplemented by the 20 mm M61 Vulcan cannon. It is powered by two General Electric F404 turbofan engines, which give the aircraft a high thrust-to-weight ratio. The F/A-18 has excellent aerodynamic characteristics, primarily attributed to its leading edge extensions (LEX). The fighter's primary missions are fighter escort, fleet air defense, Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD), air interdiction, close air support and aerial reconnaissance. Its versatility and reliability have proven it to be a valuable carrier asset, though it has been criticized for its lack of range and payload compared to its earlier contemporaries, such as the Grumman F-14 Tomcat in the fighter and strike fighter role, and the Grumman A-6 Intruder and LTV A-7 Corsair II in the attack role.

The Hornet saw its first combat action in 1986 during the 1986 United States bombing of Libya and subsequently participated in 1991 Gulf War and 2003 Iraq War. The F/A-18 Hornet provided the baseline design for the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, a larger, evolutionary redesign of the F/A-18.

Development:
The U.S. Navy started the Naval Fighter-Attack, Experimental (VFAX) program to procure a multirole aircraft to replace the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk, the A-7 Corsair II, and the remaining McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom IIs, and to complement the F-14 Tomcat. Vice Admiral Kent Lee, then head of Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), was the lead advocate for the VFAX against strong opposition from many Navy officers, including Vice Admiral William D. Houser, deputy chief of naval operations for air warfare – the highest ranking naval aviator.[3]

In August 1973, Congress mandated that the Navy pursue a lower-cost alternative to the F-14. Grumman proposed a stripped F-14 designated the F-14X, while McDonnell Douglas proposed a naval variant of the F-15, but both were nearly as expensive as the F-14.That summer, Secretary of Defense Schlesinger ordered the Navy to evaluate the competitors in the Air Force's Lightweight Fighter (LWF) program, the General Dynamics YF-16 and Northrop YF-17.The Air Force competition specified a day fighter with no strike capability. In May 1974, the House Armed Services Committee redirected $34 million from the VFAX to a new program, the Navy Air Combat Fighter (NACF),intended to make maximum use of the technology developed for the LWF program.

Though the YF-16 won the LWF competition, the Navy was skeptical that an aircraft with one engine and narrow landing gear could be easily or economically adapted to carrier service, and refused to adopt an F-16 derivative. On 2 May 1975 the Navy announced its selection of the YF-17.Since the LWF did not share the design requirements of the VFAX, the Navy asked McDonnell Douglas and Northrop to develop a new aircraft from the design and principles of the YF-17. On 1 March 1977 Secretary of the Navy W. Graham Claytor announced that the F-18 would be named "Hornet".

Northrop had partnered with McDonnell Douglas as a secondary contractor on NACF to capitalize on the latter's experience in building carrier aircraft, including the widely used F-4 Phantom II. On the F-18, the two companies agreed to evenly split component manufacturing, with McDonnell Douglas conducting final assembly. McDonnell Douglas would build the wings, stabilators, and forward fuselage; while Northrop would build the center and aft fuselage and vertical stabilizers. McDonnell Douglas was the prime contractor for the naval versions, and Northrop would be the prime contractor for the F-18L land-based version which Northrop hoped to sell on the export market.

The F-18, initially known as McDonnell Douglas Model 267, was drastically modified from the YF-17. For carrier operations, the airframe, undercarriage, and tailhook were strengthened, folding wings and catapult attachments were added, and the landing gear widened.To meet Navy range and reserves requirements, McDonnell increased fuel capacity by 4,460 pounds (2,020 kg), by enlarging the dorsal spine and adding a 96-gallon fuel tank to each wing. A "snag" was added to the wing's leading edge and stabilators to prevent an Aeroelastic flutter discovered in the F-15 stabilator. The wings and stabilators were enlarged, the aft fuselage widened by 4 inches (102 mm), and the engines canted outward at the front. These changes added 10,000 lb (4,540 kg) to the gross weight, bringing it to 37,000 lb (16,800 kg). The YF-17's control system was replaced with a fully digital fly-by-wire system with quadruple-redundancy, the first to be installed in a production fighter.

The first pre-production F-18A on display in October 1978.
Originally, it was planned to acquire a total of 780 aircraft of three variants: the single seat F-18A fighter and A-18A attack aircraft, differing only in avionics; and the dual-seat TF-18A, which retained full mission capability of the F-18 with a reduced fuel load.Following improvements in avionics and multifunction displays, and a redesign of external stores stations, the A-18A and F-18A were able to be combined into one aircraft.Starting in 1980, the aircraft began to be referred to as the F/A-18A, and the designation was officially announced on 1 April 1984. The TF-18A was redesignated F/A-18B.

Originally, it was planned to acquire a total of 780 aircraft of three variants: the single seat F-18A fighter and A-18A attack aircraft, differing only in avionics; and the dual-seat TF-18A, which retained full mission capability of the F-18 with a reduced fuel load.Following improvements in avionics and multifunction displays, and a redesign of external stores stations, the A-18A and F-18A were able to be combined into one aircraft.[4] Starting in 1980, the aircraft began to be referred to as the F/A-18A, and the designation was officially announced on 1 April 1984. The TF-18A was redesignated F/A-18B.

Northrop's F-18LEdit
Northrop developed the F-18L as a potential export aircraft. Since it was not strengthened for carrier service, it was expected to be lighter and better performing, and a strong competitor to the F-16 Fighting Falcon then being offered to American allies. The F-18L's maximum gross weight was 7,700 pounds (3,490 kg) (approximately 30%) lighter than the F/A-18A, via lighter landing gear, lack of wing folding mechanism, reduced part thickness in areas, and lower fuel-carrying capacity. Though the aircraft retained a lightened tailhook, the most obvious external difference was removed "snags" on the leading edge of the wings and stabilators. It still retained 71% commonality with the F/A-18 by parts weight, and 90% of the high-value systems, including the avionics, radar, and electronic countermeasure suite, though alternatives were offered. Unlike the F/A-18, the F-18L carried no fuel in its wings and lacked weapons stations on the intakes. It had three underwing pylons on each side instead.[9]The F/A-18L version followed to coincide with the US Navy's F/A-18A as a land-based export alternative. This was essentially an F/A-18A lightened by approximately 2,500 to 3,000 pounds (1,130 to 1,360 kg); weight was reduced by removing the folding wing and associated actuators, by implementing a simpler landing gear (single wheel nose gear and cantilever oleo main gear), and change to a land-based tail-hook. The revised F/A-18L included wing fuel tanks and fuselage stations of the F/A-18A. Its weapons capacity would increase from 13,700 to 20,000 pounds (6,210 to 9,070 kg); largely due to the addition of a third underwing pylon and strengthened wingtips (11 stations in total vs 9 stations of the F/A-18A). Compared to the F-18L, the outboard weapons pylons are moved closer to the wingtip missile rails. Because of the strengthened non-folding wing, the wingtip missile rails were designed to carry either the AIM-7 Sparrow or Skyflash medium-range air-to-air missiles, in addition to the AIM-9 Sidewinder as found on the F/A-18A. The F/A-18L was strengthened for a 9 g design load factor compared to the F/A-18A's 7.5 g factor.

The partnership between McDonnell Douglas and Northrop soured over competition for foreign sales for the two models. Northrop felt that McDonnell Douglas would put the F/A-18 in direct competition with the F-18L. In October 1979, Northrop filed a series of lawsuits charging that McDonnell was using Northrop technology developed for the F-18L for foreign sales in violation of their agreement, and asked for a moratorium on foreign sales of the Hornet via McDonnell Douglas. The case was resolved in 1985 when McDonnell agreed to pay Northrop $50 million for complete rights to the design, with no admission of wrongdoing. By then Northrop had ceased work on the F-18L, and most export orders were captured by the F-16 or the F/A-18.
During flight testing, the snag on the leading edge of the stabilators was filled in, and the gap between the Leading edge extensions (LEX) and the fuselage mostly filled in. The gaps, called the boundary layer air discharge (BLAD) slots, controlled the vortices generated by the LEX and presented clean air to the vertical stabilizers at high angles of attack, but they also generated a great deal of parasitic drag, worsening the problem of the F/A-18's inadequate range. McDonnell filled in 80% of the gap, leaving a small slot to bleed air from the engine intake. This may have contributed to early problems with fatigue cracks appearing on the vertical stabilizers due to extreme Structural loads, resulting in a short grounding in 1984 until the stabilizers were strengthened. Starting in May 1988, a small vertical fence was added to the top of each LEX to broaden the vortices and direct them away from the vertical stabilizers. This also provided a minor increase in controllability as a side effect.F/A-18s of early versions had a problem with insufficient rate of roll, exacerbated by the insufficient wing stiffness, especially with heavy underwing ordnance loads.

The first production F/A-18A flew on 12 April 1980. After a production run of 380 F/A-18As (including the nine assigned to flight systems development), manufacture shifted to the F/A-18C in September 1987.

Improvements and design changesEdit
In the 1990s, the U.S. Navy faced the need to replace its aging A-6 Intruders, and A-7 Corsair IIs with no replacement in development.To answer this deficiency, the Navy commissioned development of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Despite its designation, it is not just an upgrade of the F/A-18 Hornet, but rather, a new, larger airframe using the design concepts of the Hornet.
Hornets and Super Hornets will serve complementary roles in the U.S. Navy carrier fleet until the Hornet A-D models are completely replaced by the F-35C Lightning II. The Marines have chosen to extend the use of certain of their F/A-18s up to 10000 flight hours, due to delays in the F-35B version.
Design:
The F/A-18 is a twin engine, mid wing, multi-mission tactical aircraft. It is highly maneuverable, owing to its good thrust to weight ratio, digital fly-by-wire control system, and leading edge extensions (LEX). The LEX allow the Hornet to remain controllable at high angles of attack. The trapezoidal wing has a 20-degree sweepback on the leading edge and a straight trailing edge. The wing has full-span leading edge flaps and the trailing edge has single-slotted flaps and ailerons over the entire span.

Canted vertical stabilizers are another distinguishing design element, one among several other such elements that enable the Hornet's excellent high angle of attack ability include oversized horizontal stabilators, oversized trailing edge flaps that operate as flaperons, large full-length leading edge slats, and flight control computer programming that multiplies the movement of each control surface at low speeds and moves the vertical rudders inboard instead of simply left and right. The Hornet's normally high angle of attack performance envelope was put to rigorous testing and enhanced in the NASA F-18 High Alpha Research Vehicle (HARV). NASA used the F-18 HARV to demonstrate flight handling characteristics at high angle-of-attack (alpha) of 65–70 degrees using thrust vectoring vanes.F/A-18 stabilators were also used as canards on NASA's F-15S/MTD.

A F/A-18C Hornet in transonic flight exhibiting Prandtl-Glauert condensation
The Hornet was among the first aircraft to heavily use multi-function displays, which at the switch of a button allow a pilot to perform either fighter or attack roles or both. This "force multiplier" ability gives the operational commander more flexibility to employ tactical aircraft in a fast-changing battle scenario. It was the first Navy aircraft to incorporate a digital multiplexing avionics bus, enabling easy upgrades.[8]The Hornet is also notable for having been designed to reduce maintenance, and as a result has required far less downtime than its heavier counterparts, the F-14 Tomcat and the A-6 Intruder. Its mean time between failures is three times greater than any other Navy strike aircraft, and requires half the maintenance time.Its General Electric F404 engines were also innovative in that they were designed with operability, reliability and maintainability first. The engine, while unexceptional in rated performance, demonstrates exceptional robustness under various conditions and is resistant to stall and flameout.The F404 engine connects to the airframe at only 10 points and can be replaced without special equipment; a four-person team can remove the engine within 20 minutes.The engine air inlets of the Hornet, like that of the F-16, are of a simpler "fixed" design, while those of the F-4, F-14, and F-15 have variable geometry or variable intake ramp air inlets. This is a speed limiting factor in the Hornet design. Instead, the Hornet uses bleed air vents on the inboard surface of the engine air intake ducts to slow and reduce the amount of air reaching the engine. While not as effective as variable geometry, the bleed air technique functions well enough to achieve near Mach number 2 speeds, which is within the designed mission requirements.

A 1989 USMC study found that single-seat fighters were well suited to air-to-air combat missions while dual-seat fighters were favored for complex strike missions against heavy air and ground defenses in adverse weather—the question being not so much as to whether a second pair of eyes would be useful, but as to having the second crewman sit in the same fighter or in a second fighter. Single-seat fighters that lacked wingmen were shown to be especially vulnerable.

Post by **Andreas** » Tue Jun 30, 2015 11:11 pm

Thank you for letting me take part in this sig..
Looking forward to the next one..

Post by **Paul** » Tue Jul 14, 2015 11:32 pm

Great work andreas and the final reveal looks amazing too