[Andrew]

Finally had some time to take some better photos of my new aquisition.
I've also included a couple of photos with the wing down for anyone who is interested to see how big the gap is etc

[Andrew]

And from the Company that brought you some of America's ugliest aircraft.......

[Rush104]

Originally Posted by Andrew

And from the Company that brought you some of America's ugliest aircraft.......

Great pics, Andrew! But, I'm not seeing any General Dynamics or Republic aircraft in there...

[David Hingtgen]

Hate to say it, but the wing's still not high enough. It'd do for a J, but not an E.

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by David Hingtgen

Hate to say it, but the wing's still not high enough. It'd do for a J, but not an E.

Well, I wouldn't know the difference and i'm guessing that it won't hold back people from purchasing one of these

[lanslide]

David, you know we love you, but the wing is close enough for government work!
Andrew, those are awesome photos - thank you for posting them - I can't wait any longer for my "clean config" Crusader!

[firefighterpilot1]

Originally Posted by Andrew

Well, I wouldn't know the difference and i'm guessing that it won't hold back people from purchasing one of these

You're right Andrew. The wing may not raise as high as we'd like, but it's still avery sharp looking model, and I will still be buying several versions.

[kb466]

As much as the height of the wing, I am concerned about the "holes" where the under-wing bomb racks mount-- is there some sort of filler piece for this opening when the bomb racks are not mounted? The reason I raise this issue is that the USN Crusaders very seldom were fitted out with these bomb racks as a matter of course. Unlike the USMC birds, which were usually fitted out with air-to-ground ordinance, the USN F-8's seemed to usually carry air-to-air weaponry. I suppose I could make some filler plugs for these locations on my CW USN Crusaders if I want.

All that being said, this Crusader really looks great-- I can't wait to get mine!

[rdenham]

Thanks for posting more pics, I am glad to see you were able to get the wing to raise up a bit more. It looks as if you were able to raise the wing twice as high it would be spot on.

Maybe some adventurous soul will give their F-8’s wing an even stronger tug and see if we can prove CW to be just as accurate as we would expect them to be.

I may be a bit of a rivet counter but this bird is so good looking it is definitely on my short list.

[David Hingtgen]

redenham---hate to be even more nit-picky than I usually am, but you're still posting a pic of a real J to use as a comparison to the Century E, for their wing height-----when the J and E have different wing heights.

Can't find any good pics online, and my scanner's not hooked up, so a model kit will have to do. Look here:


The wing should be so high, that there's a gap between the fuselage and wing when viewed from the front. No part of the wing should be "hidden" behind the fuselage. You should be able to see the ENTIRE front red section of the wing, with space to spare.

PS--yeah, what's with the "trench" around the wing pylon mount? The A-7 basically has a "slot"---but the F-8 has a big pylon-shaped trench carved into the wing *around* the slot too---that's far worse and uglier than the A-7's slots.