T-33 Twin tail

[The Big Gimper]

A T-33 Twin tail smack down, no prisoners, winner takes all build between kitnit617 and The Big Gimper.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Let The Boss Battle Begin! 

[kitnut617]

I am going to repost the photos I found on SPF again here so you won't have to switch from thread to thread to see how close we get to the real thing.

This T-33, serial 514263 was converted to a Twin Tail as an early design for the TV-2 Seastar program but after some testing, wasn't continued with. The aircraft however still exists, although converted back into a standard T-33.

From Joe Baugher's USAF Serial Numbers website.

4263 modified by Lockheed with twin fins and rudders while being considered for the TV-2 deck landing trainer.
               Now mounted on pylon at K. I. Sawyer Heritage Air Museum, Michigan.

[kitnut617]

I'll be using this Hasegawa kit. Carl and myself have decided to add a bit of spice to the thread, by just showing the boxing we're going to use and not reveal the tail modifications until each is finished. The build though is mostly just building a T-33 so nothing really exciting to show as the Hasegawa kit is quite basic. What changes to the tail though, are fairly minor, some fins and revised horizontal tail plane. The process of which will be revealed at the end.

Oh! and this is not a 48 hr build BTW ---- There's no way I'm going to rush a build like that ---   

The kit;

[The Big Gimper]

Same kit as Robert's. Just an older boxing.


T-33-TT by Big Gimper, on Flickr

[Frank3k]

A P-38 Lightning can provide the tail surfaces with some trimming.

I'm cheering on the guy from Canada!

[The Big Gimper]

So is that Robert or me?   

[Frank3k]

yes!

[kitnut617]

Well, for a Hasegawa kit I'm really disappointed with it. Every part of it has a massive amount of flash included, it's so bad I thought Hasegawa had used some other manufacturers moulds. A check in the PAK-20 book reveals it's one of Hasegawa's first kits though.

[Frank3k]

It builds OK, though - some gaps, IIRC between the intake and the fuselage and between the ventral tail and the mating tailless fuselage, which shouldn't be a problem for this build.

[Brian da Basher]

Best of luck, Mr Gimper!

While that kit's a bit of an artifact, you can still make a quite creditable model from it.

Or you can build them the way I did.

Brian da Basher

[Old Wombat]

Carl may be starting with a slight advantage over Robert, here, as the older kit doesn't seem to have much flash at all.

Personally, I think Canada's going to win.

[elmayerle]

Well, for a Hasegawa kit I'm really disappointed with it. Every part of it has a massive amount of flash included, it's so bad I thought Hasegawa had used some other manufacturers moulds. A check in the PAK-20 book reveals it's one of Hasegawa's first kits though.

IIRC, the original molds are on the order of 50 years old and I would expect a lot of flash in that case.

[kitnut617]

Well, for a Hasegawa kit I'm really disappointed with it. Every part of it has a massive amount of flash included, it's so bad I thought Hasegawa had used some other manufacturers moulds. A check in the PAK-20 book reveals it's one of Hasegawa's first kits though.

IIRC, the original molds are on the order of 50 years old and I would expect a lot of flash in that case.

Yeah you're right Evan, 1970's. But I bought the kit back in 2002 time   

[apophenia]

I'm cheering on the guy from Canada!

 

This is gonna be fun 

[elmayerle]

Well, for a Hasegawa kit I'm really disappointed with it. Every part of it has a massive amount of flash included, it's so bad I thought Hasegawa had used some other manufacturers moulds. A check in the PAK-20 book reveals it's one of Hasegawa's first kits though.

IIRC, the original molds are on the order of 50 years old and I would expect a lot of flash in that case.

Yeah you're right Evan, 1970's. But I bought the kit back in 2002 time   

I could be wrong, but I believe it dates from the 1960's, I believe I remember seeing it in a hobby shop my freshman year of college (Fall, 1969 - Spring, 1970).

[finsrin]

Invigorating endeavor you two are taking on.

Is underlying reason for T-33 twin tail to park/maintain them in low cost low ceiling hangers ?

[The Big Gimper]

@Bill: From Wings of Fame, Volume 16

During the definition phase for the Lockheed T2V-1 SeaStar carrier-based trainer version of the T-33 Shooting Star, one T-33 was modified with twin vertical tails as part of program to see if the post-stall stability of the T-33 could be improved. The Navy had concerns about the stability in the carrier landing pattern of a naval adaptation of the T-33.

Aircraft 51-4263 was modified with an enlarged horizontal tailplane with rounded end vertical fins. The rear fuselage tailpipe was also modified and some accounts also note a rudimentary arresting system added to the underside of the fuselage as well. Various shapes and materials were also trialed on this particular aircraft before it was returned to stock T-33 configuration.

The project was never publicized by Lockheed and Naval History Office has no records of this aircraft. Sometimes called NT-33, according to two individuals who worked on it it had no formal designation. The twin tail configuration was never adopted for the SeaStar as Lockheed elected to enlarge the vertical fin and move the horizontal tailplane further up the fin on the production T2V-1.

Source: Wings of Fame, Volume 16. AIRtime Publishing/Aerospace Publishing, 1999, "T-Birds and Silver Stars: Lockheed T-33/T2V Variants by Robert F. Dorr, p111-112.

[kitnut617]

I'm cheering on the guy from Canada!

But …. but …. Guy is Australian ----   

[Old Wombat]

 

[ChernayaAkula]

<...>
Is underlying reason for T-33 twin tail to park/maintain them in low cost low ceiling hangers ?

To give a greater firing arc for the tail-gunner, surely. 

[zenrat]

Well, for a Hasegawa kit I'm really disappointed with it. Every part of it has a massive amount of flash included, it's so bad I thought Hasegawa had used some other manufacturers moulds. A check in the PAK-20 book reveals it's one of Hasegawa's first kits though.

IIRC, the original molds are on the order of 50 years old and I would expect a lot of flash in that case.

Yeah you're right Evan, 1970's. But I bought the kit back in 2002 time   

I could be wrong, but I believe it dates from the 1960's, I believe I remember seeing it in a hobby shop my freshman year of college (Fall, 1969 - Spring, 1970).

According to Scalemates the T33 mould dates from '69.

[kitnut617]

OK, I'm calling my build done ---

[Frank3k]

Wow - That looks amazing! What did you use for the tail? They look like B-25 fins.

[kitnut617]

Much like what you had originally thought Frank, my first thoughts when seeing the photos was P-38 tail surfaces. Although they turned out not quite the same.

Here I had scaled the profile to match the kit fuselage, cut some fins off a P-38 boom and then re-shaped the fins. You'll notice the rudder hinge isn't in the same place either, I had to re-scribe them once I had done all the sanding.



Before the painting started.

[finsrin]

Another iconic Lockheed twin tail.  Looks hard core 1950s. 

[Old Wombat]

 

[kitnut617]

Thanks guys ---

[The Rat]

Oh yeah, that looks the business! 

[kitnut617]

Thanks Dave ---

[GTX_Admin]

 

[kitnut617]

Thanks Greg ---

[Robomog]

Nice one kitnut,  really .looks the biz 

Mog
>^-.-^<

[ChernayaAkula]

Nice work! 

[apophenia]

Dang that looks good! Excellent work 

[kitnut617]

Thanks Stephen, Moritz, Mog ----

[The Big Gimper]

Robert wins the race with an awesome build!  I'm the hare and he is the tortoise.

Mine will be a "production" version. Tail is from a F-84 and the Hobby Craft C-45. I've added "hooks" for the catapult bridle, arrestor hook and a tail bumper.


CT-133N-01 by Big Gimper, on Flickr


CT-133N-02 by Big Gimper, on Flickr

[kitnut617]

I can't wait to see your finished build Carl  -------