Admiral Toys Information Q&A (Jason)

Ask Questions & Chat with representatives of the small scale companies!
Jason of Admiral Toys
Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
Posts: 336
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 10:26 pm
Location: Houston
Contact:

Post by Jason of Admiral Toys » Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:16 pm

As promised, I wanted to give a little more insight into the process and difficulties of making these great aircraft.

The following file will both explain and support BBI’s decision to make the landing gear on their 1:32 scale F-4 removable. We did not want to do the same, but we were and if produced, are going to follow suit. We like more detail over unreliable design on our aircraft. Keep It Simple Stupid was lost somewhere along the way. I like the decision of BBI and from the following photos you too may see why I totally support their decision.

Following is a small description of the F-4 and troubles we had in the decision of this great aircraft:

Here is the Admiral Toys’ 1:18 scale F-4. What I will show in this file is the difficulty of manufacturing landing gear to both fulfill the need of a highly accurate model versus a toy that has the landing gear articulate, move up and down.

Image

In the above photo you will notice that one of the struts is a lot thinner then the other. This is because of moths on discussions on how to make the landing gear rotate up and down and retain the look of the F-4 that is expected. No the thin strut would not make it into final production. I will explain a little later.

Image

Look how small the area is that has to fit these massive landing gear.

We chose to recreate the F-4 C,D,J. With minor changes we are able to produce these three models. The major reason we chose the CDJ versions is for a particular paint scheme that we had planed to produce in one of those variants. Secondly, the landing gear are all the same on these models. The B version had much narrower landing gear struts and tires that required no modification in the 1:1 of the wings to hold them in the closed position. When the C and beyond models were developed they change the landing gear struts and wheels to support hard field and soft field landings as well as the previous carrier landings. This required a stronger undercarriage and thick struts and tires. Even in the 1:1 model they engineered a noticeable hump in the upper surface of the wing to hold the larger gear.

Image
As you can see there is very little room to fit the landing gear into the well. The doors on the 1:1 have a hump that assists but it does not translate into the 1:18 models. Our plastic is too thick to get away with the same engineering. We would have to change the appearance to get the fit.

Image
In this photo you can see the noticeable hump that is engineered into the bottom side of the wing. We were going to try and exaggerate it by changing the height of the hump on both the underside of the wing and the upper surface of the wings in these locations:

Image
and here:
Image
Please forgive my amateur drawings on the computer. China had a good laugh as well. But they get the point. I asked that they change “gradually” the upper surface of the wing from .01 to 2 millimeters and the under surface by 2 millimeters. That is how much more room is needed to fit the struts and fat tires in the wing.

Image
Now you can laugh at my amateur drawings. Here is another problem with the landing gear for the F-4. As you can by the above photos they have a complicated closing angel. They rotate before locking into position. Not to difficult, but if you think about the weight of this model, there is a lot of plastic being help up. So the more complicated the landing gear the more likely they are to fail.

This leads me to why you see a thin strut in a lot of these photos. That part is designed to be metal and have the decorative strut surround done in Plastic. We do not want to do the entire strut in metal because (1) you lose definition and (2) cost.

Image

Look at this photo again. It pretty much sums up the problems.

1. Look at the right tire. Notice its fat and mean appearance. But then look at the left tire; notice how it looks tin and wimpy. Unfortunately the left tire is the only size tire that would fit in the wing if you wanted to retain the 1:1 appearance of the thickness of the wings. I know you would have had a lot to say if we put that tire on our aircraft!

2. Look at both tires and notice that the plastic is bent and compressing against the tires where the tire attaches to the strut. This is because of the massive weight of this aircraft. And this model has no ordinance, paint, pilot, or pressure from your hands that would not be able to stay off this awesome model. Therefore the metal gear would be necessary. Metal does not like to bend and rotate like plastic. Plastic is more forgiving. Therefore, the movements this landing gear require, if made articulating, would have been impossible for a solid metal landing gear. Plastic with a metal shaft inside is more appropriate.

3. Just look the above photo. As messed up as the aircraft is in that photo… it is one awesome aircraft in 1:18. I cannot wait to pick one up for $89.99 from 21st.

The front landing gear does not have a problem:
Image.

I was interrupted while producing this file and have to cut it short. I hope I did not waste my time, and more importantly your time, with this post. I hope you enjoy seeing a little more into the process. When I have more time I will continue my discussion of the F-4 and other aircraft.

Regards,
Jason
Last edited by Jason of Admiral Toys on Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

KAGNEW
Officer - Lt. Colonel
Officer - Lt. Colonel
Posts: 1089
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:23 pm
Location: 1 Charlottesville VA USA
Contact:

Post by KAGNEW » Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:25 pm

WOW!!!!!!!!
build it PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Phabulous Phantoms Phorever rule the sky
and Starfighters Rule the Stars

http://WWW.Panda-Hobby.COM

Jericoeagle1
Officer - Major
Officer - Major
Posts: 978
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:15 pm
Location: Yelm, Washington

Post by Jericoeagle1 » Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:25 pm

Too cool Jason thanks for the in depth input. I wondered why the BBI Phantom did not have retracts, it all makes sense now. If it makes for a stronger more scale model I can live without them for a 1/18 F-4. Thanks for the great pictures too your Phantom would have been spectacular.

I noticed the Dauntless in the background in the first picture it looks like a small assembly line in your office there.
A little song, A little dance, A little seltzer down your pants!~~~Chuckles the Clown.

User avatar
grunt1
Officer - Brigadier General
Officer - Brigadier General
Posts: 2976
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:41 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Post by grunt1 » Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:33 pm

KAGNEW wrote:WOW!!!!!!!!
build it PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Uh yeah Jason.. wow... :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D
-----------------------------------------------------------
-------- Need a list of everything 1:18? --------
---------- http://www.sshqdb.com
--------------
---- Built by the community, for the community ----
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Store: http://www.battlegroundmodels.com

Sabrefan
Officer - Brigadier General
Officer - Brigadier General
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana. The heart of cajun country.

Post by Sabrefan » Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:42 pm

Thanks Jason for the great info. From day one, I have been saying the best feature of the BBI F-4J was its landing gear. Thanks for explaining why. :D
Paul Hebert

It's been a long road, but I am still in the game. :)

KAGNEW
Officer - Lt. Colonel
Officer - Lt. Colonel
Posts: 1089
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:23 pm
Location: 1 Charlottesville VA USA
Contact:

Post by KAGNEW » Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:55 pm

I don't play with them, i hang'um high or set then on table or shelf. so i would rather have snap in metal gear any way. looks better i think
Phabulous Phantoms Phorever rule the sky
and Starfighters Rule the Stars

http://WWW.Panda-Hobby.COM

CW4USARMY
Officer - Brigadier General
Officer - Brigadier General
Posts: 1859
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 4:32 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Post by CW4USARMY » Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:46 pm

Thanks for the insight Jason. When can we pre-order one? :D

Jericoeagle1
Officer - Major
Officer - Major
Posts: 978
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:15 pm
Location: Yelm, Washington

Post by Jericoeagle1 » Thu Jan 24, 2008 4:10 pm

CW4USARMY wrote:Thanks for the insight Jason. When can we pre-order one? :D
Golly Gee, theres no need to pre-order why 21st Century is gonna have one out lickity split real soon! And we all know they keep thier promises! :roll:
A little song, A little dance, A little seltzer down your pants!~~~Chuckles the Clown.

olifant
Officer - Brigadier General
Officer - Brigadier General
Posts: 2536
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:51 am
Location: 1, USA, Olympia, Washington

Post by olifant » Thu Jan 24, 2008 4:56 pm

Jason, I think you are correct to back burner the F-4. Let 21C come out with theirs while you concentrate on the Dauntless and Spad. Make your money off those ( I promise I will buy! ) and if 21C falls down you can always dust off your Phantom.

Speaking of spending my $$, any updates on the two planes in the pipeline?

Thanks as always for your time, support and insight.
[url=http://imageshack.us][img]http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/5374/sshqvdjx0.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=375&i=sshqvdjx0.jpg][img]http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/5374/sshqvdjx0.937d18e174.jpg[/img][/url]

boyx30
Sergeant
Sergeant
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 9:03 am

Post by boyx30 » Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:07 pm

I saw someone mention the word SPAD above?....kidding right?...please this isn't right to tease in this way!

Jason of Admiral Toys
Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
Posts: 336
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 10:26 pm
Location: Houston
Contact:

Post by Jason of Admiral Toys » Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:25 pm

boyx30 wrote:I saw someone mention the word SPAD above?....kidding right?...please this isn't right to tease in this way!
Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Have you not seen these? Sorry if I have not talked about it enough .

Regards,
Jason

Birddog
Officer - Brigadier General
Officer - Brigadier General
Posts: 1917
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:06 pm
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by Birddog » Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:30 pm

Thank you again for such a great post Jason!!!!
Go Ugly Early in 1/18!!

Still waiting and wishing for a 1/18 A-10 Warthog.

olifant
Officer - Brigadier General
Officer - Brigadier General
Posts: 2536
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:51 am
Location: 1, USA, Olympia, Washington

Post by olifant » Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:36 pm

My God, that is beautiful to behold! Jason, please, any word on possible release dates for the Dauntless and Spad?
[url=http://imageshack.us][img]http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/5374/sshqvdjx0.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=375&i=sshqvdjx0.jpg][img]http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/5374/sshqvdjx0.937d18e174.jpg[/img][/url]

EnemyAce
Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 2:28 pm

Post by EnemyAce » Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:52 pm

Beautiful birds and thanks for the updates!

I think somepeople heard "Spad" and got their hopes up for WWI birds. You gotta admit, that would be awesome. Pegasus has apparently had some big success with their "alternative" 1:18 bird, the Gee Bee, and I've noticed that the popularity of WWI aviation is on the upswing, and there is that Red Baron movie on the way...

Yeah, a SPad or a Fokker would be reeeally nice.... :)

boyx30
Sergeant
Sergeant
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 9:03 am

Post by boyx30 » Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:09 am

apparently I am not up on the lingo you young kids are using now..I thought SPAD was yes WWI....so since I am apparently uninformed..exactly what does FUBAR mean?...lol...

tkjaer21
Officer - Major
Officer - Major
Posts: 1042
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 7:18 pm
Location: Norman, OK

Post by tkjaer21 » Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:03 pm

Jason, I was just double checking if AT would be at the 2008 G.I.Joe Convention from June 26th - 29th in the Dallas, TX area? Just do it, you are in the area anyway.

The February Issue of the G.I.Joe Collector's Club Newsletter states that the 2008 G.I.Joe Convention will be held June 26th - 29th in the Dallas, TX area.

The Group Code for the Hotel is JoeCon.
Reserve your room by calling 800-362-2779.

pickelhaube
Officer - Brigadier General
Officer - Brigadier General
Posts: 9497
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:52 am
Location: New Orleans

Post by pickelhaube » Mon Jan 28, 2008 6:23 pm

Hey Jason. I had a problem with the landing gear on the Tony I am working on. I had a thickness problem 2 1/2 years ago when I came to a hold on it. It stoped me dead in my tracks and then the storm hit. If there is any hope of having a Wildc :wink: at in the future removable landing gear is the only way to go. Stick the gear in take it out close the wheel doors.
Kirk Douglas : Mine hit the ground first
John Wayne : Mine was taller



Image

Spudkopf
Officer - Captain
Officer - Captain
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 4:39 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Spudkopf » Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:59 pm

boyx30 wrote:apparently I am not up on the lingo you young kids are using now..I thought SPAD was yes WWI....so since I am apparently uninformed..exactly what does FUBAR mean?...lol...
As the A-1 was an obsolete type when it entered service with the USAF in SEA the nick-name SPAD was coined to describe this prop fighter from another era, along with the B-26k they were said to belong to the antique air force.

G'day Jason

Thanks for the update, however may I suggest a possible solution to reduce the amount of strut protrudence, why not go for the common solution of moulding the strut integral with the gear door as this would both reduce the area needed and at the same time supply ample strength to support the weight of the aircraft, also possibly allowing a thicker wheel/tyre to fit into the given space. I personally would have no qualms with this design solution as it is used on many model aircraft including some in 1/18th.
SPUD


Something's up with photobucket?????

Image

olifant
Officer - Brigadier General
Officer - Brigadier General
Posts: 2536
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:51 am
Location: 1, USA, Olympia, Washington

Post by olifant » Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:12 pm

Spud, I thought this was a squadron callsign/nickname. I think the same thing goes for the Sandy/Hobo/Zorro/Firefly moniker also. Or am I incorrect and these nicknames existed before VN? Sorry, this is not my area of expertise...
[url=http://imageshack.us][img]http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/5374/sshqvdjx0.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=375&i=sshqvdjx0.jpg][img]http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/5374/sshqvdjx0.937d18e174.jpg[/img][/url]

tmanthegreat
Officer - Brigadier General
Officer - Brigadier General
Posts: 11187
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 7:38 pm
Location: Central California

Post by tmanthegreat » Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:02 am

That A-1 will be one heck of a fighter! I just might get one now that I think about it :wink:
"If you fail to plan, you plan to fail."

Spudkopf
Officer - Captain
Officer - Captain
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 4:39 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Spudkopf » Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:48 am

olifant wrote:Spud, I thought this was a squadron callsign/nickname. I think the same thing goes for the Sandy/Hobo/Zorro/Firefly moniker also. Or am I incorrect and these nicknames existed before VN? Sorry, this is not my area of expertise...
Able-Dog was the Navy nick-name derived from the aircrafts frenetic designation AD-1~7 (the AD designation was later standardized across both arms to A for Attack), although both the Air Force and Navy did refer to the AD-5 (A-1E) as Fat Face.

Where-as SPAD or more accurately Super SPAD was the Fast Movers (Jet Jokey) derogatory for the A-1, suggesting that the Skyraider’s speed or lack thereof was more akin to WWI vintage aircraft, however the SPAD drivers whore this name with pride. The only on-line reference I could quickly find is from "The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English": http://books.google.com/books?id=mAdUqL ... JrwIfw6ZPs

My understanding is that Sandy, Hobo , Zorro and Firefly are the Air Force mission/squradron type call-signs for the SPAD, i.e. Sandy was the call-sign for the dedicated SAR (Search and Rescue) flight although any available flight could take over as a Sandy or FAC when called upon.

Some recommended reading for the SPAD:
My Secret War
Cheating Death
The Flying Dump Truck

Good online refernces:
http://skyraider.org/skyassn/index.htm
http://skyraider.org/hook/index.htm
SPUD


Something's up with photobucket?????

Image

warhawker
Officer - Captain
Officer - Captain
Posts: 769
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:04 am
Location: DFW, Texas - USA
Contact:

Post by warhawker » Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:34 am

Jason,
Whatever happen to the Kate? Is that still on the block to be done?
I may have missed the update on this.

Teamski
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3565
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Post by Teamski » Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:45 pm

Great shots Jason! THanks for sharing. I'm not a big fan of the SPAD, but it will be on my list of "must haves" for sure. The detailing is spectacular!

And, a big thanks for your visual narrative on the F-4. I couldn't begin to know just how tough it must me to create a model like that!

-Ski
[url=http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2869983520050168193AYuxRR][img]http://inlinethumb18.webshots.com/8785/2869983520050168193S600x600Q85.jpg[/img][/url]

Post Reply