View allAll Photos Tagged Capable
The opening of the Connaught Bridge Generating Station, on the Klang River in Selangor, in March 1953 was a real milestone int he history of what was then Malaya - now Malaysia. The power station, capable of being either coal or oil fired, was at 80,000kw by far the largest generating station at the time in the country and, as importantly, the project included elements of a new proposed Malayan 'National Grid' that linked existing stations such as the hydro-electric plant at Chenderoh with stations and locations along the East Coast centred on the Bungsar station in Kuala Lumpur that hitherto had supplied the bulk of the capital's power requirements. As the booklet notes it meant an end to the long post-war years of restriction of supply to both industrial and domestic consumers.
The station was originally planned in 1944 by the Malayan Planning Unit in London in anticipation of the return to Malaya after the end of the Japanses occupation. A provisional order for the equipment was placed in 1945, with additional equipment following in 1947. Meanwhile the site at Connaught Bridge alongside the Klang River was selected in 1946 with the contract to start construction given by the Federation's Government in 1949. The first phase of the station, plant and the double circuit 66kv interconnecting lines running the 23 miles to Kuala Lumpur, was ready for opening in March 1953. Full commissioning came in 1955. Initailly the output was linked to the Bangsar (KL) station and that of Ulu Langat hydro-electric station. Construction of the former had started in 1926 and was opened in 1927 by the Government electricity department and in 1933 they purchased the Ulu Langat station from the Sungei Besi Mines Ltd. KL's earlier supplies, from 1905, had been provided from a small hydro-electric plant on the Gombak River, 12 miles from the town, what had two 400kw Pelton wheel-alternators. This had been augmented in 1919 by a mixed steam and diesel engine plant at Gombak Lane in the centre of KL.
Elsewhere, Penang's Municipal Department was the first to supply electriicty within Malaya when it started in 1904 - the station on the mainland at Prai came into use in 1926. By this date electricity was available in Ipoh, Johore Bahru (and Singapore), Seremban and Malacca/Melaka. That at Johore Bahru under the Johore adminsitraion grew to include Muar, Batu Pahat, Kluang, Kota Tinggi and Segamat. In Perak supplies were largely in the hands of the Perak River Hydro-Electric Power Company who operated stations at Malim Nawar (1928) and Chenderoh (1929). In North Perak the Government supplied Taiping and in Province Wellesley Messrs. Huttenbach's bought bulk supply from Penang and supplied power to various towns, supplemented by diesel generating stations in Kedah, Perak and Negri Sembilan. Power came to Kota Bharu (Kelantan), Ruab, Bentong, Kuala Lipis and Kuantan between 1928 and 1931, and in 1938 and 1939 to Mentakab, Fraser's Hill and Kuala Kubu.
In 1946 the Malayan Union Government acquired most electricity undertakings except those of private companies and Penang Corporation whilst it also fully acquired the undertkaing operated by the Malacca Electric Light Company in 1948 that it has previously run on a rental basis. On the 1 September 1949 the new Central Electricity Board of the Federation fo Malaya came into existance and took over all functions of the old Electricity Department.
The booklet is marvellously detailed and illustrated describing the site, the power station, ancilliary equipment and other works, such as staff accomodaton and housing, with photographs and plans. The latter include a map of the proposed Malayan Grid and the plans show the works designed by both the staff of the Central Electricity Board and the consulting engineers, Preece, Cardew and Rider, and civil engineers Coode and Partners. The station took cooling water from the Klang River and could be powered by either fuel oil (via a pipeline from Port Swettenham) and coal via connections with the Malayan Railways and the colliery at Batu Arang.
Needless to say much of the equipment was supplied from the UK - Parsons generators and transformers and switchgear from various manufacturers including British Thomson Houston.
The photos are great as they show named members of the operating staff at work which is unusual but that now provided a real social history to the economic history of electricity supply in Malaysia.
I am capable of posting something other than Norway...
This is the Philadelphia instantiation of The Thinker. On a related note, the art scene in Philadelphia is fantastic. If you've never been, there is much to see, including the wonderful Art Museum(s).
More Norway coming up.... ;)
Thanks for looking!
_________________________________________________
Comments and constructive criticism always appreciated.
Stream on Black....Follow on Facebook....My Profile (to get to webpage)
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) T-45 Goshawk was a highly modified version of the BAe Hawk land-based training jet aircraft. Manufactured by McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) and British Aerospace (now BAe Systems), the T-45 was used by the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps (USMC) as an aircraft carrier-capable trainer.
The Goshawk's origins began in the mid-1970s, when the US Navy began looking for a single aircraft replacement for both its T-2 and TA-4 jet trainers. The US Navy started the VTXTS advanced trainer program in 1978. Several companies made submissions, e. g. North American or Northrop/Vought. Due to the size of the potential contract, European companies made submissions, too, including a navalized Alpha Jet from Dassault/Dornier and a fully carrier-capable version of the BAe Hawk Mk.60, mutually proposed by British Aerospace (BAe) and McDonnell Douglas (MDC). The latter eventually won the competition and BAe and MDC were awarded the T-45 contract in 1981.
The Hawk had not been designed for carrier operations and numerous modifications were required to make it suitable for use on carriers. These included improvements to the low-speed handling characteristics and a reduction in the approach speed. It was found that the aircraft was apt to stall at the low approach speed required. Modifications were designed by BAe in England; most notably a simple slat system was devised, operated by an actuator and linkage mechanism to fit into the small space available. Strakes were also added on the fuselage to improve airflow. Other changes were a strengthened airframe, a more robust and wider landing gear with a two-wheel nose landing gear, a catapult tow bar attachment and an arresting hook. The modified aircraft was christened “Goshawk”, flew in 1988 for the first time and became operational in 1991.
Beyond being a naval trainer the T-45 was also adapted for first-line duty with strike capabilities, in the form of the OA-45 for the USMC. The role of this aircraft dated back to the Vietnam War when twenty-three A-4 two-seaters were converted into OA-4Ms for “FastFAC” (Fast Forward Air Controller) missions, in order to control interdiction sorties dedicated to shaping the battlefield for future operations. Basically, the OA-4M was a TA-4F equipped with A-4M electronics. The most visible and characteristic change was the fitting of the A-4M’s dorsal electronics hump, neatly faired into the rear of the two-seat canopy. The nose sensor group of the OA-4M was basically the same as that of the A-4M, but the Angle/Rate Bombing system was not installed as it would not be needed.
When the T-45 was introduced in the early Nineties, the USMCs OA-4Ms had reached the end of their service life and the USMC started looking for a replacement, wanting a comparable, light and fast fixed-wing aircraft. The USMC did not accept the LTV A-7 as an A-4 replacement (even though a two-seater version was available), because it was already dated, too, and not part of the USMC inventory. The USMC's A-4Ms were supposed to be replaced by the VTOL AV-8 by the mid-nineties, but the AV-8, even as a two-seater, was deemed unsuitable for FFAC duties. The new T-45 looked like a good and economical alternative with future potential, since the airframe was brand new and the type's infrastructure was fully established, so that a small number of specialized aircraft could easily be supported without much extra cost.
With fresh experience from the 1st Gulf War in 1990-91 the decision was made to buy 25 extra T-45A airframes and convert them to OA-45A standard. Most important change were modified wings, using structures and systems from the BAe Hawk 100 series. While the T-45 only had two underwing and a single ventral hardpoint, the OA-45A featured a total of seven: four underwing and one ventral hardpoints, plus wingtip stations for defensive air-to-air missiles. Upgraded avionics allowed the deployment of a wide range of external stores, including air-to-ground missiles and rocket launchers, a reconnaissance pod, retarded and free-fall bombs of up to 1,000 pounds (450 kg) caliber, runway cratering, anti-personnel and light armor bombs, cluster bombs, practice bombs as well as external fuel tanks and ECM pods. This was a vital asset, since Desert Storm had proved that FFAC aircraft had to have an offensive capability to handle targets of opportunity on their own, when no air assets to control were available. A total ordnance load of up to 6,800 lb (3,085 kg) was possible, even though the aircraft was not supposed to play an offensive role and rather act from a distance, relying on its small size and agility.
Communication modifications for the FastFAC role included a KY-28 secure voice system, an ARC-159 radio and an ARC-114 VHF radio. Similar to the Skyhawk, a hump behind the cockpit had to be added to make room for the additional electronic equipment and a heat exchanger. Other additions were a continuous-wave Doppler navigation radar under a shallow ventral radome underneath the cockpit, a ground control bombing system, an APN-194 altimeter, an ALR-45 radar warning suite, a retrofitted, fixed midair refueling probe and cockpit armor plating that included Kevlar linings on the floor and the lower side walls as well as externally mounted armor plates for the upper areas.
VMA-131 of Marine Aircraft Group 49 (the Diamondbacks) retired its last four OA-4Ms on 22 June 1994, and the new OA-45A arrived just in time to replace the venerable Skyhawk two-seaters in the FastFAC role. Trainer versions of the Skyhawk remained in Navy service, however, finding a new lease on life with the advent of "adversary training". OA-45A deliveries were finished in 1996 and the 25 aircraft were distributed among the newly established Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron (MALS, formerly Headquarters & Maintenance Squadron/H&MS) 12 & 13. The USMC crews soon nicknamed their new mounts "GosHog", to underlöine ist offensive capabilities and to set themselves apart from the USN's "tame" trainers. Even though thos name was never officially approved it caught on quickly.
After initial experience with the new aircraft and in the wake of technological advances, the USMC decided to upgrade the OA-45As in 2000 to improve its effectiveness and interaction capabilities with ground troops. This primarily resulted in the addition of a forward-looking infrared camera laser in the aircraft’s nose section, which enabled the aircraft to execute all-weather/night reconnaissance and to illuminate targets for laser-guided infantry shells or ordnance launched by the OA-45 itself or by other aircraft. Through this measure the OA-45 became capable of carrying and independently deploying light laser-guided smart weapons like the GBU-12 and -16 “Paveway II” glide bombs or the laser-guided AGM-65E “Maverick” variant. The update was gradually executed during regular overhauls in the course of 2001 and 2002 (no new airframes were built/converted), the modified machines received the new designation OA-45B.
After this update phase, the OA-45Bs were deployed in several global conflicts and saw frequent use in the following years. For instance, MALS 13 used its OA-45Bs operationally for the first time in October 2002 when the squadron was tasked with providing support to six AV-8B Harrier aircraft in combat operations in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom. This mission lasted until October 2003, four aircraft were allocated and one OA-45B was lost during a landing accident.
On 15 January 2003, MALS 13 embarked 205 Marines and equipment aboard the USS Bonhomme Richard in support of combat operations in Southwest Asia during Operation Southern Watch. Four OA-45Bs successfully supported these troops from land bases, marking targets and flying reconnaissance missions.
Furthermore, six MALS 13 OA-45Bs took actively part in Operation Iraqi Freedom from Al Jaber Air Base, Kuwait, and An Numiniyah Expeditionary Air Field, Iraq, where the aircraft worked closely together with the advancing ground troops of the USMC’s 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit. They successfully illuminated targets for US Navy fighter bombers, which were launched from USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) in the Persian Gulf, and effectively guided these aircraft to their targets. Two OA-45Bs were lost during this conflict, one through enemy MANPADS, the other through friendly AA fire. In late May 2003 the surviving machines and their crews returned to MCAS Yuma.
On 16 March 2007, the 200th T-45 airframe was delivered to the US Navy. From this final batch, six airframes were set aside and modified into OA-45Bs in order to fill the losses over the past years.
Later T-45 production aircraft were built with enhanced avionics systems for a heads-up display (HUD) and glass cockpit standard, while all extant T-45A aircraft were eventually converted to a T-45C configuration under the T-45 Required Avionics Modernization Program (T-45 RAMP), bringing all aircraft to same HUD plus glass cockpit standard. These updates, esp. concerning the cockpit, were introduced to the OA-45Bs, too, and they were re-designated again, now becoming OA-45Cs, to reflect the commonality with the Navy’s Goshawk trainers. Again, these modifications were gradually introduced in the course of the OA-45s’ normal maintenance program.
In 2007, an engine update of the whole T-45 fleet, including the OA-45s, with the Adour F405-RR-402 was considered. This new engine was based on the British Adour Mk 951, designed for the latest versions of the BAe Hawk and powering the BAe Taranis and Dassault nEUROn UCAV technology demonstrators. The Adour Mk 951 offered 6,500 lbf (29 kN) thrust and up to twice the service life of the F405-RR-401. It featured an all-new fan and combustor, revised HP and LP turbines, and introduced Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC). The Mk 951 was certified in 2005, the F405-RR-402 derived from it was certified in 2008, but it did not enter service due to funding issues, so that this upgrade was not carried out.
The final delivery of the 246th T-45 airframe took place in November 2009, and both T-45 and the OA-45 "GosHog" are supposed to remain in service until 2035.
General characteristics:
Crew: 2 (pilot, observer)
Length: 39 ft 4 in (11.99 m)
Wingspan: 30 ft 10 in (9.39 m)
Height: 13 ft 5 in (4.08 m)
Wing area: 190.1 ft² (17.7 m²)
Empty weight: 10,403 lb (4,460 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 14,081 lb (6,387 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Rolls-Royce Turbomeca F405-RR-401 (Adour) non-afterburning turbofan with 5,527 lbf (26 kN)
Performance:
Maximum speed: Mach 2 (2,204 km/h (1,190 kn; 1,370 mph) at high altitude
Combat radius: 800 km (497 mi, 432 nmi)
Ferry range: 3,200 km (1,983 mi) with drop tanks
Service ceiling: 15,240 m (50,000 ft)
Wing loading: 283 kg/m² (58 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.97
Maximum g-load: +9 g
Armament:
No internal gun; seven external hardpoints (three on each wing and one under fuselage)
for a wide range of ordnance of up to 6,800 lb (3,085 kg), including up to six AIM-9 Sidewinder for
self-defense, pods with unguided rockets for target marking or ECM pods, but also offensive weapons
of up to 1.000 lb (454 kg) weight, including iron/cluster bombs and guided AGM-65, GBU-12 and -16.
The kit and its assembly:
This fictional T-45 variant is actually the result of a long idea evolution, and simply rooted in the idea of a dedicated OA-4M replacement for the USMC; in real life, the FFAC role has been transferred to F-18 two-seaters, though, but the T-45 appeared like a sound alternative to me.
There's only one T-45 kit available, a dubious T-45A from Italeri with poor wings and stabilizers. Wolfpack also offers a T-45, but it’s just a re-boxing of the Italeri kit with some PE parts and a price tag twice as big – but it does not mend the original kit’s issues… After reading the A-4 Skyhawk book from the French "Planes & Pilots" series, I was reminded of the USMC's special OA-4M FAC two-seaters (and the fact that it is available in kit form from Italeri and Hasegawa), and, cross-checking the real-world timeline of the T-45, I found that it could have been a suitable successor. The ide of the USMC’s OA-45 was born! :D
Building-wise the Italeri T-45 remained close to OOB, even though I transplanted several parts from an Italeri BAe Hawk Mk. 100 to create a different look. I modified the nose with the Mk. 100’s laser fairing and added some radar warning sensor bumps. This transplantation was not as easy as it might seem because the T-45’s nose is, due to the different and more massive front landing gear quite different from the Hawk’s. Took some major PSR to integrate the laser nose.
An ALR-45 “hot dog” fairing from a late A-4M (Italeri kit) was added to the fin, together with a small styrene wedge extending the fin’s leading edge. This small detail markedly changes the aircraft’s look. I furthermore added a refueling probe, scratched from coated wire and some white glue, as well as a low “camel back” fairing behind the cockpit, created from a streamlined bomb half with air outlets for an integrated heat exchanger. Blade antennae were relocated and added. A shallow bump for the Doppler radar was added under the fuselage behind the landing gear well – left over from an Airfix A-4B (from an Argentinian A-4P, to be correct, actually a dorsal fairing).
On the wings, a tailored pair of pylons and wing tip launch rails from the Italeri BAe Hawk Mk. 100 kit were added, too, as well as the donor kit’s pair of Sidewinders. The rest of the ordnance consists of drop tanks and LAU-19 pods for target marking missiles. The tanks were taken from the Hawk Mk. 100 kit, too, the rocket launchers came from an Italeri NATO aircraft weapons set. The centerline position carries an ALQ-131 ECM pod from a Hasegawa US aircraft weapons set on a pylon from the scrap box.
Painting and markings:
The low-viz idea prevailed, since I had some leftover OA-4M decals from Italeri kits in store, as well as some other suitable low-viz decals from a Revell A-4F kit. However, an all-grey livery was IMHO not enough, and when I came across a picture of a USN low-viz A-7E with an improvised desert camouflage in sand and reddish brown applied over the grey (even partly extending over its markings) from Operation Iraqi Freedom, I had that extra twist that would set the OA-45 apart. MALS-13 was chosen as operator because I had matching codes, and, as another benefit, the unit had actually been deployed overseas during the 2003 Iraq War, so that the whif’’s time frame was easily settled, adding to its credibility.
The livery was built up just like on the real aircraft: on top of a basic scheme in FS 36320 and 36375 (Humbrol 128 and 127) with a slightly darker anti-glare panel in front of the cockpit (FS 35237, I used Revell 57 as a slightly paler alternative) I applied the low-viz marking decals, which were protected with a coat of acrylic varnish. Next, additional desert camouflage was added with dry-brushed sand and millitary brown (supposedly FS 33711 and 30400 in real life, I used, after consulting pictures of aircraft from both Gulf Wars, Humbrol 103 (Cream) and 234 (Dark Flesh). They were applied with a kind of a dry-brushing technique, for a streaky and worn look, leaving out the codes and other markings. The pattern itself was inspired by an USMC OV-10 Bronco in desert camouflage from the 1st Gulf War.
On top of that a black ink washing was applied. Once things had thoroughly dried over night, I wet-sanded the additional desert camouflage away, carefully from front to back, so that the edges became blurred and the underlying grey became visible again.
The cockpit interior was painted in standard Dark Gull Grey (Humbrol 140), while the air intakes and the landing gear became white, the latter with red trim on the covers’ edges – just standard. Finally, the model was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).
The upgraded T-45 is an interesting result. The add-ons suit the aircraft, which already looks sturdier than its land-based ancestor, well. The improvised desert paint scheme with the additional two-tone camouflage over the pale grey base really makes the aircraft an unusual sight, adding to its credibility.
Hardware-wise I am really happy how the added dorsal hump blends into the overall lines – in a profile view it extends the canopy’s curve and blends into the fin, much like the A-4F/M’s arrangement. And the modified fin yields a very different look, even though not much was changed. The T-45 looks much beefier now, and from certain angles really reminds of the OA-4M and sometimes even of a diminutive Su-25?
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The CAC Sabre, sometimes known as the Avon Sabre or CA-27, was an Australian variant of the North American Aviation F-86F Sabre fighter aircraft. In 1951, Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation obtained a license agreement to build the F-86F Sabre. In a major departure from the North American blueprint, it was decided that the CA-27 would be powered by a license-built version of the Rolls-Royce Avon R.A.7, rather than the General Electric J47. In theory, the Avon was capable of more than double the maximum thrust and double the thrust-to-weight ratio of the US engine. This necessitated a re-design of the fuselage, as the Avon was shorter, wider and lighter than the J47.
To accommodate the Avon, over 60 percent of the fuselage was altered and there was a 25 percent increase in the size of the air intake. Another major revision was in replacing the F-86F's six machine guns with two 30mm ADEN cannon, while other changes were also made to the cockpit and to provide an increased fuel capacity.
The prototype aircraft first flew on 3 August 1953. The production aircrafts' first deliveries to the Royal Australian Air Force began in 1954. The first batch of aircraft were powered by the Avon 20 engine and were designated the Sabre Mk 30. Between 1957 and 1958 this batch had the wing slats removed and were re-designated Sabre Mk 31. These Sabres were supplemented by 20 new-built aircraft. The last batch of aircraft were designated Sabre Mk 32 and used the Avon 26 engine, of which 69 were built up to 1961.
Beyond these land-based versions, an indigenous version for carrier operations had been developed and built in small numbers, too, the Sea Sabre Mk 40 and 41. The roots of this aircraft, which was rather a prestigious idea than a sensible project, could be traced back to the immediate post WWII era. A review by the Australian Government's Defence Committee recommended that the post-war forces of the RAN be structured around a Task Force incorporating multiple aircraft carriers. Initial plans were for three carriers, with two active and a third in reserve, although funding cuts led to the purchase of only two carriers in June 1947: Majestic and sister ship HMS Terrible, for the combined cost of AU£2.75 million, plus stores, fuel, and ammunition. As Terrible was the closer of the two ships to completion, she was finished without modification, and was commissioned into the RAN on 16 December 1948 as HMAS Sydney. Work progressed on Majestic at a slower rate, as she was upgraded with the latest technology and equipment. To cover Majestic's absence, the Colossus-class carrier HMS Vengeance was loaned to the RAN from 13 November 1952 until 12 August 1955.
Labour difficulties, late delivery of equipment, additional requirements for Australian operations, and the prioritization of merchant ships over naval construction delayed the completion of Majestic. Incorporation of new systems and enhancements caused the cost of the RAN carrier acquisition program to increase to AU£8.3 million. Construction and fitting out did not finish until October 1955. As the carrier neared completion, a commissioning crew was formed in Australia and first used to return Vengeance to the United Kingdom.
The completed carrier was commissioned into the RAN as HMAS Majestic on 26 October 1955, but only two days later, the ship was renamed Melbourne and recommissioned.
In the meantime, the rather political decision had been made to equip Melbourne with an indigenous jet-powered aircraft, replacing the piston-driven Hawker Fury that had been successfully operated from HMAS Sydney and HMAS Vengeance, so that the "new jet age" was even more recognizable. The choice fell on the CAC Sabre, certainly inspired by North American's successful contemporary development of the navalized FJ-2 Fury from the land-based F-86 Sabre. The CAC 27 was already a proven design, and with its more powerful Avon engine it even offered a better suitability for carrier operations than the FJ-2 with its rather weak J47 engine.
Work on this project, which was initially simply designated Sabre Mk 40, started in 1954, just when the first CAC 27's were delivered to operative RAAF units. While the navalized Avon Sabre differed outwardly only little from its land-based brethren, many details were changed and locally developed. Therefore, there was also, beyond the general outlines, little in common with the North American FJ-2 an -3 Fury.
Externally, a completely new wing with a folding mechanism was fitted. It was based on the F-86's so-called "6-3" wing, with a leading edge that was extended 6 inches at the root and 3 inches at the tip. This modification enhanced maneuverability at the expense of a small increase in landing speed due to deletion of the leading edge slats, a detail that was later introduced on the Sabre Mk 31, too. As a side benefit, the new wing leading edges without the slat mechanisms held extra fuel. However, the Mk 40's wing was different as camber was applied to the underside of the leading edge to improve low-speed handling for carrier operations. The wings were provided with four stations outboard of the landing gear wells for up to 1000 lb external loads on the inboard stations and 500 lb on the outboard stations.
Slightly larger stabilizers were fitted and the landing gear was strengthened, including a longer front wheel strut. The latter necessitated an enlarged front wheel well, so that the front leg’s attachment point had to be moved forward. A ventral launch cable hook was added under the wing roots and an external massive arrester hook under the rear fuselage.
Internally, systems were protected against salt and humidity and a Rolls-Royce Avon 211 turbojet was fitted, a downrated variant of the already navalized Avon 208 from the British DH Sea Vixen, but adapted to the different CAC 27 airframe and delivering 8.000 lbf (35.5 kN) thrust – slightly more than the engines of the land-based CAC Sabres, but also without an afterburner.
A single Mk 40 prototype was built from a new CAC 27 airframe taken directly from the production line in early 1955 and made its maiden flight on August 20th of the same year. In order to reflect its naval nature and its ancestry, this new CAC 27 variant was officially christened “Sea Sabre”.
Even though the modified machine handled well, and the new, cambered wing proved to be effective, many minor technical flaws were discovered and delayed the aircraft's development until 1957. These included the wing folding mechanism and the respective fuel plumbing connections, the landing gear, which had to be beefed up even more for hard carrier landings and the airframe’s structural strength for catapult launches, esp. around the ventral launch hook.
In the meantime, work on the land-based CAC 27 progressed in parallel, too, and innovations that led to the Mk 31 and 32 were also incorporated into the naval Mk 40, leading to the Sea Sabre Mk 41, which became the effective production aircraft. These updates included, among others, a detachable (but fixed) refueling probe under the starboard wing, two more pylons for light loads located under the wing roots and the capability to carry and deploy IR-guided AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, what significantly increased the Mk 41's efficiency as day fighter. With all these constant changes it took until April 1958 that the Sabre Mk 41, after a second prototype had been directly built to the new standard, was finally approved and cleared for production. Upon delivery, the RAN Sea Sabres carried a standard NATO paint scheme with Extra Dark Sea Grey upper surfaces and Sky undersides.
In the meantime, the political enthusiasm concerning the Australian carrier fleet had waned, so that only twenty-two aircraft were ordered. The reason behind this decision was that Australia’s carrier fleet and its capacity had become severely reduced: Following the first decommissioning of HMAS Sydney in 1958, Melbourne became the only aircraft carrier in Australian service, and she was unavailable to provide air cover for the RAN for up to four months in every year; this time was required for refits, refueling, personnel leave, and non-carrier duties, such as the transportation of troops or aircraft. Although one of the largest ships to serve in the RAN, Melbourne was one of the smallest carriers to operate in the post-World War II period, so that its contribution to military actions was rather limited. To make matters worse, a decision was made in 1959 to restrict Melbourne's role to helicopter operations only, rendering any carrier-based aircraft in Australian service obsolete. However, this decision was reversed shortly before its planned 1963 implementation, but Australia’s fleet of carrier-borne fixed-wing aircraft would not grow to proportions envisioned 10 years ago.
Nevertheless, on 10 November 1964, an AU£212 million increase in defense spending included the purchase of new aircraft for Melbourne. The RAN planned to acquire 14 Grumman S-2E Tracker anti-submarine aircraft and to modernize Melbourne to operate these. The acquisition of 18 new fighter-bombers was suggested (either Sea Sabre Mk 41s or the American Douglas A-4 Skyhawk), too, but these were dropped from the initial plan. A separate proposal to order 10 A-4G Skyhawks, a variant of the Skyhawk designed specifically for the RAN and optimized for air defense, was approved in 1965, but the new aircraft did not fly from Melbourne until the conclusion of her refit in 1969. This move, however, precluded the production of any new and further Sea Sabre.
At that time, the RAN Sea Sabres received a new livery in US Navy style, with upper surfaces in Light Gull Gray with white undersides. The CAC Sea Sabres remained the main day fighter and attack aircraft for the RAN, after the vintage Sea Furies had been retired in 1962. The other contemporary RAN fighter type in service, the Sea Venom FAW.53 all-weather fighter that had replaced the Furies, already showed its obsolescence.
In 1969, the RAN purchased another ten A-4G Skyhawks, primarily in order to replace the Sea Venoms on the carriers, instead of the proposed seventh and eighth Oberon-class submarines. These were operated together with the Sea Sabres in mixed units on board of Melbourne and from land bases, e.g. from NAS Nowra in New South Wales, where a number of Sea Sabres were also allocated to 724 Squadron for operational training.
Around 1970, Melbourne operated a standard air group of four jet aircraft, six Trackers, and ten Wessex helicopters until 1972, when the Wessexes were replaced with ten Westland Sea King anti-submarine warfare helicopters and the number of jet fighters doubled. Even though the A-4G’s more and more took over the operational duties on board of Melbourne, the Sea Sabres were still frequently deployed on the carrier, too, until the early Eighties, when both the Skyhawks and the Sea Sabres received once more a new camouflage, this time a wraparound scheme in two shades of grey, reflecting their primary airspace defense mission.
The CAC 27 Mk 41s’ last carrier operations took place in 1981 in the course of Melbourne’s involvements in two major exercises, Sea Hawk and Kangaroo 81, the ship’s final missions at sea. After Melbourne was decommissioned in 1984, the Fleet Air Arm ceased fixed-wing combat aircraft operation. This was the operational end of the Sabre Mk 41, which had reached the end of their airframe lifetime, and the Sea Sabre fleet had, during its career, severely suffered from accidents and losses: upon retirement, only eight of the original twenty-two aircraft still existed in flightworthy condition, so that the aircraft were all scrapped. The younger RAN A-4Gs were eventually sold to New Zealand, where they were kept in service until 2002.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 37 ft 6 in (11.43 m)
Wingspan: 37 ft 1 in (11.3 m)
Height: 14 ft 5 in (4.39 m)
Wing area: 302.3 sq ft (28.1 m²)
Empty weight: 12,000 lb (5,443 kg)
Loaded weight: 16,000 lb (7,256 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 21,210 lb (9,621 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Rolls-Royce Avon 208A turbojet engine with 8,200 lbf (36.44 kN)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 700 mph (1,100 km/h) (605 knots)
Range: 1,153 mi, (1,000 NM, 1,850 km)
Service ceiling: 52,000 ft (15,850 m)
Rate of climb: 12,000 ft/min at sea level (61 m/s)
Armament:
2× 30 mm ADEN cannons with 150 rounds per gun
5,300 lb (2,400 kg) of payload on six external hardpoints;
Bombs were usually mounted on outer two pylons as the mid pair were wet-plumbed pylons for
2× 200 gallons drop tanks, while the inner pair was usually occupied by a pair of AIM-9 Sidewinder
AAMs
A wide variety of bombs could be carried with maximum standard loadout being 2x 1,000 lb bombs
or 2x Matra pods with unguided SURA missiles plus 2 drop tanks for ground attacks, or 2x AIM-9 plus
two drop tanks as day fighter
The kit and its assembly:
This project was initially inspired by a set of decals from an ESCI A-4G which I had bought in a lot – I wondered if I could use it for a submission to the “In the navy” group build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2020. I considered an FJ-3M in Australian colors on this basis and had stashed away a Sword kit of that aircraft for this purpose. However, I had already built an FJ variant for the GB (a kitbashed mix of an F-86D and an FJ-4B in USMC colors), and was reluctant to add another Fury.
This spontaneously changed after (thanks to Corona virus quarantine…) I cleaned up one of my kit hoards and found a conversion set for a 1:72 CAC 27 from JAYS Model Kits which I had bought eons ago without a concrete plan. That was the eventual trigger to spin the RAN Fury idea further – why not a navalized version of the Avon Sabre for HMAS Melbourne?
The result is either another kitbash or a highly modified FJ-3M from Sword. The JAYS Model Kits set comes with a THICK sprue that carries two fuselage halves and an air intake, and it also offers a vacu canopy as a thin fallback option because the set is actually intended to be used together with a Hobby Craft F-86F.
While the parts, molded in a somewhat waxy and brittle styrene, look crude on the massive sprue, the fuselage halves come with very fine recessed engravings. And once you have cleaned the parts (NOTHING for people faint at heart, a mini drill with a saw blade is highly recommended), their fit is surprisingly good. The air intake was so exact that no putty was needed to blend it with the rest of the fuselage.
The rest came from the Sword kit and integrating the parts into the CAC 27 fuselage went more smoothly than expected. For instance, the FJ-3M comes with a nice cockpit tub that also holds a full air intake duct. Thanks to the slightly wider fuselage of the CAC 27, it could be mounted into the new fuselage halves without problems and the intake duct almost perfectly matches the intake frame from the conversion set. The tailpipe could be easily integrated without any mods, too. The fins had to be glued directly to the fuselage – but this is the way how the Sword kit is actually constructed! Even the FJ-3M’s wings match the different fuselage perfectly. The only modifications I had to make is a slight enlargement of the ventral wing opening at the front and at the read in order to take the deeper wing element from the Sword kit, but that was an easy task. Once in place, the parts blend almost perfectly into each other, just minor PSR was necessary to hide the seams!
Other mods include an extended front wheel well for the longer leg from the FJ-3M and a scratched arrester hook installation, made from wire, which is on purpose different from the Y-shaped hook of the Furies.
For the canopy I relied on the vacu piece that came with the JAYS set. Fitting it was not easy, though, it took some PSR to blend the windscreen into the rest of the fuselage. Not perfect, but O.K. for such a solution from a conversion set.
The underwing pylons were taken from the Sword kit, including the early Sidewinders. I just replaced the drop tanks – the OOB tanks are very wide, and even though they might be authentic for the FJ-3, I was skeptical if they fit at all under the wings with the landing gear extended? In order to avoid trouble and for a more modern look, I replaced them outright with more slender tanks, which were to mimic A-4 tanks (USN FJ-4s frequently carried Skyhawk tanks). They actually come from a Revell F-16 kit, with modified fins. The refueling probe comes from the Sword kit.
A last word about the Sword kit: much light, but also much shadow. While I appreciate the fine surface engravings, the recognizably cambered wings, a detailed cockpit with a two-piece resin seat and a pretty landing gear as well as the long air intake, I wonder why the creators totally failed to provide ANY detail of the arrester hook (there is literally nothing, as if this was a land-based Sabre variant!?) or went for doubtful solutions like a front landing gear that consists of five(!) single, tiny parts? Sadism? The resin seat was also broken (despite being packed in a seperate bag), and it did not fit into the cockpit tub at all. Meh!
Painting and markings:
From the start I planned to give the model the late RAN A-4Gs’ unique air superiority paint scheme, which was AFAIK introduced in the late Seventies: a two-tone wraparound scheme consisting of “Light Admiralty Grey” (BS381C 697) and “Aircraft Grey” (BS 381C 693). Quite simple, but finding suitable paints was not an easy task, and I based my choice on pictures of the real aircraft (esp. from "buzz" number 880 at the Fleet Air Arm Museum, you find pics of it with very good light condition) rather than rely on (pretty doubtful if not contradictive) recommendations in various painting instructions from models or decal sets.
I wanted to keep things simple and settled upon Dark Gull Grey (FS 36231) and Light Blue (FS 35414), both enamel colors from Modelmaster, since both are rather dull interpretations of these tones. Esp. the Light Blue comes quite close to Light Admiralty Grey, even though it should be lighter for more contrast to the darker grey tone. But it has that subtle greenish touch of the original BS tone, and I did not want to mix the colors.
The pattern was adapted from the late A-4Gs’ scheme, and the colors were dulled down even more through a light black ink wash. Some post-shading with lighter tones emphasized the contrast between the two colors again. And while it is not an exact representation of the unique RAN air superiority scheme, I think that the overall impression is there.
The cockpit interior was painted in very dark grey, while the landing gear, its wells and the inside of the air intake became white. A red rim was painted around the front opening, and the landing gear covers received a red outline, too. The white drop tanks are a detail I took from real world RAN A-4Gs - in the early days of the air superiority scheme, the tanks were frequently still finished in the old USN style livery, hence the white body but fins and tail section already in the updated colors.
The decals became a fight, though. As mentioned above, the came from an ESCI kit – and, as expected, the were brittle. All decals with a clear carrier film disintegrated while soaking in water, only those with a fully printed carrier film were more or less usable. One roundel broke and had to be repaired, and the checkered fin flash was a very delicate affair that broke several times, even though I tried to save and repair it with paint. But you can unfortunately see the damage.
Most stencils and some replacements (e. g. the “Navy” tag) come from the Sword FJ-3. While these decals are crisply printed, their carrier film is utterly thin, so thin that applying esp. the larger decals turned out to be hazardous and complicated. Another point that did not really convince me about the Sword kit.
Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and some soot stains were added around the exhaust and the gun ports with graphite.
In the end, this build looks, despite the troubles and the rather exotic ingredients like a relatively simple Sabre with Australian markings, just with a different Navy livery. You neither immediately recognize the FJ-3 behind it, nor the Avon Sabre’s bigger fuselage, unless you take a close and probably educated look. Very subtle, though.
The RAN air superiority scheme from the late Skyhawks suits the Sabre/Fury-thing well – I like the fact that it is a modern fighter scheme, but, thanks to the tones and the colorful other markings, not as dull and boring like many others, e. g. the contemporary USN "Ghost" scheme. Made me wonder about an early RAAF F-18 in this livery - should look very pretty, too?
Capable of tolerating severe weather conditions, this hardy eucalypt is commonly found in subalpine areas across the eastern regions of Australia.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The CAC Sabre, sometimes known as the Avon Sabre or CA-27, was an Australian variant of the North American Aviation F-86F Sabre fighter aircraft. In 1951, Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation obtained a license agreement to build the F-86F Sabre. In a major departure from the North American blueprint, it was decided that the CA-27 would be powered by a license-built version of the Rolls-Royce Avon R.A.7, rather than the General Electric J47. In theory, the Avon was capable of more than double the maximum thrust and double the thrust-to-weight ratio of the US engine. This necessitated a re-design of the fuselage, as the Avon was shorter, wider and lighter than the J47.
To accommodate the Avon, over 60 percent of the fuselage was altered and there was a 25 percent increase in the size of the air intake. Another major revision was in replacing the F-86F's six machine guns with two 30mm ADEN cannon, while other changes were also made to the cockpit and to provide an increased fuel capacity.
The prototype aircraft first flew on 3 August 1953. The production aircrafts' first deliveries to the Royal Australian Air Force began in 1954. The first batch of aircraft were powered by the Avon 20 engine and were designated the Sabre Mk 30. Between 1957 and 1958 this batch had the wing slats removed and were re-designated Sabre Mk 31. These Sabres were supplemented by 20 new-built aircraft. The last batch of aircraft were designated Sabre Mk 32 and used the Avon 26 engine, of which 69 were built up to 1961.
Beyond these land-based versions, an indigenous version for carrier operations had been developed and built in small numbers, too, the Sea Sabre Mk 40 and 41. The roots of this aircraft, which was rather a prestigious idea than a sensible project, could be traced back to the immediate post WWII era. A review by the Australian Government's Defence Committee recommended that the post-war forces of the RAN be structured around a Task Force incorporating multiple aircraft carriers. Initial plans were for three carriers, with two active and a third in reserve, although funding cuts led to the purchase of only two carriers in June 1947: Majestic and sister ship HMS Terrible, for the combined cost of AU£2.75 million, plus stores, fuel, and ammunition. As Terrible was the closer of the two ships to completion, she was finished without modification, and was commissioned into the RAN on 16 December 1948 as HMAS Sydney. Work progressed on Majestic at a slower rate, as she was upgraded with the latest technology and equipment. To cover Majestic's absence, the Colossus-class carrier HMS Vengeance was loaned to the RAN from 13 November 1952 until 12 August 1955.
Labour difficulties, late delivery of equipment, additional requirements for Australian operations, and the prioritization of merchant ships over naval construction delayed the completion of Majestic. Incorporation of new systems and enhancements caused the cost of the RAN carrier acquisition program to increase to AU£8.3 million. Construction and fitting out did not finish until October 1955. As the carrier neared completion, a commissioning crew was formed in Australia and first used to return Vengeance to the United Kingdom.
The completed carrier was commissioned into the RAN as HMAS Majestic on 26 October 1955, but only two days later, the ship was renamed Melbourne and recommissioned.
In the meantime, the rather political decision had been made to equip Melbourne with an indigenous jet-powered aircraft, replacing the piston-driven Hawker Fury that had been successfully operated from HMAS Sydney and HMAS Vengeance, so that the "new jet age" was even more recognizable. The choice fell on the CAC Sabre, certainly inspired by North American's successful contemporary development of the navalized FJ-2 Fury from the land-based F-86 Sabre. The CAC 27 was already a proven design, and with its more powerful Avon engine it even offered a better suitability for carrier operations than the FJ-2 with its rather weak J47 engine.
Work on this project, which was initially simply designated Sabre Mk 40, started in 1954, just when the first CAC 27's were delivered to operative RAAF units. While the navalized Avon Sabre differed outwardly only little from its land-based brethren, many details were changed and locally developed. Therefore, there was also, beyond the general outlines, little in common with the North American FJ-2 an -3 Fury.
Externally, a completely new wing with a folding mechanism was fitted. It was based on the F-86's so-called "6-3" wing, with a leading edge that was extended 6 inches at the root and 3 inches at the tip. This modification enhanced maneuverability at the expense of a small increase in landing speed due to deletion of the leading edge slats, a detail that was later introduced on the Sabre Mk 31, too. As a side benefit, the new wing leading edges without the slat mechanisms held extra fuel. However, the Mk 40's wing was different as camber was applied to the underside of the leading edge to improve low-speed handling for carrier operations. The wings were provided with four stations outboard of the landing gear wells for up to 1000 lb external loads on the inboard stations and 500 lb on the outboard stations.
Slightly larger stabilizers were fitted and the landing gear was strengthened, including a longer front wheel strut. The latter necessitated an enlarged front wheel well, so that the front leg’s attachment point had to be moved forward. A ventral launch cable hook was added under the wing roots and an external massive arrester hook under the rear fuselage.
Internally, systems were protected against salt and humidity and a Rolls-Royce Avon 211 turbojet was fitted, a downrated variant of the already navalized Avon 208 from the British DH Sea Vixen, but adapted to the different CAC 27 airframe and delivering 8.000 lbf (35.5 kN) thrust – slightly more than the engines of the land-based CAC Sabres, but also without an afterburner.
A single Mk 40 prototype was built from a new CAC 27 airframe taken directly from the production line in early 1955 and made its maiden flight on August 20th of the same year. In order to reflect its naval nature and its ancestry, this new CAC 27 variant was officially christened “Sea Sabre”.
Even though the modified machine handled well, and the new, cambered wing proved to be effective, many minor technical flaws were discovered and delayed the aircraft's development until 1957. These included the wing folding mechanism and the respective fuel plumbing connections, the landing gear, which had to be beefed up even more for hard carrier landings and the airframe’s structural strength for catapult launches, esp. around the ventral launch hook.
In the meantime, work on the land-based CAC 27 progressed in parallel, too, and innovations that led to the Mk 31 and 32 were also incorporated into the naval Mk 40, leading to the Sea Sabre Mk 41, which became the effective production aircraft. These updates included, among others, a detachable (but fixed) refueling probe under the starboard wing, two more pylons for light loads located under the wing roots and the capability to carry and deploy IR-guided AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, what significantly increased the Mk 41's efficiency as day fighter. With all these constant changes it took until April 1958 that the Sabre Mk 41, after a second prototype had been directly built to the new standard, was finally approved and cleared for production. Upon delivery, the RAN Sea Sabres carried a standard NATO paint scheme with Extra Dark Sea Grey upper surfaces and Sky undersides.
In the meantime, the political enthusiasm concerning the Australian carrier fleet had waned, so that only twenty-two aircraft were ordered. The reason behind this decision was that Australia’s carrier fleet and its capacity had become severely reduced: Following the first decommissioning of HMAS Sydney in 1958, Melbourne became the only aircraft carrier in Australian service, and she was unavailable to provide air cover for the RAN for up to four months in every year; this time was required for refits, refueling, personnel leave, and non-carrier duties, such as the transportation of troops or aircraft. Although one of the largest ships to serve in the RAN, Melbourne was one of the smallest carriers to operate in the post-World War II period, so that its contribution to military actions was rather limited. To make matters worse, a decision was made in 1959 to restrict Melbourne's role to helicopter operations only, rendering any carrier-based aircraft in Australian service obsolete. However, this decision was reversed shortly before its planned 1963 implementation, but Australia’s fleet of carrier-borne fixed-wing aircraft would not grow to proportions envisioned 10 years ago.
Nevertheless, on 10 November 1964, an AU£212 million increase in defense spending included the purchase of new aircraft for Melbourne. The RAN planned to acquire 14 Grumman S-2E Tracker anti-submarine aircraft and to modernize Melbourne to operate these. The acquisition of 18 new fighter-bombers was suggested (either Sea Sabre Mk 41s or the American Douglas A-4 Skyhawk), too, but these were dropped from the initial plan. A separate proposal to order 10 A-4G Skyhawks, a variant of the Skyhawk designed specifically for the RAN and optimized for air defense, was approved in 1965, but the new aircraft did not fly from Melbourne until the conclusion of her refit in 1969. This move, however, precluded the production of any new and further Sea Sabre.
At that time, the RAN Sea Sabres received a new livery in US Navy style, with upper surfaces in Light Gull Gray with white undersides. The CAC Sea Sabres remained the main day fighter and attack aircraft for the RAN, after the vintage Sea Furies had been retired in 1962. The other contemporary RAN fighter type in service, the Sea Venom FAW.53 all-weather fighter that had replaced the Furies, already showed its obsolescence.
In 1969, the RAN purchased another ten A-4G Skyhawks, primarily in order to replace the Sea Venoms on the carriers, instead of the proposed seventh and eighth Oberon-class submarines. These were operated together with the Sea Sabres in mixed units on board of Melbourne and from land bases, e.g. from NAS Nowra in New South Wales, where a number of Sea Sabres were also allocated to 724 Squadron for operational training.
Around 1970, Melbourne operated a standard air group of four jet aircraft, six Trackers, and ten Wessex helicopters until 1972, when the Wessexes were replaced with ten Westland Sea King anti-submarine warfare helicopters and the number of jet fighters doubled. Even though the A-4G’s more and more took over the operational duties on board of Melbourne, the Sea Sabres were still frequently deployed on the carrier, too, until the early Eighties, when both the Skyhawks and the Sea Sabres received once more a new camouflage, this time a wraparound scheme in two shades of grey, reflecting their primary airspace defense mission.
The CAC 27 Mk 41s’ last carrier operations took place in 1981 in the course of Melbourne’s involvements in two major exercises, Sea Hawk and Kangaroo 81, the ship’s final missions at sea. After Melbourne was decommissioned in 1984, the Fleet Air Arm ceased fixed-wing combat aircraft operation. This was the operational end of the Sabre Mk 41, which had reached the end of their airframe lifetime, and the Sea Sabre fleet had, during its career, severely suffered from accidents and losses: upon retirement, only eight of the original twenty-two aircraft still existed in flightworthy condition, so that the aircraft were all scrapped. The younger RAN A-4Gs were eventually sold to New Zealand, where they were kept in service until 2002.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 37 ft 6 in (11.43 m)
Wingspan: 37 ft 1 in (11.3 m)
Height: 14 ft 5 in (4.39 m)
Wing area: 302.3 sq ft (28.1 m²)
Empty weight: 12,000 lb (5,443 kg)
Loaded weight: 16,000 lb (7,256 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 21,210 lb (9,621 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Rolls-Royce Avon 208A turbojet engine with 8,200 lbf (36.44 kN)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 700 mph (1,100 km/h) (605 knots)
Range: 1,153 mi, (1,000 NM, 1,850 km)
Service ceiling: 52,000 ft (15,850 m)
Rate of climb: 12,000 ft/min at sea level (61 m/s)
Armament:
2× 30 mm ADEN cannons with 150 rounds per gun
5,300 lb (2,400 kg) of payload on six external hardpoints;
Bombs were usually mounted on outer two pylons as the mid pair were wet-plumbed pylons for
2× 200 gallons drop tanks, while the inner pair was usually occupied by a pair of AIM-9 Sidewinder
AAMs
A wide variety of bombs could be carried with maximum standard loadout being 2x 1,000 lb bombs
or 2x Matra pods with unguided SURA missiles plus 2 drop tanks for ground attacks, or 2x AIM-9 plus
two drop tanks as day fighter
The kit and its assembly:
This project was initially inspired by a set of decals from an ESCI A-4G which I had bought in a lot – I wondered if I could use it for a submission to the “In the navy” group build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2020. I considered an FJ-3M in Australian colors on this basis and had stashed away a Sword kit of that aircraft for this purpose. However, I had already built an FJ variant for the GB (a kitbashed mix of an F-86D and an FJ-4B in USMC colors), and was reluctant to add another Fury.
This spontaneously changed after (thanks to Corona virus quarantine…) I cleaned up one of my kit hoards and found a conversion set for a 1:72 CAC 27 from JAYS Model Kits which I had bought eons ago without a concrete plan. That was the eventual trigger to spin the RAN Fury idea further – why not a navalized version of the Avon Sabre for HMAS Melbourne?
The result is either another kitbash or a highly modified FJ-3M from Sword. The JAYS Model Kits set comes with a THICK sprue that carries two fuselage halves and an air intake, and it also offers a vacu canopy as a thin fallback option because the set is actually intended to be used together with a Hobby Craft F-86F.
While the parts, molded in a somewhat waxy and brittle styrene, look crude on the massive sprue, the fuselage halves come with very fine recessed engravings. And once you have cleaned the parts (NOTHING for people faint at heart, a mini drill with a saw blade is highly recommended), their fit is surprisingly good. The air intake was so exact that no putty was needed to blend it with the rest of the fuselage.
The rest came from the Sword kit and integrating the parts into the CAC 27 fuselage went more smoothly than expected. For instance, the FJ-3M comes with a nice cockpit tub that also holds a full air intake duct. Thanks to the slightly wider fuselage of the CAC 27, it could be mounted into the new fuselage halves without problems and the intake duct almost perfectly matches the intake frame from the conversion set. The tailpipe could be easily integrated without any mods, too. The fins had to be glued directly to the fuselage – but this is the way how the Sword kit is actually constructed! Even the FJ-3M’s wings match the different fuselage perfectly. The only modifications I had to make is a slight enlargement of the ventral wing opening at the front and at the read in order to take the deeper wing element from the Sword kit, but that was an easy task. Once in place, the parts blend almost perfectly into each other, just minor PSR was necessary to hide the seams!
Other mods include an extended front wheel well for the longer leg from the FJ-3M and a scratched arrester hook installation, made from wire, which is on purpose different from the Y-shaped hook of the Furies.
For the canopy I relied on the vacu piece that came with the JAYS set. Fitting it was not easy, though, it took some PSR to blend the windscreen into the rest of the fuselage. Not perfect, but O.K. for such a solution from a conversion set.
The underwing pylons were taken from the Sword kit, including the early Sidewinders. I just replaced the drop tanks – the OOB tanks are very wide, and even though they might be authentic for the FJ-3, I was skeptical if they fit at all under the wings with the landing gear extended? In order to avoid trouble and for a more modern look, I replaced them outright with more slender tanks, which were to mimic A-4 tanks (USN FJ-4s frequently carried Skyhawk tanks). They actually come from a Revell F-16 kit, with modified fins. The refueling probe comes from the Sword kit.
A last word about the Sword kit: much light, but also much shadow. While I appreciate the fine surface engravings, the recognizably cambered wings, a detailed cockpit with a two-piece resin seat and a pretty landing gear as well as the long air intake, I wonder why the creators totally failed to provide ANY detail of the arrester hook (there is literally nothing, as if this was a land-based Sabre variant!?) or went for doubtful solutions like a front landing gear that consists of five(!) single, tiny parts? Sadism? The resin seat was also broken (despite being packed in a seperate bag), and it did not fit into the cockpit tub at all. Meh!
Painting and markings:
From the start I planned to give the model the late RAN A-4Gs’ unique air superiority paint scheme, which was AFAIK introduced in the late Seventies: a two-tone wraparound scheme consisting of “Light Admiralty Grey” (BS381C 697) and “Aircraft Grey” (BS 381C 693). Quite simple, but finding suitable paints was not an easy task, and I based my choice on pictures of the real aircraft (esp. from "buzz" number 880 at the Fleet Air Arm Museum, you find pics of it with very good light condition) rather than rely on (pretty doubtful if not contradictive) recommendations in various painting instructions from models or decal sets.
I wanted to keep things simple and settled upon Dark Gull Grey (FS 36231) and Light Blue (FS 35414), both enamel colors from Modelmaster, since both are rather dull interpretations of these tones. Esp. the Light Blue comes quite close to Light Admiralty Grey, even though it should be lighter for more contrast to the darker grey tone. But it has that subtle greenish touch of the original BS tone, and I did not want to mix the colors.
The pattern was adapted from the late A-4Gs’ scheme, and the colors were dulled down even more through a light black ink wash. Some post-shading with lighter tones emphasized the contrast between the two colors again. And while it is not an exact representation of the unique RAN air superiority scheme, I think that the overall impression is there.
The cockpit interior was painted in very dark grey, while the landing gear, its wells and the inside of the air intake became white. A red rim was painted around the front opening, and the landing gear covers received a red outline, too. The white drop tanks are a detail I took from real world RAN A-4Gs - in the early days of the air superiority scheme, the tanks were frequently still finished in the old USN style livery, hence the white body but fins and tail section already in the updated colors.
The decals became a fight, though. As mentioned above, the came from an ESCI kit – and, as expected, the were brittle. All decals with a clear carrier film disintegrated while soaking in water, only those with a fully printed carrier film were more or less usable. One roundel broke and had to be repaired, and the checkered fin flash was a very delicate affair that broke several times, even though I tried to save and repair it with paint. But you can unfortunately see the damage.
Most stencils and some replacements (e. g. the “Navy” tag) come from the Sword FJ-3. While these decals are crisply printed, their carrier film is utterly thin, so thin that applying esp. the larger decals turned out to be hazardous and complicated. Another point that did not really convince me about the Sword kit.
Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and some soot stains were added around the exhaust and the gun ports with graphite.
In the end, this build looks, despite the troubles and the rather exotic ingredients like a relatively simple Sabre with Australian markings, just with a different Navy livery. You neither immediately recognize the FJ-3 behind it, nor the Avon Sabre’s bigger fuselage, unless you take a close and probably educated look. Very subtle, though.
The RAN air superiority scheme from the late Skyhawks suits the Sabre/Fury-thing well – I like the fact that it is a modern fighter scheme, but, thanks to the tones and the colorful other markings, not as dull and boring like many others, e. g. the contemporary USN "Ghost" scheme. Made me wonder about an early RAAF F-18 in this livery - should look very pretty, too?
(more details later, as time permits)
***************************
About a year ago, I created Flickr album for photos that I had started taking with my iPhone5s; and now I’m creating a new Flickr album for photos that I’ve begun taking with myiPhone6, which just arrived from T-Mobile this morning.
In last year’s album, I wrote, "Whether you’re an amateur or professional photographer, it’s hard to walk around with a modern smartphone in your pocket, and not be tempted to use the built-in camera from time-to-time. Veteran photographers typically sneer at such behavior, and most will tell you that they can instantly recognize an iPhone photo, which they mentally reject as being unworthy of any serious attention.
"After using many earlier models of smartphones over the past several years, I was inclined to agree; after all, I always (well, almost always) had a “real” camera in my pocket (or backpack or camera-bag), and it was always capable of taking a much better photographic image than the mediocre, grainy images shot with a camera-phone.
"But still … there were a few occasions when I desperately wanted to capture some photo-worthy event taking place right in front of me, and inevitably it turned out to be the times when I did not have the “real” camera with me. Or I did have it, but it was buried somewhere in a bag, and I knew that the “event” would have disappeared by the time I found the “real" camera and turned it on. By contrast, the smart-phone was always in my pocket (along with my keys and my wallet, it’s one of the three things I consciously grab every time I walk out the door). And I often found that I could turn it on, point it at the photographic scene, and take the picture much faster than I could do the same thing with a “traditional” camera.
"Meanwhile, smartphone cameras have gotten substantially better in the past few years, from a mechanical/hardware perspective; and the software “intelligence” controlling the camera has become amazingly sophisticated. It’s still not on the same level as a “professional” DSLR camera, but for a large majority of the “average” photographic situations we’re likely to encounter in the unplanned moments of our lives, it’s more and more likely to be “good enough.” The old adage of “the best camera is the one you have with you” is more and more relevant these days. For me, 90% of the success in taking a good photo is simply being in the right place at the right time, being aware that the “photo opportunity” is there, and having a camera — any camera — to take advantage of that opportunity. Only 10% of the time does it matter which camera I’m using, or what technical features I’ve managed to use.
"And now, with the recent advent of the iPhone5s, there is one more improvement — which, as far as I can tell, simply does not exist in any of the “professional” cameras. You can take an unlimited number of “burst-mode” shots with the new iPhone, simply by keeping your finger on the shutter button; instead of being limited to just six (as a few of the DSLR cameras currently offer), you can take 10, 20, or even a hundred shots. And then — almost magically — the iPhone will show you which one or two of the large burst of photos was optimally sharp and clear. With a couple of clicks, you can then delete everything else, and retain only the very best one or two from the entire burst.
"With that in mind, I’ve begun using my iPhone5s for more and more “everyday” photo situations out on the street. Since I’m typically photographing ordinary, mundane events, even the one or two “optimal” shots that the camera-phone retains might not be worth showing anyone else … so there is still a lot of pruning and editing to be done, and I’m lucky if 10% of those “optimal” shots are good enough to justify uploading to Flickr and sharing with the rest of the world. Still, it’s an enormous benefit to know that my editing work can begin with photos that are more-or-less “technically” adequate, and that I don’t have to waste even a second reviewing dozens of technically-mediocre shots that are fuzzy, or blurred.
"Oh, yeah, one other minor benefit of the iPhone5s (and presumably most other current brands of smartphone): it automatically geotags every photo and video, without any special effort on the photographer’s part. Only one of my other big, fat cameras (the Sony Alpha SLT A65) has that feature, and I’ve noticed that almost none of the “new” mirrorless cameras have got a built-in GPS thingy that will perform the geotagging...
"I’ve had my iPhone5s for a couple of months now, but I’ve only been using the “burst-mode” photography feature aggressively for the past couple of weeks. As a result, the initial batch of photos that I’m uploading are all taken in the greater-NYC area. But as time goes on, and as my normal travel routine takes me to other parts of the world, I hope to add more and more “everyday” scenes in cities that I might not have the opportunity to photograph in a “serious” way.
*****************************************************************************
Okay, so now it’s September of 2014, and I’ve got the iPhone 6. They say that the camera is better, and that the internal camera-related hardware/firmware/software is better, too. Obviously, I’ve got the newer iOS, too, and even on the “old” phones, it now supports time-lapse videos along with everything else.
I’ve still got my pocket camera (an amazing little Sony ERX-100 Mark III), and two larger cameras (Sony RX-10, and Sony A7), but I have a feeling that I won’t even be taking them out of the camera bag when I’m out on the street for ordinary day-to-day walking around.
That will depend, obviously, on what kind of photos and videos the iPhone6 is actually capable of taking … so I’m going to try to use it every day, and see what the results look like …
Like I said last year, “stay tuned…"
***
So long as a person is capable of self-renewal they are a living being.
Henri Frederic Amiel
***
So sorry for not being able to comment on your amazing photostreams my friends , I will have the honor to do so very soon :)
Love ya'll
.
.
RENEWAL is the topic for Friday, 28th December 2012
66/72
3/366
The iPhone is now capable of shooting RAW using iOS 10 and Adobe Lightroom mobile.
The results are astounding. This is an edited RAW file from the iPhone and you can see the detail that can be brought out of the highlights.
Watch the tutorial on my YouTube channel - www.firstmanphotography.com/tutorials/shoot-raw-files-on-...
With other traffic departing behind and the Rampion Wind Farm silhouetted out on the horizon, IoM registered container ship 'Angermanland' rides the Spring Tide's swell as she enters Shoreham Harbour
Capable of carrying a total of 320 containers she belongs to the Navalis Line
IMG_7508
Capable of long jumps and sufficient sand walking capabilities, this melee orientated hardsuit is a tough friend or foe in desert battlegrounds
With a design that looks capable of reaching outer space, surely this is the ultimate definition of a "bullet train"? Yes, there are some wheels underneath somewhere. A relatively old design, first entering service in 1997, it was the first shinkansen to run at 300km/hr in regular passenger service.
As I saw so often with these trains, a small boy is looking on with fascination at the right of the picture (more generally, the shinkansen were being admired and photographed by small boys of all ages and genders; and not just the tourists...).
Medical Staff practise casualty treatment during Exercise Capable Eagle at RAF Leeming.
Royal Air Force medics have been responding after a simulated air attack on a North Yorkshire airfield.
RAF Leeming was playing the part of a foreign airbase being used by UK and French forces, as part of Exercise Capable Eagle, a test of the two countries’ ability to mount a combined air operation.
The exercise saw personnel planning, preparing for and flying missions, while facing a series of challenges.
One of those was an ‘attack’ by aircraft from 100 Squadron – itself normally based at RAF Leeming. 100 Squadron’s main role is to support training for all three services, including acting as an enemy when required. The simulated attack left a number of simulated casualties, giving the RAF’s healthcare experts a chance to test their skills.
While their colleagues are operating in Afghanistan daily, there is still a need for military medics to prepare for other possible operations. And Exercise Capable Eagle has given them the opportunity to do that.
-------------------------------------------------------
© Crown Copyright 2013
Photographer: Cpl Andy Holmes
Image 45156306.jpg from www.defenceimages.mod.uk
Use of this image is subject to the terms and conditions of the MoD News Licence at www.defenceimagery.mod.uk/fotoweb/20121001_Crown_copyrigh...
For latest news visit www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-defence
Follow us:
Man is capable of such amazing pieces of engineering. It boggles the mind that since 1937 with thousands of heavy machinery driving by it every day, earthquakes, strong winds and the fog, this beauty is still going strong. Ventured early morning with a friend (pictured) to find this spot.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Ling-Temco-Vought A-7 Corsair II was a carrier-capable subsonic light attack aircraft introduced to replace the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk. The A-7 airframe design was based on the successful supersonic Vought F-8 Crusader, although it was somewhat smaller and rounded off. The Corsair II initially entered service with the United States Navy during the Vietnam War. It was later adopted by the United States Air Force, including the Air National Guard, to replace the Douglas A-1 Skyraider and North American F-100 Super Sabre. The aircraft was also exported to several foreign countries, including Greece, Portugal, Thailand and New Zealand.
For the latter operator, the Corsair II was part of a major modernization campaign in the early 1970s. For instance, in 1970 14 McDonnell Douglas A-4 Skyhawks were purchased to replace the Vampire FB5's, which had been the primary light attack aircraft for the RNZAF for years, but the type was hopelessly outdated.
Furthermore New Zealand was also looking for a replacement of its similarly ageing Canberra fleet. These 31 aircraft were also phased out of service in mid 1970, and the A-7 chosen as the RNZAFs new fighter bomber because of its proven all-weather strike capability and advances avionics.
The RNZAF bought and operated 22 LTV A-7 Corsair II aircraft primarily in the coastal defense/anti-ship and sea patrol roles, air interdiction and air defense roles being secondary duties. The RNZAF Corsair II was very similar to the US Navy’s A-7E, even though the machines would only be operated form land bases. Designated A-7N, the machines featured an AN/APN-190 navigational radar with a Doppler groundspeed and drift detector plus an AN/APQ-128 terrain following radar. For the deployment of smart weapons, the machines were outfitted with a Pave Penny laser target acquisition system under the air intake lip, similar to the USAF’s A-7D, and could carry a wide range of weaponry and sensors, including AN/AAR-45 FLIR pods for an improved all-weather performance. Against enemy ships and large ground targets, visually guided smart bombs (AGM-62 and the more modern GBU-8 HOBOS) were bought, as well as AGM-65 Maverick against smaller, high priority targets.
Active service lasted between 1975 and 1999, and the A-7Ns were originally allocated between RNZAF 2 and 75 Squadron at Ohakea, where they were operated together with A-4K and TA-4K. The latter were also emplyed for A-7N pilot conversion training, since the RNZAF did not operate any Corsair II two seaters.
Several times the Squadron deployed to Clark Air Base in the Philippines and to Hawaii with both of the Corsair IIs and Skyhawks to exercise with the United States Air Force. Furthermore, the annual deployments as part of the Five Power Defence Agreement (called Exercise Vanguard) had the Squadron visit Australia, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand to practice with those countries. Two RNZAF A-7s of 75 Squadron even made visits to Great Britain.
In the early Nineties the Corsair IIs started to suffer from numerous maintenance and logistic problems due to the lack of spare parts and general financial problems. This also prevented a major avionics update and the procurement of AGM-84 Harpoon missiles for the A-7Ns and the RNZAF P-3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft. The maintenance situation became so dire that several aircraft were cannibalized for spare parts to service other fighters. In 1992 only sixteen A-7Ns remained operational. This resulted in the available fighters no longer being assigned and dedicated to one specific squadron, but shared and assigned to one of the RNZAF combat squadrons (2, 14 and 75 Squadron, respectively), as needed.
During its 24 years of duty in the RNZAF, the A-7 fleet suffered 8 severe accidents with aircraft losses (and two pilots being killed). Nevertheless, the introduction of the A-7 was seen as a success due to the evolution that it allowed the Air Force in aircraft maintenance, with focus in modern computer and electronic systems, and in the steady qualification of pilots and technicians.
In 1999, the National Government selected an order of 28 F-16A/B Fighting Falcon aircraft to replace the complete fleet of A-4 Skyhawks and A-7 Corsair IIs, but this procurement plan was cancelled in 2001 following election by the incoming Labour Government under Helen Clark. This was followed by the disbanding of several fixed wing aircraft squadrons, with the consequence of removing the RNZAF's air combat capability. The last A-7 flight in RNZAF service took place on 1st of October 2001. Subsequently, most of the RNZAF's fighter pilots left New Zealand to serve in the Royal Australian Air Force and the Royal Air Force.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 46 ft 2 in (14.06 m)
Wingspan: 38 ft 9 in (11.8 m), 23 ft 9 in (7.24 m) wings folded
Height: 16 ft 1 in (4.9 m)
Wing area: 374.9 sq ft (34.83 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 65A007 root and tip
Empty weight: 19,127 lb (8,676 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 41,998 lb (19,050 kg) overload condition.
Fuel capacity: 1,338 US gal (5,060 l; 1,114 imp gal) (10,200 lb (4,600 kg)) internal
Powerplant:
1 × Allison TF41-A-2 non-afterburning turbofan engine, 15,000 lbf (66.7 kN) thrust
Performance:
Maximum speed: 600 kn (690 mph; 1,111 km/h) at Sea level
Range: 1,070 nmi; 1,231 mi (1,981 km) maximum internal fuel
Ferry range: 1,342 nmi; 1,544 mi (2,485 km) with maximum internal and external fuel
Service ceiling: 42,000 ft (13,000 m)
Wing loading: 77.4 lb/sq ft (378 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.50
Take-off run: 1,705 ft (519.7 m) at 42,000 lb (19,000 kg)
Armament:
1× M61A1 Vulcan 20 mm (0.787 in) rotary cannon with 1,030 rounds
6× under-wing and 2× fuselage pylon stations (for mounting AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs only)
with a total ordnance capacity of 15,000 lb (6,803.9 kg)
The kit and its assembly:
An idea that had been lingering on my project list for some years, and a recent build of an RNZAF A-7 by fellow modeler KiwiZac at whatifmodelers.com eventually triggered this build, a rather simple alternative livery whif. I had this idea on the agenda for some time, though, already written up a background story (which was accidently deleted early last year and sent the project into hiatus - until now) and had the kit as well as decals collected and stashed away.
The basis is the Hobby Boss A-7, which is available in a wide range of variant in 1:72 scale. Not cheap, but IMHO the best Corsair II kit at the moment, because it is full of ample surface details, goes together nicely and features a complete air intake, a good cockpit tub and even some maintenance covers that can be displayed in open position, in case you want to integrate the kit in a diorama. In my case it’s the A-7E kit, because I wanted a late variant and the US Navy’s refueling probe instead of the A-7D’s dorsal adapter for the USAF refueling boom system.
For the fictional RNZAF A-7N no fundamental changes were made. I just deliberately used OOB parts like the A-7D’s Pave Penny laser targeting pod under the air intake. As a personal addition I lowered the flaps slightly for a more lively look. Around the hull, some blade antennae were changed or added, and I installed the pair of pitots in front of the windscreen (made from thin wire).
The FLIR pod came with the kit, as well as the drop tank under the inner starboards wing pylon and the AIM-9Bs. Only the GBU-8s were externally sourced, from one of the Hasegawa USAF ordnance sets.
For the finalized kit on display I mounted the maintenance covers in open position, but for the beauty pics they were provisionally placed in closed position onto the kit’s flanks. The covers had to be modified for this stunt, but since their fit is very good and tight they easily stayed in place, even for the flight scenes!
Painting and markings:
This was the more interesting part – I wanted „something special“ for the fictional RNZAF Corsair II. Upon delivery, the USAF SEA scheme would certainly have been the most appropriate camouflage – the A-4K’s were painted this way and the aforementioned inspiring build by KiwiZac was finished this way.
Anyway, my plan had been from the start a machine in late service with low-viz markings similar to the A-4Ks, which received an attractive three-tone wrap-around scheme (in FS 34102, 34079 and 36081) or a simple all-around coat of FS 34079.
Both of these schemes could have been a sensible choice for this project, but… no! Too obvious, too simple for my taste. I rather wanted something that makes you wonder and yet make the aircraft look authentic and RNZAF-esque.
While digging for options and alternatives I stumbled upon the RNZAF’s C-130 Hercules transporters, which, like Canadian machines, carry a wrap-around scheme in two tones of grey (a light blue grey and a darker tone with a reddish hue) and a deep olive green tone that comes close to Dark Slate Grey, together with low-viz markings. A pretty unique scheme! Not as murky as the late A-4Ks and IMHO also well suited for the naval/coastal environment that the machine would patrol.
I was not able to positively identify the original tones on the CAF and RNZAF Hercs, so I interpreted various aircraft pictures. I settled upon Humbrol 163 (RAF Dark Green) 125 (FS 36118, Gunship Grey) and Revell 57 (RAL 7000, similar to FS 35237, but lighter and “colder”). For the wraparound scheme I used the C-130s as benchmark.
The cockpit became Dark Gull Grey (Humbrol 140) while the landing gear and the air intake duct became – behind 5mm of grey around the intake lip - white. The maintenance hatches’ interior was painted with a mix of Humbrol 81 and 38, for a striking zinc chromate primer look.
After a light black ink wash the kit received some panel post-shading for more contrast esp. between the dark colors and a slightly worn and sun-bleached look, since the aircraft would be depicted towards the end of its active service life.
Decals were the most challenging task, though: finding suitable RNZAF roundels is not easy, and I was happy when Xtradecal released an appropriate sheet that offers kiwi roundels for all positions (since motifs for port and starboard have to be mirrored). The Kiwi squadron emblem actually belongs to an RNZAF A-4K (from an Old Models sheet). The serial codes were puzzled together from single letter (TL Modellbau), most stencils come from the Hobby Boss OOB sheet.
A simple build, yet a very interesting topic and in the end also an IMHO very cool-looking aircraft in its fictional livery. Building the Hobby Boss A-7 was easy, despite some inherent flaws of the kit (e .g. totally blank dashboard and side consoles, and even no decals included!). The paint scheme lent from the RNZAF Hercs suits the SLUF well, though.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
The KAI T-50 Golden Eagle (골든이글) is a family of South Korean supersonic advanced trainers and light combat aircraft, developed by Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) with Lockheed Martin. The T-50 is South Korea's first indigenous supersonic aircraft and one of the world's few supersonic trainers.
The T-50 program started in the late Nineties and was originally intended to develop an indigenous trainer aircraft capable of supersonic flight, to train and prepare pilots for the KF-16 and F-15K, replacing trainers such as T-38 and A-37 that were then in service with the ROKAF. Prior South Korean aircraft programs include the turboprop KT-1 basic trainer produced by Daewoo Aerospace (now part of KAI), and license-manufactured KF-16.
The mother program, code-named KTX-2, began in 1992, but the Ministry of Finance and Economy suspended the original project in 1995 due to financial constraints. The basic design of the aircraft was set by 1999, and eventually the development of the aircraft was funded 70% by the South Korean government, 17% by KAI, and 13% by Lockheed Martin.
In general, the T-50 series of aircraft closely resembles the KF-16 in configuration, but it actually is a completely new design: the T-50 is 11% smaller and 23% lighter than an F-16, and in order to create enough space for the two-seat cockpit, the air intake was bifurcated and placed under the wing gloves, resembling the F/A-18's layout.
The aircraft was formally designated as the T-50 'Golden Eagle' in February 2000, the T-50A designation had been reserved by the U.S. military to prevent it from being inadvertently assigned to another aircraft model. Final assembly of the first T-50 took place between 15 January and 14 September 2001. The first flight of the T-50 took place in August 2002, and initial operational assessment from 28 July to 14 August 2003.
The trainer has a cockpit for two pilots in a tandem arrangement, both crew members sitting in "normal" election seats, not in the F-16's reclined position. The high-mounted canopy is applied with stretched acrylic, providing the pilots with good visibility, and has been tested to offer the canopy with ballistic protection against 4-lb objects impacting at 400 knots.
The ROKAF, as original development driver, placed an initial production contract for 25 T-50s in December 2003, with aircraft scheduled to be delivered between 2005 and 2009. Original T-50 aircraft were equipped with the AN/APG-67(v)4 radar from Lockheed Martin. The T-50 trainer is powered by a GE F404 engine built under license by Samsung Techwin. Under the terms of the T-50/F404-102 co-production agreement, GE provides engine kits directly to Samsung Techwin who produces designated parts as well as performing final engine assembly and testing.
The T-50 program quickly expanded beyond a pure trainer concept to include the TA-50 armed trainer aircraft, as well as the FA-50 light attack aircraft, which has already similar capabilities as the multirole KF-16. Reconnaissance and electronic warfare variants were also being developed, designated as RA-50 and EA-50.
The TA-50 variant is a more heavily armed version of the T-50 trainer, intended for lead-in fighter training and light attack roles. It is equipped with an Elta EL/M-2032 fire control radar and designed to operate as a full-fledged combat platform. This variant mounts a lightweight three-barrel cannon version of the M61 Vulcan internally behind the cockpit, which fires linkless 20 mm ammunition. Wingtip rails can accommodate the AIM-9 Sidewinder missile, a variety of additional weapons can be mounted to underwing hardpoints, including precision-guided weapons, air-to-air missiles, and air-to-ground missiles. The TA-50 can also mount additional utility pods for reconnaissance, targeting assistance, and electronic warfare. Compatible air-to-surface weapons include the AGM-65 Maverick missile, Hydra 70 and LOGIR rocket launchers, CBU-58 and Mk-20 cluster bombs, and Mk-82, -83, and -84 general purpose bombs.
Among the operators of the TA-50 are the Philippines, Thailand and the ROKAF, and the type has attracted a global interest, also in Europe. The young Republic of Scotland Air Corps (locally known as Poblachd na h-Alba Adhair an Airm) chose, soon after the country's independence from the United Kingdom, after its departure from the European Union in 2017, the TA-50 as a complement to its initial procurements and add more flexibility to its small and young air arm.
According to a White Paper published by the Scottish National Party (SNP) in 2013, an independent Scotland would have an air force equipped with up to 16 air defense aircraft, six tactical transports, utility rotorcraft and maritime patrol aircraft, and be capable of “contributing excellent conventional capabilities” to NATO. Outlining its ambition to establish an air force with an eventual 2,000 uniformed personnel and 300 reservists, the SNP stated the organization would initially be equipped with “a minimum of 12 interceptors in the Eurofighter/Typhoon class, based at Lossiemouth, a tactical air transport squadron, including around six [Lockheed Martin] C-130J Hercules, and a helicopter squadron”.
According to the document, “Key elements of air forces in place at independence, equipped initially from a negotiated share of current UK assets, will secure core tasks, principally the ability to police Scotland’s airspace, within NATO.” An in-country air command and control capability would be established within five years of a decision in favor of independence, it continues, with staff also to be “embedded within NATO structures”.
This plan was immediately set into action after the country's independence in late 2017 with the purchase of twelve refurbished Saab JAS 39A Gripen interceptors for Quick Reaction Alert duties and upgraded, former Swedish Air Force Sk 90 trainers for the RoScAC. But these second hand machines were just the initial step in the mid-term procurement plan.
The twelve KAI TA-50 aircraft procured as a second step were to fulfill the complex requirement for a light and cost-effective multi-purpose aircraft that could be used in a wide variety of tasks: primarily as an advanced trainer for supersonic flight and as a trainer for the fighter role (since all Scottish Gripens were single seaters and dedicated to the interceptor/air defense role), but also as a light attack and point defense aircraft.
Scotland was offered refurbished F-16C and Ds, but this was declined as the type was deemed to be too costly and complex. Beyond the KAI T-50, the Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master and the BAe Hawk were considered, too, but, eventually, a modified TA-50 that was tailored to the RoScAC’s procurement plans was chosen by the Scottish government.
In order to fulfill the complex duty profile, the Scottish TA-50s were upgraded with elements from the FA-50 attack aircraft. They possess more internal fuel capacity, enhanced avionics, a longer radome and a tactical datalink. Its EL/M-2032 pulse-Doppler radar has been modified so that it offers now a range two-thirds greater than the TA-50's standard radar. It enables the aircraft to operate in any weather, detect surface targets and deploy AIM-120 AAMs for BVR interceptions. The machines can also be externally fitted with Rafael's Sky Shield or LIG Nex1's ALQ-200K ECM pods, Sniper or LITENING targeting pods, and Condor 2 reconnaissance pods to further improve the machine’s electronic warfare, reconnaissance, and targeting capabilities.
Another unique feature of the Scottish Golden Eagle is its powerplant: even though the machines are originally powered by a single General Electric F404 afterburning turbofan and designed around this engine, the RoScAC TF-50s are powered by a Volvo RM12 low-bypass afterburning turbofan. These are procured and serviced through Saab in Sweden, as a part of the long-term collaboration contract for the RoScAC’s Saab Gripen fleet. This decision was taken in order to decrease overall fleet costs through a unified engine.
The RM12 is a derivative of the General Electric F404-400. Changes from the standard F404 includes greater reliability for single-engine operations (including more stringent birdstrike protection) and slightly increased thrust. Several subsystems and components were also re-designed to reduce maintenance demands, and the F404's analogue Engine Control Unit was replaced with the Digital Engine Control – jointly developed by Volvo and GE – which communicates with the cockpit through the digital data buses and, as redundancy, mechanical calculators controlled by a single wire will regulate the fuel-flow into the engine.
Another modification of the RoScAC’s TA-50 is the exchange of the original General Dynamics A-50 3-barrel rotary cannon for a single barrel Mauser BK-27 27mm revolver cannon. Being slightly heavier and having a lower cadence, the BK-27 featured a much higher kinetic energy, accuracy and range. Furthermore, the BK-27 is the standard weapon of the other, Sweden-built aircraft in RoScAC service, so that further synergies and cost reductions were expected.
The Scottish Department of National Defense announced the selection of the TA-50 in August 2018, after having procured refurbished Saab Sk 90 and JAS 39 Gripen from Sweden as initial outfit of the country's small air arm with No. 1 Squadron based at Lossiemouth AB.
Funding for the twelve aircraft was approved by Congress on September 2018 and worth € 420 mio., making the Golden Eagle the young country’s first brand new military aircraft. Deliveries of the Golden Hawk TF.1, how the type was officially designated in Scottish service, began in November 2019, lasting until December 2020.
The first four Scottish Golden Hawk TF.1 aircraft were allocated to the newly established RoScAC No. 2 Squadron, based at Leuchars, where the RoScAC took control from the British Army. The latter had just taken over the former air base from the RAF in 2015, losing its “RAF air base” status and was consequentially re-designated “Leuchars Station”, primarily catering to the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards who have, in the meantime, become part of Scotland’s Army Corps. The brand new machines were publically displayed on the shared army and air corps facility in the RoScAC’s new paint scheme on 1st of December 2019 for the first time, and immediately took up service.
General characteristics:
Crew: 2
Length: 13.14 m (43.1 ft)
Wingspan (with wingtip missiles): 9.45 m (31 ft)
Height: 4.94 m (16.2 ft)
Wing area: 23.69 m² (255 ft²)
Empty weight: 6,470 kg (14,285 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 12,300 kg (27,300 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Volvo RM12 afterburning turbofan, rated at 54 kN (12,100 lbf) dry thrust
and 80.5 kN (18,100 lbf) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: Mach 1.5 (1,640 km/h, 1,020 mph at 9,144 m or 30,000 ft)
Range: 1,851 km (1,150 mi)
Service ceiling: 14,630 m (48,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 198 m/s (39,000 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 0.96
Max g limit: -3 g / +8 g
Armament:
1× 27mm Mauser BK-27 revolver cannon with 120 rounds
A total of 7 hardpoints (4 underwing, 2 wingtip and one under fuselage)
for up to 3,740 kg (8,250 lb) of payload
The kit and its assembly:
A rare thing concerning my builds: an alternative reality whif. A fictional air force of an independent Scotland crept into my mind after the hysterical “Brexit” events in 2016 and the former (failed) public vote concerning the independence of Scotland from the UK. What would happen to the military, if the independence would take place, nevertheless, and British forces left the country?
The aforementioned Scottish National Party (SNP) paper from 2013 is real, and I took it as a benchmark. Primary focus would certainly be set on air space defense, and the Gripen appears as a good and not too expensive choice. The Sk 90 is a personal invention, but would fulfill a good complementary role.
Nevertheless, another multi-role aircraft would make sense as an addition, and both M-346 and T-50 caught my eye (Russian options were ruled out due to the tense political relations), and I gave the TA-50 the “Go” because of its engine and its proximity to the Gripen.
The T-50 really looks like the juvenile offspring from a date between an F-16 and an F-18. There’s even a kit available, from Academy – but it’s a Snap-Fit offering without a landing gear but, as an alternative, a clear display that can be attached to the engine nozzle. It also comes with stickers instead of waterslide decals. This sounds crappy and toy-like, but, after taking a close look at kit reviews, I gave it a try.
And I am positively surprised. While the kit consists of only few parts, moulded in the colors of a ROCAF trainer as expected, the surfaces have minute, engraved detail. Fit is very good, too, and there’s even a decent cockpit that’s actually better than the offering of some “normal” model kits. The interior comes with multi-part seats, side consoles and dashboards that feature correctly shaped instrument details (no decals). The air intakes are great, too: seamless, with relatively thin walls, nice!
So far, so good. But not enough. I could have built the kit OOB with the landing gear tucked up, but I went for the more complicated route and trans-/implanted the complete landing gear from an Intech F-16, which is available for less than EUR 5,- (and not much worth, to be honest). AFAIK, there’s white metal landing gear for the T-50 available from Scale Aircraft Conversions, but it’s 1:48 and for this set’s price I could have bought three Intech F-16s…
But back to the conversion. This landing gear transplantation stunt sounds more complicated as it actually turned out to be. For the front wheel well I simply cut a long opening into the fuselage and added inside a styrene sheet as a well roof, attached under the cockpit floor.
For the main landing gear I just opened the flush covers on the T-50 fuselage, cut out the interior from the Intech F-16, tailored it a little and glued it into its new place.
This was made easy by the fact that the T-50 is a bit smaller than the F-16, so that the transplants are by tendency a little too large and offer enough “flesh” for adaptations. Once in place, the F-16 struts were mounted (also slightly tailored to fit well) and covers added. The front wheel cover was created with 0.5 mm styrene sheet, for the main covers I used the parts from the Intech F-16 kit because they were thinner than the leftover T-50 fuselage parts and feature some surface detail on the inside. They had to be adapted in size, though. But the operation worked like a charm, highly recommended!
Around the hull, some small details like missing air scoops, some pitots and antennae were added. In a bout of boredom (while waiting for ordered parts…) I also added static dischargers on the aerodynamic surfaces’ trailing edges – the kit comes with obvious attachment points, and they are a small detail that improves the modern look of the T-50 even more.
Since the Academy kit comes clean with only a ventral drop tank as ordnance, underwing pylons from a SEPECAT Jaguar (resin aftermarket parts from Pavla) and a pair of AGM-65 from the Italeri NATO Weapons set plus launch rails were added, plus a pair of Sidewinders (from a Hasegawa AAM set, painted as blue training rounds) on the wing tip launch rails.
Since the T-50 trainer comes unarmed, a gun nozzle had to be added – its position is very similar to the gun on board of the F-16, on the upper side of the port side LERX. Another addition are conformal chaff/flare dispensers at the fin’s base, adding some beef to the sleek aircraft.
Painting and markings:
I did not want a grey-in-grey livery, yet something “different” and rather typical or familiar for the British isles. My approach is actually a compromise, with classic RAF colors and design features inspired by camouflage experiments of the German Luftwaffe on F-4F Phantoms and Alpha Jets in the early Eighties.
For the upper sides I went for a classic British scheme, in Dark Green and Dark Sea Grey (Humbrol 163 and 164), colors I deem very appropriate for the Scottish landscape and for potential naval operations. These were combined with elements from late RAF interceptors: Barley Grey (Humbrol 167) for the flanks including the pylons, plus Light Aircraft Grey (Humbrol 166) for the undersides, with a relatively high waterline and a grey fin, so that a side or lower view would rather blend with the sky than the ground below.
Another creative field were the national markings: how could fictional Scottish roundels look like, and how to create them so that they are easy to make and replicate (for a full set for this kit, as well as for potential future builds…)? Designing and printing marking decals myself was an option, but I eventually settled for a composite solution which somewhat influenced the roundels’ design, too.
My Scottish roundel interpretationconsists of a blue disk with a white cross – it’s simple, different from any other contemporary national marking, esp. the UK roundel, and easy to create from single decal parts. In fact, the blue roundels were die-punched from blue decal sheet, and the cross consists of two thin white decal strips, cut into the correct length with the same stencil, using generic sheet material from TL Modellbau.
Another issue was the potential tactical code, and a small fleet only needs a simple system. Going back to a WWII system with letter codes for squadrons and individual aircraft was one option, but, IMHO, too complicated. I adopted the British single letter aircraft code, though, since this system is very traditional, but since the RoScAC would certainly not operate too many squadrons, I rather adapted a system similar to the Swedish or Spanish format with a single number representing the squadron. The result is a simple 2-digit code, and I adapted the German system of placing the tactical code on the fuselage, separated by the roundel. Keeping British traditions up I repeated the individual aircraft code letter on the fin, where a Scottish flag, a small, self-printed Fife coat-or-arms and a serial number were added, too.
The kit saw only light weathering and shading, and the kit was finally sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).
Creating this whif, based on an alternative historic timeline with a near future perspective, was fun – and it might spawn more models that circle around the story. A Scottish Sk 90 and a Gripen are certain options (and for both I have kits in the stash…), but there might also be an entry level trainer, some helicopters for the army and SAR duties, as well as a transport aircraft. The foundation has been laid out, now it’s time to fill Scotland’s history to come with detail and proof. ;-)
Besides, despite being a snap-fit kit, Academy’s T-50 is a nice basis, reminding me of some Hobby Boss kits but with less flaws (e .g. most of the interiors), except for the complete lack of a landing gear. But with the F-16 and Jaguar transplants the simple kit developed into something more convincing.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
In 1948, a swept wing version of the F-84 was created with the hope of bringing performance to the level of the F-86. The last production F-84E was fitted with a swept tail, a new wing with 38.5 degrees of leading-edge sweep and 3.5 degrees of anhedral, and a J35-A-25 engine producing 5,300 pound-force (23.58 kN) of thrust. The aircraft was designated XF-96A and flew on 3 June 1950. Although the airplane was capable of 602 knots (693 mph, 1,115 km/h), the performance gain over the F-84E was considered minor. Nonetheless, it was ordered into production in July 1950 as the F-84F Thunderstreak. The F-84 designation was eventually retained because the fighter was expected to be a low-cost improvement of the straight-wing Thunderjet with over 55 percent commonality in tooling.
In the meantime, the USAF, hoping for improved high-altitude performance from a more powerful engine, arranged for the British Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojet engine to be built in the United States as the Wright J65. To accommodate the larger engine, YF-84Fs with a British-built Sapphire as well as production F-84Fs with the J65 had a vertically stretched fuselage, with the air intake attaining an oval cross-section. Production quickly ran into problems, though. Although tooling commonality with the Thunderjet was supposed to be 55 %, but just 15 % of the tools could actually be re-used. To make matters worse, the F-84F utilized press-forged wing spars and ribs. At the time, only three presses in the United States could manufacture these, and priority was given to the Boeing B-47 Stratojet bomber over the F-84. The YJ65-W-1 engine was considered obsolete, too, and the improved J65-W-3 did not become available until 1954. When the first production F-84F flew on 22 November 1952, it was considered not ready for operational deployment due to control and stability problems. The first 275 aircraft, equipped with conventional stabilizer-elevator tailplanes, suffered from accelerated stall pitch-up and poor turning ability at combat speeds. Beginning with Block 25, the problem was improved upon by the introduction of a hydraulically powered one-piece stabilator. A number of aircraft were also retrofitted with spoilers for improved high-speed control. As a result, the F-84F was not declared operational until 12 May 1954.
The second YF-84F prototype was completed with wing-root air intakes. These were not adopted for the fighter due to loss of thrust, but this arrangement kept the nose section free and permitted placement of cameras, and the different design was adopted for the RF-84F Thunderflash reconnaissance version. Being largely identical to the F-84F, the Thunderflash suffered from the same production delays and engine problems, though, delaying operational service until March 1954.
During the F-84F’s development the Air Defense Command was looking for a replacement for the outdated F-94 ‘Starfire’ interceptor, a hasty development from the T-33 trainer airframe with an afterburner engine and an on-board radar. However, the F-94 was only armed with machine guns in its early versions or unguided missiles in its later incarnations, which were inadequate. An aircraft with better performance, ideally with supersonic speed, a better radar, and the ability to carry guided missiles (in the form if the AIR-1 and 2 ‘Falcon’ AAMs) as well as the AIR-2 ‘Genie’ missile was now requested.
The Douglas AIR-2 Genie followed a unique but effective concept that represented the technological state-of-the-art: it was an unguided air-to-air rocket with a 1.5 kt W25 nuclear warhead. The interception of Soviet strategic bombers was a major military preoccupation of the late 1940s and 1950s. The World War II-age fighter armament of machine guns and cannon were inadequate to stop attacks by massed bomber formations, which were expected to come in at high altitude and at high subsonic speed. Firing large volleys of unguided rockets into bomber formations was not much better, and true air-to-air missiles were in their infancy. In 1954 Douglas Aircraft began a program to investigate the possibility of a nuclear-armed air-to-air weapon. To ensure simplicity and reliability, the weapon would be unguided, since the large blast radius made precise accuracy unnecessary. Full-scale development began in 1955, with test firing of inert warhead rockets commencing in early 1956. The final design carried a 1.5-kiloton W25 nuclear warhead and was powered by a Thiokol SR49-TC-1 solid-fuel rocket engine of 162 kN (36,000 lbf) thrust, sufficient to accelerate the rocket to Mach 3.3 during its two-second burn. Total flight time was about 12 seconds, during which time the rocket covered 10 km (6.2 mi). Targeting, arming, and firing of the weapon were coordinated by the launch aircraft's fire-control system. Detonation was by time-delay fuze, although the fuzing mechanism would not arm the warhead until engine burn-out, to give the launch aircraft sufficient time to turn and escape. However, there was no mechanism for disarming the warhead after launch. Lethal radius of the blast was estimated to be about 300 meters (980 ft). Once fired, the Genie's short flight-time and large blast radius made it virtually impossible for a bomber to avoid destruction. The rocket entered service with the designation MB-1 Genie in 1957.
During the development phase the first carrier aircraft earmarked to carry the AIR-2 was the Northrop F-89 Scorpion, which had already been introduced in the early Fifties. While being an all-weather interceptor with on-board radar, it was a slow and large aircraft, and outdated like the F-94. Trying to keep the F-84 production lines busy, however, Republic saw the chance to design an all-weather interceptor aircraft that would surpass the F-89’s mediocre performance and meet the AIR-2 carrier requirements on the basis of the swept-wing (R)F-84F. To emphasize its dedicated interceptor role and set it apart from its fighter-bomber ancestors, the heavily modified aircraft was designated F-96B (even though it had little to do with the XF-96A that became the F-84F) and called ‘Thunderguard’.
The F-96B was largely based on the RF-84F’s airframe with its wing-root air intakes, what offered ample space in the aircraft’s nose for a radar system and other equipment. The radar was coupled with a state-of-the-art Hughes MC-10 fire control system. To relieve the pilot from operating the radar system one of the fuel cells behind the cockpit was deleted and a second crew member was placed behind him under an extended, strutless hood that opened to starboard. To compensate for the loss of fuel and maintain the F-84F’s range, a new tank was mounted under the cockpit floor in the aircraft’s center of gravity.
To improve performance and cope with the raised take-off weight, the F-96B was powered by an uprated Wright J65-W-18 turbojet, which generated 0.4 kN more dry thrust than the F-84F’s original J65-W-3 (7,700 lbf/34 kN). This was not too much, though, so that the J65 was additionally outfitted with an afterburner. With this upgrade the powerplant provided a maximum thrust of 10,500 lbf (47 kN), what resulted in a markedly improved rate of climb and the ability to break the sound barrier in level flight. The additional reheat section necessitated a wider and longer rear fuselage, which had to be redesigned. As an unintended side benefit, this new tail section reduced overall drag due to a slightly area-ruled coke-bottle shape behind the wings’ trailing edge, which was even emphasized through the ventral brake parachute fairing.
Armament consisted only of missiles, which were all carried externally on wing stations, all guns of the former F-84 versions were deleted to save weight. The F-96B’s weapons range included GAR-1/2/3/4 (Later re-designated as AIM-4) radar- and IR-guided Falcon air-to-air missiles and a pair of MB-1 Genie missiles. Up to four pods with nineteen unguided 2.75 in (70 mm) "Mighty Mouse" Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rockets each were an alternative, too, and a pair of drop tanks were typically carried under the inner wings to provide the aircraft with sufficient range, since the new afterburner significantly increased fuel consumption.
Even though it was only a derivative design, the F-96B introduced a lot of innovations. One of these was the use of a diverertless supersonic inlet (DSI), a novel type of jet engine air intake to control air flow into their engines. Initial research into the DSI was done by Antonio Ferri in the 1950s. It consisted of a "bump" and a forward-swept inlet cowl, which worked together to divert boundary layer airflow away from the aircraft's engine. In the case of the F-96B this was realized as an inward-turning inlet with a variable contraction ratio. However, even though they had not been deemed necessary to guarantee a clean airflow, the F-96B’s air intakes were further modified with splitter plates to adapt them to the expected higher flight speeds and direct the air flow. The initial flight tests had also revealed a directional instability at high speed, due to the longer nose, so that the tail surfaces (both fin and stabilizers) were enlarged for the serial aircraft to compensate.
Another novel feature was an IRST sensor in front of the windscreen which augmented the on-board radar. This sensor, developed by Hughes International and designated ‘X-1’, was still very experimental, though, highly unreliable, and difficult to handle, because it relied on pressurized coolant to keep the sensor cold enough to operate properly, and dosing it at a consistent level proved to be difficult (if not impossible). On the other side the IRST allowed to track targets even in a massively radar-jammed environment. The 7” diameter silicone sensor was, together with the on-board radar, slaved to the fire control system so that its input could be used to lock guided missiles onto targets, primarily the GAR-1 and GAR-2 AAMs. The X-1 had a field of view of 70×140°, with an angular resolution of 1°, and operated in 2.5 micron wavelength range. When it worked properly the sensor was able to detect a B-47-sized aircraft’s tails aspect from 25 nm (29 ml/46 km) and a target of similar size from directly ahead from 10 nm (12 ml/19 km). Later, better developed versions of Hughes IRST, like the X-3 that was retrofitted to the F-101B in the early Sixties, had a better range and were more reliable.
During the Thunderguard’s development another competitor entered the stage, the F-101B Voodoo. In the late 1940s, the Air Force had already started a research project into the future interceptor aircraft that eventually settled on an advanced specification known as the 1954 interceptor. Contracts for this specification eventually resulted in the selection of the F-102 Delta Dagger, but by 1952 it was becoming clear that none of the parts of the specification other than the airframe would be ready by 1954; the engines, weapons, and fire control systems were all going to take too long to get into service. An effort was then started to quickly produce an interim supersonic design to replace the various subsonic interceptors then in service, and the F-101 airframe was selected as a starting point. Although McDonnell proposed the designation F-109 for the new aircraft (which was to be a substantial departure from the basic Voodoo fighter bomber), the USAF assigned the designation F-101B. Its development was protracted, so that the F-96B – even though it offered less performance – was ordered into production to fill the USAF’s urgent interceptor gap.
F-96B production started after a brief test phase in late 1957, and the first aircraft were delivered to the 60th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron in 1958. However, when it became clear that the F-101B would finally enter service in 1959, F-96B production was quickly cut down and the initial order of 300 aircraft reduced to only 150, which were produced until early 1960 in three batches. Only sixty were directly delivered to ADC units, because these were preferably equipped with the supersonic F-102A and the new F-101B, which could also carry the nuclear Genie missile. The rest was directly handed over to Air National Guard units – and even there they were quickly joined and replaced by the early ADC aircraft.
Operationally, almost all F-96Bs functioned under the US–Canadian North American Air Defense Command (NORAD), which protected North American airspace from Soviet intruders, particularly the threat posed by nuclear-armed bombers. In service, the F-96Bs were soon upgraded with a data link to the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) system, allowing ground controllers to steer the aircraft towards its targets by making adjustments through the plane's autopilot. Furthermore, the F-96B was upgraded to allow the carrying of two GAR-11/AIM-26 Nuclear Falcon missiles instead of the Genies when they became available in 1961.
A handful F-96Bs were camouflaged during the late Sixties with the USAF’s new SEA scheme, but most aircraft retained their original bare metal finish with more or less colorful unit markings. Due to its limited capabilities and the introduction of the Mach 2 McDonnell F-4 Phantom, the last F-96B was retired from ANG service in 1971.
General characteristics:
Crew: 2
Length: 54t 11 1/2 in (16,77 m) incl. pitot
Wingspan: 33 ft 7.25 in (10,25 m)
Height: 16 ft 9 in (5,11 m)
Wing area: 350 sq ft (37,55 m²)
Empty weight: 13,810 lb (6.264 kg)
Gross weight: 21,035 lb (9.541 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 28,000 lb (12.701 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Wright J65-W-18 turbojet with 8,600 lbf (34 kN) dry thrust and 10,500 lbf (47 kN) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 695 mph (1,119 km/h, 604 kn, Mach 1.1) at 35,000 ft (10,668 m)
Cruise speed: 577 mph (928 km/h, 501 kn)
Range: 810 mi (1,304 km, 704 nmi) combat radius with two droptanks
Service ceiling: 49,000 ft (15,000 m)
Rate of climb: 16,300 ft/min (83 m/s)
Wing loading: 86 lb/sq ft (423 kg/m²)
Armament:
No internal guns;
6× underwing hardpoints for a total ordnance load of up to 6,000lb (2,727 kg), including
a pair of 191.5 US gal (727 l) or 375 US gal (1.429 l) drop tanks on the inner stations
and a mix of AIM-4 Falcon (up to six), MB-1 Genie (up to two) and/or pods with
nineteen 2.75”/70 mm FFAR unguided missiles each (up to four) on the outer stations
The kit and its assembly:
This fictional missing link between the RF-84F and the F-105 was conceived for the Fifties Group Build at whatifmodellers.com, an era when the USAF used a wide variety of interceptor aircraft types and technical advancements were quick and significant – in just a decade the interceptor evolved from a subsonic machine gun-toting aircraft to a guided weapons carrier platform, capable of Mach 2.
The F-96B (I re-used Republic’s dropped designation for the swept-wing F-84F) was to display one of the many “in between” designs, and the (R)F-84F was just a suitable basis for a conversion similar to the T-33-derived F-94, just more capable and big enough to carry the nuclear Genie missile.
The basis became Italeri’s vintage RF-84F kit, a rather simple affair with raised panel lines and a mediocre fit, plus some sinkholes. This was, however, heavily modified!
Work started with the implantation of a new tandem cockpit, taken wholesale from a Heller T-33. Fitting the cockpit tub into the wider Thunderflash hull was a bit tricky, putty blobs held the implant in place. The canopy was taken from the T-33, too, just the RF-84F’s original rear side windows were cut away to offer sufficient length for the longer clear part and the cockpit side walls had to be raised to an even level with the smaller windscreen with the help of styrene strips. With these adapters the T-33 canopy fitted surprisingly well over the opening and blended well into the spine.
The camera nose section lost its tip, which was replaced with the tail cone from a Matchbox H.S. Buccaneer (actually its air brake), and the camera windows as well as the slant surfaces that held them were PSRed away for a conical shape that extended the new pointed radome. Lots of weight in the nose and under the cockpit floor ensured a safe stance on the OOB landing gear.
The rear section behind the air brakes became all-new; for an afterburner I extended and widened the tail section and implanted the rear part from a B-66 (Italeri kit, too) engine nacelle, which received a wider nozzle (left over from a Nakotne MiG-29, a featureless thing) and an interior.
To balance the longer nose I also decided to enlarge the tail surfaces and replaced the OOB fin and stabilizers with leftover parts from a Trumpeter Il-28 bomber – the fin was shortened and the stabilizers reduced in span to match the rest of the aircraft. Despite the exotic source the parts blend well into the F-84’s overall design!
To add supersonic credibility and to connect the design further with the later F-105 I modified the air intakes and cut them into a raked shape – quite easy to realize. Once the wings were in place, I also added small splitter plates, left over from an Airfix BAC Strikemaster.
As an interceptor the armament had to be adapted accordingly, and I procured the quartet of IR-guided Falcons as well as the Genie duo from an Academy F-89. The large drop tanks were taken OOB from the Italeri kit. The Genies were mounted onto their massive Scorpion pylons under the outer wings of the F-96B, while the Falcons, due to relatively little space left under the wings, required a scratched solution. I eventually settled for dual launchers on small pylons, mounted in front of the landing gear wells. The pylons originally belong to an ESCI Ka-34 “Hokum” helicopter kit (they were just short enough!), the launch rails are a halved pair of F-4 Sidewinder rails from a Hasegawa air-to-air weapons set. With everything on place the F-96B looks quite crowded.
Painting and markings:
The machine would represent a late Fifties USAF type, so that the paint options were rather limited if I wanted to be authentic. ADC Grey was introduced in the early Sixties, SEA camouflage even later, so that bare metal became a natural choice – but this can be quite attractive! The model received an overall coat with acrylic “White Aluminum” from the rattle can, plus some darked panels all over the hull (Humbrol 56 for good contrast) and an afterburner section in Revell 91 (Iron Metallic) and Humbrol’s Steel Metallizer. The radome became deep black, the anti-glare panel in front of the windscreen olive drab (Revell 46). Light grey (Revell 75) was used for some small di-electric fairings.
Interior surfaces (cockpit and landing gear wells) were painted with Zinc Chromate primer (I used Humbrol 80), while the landing gear struts became silver-grey (Humbrol 56) and the inside of the covers as well as the air brakes were painted in bright red (Humbrol 19).
Once basic painting was done the model received a black ink washing and was rubbed with grinded graphite to emphasize the raised panel lines, and the material adds a nice dark metallic shine to the silver base coat.
Another challenge was to find suitable unit markings for the Fifties era in the decal vault, which would also fit onto the model. After a long search I eventually settled for rather simple markings from a 325th FIS F-102 from an Xtradecal sheet, which only features a rather timid fin decoration.
Finding other suitable standard markings remained demanding, though. Stars-And-Bars as well as the USAF taglines were taken from the Academy F-89 that also provided the ordnance, most stencils were taken from the OOB Italeri sheet and complemented by small markings from the scrap box. The biggest problem was the creation of a matching serial number. The “FF” code was originally used for P/F-51D Mustangs during the Korea War, but after the type had been phased out it might have been re-used? The letters as well as the serial number digits were created from various markings for USAF F-100s, also from an Xtradecal sheet.
Once the decals had been applied the model was sealed with semi-gloss acrylic varnish, except for the radome, the anti-glare panel as well as the walking areas on the wings as well as parts of the afterburner section, which were coated with matt varnish.
A rather straightforward conversion, even though finishing the project took longer than expected. But the result looks surprisingly natural and plausible. Lots of PSR was needed to modify the fuselage, though, especially the tail section was not easy to integrate into the Thunderflash’s hull. Sticking to the simple NMF livery paid IMHO out, too: the livery looks very natural and believable on the fictional aircraft, and it suits the F-84’s bulbous shape well.
The trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator) is a species of swan found in North America. The heaviest living bird native to North America, it is also the largest extant species of waterfowl, with a wingspan of 185 to 304.8 cm (6 ft 2 in to 10 ft 2 in). It is the American counterpart and a close relative of the whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus) of Eurasia, and even has been considered the same species by some authorities. By 1933, fewer than 70 wild trumpeters were known to exist, and extinction seemed imminent, until aerial surveys discovered a Pacific population of several thousand trumpeters around Alaska's Copper River. Careful reintroductions by wildlife agencies and the Trumpeter Swan Society gradually restored the North American wild population to over 46,000 birds by 2010.
Taxonomy
The trumpeter swan was formally described in 1831 by the Scottish naturalist John Richardson in the fourth volume of American Ornithology; or, The Natural History of Birds Inhabiting the United States by Alexander Wilson and Charles Bonaparte. Richardson coined the current binomial name Cygnus buccinator. A description by Richardson was also published in Fauna Boreali-Americana, or, The Zoology of the Northern Parts of British America by William Swainson and Richardson but although the volume has 1831 printed on the title page, it was not published until 1832. The specific epithet is from Latin bucinator meaning "trumpeter"; bucina is the Latin word for a military trumpet. The trumpeter swan is monotypic: no subspecies are recognised.
Description
The trumpeter swan is the largest extant species of waterfowl, and both the heaviest and longest native bird of North America. Adults usually measure 138–165 cm (4 ft 6 in – 5 ft 5 in) long, though large males can exceed 180 cm (5 ft 11 in) in total length. The weight of adult birds is typically 7–13.6 kg (15–30 lb). Possibly due to seasonal variation based on food access and variability due to age, average weights in males have been reported to range from 10.9 to 12.7 kg (24 to 28 lb) and from 9.4 to 10.3 kg (21 to 23 lb) in females. It is one of the heaviest living birds or animals capable of flight, and, in terms of average mass, the heaviest flying bird in the world. Alongside the mute swan (Cygnus olor), Dalmatian pelican (Pelecanus crispus), kori bustard (Ardeotis kori), and Andean condor (Vultur gryphus), it is one of a handful to weigh in excess of 10 kg (22 lb) between the sexes, and one survey of wintering trumpeters found it averaged second only to the condor in mean mass. The trumpeter swan's wingspan ranges from 185 to 304.8 cm (6 ft 0.8 in to 10 ft 0 in), with the wing chord measuring 60–68 cm (24–27 in). The largest known male trumpeter attained a length of 183 cm (6 ft 0 in), a wingspan of 3.1 m (10 ft 2 in) and a weight of 17.2 kg (38 lb). It is the second heaviest wild waterfowl ever found, as one mute swan was found to weigh a massive 23 kg (51 lb), but it was unclear whether the latter swan was still capable of flight because of its bulk.
The adult trumpeter swan's plumage is entirely white. Like mute swan cygnets, the cygnets of the trumpeter swan have light grey plumage and pinkish legs, gaining their white plumage after about a year. As with the whooper swan, this species has upright posture and generally swims with a straight neck. The trumpeter swan has a large, wedge-shaped black bill that can, in some cases, be minimally lined with salmon-pink coloration around the mouth. The bill, measuring 10.5–12 cm (4.1–4.7 in), is up to twice the length of a Canada goose's (Branta canadensis) bill and is the largest of any waterfowl. The legs are gray-pink in color, though in some birds can appear yellowish gray to even black. The tarsus measures 10.5–12 cm (4.1–4.7 in). The mute swan, introduced to North America, is scarcely smaller. However, it can easily be distinguished by its orange bill and different physical structure (particularly the neck, which is typically held curved as opposed to straight in the trumpeter). The mute swan is often found year-around in developed areas near human habitation in North America, whereas trumpeters are usually only found in pristine wetlands with minimal human disturbance, especially while breeding. The tundra swan (C. columbianus) more closely resembles the trumpeter, but is significantly smaller. The neck of a male trumpeter may be twice as long as the neck of a tundra swan. The tundra swan can be further distinguished by its yellow lores. However, some trumpeter swans have yellow lores; many of these individuals appear to be leucistic and have paler legs than typical trumpeters. Distinguishing tundra and trumpeter swans from a distance (when size is harder to gauge) can be challenging without direct comparison but it is possible thanks to the trumpeter's obviously longer neck (the great length of which is apparent even when the swan is not standing or swimming upright) and larger, wedge-shaped bill as compared to the tundra swan.
Trumpeter swans have similar calls to whooper swans and Bewick's swans. They are loud and somewhat musical creatures, with their cry sounding similar to a trumpet, which gave the bird its name.
Range and habitat
Beginning in 1968, repeated in 1975, and then conducted at 5-year intervals, a cooperative continental survey of trumpeter swans was last conducted in 2015. The survey assesses trumpeter swan abundance and productivity throughout the entire breeding ranges of the three recognized North American populations: the Pacific Coast (PCP), Rocky Mountain (RMP), and Interior (IP) populations (see Figure). From 1968 to 2010 the population has increased from 3,722 to approximately 46,225 birds, in large part due to re-introductions to its historic range.
Their breeding habitat is large shallow ponds, undisturbed lakes, pristine wetlands and wide slow rivers, and marshes in northwestern and central North America, with the largest numbers of breeding pairs found in Alaska. They prefer nesting sites with enough space for them to have enough surface water for them to take off, as well as accessible food, shallow, unpolluted water, and little or no human disturbance. Natural populations of these swans migrate to and from the Pacific coast and portions of the United States, flying in V-shaped flocks. Released populations are mostly non-migratory.
In the winter, they migrate to the southern tier of Canada, the eastern part of the northwest states in the United States, especially to the Red Rock Lakes area of Montana, the north Puget Sound region of northwest Washington state; they have even been observed as far south as Pagosa Springs, Colorado. Historically, they ranged as far south as Texas and southern California. Since 1992, trumpeter swans have been found in Arkansas each November – February on Magness Lake outside of Heber Springs. In addition, there is a specimen in the Museum of Comparative Zoology in Cambridge, Massachusetts, that was shot by F. B. Armstrong in 1909 at Matamoros, Tamaulipas, Mexico. C. buccinator is therefore considered extirpated from Mexico. In early 2017, a juvenile trumpeter swan took up residence in the French Broad River in Asheville, North Carolina, marking the first such sighting in that part of the state.
Non-migratory trumpeter swans have also been artificially introduced to some areas of Oregon, where they never originally occurred. Because of their natural beauty, they are suitable water fowl to attract bird watchers and other wildlife enthusiasts. Introductions of non-indigenous species in the Western states, for example through the Oregon Trumpeter Swan Program (OTSP), have also been met with criticism, but the introduction program argues that the perceived attractiveness of natural sites has priority over the original range of any given species.
Occasional sightings of trumpeter swans have occurred in the United Kingdom; while some of these are believed to be vagrants, most are presumed escapes into the wild. A single instance of the species breeding in the United Kingdom is reported from 1997, where two swans out of a group that escaped from a wildfowl collection at Apethorpe Palace, Northamptonshire raised a single cygnet on the River Nene.
Diet
These birds feed while swimming, sometimes up-ending or dabbling in reaching submerged food. The diet is almost entirely aquatic plants and occasionally insects. They will eat both the leaves and stems of submerged and emergent vegetation. They will also dig into muddy substrates underwater to extract roots and tubers. In winter, they may also eat grasses and grains in fields. They will often feed at night as well as by day. Feeding activity, and the birds' weights, often peak in the spring as they prepare for the breeding season. The young initially include insects, small fish, fish eggs and small crustaceans in their diet, providing additional protein, and change to a vegetation-based diet over the first few months.
Predators and mortality
Predators of trumpeter swan eggs include common ravens (Corvus corax), common raccoons (Procyon lotor), wolverines (Gulo gulo), American black bears (Ursus americanus), grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis), coyotes (Canis latrans), gray wolves (Canis lupus), pumas (Puma concolor), and North American river otters (Lontra canadensis). Nest location can provide partial protection from most mammalian nest predators, especially if placed on islands or floating vegetation in deep waters. Most of the same predators will prey on young cygnets, as well as common snapping turtles (Chelhydra serpentina), California gulls (Larus californicus), great horned owls (Bubo virginianus), red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and American mink (Neogale vison). Larger cygnets and, rarely, nesting adults may be ambushed by golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), bobcats (Lynx rufus), and probably coyotes, wolves and pumas.
When their eggs and young are threatened, the parents can be quite aggressive, initially displaying with head bobbing and hissing. If this is not sufficient, the adults will physically combat the predator, battering with their powerful wings. Adults have managed to beat predators equal to their own weight such as coyotes in confrontations. Predation of adults, when they are not nesting, is extremely rare; golden and bald eagles, and coyotes can pose a threat, but substantiated cases are very few. Photos of an exceptional attack by a bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) on an adult trumpeter swan in flight were taken in 2008, although the swan survived the predation attempt. In another case, a coyote succeed killing an injured adult trumpeter swan.
In captivity, members of this species have survived to 33 years old and, in the wild, have lived to at least 24 years. Young trumpeter swans may have as little as 40% chance of survival due variously to disturbance and destruction by humans, predation, nest flooding, and starvation. In some areas, though, the breeding success rate is considerably greater and, occasionally, all cygnets may reach maturity. Mortality in adults is quite low, with the survival rate usually being 80–100% annually, unless they are hunted by humans.
Breeding behaviour
Like other swans, trumpeter swans often mate for life, and both parents participate in raising their young, but primarily the female incubates the eggs. Most pair bonds are formed when swans are 5 to 7 years old, although some pairs do not form until they are nearly 20 years old. "Divorces" have been known between birds, in which case the mates will be serially monogamous, with mates in differing breeding seasons. Occasionally, if his mate dies, a male trumpeter swan may not pair again for the rest of his life.
In late April, breeding pairs meet to begin the process of constructing a nest, which can take 11 to 35 days. Before this grueling process can come to be, much like many other species of birds, these creatures undergo several courtship rituals. Trumpeter swans have a strong tendency to avoid interactions with conspecifics, therefore it is implied that at first contact of a potential mating pair there is some unwillingness in the male and female to make this connection.
In order to overcome the initial encounter, two common displays can occur. At first, the male tends to pursue the female in a non-aggressive way. When the female allows the approach, the male will touch the breast of its body to the flank of the female which then causes both individuals to touch the breasts of their bodies together. At this point the feathers on the neck of the male are stood up and the bills of the mating pair are pointed down indicating pacification. Another act of courtship occurs when a male swims in the direction of a possible mate and continuously turns its head from side to side to get the attention or perhaps impress the female. Other common behavioral displays presented by the pair include spreading and raising their wings, the rapid or almost quivering motion of the wings, particular head motions that include bobbing, and finally the most known (and what the name of this animal originates) is the trumpeting that occurs.
Acoustic communication among trumpeter swans is very common among all ages of the species. From the young cygnets to the adult swans, their calls are very distinct and have a wide variety of functions in the survival of the animal. The classic trumpet call can be heard from long distances and is the most common communication mechanism heard among these birds. This type of call resembles a horn because the frequency can vary greatly. This call generally occurs when an animal is alarmed or feels threatened, the call acts as a warning or even a way in deterring incoming predators due to the abrupt volume of the noise being evoked. More specifically referring to mating, the call that is most common among mating pairs is called the duet. This call happens when a pair has come together near breeding season. The duetting process can begin as separate trumpeting solos and can evolve into an almost simultaneous duet that is very similar in frequency and very difficult to tell the individual calls apart. This performance of the pair is commonly associated with the particular movements mentioned above (head bobbing and wing movements) associated with the courtship. Also, the duet can aid in the coordination of a dual attack on a predator that is too close to the nest of a mated pair. In terms of mate choice, the trumpeter swan continually returns to the mate from previous breeding terms. Often the breeding pair will even return to their previous breeding grounds if the previous offspring were successful in that area.
Though the range of the two species does not overlap, the trumpeter swan can hybridize with its close relative, the whooper swan (Cygnus cygnus), and hybrid birds have been observed in the wild, most likely as a result of interbreeding between wild trumpeter and vagrant or introduced whooper swans.
Nesting and incubation behaviour
The fabrication of a nest is an incredibly precise process that takes place over a series of 11 to 35 days and typically breeding pairs will begin construction in late April. The time of year the nest-building process begins can slightly vary due to weather conditions in the previous year, if the environment was colder and wet the females may not be healthy enough to be mating right away and as a result, the nesting behavior might be slightly delayed. It is common to find nests of trumpeter swans surrounded by water or close to water. This is advantageous to the parents because it can reduce the risk of predation, can provide optimal foraging sources such as aquatic vegetation as well as ensure there is nearby water for when the cygnets are hatched.[60] The long duration of the nest building process is predominantly due to the nest being so large (1.2 to 3.6m in diameter) and fabricated mainly from submerged vegetation as well as grasses and grass-like plants. It has been observed that adult trumpeter swans do not directly bring the building materials directly to the nest building site. The males use a specific action that includes facing away from the nest and throwing organic materials over their shoulder moving closer and closer to the nesting area. Eventually when they arrive at the nesting site the two individuals of the mating pair are involved in the construction, but, as mentioned above the male spends the majority of its time doing the construction. During nest construction, female trumpeter swans feed significantly more frequently than males in order to fuel up for laying the eggs. This is greatly supported by the male counterpart of the species because ultimately if the female is keeping itself healthy it will, in the end, ensure healthy offspring which improves the fitness of the mating pair.
Typically a female trumpeter swan will lay four to six eggs and will incubate them for 32 to 37 days until they hatch. The eggs average 73 millimetres (2.9 in) wide, 113.5 millimetres (4.5 in) long, and weigh about 320 grams (11.3 oz). The eggs are quite possibly the largest of any flying bird alive today, in comparison they are about 20% larger in dimensions and mass than those of an Andean condor (Vultur gryphus), which attains similar average adult weights, and more than twice as heavy as those of kori bustards (Ardeotis kori).
After the eggs are laid it is the female that spends the majority of the time incubating, it has been observed that around every 20 minutes the female will stand up from incubating and reach down beneath itself to roll over the eggs with its bill before re-assuming the incubation position. It can be inferred that this behaviour is used to ensure the eggs are kept an appropriate temperature on all sides, this is very important because exposure to the elements leads to high mortality rates in cygnets. The female only leaves the incubation process for brief recesses that last around 20 minutes. Before the female leaves for recess, it will cover the eggs with plant material and it has been observed that if the female does not cover the eggs the male will do so in the absence of the female. This time away from the nest is primarily used for feeding, but the female has also been observed using this time for bathing and preening. The only other time the female leaves the nest is when it must help the male chase away predators from their nesting territory. It is highly uncommon for both members of a mating pair to be absent from the nest at the same time, there is generally always a male or a female present guarding the eggs. The behavior of the male during and after the laying of the eggs can be best described as on alert. This is due to males being increasingly territorial and aggressive, particularly when a predator or conspecifics approach the nesting area. Generally when females leave the nest during their brief recesses the males will stand and guard the eggs, although in some cases the males would even sit on the eggs in the absence of a female swan.
Parental behaviour
After the meeting of the pair prior to mating or nest building, the male will often initiate courting calls which result in the duet mentioned above. Before and throughout the laying period, the male can be found dealing with the construction of the nest and collection of resources. As the eggs are being incubated by the female the male does not feed or sleep as often particularly when the female left the nest. These trends also were associated with more aggressive behaviors from the male, especially towards predators and other members of the species. When it comes to parental behaviour, the male has already completed the majority of its role. With this in mind, the male does continue to be territorial and protective of the newly developing cygnets as well as allowing the female to replenish its nutrient reserves. This makes migration to wintering grounds possible and allows for more years of breeding. Keeping the female of the mating pair healthy is important for trumpeter swans because this species tends to only have one mate in its lifetime. A healthy female also improves the likelihood of having more successful clutches are well as better nesting experiences. When cygnets are young it is common to see the male accompanying them in feeding recesses outside the nest. This can fall under the category of the main male role in parenting being the protection of the offspring.
Females
The increased care and attention of the male to the young allowed for the female to feed more frequently and exert more energy toward the protection and overall health of the developing cygnets. During the pre-laying/laying period the males are significantly more active than the females of the breeding pair. This is advantageous in because it aids in the fitness of the species by improving reproductive success by allowing the female, as mentioned above, to feed more frequently and overall replenish the energy stored in order to aid in incubation and other crucial activities. When hatching occurs the females tend to not leave the nest, the only time a female may leave would be to chase away a nearby predator. After hatching the cygnets are brooded for the first one to two days by the female, cygnets are also brooded when needed (when it is cold or at night) for the first few weeks of their lives. Young offspring have a very close relationship with their parents in the first part of their lives spending the majority of their first few weeks with the female in the nest or in the water. The young are able to swim within two days and usually are capable of feeding themselves after, at most, two weeks. The fledging stage is reached at roughly 3 to 4 months. Fledglings tend to spend their first full winter with their parents and then they no longer need them.
Conservation status
In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the trumpeter swan was hunted heavily, for game or meat, for the soft swanskins used in powder puffs, and for their quills and feathers. This species is also unusually sensitive to lead poisoning from ingesting discarded lead shot from fishing weights while young. The Hudson's Bay Company captured thousands of swans annually with a total of 17,671 swans killed between 1853 and 1877. In 1908 Edward Preble wrote of the decline in the hunt with the number sold annually dropping from 1,312 in 1854 to 122 in 1877. Sir John Richardson wrote in 1831 that the trumpeter "is the most common Swan in the interior of the fur-counties... It is to the trumpeter that the bulk of the Swan-skins imported by the Hudson's Bay Company belong." By the early twentieth century breeding trumpeter swans were nearly extirpated in the United States, with a remnant population of fewer than 70 wild trumpeters in remote hot springs in or near Yellowstone National Park. Surprising news came from a 1950s aerial survey of Alaska's Copper River when several thousand trumpeters were discovered. This population provided critical genetic stock to complement the tri-state (Montana/Idaho/Wyoming) population for re-introductions in other parts of the swan's historic range.
Historical range
In 1918 Joseph Grinnell wrote that trumpeter swans once bred in North America from northwestern Indiana west to Oregon in the U.S., and in Canada from James Bay to the Yukon, and they migrated as far south as Texas and southern California. In 1960 Winston E. Banko also placed their breeding range as far south as Nebraska, Missouri, Illinois, northwestern Indiana, but in Michigan turned this line northwards, placing a hypothetical eastern boundary up through Ontario to western Quebec and the eastern shore of James Bay. In 1984, Harry G. Lumsden posited that trumpeter swans may have been extirpated from eastern Canada by native people armed with firearms prior to the arrival of European explorers and noted archaeological remains of trumpeter swans as far east as Port au Choix, Newfoundland dating to 2,000 BCE. He cited historical observer records of what must have been breeding trumpeters, such as Father Hennepin's August report of swans on the Detroit River from Lake St. Clair to Lake Erie in 1679 and Antoine de la Mothe Cadillac's 1701 report of summering swans (July 23 – October 8) in the same area: "There are such large numbers of swans that the rushes among which they are massed might be taken for lilies." In the eastern United States the breeding range is potentially extended to North Carolina by the detailed report of John Lawson (1701) that "Of the swans we have two sorts, the one we call Trompeters...These are the largest sort we have...when spring comes on they go the Lakes to breed" versus "The sort of Swans called Hoopers; are the least."
Reintroduction
Early efforts to reintroduce this bird into other parts of its original range, and to introduce it elsewhere, have had modest success, as suitable habitats have dwindled and the released birds do not undertake migrations. More recently, the population in all three major population regions have shown sustained growth over the past thirty-year period. Data from the US Fish and Wildlife Service show 400% growth in that period, with signs of increasing growth rates over time.
One impediment to the growth of the trumpeter swan population around the Great Lakes is the presence of a growing non-native mute swan population who compete for habitat.
Alberta
One of the largest conservation sites for the trumpeter swan is located in Lois Hole Provincial Park. It is located adjacent to the renamed Trumpeter subdivision of Edmonton, Alberta, within Big Lake.
Idaho
Thousands of swans migrate through the Chain Lakes along the Coeur d'Alene River basin in the Idaho Panhandle. Due to historic mining in the area, an average of 52 swans died each year 2005-2021 from lead exposure. There is an effort by local foundations, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency to clean up the area and help limit lead exposure of swans migrating through.
Michigan
Joe Johnson, a biologist for the W.K. Kellogg Bird Sanctuary, part of Michigan State University’s Kellogg Biological Station, obtained trumpeter swans from Alaska for re-introduction to Michigan beginning in 1986. The population has grown via continued re-introductions and organic growth to 756 birds by 2015. The native swans have benefited from removal of non-native mute swans by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources beginning in the 1960s, with a decline from 15,000 mute swans in 2010 to 8,700 in 2015.
Minnesota
As of 2013, the trumpeter swan is no longer listed as threatened in the state of Minnesota. In the winter months, a large population of trumpeter swans can be seen in the city of Monticello, Minnesota.
Ontario
The Ontario Trumpeter Swan Restoration Group started a conservation project in 1982, using eggs collected in the wild. Live birds have also been taken from the wild. Since then, 584 birds have been released in Ontario. Despite lead poisoning in the wild from shotgun pellets, the prospects for restoration are considered optimistic. As of 2021, the population was between 2500 and 3000, was stable, and no longer relied on rehabilitation facilities.
Yellowstone National Park
Yellowstone provides only marginal habitat for trumpeter swans and therefore may only limited to occasional residents and wintering migrants. As of 2019, 27 trumpeter swans were observed in the park, 21 adults and 7 cygnets. Scientists[who?] attribute the decline in the park's population to the loss of nests and nesting sites because of spring flooding caused by climate change. In 2019, 4 young swans were released in Hayden Valley, and 35 cygnets have been released over 7 years, though none of these cygnets have since nested in the park.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background
The Focke Wulf Ta 338 originated as a response of request by the RLM in mid 1943 for an aircraft capable of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL), optimized for the interceptor and point defense role and without a hazardous liquid rocket engine as means of propulsion. In the course of the year, several German manufacturers responded with a multitude of highly innovative if not unusual design, including Heinkel with the ducted fan project "Lerche", Rheinmetall-Borsig with a jet-powered tailsitter, and Focke Wulf. This company’s engineering teams submitted two designs: the revolutionary "Triebflügel" concept and the more conservative, yet still futuristic "P.03.10338" tail sitter proposal, conceived by Focke Wulf’s leading engineer Kurt Tank and Walter Kappus from BMW, responsible for the engine development.
The P.03.10338 was based on the proven Fw 190 fighter, but the similarities were only superficial. Only the wings and a part of the fuselage structure around the cockpit would be used, but Tank assumed that using existing parts and tools would appreciably reduce development and production time.
A great part of the fuselage structure had to be re-designed to accommodate a powerful BMW 803 engine and its integral gearbox for an eight-bladed contraprop.
The BMW 803 was BMW's attempt to build a high-output aircraft engine, primarily for heavy bombers, by basically "coupling" two BMW 801 engines back-to-back into a single and very compact power unit. The result was a 28-cylinder, four-row radial engine, each comprising a multiple-bank in-line engine with two cylinders in each bank, which, due to cooling concerns, were liquid cooled.
This arrangement was from the start intended to drive independent contra-rotating propellers, in order to avoid stiffness problems with the whole engine driving just a single crankshaft and also to simply convert the raw power of this unit into propulsion. The front half of the engine drove the front propeller directly, while the rear engine drove a number of smaller shafts that passed between the cylinders of the front engine before being geared back together to drive the rear prop. This complex layout resulted in a rather large and heavy gearbox on the front of the engine, and the front engine needing an extended shaft to "clear" that gearbox. The four-row 803 engine weighed 2,950 kg (6,490 lb) dry and 4,130 kg (9,086 lb) fully loaded, and initial versions delivered 3,900 PS (3,847 hp; 2,868 kW).
While the engine was heavy and there were alternatives with a better weight/output ratio (e. g. the Jumo 222), the BMW 803 was favored for this project because it was the most powerful engine available, and it was relatively compact so that it could be fitted into a fighter's airframe. On the P.03.10338 it drove an all-metal, eight-blade contraprop with a diameter of 4,25 m (13 ft 11 in).
In order to accept this massive engine, the P.03.10338’s structure had to be stiffened and the load-bearing structures re-arranged. The aircraft kept the Fw 190's wing structure and surface, but the attachment points at the fuselage had to be moved for the new engine mount, so that they ended up in mid position. The original space for the Fw 190's landing gear was used for a pair of radiator baths in the wings' inner leading edge, the port radiator catering to the front engine half while the radiator on starboard was connected with the rear half. An additional annular oil and sodium cooler for the gearbox and the valve train, respectively, was mounted in the fuselage nose.
The tail section was completely re-designed. Instead of the Fw 190's standard tail with fin and stabilizers the P.03.10338’s tail surfaces were a reflected cruciform v-tail (forming an x) that extended above and below the fuselage. On the four fin tips, aerodynamic bodies carried landing pads while the fuselage end contained an extendable landing damper. The pilot sat in a standard Fw 190 cockpit, and the aircraft was supposed to start and land vertically from a mobile launch pad. In the case of an emergency landing, the lower stabilizers could be jettisoned. Nor internal armament was carried, instead any weaponry was to be mounted under the outer wings or the fuselage, in the form of various “Rüstsätze” packages.
Among the many exotic proposals to the VTOL fighter request, Kurt Tank's design appeared as one of the most simple options, and the type received the official RLM designation Ta 338. In a rush of urgency (and maybe blinded by clever Wunderwaffen marketing from Focke Wulf’s side), a series of pre-production aircraft was ordered instead of a dedicated prototype, which was to equip an Erprobungskommando (test unit, abbreviated “EK”) that would evaluate the type and develop tactics and procedures for the new fighter.
Fueled by a growing number of bomber raids over Germany, the “EK338” was formed as a part of JG300 in August 1944 in Schönwalde near Berlin, but it took until November 1944 that the first Ta 338 A-0 machines were delivered and made operational. These initial eight machines immediately revealed several flaws and operational problems, even though the VTOL concept basically worked and the aircraft flew well – once it was in the air and cruising at speeds exceeding 300 km/h (186 mph).
Beyond the many difficulties concerning the aircraft’s handling (esp. the landing was hazardous), the lack of a landing gear hampered ground mobility and servicing. Output of the BMW 803 was sufficient, even though the aircraft had clear limits concerning the take-off weight, so that ordnance was limited to only 500 kg (1.100 lb). Furthermore, the noise and the dust kicked up by starting or landing aircraft was immense, and servicing the engine or the weapons was more complicated than expected through the high position of many vital and frequently tended parts.
After three Ta 338 A-0 were lost in accidents until December 1944, a modified version was ordered for a second group of the EK 338. This led to the Ta 338 A-1, which now had shorter but more sharply swept tail fins that carried single wheels and an improved suspension under enlarged aerodynamic bodies.
This machine was now driven by an improved BMW 803 A-2 that delivered more power and was, with an MW-50 injection system, able to produce a temporary emergency output of 4.500 hp (3.308 kW).
Vertical start was further assisted by optional RATO units, mounted in racks at the rear fuselage flanks: either four Schmidding SG 34 solid fuel booster rockets, 4.9 kN (1,100 lbf) thrust each, or two larger 9.8 kN (2,203 lbf) solid fuel booster rockets, could be used. These improvements now allowed a wider range of weapons and equipment to be mounted, including underwing pods with unguided rockets against bomber pulks and also a conformal pod with two cameras for tactical reconnaissance.
The hazardous handling and the complicated maintenance remained the Ta 338’s Achilles heel, and the tactical benefit of VTOL operations could not outbalance these flaws. Furthermore, the Ta 338’s range remained very limited, as well as the potential firepower. Four 20mm or two 30mm cannons were deemed unsatisfactory for an interceptor of this class and power. And while bundles of unguided missiles proved to be very effective against large groups of bombers, it was more efficient to bring these weapons with simple and cheap vehicles like the Bachem Ba 349 Natter VTOL rocket fighter into target range, since these were effectively “one-shot” weapons. Once the Ta 338 fired its weapons it had to retreat unarmed.
In mid 1945, in the advent of defeat, further tests of the Ta 338 were stopped. I./EK338 was disbanded in March 1945 and all machines retreated from the Eastern front, while II./EK338 kept defending the Ruhrgebiet industrial complex until the Allied invasion in April 1945. Being circled by Allied forces, it was not possible to evacuate or destroy all remaining Ta 338s, so that at least two more or less intact airframes were captured by the U.S. Army and later brought to the United States for further studies.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length/height on the ground: 10.40 m (34 ft 2 in)
Wingspan: 10.50 m (34 ft 5 in)
Fin span: 4:07 m (13 ft 4 in)
Wing area: 18.30 m² (196.99 ft²)
Empty weight: 11,599 lb (5,261 kg)
Loaded weight: 16,221 lb (7,358 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 16,221 lb (7,358 kg)
Powerplant:
1× BMW 803 A-2 28-cylinder, liquid-cooled four-row radial engine,
rated at 4.100 hp (2.950 kW) and at 4.500 hp (3.308 kW) with emergency boost.
4x Schmidding SG 34 solid fuel booster rockets, 4.9 kN (1,100 lbf) thrust each, or
2x 9.8 kN (2,203 lbf) solid fuel booster rockets
Performance:
Maximum speed: 860 km/h (534 mph)
Cruise speed: 650 km/h (403 mph)
Range: 750 km (465 ml)
Service ceiling: 43,300 ft (13,100 m)
Rate of climb: 10,820 ft/min (3,300 m/min)
Wing loading: 65.9 lb/ft² (322 kg/m²)
Armament:
No internal armament, any weapons were to be mounted on three hardpoints (one under the fuselage for up to 1.000 kg (2.200 lb) and two under the outer wings, 500 kg (1.100 lb) each. Total ordnance was limited to 1.000 kg (2.200 lb).
Various armament and equipment sets (Rüstsätze) were tested:
R1 with 4× 20 mm (.79 in) MG 151/20 cannons
R2 with 2x 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 213C cannons
R3 with 48x 73 mm (2.874 in) Henschel Hs 297 Föhn rocket shells
R4 with 66x 55 mm (2.165 in) R4M rocket shells
R5 with a single 1.000 kg (2.200 lb) bomb under the fuselage
R6 with an underfuselage pod with one Rb 20/20 and one Rb 75/30 topographic camera
The kit and its assembly:
This purely fictional kitbashing is a hardware tribute to a highly inspiring line drawing of a Fw 190 VTOL tailsitter – actually an idea for an operational RC model! I found the idea, that reminded a lot of the Lockheed XFV-1 ‘Salmon’ prototype, just with Fw 190 components and some adaptations, very sexy, and so I decided on short notice to follow the urge and build a 1:72 version of the so far unnamed concept.
What looks simple (“Heh, it’s just a Fw 190 with a different tail, isn’t it?”) turned out to become a major kitbashing. The basis was a simple Hobby Boss Fw 190 D-9, chose because of the longer tail section, and the engine would be changed, anyway. Lots of work followed, though.
The wings were sliced off and moved upwards on the flanks. The original tail was cut off, and the cruciform fins are two pairs of MiG-21F stabilizers (from an Academy and Hasegawa kit), outfitted with reversed Mk. 84 bombs as aerodynamic fairings that carry four small wheels (from an 1:144 T-22M bomber) on scratched struts (made from wire).
The cockpit was taken OOB, only a pilot figure was cramped into the seat in order to conceal the poor interior detail. The engine is a bash from a Ju 188’s BMW 801 cowling and the original Fw 190 D-9’s annular radiator as well as a part of its Jumo 213 cowling. BMW 801 exhaust stubs were inserted, too, and the propeller comes from a 1:100 VEB Plasticart Tu-20/95 bomber.
Since the BMW 803 had liquid cooling, radiators had to go somewhere. The annular radiator would certainly not have been enough, so I used the space in the wings that became available through the deleted Fw 190 landing gear (the wells were closed) for additional radiators in the wings’ leading edges. Again, these were scratched with styrene profiles, putty and some very fine styrene mesh.
As ordnance I settled for a pair of gun pods – in this case these are slipper tanks from a Hobby Boss MiG-15, blended into the wings and outfitted with hollow steel needles as barrels.
Painting and markings:
Several design options were possible: all NMF with some colorful markings or an overall RLM76 finish with added camouflage. But I definitively went for a semi-finished look, inspired by late WWII Fw 190 fighters.
For instance, the wings’ undersides were partly left in bare metal, but the rudders painted in RLM76 while the leading edges became RLM75. This color was also taken on the wings’ upper sides, with RLM82 thinly painted over. The fuselage is standard RLM76, with RLM82 and 83 on the upper side and speckles on the flanks. The engine cowling became NMF, but with a flashy ‘Hartmann Tulpe’ decoration.
Further highlights are the red fuselage band (from JG300 in early 1945) and the propeller spinner, which received a red tip and segments in black and white on both moving propeller parts. Large red “X”s were used as individual aircraft code – an unusual Luftwaffe practice but taken over from some Me 262s.
After a light black ink wash some panel shading and light weathering (e.g. exhaust soot, leaked oil, leading edges) was done, and the kit sealed under matt acrylic varnish.
Building this “thing” on the basis of a line drawing was real fun, even though challenging and more work than expected. I tried to stay close to the drawing, the biggest difference is the tail – the MiG-21 stabilizers were the best option (and what I had at hand as donation parts), maybe four fins from a Hawker Harrier or an LTV A-7 had been “better”, but now the aircraft looks even faster. ;)
Besides, the Ta 338 is so utterly Luft ’46 – I am curious how many people might take this for real or as a Hydra prop from a contemporary Captain America movie…
The TerraMax 5 Phase 1 Terraformer is a capable machine. With the ability to complete all Phase 1 (establish a landing facility) Terraforming tasks, including terrain manipulation, landing pad construction, and site security, the TerraMax 5 is a fantastic choice for your next terraforming project. With a crew of 14, 2 security platforms, 2 Bulldozers, a Driller, a Roller, and a scout, work is completed safely and efficiently. Some of the features of the TerraMax 5 include the SuperLift grapple/crane articulating arm, the MegaBlade terrain manipulator, a large dumping/storage bucket, an onboard crushing and proment/cement plant and distributer, a spacious internal hangar, a capable communication, weather, and rader surveillance array, and living quarters for 15. The TerraMax 5 can establish your presence on a new world, and provide a mobile command and construction center until facilities are completed.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Saab JAS 39 Gripen (griffin) is a light single-engine multirole fighter aircraft manufactured by the Swedish aerospace company Saab. In 1979, the Swedish government began development studies for an aircraft capable of fighter, attack and reconnaissance missions to replace the Saab 35 Draken and 37 Viggen. The preferred aircraft was a single-engine, lightweight single-seater, embracing fly-by-wire technology, canards, and an aerodynamically unstable design. The powerplant selected was the Volvo-Flygmotor RM12, a license-built derivative of the General Electric F404−400; engine development priorities were weight reduction and lowering component count. A new design from Saab was selected and developed as the JAS 39, first flying in 1988.
The Gripen is a multirole fighter aircraft, intended as a lightweight and agile aerial platform with advanced, highly adaptable avionics. It has canard control surfaces that contribute a positive lift force at all speeds, while the generous lift from the delta wing compensates for the rear stabilizer producing negative lift at high speeds, increasing induced drag. It is capable of flying at a 70–80 degrees angle of attack.
Being intentionally unstable and employing digital fly-by-wire flight controls to maintain stability removes many flight restrictions, improves manoeuvrability and reduces drag. The Gripen also has good short takeoff performance, being able to maintain a high sink rate and strengthened to withstand the stresses of short landings. A pair of air brakes are located on the sides of the rear fuselage; the canards also angle downward to act as air brakes and decrease landing distance
To enable the Gripen to have a long service life, roughly 50 years, Saab designed it to have low maintenance requirements. Major systems such as the RM12 engine and PS-05/A radar are modular to reduce operating cost and increase reliability. The Gripen’s systems were designed to be flexible, so that newly developed sensors, computers and armaments could be easily integrated as technology advances. The aircraft was estimated to be roughly 67% sourced from Swedish or European suppliers and 33% from the US.
To market the aircraft internationally, Saab formed partnerships and collaborative efforts with overseas aerospace companies. One example of such efforts was Gripen International, a joint partnership between Saab and BAE Systems formed in 2001. Gripen International was responsible for marketing the aircraft, and was heavily involved in the successful export of the type to South Africa; the organisation was later dissolved amidst allegations of bribery being employed to secure foreign interest and sales. On the export market, the Gripen has achieved moderate success in sales to nations in Central Europe, South Africa and Southeast Asia.
The Swedish Air Force placed a total order for 204 Gripens in three batches. The first delivery of the JAS 39A/B (single seat and two seat variants) occurred on 8 June 1993, when aircraft “39102” was handed over to the Flygvapnet during a ceremony at Linköping. The final Batch three 1st generation aircraft was delivered to FMV on 26 November 2008, but in the meantime an upgraded Gripen variant, the JAS 39C/D already rolled off of the production lines and made the initial versions obsolete. The JAS C/D gradually replaced the A/B versions in the frontline units until 2012, which were then offered for export, mothballed or used for spares for the updated Swedish Gripen fleet.
A late European export customer became the nascent Republic of Scotland. According to a White Paper published by the Scottish National Party (SNP) in 2013, an independent Scotland would have an air force equipped with up to 16 air defense aircraft, six tactical transports, utility rotorcraft and maritime patrol aircraft, and be capable of “contributing excellent conventional capabilities” to NATO. Outlining its ambition to establish an air force with an eventual 2,000 uniformed personnel and 300 reservists, the SNP stated that the organization would initially be equipped with “a minimum of 12 interceptors in the Eurofighter/Typhoon class, based at Lossiemouth, a tactical air transport squadron, including around six Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules, and a helicopter squadron for transport and SAR duties”.
According to the document, “Key elements of air forces in place at independence, equipped initially from a negotiated share of current UK assets, will secure core tasks, principally the ability to police Scotland’s airspace, within NATO.” An in-country air command and control capability would be established within five years of a decision in favor of independence, it continued, with staff also to be “embedded within NATO structures”.
This plan was immediately set into action with the foundation of the Poblachd na h-Alba Adhair an Airm (Republic of Scotland Air Corps/RoScAC) after the country's independence from Great Britain in late 2017. For the fighter role, Scotland was offered refurbished F-16C and Ds from the USA, but this was declined, as the type was considered too costly and complex. An offer from Austria to buy the country’s small Eurofighter fleet (even at a symbolic price) was rejected for the same reason.
Eventually, and in order to build a certain aura of neutrality, Scotland’s young and small air arm initially received twelve refurbished, NATO-compatible Saab JAS 39 Gripen (ten single-seater and two two-seaters) as well as Sk 90 trainers from Swedish overstock. These second hand machines were just the initial step in the mid-term procurement plan, though.
Even though all Scottish Gripens (locally called “Grìbhean”, designated F.1 for the JAS 39A single seaters and F.2 for the fully combat-capable JAS 39B two-seaters, respectively) were multi-role aircraft and capable of strike missions, its primary roles were interception/air defense and, to a lesser degree, reconnaissance. Due to severe budget restrictions and time pressure, these aircraft were almost identical to the Flygvapnet’s JAS 39A/B aircraft. They used the PS-05/A pulse-Doppler X band multi-mode radar, developed by Ericsson and GEC-Marconi, which was based on the latter's advanced Blue Vixen radar for the Sea Harrier that also served as the basis for the Eurofighter's CAPTOR radar. This all-weather radar is capable of locating and identifying targets 120 km (74 mi) away and automatically tracking multiple targets in the upper and lower spheres, on the ground and sea or in the air. It can guide several beyond visual range air-to-air missiles to multiple targets simultaneously. Therefore, RoScAC also procured AIM-9 Sidewinder and AIM-120 AMRAAM as primary armament for its Grìbhean fleet, plus AGM-65 Maverick air-to-ground missiles.
The twelve Grìbhean F.1 and F.2s formed the RoScAC’s 1st fighter (Sabaid) squadron, based at former RAF base Lossiemouth. Upon delivery and during their first months of service, the machines retained the former Swedish grey paint scheme, just with new tactical markings. In 2018, the RoScAC fighter fleet was supplemented with brand new KAI/Lockheed Martin TA-50 ‘Golden Eagle’ armed trainers from South Korea, which could also take over interceptor and air patrol duties. This expansion of resources allowed the RoScAC to initiate an update program for the JAS 39 fleet. It started in 2019 and included in-flight refueling through a fixed but detachable probe, a EuroFIRST PIRATE IRST, enhanced avionics with elements from the Swedish JAS 39C/D, and a tactical datalink.
With these updates, the machines could now also be externally fitted with Rafael's Sky Shield or LIG Nex1's ALQ-200K ECM pods, Sniper or LITENING targeting pods, and Condor 2 reconnaissance pods to further improve the machine’s electronic warfare, reconnaissance, and targeting capabilities.
The aircraft’s designations did not change, though, the only visible external change were the additional IRST fairing under the nose, and the machines received a new tactical camouflage with dark green and dark grey upper surfaces, originally introduced with the RoScAC’s TA-50s. However, all Grìbhean F.1 single seaters received individual fin designs instead of the grey camouflage, comprising simple red and yellow fins, the Scottish flag (instead of the standard fin flash) and even a large pink thistle on a white background and a white unicorn on a black background.
Despite being 2nd hand aircraft, the Scottish JAS 39A and Bs are expected to remain in service until at least 2035.
General characteristics:
Crew: one
Length: 14.1 m (46 ft 3 in)
Wingspan: 8.4 m (27 ft 7 in)
Height: 4.5 m (14 ft 9 in)
Wing area: 30 m2 (320 sq ft)
Empty weight: 6,800 kg (14,991 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 14,000 kg (30,865 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Volvo RM12 afterburning turbofan engine,
54 kN (12,000 lbf) dry thrust, 80.5 kN (18,100 lbf) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 2,460 km/h (1,530 mph, 1,330 kn)/Mach 2
Combat range: 800 km (500 mi, 430 nmi)
Ferry range: 3,200 km (2,000 mi, 1,700 nmi)
Service ceiling: 15,240 m (50,000 ft)
g limits: +9/-3
Wing loading: 283 kg/m2 (58 lb/sq ft)
Thrust/weight: 0.97
Takeoff distance: 500 m (1,640 ft)
Landing distance: 600 m (1,969 ft)
Armament:
1× 27 mm Mauser BK-27 revolver cannon with 120 rounds
8 hardpoints (Two under the fuselage, one of them dedicated to FLIR / ECM / LD / Recon pods plus
two under and one on the tip of each wing) with a capacity of 5 300 kg (11 700 lb)
The kit and its assembly:
Nothing spectacular – actually, this build is almost OOB and rather a livery what-if model. However, I had the plan to build a (fictional) Scottish Gripen on my agenda for some years now, since I started to build RoScAC models, and the “Back into service” group build at whatifmodlers.com in late 2019 was a good motivation to tackle this project.
The starting point was the Italeri JAS 39A kit, a rather simple affair that goes together well but needs some PSR on almost every seam. Not much was changed, since the model would depict a slightly updated Gripen A – the only changes I made were the additional IRST fairing under the nose, the ejection handle on the seat and a modified ordnance which consists of a pair of AIM-9L and AIM-120 (the latter including appropriate launch rails) from a Hasegawa air-to-air weapons set. The ventral drop tank is OOB.
Painting and markings:
The motivation a behind was actually the desire to build a Gripen in a different livery than the usual and rather dull grey-in-grey scheme. Therefore I invented a tactical paint scheme for “my” RoScAC, which is a modified RAF scheme from the Seventies with uppers surfaces in Dark Green (Humbrol 163) and Dark Sea Grey (164), medium grey flanks, pylons, drop tank and a (theoretically) grey fin (167 Barley Grey, today better known as Camouflage Grey) plus undersides in Light Aircraft Grey (166), with a relatively high and wavy waterline, so that a side or lower view would rather blend with the sky than the ground below. The scheme was designed as a compromise between air superiority and landscape camouflage and somewhat inspired by the many experimental schemes tested by the German Luftwaffe in the early Eighties. The Scottish TA-50 I built some years ago was the overall benchmark, but due to the Gripen’s highly blended fuselage/wing intersections, I just painted the flanks under the cockpit and the air intakes as well as a short portion of the tail section in Barley Grey. That’s overall darker than intended (esp. in combination with the fin decoration, see below), but anything grey above the wings would have looked awkward.
As a reminiscence of the late British F-4 Phantoms, which carried a grey low-viz scheme with bright fins as quick ID markings, I added such a detail to the Gripen, too – in this case in the form of a stylized Scottish flag on the fin, with some mild 3D effect. The shadow and light effects were created through wet-in-wet painting of lighter and darker shades into the basic blue (using Humbrol 25, 104 and ModelMaster French Blue). Later, the white cross was added with simple decal stripes, onto which similar light effects were added with white and light grey, too.
Even though this one looks similar to my Scottish TA-50, which was the first model to carry this paint scheme, I like the very different look of this Gripen through its non-all-grey paint scheme. It’s also my final build of my initial RoScAC ideas, even though I am now considering a helicopter model (an SAR SA 365 Dauphin, maybe?) in fictional Scottish markings, too.
Some background:
The Rolls-Royce Griffon engine was designed in answer to Royal Navy specifications for an engine capable of generating good power at low altitudes. Concepts for adapting the Spitfire to take the new engine had begun as far back as October 1939; Joseph Smith felt that "The good big 'un will eventually beat the good little 'un." and Ernest Hives of Rolls-Royce thought that the Griffon would be "a second power string for the Spitfire". The first of the Griffon-engined Spitfires flew on 27 November 1941. Although the Griffon-powered Spitfires were never produced in the large numbers of the Merlin-engined variants they were an important part of the Spitfire family, and in their later versions kept the Spitfire at the forefront of piston-engined fighter development. The first Griffon-powered Spitfires suffered from poor high- altitude performance due to having only a single stage supercharged engine. By 1943, Rolls-Royce engineers had developed a new Griffon engine, the 61 series, with a two-stage supercharger. In the end it was a slightly modified engine, the 65 series, which was used in the Mk. XIV, the first Spitfire mark with a Griffon engine to enter service. The resulting aircraft provided a substantial performance increase over the Mk IX. Although initially based on the Mk VIII airframe, common improvements made in aircraft produced later included the cut-back fuselage and tear-drop canopies, and the E-Type wing with improved armament.
The Mk. XIV differed from its direct predecessor, the Mk XII, in that the longer, two-stage supercharged Griffon 65, producing 2,050 hp (1,528 kW), was mounted 10 inches (25.4 cm) further forward. The top section of the engine bulkhead was angled forward, creating a distinctive change of angle to the upper cowling's rear edge. A new five-bladed Rotol propeller of 10 ft 5 in (3.18 m) in diameter was used. The "fishtail" design of ejector exhaust stub gave way to ones of circular section. The increased cooling requirements of the Griffon engine meant that all radiators were much bigger, and the underwing housings were deeper than previous versions. The cowling fasteners were new, flush fitting "Amal" type and there were more of them. The oil tank (which had been moved from the lower cowling location of the Merlin engine variants to forward of the fuselage fuel tanks) was increased in capacity from 6 to 10 gal.
To help balance the new engine, the radio equipment was moved further back in the rear fuselage and the access hatch was moved from the left fuselage side to the right. Better VHF radio equipment allowed for the aerial mast to be removed and replaced by a "whip" aerial further aft on the fuselage spine. Because the longer nose and the increased slipstream of the big five-bladed propeller a new tail unit with a taller, broader fin and a rudder of increased area was adopted.
When the new fighter entered service with 610 Squadron in December 1943 it was a leap forward in the evolution of the Spitfire. The Mk. XIV could climb to 20,000 ft (6,100 m) in just over five minutes and its top speed, which was achieved at 25,400 ft (7,700 m), was 446 mph (718 km/h). In operational service many pilots initially found that the new fighter could be difficult to handle, particularly if they were used to earlier Spitfire marks. But in spite of the difficulties, pilots appreciated the performance increases.
F Mk. XIVs had a total of 109.5 gal of fuel consisting of 84 gal in two main tanks and a 12.5 imp gal fuel tank in each leading-edge wing tank; other 30, 45, 50 or 90 gal drop tanks could be carried. The fighter's maximum range was just a little over 460 miles (740 km) on internal fuel, since the new Griffon engine consumed much more fuel per hour than the original Merlin engine of earlier variants. By late 1944, Spitfire XIVs were fitted with an extra 33 gal in a rear fuselage fuel tank, extending the fighter's range to about 850 miles (1,370 km) on internal fuel and a 90 gal drop tank. Mk. XIVs with "tear-drop" canopies had 64 gal. As a result, F and FR Mk. XIVs had a range that was increased to over 610 miles (980 km), or 960 miles (1,540 km) with a 90 gal drop tank. The armament initially consisted of two 20 mm Hispano cannon and four light 0.303” machine guns (in a standard “C” wing configuration), but later builds had the latter replaced with a pair of heavier 0.5” machine guns that had better range and weight of fire (“E” wing configuration).
The first test of the aircraft was in intercepting V1 flying bombs and the Mk. XIV was the most successful of all Spitfire marks in this role. When 150 octane fuel was introduced in mid-1944 the "boost" of the Griffon engine was able to be increased to +25 lbs (80.7"), allowing the top speed to be increased by about 30 mph (26 kn; 48 km/h) to 400 mph (350 kn; 640 km/h) at 2,000 ft (610 m).
The Mk. XIV was used by the 2nd Tactical Air Force as their main high-altitude air superiority fighter in northern Europe with six squadrons operational by December 1944.
One problem which did arise in service was localized skin wrinkling on the wings and fuselage at load attachment points; although Supermarine advised that the Mk. XIVs had not been seriously weakened, nor were they on the point of failure, the RAF issued instructions in early 1945 that all F and FR Mk. XIVs were to be refitted with clipped wings. Spitfire XIVs began to arrive in the South-East Asian Theatre in June 1945, too late to operate against the Japanese. In total, 957 Mk. XIVs were built, over 430 of which were FR Mk. XIVs.
After the war, secondhand Mk. XIVs still in good shape were exported to a number of foreign air forces; 132 went to the Royal Belgian Air Force, 70 went to the Royal Indian Air Force and 30 of the reconnaissance version went to the Royal Thai Air Force. The Royal Iraqi Air Force (RIrAF) was another operator, even though only a small one.
In late 1946, five years after the Anglo-Iraqi War had left the RIrAF shattered, the Iraqis reached an agreement with the British under which they would return their surviving Avro Ansons in exchange for the authorization to order more modern and potent fighter aircraft from the UK, namely Supermarine Spitfires and Hawker Furies. The next year, three de Havilland Doves and three Bristol Freighters were ordered, too, and they arrived in early 1947 with a batch of ten refurbished ex-RAF Spitfire F Mk. XIVcs, some of them WWII survivors. All these machines received the original wing tips to better cope with the expected higher ambient temperatures in the Middle Eastern theatre of operations, reinforced aluminum skinning along the wing roots, and they were retrofitted with hardpoints under the wings and the fuselage to carry unguided missiles, bombs and drop tanks, what gave them an additional ground attack capability. The radio equipment was modernized, too, including a DF loop antenna as navigational aid. Despite these standardizations, though, the Spitfires were delivered with a mix of the different canopies.
The RIrAF was still recovering and re-structuring its assets when it joined in the war against the newly created state of Israel in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The RIrAF only played a small role in the first war against Israel, though. A few Spitfire F Mk. XIVs as well as Avro Anson training bombers operated from Transjordan airfields from where they flew several attacks against the Israelis. After a series of indiscriminate attacks on Arab capitals, flown by three Boeing B-17s that had been pressed into service by the Israeli Air Force, the governments of Transjordan and Syria demanded that the Iraqis take more offensive action and replace their Ansons with Hawker Furies. However, only six Furies were sent to Damascus to join the Spitfires in the region, and they never encountered any Israeli aircraft during their deployment.
Despite some effective attacks on ground targets by the Spitfires, limited amount of cannon ammunition, RPGs and suitable bombs heavily limited the Iraqi operations. The fighters were mostly used for armed reconnaissance, and three Spitfires were upgraded to FR Mk. XIV standard for this purpose. In 1949 a second batch of eight more Spitfire F Mk. XIVs was delivered from Britain, and in 1951 the RIrAF purchased 20 more Fury F.Mk.1s, for a total of 50 F.Mk.1s single-seaters and 2 two-seaters. They soon replaced the Spitfires in frontline units, even though the machines were still kept in service.
In the early Fifties, thanks to increased income from oil and agricultural exports, the RIrAF was thoroughly re-equipped. In 1951, 15 each of de Havilland Canada DHC-1 Chipmunks, Percival Provosts and North American T-6s were bought to replace obsolete de Havilland Tiger Moth trainers. With these new aircraft the RIrAF Flying School was expanded into the Air Force College. The training curriculum was improved, and the number of students graduating each year was increased. This allowed to form a solid basis for the RIrAF's long-term growth. Also in 1951, the RIrAF bought its first helicopters: three Westland Dragonflies. The RIrAF's first jet fighter was the de Havilland Vampire: 12 FB.Mk.52 fighters and 10 T.Mk.55 trainers were delivered from 1953 to 1955, and they fully replaced the Spitfires. The Vampires were quickly supplemented by 20 de Havilland Venoms, delivered between 1954 and 1956.
Following the formation of the Baghdad Pact, the United States donated at least six Stinson L-5 Sentinels and seven Cessna O-1 Bird Dogs to the RIrAF. The RAF also vacated Shaibah Air Base, and the RIrAF took over it as Wahda Air Base. In 1957, six Hawker Hunter F.Mk.6s were delivered. The next year, the United States agreed to provide 36 F-86F Sabres free of charge.
However, following the 14 July Revolution of 1958, which resulted in the end of monarchy in Iraq, the influence of the Iraqi Communist Party grew significantly. The first commander of the Iraqi Air Force (the "Royal" prefix was dropped after the revolution), Jalal Jaffar al-Awqati, was an outspoken communist, and encouraged prime minister Abd al-Karim Qasim to improve relations between Iraq and the USSR. The Soviets reacted quickly, and in the autumn of 1958 a series of arms contracts was passed between Iraq and the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia. These stipulated the delivery of MiG-15UTI trainers, MiG-17F fighters, Ilyushin Il-28 bombers, and Antonov An-2 and An-12 transports. The first aircraft arrived in Iraq in January 1959; during the late Sixties and the early Seventies additional MiG-17s may have been purchased and then forwarded to either Syria or Egypt.
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 32 ft 8 in (9.96 m)
Wingspan: 36 ft 10 in (11.23 m) with full span elliptical tips
Height: 10 ft 0 in (3.05 m)
Wing area: 242.1 sq ft (22.49 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 2213 (root), NACA 2209.4 (tip)
Empty weight: 6,578 lb (2,984 kg)
Gross weight: 7,923 lb (3,594 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 8,400[53] lb (3,810 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Rolls-Royce Griffon 65 supercharged V12, 2,050 hp (1,530 kW) at 8,000 ft (2,438 m),
driving a 5-bladed Jablo-Rotol propeller
Performance:
Maximum speed: 441 mph (710 km/h, 383 kn) in FS supercharger gear at 29,500 ft.
391 mph in MS supercharger gear at 5,500 ft.
Combat range: 460 mi (740 km, 400 nmi)
Ferry range: 1,090 mi (1,760 km, 950 nmi)
Service ceiling: 43,500 ft (13,300 m)
Rate of climb: 5,040 ft/min (25.6 m/s) in MS supercharger gear at 2,100 ft.
3,550 ft/min in FS supercharger gear at 22,100 ft.
Time to altitude: 7 mins to 22,000 ft (at max weight)
Wing loading: 32.72 lb/sq ft (159.8 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.24
Armament:
2× 20 mm (0.787-in) Hispano Mk II cannon, 120 rpg
4× 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns, 350 rpg,
Underwing hard points for 8× 60 lb (27 kg) rockets, 2 x 250 lb (113 kg) bombs or slipper tanks,
1× ventral hardpoint for a 500 lb (227 kg) bomb or a drop tank
The kit and its assembly:
This was a rather spontaneous interim build. The Academy Spitfire was left over from a D-Day combo that contained a Hawker Typhoon, too, and I lacked an idea for the Spitfire for a long time) since I am not a big fan of the aircraft, at least what-if-inspiration-wise). However, when pondering about a potential operator from the very early pos-war period I remembered the Royal Iraqi Air Force and its later Hawker Hunters which retained their NATO-style camouflage (RAF green/grey) despite being primarily operated in a desert environment. This, on a Spitfire…?
From this idea the Academy Spitfire was built almost OOB. Because the kit offers them as an option and for the cool look, I gave the Spitfire four RPGs under each outer wing. The ventral drop tank was taken from a Special Hobby late Spitfire kit. The only other additions are the antenna mast and the non-standard DF loop antenna behind the cockpit, created from thin wire and mounted on a small, streamlined socket.
Painting and markings:
The upper surfaces were painted in standard RAF WWII colors, Dark Green and Ocean Grey, using a mix of Humbrol 163 and 30 for a slightly more bluish WWII-style green and a mix of 106 and 145 for a lightened grey tone, respectively. As an individual contrast and paint scheme variation the undersides and the spinner were painted in RAF Azure Blue (Humbrol 157, lightened up with 47), more appropriate than the standard WWII Medium Sea Grey from the European theatre of operations. The cockpit interior became RAF cockpit green (Humbro,78) while the inside surfaces of the landing gear were painted in Medium Sea Grey (Humbrol 165), reflecting the original undersides’ tone in former RAF service.
Other markings were minimal. The Iraqi triangles were taken from a Balkan Models Su-25 sheet, because their green was rather pale, for more contrast to the surrounding camouflage. RIrAF fin flash was taken from a PM Model Hawker Fury two-seater (a.k.a. “Bagdad Fury”). The tactical code came from an Airfix Hawker Hunter (from an optional Kuwaiti machine). This looked O.K. but somewhat bleak, so I added more markings. I could not find any evidence for special ID markings on Iraqi aircraft during the Arab-Israel war, but to add an eye-catcher I gave the aircraft white ID bands on the wings and on the fuselage – inspired by markings carried by Egyptian aircraft (e. g. Spitfires) during the conflict, but somewhat simplified, without black trim. They were created from generic white decal sheet material.
After some soot stains around the gun ports and the exhausts, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
A relatively simple project and just a fictional livery - but the Iraqi Spitfire looks pretty cool, especially the ID stripes add a special touch. The European RAF scheme looks a bit off on an aircraft that would be delivered to the Middel East, but the Iraqi Air Force operated British types like the Hunter in this guise, and later Su-22 fighter bombers carried a similarly murky camouflage in very dark green and earth brown.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
In 1948, a swept wing version of the F-84 was created with the hope of bringing performance to the level of the F-86. The last production F-84E was fitted with a swept tail, a new wing with 38.5 degrees of leading-edge sweep and 3.5 degrees of anhedral, and a J35-A-25 engine producing 5,300 pound-force (23.58 kN) of thrust. The aircraft was designated XF-96A and flew on 3 June 1950. Although the airplane was capable of 602 knots (693 mph, 1,115 km/h), the performance gain over the F-84E was considered minor. Nonetheless, it was ordered into production in July 1950 as the F-84F Thunderstreak. The F-84 designation was eventually retained because the fighter was expected to be a low-cost improvement of the straight-wing Thunderjet with over 55 percent commonality in tooling.
In the meantime, the USAF, hoping for improved high-altitude performance from a more powerful engine, arranged for the British Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojet engine to be built in the United States as the Wright J65. To accommodate the larger engine, YF-84Fs with a British-built Sapphire as well as production F-84Fs with the J65 had a vertically stretched fuselage, with the air intake attaining an oval cross-section. Production quickly ran into problems, though. Although tooling commonality with the Thunderjet was supposed to be 55 %, but just 15 % of the tools could actually be re-used. To make matters worse, the F-84F utilized press-forged wing spars and ribs. At the time, only three presses in the United States could manufacture these, and priority was given to the Boeing B-47 Stratojet bomber over the F-84. The YJ65-W-1 engine was considered obsolete, too, and the improved J65-W-3 did not become available until 1954. When the first production F-84F flew on 22 November 1952, it was considered not ready for operational deployment due to control and stability problems. The first 275 aircraft, equipped with conventional stabilizer-elevator tailplanes, suffered from accelerated stall pitch-up and poor turning ability at combat speeds. Beginning with Block 25, the problem was improved upon by the introduction of a hydraulically powered one-piece stabilator. A number of aircraft were also retrofitted with spoilers for improved high-speed control. As a result, the F-84F was not declared operational until 12 May 1954.
The second YF-84F prototype was completed with wing-root air intakes. These were not adopted for the fighter due to loss of thrust, but this arrangement kept the nose section free and permitted placement of cameras, and the different design was adopted for the RF-84F Thunderflash reconnaissance version. Being largely identical to the F-84F, the Thunderflash suffered from the same production delays and engine problems, though, delaying operational service until March 1954.
During the F-84F’s development the Air Defense Command was looking for a replacement for the outdated F-94 ‘Starfire’ interceptor, a hasty development from the T-33 trainer airframe with an afterburner engine and an on-board radar. However, the F-94 was only armed with machine guns in its early versions or unguided missiles in its later incarnations, which were inadequate. An aircraft with better performance, ideally with supersonic speed, a better radar, and the ability to carry guided missiles (in the form if the AIR-1 and 2 ‘Falcon’ AAMs) as well as the AIR-2 ‘Genie’ missile was now requested.
The Douglas AIR-2 Genie followed a unique but effective concept that represented the technological state-of-the-art: it was an unguided air-to-air rocket with a 1.5 kt W25 nuclear warhead. The interception of Soviet strategic bombers was a major military preoccupation of the late 1940s and 1950s. The World War II-age fighter armament of machine guns and cannon were inadequate to stop attacks by massed bomber formations, which were expected to come in at high altitude and at high subsonic speed. Firing large volleys of unguided rockets into bomber formations was not much better, and true air-to-air missiles were in their infancy. In 1954 Douglas Aircraft began a program to investigate the possibility of a nuclear-armed air-to-air weapon. To ensure simplicity and reliability, the weapon would be unguided, since the large blast radius made precise accuracy unnecessary. Full-scale development began in 1955, with test firing of inert warhead rockets commencing in early 1956. The final design carried a 1.5-kiloton W25 nuclear warhead and was powered by a Thiokol SR49-TC-1 solid-fuel rocket engine of 162 kN (36,000 lbf) thrust, sufficient to accelerate the rocket to Mach 3.3 during its two-second burn. Total flight time was about 12 seconds, during which time the rocket covered 10 km (6.2 mi). Targeting, arming, and firing of the weapon were coordinated by the launch aircraft's fire-control system. Detonation was by time-delay fuze, although the fuzing mechanism would not arm the warhead until engine burn-out, to give the launch aircraft sufficient time to turn and escape. However, there was no mechanism for disarming the warhead after launch. Lethal radius of the blast was estimated to be about 300 meters (980 ft). Once fired, the Genie's short flight-time and large blast radius made it virtually impossible for a bomber to avoid destruction. The rocket entered service with the designation MB-1 Genie in 1957.
During the development phase the first carrier aircraft earmarked to carry the AIR-2 was the Northrop F-89 Scorpion, which had already been introduced in the early Fifties. While being an all-weather interceptor with on-board radar, it was a slow and large aircraft, and outdated like the F-94. Trying to keep the F-84 production lines busy, however, Republic saw the chance to design an all-weather interceptor aircraft that would surpass the F-89’s mediocre performance and meet the AIR-2 carrier requirements on the basis of the swept-wing (R)F-84F. To emphasize its dedicated interceptor role and set it apart from its fighter-bomber ancestors, the heavily modified aircraft was designated F-96B (even though it had little to do with the XF-96A that became the F-84F) and called ‘Thunderguard’.
The F-96B was largely based on the RF-84F’s airframe with its wing-root air intakes, what offered ample space in the aircraft’s nose for a radar system and other equipment. The radar was coupled with a state-of-the-art Hughes MC-10 fire control system. To relieve the pilot from operating the radar system one of the fuel cells behind the cockpit was deleted and a second crew member was placed behind him under an extended, strutless hood that opened to starboard. To compensate for the loss of fuel and maintain the F-84F’s range, a new tank was mounted under the cockpit floor in the aircraft’s center of gravity.
To improve performance and cope with the raised take-off weight, the F-96B was powered by an uprated Wright J65-W-18 turbojet, which generated 0.4 kN more dry thrust than the F-84F’s original J65-W-3 (7,700 lbf/34 kN). This was not too much, though, so that the J65 was additionally outfitted with an afterburner. With this upgrade the powerplant provided a maximum thrust of 10,500 lbf (47 kN), what resulted in a markedly improved rate of climb and the ability to break the sound barrier in level flight. The additional reheat section necessitated a wider and longer rear fuselage, which had to be redesigned. As an unintended side benefit, this new tail section reduced overall drag due to a slightly area-ruled coke-bottle shape behind the wings’ trailing edge, which was even emphasized through the ventral brake parachute fairing.
Armament consisted only of missiles, which were all carried externally on wing stations, all guns of the former F-84 versions were deleted to save weight. The F-96B’s weapons range included GAR-1/2/3/4 (Later re-designated as AIM-4) radar- and IR-guided Falcon air-to-air missiles and a pair of MB-1 Genie missiles. Up to four pods with nineteen unguided 2.75 in (70 mm) "Mighty Mouse" Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rockets each were an alternative, too, and a pair of drop tanks were typically carried under the inner wings to provide the aircraft with sufficient range, since the new afterburner significantly increased fuel consumption.
Even though it was only a derivative design, the F-96B introduced a lot of innovations. One of these was the use of a diverertless supersonic inlet (DSI), a novel type of jet engine air intake to control air flow into their engines. Initial research into the DSI was done by Antonio Ferri in the 1950s. It consisted of a "bump" and a forward-swept inlet cowl, which worked together to divert boundary layer airflow away from the aircraft's engine. In the case of the F-96B this was realized as an inward-turning inlet with a variable contraction ratio. However, even though they had not been deemed necessary to guarantee a clean airflow, the F-96B’s air intakes were further modified with splitter plates to adapt them to the expected higher flight speeds and direct the air flow. The initial flight tests had also revealed a directional instability at high speed, due to the longer nose, so that the tail surfaces (both fin and stabilizers) were enlarged for the serial aircraft to compensate.
Another novel feature was an IRST sensor in front of the windscreen which augmented the on-board radar. This sensor, developed by Hughes International and designated ‘X-1’, was still very experimental, though, highly unreliable, and difficult to handle, because it relied on pressurized coolant to keep the sensor cold enough to operate properly, and dosing it at a consistent level proved to be difficult (if not impossible). On the other side the IRST allowed to track targets even in a massively radar-jammed environment. The 7” diameter silicone sensor was, together with the on-board radar, slaved to the fire control system so that its input could be used to lock guided missiles onto targets, primarily the GAR-1 and GAR-2 AAMs. The X-1 had a field of view of 70×140°, with an angular resolution of 1°, and operated in 2.5 micron wavelength range. When it worked properly the sensor was able to detect a B-47-sized aircraft’s tails aspect from 25 nm (29 ml/46 km) and a target of similar size from directly ahead from 10 nm (12 ml/19 km). Later, better developed versions of Hughes IRST, like the X-3 that was retrofitted to the F-101B in the early Sixties, had a better range and were more reliable.
During the Thunderguard’s development another competitor entered the stage, the F-101B Voodoo. In the late 1940s, the Air Force had already started a research project into the future interceptor aircraft that eventually settled on an advanced specification known as the 1954 interceptor. Contracts for this specification eventually resulted in the selection of the F-102 Delta Dagger, but by 1952 it was becoming clear that none of the parts of the specification other than the airframe would be ready by 1954; the engines, weapons, and fire control systems were all going to take too long to get into service. An effort was then started to quickly produce an interim supersonic design to replace the various subsonic interceptors then in service, and the F-101 airframe was selected as a starting point. Although McDonnell proposed the designation F-109 for the new aircraft (which was to be a substantial departure from the basic Voodoo fighter bomber), the USAF assigned the designation F-101B. Its development was protracted, so that the F-96B – even though it offered less performance – was ordered into production to fill the USAF’s urgent interceptor gap.
F-96B production started after a brief test phase in late 1957, and the first aircraft were delivered to the 60th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron in 1958. However, when it became clear that the F-101B would finally enter service in 1959, F-96B production was quickly cut down and the initial order of 300 aircraft reduced to only 150, which were produced until early 1960 in three batches. Only sixty were directly delivered to ADC units, because these were preferably equipped with the supersonic F-102A and the new F-101B, which could also carry the nuclear Genie missile. The rest was directly handed over to Air National Guard units – and even there they were quickly joined and replaced by the early ADC aircraft.
Operationally, almost all F-96Bs functioned under the US–Canadian North American Air Defense Command (NORAD), which protected North American airspace from Soviet intruders, particularly the threat posed by nuclear-armed bombers. In service, the F-96Bs were soon upgraded with a data link to the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) system, allowing ground controllers to steer the aircraft towards its targets by making adjustments through the plane's autopilot. Furthermore, the F-96B was upgraded to allow the carrying of two GAR-11/AIM-26 Nuclear Falcon missiles instead of the Genies when they became available in 1961.
A handful F-96Bs were camouflaged during the late Sixties with the USAF’s new SEA scheme, but most aircraft retained their original bare metal finish with more or less colorful unit markings. Due to its limited capabilities and the introduction of the Mach 2 McDonnell F-4 Phantom, the last F-96B was retired from ANG service in 1971.
General characteristics:
Crew: 2
Length: 54t 11 1/2 in (16,77 m) incl. pitot
Wingspan: 33 ft 7.25 in (10,25 m)
Height: 16 ft 9 in (5,11 m)
Wing area: 350 sq ft (37,55 m²)
Empty weight: 13,810 lb (6.264 kg)
Gross weight: 21,035 lb (9.541 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 28,000 lb (12.701 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Wright J65-W-18 turbojet with 8,600 lbf (34 kN) dry thrust and 10,500 lbf (47 kN) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 695 mph (1,119 km/h, 604 kn, Mach 1.1) at 35,000 ft (10,668 m)
Cruise speed: 577 mph (928 km/h, 501 kn)
Range: 810 mi (1,304 km, 704 nmi) combat radius with two droptanks
Service ceiling: 49,000 ft (15,000 m)
Rate of climb: 16,300 ft/min (83 m/s)
Wing loading: 86 lb/sq ft (423 kg/m²)
Armament:
No internal guns;
6× underwing hardpoints for a total ordnance load of up to 6,000lb (2,727 kg), including
a pair of 191.5 US gal (727 l) or 375 US gal (1.429 l) drop tanks on the inner stations
and a mix of AIM-4 Falcon (up to six), MB-1 Genie (up to two) and/or pods with
nineteen 2.75”/70 mm FFAR unguided missiles each (up to four) on the outer stations
The kit and its assembly:
This fictional missing link between the RF-84F and the F-105 was conceived for the Fifties Group Build at whatifmodellers.com, an era when the USAF used a wide variety of interceptor aircraft types and technical advancements were quick and significant – in just a decade the interceptor evolved from a subsonic machine gun-toting aircraft to a guided weapons carrier platform, capable of Mach 2.
The F-96B (I re-used Republic’s dropped designation for the swept-wing F-84F) was to display one of the many “in between” designs, and the (R)F-84F was just a suitable basis for a conversion similar to the T-33-derived F-94, just more capable and big enough to carry the nuclear Genie missile.
The basis became Italeri’s vintage RF-84F kit, a rather simple affair with raised panel lines and a mediocre fit, plus some sinkholes. This was, however, heavily modified!
Work started with the implantation of a new tandem cockpit, taken wholesale from a Heller T-33. Fitting the cockpit tub into the wider Thunderflash hull was a bit tricky, putty blobs held the implant in place. The canopy was taken from the T-33, too, just the RF-84F’s original rear side windows were cut away to offer sufficient length for the longer clear part and the cockpit side walls had to be raised to an even level with the smaller windscreen with the help of styrene strips. With these adapters the T-33 canopy fitted surprisingly well over the opening and blended well into the spine.
The camera nose section lost its tip, which was replaced with the tail cone from a Matchbox H.S. Buccaneer (actually its air brake), and the camera windows as well as the slant surfaces that held them were PSRed away for a conical shape that extended the new pointed radome. Lots of weight in the nose and under the cockpit floor ensured a safe stance on the OOB landing gear.
The rear section behind the air brakes became all-new; for an afterburner I extended and widened the tail section and implanted the rear part from a B-66 (Italeri kit, too) engine nacelle, which received a wider nozzle (left over from a Nakotne MiG-29, a featureless thing) and an interior.
To balance the longer nose I also decided to enlarge the tail surfaces and replaced the OOB fin and stabilizers with leftover parts from a Trumpeter Il-28 bomber – the fin was shortened and the stabilizers reduced in span to match the rest of the aircraft. Despite the exotic source the parts blend well into the F-84’s overall design!
To add supersonic credibility and to connect the design further with the later F-105 I modified the air intakes and cut them into a raked shape – quite easy to realize. Once the wings were in place, I also added small splitter plates, left over from an Airfix BAC Strikemaster.
As an interceptor the armament had to be adapted accordingly, and I procured the quartet of IR-guided Falcons as well as the Genie duo from an Academy F-89. The large drop tanks were taken OOB from the Italeri kit. The Genies were mounted onto their massive Scorpion pylons under the outer wings of the F-96B, while the Falcons, due to relatively little space left under the wings, required a scratched solution. I eventually settled for dual launchers on small pylons, mounted in front of the landing gear wells. The pylons originally belong to an ESCI Ka-34 “Hokum” helicopter kit (they were just short enough!), the launch rails are a halved pair of F-4 Sidewinder rails from a Hasegawa air-to-air weapons set. With everything on place the F-96B looks quite crowded.
Painting and markings:
The machine would represent a late Fifties USAF type, so that the paint options were rather limited if I wanted to be authentic. ADC Grey was introduced in the early Sixties, SEA camouflage even later, so that bare metal became a natural choice – but this can be quite attractive! The model received an overall coat with acrylic “White Aluminum” from the rattle can, plus some darked panels all over the hull (Humbrol 56 for good contrast) and an afterburner section in Revell 91 (Iron Metallic) and Humbrol’s Steel Metallizer. The radome became deep black, the anti-glare panel in front of the windscreen olive drab (Revell 46). Light grey (Revell 75) was used for some small di-electric fairings.
Interior surfaces (cockpit and landing gear wells) were painted with Zinc Chromate primer (I used Humbrol 80), while the landing gear struts became silver-grey (Humbrol 56) and the inside of the covers as well as the air brakes were painted in bright red (Humbrol 19).
Once basic painting was done the model received a black ink washing and was rubbed with grinded graphite to emphasize the raised panel lines, and the material adds a nice dark metallic shine to the silver base coat.
Another challenge was to find suitable unit markings for the Fifties era in the decal vault, which would also fit onto the model. After a long search I eventually settled for rather simple markings from a 325th FIS F-102 from an Xtradecal sheet, which only features a rather timid fin decoration.
Finding other suitable standard markings remained demanding, though. Stars-And-Bars as well as the USAF taglines were taken from the Academy F-89 that also provided the ordnance, most stencils were taken from the OOB Italeri sheet and complemented by small markings from the scrap box. The biggest problem was the creation of a matching serial number. The “FF” code was originally used for P/F-51D Mustangs during the Korea War, but after the type had been phased out it might have been re-used? The letters as well as the serial number digits were created from various markings for USAF F-100s, also from an Xtradecal sheet.
Once the decals had been applied the model was sealed with semi-gloss acrylic varnish, except for the radome, the anti-glare panel as well as the walking areas on the wings as well as parts of the afterburner section, which were coated with matt varnish.
A rather straightforward conversion, even though finishing the project took longer than expected. But the result looks surprisingly natural and plausible. Lots of PSR was needed to modify the fuselage, though, especially the tail section was not easy to integrate into the Thunderflash’s hull. Sticking to the simple NMF livery paid IMHO out, too: the livery looks very natural and believable on the fictional aircraft, and it suits the F-84’s bulbous shape well.
The third eye (also called the mind's eye or inner eye) is a mystical and esoteric concept of a speculative invisible eye, usually depicted as located on the forehead, which provides perception beyond ordinary sight. n Dharmic spiritual traditions from India, the third eye refers to the ajna (or brow) chakra. The third eye refers to the gate that leads to inner realms and spaces of higher consciousness. In New Age spirituality, the third eye often symbolizes a state of enlightenment or the evocation of mental images having deeply personal spiritual or psychological significance. The third eye is often associated with religious visions, clairvoyance, the ability to observe chakras and auras. precognition, and out-of-body experiences. People who are claimed to have the capacity to utilize their third eyes are sometimes known as seers. In Hinduism and Buddhism, the third eye is said to be located around the middle of the forehead, slightly above the junction of the eyebrows, representing the enlightenment one achieves through meditation. Hindus also place a "tilaka" between the eyebrows as a representation of the third eye, which is also seen on expressions of Shiva. Buddhists regard the third eye as the "eye of consciousness," representing the vantage point from which enlightenment beyond one's physical sight is achieved.In Taoism and many traditional Chinese religious sects such as Chan (called Zen in Japanese), "third eye training" involves focusing attention on the point between the eyebrows with the eyes closed, and while the body is in various qigong postures. The goal of this training is to allow students to tune into the correct "vibration" of the universe and gain a solid foundation on which to reach more advanced meditation levels. Taoism teaches that the third eye, also called the mind's eye, is situated between the two physical eyes, and expands up to the middle of the forehead when opened. Taoism claims that the third eye is one of the main energy centers of the body located at the sixth Chakra, forming a part of the main meridian, the line separating left and right hemispheres of the body. In Taoist alchemical traditions, the third eye is the frontal part of the "Upper Dan Tien" (upper cinnabar field) and is given the evocative name "muddy pellet". According to the Christian teaching of Father Richard Rohr, the concept of the third eye is a metaphor for non-dualistic thinking; the way the mystics see. In Rohr's concept, mystics employ the first eye (sensory input such as sight) and the second eye (the eye of reason, meditation, and reflection), "but they know not to confuse knowledge with depth, or mere correct information with the transformation of consciousness itself. The mystical gaze builds upon the first two eyes—and yet goes further." Rohr refers to this level of awareness as "having the mind of Christ". Adherents of theosophist H.P. Blavatsky have suggested that the third eye is in fact the partially dormant pineal gland, which resides between the two hemispheres of the brain. Reptiles and amphibians sense light via a third parietal eye—a structure associated with the pineal gland—which serves to regulate their circadian rhythms, and for navigation, as it can sense the polarization of light. C.W. Leadbeater claimed that by extending an "etheric tube" from the third eye, it is possible to develop microscopic and telescopic vision. It has been asserted by Stephen Phillips that the third eye's microscopic vision is capable of observing objects as small as quarks. According to this belief, humans had in far ancient times an actual third eye in the back of the head with a physical and spiritual function. Over time, as humans evolved, this eye atrophied and sunk into what today is known as the pineal gland. Dr. Rick Strassman has hypothesized that the pineal gland, which maintains light sensitivity, is responsible for the production and release of DMT (dimethyltryptamine), an entheogen which he believes possibly could be excreted in large quantities at the moments of birth and death.The use of the phrase mind's eye does not imply that there is a single or unitary place in the mind or brain where visual consciousness occurs. Philosophers such as Daniel Dennett have critiqued this view.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_eye
Ajna (Sanskrit: आज्ञा, IAST: Ājñā, IPA: [aːɟɲaː]), guru chakra or third-eye chakra, is the sixth primary chakra in the body according to Hindu tradition. It is supposedly a part of the brain which can be made more powerful through meditation, yoga and other spiritual practices just as a muscle is. In Hindu tradition, it signifies the subconscious mind, the direct link to the brahman. While a person's two eyes see the physical world, the third eye is believed to reveal insights about the future. The third eye chakra is said to connect people to their intuition, give them the ability to communicate with the world, or help them receive messages from the past and the future. The Ajna chakra is located in the center of the forehead between the eyebrows. It is not a part of the physical body but considered to be the part of Pranic system. The location makes it a sacred spot where Hindus apply a vermilion bindi to show reverence for it. The Ajna chakra is correspondent with the pineal gland. Ajna is described as a transparent lotus flower with two white petals, said to represent the nadis (psychic channels) Ida and Pingala, which meet the central Sushumna nadi before rising to the crown chakra, Sahasrara. The letter "ham" (हं) is written in white on the left petal and represents Shiva, while the letter "ksham" written in white on the right petal and represents Shakti. Inside the pericarp of the flower is the hakini Shakti. It is depicted with a white moon, six faces, and six arms holding a book, a skull, a drum, and a rosary, while making the gestures associated with granting boons and dispelling fears. The downward-pointing triangle above her contains a white lingam. This triangle, along with the lotus flower, can represent wisdom. In some systems the deity Ardhanarishvara, a hermaphrodite form Shiva-Shakti, resides within the lingam and symbolizes the duality of subject and object. This sixth chakra of our energy body is also connect with sixth layer of aura which known as celestial layer of aura science. The seed syllable of Ajna is Ksham and the more well known, Om, or "Pranava Om", which is believed to be the basic sound of the world and contains all other sounds. It is considered the supreme sound of the universe. The Bīja mantras are monosyllabic seed sounds which, when they are spoken aloud, activate the energy of the chakras in order to purify and balance the mind and body. The energy resonates in the chakra associated with the mantra, helping the speaker become aware of their body's needs.Ajna translates as "authority" or "command" (or "perceive") and is considered the eye of intuition and intellect. Its associated sense organ is the brain. When something is seen in the mind's eye, or in a dream, it is being seen by Ajna. It is a bridge that links gurus with disciples while allowing mind communication between two people. Meditation upon Ajna supposedly grants siddhi, or occult powers, to quickly enter another body at will and to become omniscient. The beholder of these powers realizes unity with Brahman, who has the ability to create, preserve, and destroy the three worlds. As Hindus believe that spiritual energy from the environment enters their body through the Ajna chakra, they take great care to protect it with spiritually positive and protecting forces. The various religious marks on the foreheads of Hindus, for example bindis, are the spiritual gifts of their respective forms of the Hindu gods.
Directly above Ajna is a minor chakra known as Manas. This chakra is responsible for sending sense perceptions to the higher chakras. Manas has six petals, one for each of the five senses and one for sleep. These petals are normally white but take on the color of the senses when activated by them, and are black during sleep. It is associated with the parietal eye of a juvenile bullfrog.
A mental image or mental picture is an experience that, on most occasions, significantly resembles the experience of perceiving some object, event, or scene, but occurs when the relevant object, event, or scene is not actually present to the senses. There are sometimes episodes, particularly on falling asleep (hypnagogic imagery) and waking up (hypnopompic), when the mental imagery, being of a rapid, phantasmagoric and involuntary character, defies perception, presenting a kaleidoscopic field, in which no distinct object can be discerned. Mental imagery can sometimes produce the same effects as would be produced by the behavior or experience imagined.
The nature of these experiences, what makes them possible, and their function (if any) have long been subjects of research and controversy[further explanation needed] in philosophy, psychology, cognitive science, and, more recently, neuroscience. As contemporary researchers[Like whom?] use the expression, mental images or imagery can comprise information from any source of sensory input; one may experience auditory images ,olfactory images, and so forth. However, the majority of philosophical and scientific investigations of the topic focus upon visual mental imagery. It has sometimes been assumed[by whom?] that, like humans, some types of animals are capable of experiencing mental images. Due to the fundamentally introspective nature of the phenomenon, there is little to no evidence either for or against this view. Philosophers such as George Berkeley and David Hume, and early experimental psychologists such as Wilhelm Wundt and William James, understood ideas in general to be mental images. Today it is very widely believed[by whom?] that much imagery functions as mental representations (or mental models), playing an important role in memory and thinking. William Brant (2013, p. 12) traces the scientific use of the phrase "mental images" back to John Tyndall's 1870 speech called the "Scientific Use of the Imagination". Some have gone so far as to suggest that images are best understood to be, by definition, a form of inner, mental or neural representation; in the case of hypnagogic and hypnapompic imagery, it is not representational at all. Others reject the view that the image experience may be identical with (or directly caused by) any such representation in the mind or the brain, but do not take account of the non-representational forms of imagery. In 2010, IBM applied for a patent on a method to extract mental images of human faces from the human brain. It uses a feedback loop based on brain measurements of the fusiform face area in the brain that activates proportionate with degree of facial recognition.It was issued in 2015. The notion of a "mind's eye" goes back at least to Cicero's reference to mentis oculi during his discussion of the orator's appropriate use of simile. In this discussion, Cicero observed that allusions to "the Syrtis of his patrimony" and "the Charybdis of his possessions" involved similes that were "too far-fetched"; and he advised the orator to, instead, just speak of "the rock" and "the gulf" (respectively)—on the grounds that "the eyes of the mind are more easily directed to those objects which we have seen, than to those which we have only heard". The concept of "the mind's eye" first appeared in English in Chaucer's (c. 1387) Man of Law's Tale in his Canterbury Tales, where he tells us that one of the three men dwelling in a castle was blind, and could only see with "the eyes of his mind"; namely, those eyes "with which all men see after they have become blind".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_image
Qigong (/ˈtʃiːˈɡɒŋ/),[1] qi gong, chi kung, or chi gung (simplified Chinese: 气功; traditional Chinese: 氣功; pinyin: qìgōng; Wade–Giles: ch‘i kung; literally: 'life-energy cultivation') is a centuries-old system of coordinated body-posture and movement, breathing, and meditation[2] used for the purposes of health, spirituality, and martial-arts training.[3] With roots in Chinese medicine, philosophy, and martial arts, qigong is traditionally viewed by the Chinese and throughout Asia as a practice to cultivate and balance qi (pronounced approximately as "chi"), translated as "life energy".Qigong practice typically involves moving meditation, coordinating slow-flowing movement, deep rhythmic breathing, and a calm meditative state of mind. People practice qigong throughout China and worldwide for recreation, exercise, relaxation, preventive medicine, self-healing, alternative medicine, meditation, self-cultivation, and training for martial arts.
Because clinical research on qigong for its potential benefit in treating various diseases – such as hypertension, pain, and cancer – has been inconclusive due to poor quality, there remains no evidence that qigong has any therapeutic effect, as of 2016. Qigong comprises a diverse set of practices that coordinate body (調身), breath (調息), and mind (調心) based on Chinese philosophy. Practices include moving and still meditation, massage, chanting, sound meditation, and non-contact treatments, performed in a broad array of body postures. Qigong is commonly classified into two foundational categories: 1) dynamic or active qigong (dong gong), with slow flowing movement; and 2) meditative or passive qigong (jing gong), with still positions and inner movement of the breath.[30]:21770–21772 From a therapeutic perspective, qigong can be classified into two systems: 1) internal qigong, which focuses on self-care and self-cultivation, and; 2) external qigong, which involves treatment by a therapist who directs or transmits qi. As moving meditation, qigong practice typically coordinates slow stylized movement, deep diaphragmatic breathing, and calm mental focus, with visualization of guiding qi through the body. While implementation details vary, generally qigong forms can be characterized as a mix of four types of practice: dynamic, static, meditative, and activities requiring external aids. utilizes breath awareness, visualization, mantra, chanting, sound, and focus on philosophical concepts such as qi circulation, aesthetics, or moral values. In traditional Chinese medicine and Daoist practice, the meditative focus is commonly on cultivating qi in dantian energy centers and balancing qi flow in meridian and other pathways. In various Buddhist traditions, the aim is to still the mind, either through outward focus, for example on a place, or through inward focus on the breath, a mantra, a koan, emptiness, or the idea of the eternal. In the Confucius scholar tradition, meditation is focused on humanity and virtue, with the aim of self-enlightenment.Many systems of qigong practice include the use of external agents such as ingestion of herbs, massage, physical manipulation, or interaction with other living organisms. For example, specialized food and drinks are used in some medical and Daoist forms, whereas massage and body manipulation are sometimes used in martial arts forms. In some medical systems a qigong master uses non-contact treatment, purportedly guiding qi through his or her own body into the body of another person.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some Background:
During the 1950s, Hindustan Aircraft Limited (HAL) had developed and produced several types of trainer aircraft, such as the HAL HT-2. However, elements within the firm were eager to expand into the then-new realm of supersonic fighter aircraft. Around the same time, the Indian government was in the process of formulating a new Air Staff Requirement for a Mach 2-capable combat aircraft to equip the Indian Air Force (IAF). However, as HAL lacked the necessary experience in both developing and manufacturing frontline combat fighters, it was clear that external guidance would be invaluable; this assistance was embodied by Kurt Tank.
In 1956, HAL formally began design work on the supersonic fighter project. The Indian government, led by Jawaharlal Nehru, authorized the development of the aircraft, stating that it would aid in the development of a modern aircraft industry in India. The first phase of the project sought to develop an airframe suitable for travelling at supersonic speeds, and able to effectively perform combat missions as a fighter aircraft, while the second phase sought to domestically design and produce an engine capable of propelling the aircraft. Early on, there was an explicit adherence to satisfying the IAF's requirements for a capable fighter bomber; attributes such as a twin-engine configuration and a speed of Mach 1.4 to 1.5 were quickly emphasized, and this led to the HF-24 Marut.
On 24 June 1961, the first prototype Marut conducted its maiden flight. It was powered by the same Bristol Siddeley Orpheus 703 turbojets that had powered the Folland Gnat, also being manufactured by HAL at that time. On 1 April 1967, the first production Marut was delivered to the IAF. While originally intended only as an interim measure during testing, HAL decided to power production Maruts with a pair of unreheated Orpheus 703s, meaning the aircraft could not attain supersonic speed. Although originally conceived to operate around Mach 2 the Marut in fact was barely capable of reaching Mach 1 due to the lack of suitably powerful engines.
The IAF were reluctant to procure a fighter aircraft only marginally superior to its existing fleet of British-built Hawker Hunters. However, in 1961, the Indian Government decided to procure the Marut, nevertheless, but only 147 aircraft, including 18 two-seat trainers, were completed out of a planned 214. Just after the decision to build the lukewarm Marut, the development of a more advanced aircraft with the desired supersonic performance was initiated.
This enterprise started star-crossed, though: after the Indian Government conducted its first nuclear tests at Pokhran, international pressure prevented the import of better engines of Western origin, or at times, even spares for the Orpheus engines, so that the Marut never realized its full potential due to insufficient power, and it was relatively obsolescent by the time it reached production.
Due to these restrictions India looked for other sources for supersonic aircraft and eventually settled upon the MiG-21 F-13 from the Soviet Union, which entered service in 1964. While fast and agile, the Fishbed was only a short-range daylight interceptor. It lacked proper range for escort missions and air space patrols, and it had no radar that enabled it to conduct all-weather interceptions. To fill this operational gap, the new indigenous HF-26 project was launched around the same time.
For the nascent Indian aircraft industry, HF-26 had a demanding requirements specification: the aircraft was to achieve Mach 2 top speed at high altitude and carry a radar with a guided missile armament that allowed interceptions in any weather, day and night. The powerplant question was left open, but it was clear from the start that a Soviet engine would be needed, since an indigenous development of a suitable powerplant would take much too long and block vital resources, and western alternatives were out of reach. The mission profile and the performance requirements quickly defined the planned aircraft’s layout: To fit a radar, the air intakes with movable ramps to feed the engines were placed on the fuselage flanks. To make sure the aircraft would fulfill its high-performance demands, it was right from the outset powered by two engines, and it was decided to give it delta wings, a popular design among high-speed aircraft of the time – exemplified by the highly successful Dassault Mirage III (which was to be delivered to Pakistan in 1967). With two engines, the HF-26 would be a heavier aircraft than the Mirage III, though, and it was planned to operate the aircraft from semi-prepared airfields, so that it would receive a robust landing gear with low-pressure tires and a brake parachute.
In 1962 India was able to negotiate the delivery of Tumansky RD-9 turbojet engines from the Soviet Union, even though no afterburner was part of the deal – this had to be indigenously developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). However, this meant that the afterburner could be tailored to the HF-26, and this task would provide HAL with valuable engineering experience, too.
Now knowing the powerplant, HAL created a single-seater airframe around it, a rather robust design that superficially reminded of the French Mirage III, but there were fundamental differences. The HF-26 had boxy air intakes with movable ramps to control the airflow to the two engines and a relatively wide fuselage to hold them and most of the fuel in tanks between the air ducts behind the cockpit. The aircraft had a single swept fin and a rather small mid-positioned delta-wing with a 60° sweep. The pilot sat under a tight canopy that offered - similar to the Mirage III - only limited all-round vision.
The HF-26's conical nose radome covered an antenna for a ‘Garud’ interception radar – which was in fact a downgraded Soviet ‘Oryol' (Eagle; NATO reporting name 'Skip Spin') system that guided the HF-26’s main armament, a pair of semi-active radar homing (SARH) ‚Saanp’ missiles.
The Saanp missile was developed specifically for the HF-26 in India but used many components of Soviet origin, too, so that they were compatible with the radar. In performance, the Saanp was comparable with the French Matra R.530 air-to-air missile, even though the aerodynamic layout was reversed, with steering fins at the front end, right behind the SARH seaker head - overall the missile reminded of an enlarged AIM-4 Falcon. The missile weighed 180 kg and had a length of 3.5 m. Power came from a two-stage solid rocket that offered a maximum thrust of 80 kN for 2.7 s during the launch phase plus 6.5 s cruise. Maximum speed was Mach 2.7 and operational range was 1.5 to 20 km (0.9 to 12.5 miles). Two of these missiles could be carried on the main wing hardpoints in front of the landing gear wells. Alternatively, infrared-guided R-3 (AA-2 ‘Atoll’) short-range AAMs could be carried by the HF-26, too, and typically two of these were carried on the outer underwing hardpoints, which were plumbed to accept drop tanks (typically supersonic PTB-490s that were carried by the IAF's MiG-21s, too) . Initially, no internal gun was envisioned, as the HF-26 was supposed to be a pure high-speed/high-altitude interceptor that would not engage in dogfights. Two more hardpoints under the fuselage were plumbed, too, for a total of six external stations.
Due to its wing planform, the HF-26 was soon aptly called “Teer” (= Arrow), and with Soviet help the first prototype was rolled out in early 1964 and presented to the public. The first flight, however, would take place almost a year later in January 1965, due to many technical problems, and these were soon complemented by aerodynamic problems. The original delta-winged HF-26 had poor take-off and landing characteristics, and directional stability was weak, too. While a second prototype was under construction in April 1965 the first aircraft was lost after it had entered a spin from which the pilot could not escape – the aircraft crashed and its pilot was killed during the attempt to eject.
After this loss HAL investigated an enlarged fin and a modified wing design with deeper wingtips with lower sweep, which increased wing area and improved low speed handling, too. Furthermore, the fuselage shape had to be modified, too, to reduce supersonic drag, and a more pronounced area ruling was introduced. The indigenous afterburner for the RD-9 engines was unstable and troublesome, too.
It took until 1968 and three more flying prototypes (plus two static airframes) to refine the Teer for serial production service introduction. In this highly modified form, the aircraft was re-designated HF-26M and the first machines were delivered to IAF No. 3 Squadron in late 1969. However, it would take several months until a fully operational status could be achieved. By that time, it was already clear that the Teer, much like the HF-24 Marut before, could not live up to its expectations and was at the brink of becoming obsolete as it entered service. The RD-9 was not a modern engine anymore, and despite its indigenous afterburner – which turned out not only to be chronically unreliable but also to be very thirsty when engaged – the Teer had a disappointing performance: The fighter only achieved a top speed of Mach 1.6 at full power, and with full external load it hardly broke the wall of sound in level flight. Its main armament, the Saanp AAM, also turned out to be unreliable even under ideal conditions.
However, the HF-26M came just in time to take part in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and was, despite its weaknesses, extensively used – even though not necessarily in its intended role. High-flying slow bombers were not fielded during the conflict, and the Teer remained, despite its on-board radar, heavily dependent on ground control interception (GCI) to vector its pilot onto targets coming in at medium and even low altitude. The HF-26M had no capability against low-flying aircraft either, so that pilots had to engage incoming, low-flying enemy aircraft after visual identification – a task the IAF’s nimble MiG-21s were much better suited for. Escorts and air cover missions for fighter-bombers were flown, too, but the HF-26M’s limited range only made it a suitable companion for the equally short-legged Su-7s. The IAF Canberras were frequently deployed on longer range missions, but the HF-26Ms simply could not follow them all the time; for a sufficient range the Teer had to carry four drop tanks, what increased drag and only left the outer pair of underwing hardpoints (which were not plumbed) free for a pair of AA-2 missiles. With the imminent danger of aerial close range combat, though, During the conflict with Pakistan, most HF-26M's were retrofitted with rear-view mirrors in their canopies to improve the pilot's field of view, and a passive IR sensor was added in a small fairing under the nose to improve the aircraft's all-weather capabilities and avoid active radar emissions that would warn potential prey too early.
The lack of an internal gun turned out to be another great weakness of the Teer, and this was only lightly mended through the use of external gun pods. Two of these cigar-shaped pods that resembled the Soviet UPK-23 pod could be carried on the two ventral pylons, and each contained a 23 mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23L autocannon of Soviet origin with 200 rounds. Technically these pods were very similar to the conformal GP-9 pods carried by the IAF MiG-21FLs. While the gun pods considerably improved the HF-26M’s firepower and versatility, the pods were draggy, blocked valuable hardpoints (from extra fuel) and their recoil tended to damage the pylons as well as the underlying aircraft structure, so that they were only commissioned to be used in an emergency.
However, beyond air-to-air weapons, the HF-26M could also carry ordnance of up to 1.000 kg (2.207 lb) on the ventral and inner wing hardpoints and up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) on the other pair of wing hardpoints, including iron bombs and/or unguided missile pods. However, the limited field of view from the cockpit over the radome as well as the relatively high wing loading did not recommend the aircraft for ground attack missions – even though these frequently happened during the conflict with Pakistan. For these tactical missions, many HF-26Ms lost their original overall natural metal finish and instead received camouflage paint schemes on squadron level, resulting in individual and sometimes even spectacular liveries. Most notable examples were the Teer fighters of No. 1 Squadron (The Tigers), which sported various camouflage adaptations of the unit’s eponym.
Despite its many deficiencies, the HF-26M became heavily involved in the Indo-Pakistan conflict. As the Indian Army tightened its grip in East Pakistan, the Indian Air Force continued with its attacks against Pakistan as the campaign developed into a series of daylight anti-airfield, anti-radar, and close-support attacks by fighter jets, with night attacks against airfields and strategic targets by Canberras and An-12s, while Pakistan responded with similar night attacks with its B-57s and C-130s.
The PAF deployed its F-6s mainly on defensive combat air patrol missions over their own bases, leaving the PAF unable to conduct effective offensive operations. Sporadic raids by the IAF continued against PAF forward air bases in Pakistan until the end of the war, and interdiction and close-support operations were maintained. One of the most successful air raids by India into West Pakistan happened on 8 December 1971, when Indian Hunter aircraft from the Pathankot-based 20 Squadron, attacked the Pakistani base in Murid and destroyed 5 F-86 aircraft on the ground.
The PAF played a more limited role in the operations, even though they were reinforced by Mirages from an unidentified Middle Eastern ally (whose identity remains unknown). The IAF was able to conduct a wide range of missions – troop support; air combat; deep penetration strikes; para-dropping behind enemy lines; feints to draw enemy fighters away from the actual target; bombing and reconnaissance. India flew 1,978 sorties in the East and about 4,000 in Pakistan, while the PAF flew about 30 and 2,840 at the respective fronts. More than 80 percent of IAF sorties were close-support and interdiction and about 45 IAF aircraft were lost, including three HF-26Ms. Pakistan lost 60 to 75 aircraft, not including any F-86s, Mirage IIIs, or the six Jordanian F-104s which failed to return to their donors. The imbalance in air losses was explained by the IAF's considerably higher sortie rate and its emphasis on ground-attack missions. The PAF, which was solely focused on air combat, was reluctant to oppose these massive attacks and rather took refuge at Iranian air bases or in concrete bunkers, refusing to offer fights and respective losses.
After the war, the HF-26M was officially regarded as outdated, and as license production of the improved MiG-21FL (designated HAL Type 77 and nicknamed “Trishul” = Trident) and later of the MiG-21M (HAL Type 88) was organized in India, the aircraft were quickly retired from frontline units. They kept on serving into the Eighties, though, but now restricted to their original interceptor role. Beyond the upgrades from the Indo-Pakistani War, only a few upgrades were made. For instance, the new R-60 AAM was introduced to the HF-26M and around 1978 small (but fixed) canards were retrofitted to the air intakes behind the cockpit that improved the Teer’s poor slow speed control and high landing speed as well as the aircraft’s overall maneuverability.
A radar upgrade, together with the introduction of better air-to-ai missiles with a higher range and look down/shoot down capability was considered but never carried out. Furthermore, the idea of a true HF-26 2nd generation variant, powered by a pair of Tumansky R-11F-300 afterburner jet engines (from the license-built MiG-21FLs), was dropped, too – even though this powerplant eventually promised to fulfill the Teer’s design promise of Mach 2 top speed. A total of only 82 HF-26s (including thirteen two-seat trainers with a lengthened fuselage and reduced fuel capacity, plus eight prototypes) were built. The last aircraft were retired from IAF service in 1988 and replaced with Mirage 2000 fighters procured from France that were armed with the Matra Super 530 AAM.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 14.97 m (49 ft ½ in)
Wingspan: 9.43 m (30 ft 11 in)
Height: 4.03 m (13 ft 2½ in)
Wing area: 30.6 m² (285 sq ft)
Empty weight: 7,000 kg (15,432 lb)
Gross weight: 10,954 kg (24,149 lb) with full internal fuel
Max takeoff weight: 15,700 kg (34,613 lb) with external stores
Powerplant:
2× Tumansky RD-9 afterburning turbojet engines; 29 kN (6,600 lbf) dry thrust each
and 36.78 kN (8,270 lbf) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,700 km/h (1,056 mph; 917 kn; Mach 1.6) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft)
1,350 km/h (840 mph, 730 kn; Mach 1.1) at sea level
Combat range: 725 km (450 mi, 391 nmi) with internal fuel only
Ferry range: 1,700 km (1,100 mi, 920 nmi) with four drop tanks
Service ceiling: 18,100 m (59,400 ft)
g limits: +6.5
Time to altitude: 9,145 m (30,003 ft) in 1 minute 30 seconds
Wing loading: 555 kg/m² (114 lb/sq ft)
Armament
6× hardpoints (four underwing and two under the fuselage) for a total of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb);
Typical interceptor payload:
- two IR-guided R-3 or R-60 air-to-air-missiles or
two PTB-490 drop tanks on the outer underwing stations
- two semi-active radar-guided ‚Saanp’ air-to-air missiles or two more R-3 or R-60 AAMs
on inner underwing stations
- two 500 l drop tanks or two gun pods with a 23 mm GSh-23L autocannon and 200 RPG
each under the fuselage
The kit and its assembly:
This whiffy delta-wing fighter was inspired when I recently sliced up a PM Model Su-15 kit for my side-by-side-engine BAC Lightning build. At an early stage of the conversion, I held the Su-15 fuselage with its molded delta wings in my hand and wondered if a shortened tail section (as well as a shorter overall fuselage to keep proportions balanced) could make a delta-wing jet fighter from the Flagon base? Only a hardware experiment could yield an answer, and since the Su-15’s overall outlines look a bit retro I settled at an early stage on India as potential designer and operator, as “the thing the HF-24 Marut never was”.
True to the initial idea, work started on the tail, and I chopped off the fuselage behind the wings’ trailing edge. Some PSR was necessary to blend the separate exhaust section into the fuselage, which had to be reduced in depth through wedges that I cut out under the wings trailing edge, plus some good amount of glue and sheer force the bend the section a bit upwards. The PM Model's jet exhausts were drilled open, and I added afterburner dummies inside - anything would look better than the bleak vertical walls inside after only 2-3 mm! The original fin was omitted, because it was a bit too large for the new, smaller aircraft and its shape reminded a lot of the Suchoj heavy fighter family. It was replaced with a Mirage III/V fin, left over from a (crappy!) Pioneer 2 IAI Nesher kit.
Once the rear section was complete, I had to adjust the front end - and here the kitbashing started. First, I chopped off the cockpit section in front of the molded air intake - the Su-15’s long radome and the cockpit on top of the fuselage did not work anymore. As a remedy I remembered another Su-15 conversion I did a (long) while ago: I created a model of a planned ground attack derivative, the T-58Sh, and, as a part of the extensive body work, I transplanted the slanted nose from an academy MiG-27 between the air intakes – a stunt that was relatively easy and which appreciably lowered the cockpit position. For the HF-26M I did something similar, I just transplanted a cockpit from a Hasegawa/Academy MiG-23 with its ogival radome that size-wise better matched with the rest of the leftover Su-15 airframe.
The MiG-23 cockpit matched perfectly with the Su-15's front end, just the spinal area behind the cockpit had to be raised/re-sculpted to blend the parts smoothly together. For a different look from the Su-15 ancestry I also transplanted the front sections of the MiG-23 air intakes with their shorter ramps. Some mods had to be made to the Su-15 intake stubs, but the MiG-23 intakes were an almost perfect fit in size and shape and easy to integrate into the modified front hill. The result looks very natural!
However, when the fuselage was complete, I found that the nose appeared to be a bit too long, leaving the whole new hull with the wings somewhat off balance. As a remedy I decided at a rather late stage to shorten the nose and took out a 6 mm section in front of the cockpit - a stunt I had not planned, but sometimes you can judge things only after certain work stages. Some serious PSR was necessary to re-adjust the conical nose shape, which now looked more Mirage III-ish than planned!
The cockpit was taken mostly OOB, I just replaced the ejection seat and gave it a trigger handle made from thin wire. With the basic airframe complete it was time for details. The PM Model Su-15s massive and rather crude main landing gear was replaced with something more delicate from the scrap box, even though I retained the main wheels. The front landing gear was taken wholesale from the MiG-23, but had to be shortened for a proper stance.
A display holder adapter was integrated into the belly for the flight scenes, hidden well between the ventral ordnance.
The hardpoints, including missile launch rails, came from the MiG-23; the pylons had to be adjusted to match the Su-15's wing profile shape, the Anab missiles lost their tail sections to create the fictional Indian 'Saanp' AAMs. The R-3s on the outer stations were left over from a MP MiG-21. The ventral pylons belong to Academy MiG-23/27s, one came from the donor kit, the other was found in the spares box. The PTB-490 drop tanks also came from a KP MiG-21 (or one of its many reincarnations, not certain).
Painting and markings:
The paint scheme for this fictional aircraft was largely inspired by a picture of a whiffy and very attractive Saab 37 Viggen (an 1:72 Airfix kit) in IAF colors, apparently a model from a contest. BTW, India actually considered buying the Viggen for its Air Force!
IAF aircraft were and are known for their exotic and sometimes gawdy paint schemes, and with IAF MiG-21 “C 992” there’s even a very popular (yet obscure) aircraft that sported literal tiger stripes. The IAF Viggen model was surely inspired by this real aircraft, and I adopted something similar for my HF-26M.
IAF 1 Squadron was therefore settled, and for the paint scheme I opted for a "stripish" scheme, but not as "tigeresque" as "C 992". I found a suitable benchmark in a recent Libyian MiG-21, which carried a very disruptive two-tone grey scheme. I adapted this pattern to the HA-26M airframe and replaced its colors, similar to the IAF Viggen model, which became a greenish sand tone (a mix of Humbrol 121 with some 159; I later found out that I could have used Humbrol 83 from the beginning, though...) and a very dark olive drab (Humbrol 66, which looks like a dull dark brown in contrast with the sand tone), with bluish grey (Humbrol 247) undersides. With the large delta wings, this turned out to look very good and even effective!
For that special "Indian touch" I gave the aircraft a high-contrast fin in a design that I had seen on a real camouflaged IAF MiG-21bis: an overall dark green base with a broad, red vertical stripe which was also the shield for the fin flash and the aircraft's tactical code (on the original bare metal). The fin was first painted in green (Humbrol 2), the red stripe was created with orange-red decal sheet material. Similar material was also used to create the bare metal field for the tactical code, the yellow bars on the splitter plates and for the thin white canopy sealing.
After basic painting was done the model received an overall black ink washing, post-panel shading and extensive dry-brushing with aluminum and iron for a rather worn look.
The missiles became classic white, while the drop tanks, as a contrast to the camouflaged belly, were left in bare metal.
Decals/markings came primarily from a Begemot MiG-25 kit, the tactical codes on the fin and under the wings originally belong to an RAF post-WWII Spitfire, just the first serial letter was omitted. Stencils are few and they came from various sources. A compromise is the unit badge on the fin: I needed a tiger motif, and the only suitable option I found was the tiger head emblem on a white disc from RAF No. 74 Squadron, from the Matchbox BAC Lightning F.6&F.2A kit. It fits stylistically well, though. ;-)
Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (except for the black radome, which became a bit glossy) and finally assembled.
A spontaneous build, and the last one that I completed in 2022. However, despite a vague design plan the model evolved as it grew. Bashing the primitive PM Model Su-15 with the Academy MiG-23 parts was easier than expected, though, and the resulting fictional aircraft looks sturdy but quite believable - even though it appears to me like the unexpected child of a Mirage III/F-4 Phantom II intercourse, or like a juvenile CF-105 Arrow, just with mid-wings? Nevertheless, the disruptive paint scheme suits the delta wing fighter well, and the green/red fin is a striking contrast - it's a colorful model, but not garish.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some Background:
During the 1950s, Hindustan Aircraft Limited (HAL) had developed and produced several types of trainer aircraft, such as the HAL HT-2. However, elements within the firm were eager to expand into the then-new realm of supersonic fighter aircraft. Around the same time, the Indian government was in the process of formulating a new Air Staff Requirement for a Mach 2-capable combat aircraft to equip the Indian Air Force (IAF). However, as HAL lacked the necessary experience in both developing and manufacturing frontline combat fighters, it was clear that external guidance would be invaluable; this assistance was embodied by Kurt Tank.
In 1956, HAL formally began design work on the supersonic fighter project. The Indian government, led by Jawaharlal Nehru, authorized the development of the aircraft, stating that it would aid in the development of a modern aircraft industry in India. The first phase of the project sought to develop an airframe suitable for travelling at supersonic speeds, and able to effectively perform combat missions as a fighter aircraft, while the second phase sought to domestically design and produce an engine capable of propelling the aircraft. Early on, there was an explicit adherence to satisfying the IAF's requirements for a capable fighter bomber; attributes such as a twin-engine configuration and a speed of Mach 1.4 to 1.5 were quickly emphasized, and this led to the HF-24 Marut.
On 24 June 1961, the first prototype Marut conducted its maiden flight. It was powered by the same Bristol Siddeley Orpheus 703 turbojets that had powered the Folland Gnat, also being manufactured by HAL at that time. On 1 April 1967, the first production Marut was delivered to the IAF. While originally intended only as an interim measure during testing, HAL decided to power production Maruts with a pair of unreheated Orpheus 703s, meaning the aircraft could not attain supersonic speed. Although originally conceived to operate around Mach 2 the Marut in fact was barely capable of reaching Mach 1 due to the lack of suitably powerful engines.
The IAF were reluctant to procure a fighter aircraft only marginally superior to its existing fleet of British-built Hawker Hunters. However, in 1961, the Indian Government decided to procure the Marut, nevertheless, but only 147 aircraft, including 18 two-seat trainers, were completed out of a planned 214. Just after the decision to build the lukewarm Marut, the development of a more advanced aircraft with the desired supersonic performance was initiated.
This enterprise started star-crossed, though: after the Indian Government conducted its first nuclear tests at Pokhran, international pressure prevented the import of better engines of Western origin, or at times, even spares for the Orpheus engines, so that the Marut never realized its full potential due to insufficient power, and it was relatively obsolescent by the time it reached production.
Due to these restrictions India looked for other sources for supersonic aircraft and eventually settled upon the MiG-21 F-13 from the Soviet Union, which entered service in 1964. While fast and agile, the Fishbed was only a short-range daylight interceptor. It lacked proper range for escort missions and air space patrols, and it had no radar that enabled it to conduct all-weather interceptions. To fill this operational gap, the new indigenous HF-26 project was launched around the same time.
For the nascent Indian aircraft industry, HF-26 had a demanding requirements specification: the aircraft was to achieve Mach 2 top speed at high altitude and carry a radar with a guided missile armament that allowed interceptions in any weather, day and night. The powerplant question was left open, but it was clear from the start that a Soviet engine would be needed, since an indigenous development of a suitable powerplant would take much too long and block vital resources, and western alternatives were out of reach. The mission profile and the performance requirements quickly defined the planned aircraft’s layout: To fit a radar, the air intakes with movable ramps to feed the engines were placed on the fuselage flanks. To make sure the aircraft would fulfill its high-performance demands, it was right from the outset powered by two engines, and it was decided to give it delta wings, a popular design among high-speed aircraft of the time – exemplified by the highly successful Dassault Mirage III (which was to be delivered to Pakistan in 1967). With two engines, the HF-26 would be a heavier aircraft than the Mirage III, though, and it was planned to operate the aircraft from semi-prepared airfields, so that it would receive a robust landing gear with low-pressure tires and a brake parachute.
In 1962 India was able to negotiate the delivery of Tumansky RD-9 turbojet engines from the Soviet Union, even though no afterburner was part of the deal – this had to be indigenously developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). However, this meant that the afterburner could be tailored to the HF-26, and this task would provide HAL with valuable engineering experience, too.
Now knowing the powerplant, HAL created a single-seater airframe around it, a rather robust design that superficially reminded of the French Mirage III, but there were fundamental differences. The HF-26 had boxy air intakes with movable ramps to control the airflow to the two engines and a relatively wide fuselage to hold them and most of the fuel in tanks between the air ducts behind the cockpit. The aircraft had a single swept fin and a rather small mid-positioned delta-wing with a 60° sweep. The pilot sat under a tight canopy that offered - similar to the Mirage III - only limited all-round vision.
The HF-26's conical nose radome covered an antenna for a ‘Garud’ interception radar – which was in fact a downgraded Soviet ‘Oryol' (Eagle; NATO reporting name 'Skip Spin') system that guided the HF-26’s main armament, a pair of semi-active radar homing (SARH) ‚Saanp’ missiles.
The Saanp missile was developed specifically for the HF-26 in India but used many components of Soviet origin, too, so that they were compatible with the radar. In performance, the Saanp was comparable with the French Matra R.530 air-to-air missile, even though the aerodynamic layout was reversed, with steering fins at the front end, right behind the SARH seaker head - overall the missile reminded of an enlarged AIM-4 Falcon. The missile weighed 180 kg and had a length of 3.5 m. Power came from a two-stage solid rocket that offered a maximum thrust of 80 kN for 2.7 s during the launch phase plus 6.5 s cruise. Maximum speed was Mach 2.7 and operational range was 1.5 to 20 km (0.9 to 12.5 miles). Two of these missiles could be carried on the main wing hardpoints in front of the landing gear wells. Alternatively, infrared-guided R-3 (AA-2 ‘Atoll’) short-range AAMs could be carried by the HF-26, too, and typically two of these were carried on the outer underwing hardpoints, which were plumbed to accept drop tanks (typically supersonic PTB-490s that were carried by the IAF's MiG-21s, too) . Initially, no internal gun was envisioned, as the HF-26 was supposed to be a pure high-speed/high-altitude interceptor that would not engage in dogfights. Two more hardpoints under the fuselage were plumbed, too, for a total of six external stations.
Due to its wing planform, the HF-26 was soon aptly called “Teer” (= Arrow), and with Soviet help the first prototype was rolled out in early 1964 and presented to the public. The first flight, however, would take place almost a year later in January 1965, due to many technical problems, and these were soon complemented by aerodynamic problems. The original delta-winged HF-26 had poor take-off and landing characteristics, and directional stability was weak, too. While a second prototype was under construction in April 1965 the first aircraft was lost after it had entered a spin from which the pilot could not escape – the aircraft crashed and its pilot was killed during the attempt to eject.
After this loss HAL investigated an enlarged fin and a modified wing design with deeper wingtips with lower sweep, which increased wing area and improved low speed handling, too. Furthermore, the fuselage shape had to be modified, too, to reduce supersonic drag, and a more pronounced area ruling was introduced. The indigenous afterburner for the RD-9 engines was unstable and troublesome, too.
It took until 1968 and three more flying prototypes (plus two static airframes) to refine the Teer for serial production service introduction. In this highly modified form, the aircraft was re-designated HF-26M and the first machines were delivered to IAF No. 3 Squadron in late 1969. However, it would take several months until a fully operational status could be achieved. By that time, it was already clear that the Teer, much like the HF-24 Marut before, could not live up to its expectations and was at the brink of becoming obsolete as it entered service. The RD-9 was not a modern engine anymore, and despite its indigenous afterburner – which turned out not only to be chronically unreliable but also to be very thirsty when engaged – the Teer had a disappointing performance: The fighter only achieved a top speed of Mach 1.6 at full power, and with full external load it hardly broke the wall of sound in level flight. Its main armament, the Saanp AAM, also turned out to be unreliable even under ideal conditions.
However, the HF-26M came just in time to take part in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and was, despite its weaknesses, extensively used – even though not necessarily in its intended role. High-flying slow bombers were not fielded during the conflict, and the Teer remained, despite its on-board radar, heavily dependent on ground control interception (GCI) to vector its pilot onto targets coming in at medium and even low altitude. The HF-26M had no capability against low-flying aircraft either, so that pilots had to engage incoming, low-flying enemy aircraft after visual identification – a task the IAF’s nimble MiG-21s were much better suited for. Escorts and air cover missions for fighter-bombers were flown, too, but the HF-26M’s limited range only made it a suitable companion for the equally short-legged Su-7s. The IAF Canberras were frequently deployed on longer range missions, but the HF-26Ms simply could not follow them all the time; for a sufficient range the Teer had to carry four drop tanks, what increased drag and only left the outer pair of underwing hardpoints (which were not plumbed) free for a pair of AA-2 missiles. With the imminent danger of aerial close range combat, though, During the conflict with Pakistan, most HF-26M's were retrofitted with rear-view mirrors in their canopies to improve the pilot's field of view, and a passive IR sensor was added in a small fairing under the nose to improve the aircraft's all-weather capabilities and avoid active radar emissions that would warn potential prey too early.
The lack of an internal gun turned out to be another great weakness of the Teer, and this was only lightly mended through the use of external gun pods. Two of these cigar-shaped pods that resembled the Soviet UPK-23 pod could be carried on the two ventral pylons, and each contained a 23 mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23L autocannon of Soviet origin with 200 rounds. Technically these pods were very similar to the conformal GP-9 pods carried by the IAF MiG-21FLs. While the gun pods considerably improved the HF-26M’s firepower and versatility, the pods were draggy, blocked valuable hardpoints (from extra fuel) and their recoil tended to damage the pylons as well as the underlying aircraft structure, so that they were only commissioned to be used in an emergency.
However, beyond air-to-air weapons, the HF-26M could also carry ordnance of up to 1.000 kg (2.207 lb) on the ventral and inner wing hardpoints and up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) on the other pair of wing hardpoints, including iron bombs and/or unguided missile pods. However, the limited field of view from the cockpit over the radome as well as the relatively high wing loading did not recommend the aircraft for ground attack missions – even though these frequently happened during the conflict with Pakistan. For these tactical missions, many HF-26Ms lost their original overall natural metal finish and instead received camouflage paint schemes on squadron level, resulting in individual and sometimes even spectacular liveries. Most notable examples were the Teer fighters of No. 1 Squadron (The Tigers), which sported various camouflage adaptations of the unit’s eponym.
Despite its many deficiencies, the HF-26M became heavily involved in the Indo-Pakistan conflict. As the Indian Army tightened its grip in East Pakistan, the Indian Air Force continued with its attacks against Pakistan as the campaign developed into a series of daylight anti-airfield, anti-radar, and close-support attacks by fighter jets, with night attacks against airfields and strategic targets by Canberras and An-12s, while Pakistan responded with similar night attacks with its B-57s and C-130s.
The PAF deployed its F-6s mainly on defensive combat air patrol missions over their own bases, leaving the PAF unable to conduct effective offensive operations. Sporadic raids by the IAF continued against PAF forward air bases in Pakistan until the end of the war, and interdiction and close-support operations were maintained. One of the most successful air raids by India into West Pakistan happened on 8 December 1971, when Indian Hunter aircraft from the Pathankot-based 20 Squadron, attacked the Pakistani base in Murid and destroyed 5 F-86 aircraft on the ground.
The PAF played a more limited role in the operations, even though they were reinforced by Mirages from an unidentified Middle Eastern ally (whose identity remains unknown). The IAF was able to conduct a wide range of missions – troop support; air combat; deep penetration strikes; para-dropping behind enemy lines; feints to draw enemy fighters away from the actual target; bombing and reconnaissance. India flew 1,978 sorties in the East and about 4,000 in Pakistan, while the PAF flew about 30 and 2,840 at the respective fronts. More than 80 percent of IAF sorties were close-support and interdiction and about 45 IAF aircraft were lost, including three HF-26Ms. Pakistan lost 60 to 75 aircraft, not including any F-86s, Mirage IIIs, or the six Jordanian F-104s which failed to return to their donors. The imbalance in air losses was explained by the IAF's considerably higher sortie rate and its emphasis on ground-attack missions. The PAF, which was solely focused on air combat, was reluctant to oppose these massive attacks and rather took refuge at Iranian air bases or in concrete bunkers, refusing to offer fights and respective losses.
After the war, the HF-26M was officially regarded as outdated, and as license production of the improved MiG-21FL (designated HAL Type 77 and nicknamed “Trishul” = Trident) and later of the MiG-21M (HAL Type 88) was organized in India, the aircraft were quickly retired from frontline units. They kept on serving into the Eighties, though, but now restricted to their original interceptor role. Beyond the upgrades from the Indo-Pakistani War, only a few upgrades were made. For instance, the new R-60 AAM was introduced to the HF-26M and around 1978 small (but fixed) canards were retrofitted to the air intakes behind the cockpit that improved the Teer’s poor slow speed control and high landing speed as well as the aircraft’s overall maneuverability.
A radar upgrade, together with the introduction of better air-to-ai missiles with a higher range and look down/shoot down capability was considered but never carried out. Furthermore, the idea of a true HF-26 2nd generation variant, powered by a pair of Tumansky R-11F-300 afterburner jet engines (from the license-built MiG-21FLs), was dropped, too – even though this powerplant eventually promised to fulfill the Teer’s design promise of Mach 2 top speed. A total of only 82 HF-26s (including thirteen two-seat trainers with a lengthened fuselage and reduced fuel capacity, plus eight prototypes) were built. The last aircraft were retired from IAF service in 1988 and replaced with Mirage 2000 fighters procured from France that were armed with the Matra Super 530 AAM.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 14.97 m (49 ft ½ in)
Wingspan: 9.43 m (30 ft 11 in)
Height: 4.03 m (13 ft 2½ in)
Wing area: 30.6 m² (285 sq ft)
Empty weight: 7,000 kg (15,432 lb)
Gross weight: 10,954 kg (24,149 lb) with full internal fuel
Max takeoff weight: 15,700 kg (34,613 lb) with external stores
Powerplant:
2× Tumansky RD-9 afterburning turbojet engines; 29 kN (6,600 lbf) dry thrust each
and 36.78 kN (8,270 lbf) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,700 km/h (1,056 mph; 917 kn; Mach 1.6) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft)
1,350 km/h (840 mph, 730 kn; Mach 1.1) at sea level
Combat range: 725 km (450 mi, 391 nmi) with internal fuel only
Ferry range: 1,700 km (1,100 mi, 920 nmi) with four drop tanks
Service ceiling: 18,100 m (59,400 ft)
g limits: +6.5
Time to altitude: 9,145 m (30,003 ft) in 1 minute 30 seconds
Wing loading: 555 kg/m² (114 lb/sq ft)
Armament
6× hardpoints (four underwing and two under the fuselage) for a total of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb);
Typical interceptor payload:
- two IR-guided R-3 or R-60 air-to-air-missiles or
two PTB-490 drop tanks on the outer underwing stations
- two semi-active radar-guided ‚Saanp’ air-to-air missiles or two more R-3 or R-60 AAMs
on inner underwing stations
- two 500 l drop tanks or two gun pods with a 23 mm GSh-23L autocannon and 200 RPG
each under the fuselage
The kit and its assembly:
This whiffy delta-wing fighter was inspired when I recently sliced up a PM Model Su-15 kit for my side-by-side-engine BAC Lightning build. At an early stage of the conversion, I held the Su-15 fuselage with its molded delta wings in my hand and wondered if a shortened tail section (as well as a shorter overall fuselage to keep proportions balanced) could make a delta-wing jet fighter from the Flagon base? Only a hardware experiment could yield an answer, and since the Su-15’s overall outlines look a bit retro I settled at an early stage on India as potential designer and operator, as “the thing the HF-24 Marut never was”.
True to the initial idea, work started on the tail, and I chopped off the fuselage behind the wings’ trailing edge. Some PSR was necessary to blend the separate exhaust section into the fuselage, which had to be reduced in depth through wedges that I cut out under the wings trailing edge, plus some good amount of glue and sheer force the bend the section a bit upwards. The PM Model's jet exhausts were drilled open, and I added afterburner dummies inside - anything would look better than the bleak vertical walls inside after only 2-3 mm! The original fin was omitted, because it was a bit too large for the new, smaller aircraft and its shape reminded a lot of the Suchoj heavy fighter family. It was replaced with a Mirage III/V fin, left over from a (crappy!) Pioneer 2 IAI Nesher kit.
Once the rear section was complete, I had to adjust the front end - and here the kitbashing started. First, I chopped off the cockpit section in front of the molded air intake - the Su-15’s long radome and the cockpit on top of the fuselage did not work anymore. As a remedy I remembered another Su-15 conversion I did a (long) while ago: I created a model of a planned ground attack derivative, the T-58Sh, and, as a part of the extensive body work, I transplanted the slanted nose from an academy MiG-27 between the air intakes – a stunt that was relatively easy and which appreciably lowered the cockpit position. For the HF-26M I did something similar, I just transplanted a cockpit from a Hasegawa/Academy MiG-23 with its ogival radome that size-wise better matched with the rest of the leftover Su-15 airframe.
The MiG-23 cockpit matched perfectly with the Su-15's front end, just the spinal area behind the cockpit had to be raised/re-sculpted to blend the parts smoothly together. For a different look from the Su-15 ancestry I also transplanted the front sections of the MiG-23 air intakes with their shorter ramps. Some mods had to be made to the Su-15 intake stubs, but the MiG-23 intakes were an almost perfect fit in size and shape and easy to integrate into the modified front hill. The result looks very natural!
However, when the fuselage was complete, I found that the nose appeared to be a bit too long, leaving the whole new hull with the wings somewhat off balance. As a remedy I decided at a rather late stage to shorten the nose and took out a 6 mm section in front of the cockpit - a stunt I had not planned, but sometimes you can judge things only after certain work stages. Some serious PSR was necessary to re-adjust the conical nose shape, which now looked more Mirage III-ish than planned!
The cockpit was taken mostly OOB, I just replaced the ejection seat and gave it a trigger handle made from thin wire. With the basic airframe complete it was time for details. The PM Model Su-15s massive and rather crude main landing gear was replaced with something more delicate from the scrap box, even though I retained the main wheels. The front landing gear was taken wholesale from the MiG-23, but had to be shortened for a proper stance.
A display holder adapter was integrated into the belly for the flight scenes, hidden well between the ventral ordnance.
The hardpoints, including missile launch rails, came from the MiG-23; the pylons had to be adjusted to match the Su-15's wing profile shape, the Anab missiles lost their tail sections to create the fictional Indian 'Saanp' AAMs. The R-3s on the outer stations were left over from a MP MiG-21. The ventral pylons belong to Academy MiG-23/27s, one came from the donor kit, the other was found in the spares box. The PTB-490 drop tanks also came from a KP MiG-21 (or one of its many reincarnations, not certain).
Painting and markings:
The paint scheme for this fictional aircraft was largely inspired by a picture of a whiffy and very attractive Saab 37 Viggen (an 1:72 Airfix kit) in IAF colors, apparently a model from a contest. BTW, India actually considered buying the Viggen for its Air Force!
IAF aircraft were and are known for their exotic and sometimes gawdy paint schemes, and with IAF MiG-21 “C 992” there’s even a very popular (yet obscure) aircraft that sported literal tiger stripes. The IAF Viggen model was surely inspired by this real aircraft, and I adopted something similar for my HF-26M.
IAF 1 Squadron was therefore settled, and for the paint scheme I opted for a "stripish" scheme, but not as "tigeresque" as "C 992". I found a suitable benchmark in a recent Libyian MiG-21, which carried a very disruptive two-tone grey scheme. I adapted this pattern to the HA-26M airframe and replaced its colors, similar to the IAF Viggen model, which became a greenish sand tone (a mix of Humbrol 121 with some 159; I later found out that I could have used Humbrol 83 from the beginning, though...) and a very dark olive drab (Humbrol 66, which looks like a dull dark brown in contrast with the sand tone), with bluish grey (Humbrol 247) undersides. With the large delta wings, this turned out to look very good and even effective!
For that special "Indian touch" I gave the aircraft a high-contrast fin in a design that I had seen on a real camouflaged IAF MiG-21bis: an overall dark green base with a broad, red vertical stripe which was also the shield for the fin flash and the aircraft's tactical code (on the original bare metal). The fin was first painted in green (Humbrol 2), the red stripe was created with orange-red decal sheet material. Similar material was also used to create the bare metal field for the tactical code, the yellow bars on the splitter plates and for the thin white canopy sealing.
After basic painting was done the model received an overall black ink washing, post-panel shading and extensive dry-brushing with aluminum and iron for a rather worn look.
The missiles became classic white, while the drop tanks, as a contrast to the camouflaged belly, were left in bare metal.
Decals/markings came primarily from a Begemot MiG-25 kit, the tactical codes on the fin and under the wings originally belong to an RAF post-WWII Spitfire, just the first serial letter was omitted. Stencils are few and they came from various sources. A compromise is the unit badge on the fin: I needed a tiger motif, and the only suitable option I found was the tiger head emblem on a white disc from RAF No. 74 Squadron, from the Matchbox BAC Lightning F.6&F.2A kit. It fits stylistically well, though. ;-)
Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (except for the black radome, which became a bit glossy) and finally assembled.
A spontaneous build, and the last one that I completed in 2022. However, despite a vague design plan the model evolved as it grew. Bashing the primitive PM Model Su-15 with the Academy MiG-23 parts was easier than expected, though, and the resulting fictional aircraft looks sturdy but quite believable - even though it appears to me like the unexpected child of a Mirage III/F-4 Phantom II intercourse, or like a juvenile CF-105 Arrow, just with mid-wings? Nevertheless, the disruptive paint scheme suits the delta wing fighter well, and the green/red fin is a striking contrast - it's a colorful model, but not garish.
Some background:
The VF-1 was developed by Stonewell/Bellcom/Shinnakasu for the U.N. Spacy by using alien Overtechnology obtained from the SDF-1 Macross alien spaceship. The space-capable VF-1's combat debut was on February 7, 2009, during the Battle of South Ataria Island - the first battle of Space War I - and remained the mainstay fighter of the U.N. Spacy for the entire conflict. Introduced in 2008, the VF-1 would be out of frontline service just five years later, though.
The VF-1 proved to be an extremely capable craft, successfully combating a variety of Zentraedi mecha even in most sorties which saw UN Spacy forces significantly outnumbered. The versatility of the Valkyrie design enabled the variable fighter to act as both large-scale infantry and as air/space superiority fighter. The basic VF-1 was built and deployed in four minor variants (designated A, J, and S single-seater and the D two-seater/trainer) and its success was increased by continued development of various enhancements including the GBP-1S "Armored" Valkyrie exoskeleton with enhanced protection and integrated missile launchers, the so-called FAST (“Fuel And Sensor Tray”) packs that created the fully space-capable "Super" Valkyries and the additional RÖ-X2 heavy cannon pack weapon system for the VF-1S “Super Valkyrie”.
After the end of Space War I, the VF-1 continued to be manufactured both in the Sol system and throughout the UNG space colonies. At the end of 2015 the final rollout of the VF-1 was celebrated at a special ceremony, commemorating this most famous of variable fighters. The VF-1 Valkryie was built from 2006 to 2013 with a total production of 5,459 VF-1 variable fighters with several original variants (VF-1A = 5,093, VF-1D = 85, VF-1J = 49, VF-1S = 30, VF-1G = 12, VE-1 = 122, VT-1 = 68), even though these machines were frequently updated and modified during their career, leading to a wide range of sub-variants and different standards.
Although the VF-1 would be replaced in 2020 as the primary Variable Fighter of the U.N. Spacy, a long service record and continued production after the war proved the lasting worth of the design. One of these post-war designs became the VF-1EX, a replica variant of the VF-1J with up-to-date avionics and instrumentation. It was only built in small numbers in the late 2040s and was a dedicated variant for advanced training with dissimilar mock aerial and ground fighting.
The only operator of this type was Xaos (sometimes spelled as Chaos), a private and independent military and civilian contractor. Xaos was originally a fold navigation business that began venturing into fold wave communication and information, expanding rapidly during the 2050s and entering new business fields like flight tests and providing aggressor aircraft for military training. They were almost entirely independent from the New United Nations Spacy (NUNS) and was led by the mysterious Lady M. During the Vár Syndrome outbreak, Echo Squadron and Delta Flight and the tactical sound unit Thrones and Walküre were formed to counteract its effects in the Brísingr Globular Cluster.
The VF-1EX was restricted to its primary objective and never saw real combat. The replica unit retained the overall basic performance of the original VF-1 Valkyrie, the specifications being more than sufficient for training and mock combat. The only difference was the addition of the contemporary military EG-01M/MP EX-Gear system for the pilot as an emergency standard, an exoskeleton unit with personal inner-wear, two variable geometry wings, two hybrid jet/rocket engines, mechanical hardware for the head, torso, arms and legs. This feature gave the VF-1EX its new designation.
Furthermore, the VF-1EX was also outfitted with other electronic contingency functions like AI-assisted flight and remote override controls. Some of these features could be disabled according to necessity or pilot preferences. The gun pod unit was retained but was usually only loaded with paintball rounds for mock combat. For the same purpose, one of the original Mauler RÖV-20 anti-aircraft laser cannon in the "head unit" was replaced by a long-range laser target designator. AMM-1 missiles with dummy warheads or other training ordnance could be added to the wing hardpoints, but the VF-1EX was never seen being equipped this way - it remained an agile dogfighter.
General characteristics:
All-environment variable fighter and tactical combat Battroid. 3-mode variable transformation; variable geometry wing; vertical take-off and landing; control-configurable vehicle; single-axis thrust vectoring; three "magic hand" manipulators for maintenance use; retractable canopy shield for Battroid mode and atmospheric reentry; EG-01M/MP EX-Gear system; option of GBP-1S system, atmospheric-escape booster, or FAST Pack system.
Accommodation:
Single pilot in Marty & Beck Mk-7 zero/zero ejection seat
Dimensions:
Battroid Mode:
Height 12.68 meters
Width 7.3 meters
Length 4.0 meters
Fighter Mode:
Length 14.23 meters
Wingspan 14.78 meters (at 20° minimum sweep)
Height 3.84 meters
Empty weight: 13.25 metric tons
Standard take-off mass: 18.5 metric tons
MTOW: 37.0 metric tons
Power Plant:
2x Shinnakasu Heavy Industry/P&W/Roice FF-2001 thermonuclear reaction turbine engines, output 650 MW each, rated at 11,500 kg in standard or in overboost (225.63 kN x 2);
4x Shinnakasu Heavy Industry NBS-1 high-thrust vernier thrusters (1 x counter reverse vernier thruster nozzle mounted on the side of each leg nacelle/air intake, 1 x wing thruster roll control system on each wingtip);
18x P&W LHP04 low-thrust vernier thrusters beneath multipurpose hook/handles
Performance:
Battroid Mode: maximum walking speed 160 km/h
Fighter Mode: at 10,000 m Mach 2.71; at 30,000+ m Mach 3.87
g limit: in space +7
Thrust-to-weight ratio: empty 3.47; standard TOW 2.49; maximum TOW 1.24
Transformation:
Standard time from Fighter to Battroid (automated): under 5 sec.
Min. time from Fighter to Battroid (manual): 0.9 sec.
Armament:
1x Mauler RÖV-20 anti-aircraft laser cannon in the "head" unit, firing 6,000 pulses per minute
1x Howard GU-11 55 mm three-barrel Gatling gun pod with 200 RPG, fired at 1,200 rpm
4x underwing hardpoints for a wide variety of ordnance
The kit and its assembly:
The VF-1EX Valkyrie is a Variable Fighter introduced in the Macross Δ television series, and it's, as described above, a replica training variant that resembles outwardly the VF-1J. There's even a Hasegawa 1:72 kit from 2016 of this obscure variant.
However, what I tried to recreate is a virtual (and purely fictional/non-canonical) VF-1EX, re-skinned by someone called David L. on the basis of a virtual VF-1S 3D model with a 2 m wing span (sounds like ~1:8 scale) for the Phoenix R/C simulator software. Check this for reference: www.supermotoxl.com/projects-articles/ready-to-drive-fly-...). How bizarre can things be/become? And how sick is a hardware model of it, though...?
I found the complex livery very attractive and had the plan to build a 1:100 model for some years now. But it took this long to gather enough mojo to tackle this project, due to the tricolor paint scheme's complex nature...
The "canvas" for this stunt is a vintage Arii 1:100 VF-1 kit, built OOB except for some standard mods. The kit was actually a VF-1A, but I had a spare VF-1J head unit in store as a suitable replacement. Externally, some dorsal blade aerials and vanes on the nose were added, the attachment points under the wings for the pylons were PSRed away. A pilot figure was added to the cockpit because this model would be displayed in flight. As a consequence, the ventral gun pod received an adapter at its tail and I added one of my home-brew wire displays, created on the basis of the kit's OOB plastic base.
Painting and markings:
As mentioned above, this VF-1 is based on a re-skinned virtual R/C model, and its creator apparently took inspiration from a canonical VF fighter, namely a VF-31C "Siegfried", and specifically the "Mirage Farina Jenius Custom" version from the Macross Δ series that plays around 2051. Screenshots from the demo flight video under the link above provided various perspectives as painting reference, but the actual implementation on the tiny model caused serious headaches.
The VF-1's shapes are rather round and curvy, the model's jagged surface and small size prohibited masking. The kit is IMHO also best built and painted in single sub-assemblies, but upon closer inspection the screenshots revealed some marking inconsistencies (apparently edited from various videos?), and certain areas were left uncertain, e .g. the inside of the legs or the whole belly area. Therefore, this model is just a personal interpretation of the design, and as such I also deviated in the markings.
The paints became Humbrol 20 (Crimson) and 58 (Magenta), plus Revell 301 (Semi-gloss White), and they were applied with brushes. To replicate the edgy and rather fragmented pattern I initially laid down the two reds in a rather rough and thin fashion and painted the white dorsal and ventral areas. Once thoroughly dry, the white edges were quasi-masked with white decal material, either with stripes of various widths or tailored from sheet material, e. g. for the "wedges" on the wings and fins and the dorsal "swallow tail". This went more smoothly than expected, with a very convincing and clean result that i'd never had achieved with brushes alone, even with masking attempts, which would probably have led to chaos and too much paint on the model.
Other details like the grey leading edges or the air intakes were created with grey and black decal material, too.
No weathering was done, since the aircraft would be clean and in pristine condition, but I used a soft pencil to emphasize the engraved panel lines, esp. on white background. The gun pod became grey and the exhausts, painted in Revell 91 (Iron), were treated with graphite for a darker shade and a more metallic look.
Stencils came from the kit's OOB sheet, but only a few, since there was already a lot "going on" on the VF-1's hull. The flash-shaped Xaos insignia and the NUNS markings on legs and wings were printed at home - as well as the small black vernier thrusters all around the hull, for a uniform look. The USN style Modex and the small letter code on the fins came from an Colorado Decals F-5 sheet, for an aggressor aircraft.
Finally, the kit was sealed overall with semi-gloss acrlyic varnish (which turned out glossier than expected...) and position lights etc. added with translucent paint on top of a silver base.
Well, while the VF-1 was built OOB with no major mods and just some cosmetical upgrades, the paint scheme and its finish were more demanding - and I am happy that the "decal masking" trick worked so fine. The paint scheme surely is attractive, even though it IMHO does not really takes the VF-1's lines into account. Nevertheless, I am certain that there are not many models that are actually based on a virtual 1:8 scale 3D model of an iconic SF fighter, so that this VF-1EX might be unique.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Lockheed XFV (sometimes erroneously referred to as the "Salmon", even though this was actually the name of one of its test pilots and not an official designation) was an American experimental tailsitter prototype aircraft built by Lockheed in the early 1950s to demonstrate the operation of a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) fighter for protecting convoys.
The Lockheed XFV originated as a result of a proposal issued by the U.S. Navy in 1948 for an aircraft capable of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aboard platforms mounted on the afterdecks of conventional ships. Both Convair and Lockheed competed for the contract, but in 1950 the requirement was revised with a call for a research aircraft capable of eventually evolving into a VTOL ship-based convoy escort fighter. On 19 April 1951, two prototypes were ordered from Lockheed under the designation XFO-1 (company designation was Model 081-40-01). Soon after the contract was awarded, the project designation changed to XFV-1 when the Navy's code for Lockheed was changed from O to V.
The XFV was powered by a 5,332 hp (3,976 kW) Allison YT40-A-6 turboprop engine, composed of two Allison T38 power sections driving three-bladed contra-rotating propellers via a common gearbox. The aircraft had no landing gear, just small castoring wheels at the tips of the tail surfaces which were a reflected cruciform v-tail (forming an x) that extended above and below the fuselage. The wings were diamond-shaped and relatively thin, with straight and sharp leading edges – somewhat foretelling the design of Lockheed’s Mach-2-capable F-104 Starfighter.
To begin flight testing, a temporary non-retractable undercarriage with long braced V-legs was attached to the fuselage, and fixed tail wheels attached to the lower pair of fins. In this form, the aircraft was trucked to Edwards AFB in November 1953 for ground testing and taxiing trials. During one of these tests, at a time when the aft section of the large spinner had not yet been fitted, Lockheed chief test pilot Herman "Fish" Salmon managed to taxi the aircraft past the liftoff speed, and the aircraft made a brief hop on 22 December 1953. The official first flight took place on 16 June 1954.
Full VTOL testing at Edwards AFB was delayed pending the availability of the 7,100 shp Allison T54, which was earmarked to replace the T40 and power eventual serial production aircraft. But the T54 faced severe development delays, esp. its gearbox. Another problem that arose with the new engine was that the propeller blade tips would reach supersonic speed and therefore compressibility problems.
After the brief unintentional hop, the prototype aircraft made a total of 32 flights. The XFV-1 was able to make a few transitions in flight from the conventional to the vertical flight mode and back, and had briefly held in hover at altitude, but the T40 output was simply not enough to ensure proper and secure VTOL operations. Performance remained limited by the confines of the flight test regime. Another issue that arose through the advancements of jet engine designs was the realization that the XFV's top speed would be eclipsed by contemporary fighters. Additionally, the purely manual handling of the aircraft esp. during landing was very demanding - the XFV could only be controlled by highly experienced pilots.
Both Navy and the Marines Corps were still interested in the concept, though, so that, in early 1955, the decision was made to build a limited pre-production series of the aircraft, the FV-2, for operational field tests and evaluation. The FV-2 was the proposed production version (Model 181-43-02), primarily conceived and optimized as a night/all-weather interceptor for point defense, and officially baptized “Solstice”. The FV-2 was powered by the T54-A-16 turboprop, which had eventually overcome its teething troubles and offered a combined power output equivalent of 7,500 shp (5,600 kW) from the propellers and the twin-engines’ residual thrust. Outwardly the different engine was recognizable through two separate circular exhausts which were introduced instead of the XFV’s single shallow ventral opening. The gearbox had been beefed up, too, with additional oil coolers in small ventral fairings behind the contraprops and the propeller blades were aerodynamically improved to better cope with the higher power output and rotation speed. Additionally, an automatic pitch control system was introduced to alleviate the pilot from the delicate control burdens during hover and flight mode transition.
Compared with the XFV, the FV-2 incorporated 150 lb (68 kg) of cockpit armor, along with a 1.5 in (38 mm) bullet-proof windscreen. A Sperry Corporation AN/APS-19 type radar was added in the fixed forward part of the nose spinner under an opaque perspex radome. The AN/APS-19 was primarily a target detection radar with only a limited tracking capability, and it had been introduced with the McDonnell F2H-2N. The radar had a theoretical maximum detection range of 60 km, but in real life air targets could only be detected at much shorter distances. At long ranges the radar was mainly used for navigation and to detect land masses or large ships.
Like the older AN/APS-6, the AN/APS-19 operated in a "Spiral Scan" search pattern. In a spiral scan the radar dish spins rapidly, scanning the area in front of the aircraft following a spiral path. As a result, however targets were not updated on every pass as the radar was pointing at a different angle on each pass. This also made the radar prone to ground clutter effects, which created "pulses" on the radar display. The AN/APS-19 was able to lock onto and track targets within a narrow cone, out to a maximum range of about 1 mile (1.5 km), but to do so the radar had to cease scanning.
The FV-2’s standard armament consisted of four Mk. 11 20 mm cannon fitted in pairs in the two detachable wingtip pods, with 250 rounds each, which fired outside of the wide propeller disc. Alternatively, forty-eight 2¾ in (70 mm) folding-fin rockets could be fitted in similar pods, which could be fired in salvoes against both air and ground targets. Instead of offensive armament, 200 US gal. (165 imp. gal./750 l) auxiliary tanks for ferry flights could be mounted onto the wing tips.
Until June 1956 a total of eleven FV-2s were built and delivered. With US Navy Air Development Squadron 8 (also known as VX-8) at NAS Atlantic City, a dedicated evaluation and maintenance unit for the FV-2 and the operations of VTOL aircraft in general was formed. VX-2 operated closely with its sister unit VX-3 (located at the same base) and operated the FV-2s alongside contemporary types like the Grumman F9F-8 Cougar, which at that time went through carrier-qualification aboard the USS Midway. The Cougars were soon joined by the new, supersonic F-8U-1 Crusaders, which arrived in December 1956. The advent of this supersonic navy jet type rendered the FV-2’s archaic technology and its performance more and more questionable, even though the VTOL concept’s potential and the institutions’ interest in it kept the test unit alive.
The FV-2s were in the following years put through a series of thorough field tests and frequently deployed to land bases all across the USA and abroad. Additionally, operational tests were also conducted on board of various ship types, ranging from carriers with wide flight decks to modified merchant ships with improvised landing platforms. The FV-2s also took part in US Navy and USMC maneuvers, and when not deployed elsewhere the training with new pilots at NAS Atlantic City continued.
During these tests, the demanding handling characteristics of the tailsitter concept in general and the FV-2 in specific were frequently confirmed. Once in flight, however, the FV-2 handled well and was a serious and agile dogfighter – but jet aircraft could easily avoid and outrun it.
Other operational problems soon became apparent, too: while the idea of a VTOL aircraft that was independent from runways or flight bases was highly attractive, the FV-2’s tailsitter concept required a complex and bulky maintenance infrastructure, with many ladders, working platforms and cranes. On the ground, the FV-2 could not move on its own and had to be pushed or towed. However, due to the aircraft’s high center of gravity it had to be handled with great care – two FV-2s were seriously damaged after they toppled over, one at NAS Atlantic City on the ground (it could be repaired and brought back into service), the other aboard a ship at heavy sea, where the aircraft totally got out of control on deck and fell into the sea as a total loss.
To make matters even worse, fundamental operational tasks like refueling, re-arming the aircraft between sorties or even just boarding it were a complicated and slow task, so that the aircraft’s theoretical conceptual benefits were countered by its cumbersome handling.
FV-2 operations furthermore revealed, despite the considerably increased power output of the T54 twin engine that more than compensated for the aircraft’s raised weight, only a marginal improvement of the aircraft’s performance; the FV-2 had simply reached the limits of propeller-driven aircraft. Just the rate of climb was markedly improved, and the extra power made the FV-2’s handling safer than the XFV’s, even though this advancement was only relative because the aircraft’s hazardous handling during transition and landing as well as other conceptual problems prevailed and could not be overcome. The FV-2’s range was also very limited, esp. when it did not carry the fuel tanks on the wing tips, so that the aircraft’s potential service spectrum remained very limited.
Six of the eleven FV-2s that were produced were lost in various accidents within only three years, five pilots were killed. The T54 engine remained unreliable, and the propeller control system which used 25 vacuum tubes was far from reliable, too. Due to the many problems, the FV-2s were grounded in 1959, and when VX-8 was disestablished on 1 March 1960, the whole project was cancelled and all remaining aircraft except for one airframe were scrapped. As of today, Bu.No. 53-3537 resides disassembled in storage at the National Museum of the United States Navy in the former Breech Mechanism Shop of the old Naval Gun Factory on the grounds of the Washington Navy Yard in Washington, D.C., United States, where it waits for restoration and eventual public presentation.
As a historic side note, the FV-2’s detachable wing tip gun pods had a longer and more successful service life: they were the basis for the Mk.4 HIPEG (High Performance External Gun) gun pods. This weapon system’s main purpose became strafing ground targets, and it received a different attachment system for underwing hardpoints and a bigger ammunition supply (750 RPG instead of just 250 on the FV-2). Approximately 1.200 Mk. 4 twin gun pods were manufactured by Hughes Tool Company, later Hughes Helicopter, in Culver City, California. While the system was tested and certified for use on the A-4, the A-6, the A-7, the F-4, and the OV-10, it only saw extended use on the A-4, the F-4, and the OV-10, esp. in Vietnam where the Mk. 4 pod was used extensively for close air support missions.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length/Height: 36 ft 10.25 in (11.23 m)
Wingspan: 30 ft 10.1 in (9.4 m)
Wing area: 246 sq ft (22.85 m²)
Empty weight: 12,388 lb (5,624 kg)
Gross weight: 17,533 lb (7,960 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 18,159 lb (8,244 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Allison T54-A-16 turboprop with 7,500 shp (5,600 kW) output equivalent,
driving a 6 blade contra-rotating propeller
Performance:
Maximum speed: 585 mph (941 km/h, 509 kn
Cruise speed: 410 mph (660 km/h, 360 kn)
Range: 500 mi (800 km, 430 nmi) with internal fuel
800 mi (1,300 km, 700 nmi) with ferry wing tip tanks
Service ceiling: 46,800 ft (14,300 m)
Rate of climb: 12,750 ft/min (75.0 m/s)
Wing loading: 73.7 lb/sq ft (360 kg/m²)
Armament:
4× 20 mm (.79 in) Mk. 11 machine cannon with a total of 1.000 rounds, or
48× 2.75 in (70 mm) rockets in wingtip pods, or
a pair of 200 US gal. (165 imp. gal./750 l) auxiliary tanks on the wing tips
The kit and its assembly:
Another submission to the “Fifties” group build at whatifmodellers-com, and a really nice what-if aircraft that perfectly fits into the time frame. I had this Pegasus kit in The Stash™ for quite a while and the plan to build an operational USN or USMC aircraft from it in the typical all-dark-blue livery from the early Fifties, and the group build was a good occasion to realize it.
The Pegasus kit was released in 1992, the only other option to build the XFV in 1:72 is a Valom kit which, as a bonus, features the aircraft’s fixed landing gear that was used during flight trials. The Pegasus offering is technically simple and robust, but it is nothing for those who are faint at heart. The warning that the kit requires an experienced builder is not to be underestimated, because the IP kit from the UK comes with white metal parts and no visual instructions, just a verbal description of the building steps. The IP parts (including the canopy, which is one piece, quite thick but also clear) and the decals look good, though.
The IP parts feature flash and uneven seam lines, sprue attachment points are quite thick. The grey IP material had on my specimen different grades of hard-/brittleness, the white metal parts (some of the propeller blades) were bent and had to be re-aligned. No IP parts would fit well (there are no locator pins or other physical aids), the cockpit tub was a mess to assemble and fit into the fuselage. PSR on any seam all around the hull. But even though this sound horrible, the kit goes together relatively easy – thanks to its simplicity.
I made some mods and upgrades, though. One of them was an internal axis construction made from styrene tubes that allow the two propeller discs to move separately (OOB, you just stack and glue the discs onto each other into a rigid nose cone), while the propeller tip with its radome remained fixed – just as in real life. However, due to the parts’ size and resistance against each other, the props could not move as freely as originally intended.
Separate parts for the air intakes as well as the wings and tail surfaces could be mounted with less problems than expected, even though - again – PSR was necessary to hide the seams.
Painting and markings:
As already mentioned, the livery would be rather conservative, because I wanted the aircraft to carry the uniform USN scheme in all-over FS 35042 with white markings, which was dropped in 1955, though. The XFV or a potential serial production derivative would just fit into this time frame, and might have carried the classic all-blue livery for a couple of years more, especially when operated by an evaluation unit. Its unit, VX-8, is totally fictional, though.
The cockpit interior was painted in Humbrol 80 (simulating bright zinc chromate primer), and to have some contrasts I added small red highlights on the fin pod tips and the gun pods' anti-flutter winglets. For some more variety the radome became earth brown with some good weathering, simulating an opaque perspex hood, and I added white (actually a very light gray) checkerboard markings on the "propeller rings", a bit inspired by the spinner markings on German WWII fighters. Subtle, but it looks good and breaks the otherwise very simple livery.
Some post-panel-shading with a lighter blue was done all over the hull, the exhaust area and the gun ports were painted with iron (Revell 91) and treated with graphite for a more metallic shine.
Silver decal stripe material was used to create the CoroGuard leading edges and the fine lines at the flaps on wings and fins - much easier than trying to solve this with paint and brush...
The decals were puzzled together from various dark blue USN aircraft, including a F8F, F9F and F4U sheet. The "XH" code was created with single 1cm hwite letters, the different font is not obvious, thanks to the letter combination.
Finally, the model was sealed with semi-gloss acrylic varnish (still shiny, but not too bright), the radome and the exhaust area were painted with matt varnsh, though.
A cool result, despite the rather dubious kit base. The Pegasus kit is seriously something for experienced builders, but the result looks convincing. The blue USN livery suits the XFV/FV-2 very well, it looks much more elegant than in the original NMF - even though it would, in real life, probably have received the new Gull Gray/White scheme (introduced in late 1955, IIRC, my FV-2 might have been one of the last aircraft to be painted blue). However, the blue scheme IMHO points out the aircraft's highly aerodynamic teardrop shape, esp. the flight pics make the aircraft almost look elegant!
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Lockheed XFV (sometimes erroneously referred to as the "Salmon", even though this was actually the name of one of its test pilots and not an official designation) was an American experimental tailsitter prototype aircraft built by Lockheed in the early 1950s to demonstrate the operation of a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) fighter for protecting convoys.
The Lockheed XFV originated as a result of a proposal issued by the U.S. Navy in 1948 for an aircraft capable of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aboard platforms mounted on the afterdecks of conventional ships. Both Convair and Lockheed competed for the contract, but in 1950 the requirement was revised with a call for a research aircraft capable of eventually evolving into a VTOL ship-based convoy escort fighter. On 19 April 1951, two prototypes were ordered from Lockheed under the designation XFO-1 (company designation was Model 081-40-01). Soon after the contract was awarded, the project designation changed to XFV-1 when the Navy's code for Lockheed was changed from O to V.
The XFV was powered by a 5,332 hp (3,976 kW) Allison YT40-A-6 turboprop engine, composed of two Allison T38 power sections driving three-bladed contra-rotating propellers via a common gearbox. The aircraft had no landing gear, just small castoring wheels at the tips of the tail surfaces which were a reflected cruciform v-tail (forming an x) that extended above and below the fuselage. The wings were diamond-shaped and relatively thin, with straight and sharp leading edges – somewhat foretelling the design of Lockheed’s Mach-2-capable F-104 Starfighter.
To begin flight testing, a temporary non-retractable undercarriage with long braced V-legs was attached to the fuselage, and fixed tail wheels attached to the lower pair of fins. In this form, the aircraft was trucked to Edwards AFB in November 1953 for ground testing and taxiing trials. During one of these tests, at a time when the aft section of the large spinner had not yet been fitted, Lockheed chief test pilot Herman "Fish" Salmon managed to taxi the aircraft past the liftoff speed, and the aircraft made a brief hop on 22 December 1953. The official first flight took place on 16 June 1954.
Full VTOL testing at Edwards AFB was delayed pending the availability of the 7,100 shp Allison T54, which was earmarked to replace the T40 and power eventual serial production aircraft. But the T54 faced severe development delays, esp. its gearbox. Another problem that arose with the new engine was that the propeller blade tips would reach supersonic speed and therefore compressibility problems.
After the brief unintentional hop, the prototype aircraft made a total of 32 flights. The XFV-1 was able to make a few transitions in flight from the conventional to the vertical flight mode and back, and had briefly held in hover at altitude, but the T40 output was simply not enough to ensure proper and secure VTOL operations. Performance remained limited by the confines of the flight test regime. Another issue that arose through the advancements of jet engine designs was the realization that the XFV's top speed would be eclipsed by contemporary fighters. Additionally, the purely manual handling of the aircraft esp. during landing was very demanding - the XFV could only be controlled by highly experienced pilots.
Both Navy and the Marines Corps were still interested in the concept, though, so that, in early 1955, the decision was made to build a limited pre-production series of the aircraft, the FV-2, for operational field tests and evaluation. The FV-2 was the proposed production version (Model 181-43-02), primarily conceived and optimized as a night/all-weather interceptor for point defense, and officially baptized “Solstice”. The FV-2 was powered by the T54-A-16 turboprop, which had eventually overcome its teething troubles and offered a combined power output equivalent of 7,500 shp (5,600 kW) from the propellers and the twin-engines’ residual thrust. Outwardly the different engine was recognizable through two separate circular exhausts which were introduced instead of the XFV’s single shallow ventral opening. The gearbox had been beefed up, too, with additional oil coolers in small ventral fairings behind the contraprops and the propeller blades were aerodynamically improved to better cope with the higher power output and rotation speed. Additionally, an automatic pitch control system was introduced to alleviate the pilot from the delicate control burdens during hover and flight mode transition.
Compared with the XFV, the FV-2 incorporated 150 lb (68 kg) of cockpit armor, along with a 1.5 in (38 mm) bullet-proof windscreen. A Sperry Corporation AN/APS-19 type radar was added in the fixed forward part of the nose spinner under an opaque perspex radome. The AN/APS-19 was primarily a target detection radar with only a limited tracking capability, and it had been introduced with the McDonnell F2H-2N. The radar had a theoretical maximum detection range of 60 km, but in real life air targets could only be detected at much shorter distances. At long ranges the radar was mainly used for navigation and to detect land masses or large ships.
Like the older AN/APS-6, the AN/APS-19 operated in a "Spiral Scan" search pattern. In a spiral scan the radar dish spins rapidly, scanning the area in front of the aircraft following a spiral path. As a result, however targets were not updated on every pass as the radar was pointing at a different angle on each pass. This also made the radar prone to ground clutter effects, which created "pulses" on the radar display. The AN/APS-19 was able to lock onto and track targets within a narrow cone, out to a maximum range of about 1 mile (1.5 km), but to do so the radar had to cease scanning.
The FV-2’s standard armament consisted of four Mk. 11 20 mm cannon fitted in pairs in the two detachable wingtip pods, with 250 rounds each, which fired outside of the wide propeller disc. Alternatively, forty-eight 2¾ in (70 mm) folding-fin rockets could be fitted in similar pods, which could be fired in salvoes against both air and ground targets. Instead of offensive armament, 200 US gal. (165 imp. gal./750 l) auxiliary tanks for ferry flights could be mounted onto the wing tips.
Until June 1956 a total of eleven FV-2s were built and delivered. With US Navy Air Development Squadron 8 (also known as VX-8) at NAS Atlantic City, a dedicated evaluation and maintenance unit for the FV-2 and the operations of VTOL aircraft in general was formed. VX-2 operated closely with its sister unit VX-3 (located at the same base) and operated the FV-2s alongside contemporary types like the Grumman F9F-8 Cougar, which at that time went through carrier-qualification aboard the USS Midway. The Cougars were soon joined by the new, supersonic F-8U-1 Crusaders, which arrived in December 1956. The advent of this supersonic navy jet type rendered the FV-2’s archaic technology and its performance more and more questionable, even though the VTOL concept’s potential and the institutions’ interest in it kept the test unit alive.
The FV-2s were in the following years put through a series of thorough field tests and frequently deployed to land bases all across the USA and abroad. Additionally, operational tests were also conducted on board of various ship types, ranging from carriers with wide flight decks to modified merchant ships with improvised landing platforms. The FV-2s also took part in US Navy and USMC maneuvers, and when not deployed elsewhere the training with new pilots at NAS Atlantic City continued.
During these tests, the demanding handling characteristics of the tailsitter concept in general and the FV-2 in specific were frequently confirmed. Once in flight, however, the FV-2 handled well and was a serious and agile dogfighter – but jet aircraft could easily avoid and outrun it.
Other operational problems soon became apparent, too: while the idea of a VTOL aircraft that was independent from runways or flight bases was highly attractive, the FV-2’s tailsitter concept required a complex and bulky maintenance infrastructure, with many ladders, working platforms and cranes. On the ground, the FV-2 could not move on its own and had to be pushed or towed. However, due to the aircraft’s high center of gravity it had to be handled with great care – two FV-2s were seriously damaged after they toppled over, one at NAS Atlantic City on the ground (it could be repaired and brought back into service), the other aboard a ship at heavy sea, where the aircraft totally got out of control on deck and fell into the sea as a total loss.
To make matters even worse, fundamental operational tasks like refueling, re-arming the aircraft between sorties or even just boarding it were a complicated and slow task, so that the aircraft’s theoretical conceptual benefits were countered by its cumbersome handling.
FV-2 operations furthermore revealed, despite the considerably increased power output of the T54 twin engine that more than compensated for the aircraft’s raised weight, only a marginal improvement of the aircraft’s performance; the FV-2 had simply reached the limits of propeller-driven aircraft. Just the rate of climb was markedly improved, and the extra power made the FV-2’s handling safer than the XFV’s, even though this advancement was only relative because the aircraft’s hazardous handling during transition and landing as well as other conceptual problems prevailed and could not be overcome. The FV-2’s range was also very limited, esp. when it did not carry the fuel tanks on the wing tips, so that the aircraft’s potential service spectrum remained very limited.
Six of the eleven FV-2s that were produced were lost in various accidents within only three years, five pilots were killed. The T54 engine remained unreliable, and the propeller control system which used 25 vacuum tubes was far from reliable, too. Due to the many problems, the FV-2s were grounded in 1959, and when VX-8 was disestablished on 1 March 1960, the whole project was cancelled and all remaining aircraft except for one airframe were scrapped. As of today, Bu.No. 53-3537 resides disassembled in storage at the National Museum of the United States Navy in the former Breech Mechanism Shop of the old Naval Gun Factory on the grounds of the Washington Navy Yard in Washington, D.C., United States, where it waits for restoration and eventual public presentation.
As a historic side note, the FV-2’s detachable wing tip gun pods had a longer and more successful service life: they were the basis for the Mk.4 HIPEG (High Performance External Gun) gun pods. This weapon system’s main purpose became strafing ground targets, and it received a different attachment system for underwing hardpoints and a bigger ammunition supply (750 RPG instead of just 250 on the FV-2). Approximately 1.200 Mk. 4 twin gun pods were manufactured by Hughes Tool Company, later Hughes Helicopter, in Culver City, California. While the system was tested and certified for use on the A-4, the A-6, the A-7, the F-4, and the OV-10, it only saw extended use on the A-4, the F-4, and the OV-10, esp. in Vietnam where the Mk. 4 pod was used extensively for close air support missions.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length/Height: 36 ft 10.25 in (11.23 m)
Wingspan: 30 ft 10.1 in (9.4 m)
Wing area: 246 sq ft (22.85 m²)
Empty weight: 12,388 lb (5,624 kg)
Gross weight: 17,533 lb (7,960 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 18,159 lb (8,244 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Allison T54-A-16 turboprop with 7,500 shp (5,600 kW) output equivalent,
driving a 6 blade contra-rotating propeller
Performance:
Maximum speed: 585 mph (941 km/h, 509 kn
Cruise speed: 410 mph (660 km/h, 360 kn)
Range: 500 mi (800 km, 430 nmi) with internal fuel
800 mi (1,300 km, 700 nmi) with ferry wing tip tanks
Service ceiling: 46,800 ft (14,300 m)
Rate of climb: 12,750 ft/min (75.0 m/s)
Wing loading: 73.7 lb/sq ft (360 kg/m²)
Armament:
4× 20 mm (.79 in) Mk. 11 machine cannon with a total of 1.000 rounds, or
48× 2.75 in (70 mm) rockets in wingtip pods, or
a pair of 200 US gal. (165 imp. gal./750 l) auxiliary tanks on the wing tips
The kit and its assembly:
Another submission to the “Fifties” group build at whatifmodellers-com, and a really nice what-if aircraft that perfectly fits into the time frame. I had this Pegasus kit in The Stash™ for quite a while and the plan to build an operational USN or USMC aircraft from it in the typical all-dark-blue livery from the early Fifties, and the group build was a good occasion to realize it.
The Pegasus kit was released in 1992, the only other option to build the XFV in 1:72 is a Valom kit which, as a bonus, features the aircraft’s fixed landing gear that was used during flight trials. The Pegasus offering is technically simple and robust, but it is nothing for those who are faint at heart. The warning that the kit requires an experienced builder is not to be underestimated, because the IP kit from the UK comes with white metal parts and no visual instructions, just a verbal description of the building steps. The IP parts (including the canopy, which is one piece, quite thick but also clear) and the decals look good, though.
The IP parts feature flash and uneven seam lines, sprue attachment points are quite thick. The grey IP material had on my specimen different grades of hard-/brittleness, the white metal parts (some of the propeller blades) were bent and had to be re-aligned. No IP parts would fit well (there are no locator pins or other physical aids), the cockpit tub was a mess to assemble and fit into the fuselage. PSR on any seam all around the hull. But even though this sound horrible, the kit goes together relatively easy – thanks to its simplicity.
I made some mods and upgrades, though. One of them was an internal axis construction made from styrene tubes that allow the two propeller discs to move separately (OOB, you just stack and glue the discs onto each other into a rigid nose cone), while the propeller tip with its radome remained fixed – just as in real life. However, due to the parts’ size and resistance against each other, the props could not move as freely as originally intended.
Separate parts for the air intakes as well as the wings and tail surfaces could be mounted with less problems than expected, even though - again – PSR was necessary to hide the seams.
Painting and markings:
As already mentioned, the livery would be rather conservative, because I wanted the aircraft to carry the uniform USN scheme in all-over FS 35042 with white markings, which was dropped in 1955, though. The XFV or a potential serial production derivative would just fit into this time frame, and might have carried the classic all-blue livery for a couple of years more, especially when operated by an evaluation unit. Its unit, VX-8, is totally fictional, though.
The cockpit interior was painted in Humbrol 80 (simulating bright zinc chromate primer), and to have some contrasts I added small red highlights on the fin pod tips and the gun pods' anti-flutter winglets. For some more variety the radome became earth brown with some good weathering, simulating an opaque perspex hood, and I added white (actually a very light gray) checkerboard markings on the "propeller rings", a bit inspired by the spinner markings on German WWII fighters. Subtle, but it looks good and breaks the otherwise very simple livery.
Some post-panel-shading with a lighter blue was done all over the hull, the exhaust area and the gun ports were painted with iron (Revell 91) and treated with graphite for a more metallic shine.
Silver decal stripe material was used to create the CoroGuard leading edges and the fine lines at the flaps on wings and fins - much easier than trying to solve this with paint and brush...
The decals were puzzled together from various dark blue USN aircraft, including a F8F, F9F and F4U sheet. The "XH" code was created with single 1cm hwite letters, the different font is not obvious, thanks to the letter combination.
Finally, the model was sealed with semi-gloss acrylic varnish (still shiny, but not too bright), the radome and the exhaust area were painted with matt varnsh, though.
A cool result, despite the rather dubious kit base. The Pegasus kit is seriously something for experienced builders, but the result looks convincing. The blue USN livery suits the XFV/FV-2 very well, it looks much more elegant than in the original NMF - even though it would, in real life, probably have received the new Gull Gray/White scheme (introduced in late 1955, IIRC, my FV-2 might have been one of the last aircraft to be painted blue). However, the blue scheme IMHO points out the aircraft's highly aerodynamic teardrop shape, esp. the flight pics make the aircraft almost look elegant!
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Lockheed XFV (sometimes erroneously referred to as the "Salmon", even though this was actually the name of one of its test pilots and not an official designation) was an American experimental tailsitter prototype aircraft built by Lockheed in the early 1950s to demonstrate the operation of a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) fighter for protecting convoys.
The Lockheed XFV originated as a result of a proposal issued by the U.S. Navy in 1948 for an aircraft capable of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aboard platforms mounted on the afterdecks of conventional ships. Both Convair and Lockheed competed for the contract, but in 1950 the requirement was revised with a call for a research aircraft capable of eventually evolving into a VTOL ship-based convoy escort fighter. On 19 April 1951, two prototypes were ordered from Lockheed under the designation XFO-1 (company designation was Model 081-40-01). Soon after the contract was awarded, the project designation changed to XFV-1 when the Navy's code for Lockheed was changed from O to V.
The XFV was powered by a 5,332 hp (3,976 kW) Allison YT40-A-6 turboprop engine, composed of two Allison T38 power sections driving three-bladed contra-rotating propellers via a common gearbox. The aircraft had no landing gear, just small castoring wheels at the tips of the tail surfaces which were a reflected cruciform v-tail (forming an x) that extended above and below the fuselage. The wings were diamond-shaped and relatively thin, with straight and sharp leading edges – somewhat foretelling the design of Lockheed’s Mach-2-capable F-104 Starfighter.
To begin flight testing, a temporary non-retractable undercarriage with long braced V-legs was attached to the fuselage, and fixed tail wheels attached to the lower pair of fins. In this form, the aircraft was trucked to Edwards AFB in November 1953 for ground testing and taxiing trials. During one of these tests, at a time when the aft section of the large spinner had not yet been fitted, Lockheed chief test pilot Herman "Fish" Salmon managed to taxi the aircraft past the liftoff speed, and the aircraft made a brief hop on 22 December 1953. The official first flight took place on 16 June 1954.
Full VTOL testing at Edwards AFB was delayed pending the availability of the 7,100 shp Allison T54, which was earmarked to replace the T40 and power eventual serial production aircraft. But the T54 faced severe development delays, esp. its gearbox. Another problem that arose with the new engine was that the propeller blade tips would reach supersonic speed and therefore compressibility problems.
After the brief unintentional hop, the prototype aircraft made a total of 32 flights. The XFV-1 was able to make a few transitions in flight from the conventional to the vertical flight mode and back, and had briefly held in hover at altitude, but the T40 output was simply not enough to ensure proper and secure VTOL operations. Performance remained limited by the confines of the flight test regime. Another issue that arose through the advancements of jet engine designs was the realization that the XFV's top speed would be eclipsed by contemporary fighters. Additionally, the purely manual handling of the aircraft esp. during landing was very demanding - the XFV could only be controlled by highly experienced pilots.
Both Navy and the Marines Corps were still interested in the concept, though, so that, in early 1955, the decision was made to build a limited pre-production series of the aircraft, the FV-2, for operational field tests and evaluation. The FV-2 was the proposed production version (Model 181-43-02), primarily conceived and optimized as a night/all-weather interceptor for point defense, and officially baptized “Solstice”. The FV-2 was powered by the T54-A-16 turboprop, which had eventually overcome its teething troubles and offered a combined power output equivalent of 7,500 shp (5,600 kW) from the propellers and the twin-engines’ residual thrust. Outwardly the different engine was recognizable through two separate circular exhausts which were introduced instead of the XFV’s single shallow ventral opening. The gearbox had been beefed up, too, with additional oil coolers in small ventral fairings behind the contraprops and the propeller blades were aerodynamically improved to better cope with the higher power output and rotation speed. Additionally, an automatic pitch control system was introduced to alleviate the pilot from the delicate control burdens during hover and flight mode transition.
Compared with the XFV, the FV-2 incorporated 150 lb (68 kg) of cockpit armor, along with a 1.5 in (38 mm) bullet-proof windscreen. A Sperry Corporation AN/APS-19 type radar was added in the fixed forward part of the nose spinner under an opaque perspex radome. The AN/APS-19 was primarily a target detection radar with only a limited tracking capability, and it had been introduced with the McDonnell F2H-2N. The radar had a theoretical maximum detection range of 60 km, but in real life air targets could only be detected at much shorter distances. At long ranges the radar was mainly used for navigation and to detect land masses or large ships.
Like the older AN/APS-6, the AN/APS-19 operated in a "Spiral Scan" search pattern. In a spiral scan the radar dish spins rapidly, scanning the area in front of the aircraft following a spiral path. As a result, however targets were not updated on every pass as the radar was pointing at a different angle on each pass. This also made the radar prone to ground clutter effects, which created "pulses" on the radar display. The AN/APS-19 was able to lock onto and track targets within a narrow cone, out to a maximum range of about 1 mile (1.5 km), but to do so the radar had to cease scanning.
The FV-2’s standard armament consisted of four Mk. 11 20 mm cannon fitted in pairs in the two detachable wingtip pods, with 250 rounds each, which fired outside of the wide propeller disc. Alternatively, forty-eight 2¾ in (70 mm) folding-fin rockets could be fitted in similar pods, which could be fired in salvoes against both air and ground targets. Instead of offensive armament, 200 US gal. (165 imp. gal./750 l) auxiliary tanks for ferry flights could be mounted onto the wing tips.
Until June 1956 a total of eleven FV-2s were built and delivered. With US Navy Air Development Squadron 8 (also known as VX-8) at NAS Atlantic City, a dedicated evaluation and maintenance unit for the FV-2 and the operations of VTOL aircraft in general was formed. VX-2 operated closely with its sister unit VX-3 (located at the same base) and operated the FV-2s alongside contemporary types like the Grumman F9F-8 Cougar, which at that time went through carrier-qualification aboard the USS Midway. The Cougars were soon joined by the new, supersonic F-8U-1 Crusaders, which arrived in December 1956. The advent of this supersonic navy jet type rendered the FV-2’s archaic technology and its performance more and more questionable, even though the VTOL concept’s potential and the institutions’ interest in it kept the test unit alive.
The FV-2s were in the following years put through a series of thorough field tests and frequently deployed to land bases all across the USA and abroad. Additionally, operational tests were also conducted on board of various ship types, ranging from carriers with wide flight decks to modified merchant ships with improvised landing platforms. The FV-2s also took part in US Navy and USMC maneuvers, and when not deployed elsewhere the training with new pilots at NAS Atlantic City continued.
During these tests, the demanding handling characteristics of the tailsitter concept in general and the FV-2 in specific were frequently confirmed. Once in flight, however, the FV-2 handled well and was a serious and agile dogfighter – but jet aircraft could easily avoid and outrun it.
Other operational problems soon became apparent, too: while the idea of a VTOL aircraft that was independent from runways or flight bases was highly attractive, the FV-2’s tailsitter concept required a complex and bulky maintenance infrastructure, with many ladders, working platforms and cranes. On the ground, the FV-2 could not move on its own and had to be pushed or towed. However, due to the aircraft’s high center of gravity it had to be handled with great care – two FV-2s were seriously damaged after they toppled over, one at NAS Atlantic City on the ground (it could be repaired and brought back into service), the other aboard a ship at heavy sea, where the aircraft totally got out of control on deck and fell into the sea as a total loss.
To make matters even worse, fundamental operational tasks like refueling, re-arming the aircraft between sorties or even just boarding it were a complicated and slow task, so that the aircraft’s theoretical conceptual benefits were countered by its cumbersome handling.
FV-2 operations furthermore revealed, despite the considerably increased power output of the T54 twin engine that more than compensated for the aircraft’s raised weight, only a marginal improvement of the aircraft’s performance; the FV-2 had simply reached the limits of propeller-driven aircraft. Just the rate of climb was markedly improved, and the extra power made the FV-2’s handling safer than the XFV’s, even though this advancement was only relative because the aircraft’s hazardous handling during transition and landing as well as other conceptual problems prevailed and could not be overcome. The FV-2’s range was also very limited, esp. when it did not carry the fuel tanks on the wing tips, so that the aircraft’s potential service spectrum remained very limited.
Six of the eleven FV-2s that were produced were lost in various accidents within only three years, five pilots were killed. The T54 engine remained unreliable, and the propeller control system which used 25 vacuum tubes was far from reliable, too. Due to the many problems, the FV-2s were grounded in 1959, and when VX-8 was disestablished on 1 March 1960, the whole project was cancelled and all remaining aircraft except for one airframe were scrapped. As of today, Bu.No. 53-3537 resides disassembled in storage at the National Museum of the United States Navy in the former Breech Mechanism Shop of the old Naval Gun Factory on the grounds of the Washington Navy Yard in Washington, D.C., United States, where it waits for restoration and eventual public presentation.
As a historic side note, the FV-2’s detachable wing tip gun pods had a longer and more successful service life: they were the basis for the Mk.4 HIPEG (High Performance External Gun) gun pods. This weapon system’s main purpose became strafing ground targets, and it received a different attachment system for underwing hardpoints and a bigger ammunition supply (750 RPG instead of just 250 on the FV-2). Approximately 1.200 Mk. 4 twin gun pods were manufactured by Hughes Tool Company, later Hughes Helicopter, in Culver City, California. While the system was tested and certified for use on the A-4, the A-6, the A-7, the F-4, and the OV-10, it only saw extended use on the A-4, the F-4, and the OV-10, esp. in Vietnam where the Mk. 4 pod was used extensively for close air support missions.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length/Height: 36 ft 10.25 in (11.23 m)
Wingspan: 30 ft 10.1 in (9.4 m)
Wing area: 246 sq ft (22.85 m²)
Empty weight: 12,388 lb (5,624 kg)
Gross weight: 17,533 lb (7,960 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 18,159 lb (8,244 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Allison T54-A-16 turboprop with 7,500 shp (5,600 kW) output equivalent,
driving a 6 blade contra-rotating propeller
Performance:
Maximum speed: 585 mph (941 km/h, 509 kn
Cruise speed: 410 mph (660 km/h, 360 kn)
Range: 500 mi (800 km, 430 nmi) with internal fuel
800 mi (1,300 km, 700 nmi) with ferry wing tip tanks
Service ceiling: 46,800 ft (14,300 m)
Rate of climb: 12,750 ft/min (75.0 m/s)
Wing loading: 73.7 lb/sq ft (360 kg/m²)
Armament:
4× 20 mm (.79 in) Mk. 11 machine cannon with a total of 1.000 rounds, or
48× 2.75 in (70 mm) rockets in wingtip pods, or
a pair of 200 US gal. (165 imp. gal./750 l) auxiliary tanks on the wing tips
The kit and its assembly:
Another submission to the “Fifties” group build at whatifmodellers-com, and a really nice what-if aircraft that perfectly fits into the time frame. I had this Pegasus kit in The Stash™ for quite a while and the plan to build an operational USN or USMC aircraft from it in the typical all-dark-blue livery from the early Fifties, and the group build was a good occasion to realize it.
The Pegasus kit was released in 1992, the only other option to build the XFV in 1:72 is a Valom kit which, as a bonus, features the aircraft’s fixed landing gear that was used during flight trials. The Pegasus offering is technically simple and robust, but it is nothing for those who are faint at heart. The warning that the kit requires an experienced builder is not to be underestimated, because the IP kit from the UK comes with white metal parts and no visual instructions, just a verbal description of the building steps. The IP parts (including the canopy, which is one piece, quite thick but also clear) and the decals look good, though.
The IP parts feature flash and uneven seam lines, sprue attachment points are quite thick. The grey IP material had on my specimen different grades of hard-/brittleness, the white metal parts (some of the propeller blades) were bent and had to be re-aligned. No IP parts would fit well (there are no locator pins or other physical aids), the cockpit tub was a mess to assemble and fit into the fuselage. PSR on any seam all around the hull. But even though this sound horrible, the kit goes together relatively easy – thanks to its simplicity.
I made some mods and upgrades, though. One of them was an internal axis construction made from styrene tubes that allow the two propeller discs to move separately (OOB, you just stack and glue the discs onto each other into a rigid nose cone), while the propeller tip with its radome remained fixed – just as in real life. However, due to the parts’ size and resistance against each other, the props could not move as freely as originally intended.
Separate parts for the air intakes as well as the wings and tail surfaces could be mounted with less problems than expected, even though - again – PSR was necessary to hide the seams.
Painting and markings:
As already mentioned, the livery would be rather conservative, because I wanted the aircraft to carry the uniform USN scheme in all-over FS 35042 with white markings, which was dropped in 1955, though. The XFV or a potential serial production derivative would just fit into this time frame, and might have carried the classic all-blue livery for a couple of years more, especially when operated by an evaluation unit. Its unit, VX-8, is totally fictional, though.
The cockpit interior was painted in Humbrol 80 (simulating bright zinc chromate primer), and to have some contrasts I added small red highlights on the fin pod tips and the gun pods' anti-flutter winglets. For some more variety the radome became earth brown with some good weathering, simulating an opaque perspex hood, and I added white (actually a very light gray) checkerboard markings on the "propeller rings", a bit inspired by the spinner markings on German WWII fighters. Subtle, but it looks good and breaks the otherwise very simple livery.
Some post-panel-shading with a lighter blue was done all over the hull, the exhaust area and the gun ports were painted with iron (Revell 91) and treated with graphite for a more metallic shine.
Silver decal stripe material was used to create the CoroGuard leading edges and the fine lines at the flaps on wings and fins - much easier than trying to solve this with paint and brush...
The decals were puzzled together from various dark blue USN aircraft, including a F8F, F9F and F4U sheet. The "XH" code was created with single 1cm hwite letters, the different font is not obvious, thanks to the letter combination.
Finally, the model was sealed with semi-gloss acrylic varnish (still shiny, but not too bright), the radome and the exhaust area were painted with matt varnsh, though.
A cool result, despite the rather dubious kit base. The Pegasus kit is seriously something for experienced builders, but the result looks convincing. The blue USN livery suits the XFV/FV-2 very well, it looks much more elegant than in the original NMF - even though it would, in real life, probably have received the new Gull Gray/White scheme (introduced in late 1955, IIRC, my FV-2 might have been one of the last aircraft to be painted blue). However, the blue scheme IMHO points out the aircraft's highly aerodynamic teardrop shape, esp. the flight pics make the aircraft almost look elegant!
With the beginning of the atomic age and the Cold War, the United Kingdom needed a bomber force capable of both carrying the enormous nuclear weapons of the age, and the ability to penetrate the air defenses of the Soviet Union. The Royal Air Force’s then primary bomber, the Avro Lincoln, could barely do the former and would never survive the latter, so the RAF issued a specification for a jet bomber. Avro, Handley-Page, and Vickers all responded with designs, all of which were good enough that the RAF accepted all three. This would become the famous “V-Force,” with the Handley-Page Victor, the Vickers Valiant, and the Avro Vulcan.
Initially designed by Roy Chadwick, who designed all of Avro’s wartime bombers, the Vulcan was to be the most radical, using delta wing technology. The delta wing offered the most lift and least drag, extending range and fuel efficiency, while also providing the most volume for nuclear weapons and for future developments. So radical was the Vulcan design that Avro built fighter-size test aircraft, the Avro 707, to prove that the delta wing was feasible.
The first Vulcan took to the air in 1952, and exceeded the RAF’s requirements—it was a “pilot’s airplane”: reliable, fast, and responsive enough to be capable of aerobatics. An unplanned benefit, one not realized until later, was that the Vulcan’s design was actually quite stealthy, with a radar cross-section much lower than its contemporaries. Combined with an advanced and robust ECM system, the Vulcan was to prove itself quite capable of penetrating air defenses, despite its lack of defensive armament. Buffeting caused the wing to be redesigned from the prototype Vulcan B.1 to the definitive Vulcan B.2, with a “kinked” delta. This delayed entry of the Vulcan into RAF Bomber Command until 1956, making it the last of the V-bombers to enter service.
As it had aerial refueling capability, the Vulcan had global reach, and RAF bomber units were regularly deployed outside of England, to bases in Cyprus and Singapore. If the Vulcan had a weakness, it was not in the design itself: the intention was to equip the Vulcan with the American Skybolt air-launched ballistic missile, but Skybolt was cancelled in 1962, leaving the Vulcan to be equipped with Yellow Sun freefall nuclear bombs, and later the Blue Steel standoff weapon—both would have still required a lengthy penetration of the Soviet Union. To train crews in doing so, Vulcans regularly participated in exercises with the USAF’s Strategic Air Command in Big Voice bombing competitions (and later Red Flag), and Operation Skyshield, simulated attacks on American cities from bases in England.
As the UK switched its nuclear deterrent force to Polaris submarine-launched ballistic missiles, the Vulcans were also switched to the tactical nuclear role in 1970, and became the sole aerial portion of Britain’s nuclear force as the Valiant was retired and the Victor converted to role of tanker. Since tactical nuclear bombs could also be carried by much smaller aircraft such as the Buccaneer and Jaguar, the Vulcan was somewhat overqualified for this role. With the RAF adapting the Panavia Tornado GR.1 in 1979, the Vulcan force began to be retired—and ironically, would see its only combat action in the twilight of its career, in the 1982 Falklands War.
As the Argentinian-occupied Falkland Islands lay 4000 miles from the nearest British base at Ascension Island, only the Vulcan possessed the range to reach Port Stanley’s airport, which posed a threat to the Royal Navy task force bearing down on the island. Compounding the problems facing the British was that the RAF and the Fleet Air Arm lacked a “Wild Weasel” suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) aircraft. Five Vulcans were deployed to Ascension, hastily modified with American AGM-45 Shrikes mounted on the old Skybolt pylons. Supported by Victor tankers, which were required to refuel the Vulcans five times, and codenamed Black Buck, these Vulcans were able to do significant damage to the Port Stanley airfield, as well as degrade the Argentinian surface-to-air missile sites; no Vulcans were lost in the raids, though one aircraft was forced to land in Brazil and was interned for the remainder of the war.
Black Buck was the Vulcan’s swan song, and the type was completely replaced by the Tornado by 1984; it was the last strategic bomber operated by the RAF. Of 136 aircraft produced, about 18 survive in museums, with one aircraft preserved in flyable condition.
XM605 was delivered to the RAF's 9 Squadron at RAF Honington, UK, in 1963; it would remain with the squadron until 1968 with regular deployments to Akrotiri, Cyprus. It was then transferred to 44 Squadron at RAF Waddington, possibly until 1981 (though photographic records show that XM605 also served with 101 and 50 Squadron). With the drawdown of the Vulcan force, XM605 was donated to the USAF as a gift, and was flown to the Castle Air Museum.
There are a surprising number of Vulcans in North America--four of them, three of which are in the US. Since I missed the one at the SAC Museum (which was in storage when I visited in 2020), XM605 at Castle was the first Vulcan I had seen since I was a kid at the 1979 Ramstein airshow. It was a huge aircraft as a seven year old staring up at it; as an adult, it's still plenty huge. XM605 retains its 1980s-era RAF tactical camouflage, which has faded after 40 years in the California sun. In the foreground is my friend Darren, which gives some perspective how big the Vulcan is; Darren, being a big James Bond fan, was naturally interested in the Vulcan, as it was used in "Thunderball."
Capable of dropping approximately 20 tons from orbit, and transporting up to 7 back in to orbit, the Raven is a versatile VTOL drop-ship capable of high speeds and operation in harsh environments
Wedensday.
And still on the Island.
Through the night, yet more rain fell, and into the morning so I woke to the sound of yeat another cloudburst. But it should be clearing soon.
So, I lepa out of bed, do 50 press-ups, have a cold shower and am ready for the rigours of the day ahead, and in this I would be helped by a pot of black coffee and the finest sausage and bacon sandwich known to man.
And a man in the kitchen makes it for me, so all I have to do is eat it.
Non nom nom.
I drink the last dregs off the coffee, and I'm away to work.
It was supposed to be a slow and easy start, but I was summond to an emergency depatment meeting, and needed to be at the factory to get internet access.
Our soon-to-be-ex-boss is now offically our ex-boss, and we have a new interim manager.
That's it.
So on with the audit.
Outside, the clouds did clear and the sun did shine, and did shine into the meeting room where even in November was so warm the air conditioning could not cope and we got very warm indeed.
We broke for lunch, and talked about the struggles we face, and how jolly nice the Island is.
Well, it is.
We were done by half three, so I drove back to the hotel, but saw the sign I had passed dozens of times, pointing to the 11th century church of St John the Baptist. Today would be the day to visit.
Light was fading fast, but with a warm light, and only with my compact camera, my shots won't win many prizes, but the best camera is the one you have.
From the outside, it seems to be a very Victorian church, but there is a Norman arch in the porch, and many more details inside, among the Victorian fixtures and fittings.
Back at the hotel I wrote a little then decided I really should go an exercise my fat little legs, so should walk into Cowes for a pint at the Ale House, where there was a fine firkin of porter on.
But, before then, as I walked along the promenade, over the other side of the Solent, the just past full moon rose over the Pompy skyline. It was pretty breathtaking, I leaned on railings to watch it rise and get brighter and its yellow colour fade to pure white.
Dozens of other people were doing the same thing too.
And it was a free show.
My favourite price.
I walk into town and up the Ale House, a group of sailing types were talking over pints of fizzy Eurolager, so I order porter just because I can.
There was a wide range of places to eat, most with lots of free tables.
I wasn't in a seafood modd, curry perhaps, but then at a restaurant I saw they had a dish called "sambal chicken". Sambal is a spicy chili sauce from Indonesia, that I sued to eat lots of when I was on the survey boats.
I asked, do you make your own sambal?
They did.
And cocktals were two for £15.
I order the sambal chicken and a marshmellow martini.
Very fuckin sophisticated.
The sambal was hot, just about bearable, but not not leave any doubt, it came with sliced fresh chilli, as did the Thai spiced cheesy chips.
I eat most of it all, then finish up with a "rhubarb and custard cocktail, which did mix quite poorly with the sambal on the walk back to the hotel.
Back to the hotel, I settle the bill and so all ready to leave in the morning, as I have to catch the six o'clock ferry.
--------------------------------------------
The Church of St. John the Baptist is a parish church located in Northwood, Isle of Wight. The church dates from the 12th century. The mid-19th century saw extensive restoration work carried out on the church. In 1864 the wooden tower and dormer window were both swept away. The restoration was completed in 1874. Despite this restoration work, the church still retains many of its original features including a Norman arch over the south doorway and a Jacobean pulpit.
www.spottinghistory.com/view/12080/church-of-st-john-the-...
----------------------------------------------
NORTHWOOD
Northewode (xiii cent.).
Northwood is a parish and village midway between Newport and Cowes, and now includes Pallance Gate. In 1894 the parish was extended to include a part of the parish of St. Nicholas. (fn. 1) The soil is for the most part loam, while the subsoil is of clay and gravel. The parish contains 4,333 acres, of which 878 acres are arable, 2,612 acres are permanent grass and 419 acres woodlands. There are also 292 acres of foreshore, 2 of land covered by water and 78 by tidal water. Cowes contains 576 acres, of which 2 acres are arable and 166 permanent grass. There are also 35 acres of foreshore and 5 acres of land covered by water. (fn. 2) There is a station on the Isle of Wight Central railway at the cement works, available for Northwood, and the pumping station of the Cowes Waterworks is situated at Broadfields within the parish. The Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers have large works on the Medina at the West Medina Mills, and there are brickworks at Hillis belonging to Messrs. Pritchett. There existed a confraternity of Brothers and Sisters of St. John Baptist (fn. 3) in a building, later called the Church House, which was standing in 1690. It was founded c. 1500 and dissolved in 1536. An old glebe barn, with a date stone 'Restored 1742,' was pulled down in 1901. There is a Council school (mixed), built in 1855 and enlarged in 1906. The rectory-house lies to the east of the church and dates from the 18th century. (fn. 4)
The parish has a long seaboard as the north-west boundary, which includes the bays of Thorness and Gurnard, the latter the landing-place of Charles II in 1671. Gurnard (fn. 5) is a small village, mostly consisting of villas with a number of artisans' dwellings. There are a coastguard station here and a Council school, erected in 1863.
Northwood Park, the property of Mr. E. Granville Ward, was occupied from 1902 to 1906 by a community of Benedictine nuns, who have since moved to Appley, near Ryde (q.v.). The house, which is properly in Cowes, was built in 1837, on the site of a former residence called Belle View, by Mr. George H. Ward, uncle to the present owner, and is a somewhat stately stone building of classic detail, to which a wing has been since added.
At Hurstake on the Medina there was in the 18th century a flourishing shipyard, but by the end of the century it had fallen to decay. (fn. 6)
Cowes was taken out of Northwood and constituted a separate parish under the Local Government Act of 1894. (fn. 7) It is a thriving seaport town, daily increasing inland to the south, and is a terminus of the Isle of Wight Central railway and the main entrance to the Isle of Wight from Southampton. A steam ferry and launch service connect it with East Cowes. The town affairs are regulated under the Local Government Act of 1894 by an urban district council, who have acquired control of the water supply and gasworks. There is a steamboat pier and landingstage, and the Victoria Promenade Pier was built by the urban district council in 1901. There are wharves and storehouses along the Medina. The principal industries are the shipbuilding business of John Samuel White & Co., Ltd., the brass and iron foundry of Messrs. William White, the ropery of Messrs. Henry Bannister & Co. and the well-known sail-making establishment of Messrs. Ratsey & Lapthorn. A recreation ground of 9 acres was presented to the town by Mr. W. G. Ward in 1859.
The main or High Street of Cowes is a narrow, winding, old-fashioned road, widening as it approaches the shore at the north end, and finally terminating in the Parade, the principal sea-front of the town. At the end of the Parade is the Royal Yacht Squadron (fn. 8) Club House, converted to its present use in 1858, and beyond is the 'Green,' made over to the town authorities in 1864 by Mr. George R. Stephenson. The well-known annual regatta is held here the first week in August. (fn. 9) The oldest inn is the 'Fountain,' by the landing-pier, dating from the 18th century. The Gloucester Hotel, by the Parade, was the former home of the Royal Yacht Squadron, and probably owes its name to the visit of the Duke of Gloucester and his sister the Princess Sophia in 1811. The Royal Marine Hotel, also on the Parade, was certainly in existence at the beginning of the 19th century. (fn. 10) A public cemetery, about half a mile south of the town, was opened in 1855, and is under a joint burial board composed of members from Cowes and Northwood.
Besides Northwood Park, the principal residences are Egypt House, (fn. 11) the property of Mr. E. Granville Ward, and Nubia House, the home of Sir Godfrey Baring, late M.P. for the Island.
The name Cowes dates from the beginning of the 16th century, before which time the port—if port it could be called—was higher up the river at Shamblers. (fn. 12) In 1512 the fleet under Sir Edward Haward victualled at Cowes (the Cowe) on its way to Guienne, (fn. 13) so it is evident the place did not take its name from the defensive work, which was certainly not built before 1539. (fn. 14) Leland speaks of forts both at East and West Cowes, (fn. 15) but the former had become a ruin by the 17th century. (fn. 16) The latter, however, was kept up and added to, and had, in addition to the gun platform and magazine, apartments for the captain and gunners, and at the end of the 18th century mounted eleven nine-pounders. (fn. 17)
The inhabitants of this part of Northwood parish seem to have been seafarers and traders, or at any rate smugglers, as early as the 14th century. In July 1395 Thomas Shepherd received a 'pardon of the forfeitures and imprisonment incurred by him because he and two of the ferrymen sold two sacks of wool to men of a skiff from Harflete, carried the said wool as far as le Soland and there delivered the same, taking money.' (fn. 18) At another time he 'sold wool without custom . . . with the clerks of the chapel of the Earl of Salisbury, and at another time with a skiff from Harflete belonging to Janin Boset of Harflue.' (fn. 19)
The merchants' houses and stores were principally at East Cowes, where most of the business was transacted; but West Cowes in the 18th century became a shipbuilding centre, contributing many first-class battleships to the English navy. (fn. 20) By the year 1780 it was 'the place of greatest consideration in the parish of Northwood,' (fn. 21) and though the town was indifferently built, with very narrow streets, the inhabitants managed to be 'in general, genteel and polite although not troublesomely ceremonious.' (fn. 22)
In 1795 there were 2,000 inhabitants and the town had a good trade in provisions to the fleets riding in the roads waiting for a wind or a convoy. While the lower part of Cowes was crowded with seamen's cottages and business premises, the upper part on the hill slope was occupied by villas, chiefly of retired naval men. (fn. 23)
By the 19th century the tide of prosperity began to flow from East to West Cowe, which became a favourite bathing and boating resort, patronized by Royalty. The town now grew rapidly, and in 1816 an Act was passed for 'lighting, cleansing and otherwise improving the town of West Cowes . . . and for establishing a market within the said town.' (fn. 24)
The advent of the Royal Yacht Squadron, and the consequent popularity of racing, put a seal on West Cowes. It became fashionable and has remained so ever since—the hub of the yachting world.
There are two halls for entertainments—the Foresters' Hall in Sun Hill and another in Bridge Road, each capable of seating over 500 people.
There are Council schools in Cross Street (infants), and a mixed school has been lately erected in the same street; boys' and infants' in York Street; non-provided (boys and girls) in Cross Street.
MANORS
There is no mention of a manor of NORTHWOOD in Domesday Book, and it seems probable that then, as in the 13th century, the greater part of the land in the parish formed a member of the manor of Bowcombe in Carisbrooke (fn. 25) (q.v.). In the 17th century this land came to be regarded as a separate manor, but it continued to follow the descent of Bowcombe (fn. 26) until the latter half of the 18th century, when it was presumably sold to the Wards, whose representative, Mr. Edmund Granville Ward, is the present lord of the manor.
There was a small holding in Northwood possibly, as Mr. Stone suggests from research he has made, to be identified with Shamlord (q.v.). It was held, together with other property, under the manor of Bowcombe by a branch of the Trenchard family at least as early as 1338. (fn. 27) In 1560 Richard Trenchard, who seems to have been the grandson of John Trenchard of Chessell in Shalfleet, died seised of this property, which he had held 'in socage by fealty and rent of 25s. yearly, suit at court and finding one man and one woman yearly to mow the corn of the farmer of Bowcombe for one day.' He was succeeded by his son William. (fn. 28)
There were also lands in Northwood which formed a member of the manor of Alvington in Carisbrooke and were held in the reign of Henry III by William de St. Martin. (fn. 29) They afterwards belonged to Sir Stephen Popham (fn. 30) and descended to Sir Nicholas Wadham in the early part of the 16th century, at which time they were regarded as a separate manor; they continued, however, to follow the descent of Alvington (q.v.).
In the reign of Henry VIII there was in the parish much woodland which belonged before the Dissolution to the Prior and convent of Christchurch Twyneham, (fn. 31) who had perhaps bought it from the abbey of St. Mary, Romsey, to which it belonged in the 13th century. (fn. 32) In 1280 this abbey had received from Edward I a confirmation of a charter of Henry II granting them 'all their wood of Northwood, as King Edward gave it to them.' (fn. 33) There is, however, no mention of any property in Northwood among the possessions of Romsey Abbey at its dissolution. In 1544 the wood was granted to Thomas Hopson (fn. 34) and subsequently followed the descent of Ningwood in Shalfleet (q.v.). It was described as 'the manor of Northwood' in 1626, at which time it was in the possession of John Hopson. (fn. 35)
The manor of WERROR (Werore, xii cent.; Werole, xiii cent.; Warror, xvi cent.) was granted to God's House, Southampton, immediately after its foundation about 1197, for it was confirmed to the hospital by Richard I in 1199. (fn. 36) It had been given to the hospital by a certain Mark, and his gift was confirmed in 1209 by his son Roger, of whom the manor was to be held at a yearly rent of 6d. (fn. 37) William de Redvers Earl of Devon (1184–1216) granted to the hospital rights of pasturage and fuel, except for six weeks each year, over the whole land of Werror which belonged to his fee, and which is described as lying within Parkhurst, Northwood, Carisbrooke and the Medina. (fn. 38)
The estate remained in the hands of successive priors until the Dissolution (fn. 39) and passed with God's House to Queen's College, Oxford, (fn. 40) by whom the manor is still owned. (fn. 41)
CHURCHES
The church of ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST lies to the east of the road from Newport to Cowes. It was built as a chapel for the northern portion of the parish of Carisbrooke in the middle of the 12th century, and consists of a chancel, a nave with north and south aisles and a modern tower with spire added at the west end in 1864. The south door is a good specimen of 12th-century work, to be classed with those of Yaverland and Wootton. Both aisles are very narrow and are of four bays, with columns having the characteristic splay-cornered capitals found elsewhere in the Isle of Wight, (fn. 42) and must have been added towards the end of the century, the south being the later. (fn. 43) There are curious flying arches across these, evidently inserted later, to withstand the thrust of the roof and carry the flat above. In the 15th century windows of the period were inserted in the walls and the chancel reroofed, (fn. 44) if not rebuilt, and a small door inserted in the north wall of the nave. There is a good canopied Jacobean pulpit, somewhat similar in detail to that at Wootton. The chancel arch is a plain splay springing direct from the wall without an impost, and looks as though the earlier one had been destroyed and the opening widened in the 15th century. The memorials of interest are a painted wooden tablet to the children of Samuel and Grace Smith, who died in 1668 and 1670, and a curious memorial to Thomas Smith, rector, who died in 1681. (fn. 45)
The one bell, founded by Mears, was hung in 1875.
The plate consists of a chalice inscribed 'T.H. E.L.'; a paten inscribed 'Thomas Troughear, D.D. istius Ecclĩae Rector,' dated 1732; a flagon (plated) inscribed 'Northwood Church, 1831'; an oval paten inscribed '1813.'
The registers date from 1539, and are in seven books (fn. 46) : (i) 1539 to 1593; (ii) 1594 to 1598; (iii) 1599 to 1605; (iv) 1606 to 1618; (v) 1621 to 1660; (vi) 1653 to 1759; (vii) 1743 to 1812.
There is a mission church in Pallance Road with a Sunday school attached.
The church of ST. MARY, WEST COWES, built in 1867 on the site of an earlier church erected in 1657, is a stone structure consisting of chancel, nave of four bays and aisles, with a tower containing one bell and a clock. It has a handsome reredos and a fine organ. There is a brass memorial tablet to Dr. Arnold of Rugby. The living is a vicarage in the gift of the vicar of Carisbrooke. The register dates from 1679.
HOLY TRINITY CHURCH
HOLY TRINITY CHURCH, built of brick in 1832 at the sole expense of the late Mrs. S. Goodwin, was enlarged by the addition of a chancel in 1862. It has a western tower with embattled cornice and angle pinnacles. The register dates from 1833. The living is in the gift of Mr. Ll. Loyd.
The Roman Catholic church of St. Thomas of Canterbury in Terminus Road is a white brick building erected in 1796. There is a large altar-piece by Cau representing the Descent from the Cross, and another of the Death of the Virgin, on the north wall.
At Gurnard is the church of ALL SAINTS, attached to Holy Trinity, Cowes. It is of brick with Bath stone dressings, and has nave, chancel, north and south transepts and a turret with one bell.
ADVOWSONS
The church of Northwood was a chapel of ease to Carisbrooke, and belonged in early times to the priory there, (fn. 47) to which it had been granted by William de Redvers Earl of Devon. When the prior and convent obtained the rectory and endowed the vicarage of Carisbrooke, the tithes of Northwood, both great and small, were assigned to the vicar. (fn. 48) In the reign of Henry VIII Northwood obtained parochial privileges and was exempted from contribution to the repairs of Carisbrooke Church. (fn. 49) The living is still attached to Carisbrooke, and the patrons at the present day are the Provost and Fellows of Queen's College, Oxford.
Cowes is ecclesiastically divided into two districts. The church of St. Mary was built in 1657, and further endowed in 1679 by George Morley Bishop of Winchester, 'provided that the inhabitants should pay the minister (who is always of their own choosing) £40 a year.' (fn. 50) The living is a vicarage, net yearly value £130, in the gift of the vicar of Carisbrooke.
The Roman Catholic church of St. Thomas of Canterbury was served at the beginning of the 19th century by two chaplains of Napoleon's Foreign Legion. The earliest register contains the names of several of the officers and men.
¶There are several large Nonconformist chapels in the town. The oldest of these is the Congregational chapel, which was built in 1804. The Wesleyan chapel was built in 1831, the Baptist chapel in 1877 and the Primitive Methodist and United Methodist Free Churches in 1889.
The glamour that accompanied the products of Daimler-Benz AG in the late 1920s and early 1930s is attributable in large part to the successes of the legendary S, SS and SSK supercharged sports cars. Still today, the Mercedes-Benz brand benefits considerably from the charisma of these unique high-speed cars, which is almost without parallel in the history of the automobile.
The numerous triumphs of the "S series" on the race track remain engraved in the memory:victories at the German Grand Prix of 1927, 1928 and 1931, at the Avus races of 1931 and 1932, the Eifel race of 1931, the Tourist Trophy of 1929, the Irish Grand Prix of 1930, the ൠ Hours of Spa" of 1931 and the "Mille Miglia" of 1931, the European Hill Climb Championships of 1930 and 1931 as well as the German Alpine Championship of 1932, to name just the most important.
The fourth and final S-series model was the "SSKL" (Super Sport Kurz Leicht - Super Sport Short Light), an outright competition vehicle, just a few units of which were built in 1931 and which was not included in the official sales programme. Weight-reducing perforations, some of which extended over the entire frame, were used to reduce the weight by 125 kg. Some "SSK" models may also have been converted subsequently to "SSKL" models. Apart from the fact that conversions were not always systematically documented, the picture is further complicated by the additional fact that the model designation "SSKL" was not commonly used at the time. In the order books, "SSKL" vehicles built for works use were entered as "SSK, model 1931", and, in the official statistics for 1931/1932, the weight-reduced version was always referred to as "SSK". Some press reports from 1932, however, used the now generally customary designation "SSKL".
Not just in the case of the "SSKL", but also in relation to the other S-series models, it is extremely difficult to obtain a precise record of the production numbers, since, already at that time, chassis were being shortened and provided with different engines. Especially as far as such exclusive small-volume models are concerned, therefore, the production statistics cannot be regarded as a definitive and irrefutable statement of fact.
Driving an "SSKL", Rudolf Caracciola was the first non-Italian to win the "Mille Miglia" as well as numerous other races, which helped him win the 1931 European Hillclimbing Championship. Hans Stuck in an "SSKL" became the 1932 International Alpine Champion and Brazilian Hillclimb champion. It was a special "SSKL" to which Manfred von Brauchitsch owed his victory in the Avus race of May 1932. The aerodynamics expert Baron Koenig-Fachsenfeld had persuaded the young racing driver to have his "SSKL" fitted with a streamlined body he had designed. The light-alloy body was manufactured by Vetter in Cannstatt and fitted to on von Brauchitsch's car -just in to complete the journey to Berlin under its own power for the start of practice. Manfred von Brauchitsch was able to win the race simply because his streamlined car, which he affectionately dubbed the "cucumber" on account of its shape, had 25% less drag, making it 20 km/h faster than a normal "SSKL". Second place went to Rudolf Caracciola, who, in 1932, drove not for Daimler-Benz but for Alfa Romeo. Owing to the great pressure of time, the streamlined body of the "cucumber" was denied its finishing coat of paint. Consequently, the unusual racing car made its way onto the grid sporting an unpainted silver body, which is why it is sometimes jokingly referred to as the first Silver Arrow.
The "SSKL" was the glittering highlight of the legendary S‑Series, which was to decisively shape the image of the Mercedes-Benz brand. In 1934, three years after the "SSKL" had made its debut, it was time for the product line-up at Daimler-Benz to be reshuffled. From now on, success on the race track was in the hands of the new Silver Arrows, which, of course, were not suitable for everyday motoring and remained beyond the reach of even well-heeled customers. As far as the mass-produced vehicles of Daimler‑B enz AG were concerned, it was the newly launched 500 K that, more than any other model, embodied the successful synthesis of sportiness and elegance. From mid-1927 to the beginning of 1933, the S‑series models had fulfilled both roles in equal measure, demonstrating their credentials as genuine all-rounders capable of sustained success on both fronts.
[Text excerpts taken from mercedes-benz-publicarchive.com]
mercedes-benz-publicarchive.com/marsClassic/en/instance/k...
My poor M2 is now in the capable hands of David Yau. The Rangefinder was way off, which is why I took it in, but apparently the shutter is firing incorrectly as well. David Yau sat there showing me the shutter firing, asking me if I could see how the first shutter curtain was popping back out slightly. I said yes, though, I really had no idea what he was talking about. He might have detected my faked grasp of the problem, because he took out another M laying around to show me what a proper shutter fire should look and sound like. Oh my poor M.
"Let's suppose - just for sake of argument - that you had a drill capable of plowing below where you are standing right now and grinding its way straight through the middle of the planet to the other side. Where would you end up?
Well, for all of you reading this in North America (and specifically in the 48 contiguous states) with very, very (I can't overemphasize this, so make it very, very, very, very) few exceptions, you would come out in the middle of an ocean. The U.S mainland is antipodal to the sea that is west of Australia, down near Antarctica. So if your mother puts you in the backyard and says 'Dig a hole to China,' bring along a wetsuit.
Unless - and this is the fun part - you happen to be standing in three (by my count) lower 48 state locations that are opposite land. They are near a Colorado highway, a Junior College campus also in Colorado and part of a Montana town. In all three spots, you could drill straight through and come up in a place where you might bump into the occasional seal and, in one place if you arrive at the right time of year, a scientist or two.
But don't take my word for it. Wikipedia has a map of world antipodes that you can look at. I found that map - and a find the opposite tool - on a blog run by Ze Frank.
Ze is a perfomer, satirist, essayist, composer, dancer and wonderfully weird guy who challenged his audience last month to create the world's first Earth sandwich.
To make an Earth sandwich you must:
1. Put a piece of bread on the ground.
2. Have someone else put a piece of bread on the ground directly on the other side of the Earth from you.
3. Do this at the same exact time, so the Earth at that moment is "sandwiched" between two pieces of bread.
To inspire his audience, Ze composed a ballad, If the Earth were a sandwich…
It's hummable. Beautiful even.
So for the last few weeks, all over the world people have been rushing about, emailing, texting and trekking in an effort to arrange a simultaneous sandwich moment. This past week, apparently, it happened. Somebody in Spain put half a roll on the ground, and somebody in New Zealand put something breadlike opposite. Ta Dah!
(Except, instead of lying parallel as they would on a normal sandwich, the two pieces of bread may have been perpendicular to each other, making a kind of X-like structure. But... who's quibbling?)
It was Ze's challenge that got me thinking about antipodal Earth geography.
I found two towns in Illinois that were founded in the 1820s by settlers who thought they were on prairie directly opposite Chinese cities: Peking and Canton.
With my engineer, Manoli Wetherell, and help from my NPR colleague Robert Smith, we decided to see where you would have to go on this planet to be able to dig a whole straight through to China.
So if you happen one day to be in Concordia, Argentina, which is about 150 miles north of Buenos Aires near the Uruguayan border, a concerted effort at digging would have you emerging somewhere pretty close to downtown Shanghai. Don't everybody buy a ticket there at once.
If you want to serve sandwiches along that route, I'd suggest something like chow mein tapas, on a roll."
- Robert Krulwich ("Krulwich on Science" - National Public Radio)
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Saab JAS 39 Gripen (griffin) is a light single-engine multirole fighter aircraft manufactured by the Swedish aerospace company Saab. In 1979, the Swedish government began development studies for an aircraft capable of fighter, attack and reconnaissance missions to replace the Saab 35 Draken and 37 Viggen. The preferred aircraft was a single-engine, lightweight single-seater, embracing fly-by-wire technology, canards, and an aerodynamically unstable design. The powerplant selected was the Volvo-Flygmotor RM12, a license-built derivative of the General Electric F404−400; engine development priorities were weight reduction and lowering component count. A new design from Saab was selected and developed as the JAS 39, first flying in 1988.
The Gripen is a multirole fighter aircraft, intended as a lightweight and agile aerial platform with advanced, highly adaptable avionics. It has canard control surfaces that contribute a positive lift force at all speeds, while the generous lift from the delta wing compensates for the rear stabilizer producing negative lift at high speeds, increasing induced drag. It is capable of flying at a 70–80 degrees angle of attack.
Being intentionally unstable and employing digital fly-by-wire flight controls to maintain stability removes many flight restrictions, improves manoeuvrability and reduces drag. The Gripen also has good short takeoff performance, being able to maintain a high sink rate and strengthened to withstand the stresses of short landings. A pair of air brakes are located on the sides of the rear fuselage; the canards also angle downward to act as air brakes and decrease landing distance
To enable the Gripen to have a long service life, roughly 50 years, Saab designed it to have low maintenance requirements. Major systems such as the RM12 engine and PS-05/A radar are modular to reduce operating cost and increase reliability. The Gripen’s systems were designed to be flexible, so that newly developed sensors, computers and armaments could be easily integrated as technology advances. The aircraft was estimated to be roughly 67% sourced from Swedish or European suppliers and 33% from the US.
To market the aircraft internationally, Saab formed partnerships and collaborative efforts with overseas aerospace companies. One example of such efforts was Gripen International, a joint partnership between Saab and BAE Systems formed in 2001. Gripen International was responsible for marketing the aircraft, and was heavily involved in the successful export of the type to South Africa; the organisation was later dissolved amidst allegations of bribery being employed to secure foreign interest and sales. On the export market, the Gripen has achieved moderate success in sales to nations in Central Europe, South Africa and Southeast Asia.
The Swedish Air Force placed a total order for 204 Gripens in three batches. The first delivery of the JAS 39A/B (single seat and two seat variants) occurred on 8 June 1993, when aircraft “39102” was handed over to the Flygvapnet during a ceremony at Linköping. The final Batch three 1st generation aircraft was delivered to FMV on 26 November 2008, but in the meantime an upgraded Gripen variant, the JAS 39C/D already rolled off of the production lines and made the initial versions obsolete. The JAS C/D gradually replaced the A/B versions in the frontline units until 2012, which were then offered for export, mothballed or used for spares for the updated Swedish Gripen fleet.
A late European export customer became the nascent Republic of Scotland. According to a White Paper published by the Scottish National Party (SNP) in 2013, an independent Scotland would have an air force equipped with up to 16 air defense aircraft, six tactical transports, utility rotorcraft and maritime patrol aircraft, and be capable of “contributing excellent conventional capabilities” to NATO. Outlining its ambition to establish an air force with an eventual 2,000 uniformed personnel and 300 reservists, the SNP stated that the organization would initially be equipped with “a minimum of 12 interceptors in the Eurofighter/Typhoon class, based at Lossiemouth, a tactical air transport squadron, including around six Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules, and a helicopter squadron for transport and SAR duties”.
According to the document, “Key elements of air forces in place at independence, equipped initially from a negotiated share of current UK assets, will secure core tasks, principally the ability to police Scotland’s airspace, within NATO.” An in-country air command and control capability would be established within five years of a decision in favor of independence, it continued, with staff also to be “embedded within NATO structures”.
This plan was immediately set into action with the foundation of the Poblachd na h-Alba Adhair an Airm (Republic of Scotland Air Corps/RoScAC) after the country's independence from Great Britain in late 2017. For the fighter role, Scotland was offered refurbished F-16C and Ds from the USA, but this was declined, as the type was considered too costly and complex. An offer from Austria to buy the country’s small Eurofighter fleet (even at a symbolic price) was rejected for the same reason.
Eventually, and in order to build a certain aura of neutrality, Scotland’s young and small air arm initially received twelve refurbished, NATO-compatible Saab JAS 39 Gripen (ten single-seater and two two-seaters) as well as Sk 90 trainers from Swedish overstock. These second hand machines were just the initial step in the mid-term procurement plan, though.
Even though all Scottish Gripens (locally called “Grìbhean”, designated F.1 for the JAS 39A single seaters and F.2 for the fully combat-capable JAS 39B two-seaters, respectively) were multi-role aircraft and capable of strike missions, its primary roles were interception/air defense and, to a lesser degree, reconnaissance. Due to severe budget restrictions and time pressure, these aircraft were almost identical to the Flygvapnet’s JAS 39A/B aircraft. They used the PS-05/A pulse-Doppler X band multi-mode radar, developed by Ericsson and GEC-Marconi, which was based on the latter's advanced Blue Vixen radar for the Sea Harrier that also served as the basis for the Eurofighter's CAPTOR radar. This all-weather radar is capable of locating and identifying targets 120 km (74 mi) away and automatically tracking multiple targets in the upper and lower spheres, on the ground and sea or in the air. It can guide several beyond visual range air-to-air missiles to multiple targets simultaneously. Therefore, RoScAC also procured AIM-9 Sidewinder and AIM-120 AMRAAM as primary armament for its Grìbhean fleet, plus AGM-65 Maverick air-to-ground missiles.
The twelve Grìbhean F.1 and F.2s formed the RoScAC’s 1st fighter (Sabaid) squadron, based at former RAF base Lossiemouth. Upon delivery and during their first months of service, the machines retained the former Swedish grey paint scheme, just with new tactical markings. In 2018, the RoScAC fighter fleet was supplemented with brand new KAI/Lockheed Martin TA-50 ‘Golden Eagle’ armed trainers from South Korea, which could also take over interceptor and air patrol duties. This expansion of resources allowed the RoScAC to initiate an update program for the JAS 39 fleet. It started in 2019 and included in-flight refueling through a fixed but detachable probe, a EuroFIRST PIRATE IRST, enhanced avionics with elements from the Swedish JAS 39C/D, and a tactical datalink.
With these updates, the machines could now also be externally fitted with Rafael's Sky Shield or LIG Nex1's ALQ-200K ECM pods, Sniper or LITENING targeting pods, and Condor 2 reconnaissance pods to further improve the machine’s electronic warfare, reconnaissance, and targeting capabilities.
The aircraft’s designations did not change, though, the only visible external change were the additional IRST fairing under the nose, and the machines received a new tactical camouflage with dark green and dark grey upper surfaces, originally introduced with the RoScAC’s TA-50s. However, all Grìbhean F.1 single seaters received individual fin designs instead of the grey camouflage, comprising simple red and yellow fins, the Scottish flag (instead of the standard fin flash) and even a large pink thistle on a white background and a white unicorn on a black background.
Despite being 2nd hand aircraft, the Scottish JAS 39A and Bs are expected to remain in service until at least 2035.
General characteristics:
Crew: one
Length: 14.1 m (46 ft 3 in)
Wingspan: 8.4 m (27 ft 7 in)
Height: 4.5 m (14 ft 9 in)
Wing area: 30 m2 (320 sq ft)
Empty weight: 6,800 kg (14,991 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 14,000 kg (30,865 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Volvo RM12 afterburning turbofan engine,
54 kN (12,000 lbf) dry thrust, 80.5 kN (18,100 lbf) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 2,460 km/h (1,530 mph, 1,330 kn)/Mach 2
Combat range: 800 km (500 mi, 430 nmi)
Ferry range: 3,200 km (2,000 mi, 1,700 nmi)
Service ceiling: 15,240 m (50,000 ft)
g limits: +9/-3
Wing loading: 283 kg/m2 (58 lb/sq ft)
Thrust/weight: 0.97
Takeoff distance: 500 m (1,640 ft)
Landing distance: 600 m (1,969 ft)
Armament:
1× 27 mm Mauser BK-27 revolver cannon with 120 rounds
8 hardpoints (Two under the fuselage, one of them dedicated to FLIR / ECM / LD / Recon pods plus
two under and one on the tip of each wing) with a capacity of 5 300 kg (11 700 lb)
The kit and its assembly:
Nothing spectacular – actually, this build is almost OOB and rather a livery what-if model. However, I had the plan to build a (fictional) Scottish Gripen on my agenda for some years now, since I started to build RoScAC models, and the “Back into service” group build at whatifmodlers.com in late 2019 was a good motivation to tackle this project.
The starting point was the Italeri JAS 39A kit, a rather simple affair that goes together well but needs some PSR on almost every seam. Not much was changed, since the model would depict a slightly updated Gripen A – the only changes I made were the additional IRST fairing under the nose, the ejection handle on the seat and a modified ordnance which consists of a pair of AIM-9L and AIM-120 (the latter including appropriate launch rails) from a Hasegawa air-to-air weapons set. The ventral drop tank is OOB.
Painting and markings:
The motivation a behind was actually the desire to build a Gripen in a different livery than the usual and rather dull grey-in-grey scheme. Therefore I invented a tactical paint scheme for “my” RoScAC, which is a modified RAF scheme from the Seventies with uppers surfaces in Dark Green (Humbrol 163) and Dark Sea Grey (164), medium grey flanks, pylons, drop tank and a (theoretically) grey fin (167 Barley Grey, today better known as Camouflage Grey) plus undersides in Light Aircraft Grey (166), with a relatively high and wavy waterline, so that a side or lower view would rather blend with the sky than the ground below. The scheme was designed as a compromise between air superiority and landscape camouflage and somewhat inspired by the many experimental schemes tested by the German Luftwaffe in the early Eighties. The Scottish TA-50 I built some years ago was the overall benchmark, but due to the Gripen’s highly blended fuselage/wing intersections, I just painted the flanks under the cockpit and the air intakes as well as a short portion of the tail section in Barley Grey. That’s overall darker than intended (esp. in combination with the fin decoration, see below), but anything grey above the wings would have looked awkward.
As a reminiscence of the late British F-4 Phantoms, which carried a grey low-viz scheme with bright fins as quick ID markings, I added such a detail to the Gripen, too – in this case in the form of a stylized Scottish flag on the fin, with some mild 3D effect. The shadow and light effects were created through wet-in-wet painting of lighter and darker shades into the basic blue (using Humbrol 25, 104 and ModelMaster French Blue). Later, the white cross was added with simple decal stripes, onto which similar light effects were added with white and light grey, too.
Even though this one looks similar to my Scottish TA-50, which was the first model to carry this paint scheme, I like the very different look of this Gripen through its non-all-grey paint scheme. It’s also my final build of my initial RoScAC ideas, even though I am now considering a helicopter model (an SAR SA 365 Dauphin, maybe?) in fictional Scottish markings, too.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Lockheed XFV (sometimes erroneously referred to as the "Salmon", even though this was actually the name of one of its test pilots and not an official designation) was an American experimental tailsitter prototype aircraft built by Lockheed in the early 1950s to demonstrate the operation of a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) fighter for protecting convoys.
The Lockheed XFV originated as a result of a proposal issued by the U.S. Navy in 1948 for an aircraft capable of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aboard platforms mounted on the afterdecks of conventional ships. Both Convair and Lockheed competed for the contract, but in 1950 the requirement was revised with a call for a research aircraft capable of eventually evolving into a VTOL ship-based convoy escort fighter. On 19 April 1951, two prototypes were ordered from Lockheed under the designation XFO-1 (company designation was Model 081-40-01). Soon after the contract was awarded, the project designation changed to XFV-1 when the Navy's code for Lockheed was changed from O to V.
The XFV was powered by a 5,332 hp (3,976 kW) Allison YT40-A-6 turboprop engine, composed of two Allison T38 power sections driving three-bladed contra-rotating propellers via a common gearbox. The aircraft had no landing gear, just small castoring wheels at the tips of the tail surfaces which were a reflected cruciform v-tail (forming an x) that extended above and below the fuselage. The wings were diamond-shaped and relatively thin, with straight and sharp leading edges – somewhat foretelling the design of Lockheed’s Mach-2-capable F-104 Starfighter.
To begin flight testing, a temporary non-retractable undercarriage with long braced V-legs was attached to the fuselage, and fixed tail wheels attached to the lower pair of fins. In this form, the aircraft was trucked to Edwards AFB in November 1953 for ground testing and taxiing trials. During one of these tests, at a time when the aft section of the large spinner had not yet been fitted, Lockheed chief test pilot Herman "Fish" Salmon managed to taxi the aircraft past the liftoff speed, and the aircraft made a brief hop on 22 December 1953. The official first flight took place on 16 June 1954.
Full VTOL testing at Edwards AFB was delayed pending the availability of the 7,100 shp Allison T54, which was earmarked to replace the T40 and power eventual serial production aircraft. But the T54 faced severe development delays, esp. its gearbox. Another problem that arose with the new engine was that the propeller blade tips would reach supersonic speed and therefore compressibility problems.
After the brief unintentional hop, the prototype aircraft made a total of 32 flights. The XFV-1 was able to make a few transitions in flight from the conventional to the vertical flight mode and back, and had briefly held in hover at altitude, but the T40 output was simply not enough to ensure proper and secure VTOL operations. Performance remained limited by the confines of the flight test regime. Another issue that arose through the advancements of jet engine designs was the realization that the XFV's top speed would be eclipsed by contemporary fighters. Additionally, the purely manual handling of the aircraft esp. during landing was very demanding - the XFV could only be controlled by highly experienced pilots.
Both Navy and the Marines Corps were still interested in the concept, though, so that, in early 1955, the decision was made to build a limited pre-production series of the aircraft, the FV-2, for operational field tests and evaluation. The FV-2 was the proposed production version (Model 181-43-02), primarily conceived and optimized as a night/all-weather interceptor for point defense, and officially baptized “Solstice”. The FV-2 was powered by the T54-A-16 turboprop, which had eventually overcome its teething troubles and offered a combined power output equivalent of 7,500 shp (5,600 kW) from the propellers and the twin-engines’ residual thrust. Outwardly the different engine was recognizable through two separate circular exhausts which were introduced instead of the XFV’s single shallow ventral opening. The gearbox had been beefed up, too, with additional oil coolers in small ventral fairings behind the contraprops and the propeller blades were aerodynamically improved to better cope with the higher power output and rotation speed. Additionally, an automatic pitch control system was introduced to alleviate the pilot from the delicate control burdens during hover and flight mode transition.
Compared with the XFV, the FV-2 incorporated 150 lb (68 kg) of cockpit armor, along with a 1.5 in (38 mm) bullet-proof windscreen. A Sperry Corporation AN/APS-19 type radar was added in the fixed forward part of the nose spinner under an opaque perspex radome. The AN/APS-19 was primarily a target detection radar with only a limited tracking capability, and it had been introduced with the McDonnell F2H-2N. The radar had a theoretical maximum detection range of 60 km, but in real life air targets could only be detected at much shorter distances. At long ranges the radar was mainly used for navigation and to detect land masses or large ships.
Like the older AN/APS-6, the AN/APS-19 operated in a "Spiral Scan" search pattern. In a spiral scan the radar dish spins rapidly, scanning the area in front of the aircraft following a spiral path. As a result, however targets were not updated on every pass as the radar was pointing at a different angle on each pass. This also made the radar prone to ground clutter effects, which created "pulses" on the radar display. The AN/APS-19 was able to lock onto and track targets within a narrow cone, out to a maximum range of about 1 mile (1.5 km), but to do so the radar had to cease scanning.
The FV-2’s standard armament consisted of four Mk. 11 20 mm cannon fitted in pairs in the two detachable wingtip pods, with 250 rounds each, which fired outside of the wide propeller disc. Alternatively, forty-eight 2¾ in (70 mm) folding-fin rockets could be fitted in similar pods, which could be fired in salvoes against both air and ground targets. Instead of offensive armament, 200 US gal. (165 imp. gal./750 l) auxiliary tanks for ferry flights could be mounted onto the wing tips.
Until June 1956 a total of eleven FV-2s were built and delivered. With US Navy Air Development Squadron 8 (also known as VX-8) at NAS Atlantic City, a dedicated evaluation and maintenance unit for the FV-2 and the operations of VTOL aircraft in general was formed. VX-2 operated closely with its sister unit VX-3 (located at the same base) and operated the FV-2s alongside contemporary types like the Grumman F9F-8 Cougar, which at that time went through carrier-qualification aboard the USS Midway. The Cougars were soon joined by the new, supersonic F-8U-1 Crusaders, which arrived in December 1956. The advent of this supersonic navy jet type rendered the FV-2’s archaic technology and its performance more and more questionable, even though the VTOL concept’s potential and the institutions’ interest in it kept the test unit alive.
The FV-2s were in the following years put through a series of thorough field tests and frequently deployed to land bases all across the USA and abroad. Additionally, operational tests were also conducted on board of various ship types, ranging from carriers with wide flight decks to modified merchant ships with improvised landing platforms. The FV-2s also took part in US Navy and USMC maneuvers, and when not deployed elsewhere the training with new pilots at NAS Atlantic City continued.
During these tests, the demanding handling characteristics of the tailsitter concept in general and the FV-2 in specific were frequently confirmed. Once in flight, however, the FV-2 handled well and was a serious and agile dogfighter – but jet aircraft could easily avoid and outrun it.
Other operational problems soon became apparent, too: while the idea of a VTOL aircraft that was independent from runways or flight bases was highly attractive, the FV-2’s tailsitter concept required a complex and bulky maintenance infrastructure, with many ladders, working platforms and cranes. On the ground, the FV-2 could not move on its own and had to be pushed or towed. However, due to the aircraft’s high center of gravity it had to be handled with great care – two FV-2s were seriously damaged after they toppled over, one at NAS Atlantic City on the ground (it could be repaired and brought back into service), the other aboard a ship at heavy sea, where the aircraft totally got out of control on deck and fell into the sea as a total loss.
To make matters even worse, fundamental operational tasks like refueling, re-arming the aircraft between sorties or even just boarding it were a complicated and slow task, so that the aircraft’s theoretical conceptual benefits were countered by its cumbersome handling.
FV-2 operations furthermore revealed, despite the considerably increased power output of the T54 twin engine that more than compensated for the aircraft’s raised weight, only a marginal improvement of the aircraft’s performance; the FV-2 had simply reached the limits of propeller-driven aircraft. Just the rate of climb was markedly improved, and the extra power made the FV-2’s handling safer than the XFV’s, even though this advancement was only relative because the aircraft’s hazardous handling during transition and landing as well as other conceptual problems prevailed and could not be overcome. The FV-2’s range was also very limited, esp. when it did not carry the fuel tanks on the wing tips, so that the aircraft’s potential service spectrum remained very limited.
Six of the eleven FV-2s that were produced were lost in various accidents within only three years, five pilots were killed. The T54 engine remained unreliable, and the propeller control system which used 25 vacuum tubes was far from reliable, too. Due to the many problems, the FV-2s were grounded in 1959, and when VX-8 was disestablished on 1 March 1960, the whole project was cancelled and all remaining aircraft except for one airframe were scrapped. As of today, Bu.No. 53-3537 resides disassembled in storage at the National Museum of the United States Navy in the former Breech Mechanism Shop of the old Naval Gun Factory on the grounds of the Washington Navy Yard in Washington, D.C., United States, where it waits for restoration and eventual public presentation.
As a historic side note, the FV-2’s detachable wing tip gun pods had a longer and more successful service life: they were the basis for the Mk.4 HIPEG (High Performance External Gun) gun pods. This weapon system’s main purpose became strafing ground targets, and it received a different attachment system for underwing hardpoints and a bigger ammunition supply (750 RPG instead of just 250 on the FV-2). Approximately 1.200 Mk. 4 twin gun pods were manufactured by Hughes Tool Company, later Hughes Helicopter, in Culver City, California. While the system was tested and certified for use on the A-4, the A-6, the A-7, the F-4, and the OV-10, it only saw extended use on the A-4, the F-4, and the OV-10, esp. in Vietnam where the Mk. 4 pod was used extensively for close air support missions.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length/Height: 36 ft 10.25 in (11.23 m)
Wingspan: 30 ft 10.1 in (9.4 m)
Wing area: 246 sq ft (22.85 m²)
Empty weight: 12,388 lb (5,624 kg)
Gross weight: 17,533 lb (7,960 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 18,159 lb (8,244 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Allison T54-A-16 turboprop with 7,500 shp (5,600 kW) output equivalent,
driving a 6 blade contra-rotating propeller
Performance:
Maximum speed: 585 mph (941 km/h, 509 kn
Cruise speed: 410 mph (660 km/h, 360 kn)
Range: 500 mi (800 km, 430 nmi) with internal fuel
800 mi (1,300 km, 700 nmi) with ferry wing tip tanks
Service ceiling: 46,800 ft (14,300 m)
Rate of climb: 12,750 ft/min (75.0 m/s)
Wing loading: 73.7 lb/sq ft (360 kg/m²)
Armament:
4× 20 mm (.79 in) Mk. 11 machine cannon with a total of 1.000 rounds, or
48× 2.75 in (70 mm) rockets in wingtip pods, or
a pair of 200 US gal. (165 imp. gal./750 l) auxiliary tanks on the wing tips
The kit and its assembly:
Another submission to the “Fifties” group build at whatifmodellers-com, and a really nice what-if aircraft that perfectly fits into the time frame. I had this Pegasus kit in The Stash™ for quite a while and the plan to build an operational USN or USMC aircraft from it in the typical all-dark-blue livery from the early Fifties, and the group build was a good occasion to realize it.
The Pegasus kit was released in 1992, the only other option to build the XFV in 1:72 is a Valom kit which, as a bonus, features the aircraft’s fixed landing gear that was used during flight trials. The Pegasus offering is technically simple and robust, but it is nothing for those who are faint at heart. The warning that the kit requires an experienced builder is not to be underestimated, because the IP kit from the UK comes with white metal parts and no visual instructions, just a verbal description of the building steps. The IP parts (including the canopy, which is one piece, quite thick but also clear) and the decals look good, though.
The IP parts feature flash and uneven seam lines, sprue attachment points are quite thick. The grey IP material had on my specimen different grades of hard-/brittleness, the white metal parts (some of the propeller blades) were bent and had to be re-aligned. No IP parts would fit well (there are no locator pins or other physical aids), the cockpit tub was a mess to assemble and fit into the fuselage. PSR on any seam all around the hull. But even though this sound horrible, the kit goes together relatively easy – thanks to its simplicity.
I made some mods and upgrades, though. One of them was an internal axis construction made from styrene tubes that allow the two propeller discs to move separately (OOB, you just stack and glue the discs onto each other into a rigid nose cone), while the propeller tip with its radome remained fixed – just as in real life. However, due to the parts’ size and resistance against each other, the props could not move as freely as originally intended.
Separate parts for the air intakes as well as the wings and tail surfaces could be mounted with less problems than expected, even though - again – PSR was necessary to hide the seams.
Painting and markings:
As already mentioned, the livery would be rather conservative, because I wanted the aircraft to carry the uniform USN scheme in all-over FS 35042 with white markings, which was dropped in 1955, though. The XFV or a potential serial production derivative would just fit into this time frame, and might have carried the classic all-blue livery for a couple of years more, especially when operated by an evaluation unit. Its unit, VX-8, is totally fictional, though.
The cockpit interior was painted in Humbrol 80 (simulating bright zinc chromate primer), and to have some contrasts I added small red highlights on the fin pod tips and the gun pods' anti-flutter winglets. For some more variety the radome became earth brown with some good weathering, simulating an opaque perspex hood, and I added white (actually a very light gray) checkerboard markings on the "propeller rings", a bit inspired by the spinner markings on German WWII fighters. Subtle, but it looks good and breaks the otherwise very simple livery.
Some post-panel-shading with a lighter blue was done all over the hull, the exhaust area and the gun ports were painted with iron (Revell 91) and treated with graphite for a more metallic shine.
Silver decal stripe material was used to create the CoroGuard leading edges and the fine lines at the flaps on wings and fins - much easier than trying to solve this with paint and brush...
The decals were puzzled together from various dark blue USN aircraft, including a F8F, F9F and F4U sheet. The "XH" code was created with single 1cm hwite letters, the different font is not obvious, thanks to the letter combination.
Finally, the model was sealed with semi-gloss acrylic varnish (still shiny, but not too bright), the radome and the exhaust area were painted with matt varnsh, though.
A cool result, despite the rather dubious kit base. The Pegasus kit is seriously something for experienced builders, but the result looks convincing. The blue USN livery suits the XFV/FV-2 very well, it looks much more elegant than in the original NMF - even though it would, in real life, probably have received the new Gull Gray/White scheme (introduced in late 1955, IIRC, my FV-2 might have been one of the last aircraft to be painted blue). However, the blue scheme IMHO points out the aircraft's highly aerodynamic teardrop shape, esp. the flight pics make the aircraft almost look elegant!
How can photos convey whimsical and eccentric feelings?
Using an infrared lens, I transformed a good view, into a great view. From there, I played God and changed the weather to further deviate the photo from reality.
This photo is a genuine infrared photo shot with my lens on, so I am glad to know I am capable of using it.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on authentic facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The VF-1 was developed by Stonewell/Bellcom/Shinnakasu for the U.N. Spacy by using alien Overtechnology obtained from the SDF-1 Macross alien spaceship. Its production was preceded by an aerodynamic proving version of its airframe, the VF-X. Unlike all later VF vehicles, the VF-X was strictly a jet aircraft, built to demonstrate that a jet fighter with the features necessary to convert to Battroid mode was aerodynamically feasible. After the VF-X's testing was finished, an advanced concept atmospheric-only prototype, the VF-0 Phoenix, was flight-tested from 2005 to 2007 and briefly served as an active-duty fighter from 2007 to the VF-1's rollout in late 2008, while the bugs were being worked out of the full-up VF-1 prototype (VF-X-1).
The space-capable VF-1's combat debut was on February 7, 2009, during the Battle of South Ataria Island - the first battle of Space War I - and remained the mainstay fighter of the U.N. Spacy for the entire conflict. Introduced in 2008, the VF-1 would be out of frontline service just five years later, though.
The VF-1 proved to be an extremely capable craft, successfully combating a variety of Zentraedi mecha even in most sorties which saw UN Spacy forces significantly outnumbered. The versatility of the Valkyrie design enabled the variable fighter to act as both large-scale infantry and as air/space superiority fighter. The signature skills of U.N. Spacy ace pilot Maximilian Jenius exemplified the effectiveness of the variable systems as he near-constantly transformed the Valkyrie in battle to seize advantages of each mode as combat conditions changed from moment to moment.
The basic VF-1 was deployed in four minor variants (designated A, D, J, and S) and its success was increased by continued development of various enhancements including the GBP-1S "Armored" Valkyrie, FAST Pack "Super" Valkyrie and the additional RÖ-X2 heavy cannon pack weapon system for the VF-1S for additional firepower.
The FAST Pack system was designed to enhance the VF-1 Valkyrie variable fighter, and the initial V1.0 came in the form of conformal pallets that could be attached to the fighter’s leg flanks for additional fuel – primarily for Long Range Interdiction tasks in atmospheric environment. Later FAST Packs were designed for space operations.
The following FAST Pack 2.0 system featured two 120.000 kg class P&W+EF-2001 booster thrusters (mounted on the dorsal section of the VF-1) and two CTB-04 conformal propellant/coolant tanks (mounted on the leg/engines), since the VF-1's internal tanks could not carry enough propellant to achieve a stable orbit from Earth bases and needed the help of a booster pack to reach Low Earth Orbit. Anyway, the FAST Pack 2.0 wasn't adapted for atmospheric use, due to its impact on a Valkyrie's aerodynamics and its weight; as such, it needed to be discarded before atmospheric entry.
Included in the FAST Pack boosters and conformal tanks were six high-maneuverability vernier thrusters and two low-thrust vernier thrusters beneath multipurpose hook/handles in two dorsal-mounted NP-BP-01, as well as ten more high-maneuverability vernier thrusters and two low-thrust vernier thrusters beneath multipurpose hook/handles in the two leg/engine-mounted NP-FB-01 systems.
Granting the VF-1 a significantly increased weapons payload as well as greater fuel and thrust, Shinnakasu Heavy Industry's FAST Pack system 2.0 was in every way a major success in space combat. The first VF-1 equipped with FAST Packs was deployed in January 2010 for an interception mission.
Following first operational deployment and its effectiveness, the FAST Pack system was embraced enthusiastically by the U.N. Spacy and found wide use. By February 2010, there were already over 300+ so-called "Super Valkyries" stationed onboard the SDF-1 Macross alone.
The FAST Pack went through constant further development, including upgraded versions for late production and updated VF-1s (V3.0 and V4.0). Another addition to the early V2.0 variant of 2010 was the so-called “S-FAST Pack”. The S-FAST pack was originally developed at the Apollo lunar base, for the locally based VF-1 interceptor squadrons that were tasked with the defense of this important production and habitat site on the Moon, but it also found its way to other orbital stations and carriers.
Officially designated FAST Pack V2.1, the S-FAST Pack consisted of the standard pair of dorsal rocket boosters plus the pallets with additional maneuvering jets, sensors and weapons. The S-FAST pack added another pair of P&W+EF-2001 boosters under the inner wings, having the duty to give to fighter the power necessary to exit easily from the gravity of moons or little planets without atmosphere, and improve acceleration during combat situations. Range was also further extended, together with additional life support systems for prolonged deep space operations, or the case of emergency.
In order to accept the S-FAST pack and exploit its potential, the VF-1’s wings and inner wing attachment points had to be strengthened due to the additional load and propulsion. The use of the S-FAST pack also precluded the fighter from transforming into Battroid or Gerwalk mode – the underwing packs had to be jettisoned beforehand. The other standard FAST Pack 2.0 elements could still be carried, though.
The modfied Valkyries capable of accepting the S-FAST Pack received an additional “S” to their type designation – more than 100 VF-1s were converted or built in this deep space configuration until late 2011. Initial deployment of the S-FAST Pack was conducted through SVF-24 “Moon Shadows” in early 2010, a unit that was quickly disbanded, though, but re-formed as SVF-124 “Moon Shooters”, tasked with the defense of the lunar Apollo Base and several special missions.
After the end of Space War I, the VF-1 continued to be manufactured both in the Sol system and throughout the UNG space colonies. Although the VF-1 would eventually be replaced as the primary Variable Fighter of the U.N. Spacy by the more capable, but also much bigger, VF-4 Lightning III in 2020, a long service record and continued production after the war proved the lasting worth of the design.
The VF-1 was without doubt the most recognizable variable fighter of Space War I and was seen as a vibrant symbol of the U.N. Spacy even into the first year of the New Era 0001 in 2013. At the end of 2015 the final rollout of the VF-1 was celebrated at a special ceremony, commemorating this most famous of variable fighters. The VF-1 Valkryie was built from 2006 to 2013 with a total production of 5,459 VF-1 variable fighters with several variants (VF-1A = 5,093, VF-1D = 85, VF-1J = 49, VF-1S = 30, VF-1G = 12, VE-1 = 122, VT-1 = 68)
However, the fighter remained active in many second line units and continued to show its worthiness years later, e. g. through Milia Jenius who would use her old VF-1 fighter in defense of the colonization fleet - 35 years after the type's service introduction!
General characteristics:
All-environment variable fighter and tactical combat Battroid,
used by U.N. Spacy, U.N. Navy, U.N. Space Air Force
Accommodation:
Pilot only in Marty & Beck Mk-7 zero/zero ejection seat
Dimensions:
Fighter Mode:
Length 14.23 meters
Wingspan 14.78 meters (at 20° minimum sweep)
Height 3.84 meters
Battroid Mode:
Height 12.68 meters
Width 7.3 meters
Length 4.0 meters
Empty weight: 13.25 metric tons;
Standard T-O mass: 18.5 metric tons;
MTOW: 37.0 metric tons
Power Plant:
2x Shinnakasu Heavy Industry/P&W/Roice FF-2001 thermonuclear reaction turbine engines, output 650 MW each, rated at 11,500 kg in standard or in overboost (225.63 kN x 2)
4 x Shinnakasu Heavy Industry NBS-1 high-thrust vernier thrusters (1 x counter reverse vernier thruster nozzle mounted on the side of each leg nacelle/air intake, 1 x wing thruster roll control system on each wingtip);
18 x P&W LHP04 low-thrust vernier thrusters beneath multipurpose hook/handles
The S-FAST Pack added 4x P&W+EF-2001 booster thrusters with 120.000 kg each, plus a total of 28x P&W LHP04 low-thrust vernier thrusters
Performance:
Battroid Mode: maximum walking speed 160 km/h
Fighter Mode: at 10,000 m Mach 2.71; at 30,000+ m Mach 3.87
g limit: in space +7
Thrust-to-weight ratio: empty 3.47; standard T-O 2.49; maximum T-O 1.24
Design Features:
3-mode variable transformation; variable geometry wing; vertical take-off and landing; control-configurable vehicle; single-axis thrust vectoring; three "magic hand" manipulators for maintenance use; retractable canopy shield for Battroid mode and atmospheric reentry; option of GBP-1S system, atmospheric-escape booster, or FAST Pack system
Transformation:
Standard time from Fighter to Battroid (automated): under 5 sec.
Min. time from Fighter to Battroid (manual): 0.9 sec.
Armament:
2x internal Mauler RÖV-20 anti-aircraft laser cannon, firing 6,000 pulses per minute
1x Howard GU-11 55 mm three-barrel Gatling gun pod with 200 RPG, fired at 1,200 rds/min
4x underwing hard points for a wide variety of ordnance, including
12x AMM-1 hybrid guided multipurpose missiles (3/point), or
12x MK-82 LDGB conventional bombs (3/point), or
6x RMS-1 large anti-ship reaction missiles (2/outboard point, 1/inboard point), or
4x UUM-7 micro-missile pods (1/point) each carrying 15 x Bifors HMM-01 micro-missiles,
or a combination of above load-outs
The optional Shinnakasu Heavy Industry S-FAST Pack 2.1 augmentative space weapon system added:
6x micro-missiles in two NP-AR-01 micro-missile launcher pods (mounted rear-ward under center ventral section in Fighter mode or on lower arm sections in GERWALK/Battroid mode)
4x12 micro missiles in four HMMP-02 micro-missile launchers, one inside each booster pod
The kit and its assembly:
This VF-1 is another contribution to the “Old Kit” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com, running in late 2016. I am not certain about the moulds’ inception date, but since it is an ARII incarnation of this type of kit and even moulded in the early pastel green styrene, I’d think that it was produced in 1982 or 83.
Anyway, I love the Macross VF-1, IMHO a design masterpiece created by Shoji Kawamori and one of my favorite mecha designs ever, because it was created as a late 70ies style jet fighter that could transform into a robot in a secondary role. As a simple, purposeful military vehicle. And not like a flashy robot toy.
Effectively, this Super Valkyrie is a highly modified OOB kit with many donation parts, and this kit is a bit special, for several reasons. There are several 1:100 OOB kits with FAST Packs from ARII/Bandai available (and still around today), but these are normally only Battroids or Gerwalks with additional parts for the FAST kit conversion. The kit I used here is different: it is, after maybe 25 years of searching and building these kits, the #70 from the original production run. It is (so far!) the only Fighter mode kit with the additional FAST Pack parts! Must be rare, and I have never seen it in catalogues?
Until today, I converted my Super or Strike Valkyries from Gerwalk kits, a task that needs some improvisation esp. around the folded arms between the legs, and there’s no OOB option for an extended landing gear. The latter made this Fighter mode kit very attractive, even though the actual kit is pretty disappointing, and AFAIK this kit variant is only available as a VF-1S.
With the Super Valkyrie fighter kit you receive basically a Gerwalk with a standard fighter cockpit (which includes a front wheel well and an extended front wheel leg), plus extra parts. The leg/engine-mounted NP-FB-01 systems are less bulbous than the parts on the Gerwalk or Battroid kit, and the OOB dorsally mounted NP-BP-01 boosters are TINY, maybe 1:120 or even 1:144! WTF?
Further confusion: the kit includes a set of lower arm parts with integrated rocket launchers, but these are not necessary at all for the Fighter build?! As a kind of compensation there’s a new and exclusive element that simulates the folded arms under the ‘fuselage’ and which, as an added value, properly holds the hand gun under the fuselage. As a quirky flaw, though, the hand gun itself comes in the extended form for the Battroid/Gerwalk mode. For the fighter in flight mode, it has to be modified, but that’s easily done.
Anyway, with the potential option to build a Super Valkyrie with an extended landing gear, this was my route to go with this vintage kit. The Super Valkyrie already looks bulky with the FAST Pack added, but then I recently found the S-FAST Pack option with two more boosters under the wings – total overkill, but unique. And I had a spare pair of booster bulks in the stash (w/o their nozzles, though), as well as a complete pair of additional bigger standard FAST boosters that could replace the ridiculous OOB parts…
Building such a Super/Strike Valkyrie means building separate components, with a marriage of parts as one of the final steps. Consequently, cockpit, central fuselage with the wings and the air intakes, the folded stabilizer pack, the folded arms element with the handgun, the two legs and the four boosters plus other ordnance had to be built and painted separately.
Here and there, details were changed or added, e. g. a different head (a ‘J’ head for the flight leader’s aircraft with two instead of the rare, OOB ‘S’ variant with four laser cannon), covers for the main landing gear (the latter does not come with wells at all, but I did not scratch them since they are hardly recognizable when the kit is sitting on the ground), the typical blade aerials under the cockpit and the feet had to be modified internally to become truly ‘open’ jet exhausts.
The wing-mounted boosters received new nozzles and their front end was re-sculpted with 2C putty into a square shape, according to reference sketches. Not 100% exact, but the rest of the VF-1 isn’t either.
This VF-1 was also supposed to carry external ordnance and my first choice were four wing-mounted RMS-1 Anti-Ship Reaction Warheads, scratched from four 1.000 lb NATO bombs. But, once finished, I was not happy with them. So I looked for another option, and in a source book I found several laser-guided bombs and missiles, also for orbital use, and from this inspiration comes the final ordnance: four rocket-propelled kinetic impact projectiles. These are actually 1:72 JASDF LGB’s from a Hasegawa weapon set, sans aerodynamic steering surfaces and with rocket boosters added to the tail. Also not perfect, but their white color and sleek shape is a good counterpart to the FAST elements.
Experience from many former builds of this mecha kit family helped a lot, since the #70 kit is very basic and nothing really fits well. Even though there are not many major seams or large elements, PSR work was considerable. This is not a pleasant build, rather a fight with a lot of compromises and semi-accuracies.
Seriously, if you want a decent 1:100 VF-1, I’d rather recommend the much more modern WAVE kits (including more realistic proportions).
Painting and markings:
The paint scheme for this Super Valkyrie was settled upon before I considered the S-FAST Pack addition: U.N. Spacy’s SVF-124 is authentic, as well as its unique camouflage paint scheme.
The latter is a special scheme for the lunar environment where the unit was originally formed and based, with all-black undersides, a high, wavy waterline and a light grey upper surface, plus some medium grey trim and a few colorful US Navy style markings and codes.
My core reference is a ‘naked’ bread-and-butter VF-1A of SVF-124 in Fighter mode, depicted as a profile in a VF-1 source book from SoftBank Publishing. The colors for the FAST Pack elements are guesstimates and personal interpretations, though, since I could not find any reference for their look in this unit.
As a side note, another, later SVF-124 aircraft in a similar design is included as an option in a limited edition 1:72 VF-22S kit from Hasegawa, which is backed by CG pics in a VF-22 source book from Softbank, too.
Furthermore, SVF-124 finds mention in a Japanese modeler magazine, where the aforementioned VF-22S kit was presented in 2008. So there must be something behind the ‘Moon Shooters’ squadron.
According to the Hasegawa VF-22S’s painting instructions, the underside becomes black and the upper surfaces are to be painted with FS36270 (with some darker fields on the VF-22, though, similar to the USAF F-15 counter-shaded air superiority scheme, just a tad darker).
Due to the 1:100 scale tininess of my VF-1, I alternatively went for Revell 75 (RAL 7039), which is lighter and also has a brownish hue, so that the resulting aircraft would not look too cold and murky, and not resemble an USAF aircraft.
All FAST Pack elements were painted in a uniform dark grey (Humbrol 32), while some subtle decorative trim on the upper surfaces, e.g. the canopy frame, an anti-glare panel and a stripe behind the cockpit and decoration trim on the wings’ upper surfaces, was added with Revell 77 (RAL 7012). Overall, colors are rather dull, but IMHO very effective in the “landscape” this machine is supposed to operate, and the few colorful markings stand out even more!
The cockpit interior was painted in a bluish grey, with reddish brown seat cushions (late 70ies style!), and the landing gear became all white. For some added detail I painted the wings’ leading edges in a mustard tone (Humbrol 225, Mid Stone).
The kit received some weathering (black ink wash, drybrushing on panels) and extra treatment of the panel lines – even though the FAST Pack elements hide a lot of surface or obscure view.
More color and individuality came with the markings. The standard decals like stencils or the U.N. Spacy insignia come from the kit’s and some other VF-1s’ OOB sheets.
Based on the SVF-124 VF-1 profile and taking the basic design a bit further, I used dull red USAF 45° digits for the 2nd flight leader’s “200” modex and the Apollo Base’s code “MA” on the dorsal boosters. Some discreet red trim was also applied to the FAST Packs – but only a little.
Since all of SVF-124’s aircraft are rumored to carry personal markings, including nose art and similar decorations, I tried to give this VF-1JS a personal note: the pin-up badges on the dorsal boosters come from a Peddinghouse decal sheet for Allied WWII tanks, placed on a silver roundel base. Unfortunately (and not visible before I applied them) the pin-up decal was not printed on a white basis, so that the contrast on the silver is not very strong, but I left it that way. Additionally, the tagline “You’re a$$ next, Jerry” (which IS printed in opaque white…?) was added next to the artwork – but it’s so tiny that you have to get really close to decipher it at all…
Finally, after some soot stains around the exhausts and some vernier nozzels with graphite, the kit received a coat of matt acrylic varnish.
Building this vintage VF-1 kit took a while and a lot of effort, but I like the result: with the S-FAST Pack, the elegant VF-1 turned into a massive space fighter hulk! The normal Super Valkyries already look very compact and purposeful, but this here is truly menacing. Especially when standing on its own feet/landing gear, with its nose-down stance and the small, original wheels, this thing reminds of a Space Shuttle that had just landed.
Good that I recently built a simple VF-1 fighter as a warm-up session. ARII’s kit #70 is not a pleasant build, rather a fight with the elements and coupled with a lot of compromises – if you want a Super Valkyrie Fighter in 1:100, the much more modern WAVE kit is IMHO the better option (and actually not much more pricey than this vintage collector’s item). But for the vintage feeling, this exotic model kit was just the right ticket, and it turned, despite many weaknesses and rather corny details, into an impressive fighter. Esp. the lunar camouflage scheme looks odd, but very unique and purposeful.
Anyway, with so many inherent flaws of the ARII kit, my former method of converting a pure (and much more common) Gerwalk kit into a space-capable VF-1 fighter is not less challenging and complicated than trying to fix this OOB option into a decent model. :-/
Oscar is certainly capable of conducting this property check, but it can't hurt to have an extra pair of eyes around.
Thanks to the innovative Santa's Staff on Patrol program, every staff officer above the rank of Sergeant works a mandatory 6 hour shift on Christmas so that the rank and file can take off to spend the holiday with their families.
This is also a good chance for the Captain using the borrowed sergeant's vehicle to ask the K-9 officer how to work the lights and siren in the PIU.
Baynard Police
Ford CVPI
Unit #2334
K-9 Unit #12
Oscar
Ford Police Interceptor Utility
Patrol Supervisor
Baynard Police Uniformed Services Division
Mystic Beach Family Fun Center
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II
Olympus M.14-42mm F3.5-5.6 II R
For more info about the dioramas, check out the FAQ: 1stPix FAQ
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-19 (NATO reporting name: "Farmer") was a Soviet second-generation, single-seat, twin jet-engine fighter aircraft. It was the first Soviet production aircraft capable of supersonic speeds in level flight. A comparable U.S. "Century Series" fighter was the North American F-100 Super Sabre, although the MiG-19 would primarily oppose the more modern McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II and Republic F-105 Thunderchief over North Vietnam. Furthermore, the North American YF-100 Super Sabre prototype appeared approximately one year after the MiG-19, making the MiG-19 the first operational supersonic jet in the world.
On 20 April 1951, OKB-155 was given the order to develop the MiG-17 into a new fighter called "I-340", also known as "SM-1". It was to be powered by two Mikulin AM-5 non-afterburning jet engines, a scaled-down version of the Mikulin AM-3, with 19.6 kN (4,410 lbf) of thrust. The I-340 was supposed to attain 1,160 km/h (725 mph, Mach 0.97) at 2,000 m (6,562 ft), 1,080 km/h (675 mph, Mach 1.0) at 10,000 m (32,808 ft), climb to 10,000 m (32,808 ft) in 2.9 minutes, and have a service ceiling of no less than 17,500 m (57,415 ft).
After several prototypes with many detail improvements, the ministers of the Soviet Union issued the order #286-133 to start serial production on February 17, 1954, at the factories in Gorkiy and Novosibirsk. Factory trials were completed on September 12 the same year, and government trials started on September 30.
Initial enthusiasm for the aircraft was dampened by several problems. The most alarming of these was the danger of a midair explosion due to overheating of the fuselage fuel tanks located between the engines. Deployment of airbrakes at high speeds caused a high-g pitch-up. Elevators lacked authority at supersonic speeds. The high landing speed of 230 km/h (145 mph), compared to 160 km/h (100 mph) for the MiG-15, combined with the lack of a two-seat trainer version, slowed pilot transition to the type. Handling problems were addressed with the second prototype, "SM-9/2", which added a third ventral airbrake and introduced all-moving tailplanes with a damper to prevent pilot-induced oscillations at subsonic speeds. It flew on 16 September 1954, and entered production as the MiG-19S.
Approximately 5,500 MiG-19's were produced, first in the USSR and in Czechoslovakia as the Avia S-105, but mainly in the People's Republic of China as the Shenyang J-6. The aircraft saw service with a number of other national air forces, including those of Cuba, North Vietnam, Egypt, Pakistan, and North Korea. The aircraft saw combat during the Vietnam War, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1971 Bangladesh War.
However, jet fighter development made huge leaps in the 1960s, and OKB MiG was constantly trying to improve the MiG-19's performance, esp. against fast and high-flying enemies, primarily bombers but also spy planes like the U-2.
As the MiG-19S was brought into service with the Soviet air forces in mid-1956, the OKB MiG was continuing the refinement of the SM-1/I-340 fighter. One of these evolutionary paths was the SM-12 (literally, “SM-1, second generation”) family of prototypes, the ultimate extrapolation of the basic MiG-19 design, which eventually led to the MiG-19bis interceptor that filled the gap between the MiG-19S and the following, highly successful MiG-21.
The SM-12 first saw life as an exercise in drag reduction by means of new air intake configurations, since the MiG-19’s original intake with rounded lips became inefficient at supersonic speed (its Western rival, the North American F-100, featured a sharp-lipped nose air intake from the start). The first of three prototypes, the SM-12/1, was essentially a MiG-19S with an extended and straight-tapered nose with sharp-lipped orifice and a pointed, two-position shock cone on the intake splitter. The simple arrangement proved to be successful and was further refined.
The next evolutionary step, the SM-12/3, differed from its predecessors primarily in two new R3-26 turbojets developed from the earlier power plant by V. N. Sorokin. These each offered an afterburning thrust of 3,600kg, enabling the SM-12/3 to attain speeds ranging between 1,430km/h at sea level, or Mach=1.16, and 1,930km/h at 12,000m, or Mach=1.8, and an altitude of between 17,500 and 18,000m during its test program. This outstanding performance prompted further development with a view to production as a point defense interceptor.
Similarly powered by R3-26 engines, and embodying major nose redesign with a larger orifice permitting introduction of a substantial two-position conical centerbody for a TsD-30 radar, a further prototype was completed as the SM-12PM. Discarding the wing root NR-30 cannon of preceding prototypes, the SM-12PM was armed with only two K-5M (RS-2U) beam-riding missiles and entered flight test in 1957. This configuration would become the basis for the MiG-19bis interceptor that eventually was ordered into limited production (see below).
However, the SM-12 development line did not stop at this point. At the end of 1958, yet another prototype, the SM-12PMU, joined the experimental fighter family. This had R3M-26 turbojets uprated to 3.800kg with afterburning, but these were further augmented by a U-19D accelerator, which took the form of a permanent ventral pack containing an RU-013 rocket motor and its propellant tanks. Developed by D. D. Sevruk, the RU-013 delivered 3,000kg of additional thrust, and with the aid of this rocket motor, the SM-12PMU attained an altitude of 24,000m and a speed of Mach=1.69. But this effort was to no avail: the decision had been taken meanwhile to manufacture the Ye-7 in series as the MiG-21, and further development of the SM-12 series was therefore discontinued.
Nevertheless, since full operational status of the new MiG-21 was expected to remain pending for some time, production of a modified SM-12PM was ordered as a gap filler. Not only would this fighter bridge the performance gap to the Mach 2-capable MiG-21, it also had the benefit of being based on proven technologies and would not require a new basic pilot training.
The new aircraft received the official designation MiG-19bis. Compared with the SM-12PM prototype, the MiG-19bis differed in some details and improvements. The SM-12PM’s most significant shortfall was its short range – at full power, it had only a range of 750 km! This could be mended through an additional fuel tank in an enlarged dorsal fairing behind the cockpit. With this internal extra fuel, range could be extended by a further 200 - 250km range, but drop tanks had typically to be carried, too, in order to extend the fighter’ combat radius with two AAMs to 500 km. Specifically for the MiG-19bis, new, supersonic drop tanks (PTB-490) were designed, and these were later adapted for the MiG-21, too.
The air intake shock cone was re-contoured and the shifting mechanism improved: Instead of a simple, conical shape, the shock cone now had a more complex curvature with two steps and the intake orifice area was widened to allow a higher airflow rate. The air intake’s efficiency was further optimized through gradual positions of the shock cone.
As a positive side effect, the revised shock cone offered space for an enlarged radar dish, what improved detection range and resolution. The TsD-30 radar for the fighter’s missile-only armament was retained, even though the K-5’s effective range of only 2–6 km (1¼ – 3¾ mi) made it only suitable against slow and large targets like bombers. All guns were deleted in order to save weight or make room for the electronic equipment. The tail section was also changed because the R3M-26 engines and their afterburners were considerably longer than the MiG-19's original RM-5 engines. The exhausts now markedly protruded from the tail section, and the original, characteristic pen nib fairing between the two engines had been modified accordingly.
Production started in 1960, but only a total of roundabout 180 MiG-19bis, which received the NATO code "Farmer F", were built and the Soviet Union remained the only operator of the type. The first aircraft entered Soviet Anti-Air Defense in early 1961, and the machines were concentrated in PVO interceptor units around major sites like Moscow, Sewastopol at the Black Sea and Vladivostok in the Far East.
With the advent of the MiG-21, though, their career did not last long. Even though many machines were updated to carry the K-13 (the IR-guided AA-2 "Atoll") as well as the improved K-55 AAMs, with no change of the type’s designation, most MiG-19bis were already phased out towards the late 1960s and quickly replaced by 2nd generation MiG-21s as well as heavier and more capable Suchoj interceptors like the Su-9, -11 and -15. By 1972, all MiG-19bis had been retired.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 13.54 m (44 ft 4 in), fuselage only with shock cone in forward position
15.48 m (50 8 ½ in) including pitot
Wingspan: 9 m (29 ft 6 in)
Height: 3.8885 m (12 ft 9 in)
Wing area: 25 m² (269 ft²)
Empty weight: 5,210 kg (11,475 lb)
Loaded weight: 7,890 kg (17,380 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 9,050 kg (19,935 lb)
Fuel capacity: 2,450 l (556 imp gal; 647 US gal) internal;
plus 760 l (170 imp gal; 200 US gal) with 2 drop tanks
Powerplant:
2× Sorokin R3M-26 turbojets, rated at 37.2 kN (8,370 lbf) thrust each with afterburning
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,380km/h at sea level (Mach=1.16)
1,850km/h at 12,000m (Mach=1.8)
Range: 1,250 km (775 mi; 750 nmi) at 14,000 m (45,000 ft) with 2 × 490 l drop tanks
Combat range: 500 km (312 mi; 270 nmi)
Ferry range: 2,000 km (1,242 mi; 690 nmi)
Service ceiling: 19,750 m (64,690 ft)
Rate of climb: 180 m/s (35,000 ft/min)
Wing loading: 353.3 kg/m² (72.4 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.86
Armament:
No internal guns.
4× underwing pylons; typically, a pair of PTB-490 drop tanks were carried on the outer pylon pair,
plus a pair of air-to air missiles on the inner pair: initially two radar-guided Kaliningrad K-5M (RS-2US)
AAMs, later two radar-guided K-55 or IR-guided Vympel K-13 (AA-2 'Atoll') AAMs
The kit and its assembly:
Another submission for the 2018 Cold War Group Build at whatifmodelers.com, and again the opportunity to build a whiffy model from the project list. But it’s as fictional as one might think, since the SM-12 line of experimental “hybrid” fighters between the MiG-19 and the MiG-21 was real. But none of these aircraft ever made it into serial production, and in real life the MiG-21 showed so much potential that the attempts to improve the MiG-19 were stopped and no operational fighter entered production or service.
However, the SM-12, with its elongated nose and the central shock cone, makes a nice model subject, and I imagined what a service aircraft might have looked like? It would IMHO have been close, if not identical, to the SM-12PM, since this was the most refined pure jet fighter in the development family.
The basis for the build was a (dead cheap) Mastercraft MiG-19, which is a re-edition of the venerable Kovozávody Prostějov (KP) kit – as a tribute to modern tastes, it comes with (crudely) engraved panel, but it has a horrible fit all over. For instance, there was a 1mm gap between the fuselage and the right wing, the wing halves’ outlines did not match at all and it is questionable if the canopy actually belongs to the kit at all? PSR everywhere. I also had a Plastyk version of this kit on the table some time ago, but it was of a much better quality! O.K., the Mastercraft kit comes cheap, but it’s, to be honest, not a real bargain.
Even though the result would not be crisp I did some mods and changes. Internally, a cockpit tub was implanted (OOB there’s just a wacky seat hanging in mid air) plus some serious lead weight in the nose section for a proper stance.
On the outside, the new air intake is the most obvious change. I found a Su-17 intake (from a Mastercraft kit, too) and used a piece from a Matchbox B-17G’s dorsal turret to elongate the nose – it had an almost perfect diameter and a mildly conical shape. Some massive PSR work was necessary to blend the parts together, though.
The tail received new jet nozzles, scratched from steel needle protection covers, and the tail fairing was adjusted according to the real SM-12’s shape.
Ordnance was adapted, too: the drop tanks come from a Mastercraft MiG-21, and these supersonic PTB-490 tanks were indeed carried by the real SM-12 prototypes because the uprated engines were very thirsty and the original, teardrop-shaped MiG-19 tanks simply too draggy for the much faster SM-12. As a side note, the real SM-12’s short range was one of the serious factors that prevented the promising type’s production in real life. In order to overcome the poor range weakness I added an enlarged spine (half of a drop tank), inspired by the MiG-21 SMT, that would house an additional internal fuel tank.
The R2-SU/K-5 AAMs come from a vintage Mastercraft Soviet aircraft weapon set, which carries a pair of these 1st generation AAMs. While the molds seem to be a bit soft, the missiles look pretty convincing. Their pylons were taken from the kit (OOB they carry unguided AAM pods and are placed behind the main landing gear wells), just reversed and placed on the wings’ leading edges – similar to the real SM-12’s arrangement.
Painting and markings:
No surprises. In the Sixties, any PVO aircraft was left in bare metal, so there was hardly an alternative to a NMF finish.
Painting started with an all-over coat with acrylic Revell 99 (Aluminum), just the spine tank became light grey (Revell 371) for some contrast, and I painted some di-electric covers in a deep green (Revell 48).
The cockpit interior was painted with a bright mix of Revell 55 and some 48, while the landing gear wells and the back section of the cockpit were painted in a bluish grey (Revell 57).
The landing gear was painted in Steel (unpolished Modelmaster metallizer) and received classic, bright green wheel discs (Humbrol 2). As a small, unusual highlight the pitot boom under the chin received red and white stripes – seen on occasional MiG-19S fighters in Soviet service, and the anti-flutter booms on the stabilizers became bright red, too.
After the basic painting was done the kit received a black ink wash. Once this had dried and wiped off with a soft cotton cloth, post shading with various metallizer tones was added in order to liven up the uniform aircraft (including Humbrol’s matt and polished aluminum, and the exhaust section was treated with steel). Some panel lines were emphasized with a thin pencil.
Decals were puzzled together from various sources, a Guards badge and a few Russian stencils were added, too. Finally, the kit was sealed with a coat of sheen acrylic varnish (a 2:1 mix of Italeri matt and semi-gloss varnish).
The K-5 missiles, last but not least, were painted in aluminum, too, but their end caps (both front and tail section) became off-white.
The Mastercraft kit on which this conversion was based is crude, so I did not have high expectations concerning the outcome. But the new nose blends nicely into the MiG-19 fuselage, and the wide spine is a subtle detail that makes the aircraft look more “beefy” and less MiG-19-ish. The different drop tanks – even though they are authentic – visually add further speed. And despite many flaws, I am quite happy with the result of roundabout a week’s work.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the model, the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Douglas A-4 Skyhawk is a single-seat subsonic carrier-capable light attack aircraft developed for the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps in the early 1950s. The delta-winged, single turbojet-engine Skyhawk was designed and produced by Douglas Aircraft Company, and later by McDonnell Douglas. The Skyhawk was a relatively light aircraft, with a maximum takeoff weight of 24,500 pounds (11,100 kg) and had a top speed of 670 miles per hour (1,080 km/h). The aircraft's five hardpoints supported a variety of missiles, bombs, and other munitions, including nuclear bombs, with a bomb load equivalent to that of a World War II–era Boeing B-17 bomber.
Since its introduction, the Skyhawk had been adopted by countries beyond the United States and saw a very long career, with many baseline variants and local adaptations. Israel was, starting in 1966, the largest export customer for Skyhawks, and a total of 217 A-4s were eventually procured, plus another 46 that were transferred from U.S. units in Operation Nickel Grass to compensate for large losses during the Yom Kippur War.
The Skyhawk was the first U.S. warplane to be offered to the Israeli Air Force, marking the point where the U.S. took over from France as Israel's chief military supplier. A special version of the A-4 was developed for the IAF, the A-4H. This was an A-4E with improved avionics and an uprated J52-P-8A engine with more thrust from the A-4F that had replaced the Wright J65 in earlier Skyhawk variants. Armament consisted of twin DEFA 30 mm cannon in place of the rather unreliable Colt Mk.12 20 mm cannons. Later modifications included the avionics hump and an extended tailpipe, implemented in Israel by IAI to provide greater protection against heat-seeking surface-to-air missiles.
Deliveries began after the Six-Day War, and A-4s soon formed the backbone of the IAF's ground-attack force. In Heyl Ha'avir (Israels Air Force/IAF) service, the A-4 Skyhawk was named as the Ayit (Hebrew: עיט, for Eagle). A total of 90 A-4Hs were delivered and became the IAF’s primary attack plane in the War of Attrition between 1968 and 1970. They cost only a quarter of a Phantom II and carried half of its payload, making them highly efficient attack aircraft, even though losses were high and a number of A-4Es were imported to fill the gaps.
In early 1973, the improved A-4N Skyhawk for Israel entered service, based on the A-4M models used by the U.S. Marine Corps, and it gradually replaced the simpler and less capable A-4Hs, which were still operated in 2nd line duties. Many of the A-4Hs and A-4Es were subsequently stored in reserve in flying condition, for modernization or for sale, and two countries made purchases from this overstock: Indonesia and Uruguay.
Due to the declining relationship between Indonesia and the Soviet Union, there was a lack of spare parts for military hardware supplied by the Communist Bloc. Soon, most of them were scrapped. The Indonesian Air Force (TNI-AU) acquired ex-Israeli A-4Es to replace its Il-28 Beagles and Tu-16 Badgers in a covert operation with Israel, since both countries did not maintain diplomatic relationships. A total of thirty-two A-4s served the Indonesian Air Force from 1982 until 2003.
Uruguay was the other IDF customer, even though a smaller one. The Uruguayan Air Force was originally created as part of the National Army of Uruguay but was established as a separate branch on December 4, 1953, becoming the youngest, and also the smallest branch of the Armed Forces of Uruguay.
Since the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, the Air Force was involved in the fight against the guerrilla activity that was present in the country, focusing against the MLN-T (Movimiento de Liberación Nacional – Tupamaros or Tupamaros – National Liberation Movement), that later triggered a participation in the country's politics.
On February 8, 1973, President Juan María Bordaberry tried to assert his authority over the Armed Forces by returning them to their normal duties and appointing a retired Army general, Antonio Francese, as the new Minister of National Defense. Initially, the Navy of Uruguay supported the appointment, but the National Army and Uruguayan Air Force commanders rejected it outright. On February 9 and 10, the Army and Air Force issued public proclamations and demanded his dismissal and changes in the country's political and economic system. Bordaberry then gave up to the pressure, and on February 12, at the Cap. Juan Manuel Boiso Lanza Air Base, Headquarters of the General Command of the Air Force, the National Security Council (Consejo de Seguridad Nacional) was created. The Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force was one of its permanent members, and the Armed Forces of Uruguay from now on were effectively in control of the country, with Bordaberry just participating in a self-coup.
During this period of time, the Air Force took control of the country's airdromes, some aircraft that were seized from the subversion, appointed some of its general officers to led the flag carrier PLUNA, reinforced the combat fleet with Cessna A-37B Dragonfly and FMA IA-58A Pucará attack aircraft in 1976 and 1981, modernized the transport aircraft with the purchase of five Embraer C-95 Bandeirante in 1975 and five CASA C-212 Aviocar and one Gates Learjet 35A in 1981, introduced to service two brand new Bell 212 helicopters, and achieved another milestone, with the first landing of a Uruguayan aircraft in Antarctica, on January 28, 1984, with a Fairchild-Hiller FH-227D.
Since the end of the military government, the Air Force returned to its normal tasks, and always acting under the command of the President and in agreement with the Minister of National Defense, without having entered the country's politics again, whose participation, in addition, has been forbidden in almost all activities for the Armed Forces. Towards the late Eighties, the Uruguayan Air Force underwent a fundamental modernization program: Between 1989 and 1999 a total number of 48 aircraft were acquired, including twelve Skyhawks (ten single seaters and two trainers), followed by three Lockheed C-130B Hercules in 1992, to carry out long-range strategic missions, six Pilatus PC-7U Turbo Trainers, also acquired in 1992 for advanced training (replacing the aging fleet of Beechcraft T-34 Mentors in Santa Bernardina, Durazno, that had been in service with the Air Force since 1977), two Beechcraft Baron 58 and ten Cessna U-206H Stationair in 1998 (with Uruguay becoming the first operator of this variant, used for transport, training and surveillance). Two Eurocopter AS365N2 Dauphin for search and rescue and transport followed, also in 1998, and 13 Aermacchi SF-260 in 1999, to fully replace the aging fleet of T-34 training aircraft and become the new basic trainer of the Uruguayan Air Force within the Military School of Aeronautics (Escuela Militar de Aeronáutica) in Pando, Canelones. Furthermore, on April 27, 1994, through Decree No. 177/994 of the Executive Power, a new Air Force Organization was approved, and the Tactical Regiments and Aviation Groups disappeared to become Air Squadrons, leading to the current structure of the Uruguayan Air Force.
The Skyhawks were procured as more capable complement and partial replacement for the FAU’s Cessna A-37B Dragonfly and FMA IA-58A Pucará attack aircraft fleet. Being fast jets, however, they would also be tasked with limited airspace defense duties and supposed to escort and provide aerial cover for the other attack types in the FAU’s inventory. The Skyhawks were all former IDF A-4H/TA-4Hs. They retained their characteristic tail pipe extensions against IR-guided missiles (primarily MANPADS) as well as the retrofitted avionics hump, but there were many less visible changes, too.
After several years in storage, a full refurbishment had taken place at Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI). The single seaters’ original Stewart-Warner AN/APG-53A navigation and fire control radar was retained, but some critical avionics were removed before export, e. g. the ability to carry and deploy AGM-45 Shrike anti-radar-missiles or the rather unreliable AGM-12 Bullpup, as well as the Skyhawk’s LABS (toss-bombing capability) that made it a potential nuclear bomber. On the other side avionics and wirings to carry AIM-9B Sidewinder AAMs on the outer pair of underwing pylons were added, so that the FAU Skyhawks could engage into aerial combat with more than just their onboard guns.
The A-4Hs’ 30 mm DEFA cannons were removed before delivery, too, even though their characteristic gondola fairings were retained. In Uruguay they were replaced with 20 mm Hispano-Suiza HS.804 autocannons, to create communality with the FAU’s Pucará COIN/attack aircraft and simplify logistics. MER and TER units (Multiple/Triple Ejector Racks), leased from Argentina, boosted the Skyhawks’ ordnance delivery capabilities. A Marconi ARL18223 360° radar warning receiver and a Litton LTN-211 GPS navigation system were introduced, too. Despite these many modifications the FAU’s A-4Hs retained their designation and, unofficially, the former Israeli “Eagles” were aptly nicknamed “Águila” by their new crews and later by the public, too.
Upon introduction into service the machines received a disruptive NATO-style grey/green camouflage with off-white undersides, which they should retain for the rest of their lives – except for a single machine (648), which was painted in an experimental all-grey scheme. However, like the FAU Pucarás, which received grim looking but distinctive nose art during their career, the Skyhawks soon received similar decorations, representing the local ‘Jabalí’ (wild boars).
During the Nineties, the Uruguayan Skyhawks were frequently deployed together with Pucarás along the Brazilian border: Brazilian nationals were detected removing cattle from Uruguayan territory! Dissuasive missions were flown by the Pucarás departing from Rivera to Chuy in eastern Uruguay, covering a span of more than 200 nm (368 km) along the Uruguay/Brazil border, relaying the location of the offending persons to Uruguay’s Army armored units on the ground to take dissuading action. The Skyhawks flew high altitude escorts and prevented intrusion of the Uruguayan airspace from Brazil, and they were frequently called in to identify and repel intruders with low-level flypasts.
The Skyhawks furthermore frequently showed up around the Uruguayan city Masoller as a visible show of force in a longstanding border and territory dispute with Brazil, although this had not harmed close diplomatic and economic relations between the two countries. The disputed area is called Rincón de Artigas (Portuguese: Rincão de Artigas), and the dispute arose from the fact that the treaty that delimited the Brazil-Uruguay border in 1861 determined that the border in that area would be a creek called Arroyo de la Invernada (Portuguese: Arroio da Invernada), but the two countries disagree on which actual stream is the so-named one. Another disputed territory is a Brazilian island at the confluence of the Quaraí River and the Uruguay River. None of these involvements led to armed conflict, though.
The Uruguayan Skyhawk fired in anger only over their homeland during drugbusting raids and for interception of low performance, drug trafficking aircraft which were increasingly operating in the region. However, the slower IA 58 Pucará turned out to be the better-suited platform for this task, even though the Skyhawks more than once scared suspicious aircraft away or forced them to land, sometimes with the use of gunfire. At least one such drug transport aircraft was reputedly shot down over Uruguayan territory as its pilot did not reply or react and tried to escape over the border into safe airspace.
These duties lasted well into the Nineties, but Uruguay’s small Skyhawk fleet was relatively expensive to operate so that maintenance and their operations, too, were dramatically cut back after 2000. The airframes’ age also showed with dramatic effect: two A-4Hs were lost independently in 2001 and 2002 due to structural fatigue. Active duties were more and more cut back and relegated back to the A-37s and IA 58s. In October 2008, it was decided that the Uruguayan A-4 Skyhawk fleet would be withdrawn and replaced by more modern aircraft, able to perform equally well in the training role and, if required, close support and interdiction missions on the battlefield. The last flight of an FAU A-4 took place in September 2009.
This replacement program did not yield any fruits, though. In May 2013 eighteen refurbished Sukhoi Su-30 MKI multirole air superiority fighters were offered by the Russian Federation and Sukhoi in remarkably favorable condition that included credit facilities and an agreement branch for maintenance. These conditions were also offered for the Yak-130 Mitten. By December 2013 Uruguayan personnel had test flown this plane in Russia. In the meantime, a number of A-37B Dragonfly were purchased from the Ecuadorian Air Force in January 2014 to fill the FAU’s operational gaps. Also, the Uruguayan and Swiss governments discussed a possible agreement for the purchase of ten Swiss Air Force Northrop F-5Es plus engines, spare parts and training, but no actual progress was made. The Uruguayan Air Force also used to show interest on the IA-58D Pucará Delta modernization program offered by Fábrica Argentina de Aviones, but more recently, among some of the possible aircraft that the Air Force was considering, there were the Hongdu JL-10 or the Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master. But despite of how necessary a new attack aircraft is for the FAU, no procurements have been achieved yet.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 40 ft 1.5 in (12.230 m)
Wingspan: 27 ft 6 in (8.38 m)
Height: 15 ft 2 in (4.62 m)
Wing area: 260 sq ft (24 m²)
Airfoil: root: NACA 0008-1.1-25; tip: NACA 0005-.825-50
Empty weight: 9,853 lb (4,469 kg)
Gross weight: 16,216 lb (7,355 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 24,500 lb (11,113 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Pratt & Whitney J52-P-8A turbojet engine, 9,300 lbf (41 kN) thrust
Performance:
Maximum speed: 585 kn (673 mph, 1,083 km/h) at sea level
Range: 1,008 nmi (1,160 mi, 1,867 km)
Ferry range: 2,194 nmi (2,525 mi, 4,063 km)
g limits: +8/-3
Rate of climb: 5,750 ft/min (29.2 m/s)
Wing loading: 62.4 lb/sq ft (305 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.526
Armament:
2× 20 mm (0.79 in) Hispano-Suiza HS.804 autocannon with 100 RPG
5× hardpoints with a total capacity of 8,500 lb (3,900 kg)
The kit and its assembly:
The third build in my recent “Uruguayan What-if Trip”, and a rather spontaneous idea. When I searched for decals for my Uruguayan Sherman tank, I came across a decal sheet from an Airfix IA 58 Pucará (2008 re-boxing), which included, beyond Argentinian markings, a Uruguayan machine, too. This made me wonder about a jet-powered successor, and the omnipresent Skyhawk appeared like a natural choice for a light attack aircraft – even though I also considered an IAI Kfir but found its Mach 2 capability a bit overdone.
Checking history I found a suitable time frame during the Nineties for a potential introduction of the A-4 into Uruguayan service, and this was also the time when Indonesia indirectly bought 2nd hand A-4E/Hs from Israel. This was a good match and defined both the background story as well as the model and its details.
The model kit is an Italeri A-4E/F (Revell re-boxing), built mostly OOB with a short/early fin tip (the kit comes with an optional part for it, but it is too short and I used the alternative A-4M fin tip from the kit and re-shaped its leading edge) and the bent refueling probe because of the radar in the nose (the original straight boom interfered with it). I just implanted an extended resin tailpipe (from Aires, see below), used the OOB optional brake parachute fairing and scratched fairings for the A-4H’s former DEFA guns (which were placed, due to their size, in a lower position than the original 20 mm guns and had an odd shape) from styrene rods.
I also modified the ordnance: the OOB ventral drop tank was taken over but the kit’s original LAU-19 pods molded onto the inner wing pylons were cut off and moved to the outer stations. The inner pylons then received MERs with five Mk. 82 500 lb iron bombs each (left over from a Hasegawa Skyhawk kit) – typically for the Skyhawk, the inner front stations on the MERs (and on TERs, too) were left empty, because anything bigger than a 250 lb Mk. 81 bomb interfered with the landing gear covers.
Building posed no real problems; some PSR was necessary on many seams, though, but that’s standard for the Italeri Skyhawk kit. Just the extended tailpipe caused unexpected trouble: the very nice and detailed Aires resin insert turned out to be a whole 2mm(!) wider than the Skyhawk’s tail section, even though its height and shape was fine. I solved this pragmatically and, after several trials, glued the extended pipe between the fuselage halves, closed them with some force and filled the resulting wedge-shaped ventral gap that extended forward almost up to the wings’ trailing edge with putty. Under the paint this stunt is not obvious, and I suspect that the Italeri Skyhawk’s tail is simply too narrow?
Different/additional blade antennae were added under the front fuselage and behind the canopy as well as a tiny pitot in front of the windscreen (piece of thin wire) and fairings for the radar warning receivers were integrated into the fin’s leading edge and above the extended tail pipe, scratched from styrene sheet material. And, finally, a thin rod (made from heated styrene) was added for the Skyhawk’s steerable front wheel mechanism.
A good thing about the Italeri Skyhawk is that its clear part encompasses the whole canopy, including its frame. It comes as a single piece, though, but can be easily cut in two parts to allow an open cockpit display. The alternative Hasegawa A-4E/F has the flaw that the clear part is molded without the canopy frame, which has a rather complex shape, so that modding it into open position is a very complicated task.
Painting and markings:
Basically very simple: I relied upon FAU Pucarás as benchmark, which carry a rather unremarkable NATO-style livery in dark grey and dark green over very light grey, almost white undersides. This does not sound interesting, but it’s not a color combo typically seen on a Skyhawk, so that this already offers a subtle whiffy touch – and it suits the Skyhawk IMHO well.
To make the simple scheme more interesting, though, I decided to apply the camouflage in a more disruptive, higher resolution pattern, using the Kuwaiti A-4KU pattern as benchmark, just with replaced colors. On real-life pictures, the Uruguayan Pucarás as well as some early A-37s show a good contrast between the green and the grey, so that I chose Tamiya XF-62 (U.S. WWII Olive Drab) and Humbrol 156 (RAF Dark Camouflage Grey) as basic tones; the undersides were painted in Humbrol 147 (FS 36495), leaving a brightness margin for post-shading with an even lighter tone.
The landing gear as well as the air intakes’ interior were painted in white, the landing gear covers’ edges received a thin red edge. The cockpit interior became standard Dark Gull Grey.
For good contrast with the light undersides, the rocket launchers became light grey (Humbrol 127) drab. The MERs became classic white and the ten 250 lb bombs were painted in olive drab.
As usual, the kit received an overall light black ink washing and some post-panel shading, which also acts as a weathering measure. Esp. the Pucarás’ grey appears very bleached on many photos.
Roundels, fin flash and FAU taglines came from the aforementioned Airfix Pucará sheet, even though they turned out to be rather thick and not printed sharply. Most stencils were taken from an Airfix A-4Q Skyhawk, one of the new mold kits, which also came with Argentinian markings and stencils in Spanish. The respective sheet also provided a decal for the black anti-glare panel, even though it had to be cut in two halves to fit in front of the wider A-4E windshield, and the resulting gap was painted out with black. The tactical codes once belonged to a Kawasaki T-4 (Hasegawa). The soot-hiding squares above the gun muzzles are generic black decals. The only decal that was taken over from the Skyhawk’s OOB decal sheet were the rings around the arrester hook.
Overall, the FAU Skyhawk still looked rather dry. To add some excitement, I gave the aircraft a wild boar “face”, similar to the FAU Pucarás. The decoration originally belongs to an USAF A-10 and came from a HiDecal sheet. Unfortunately, this boar face was carried by a rather special A-10 with an experimental desert paint scheme consisting of Brown (FS 20140), Tan Special (FS 20400) and Sand (FS 20266) that was applied before deployment to Saudi Arabia in November 1990. This scheme did not catch on, though, and most A-10s retained their murky Europe One/Lizard scheme. Therefore, the artwork consists primarily of black and sand – white would have been better, stylistically. But I took what I could get and, as a kind of compensation, the sand color does not make the boar snout stand out too much. To my surprise, the four decals that create the wraparound hog face fitted quite well in size and around the Skyhawk’s rather pointed nose. I just left the nostrils away because they’d look odd together with the small black radome and a small ventral gap between the mouth halves had to be bridged with black paint and another piece of decal sheet that simulates a di-electric cover.
Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish and ordnance as well as landing gear were mounted.
The third and for now the last build in my recent ‘Uruguayan whif’ model series. I like the grey-green Skyhawk a lot – it’s not spectacular and looks very down-to-earth (except for the nose art, maybe), but it’s very believable. The NATO style livery is rather unusual for the A-4, it was AFAIK not carried by any real in-service Skyhawk, but it suits the aircraft well.
The Willys MB and the Ford GPW, both formally called the U.S. Army Truck, 1⁄4-ton, 4×4, Command Reconnaissance, commonly known as Jeep or jeep, and sometimes referred to as G503, were highly successful off-road capable, light, military utility vehicles, built in large numbers to a standardized design, from 1941 to 1945, for the Allied forces in World War II.
Dragon fly on a grass blade. So small and fragile but still capable of some amazing flying maneuvers - Truly amazing !!
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some Background:
During the 1950s, Hindustan Aircraft Limited (HAL) had developed and produced several types of trainer aircraft, such as the HAL HT-2. However, elements within the firm were eager to expand into the then-new realm of supersonic fighter aircraft. Around the same time, the Indian government was in the process of formulating a new Air Staff Requirement for a Mach 2-capable combat aircraft to equip the Indian Air Force (IAF). However, as HAL lacked the necessary experience in both developing and manufacturing frontline combat fighters, it was clear that external guidance would be invaluable; this assistance was embodied by Kurt Tank.
In 1956, HAL formally began design work on the supersonic fighter project. The Indian government, led by Jawaharlal Nehru, authorized the development of the aircraft, stating that it would aid in the development of a modern aircraft industry in India. The first phase of the project sought to develop an airframe suitable for travelling at supersonic speeds, and able to effectively perform combat missions as a fighter aircraft, while the second phase sought to domestically design and produce an engine capable of propelling the aircraft. Early on, there was an explicit adherence to satisfying the IAF's requirements for a capable fighter bomber; attributes such as a twin-engine configuration and a speed of Mach 1.4 to 1.5 were quickly emphasized, and this led to the HF-24 Marut.
On 24 June 1961, the first prototype Marut conducted its maiden flight. It was powered by the same Bristol Siddeley Orpheus 703 turbojets that had powered the Folland Gnat, also being manufactured by HAL at that time. On 1 April 1967, the first production Marut was delivered to the IAF. While originally intended only as an interim measure during testing, HAL decided to power production Maruts with a pair of unreheated Orpheus 703s, meaning the aircraft could not attain supersonic speed. Although originally conceived to operate around Mach 2 the Marut in fact was barely capable of reaching Mach 1 due to the lack of suitably powerful engines.
The IAF were reluctant to procure a fighter aircraft only marginally superior to its existing fleet of British-built Hawker Hunters. However, in 1961, the Indian Government decided to procure the Marut, nevertheless, but only 147 aircraft, including 18 two-seat trainers, were completed out of a planned 214. Just after the decision to build the lukewarm Marut, the development of a more advanced aircraft with the desired supersonic performance was initiated.
This enterprise started star-crossed, though: after the Indian Government conducted its first nuclear tests at Pokhran, international pressure prevented the import of better engines of Western origin, or at times, even spares for the Orpheus engines, so that the Marut never realized its full potential due to insufficient power, and it was relatively obsolescent by the time it reached production.
Due to these restrictions India looked for other sources for supersonic aircraft and eventually settled upon the MiG-21 F-13 from the Soviet Union, which entered service in 1964. While fast and agile, the Fishbed was only a short-range daylight interceptor. It lacked proper range for escort missions and air space patrols, and it had no radar that enabled it to conduct all-weather interceptions. To fill this operational gap, the new indigenous HF-26 project was launched around the same time.
For the nascent Indian aircraft industry, HF-26 had a demanding requirements specification: the aircraft was to achieve Mach 2 top speed at high altitude and carry a radar with a guided missile armament that allowed interceptions in any weather, day and night. The powerplant question was left open, but it was clear from the start that a Soviet engine would be needed, since an indigenous development of a suitable powerplant would take much too long and block vital resources, and western alternatives were out of reach. The mission profile and the performance requirements quickly defined the planned aircraft’s layout: To fit a radar, the air intakes with movable ramps to feed the engines were placed on the fuselage flanks. To make sure the aircraft would fulfill its high-performance demands, it was right from the outset powered by two engines, and it was decided to give it delta wings, a popular design among high-speed aircraft of the time – exemplified by the highly successful Dassault Mirage III (which was to be delivered to Pakistan in 1967). With two engines, the HF-26 would be a heavier aircraft than the Mirage III, though, and it was planned to operate the aircraft from semi-prepared airfields, so that it would receive a robust landing gear with low-pressure tires and a brake parachute.
In 1962 India was able to negotiate the delivery of Tumansky RD-9 turbojet engines from the Soviet Union, even though no afterburner was part of the deal – this had to be indigenously developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). However, this meant that the afterburner could be tailored to the HF-26, and this task would provide HAL with valuable engineering experience, too.
Now knowing the powerplant, HAL created a single-seater airframe around it, a rather robust design that superficially reminded of the French Mirage III, but there were fundamental differences. The HF-26 had boxy air intakes with movable ramps to control the airflow to the two engines and a relatively wide fuselage to hold them and most of the fuel in tanks between the air ducts behind the cockpit. The aircraft had a single swept fin and a rather small mid-positioned delta-wing with a 60° sweep. The pilot sat under a tight canopy that offered - similar to the Mirage III - only limited all-round vision.
The HF-26's conical nose radome covered an antenna for a ‘Garud’ interception radar – which was in fact a downgraded Soviet ‘Oryol' (Eagle; NATO reporting name 'Skip Spin') system that guided the HF-26’s main armament, a pair of semi-active radar homing (SARH) ‚Saanp’ missiles.
The Saanp missile was developed specifically for the HF-26 in India but used many components of Soviet origin, too, so that they were compatible with the radar. In performance, the Saanp was comparable with the French Matra R.530 air-to-air missile, even though the aerodynamic layout was reversed, with steering fins at the front end, right behind the SARH seaker head - overall the missile reminded of an enlarged AIM-4 Falcon. The missile weighed 180 kg and had a length of 3.5 m. Power came from a two-stage solid rocket that offered a maximum thrust of 80 kN for 2.7 s during the launch phase plus 6.5 s cruise. Maximum speed was Mach 2.7 and operational range was 1.5 to 20 km (0.9 to 12.5 miles). Two of these missiles could be carried on the main wing hardpoints in front of the landing gear wells. Alternatively, infrared-guided R-3 (AA-2 ‘Atoll’) short-range AAMs could be carried by the HF-26, too, and typically two of these were carried on the outer underwing hardpoints, which were plumbed to accept drop tanks (typically supersonic PTB-490s that were carried by the IAF's MiG-21s, too) . Initially, no internal gun was envisioned, as the HF-26 was supposed to be a pure high-speed/high-altitude interceptor that would not engage in dogfights. Two more hardpoints under the fuselage were plumbed, too, for a total of six external stations.
Due to its wing planform, the HF-26 was soon aptly called “Teer” (= Arrow), and with Soviet help the first prototype was rolled out in early 1964 and presented to the public. The first flight, however, would take place almost a year later in January 1965, due to many technical problems, and these were soon complemented by aerodynamic problems. The original delta-winged HF-26 had poor take-off and landing characteristics, and directional stability was weak, too. While a second prototype was under construction in April 1965 the first aircraft was lost after it had entered a spin from which the pilot could not escape – the aircraft crashed and its pilot was killed during the attempt to eject.
After this loss HAL investigated an enlarged fin and a modified wing design with deeper wingtips with lower sweep, which increased wing area and improved low speed handling, too. Furthermore, the fuselage shape had to be modified, too, to reduce supersonic drag, and a more pronounced area ruling was introduced. The indigenous afterburner for the RD-9 engines was unstable and troublesome, too.
It took until 1968 and three more flying prototypes (plus two static airframes) to refine the Teer for serial production service introduction. In this highly modified form, the aircraft was re-designated HF-26M and the first machines were delivered to IAF No. 3 Squadron in late 1969. However, it would take several months until a fully operational status could be achieved. By that time, it was already clear that the Teer, much like the HF-24 Marut before, could not live up to its expectations and was at the brink of becoming obsolete as it entered service. The RD-9 was not a modern engine anymore, and despite its indigenous afterburner – which turned out not only to be chronically unreliable but also to be very thirsty when engaged – the Teer had a disappointing performance: The fighter only achieved a top speed of Mach 1.6 at full power, and with full external load it hardly broke the wall of sound in level flight. Its main armament, the Saanp AAM, also turned out to be unreliable even under ideal conditions.
However, the HF-26M came just in time to take part in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and was, despite its weaknesses, extensively used – even though not necessarily in its intended role. High-flying slow bombers were not fielded during the conflict, and the Teer remained, despite its on-board radar, heavily dependent on ground control interception (GCI) to vector its pilot onto targets coming in at medium and even low altitude. The HF-26M had no capability against low-flying aircraft either, so that pilots had to engage incoming, low-flying enemy aircraft after visual identification – a task the IAF’s nimble MiG-21s were much better suited for. Escorts and air cover missions for fighter-bombers were flown, too, but the HF-26M’s limited range only made it a suitable companion for the equally short-legged Su-7s. The IAF Canberras were frequently deployed on longer range missions, but the HF-26Ms simply could not follow them all the time; for a sufficient range the Teer had to carry four drop tanks, what increased drag and only left the outer pair of underwing hardpoints (which were not plumbed) free for a pair of AA-2 missiles. With the imminent danger of aerial close range combat, though, During the conflict with Pakistan, most HF-26M's were retrofitted with rear-view mirrors in their canopies to improve the pilot's field of view, and a passive IR sensor was added in a small fairing under the nose to improve the aircraft's all-weather capabilities and avoid active radar emissions that would warn potential prey too early.
The lack of an internal gun turned out to be another great weakness of the Teer, and this was only lightly mended through the use of external gun pods. Two of these cigar-shaped pods that resembled the Soviet UPK-23 pod could be carried on the two ventral pylons, and each contained a 23 mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23L autocannon of Soviet origin with 200 rounds. Technically these pods were very similar to the conformal GP-9 pods carried by the IAF MiG-21FLs. While the gun pods considerably improved the HF-26M’s firepower and versatility, the pods were draggy, blocked valuable hardpoints (from extra fuel) and their recoil tended to damage the pylons as well as the underlying aircraft structure, so that they were only commissioned to be used in an emergency.
However, beyond air-to-air weapons, the HF-26M could also carry ordnance of up to 1.000 kg (2.207 lb) on the ventral and inner wing hardpoints and up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) on the other pair of wing hardpoints, including iron bombs and/or unguided missile pods. However, the limited field of view from the cockpit over the radome as well as the relatively high wing loading did not recommend the aircraft for ground attack missions – even though these frequently happened during the conflict with Pakistan. For these tactical missions, many HF-26Ms lost their original overall natural metal finish and instead received camouflage paint schemes on squadron level, resulting in individual and sometimes even spectacular liveries. Most notable examples were the Teer fighters of No. 1 Squadron (The Tigers), which sported various camouflage adaptations of the unit’s eponym.
Despite its many deficiencies, the HF-26M became heavily involved in the Indo-Pakistan conflict. As the Indian Army tightened its grip in East Pakistan, the Indian Air Force continued with its attacks against Pakistan as the campaign developed into a series of daylight anti-airfield, anti-radar, and close-support attacks by fighter jets, with night attacks against airfields and strategic targets by Canberras and An-12s, while Pakistan responded with similar night attacks with its B-57s and C-130s.
The PAF deployed its F-6s mainly on defensive combat air patrol missions over their own bases, leaving the PAF unable to conduct effective offensive operations. Sporadic raids by the IAF continued against PAF forward air bases in Pakistan until the end of the war, and interdiction and close-support operations were maintained. One of the most successful air raids by India into West Pakistan happened on 8 December 1971, when Indian Hunter aircraft from the Pathankot-based 20 Squadron, attacked the Pakistani base in Murid and destroyed 5 F-86 aircraft on the ground.
The PAF played a more limited role in the operations, even though they were reinforced by Mirages from an unidentified Middle Eastern ally (whose identity remains unknown). The IAF was able to conduct a wide range of missions – troop support; air combat; deep penetration strikes; para-dropping behind enemy lines; feints to draw enemy fighters away from the actual target; bombing and reconnaissance. India flew 1,978 sorties in the East and about 4,000 in Pakistan, while the PAF flew about 30 and 2,840 at the respective fronts. More than 80 percent of IAF sorties were close-support and interdiction and about 45 IAF aircraft were lost, including three HF-26Ms. Pakistan lost 60 to 75 aircraft, not including any F-86s, Mirage IIIs, or the six Jordanian F-104s which failed to return to their donors. The imbalance in air losses was explained by the IAF's considerably higher sortie rate and its emphasis on ground-attack missions. The PAF, which was solely focused on air combat, was reluctant to oppose these massive attacks and rather took refuge at Iranian air bases or in concrete bunkers, refusing to offer fights and respective losses.
After the war, the HF-26M was officially regarded as outdated, and as license production of the improved MiG-21FL (designated HAL Type 77 and nicknamed “Trishul” = Trident) and later of the MiG-21M (HAL Type 88) was organized in India, the aircraft were quickly retired from frontline units. They kept on serving into the Eighties, though, but now restricted to their original interceptor role. Beyond the upgrades from the Indo-Pakistani War, only a few upgrades were made. For instance, the new R-60 AAM was introduced to the HF-26M and around 1978 small (but fixed) canards were retrofitted to the air intakes behind the cockpit that improved the Teer’s poor slow speed control and high landing speed as well as the aircraft’s overall maneuverability.
A radar upgrade, together with the introduction of better air-to-ai missiles with a higher range and look down/shoot down capability was considered but never carried out. Furthermore, the idea of a true HF-26 2nd generation variant, powered by a pair of Tumansky R-11F-300 afterburner jet engines (from the license-built MiG-21FLs), was dropped, too – even though this powerplant eventually promised to fulfill the Teer’s design promise of Mach 2 top speed. A total of only 82 HF-26s (including thirteen two-seat trainers with a lengthened fuselage and reduced fuel capacity, plus eight prototypes) were built. The last aircraft were retired from IAF service in 1988 and replaced with Mirage 2000 fighters procured from France that were armed with the Matra Super 530 AAM.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 14.97 m (49 ft ½ in)
Wingspan: 9.43 m (30 ft 11 in)
Height: 4.03 m (13 ft 2½ in)
Wing area: 30.6 m² (285 sq ft)
Empty weight: 7,000 kg (15,432 lb)
Gross weight: 10,954 kg (24,149 lb) with full internal fuel
Max takeoff weight: 15,700 kg (34,613 lb) with external stores
Powerplant:
2× Tumansky RD-9 afterburning turbojet engines; 29 kN (6,600 lbf) dry thrust each
and 36.78 kN (8,270 lbf) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,700 km/h (1,056 mph; 917 kn; Mach 1.6) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft)
1,350 km/h (840 mph, 730 kn; Mach 1.1) at sea level
Combat range: 725 km (450 mi, 391 nmi) with internal fuel only
Ferry range: 1,700 km (1,100 mi, 920 nmi) with four drop tanks
Service ceiling: 18,100 m (59,400 ft)
g limits: +6.5
Time to altitude: 9,145 m (30,003 ft) in 1 minute 30 seconds
Wing loading: 555 kg/m² (114 lb/sq ft)
Armament
6× hardpoints (four underwing and two under the fuselage) for a total of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb);
Typical interceptor payload:
- two IR-guided R-3 or R-60 air-to-air-missiles or
two PTB-490 drop tanks on the outer underwing stations
- two semi-active radar-guided ‚Saanp’ air-to-air missiles or two more R-3 or R-60 AAMs
on inner underwing stations
- two 500 l drop tanks or two gun pods with a 23 mm GSh-23L autocannon and 200 RPG
each under the fuselage
The kit and its assembly:
This whiffy delta-wing fighter was inspired when I recently sliced up a PM Model Su-15 kit for my side-by-side-engine BAC Lightning build. At an early stage of the conversion, I held the Su-15 fuselage with its molded delta wings in my hand and wondered if a shortened tail section (as well as a shorter overall fuselage to keep proportions balanced) could make a delta-wing jet fighter from the Flagon base? Only a hardware experiment could yield an answer, and since the Su-15’s overall outlines look a bit retro I settled at an early stage on India as potential designer and operator, as “the thing the HF-24 Marut never was”.
True to the initial idea, work started on the tail, and I chopped off the fuselage behind the wings’ trailing edge. Some PSR was necessary to blend the separate exhaust section into the fuselage, which had to be reduced in depth through wedges that I cut out under the wings trailing edge, plus some good amount of glue and sheer force the bend the section a bit upwards. The PM Model's jet exhausts were drilled open, and I added afterburner dummies inside - anything would look better than the bleak vertical walls inside after only 2-3 mm! The original fin was omitted, because it was a bit too large for the new, smaller aircraft and its shape reminded a lot of the Suchoj heavy fighter family. It was replaced with a Mirage III/V fin, left over from a (crappy!) Pioneer 2 IAI Nesher kit.
Once the rear section was complete, I had to adjust the front end - and here the kitbashing started. First, I chopped off the cockpit section in front of the molded air intake - the Su-15’s long radome and the cockpit on top of the fuselage did not work anymore. As a remedy I remembered another Su-15 conversion I did a (long) while ago: I created a model of a planned ground attack derivative, the T-58Sh, and, as a part of the extensive body work, I transplanted the slanted nose from an academy MiG-27 between the air intakes – a stunt that was relatively easy and which appreciably lowered the cockpit position. For the HF-26M I did something similar, I just transplanted a cockpit from a Hasegawa/Academy MiG-23 with its ogival radome that size-wise better matched with the rest of the leftover Su-15 airframe.
The MiG-23 cockpit matched perfectly with the Su-15's front end, just the spinal area behind the cockpit had to be raised/re-sculpted to blend the parts smoothly together. For a different look from the Su-15 ancestry I also transplanted the front sections of the MiG-23 air intakes with their shorter ramps. Some mods had to be made to the Su-15 intake stubs, but the MiG-23 intakes were an almost perfect fit in size and shape and easy to integrate into the modified front hill. The result looks very natural!
However, when the fuselage was complete, I found that the nose appeared to be a bit too long, leaving the whole new hull with the wings somewhat off balance. As a remedy I decided at a rather late stage to shorten the nose and took out a 6 mm section in front of the cockpit - a stunt I had not planned, but sometimes you can judge things only after certain work stages. Some serious PSR was necessary to re-adjust the conical nose shape, which now looked more Mirage III-ish than planned!
The cockpit was taken mostly OOB, I just replaced the ejection seat and gave it a trigger handle made from thin wire. With the basic airframe complete it was time for details. The PM Model Su-15s massive and rather crude main landing gear was replaced with something more delicate from the scrap box, even though I retained the main wheels. The front landing gear was taken wholesale from the MiG-23, but had to be shortened for a proper stance.
A display holder adapter was integrated into the belly for the flight scenes, hidden well between the ventral ordnance.
The hardpoints, including missile launch rails, came from the MiG-23; the pylons had to be adjusted to match the Su-15's wing profile shape, the Anab missiles lost their tail sections to create the fictional Indian 'Saanp' AAMs. The R-3s on the outer stations were left over from a MP MiG-21. The ventral pylons belong to Academy MiG-23/27s, one came from the donor kit, the other was found in the spares box. The PTB-490 drop tanks also came from a KP MiG-21 (or one of its many reincarnations, not certain).
Painting and markings:
The paint scheme for this fictional aircraft was largely inspired by a picture of a whiffy and very attractive Saab 37 Viggen (an 1:72 Airfix kit) in IAF colors, apparently a model from a contest. BTW, India actually considered buying the Viggen for its Air Force!
IAF aircraft were and are known for their exotic and sometimes gawdy paint schemes, and with IAF MiG-21 “C 992” there’s even a very popular (yet obscure) aircraft that sported literal tiger stripes. The IAF Viggen model was surely inspired by this real aircraft, and I adopted something similar for my HF-26M.
IAF 1 Squadron was therefore settled, and for the paint scheme I opted for a "stripish" scheme, but not as "tigeresque" as "C 992". I found a suitable benchmark in a recent Libyian MiG-21, which carried a very disruptive two-tone grey scheme. I adapted this pattern to the HA-26M airframe and replaced its colors, similar to the IAF Viggen model, which became a greenish sand tone (a mix of Humbrol 121 with some 159; I later found out that I could have used Humbrol 83 from the beginning, though...) and a very dark olive drab (Humbrol 66, which looks like a dull dark brown in contrast with the sand tone), with bluish grey (Humbrol 247) undersides. With the large delta wings, this turned out to look very good and even effective!
For that special "Indian touch" I gave the aircraft a high-contrast fin in a design that I had seen on a real camouflaged IAF MiG-21bis: an overall dark green base with a broad, red vertical stripe which was also the shield for the fin flash and the aircraft's tactical code (on the original bare metal). The fin was first painted in green (Humbrol 2), the red stripe was created with orange-red decal sheet material. Similar material was also used to create the bare metal field for the tactical code, the yellow bars on the splitter plates and for the thin white canopy sealing.
After basic painting was done the model received an overall black ink washing, post-panel shading and extensive dry-brushing with aluminum and iron for a rather worn look.
The missiles became classic white, while the drop tanks, as a contrast to the camouflaged belly, were left in bare metal.
Decals/markings came primarily from a Begemot MiG-25 kit, the tactical codes on the fin and under the wings originally belong to an RAF post-WWII Spitfire, just the first serial letter was omitted. Stencils are few and they came from various sources. A compromise is the unit badge on the fin: I needed a tiger motif, and the only suitable option I found was the tiger head emblem on a white disc from RAF No. 74 Squadron, from the Matchbox BAC Lightning F.6&F.2A kit. It fits stylistically well, though. ;-)
Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (except for the black radome, which became a bit glossy) and finally assembled.
A spontaneous build, and the last one that I completed in 2022. However, despite a vague design plan the model evolved as it grew. Bashing the primitive PM Model Su-15 with the Academy MiG-23 parts was easier than expected, though, and the resulting fictional aircraft looks sturdy but quite believable - even though it appears to me like the unexpected child of a Mirage III/F-4 Phantom II intercourse, or like a juvenile CF-105 Arrow, just with mid-wings? Nevertheless, the disruptive paint scheme suits the delta wing fighter well, and the green/red fin is a striking contrast - it's a colorful model, but not garish.
SAN DIEGO, Calif. (July 7, 2022) - A Royal Australian Navy diver jumps out of an MH-60S Sea Hawk helicopter assigned to Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC-21) at a helicopter rope suspension technique (HRST)/cast training event during Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2022 in Southern California. Twenty-six nations, 38 ships, four submarines, more than 170 aircraft and 25,000 personnel are participating in RIMPAC from June 29 to Aug. 4 in and around the Hawaiian Islands and Southern California. The world’s largest international maritime exercise, RIMPAC provides a unique training opportunity while fostering and sustaining cooperative relationships among participants critical to ensuring the safety of sea lanes and security on the world’s oceans. RIMPAC 2022 is the 28th exercise in the series that began in 1971. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Benjamin Lewis) 220707-N-TR141-1104
** Interested in following U.S. Indo-Pacific Command? Engage and connect with us at www.facebook.com/indopacom | twitter.com/INDOPACOM | www.instagram.com/indopacom | www.flickr.com/photos/us-pacific-command; | www.youtube.com/user/USPacificCommand | www.pacom.mil/ **