Some background:

The need for a specialized self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, capable of keeping up with the armored divisions, had become increasingly urgent for the German Armed Forces, as from 1943 on the German Air Force was less and less able to protect itself against enemy fighter bombers.

 

Therefore, a multitude of improvised and specially designed self-propelled anti-aircraft guns were built, many based on the Panzer IV chassis. This development started with the Flakpanzer IV “Möbelwagen”, which was only a turretless Kampfpanzer IV with the turret removed and a 20mm Flakvierling installed instead, together with foldable side walls that offered only poor protection for the gun crew. The lineage then progressed through the Wirbelwind and Ostwind models, which had their weapons and the crew protected in fully rotating turrets, but these were still open at the top. This flaw was to be eliminated in the Kugelblitz, the final development of the Flakpanzer IV.

 

The first proposal for the Kugelblitz envisioned mounting a modified anti-aircraft turret, which had originally been developed for U-boats, on the Panzer IV chassis. It was armed with dual 30 mm MK 303 Brunn guns. However, this was eventually abandoned, since development of this gun had not yet been completed, and, in any case, the entire production run of this weapon turret would have been reserved for Germany's Kriegsmarine. However, enough firepower that enabled the Flakpanzer to cope with armoured attack aircraft, namely the Soviet Ilyushin Il-2, which was a major threat to German tanks, was direly needed.

 

As the best readily available alternative, the Kugelblitz eventually used the 30 mm MK 103 cannon in a Zwillingsflak ("twin flak") 103/38 arrangement, and it combined the chassis and basic superstructure of the existing Panzer IV medium battle tank with a newly designed turret. This vehicle received the official designation SdKfz. 161/7 Leichter Flakpanzer IV 3 cm „Kugelblitz”.

 

The turret’s construction was unique, because its spherical body, which was protected with 20 mm steel shells in front and back, was hanging in a ring mount from the Tiger I, suspended by two spigots – it was effectively an independent capsule that only slightly protruded from the tank’s upper side and kept the vehicle’s profile very low, unlike its predecessors. Elevation of the weapons (as well as of the crew sitting inside of the turret!) was from -5° to +80°, turning speed was 60°/sec. The turret was fully enclosed, with full overhead protection, 360° traverse and (rather limited) space for the crew of three plus weapons and ammunition. Driver and radio operator were located in the front of the hull, as with all German tanks. The commander/gunner, who had a small observation cupola on top of the turret, was positioned in the middle, behind the main guns. The two gunner assistants were placed on the left and right side in front of him, in a slightly lower position. The assistant situated left of the guns was responsible for the turret’s movements, the one on the right side was responsible for loading the guns. The spare ammunition was located on the right side. Each of these three crew members had separate hatch doors, which they could use to enter or exit the vehicle. The gunner assistants’ hatch doors each had a small round shaped extra hatch, which were used for mounting sighting devices, and there were plans to outfit the turret with a stereoscopic range finder for the commander.

 

The tank’s MK 103 was a powerful weapon that had formerly been fitted in single mounts to such planes as the Henschel Hs 129 or Bf 1110 in a ventral gun pod against tanks, and it was also fitted to the twin-engine Dornier Do 335 heavy fighter and other interceptors against Allied bombers. When used by the army, it received the designation “3 cm Flak 38”. It had a weight of only 141 kg (311 lb) and a length of 235 cm (93 in) with muzzle brake. Barrel length was 134 cm (53 in), resulting in Kaliber L/44.7 (44.7 caliber). The weapon’s muzzle velocity was around 900 m/s (3,000 ft/s), allowing an armour penetration for APCR 42–52 mm (1.7–2.0 in)/60°/300 m (980 ft) or 75–95 mm (3.0–3.7 in)/ 90°/ 300 m (980 ft), with an effective maximum firing range of around 5.700 m (18.670 ft).

 

The MK 103 was gas-operated, fully automatic and belt-fed (an innovative feature at that time for AA guns). In the Kugelblitz turret the weapons could be fired singly or simultaneously and their theoretical rate of fire was 450 rounds a minute, even though 250 rpm in short bursts was more practical. The total ammunition load for both weapons was 1,200 rounds and the discharged cases fell into canvas bags placed under the guns. Due to the fact that the MK 103 cannons produced a lot of powder smoke when operated, fume extractors were added, which was another novelty.

 

A production rate of 30 per month by December 1944 was planned, but never achieved, because tank production had become seriously hampered and production of the Panzer IV was about to be terminated in favor of the new E-series tank family, anyway. Therefore, almost all Flakpanzer IV with the Kugelblitz turret were conversions of existing hulls, mostly coming from repair shops. In parallel, work was under way to adapt the Kugelblitz turret to the Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer hull, which was still in production in the former Czechoslovakian Skoda works, and to the new, light E-10 and E-25 tank chassis. Due to this transitional and slightly chaotic situation, production numbers of the Panzer IV-based Kugelblitz remained limited.

 

By early 1945, only around 50 operational vehicles had been built and production of the SdKfz. 161/7 already ceased in May. The first five produced vehicles were given to the newly formed “Panzerflak Ersatz- und Ausbildungsabteilung” (armored Flak training and replacement battalion) located near the city of Ohrdruf (Freistaat Thüringen region in central Germany). One company was divided into three platoons equipped with a mix of different Flakpanzers vehicles. The first platoon was equipped with the Wirbelwind, the second with Ostwind, and the third platoon was equipped with experimental vehicles, such as the Kugelblitz or the “Zerstörer 45”, which was basically a Wirbelwind with a 3-cm-Flak-Vierling 103/38 (armed with four MK 103s).

 

During the unit’s initial trials and deployments, the 3 cm Flak 38 turned out to be a troublesome design, largely because of the strong vibration when firing, and gun smoke frequently filled the turret with hazardous effects on the crews. The vibrations made the target aiming difficult and could even cause damage on the mounting itself – but due to the dire war situation, production was kept up. However, during the running production of the Kugelblitz turret, reinforcements to the mount structure were gradually added, as well as improved sighting systems. None of the operational SdKfz. 161/7s received these upgrades, though, since it was only regarded as a transitional model that filled the most urgent defense gaps. Later production Panzer IV Kugelblitz vehicles were almost exclusively sent to units that defended Berlin, where they fought against the Soviet assault on the German capital.

  

Specifications:

Crew: Five (commander/gunner, 2 assistants, driver, radio operator)

Weight: 23 tons

Length: 5.92 m (19 ft 5 in)

Width: 2.88 m (9 ft 5 ¼ in)

Height: 2.3 m (7 ft 6 ½ in)

Suspension: Leaf spring

Fuel capacity: 470 l (120 US gal)

 

Armour:

10 – 50 mm (0.39 – 1.96 in)

 

Performance:

Maximum road speed: 40 km/h (25 mph)

Sustained road speed: 34 km/h (21.1 mph)

Off-road speed: 24 km/h (15 mph)

Operational range: 210 km (125 mi); 130 km (80 mi) off-road

Power/weight: 13 PS/t

 

Engine:

Maybach HL 120 TRM V12 petrol engine with 300 PS (296 hp, 221 kW)

 

Transmission:

ZF Synchromesh SSG 77 gear with 6 forward and 1 reverse ratios

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm 3 cm Flak 38 (MK 103/3) with a total of 1.200 rounds

1× 7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 34 with 1,250 rounds in bow mount

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is a model of a tank that actually existed, but only in marginal numbers – not more than five Panzer IV with the revolutionary Kugelblitz turret are known to have existed or even seen service. However, it fits well into the ranks of fictional/projected Heer ’46 tanks, and I have been wanting to build or create one for along time.

 

There are some 1:72 kits available, e. g. from Mako, but they are rare and/or expensive. So I rather went for an improvisation approach, and it turned out to be very successful. The complete turret comes from one of the Modelcollect “Vierfüssler” mecha kits – these carry such an installation under the belly(!), what makes absolutely NO sense to me. I especially wonder how the crew is supposed to enter and operate the turret in its upside down position? Not to mention a totally confined field of fire…

 

However, the Modelcollect Kugelblitz tower comes complete with its bearing and the armored collar. It was simply mated with the hull from a late Hasegawa Panzer IV – in my case even a Wirbelwind, which also came with some suitable additional details like stowing boxes for gun barrels. The attachment ring for the turret had just to be widened far enough to accept the Kugelblitz installation – and it worked well! Very simple, but highly effective.

  

Painting and markings:

Well, this did not work 100% as intended. I wanted to emphasize the fact that the tanks would have been built from revamped hulls, so I gave all parts an initial overall coat with RAL 3009, Oxydrot. These were then overpainted with a three-tone Hinterhalt scheme in Dunkelgelb (RAL 7028), Olivgrün (RAL 6003) and Rotbraun (RAL 8012). The pattern was adapted from a Wirbelwind, which I had found in literature, consisting of narrow stripes across the hull with additional spots of Dunkelgelb on top of the darker tones. In order to emphasize the idea of a converted tank with the turret coming from another source, I gave the latter a uniform Dunkelgelb livery.

 

The colors used were Humbrol enamels, this time a different selection of tones, namely 167 (RAF Hemp), 159 (Khaki Drab) and a mix of 160 and 10 (German Rotbraun and Chocolate Brown, for a darker hue). However, I wanted the Oxydrot to shine through the camouflage, but despite efforts with thinned paint and sparse use of the enamels the effect is not as visible as expected. I left it that way, though, here and there the red primer is visible, but a lot of the livery became obscured through the following wash with dark red brown, highly thinned acrylic paint and a final coat of pigment dust on the model’s lower areas.

 

The original black vinyl track was treated with a cloudy mix of grey, red brown and iron acrylic paint, and finally dusted with pigments, too.

 

The decals were gathered from several sources – the tactical code was puzzled together with Roman and Arabic numbers in red (seen on some vehicles from assault gun units), the emblem on the turret shows Berlin’s mascot, the bear, taken from a Modelcollect Heer ’46 kit’s sheet.

 

Some dry-brushing with light grey was done to simulate dust and worn edges, but not too much since the vehicle was to be presented in a more or less new state. And then the model was sealed with acrylic matt varnish.

  

A relatively simple build, since only the turret was exchanged/transplanted. The result looks better than expected, though, and the Kugelblitz turret fit into the Panzer IV hull like the hand into a tight glove. Very convincing. And I might add another Kugelblitz variant, this time either on a Hetzer hull (which was a real alternative to the Panzer IV) or on an E-25, it seems as if an 1:72 kit becomes soon available from Modelcollect.

 

+++ 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.

2010 Election is just 105 days to go and everybody was already excited to vote for their bet for the next leaders of our beloved country.

 

These are some of the comments of the people who thinks and will vote for Bro.Eddie:

 

SERIOUS SAM - Bro. Eddie Villanueva para sa tunay na pagbabago!

 

ARTHUR - After watching the presidential forum @ GMA i’ll go for BRO. EDDIE VILLANUEVA…sincere, serious, he has no bad record, with a good academic background capable of leading this country and most of all God fearing person…para mawala mga kurakot diyan sa gobyerno natin!

 

ALEX - After watching the two Presidential forums on ABS-CBN and GMA, my vote goes to Bro. Eddie Villanueva. He is a God-fearing man who desires change in the country and who has the capability of change in the country without a doubt. He has a good educational background and he knows the constitution and the economy….what more can I ask for a Leader. I believe he is more than capable of lifting this nation up from the immeasurable economic, political, and moral depths of where it is right now.

 

ANGEL FROM PAMPANGA - Bro Eddie Villanueva for change in our government. For God and Country, he has my vote.

 

TESS OF NEW ZEALAND - ’salamat sa mga channels na gumagawa ng programs that let the filipino’s know who these presidentiables are.. for those who watched the forum, i sincerely believe only one man stood out. He answered with the kind of patriotic passion that transcends every barrier in the society.. Eddie C. Villanueva, finally a ray of hope for the Philippines!

 

MARLON RAQUEL - Bro. Eddie Villanueva for President!

My fellow Filipinos, if you really want a genuine change for our nation, please pray for God’s intervention this coming 2010 elections. Vote for leaders who have exemplary characters and men and women of God - respectable, self-controlled, have proven track of service record, and nationalistic.

 

DENIEL-OF-LAGUNA -

 

Bro. Eddie para sa TUNAY na pagbabago!!!

 

“What is necessary for EVIL to TRIUMPH is for GOOD MEN to do NOTHING”

 

Ikaw, papayag ka ba na magtagumpay ang buktot na pamamahala sa 2010??

 

We need a RIGHTEOUS leader..

 

See the presidentiables track record..karamihan sa kanila may issue..may batikos..may anumalya..

 

Papayag ka ba na ang mamumuno ng bansa ay isang taong gumawa ng kalokohan?

 

Others would say, sa simbahan na lang yang si Bro. Eddie..

 

But think of this my friend,

 

He is a Pastor..he fears the Lord..he knows God’s commandments..

 

As a Pastor (or a church leader), gagawa ka ba ng mga bagay na hindi kalooban ng Diyos?

 

Bro. Eddie has the clearest vision for OUR country..ung iba self-centered..

 

PITSOP - if you want a peace in your country and trusted government official i rather vote for BRO. EDDIE for President!!!

 

RACHEL - What you eat is what you are. if you will vote for erap.. you are like him. Be WISE AND SMART. Hindi ka naman BOBO ah. Bakit BOBO ka ba? BE WISE..BE WISE..BE WISE. BE SMART!!!!!!I am sure of Bro Eddie Villanueva…He could lead thousands of workers of God’s ministry,how much more for only hundreds members of M_PALACE.

GREATER IS HE THAT WHO IS IN YOU BRO EDDIE THAN WHO IS IN THE WORLD. GOD HAVE MERCY TO OUR COUNTRY PHILIPPINES.

 

EAUIE - I think Bro. Eddie Villanueva is still the best man to be the president. If President Cory is still alive and at the best of her health, would you think Noynoy would run as president? Of course not! He wouldn’t even think to run for the position neither the opposition would ask him to run. Ginagamit lang ng opposition si Noynoy kasi mainit pa ang pagkamatay ng kanyang ina. They are thinking because of the number of people who sympathized on President Cory’s death, would still be the same if Noynoy would run as president. In other words Noynoy will run because he thinks people will support him the way they supported his mother and not because he is the right person for the job! Sabi nga ni Ben Tulfo “according to the experts, hindi buo ang loob ni Noynoy para maging presidente.” Sana naman huwag gamitin ang popularidad para sa pagiging pangulo. Kung tatakbo naman siya para maging vice president, that will only serve as a purpose para manalo ang ka partido nya para maging pangulo kasi siguraong malakas si Noynoy sa tao gawa ng kanyang mga magulang. Sana ang mga Filipino ay maging matalino sa pagpili ng ating mga liders. Hindi porke anak siya ni Ninoy at Cory ay karapatdapat siya sa puwesto. Tignan natin sana ang kakayahan, talino, at iba pang katangian na sinabi ko sa una kong post. Common sense mga kaibigan, kung ang isang tradtional politician na kapartido ang mga kilalang politico ay mananalo bilang pangulo, ano sa tingin mo ag mangyayari? Papaburan niya yung mga kapartido niya kahit na ang iba ay pansariling interest ang hangad. So history will just repeat itself dahil kultura na natin ito lalo na sa larangan ng politika. Sad to say hindi maiintindihan ng marami nating kababayan itong sinasabi ko dahil karamihan sa kanila ay mababa ang pinag- aralan at kumakapit sa patalim gawa ng kahirapan. Lalo na yung mga nakatira sa probinsya na karamihan ay naninirahan sa mga lugar na wala pang kuryente o iba pang teknolohiya. Masyadong malawak ang sinasabi ko. Kulang ang isang araw kung sasabihin ko lahat ang nasa isip. Atleast kung si Bro Eddie ang mananalo bilang pangulo, mahihiya ang mga corrupt, mga mapansamantala, mga makasariling politiko or mga maiimpluwensya gaya ng mga gambling lords na makipag deal kay Bro Eddie kasi alam nila he is a man of GOD (righteous leader).

 

Kung si Eddie Villanueva ang uupo bilang pangulo:

 

* wala ng jueteng

* full implementation of the law

* matatarabaho ng maayos ang mga pulis

* wala ng fixers na mag- aayos ng driving license mo. Ibig sabihin hindi ka makakakuha ng lisensya hangga’t hindi mo napapasa ang driving exams. The roads will be safer for everybody.

* mawawala na ang red tape or lagay.

* mawawala na ang mga scams

* mawawala na ang palaksan. Have you ever wondered the could be the reason why they put Direk Carlo J Caparas as one of the National Artists? Maybe because He was Mikey Arroyo’s director on most or perhaps all of his movies.

* maaaring matutong magbasa ang maraming Filipinos lalo na ang mga politico ng Bible.

 

at marami pang iba na magagandang pagbabago! Pero sasabihin ko sa inyo na ayaw natin ito. Kasi una mahihirapan tayo. Like sa pagkuha ng driving license. Di bale nang walang gaanong alam sa laws about driving and safety about driving basta may license at makapagmaneho lang. Sayang ang chance nating tumama sa jueteng or ano mang sugal na illegal. Kung ako pulis (skalawag- from the lowest to the highest rank) sasabihin ko sa sarili ko na hindi ko siya iboboto kasi hindi ako kikita ng illegal.

 

We need change for everything in our country!!! Badly!

 

JESUTHASON -

 

I am a foreigner who have been in and out of the Philippines for about 10 years now and I have seen the actual conditions of the country, have heard and read the ‘frauds’ done by so called leaders who is destroying the country and the filipinos are suffering.

 

If there have to be a change in the Philippines then it must be through a leader who is truly God fearing and full of God’s wisdom. And the people of the Philippines knows that none other than Bro. Eddie who is indeed capable and so much passionate to bring in change into the country.

 

BANGON PILIPINAS….!!

 

JOHN MIKKO MURCIA -

 

Sino pang may malasakit at pag-ibig sa bansa? Sino pa? EDDIE AKO! Kailan maguumpisa? Magkaisang kumilos na! Kailan pa? EDDIE NGAYON! Sino pa nga bang gagawa? Sinong magsisimula? Sino ang magtataguyod ng bayan ni Juan? EDDIE AKO! Panahon na para sa pagbangon!

 

“EDDIE AKO”

 

*** Paalala lang po.. Sa lahat ng mga botante, gusto ko lang po ipaalala sa inyo na hindi ang kahit sino man na tao ang pag-asa ng bayan natin.. Lagi natin tatandaan na si Lord pa rin ang pag-asa ng bansang Pilipinas.. Pinili niya si Bro. Eddie para mamuno sa ating bansa.. Kailangan natin ng isang RIGHTEOUS LEADER & MAN OF GOD.. Gusto niyo ba ng pagbabago? PHILIPPINES WILL BE THE AMERICA OF ASIA.. Kumilos tayo at huwag lang manood at maghintay kung ano ang mangyayari.. Mga kabataan, kumilos tayo.. Wag tayo mahihiya.. Sino pa nga ba ang nagmamahal at nagmamalasakit sa bayan natin? EDDIE AKO! Kailan maguumpisa? Magkaisang kumilos na! Kailan pa? EDDIE NGAYON!

 

God Bless You All..

 

OOZMAJ - Mga kababayan, wag tayo basta maniniwala sa mga kandidatong nagsasabi na me takot sila sa Diyos becoz even satan fears the Lord, he even trembles. What we need as leaders of our country, people who fears Him and ready to obey His will. Subukan natin ang BANGON PILIPINAS!

GOD bless you guys for your right decision.

 

ELIJAH - Bro Eddie will win for sure! ^__^

 

TAONG_LANAO - i was born and grew up in the land called “the land of promise” that is MINDANAO! but the problem is, after the bombing of president magsaysay’s plane, our only hope senator TOMAS LLUISMA CABILI, was one of the passengers of that plane and our hope crashed with that plane. since then all of the past presidents kept coming in and out of MINDANAO and making all these promises that’s why we are called “THE LAND OF PROMISE” always making promises but nothing happened to our LAND. the “man-made” Martial Law in the 70’s which i have witnessed was planned by only few people and one is still in the senate today. the “Man-made” wars in Mindanao which we call “game of the generals. WE ARE TIRED AND SICK OF ALL THESE STUFF, SO PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SPECIALLY MINDANAO WAKE UP!!! THIS COMING 2010 ELECTION IS OUR TIME TO CHOOSE A PRESIDENT WHO FEARS GOD, WHO LOVES GOD AND HIS COUNTRY.

 

KITKAT - 2 Chronicles 7:14

“if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”

-Let’s work hand in hand for the deliverance of the Philippines & God will place the righteous leader to rule our country.

-Who else? Eddie ako!

 

JASON - vote natin c bro. eddie..mahal niya ating bansa

 

SAM - Para sa tunay at makabuluhang pagababgo.. BRO. EDDIE AKO!!!

 

MARILYN BANAUE MAGNO - Bangon Pilipinas! Bangon Pilipino! Babangon tayo! Ito ang plano ng Diyos sa kanyang lupang hinirang. Maniwala ka kabayan! Bro.Eddie Villanueva for 2010 Philippine President - Mahal nya ang Dyos at Bayan

 

JULIAN T. TUPPIL JR. - Bro. Eddie is the right men for the right time for the right place.

 

YASH - bro. eddie is deserving.

he is. if only people will realize that he is much capable. our country needs change.

 

MISTY - I am for “genuine change” ang may karapatan lang sumigaw ng pagbabago ay yung totoong binago ng Diyos. Hindi na natin kailangan ng maka-bayan marami ng nagpapatayan para sa salapi ng bayan. We need God’s hand. Me and my family will support Bro Eddie..Bangon Pilipinas!

 

CHICHI - if you want a genuine change for our country go for a candidate who have the character, credential, and most of all a God fearing person… for me BRO.EDDIE is the best…

 

KABATAAN - pagdating ng 2010 magbabago ang survey na pinaniniwalaan na ang kulelat ay c bro. lahat ay nasubukan na ang lhat .lhat naghahangad maka-upo sah pagkapangulo pra lamang mgnakaw ng kaban ng bayan..itigil ang pgsisikat sa telebisyon kahit anu ang pangako nio sa tao kpag nakuha nyo na ang gusto nyo magagawa nyo pa din mgnakaw at gumawa ng anumalyang pede ikagulo ng ating bansa .wag na nten iboto ang subuk na ! dun tyo sa nasubukan na ng panginoon kundi c bro.eddie villanueva.. pls vote dhil kabataan xa ang boboto..

 

FULL SUPPORT for BRO.EDDIE ..

 

CABOSHARJAH - Lets vote a true leader with passion to serve to people and to the country, Tama sa mga artista at traditional na politiko iboto natin ang lingkod ng simbahan, ang malapit sa Dyos ay tyak na hinde magnakaw, manloko at makasarili, Lets support Bro. Eddie C. Villanueva for President…we need a real change for our belove country.

 

MARLON N. MIGUEL - Way back 2004, sabi ko isa pa itong sasama sa mga corrupt na mga leader ng bansa. I was wrong. Sinubaybayan ko sya at mali pala ako.Ibinoto ko sya noon, pero maniobra nangyari. Now, May Pag asa uli. Let’s pray, act, and vote for Bro. Eddie C. Villanueva. Babangon na ang ating bansang Pilipinas!

 

REDENSON - ITURALBA - bro eddie for president…. we need this righteous man for the complete change of our country. matagal ng nariyan ang mga pulitikong sina villar, aquino, estrada pero may nangyari b s pinas? lalo tayong lumubog… let us try this man of God.

 

JAMES KARL - bro eddie the new david and we are the david’s army

 

DPRAMOS - i will vote bro. eddie for pres. for a change and god fearing hinde ito corrupt god help him sana hinde sya madaya muli he!!!

 

JESON MENDOZA - im for bro. eddie come 2010

 

RHEL GALARIDO - Only God can change the destiny of the Philippines…we need a God fearing man to be an instrument of CHANGE! and that is Bro. Eddie Villanueva..People of the Philippines let us be UNITED! vote for a CHANGE! God richly bless you.

 

RMDCASERO - Eddie Villanueva is the man in the presidency….Let us not get wrong this time friends.

 

RACMEL -I am DESPERATE of RIGHTEOUSNESS!

 

I PRAY FOR A RIGHTEOUS PRESIDENT!

 

I PRAY FOR EDDIE VILLANUEVA TO BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES.

 

KKB BULACAN - bro.Eddie ang icon for thruth and justice… kea para sa ken sya ang No.ONE!!!mahal na mahal nya ang diyos at bayan!! vote for bro.eddie….Godbless philippines…

 

ED OF VALENZUELA - Si Bro. Eddie lang ang kakaiba dahil siya lang ang tunay na may banal na takot sa Diyos at takot sa kasalanan kung ikukumpara sa ibang Presidentiable candidates at tiyak na maasahan para sa tunay na pagbabago ng bansa natin.Tandaan natin, hindi tayo magsisisi kung siya ang iboboto natin.God Bless you all.

 

NONS OF MINDORO - Si Bro. Eddie Villanueva lang ang aking nakikita na maaasahan sa tulong ng banal na Spiritu ng Diyos for the real change and Devine Destiny of our beloved nation and for the needs of the poor people ay maasahan natin siya. Kaya mga kababayan, pag-isipan ninyong mabuti upang hindi masasayang ang inyong mga boto. GOD LOVES YOU ALL.

 

ZALDY - Bro Eddie Villanueva. For President. tapat sa tao at Diyos.

 

JHOSIE - God bless the Philippines. Let us now experience the great jubilee in our beloved country. I love my country and i choose Eddie Villanueva for President.

 

RIC RAMOS - Ako ay kay Bro. Eddie dahil ako ay matagal ng sawang sawa sa kaapihan ng lahing Pilipino at ang nais ko naman ay maranasan ng mga Pilipino ang tunay na kasaganaan ng buhay at tunay na kalayaan. 400 years ng alipin ang mga Pilipino ng kahirapan. Its about to move to the promise land and the man called by God to lead the Filipino people is no other Bro Eddie C. Villanueva, a man full of courage, competence and character. Thanks and God Bless us all.

 

FRED - Bro EDDIE para sa Tunay na Pagbabago!

 

PETER OF BRUNEI -

 

Let’s vote for Bro Eddie Villanueva for a genuine change of our country and people.

 

Let us be united to bring about genuine change and tansformation to our country polictically, in government service, in community and even at home.

 

Vote for Bro Eddie.

 

Kaming nasa ibang bansa…ay nangangarap din na makauwi na at makapiling ang mga pamilya…at mangyayari lang iyon pag ang namumuno sa ating bansa ay matuwid at tapat sa bayan at sa Diyos…

 

ROMY OF SAUDI ARABIA - i vote Br.Eddie…

 

TARZAN - Eddie ako………………..

 

JCUBE - Bro. Eddie Villanueva ako.You can’t change a nation through same constitution.hey, all of the youths living in our dear 3 stars and a sun i just wanna remind you that we are the hope of the nation!our votes are very important in this present stage of our country. Wisdom, talents, and fame cannot cure this nation. Only God’s intervention is the medicine for this.Eventhough your an unreligious person it doesn’t mean that its funny to vote a religious candidate for presidency. This is our last hope, last cry and last chance if we pick a president that doesn’t fit in the qualification of God, we will loss the blessing that the Lord plans for us. Vote wisely. Let’s try bro. Eddie. we already experienced economists, artists and even topnotchers but the outcome never satisfies the country needs. Let us now try then, preacher. Maybe, or not maybe but surely, we will reap the blessings. I’m for bro. eddie, you must also. Thanks for you support. Vote for bro. eddie

 

DAY LOVE - Go for pagbabago Bro. Eddie…talgang khanga hanga…no question sa righteous man na may takot sa Diyos…lahat ng presidentiables ngpapakita ng kanilang mga gawain pra sa mamayan at i publish pa sa TV malaki ang halaga niyan mbuti pa kung ibigay sa mahihirap…We need religious leader pra mwala ang mga tiwali…Bro. Eddie kami from Christian and Muslim Mindanao…mamulat sana kau xa katotohanan…it is God’s time to heal the Philippines and shine…God’s purpose na eto mga voter’s…trust kami kay God He will do miracles kung ito ang will niya…God’s will…Bro. Eddie Villanueva for President..!!!!

 

RUEL PION - OFW JUBAIL KSA - we are silent majority to vote Brd. Eddie. ako,ikaw,tayo, Kay br. eddie.

 

ABCDFEG -

 

Hindi GALING AT TALINO ang kelangan natin ngayon, hindi natin kelangan ng PASIKATAN, hindi din natin kelangan ng TRAPO, at mas hindi natin kelangan ng MARAMING PERA.. Ang kelangan ng bansa natin ngayon ay isang RIGHTEOUS LEADERSHIP!!!!

 

WHAT IS RIGHTEOUSNESS?

 

An important theological concept in Judaism and Christianity. It is an attribute that implies that a person’s actions are justified, and can have the connotation that the person has been “judged” or “reckoned” as leading a life that is pleasing to God. Righteousness is also used as an attribute for God. Psalm 2 speaks of one being shielded by God and receiving favor because of righteousness.

 

wala ng ibang gagawa nyan kundi si Bro. Eddie Villanueva!! The MOST QUALIFIED PRESIDENTIABLE!!!

 

BANGON PILIPINAS - wag na tayo mg pka tangga mga kapatid…hanapin ntin ang my takot sa dyos at my pkanan sa atin bansa na umahon sa kahirapan…ilan na taon tyo nag pkaka tangga sa atin PRESIDENTE GLORIA ARROYO…

e2 ang tunay na maging PRESIDENTE ng atin BANSA BRO.EDDIE na po tayo…Babangon ang pilipinas.

 

NHATS - NOW is the TIME… BRO. EDDIE!…. is the MAN…I am for Bro EDDIE…

 

JUDITH - i am for bro.eddie!

 

WORKATHOMEPINOY - Sabi mo gusto mo ng pagbabago,

Sabi mo sawa ka na sa mga trapo,

Sabi mo gusto mo ng sigurado,

Tanong ko ano pang ginagawa mo?

Tanong ko anu pang inaantay mo, pasko?

Tanong ko, eh sino bang mag-uumpisa nito?

EDDIE AKO, IKAW at TAYONG LAHAT!!!

 

ABS-GMA27 - bro. eddie for president!!!!

 

BOY - Man cannot stop the will of GOD. if all Christians and Muslims pray to GOD He will send His angels and bring blessings to the Philippines…Bro. Eddie has the will for change not just the government but starting everyone’s heart. tama na ang galing at talino, lesser evil, para sa masa, at iba pa..tested na silang lahat. I go for Bro. Eddie for the future of my children…..God Bless us all….

 

ELAISHA JOY -

 

“The world is too poor to buy my conviction and principles.

— Bro. Eddie Villanueva

 

[EDDIE AKO!]

 

pano magvote dito?

 

JANTEN76 - Bro. Eddie Villanueva!! The MOST QUALIFIED PRESIDENTIABLE!!! pag aralan ang historical background ni bro eddie. syan lang talaga ang pweding pagkatiwalaan, maniwala kayo.

 

VASE - BRO EDDIE FOR PRESIDENT FOR THE NEW PHILIPPINES, dapat ang Presidente natin malapit sa DIYOS-dahil may dignidad sila at natatakot sila na makakasala sa DIYOS at BAYAN

PWC VICTORIOUS

 

CHIEBOY -

 

sino pa bang ang pwedeng mamuno ng may takot sa DIYOS? eddie akO!!! tama ba?? mga brad,, eto lng ah.. opinyon lng to.. yang mga natakbo bilang presidente.. matatamis lng yan sa simula pag nangangapanya.. isipin nyo ung matinong mamumuno.. ung my takot sa Diyos.. wag kayo magpapadala sa mga salita.. totoo yang mga sinasabi ko.. si villar kaya pala natulong sa mga OFW un kasi my balak palang tumakbo.. puro pagawa ng bahay.. para yumaman sya.. diba tama naman.. si noynoy,, kaya tumakbo kasi namatay si cory.. akala nya sikat na sya nun.. isipin nyo na lng kung anong pwedeng mangyare pag mali ang napili nyo.. magisip ng mabuti..

 

basta ako!!! kay BRO.EDDIE VILLANUEVA!!!

 

ROMMEL N.E - kay BRO.EDDIE VILLANUEVA AKO!

 

1.DATING LIDER AKTIBISTA.

2.LABAN SA KURAPSIYON. May mataas na MORAL INTEGRITY.

3.HINDI KABILANG SA MGA “ELITISTA”. Simple lang ang pamumuhay pero may malawak na inpluwensya.MILLION FILIPINOS,IN FULL SUPPORT IN DIFFERENT SOCIETY including MUSLIM groups, Religious groups, Artists, YOUTH, and myself, etc.

4.most of all, last but not the least “GOD IS WITH HIM”, I’m sure!

SUBUKAN NYO SIYA! at malalaman NYO!

 

VOLTAIRE ZOLETA - Bro Eddie Villanueva and Jun Yasay, and All the candidates of Bangon Pilipinas. For a righteous government that inspires to help one another. Revive the bayanihan era. To lead our nation to be morally upright and lead our next generation to a godly and great Philippines.

Bangon Bagong Pilipino, Bangon Bagong Pilipinas. Para sa lumiliwanag na bukas. God’s will be done in the our country according to His word and as it is in heaven. I declare it and bind it.

In the name of Yeshua.

 

RAINE KIM YU from KKB Pasig - we need someONE to lead us out of poverty and corruption, we need to look for an upright person, WHOSE HEART HAS been BURDENED to change this poor country of ours with God's help and guidance. I can see that only Bro.Eddie Villanueva qualifies this all.

 

source: akoangpagbabago.multiply.com/journal/item/19/I_AM_FOR_BRO...

  

Incense is aromatic biotic material that releases fragrant smoke when burned. The term refers to the material itself, rather than to the aroma that it produces. Incense is used for aesthetic reasons, and in therapy, meditation, and ceremony. It may also be used as a simple deodorant or insectifuge.

 

Incense is composed of aromatic plant materials, often combined with essential oils. The forms taken by incense differ with the underlying culture, and have changed with advances in technology and increasing number of uses.

 

Incense can generally be separated into two main types: "indirect-burning" and "direct-burning". Indirect-burning incense (or "non-combustible incense") is not capable of burning on its own, and requires a separate heat source. Direct-burning incense (or "combustible incense") is lit directly by a flame and then fanned or blown out, leaving a glowing ember that smoulders and releases a smoky fragrance. Direct-burning incense is either a paste formed around a bamboo stick, or a paste that is extruded into a stick or cone shape.

 

HISTORY

The word incense comes from Latin incendere meaning "to burn".

 

Combustible bouquets were used by the ancient Egyptians, who employed incense in both pragmatic and mystical capacities. Incense was burnt to counteract or obscure malodorous products of human habitation, but was widely perceived to also deter malevolent demons and appease the gods with its pleasant aroma. Resin balls were found in many prehistoric Egyptian tombs in El Mahasna, giving evidence for the prominence of incense and related compounds in Egyptian antiquity. One of the oldest extant incense burners originates from the 5th dynasty. The Temple of Deir-el-Bahari in Egypt contains a series of carvings that depict an expedition for incense.

 

The Babylonians used incense while offering prayers to divining oracles. Incense spread from there to Greece and Rome.

 

Incense burners have been found in the Indus Civilization (3300–1300 BCE). Evidence suggests oils were used mainly for their aroma. India also adopted techniques from East Asia, adapting the formulation to encompass aromatic roots and other indigenous flora. This was the first usage of subterranean plant parts in incense. New herbs like Sarsaparilla seeds, frankincense, and cypress were used by Indians.

 

At around 2000 BCE, Ancient China began the use of incense in the religious sense, namely for worship. Incense was used by Chinese cultures from Neolithic times and became more widespread in the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties. The earliest documented use of incense comes from the ancient Chinese, who employed incense composed of herbs and plant products (such as cassia, cinnamon, styrax, and sandalwood) as a component of numerous formalized ceremonial rites. Incense usage reached its peak during the Song dynasty with numerous buildings erected specifically for incense ceremonies.

 

Brought to Japan in the 6th century by Korean Buddhist monks, who used the mystical aromas in their purification rites, the delicate scents of Koh (high-quality Japanese incense) became a source of amusement and entertainment with nobles in the Imperial Court during the Heian Era 200 years later. During the 14th-century Ashikaga shogunate, a samurai warrior might perfume his helmet and armor with incense to achieve an aura of invincibility (as well as to make a noble gesture to whoever might take his head in battle). It wasn't until the Muromachi period during the 15th and 16th century that incense appreciation (kōdō) spread to the upper and middle classes of Japanese society.

 

COMPOSITION

A variety of materials have been used in making incense. Historically there has been a preference for using locally available ingredients. For example, sage and cedar were used by the indigenous peoples of North America. Trading in incense materials comprised a major part of commerce along the Silk Road and other trade routes, one notably called the Incense Route.

 

Local knowledge and tools were extremely influential on the style, but methods were also influenced by migrations of foreigners, such as clergy and physicians.

 

COMBUSTIBLE BASE

The combustible base of a direct burning incense mixture not only binds the fragrant material together but also allows the produced incense to burn with a self-sustained ember, which propagates slowly and evenly through an entire piece of incense with such regularity that it can be used to mark time. The base is chosen such that it does not produce a perceptible smell. Commercially, two types of incense base predominate:

 

Fuel and oxidizer mixtures: Charcoal or wood powder provides the fuel for combustion while an oxidizer such as sodium nitrate or potassium nitrate sustains the burning of the incense. Fragrant materials are added to the base prior to shaping, as in the case of powdered incense materials, or after, as in the case of essential oils. The formula for charcoal-based incense is superficially similar to black powder, though it lacks the sulfur.

Natural plant-based binders: Gums such as Gum Arabic or Gum Tragacanth are used to bind the mixture together. Mucilaginous material, which can be derived from many botanical sources, is mixed with fragrant materials and water. The mucilage from the wet binding powder holds the fragrant material together while the cellulose in the powder combusts to form a stable ember when lit. The dry binding powder usually comprises about 10% of the dry weight in the finished incense. These include:

Makko (incense powder) made from the bark of various trees in the genus Persea (such as Persea thunbergii)

Xiangnan pi (made from the bark of trees of genus Phoebe such as Phoebe nanmu or Persea zuihoensis.

Jigit: a resin based binder used in India

Laha or Dar: bark based powders used in Nepal, Tibet, and other East Asian countries.

 

Typical compositions burn at a temperature between 220 °C and 260 °C.

 

TYPES

Incense is available in various forms and degrees of processing. They can generally be separated into "direct-burning" and "indirect-burning" types. Preference for one form or another varies with culture, tradition, and personal taste. The two differ in their composition due to the former's requirement for even, stable, and sustained burning.

 

INDIRECT-BURNING

Indirect-burning incense, also called "non-combustible incense", is an aromatic material or combination of materials, such as resins, that does not contain combustible material and so requires a separate heat source. Finer forms tend to burn more rapidly, while coarsely ground or whole chunks may be consumed very gradually, having less surface area. Heat is traditionally provided by charcoal or glowing embers. In the West, the best known incense materials of this type are the resins frankincense and myrrh, likely due to their numerous mentions in the Bible. Frankincense means "pure incense", though in common usage refers specifically to the resin of the boswellia tree.

 

Whole: The incense material is burned directly in raw form on top of coal embers.

Powdered or granulated: Incense broken into smaller pieces burns quickly and provides brief but intense odor.

Paste: Powdered or granulated incense material is mixed with a sticky incombustible binder, such as dried fruit, honey, or a soft resin and then formed to balls or small pastilles. These may then be allowed to mature in a controlled environment where the fragrances can commingle and unite. Much Arabian incense, also called "Bukhoor" or "Bakhoor", is of this type, and Japan has a history of kneaded incense, called nerikō or awasekō, made using this method. Within the Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition, raw frankincense is ground into a fine powder and then mixed with various sweet-smelling essential oils.

 

DIRECT-BURNING

Direct-burning incense, also called "combustible incense", is lit directly by a flame. The glowing ember on the incense will continue to smoulder and burn the rest of the incense without further application of external heat or flame. Direct-burning incense is either extruded, pressed into forms, or coated onto a supporting material. This class of incense is made from a moldable substrate of fragrant finely ground (or liquid) incense materials and odourless binder. The composition must be adjusted to provide fragrance in the proper concentration and to ensure even burning. The following types are commonly encountered, though direct-burning incense can take nearly any form, whether for expedience or whimsy.

 

Coil: Extruded and shaped into a coil without a core, coil incense can burn for an extended period, from hours to days, and is commonly produced and used in Chinese cultures.

 

Cone: Incense in this form burns relatively quickly. Incense cones were invented in Japan in the 1800s.

Cored stick: A supporting core of bamboo is coated with a thick layer of incense material that burns away with the core. Higher-quality variations have fragrant sandalwood cores. This type of incense is commonly produced in India and China. When used in Chinese folk religion, these are sometimes known as "joss sticks".

Dhoop or solid stick: With no bamboo core, dhoop incense is easily broken for portion control. This is the most commonly produced form of incense in Japan and Tibet.

Powder: The loose incense powder used for making indirect burning incense is sometimes burned without further processing. Powder incense is typically packed into long trails on top of wood ash using a stencil and burned in special censers or incense clocks.

Paper: Paper infused with incense, folded accordion style, is lit and blown out. Examples include Carta d'Armenia and Papier d'Arménie.

Rope: The incense powder is rolled into paper sheets, which are then rolled into ropes, twisted tightly, then doubled over and twisted again, yielding a two-strand rope. The larger end is the bight, and may be stood vertically, in a shallow dish of sand or pebbles. The smaller (pointed) end is lit. This type of incense is easily transported and stays fresh for extremely long periods. It has been used for centuries in Tibet and Nepal.

 

Moxa tablets, which are disks of powdered mugwort used in Traditional Chinese medicine for moxibustion, are not incenses; the treatment is by heat rather than fragrance.

Incense sticks may be termed joss sticks, especially in parts of East Asia, South Asia and Southeast Asia. Among ethnic Chinese and Chinese-influenced communities these are traditionally burned at temples, before the threshold of a home or business, before an image of a religious divinity or local spirit, or in shrines, large and small, found at the main entrance of every village. Here the earth god is propitiated in the hope of bringing wealth and health to the village. They can also be burned in front of a door or open window as an offering to heaven, or the devas. The word "joss" is derived from the Latin deus (god) via the Portuguese deos through the Javanese dejos, through Chinese pidgin English.

 

PRODUCTION

The raw materials are powdered and then mixed together with a binder to form a paste, which, for direct burning incense, is then cut and dried into pellets. Incense of the Athonite Orthodox Christian tradition is made by powdering frankincense or fir resin, mixing it with essential oils. Floral fragrances are the most common, but citrus such as lemon is not uncommon. The incense mixture is then rolled out into a slab approximately 1 cm thick and left until the slab has firmed. It is then cut into small cubes, coated with clay powder to prevent adhesion, and allowed to fully harden and dry. In Greece this rolled incense resin is called 'Moskolibano', and generally comes in either a pink or green colour denoting the fragrance, with pink being rose and green being jasmine.

 

Certain proportions are necessary for direct-burning incense:

 

Oil content: an excess of oils may prevent incense from smoldering effectively. Resinous materials such as myrrh and frankincense are typically balanced with "dry" materials such as wood, bark and leaf powders.

Oxidizer quantity: Too little oxidizer in gum-bound incense may prevent the incense from igniting, while too much will cause the incense to burn too quickly, without producing fragrant smoke.

Binder: Water-soluble binders such as "makko" ensure that the incense mixture does not crumble when dry, dilute the mixture.

Mixture density: Incense mixtures made with natural binders must not be combined with too much water in mixing, or over-compressed while being formed, which would result in either uneven air distribution or undesirable density in the mixture, causing the incense to burn unevenly, too slowly, or too quickly.

Particulate size: The incense mixture has to be well pulverized with similarly sized particulates. Uneven and large particulates result in uneven burning and inconsistent aroma production when burned.

 

"Dipped" or "hand-dipped" direct-burning incense is created by dipping "incense blanks" made of unscented combustible dust into any suitable kind of essential or fragrance oil. These are often sold in the United States by flea-market and sidewalk vendors who have developed their own styles. This form of incense requires the least skill and equipment to manufacture, since the blanks are pre-formed in China or South East Asia.

 

Incense mixtures can be extruded or pressed into shapes. Small quantities of water are combined with the fragrance and incense base mixture and kneaded into a hard dough. The incense dough is then pressed into shaped forms to create cone and smaller coiled incense, or forced through a hydraulic press for solid stick incense. The formed incense is then trimmed and slowly dried. Incense produced in this fashion has a tendency to warp or become misshapen when improperly dried, and as such must be placed in climate-controlled rooms and rotated several times through the drying process.

 

Traditionally, the bamboo core of cored stick incense is prepared by hand from Phyllostachys heterocycla cv. pubescens since this species produces thick wood and easily burns to ashes in the incense stick. In a process known as "splitting the foot of the incense stick", the bamboo is trimmed to length, soaked, peeled, and split in halves until the thin sticks of bamboo have square cross sections of less than 3mm. This process has been largely replaced by machines in modern incense production.

 

In the case of cored incensed sticks, several methods are employed to coat the sticks cores with incense mixture:

 

Paste rolling: A wet, malleable paste of incense mixture is first rolled into a long, thin coil, using a paddle. Then, a thin stick is put next to the coil and the stick and paste are rolled together until the stick is centered in the mixture and the desired thickness is achieved. The stick is then cut to the desired length and dried.

Powder-coating: Powder-coating is used mainly to produce cored incense of either larger coil (up to 1 meter in diameter) or cored stick forms. A bundle of the supporting material (typically thin bamboo or sandalwood slivers) is soaked in water or a thin water/glue mixture for a short time. The thin sticks are evenly separated, then dipped into a tray of incense powder consisting of fragrance materials and occasionally a plant-based binder. The dry incense powder is then tossed and piled over the sticks while they are spread apart. The sticks are then gently rolled and packed to maintain roundness while more incense powder is repeatedly tossed onto the sticks. Three to four layers of powder are coated onto the sticks, forming a 2 mm thick layer of incense material on the stick. The coated incense is then allowed to dry in open air. Additional coatings of incense mixture can be applied after each period of successive drying. Incense sticks produced in this fashion and burned in temples of Chinese folk religion can have a thickness between 2 and 4 millimeters.

Compression: A damp powder is mechanically formed around a cored stick by compression, similar to the way uncored sticks are formed. This form is becoming more common due to the higher labor cost of producing powder-coated or paste-rolled sticks.

 

BURNING INCENSE

Indirect-burning incense burned directly on top of a heat source or on a hot metal plate in a censer or thurible.

 

In Japan a similar censer called a egōro (柄香炉) is used by several Buddhist sects. The egōro is usually made of brass, with a long handle and no chain. Instead of charcoal, makkō powder is poured into a depression made in a bed of ash. The makkō is lit and the incense mixture is burned on top. This method is known as sonae-kō (religious burning).

 

For direct-burning incense, the tip or end of the incense is ignited with a flame or other heat source until the incense begins to turn into ash at the burning end. The flame is then fanned or blown out, leaving the incense to smolder.

 

CULTURAL VARIATIONS

ARABIAN

In most Arab countries, incense is burned in the form of scented chips or blocks called bakhoor (Arabic: بخور‎ [bɑˈxuːɾ, bʊ-]. Incense is used on special occasions like weddings or on Fridays or generally to perfume the house. The bakhoor is usually burned in a mabkhara, a traditional incense burner (censer) similar to the Somali Dabqaad. It is customary in many Arab countries to pass bakhoor among the guests in the majlis ('congregation'). This is done as a gesture of hospitality.

 

CHINESE

For over two thousand years, the Chinese have used incense in religious ceremonies, ancestor veneration, Traditional Chinese medicine, and daily life. Agarwood (chénxiāng) and sandalwood (tánxiāng) are the two most important ingredients in Chinese incense.

 

Along with the introduction of Buddhism in China came calibrated incense sticks and incense clocks. The first known record is by poet Yu Jianwu (487-551): "By burning incense we know the o'clock of the night, With graduated candles we confirm the tally of the watches." The use of these incense timekeeping devices spread from Buddhist monasteries into Chinese secular society.

Incense-stick burning is an everyday practice in traditional Chinese religion. There are many different types of stick used for different purposes or on different festive days. Many of them are long and thin. Sticks are mostly coloured yellow, red, or more rarely, black. Thick sticks are used for special ceremonies, such as funerals. Spiral incense, with exceedingly long burn times, is often hung from temple ceilings. In some states, such as Taiwan,

 

Singapore, or Malaysia, where they celebrate the Ghost Festival, large, pillar-like dragon incense sticks are sometimes used. These generate so much smoke and heat that they are only burned outside.

 

Chinese incense sticks for use in popular religion are generally odorless or only use the slightest trace of jasmine or rose, since it is the smoke, not the scent, which is important in conveying the prayers of the faithful to heaven. They are composed of the dried powdered bark of a non-scented species of cinnamon native to Cambodia, Cinnamomum cambodianum. Inexpensive packs of 300 are often found for sale in Chinese supermarkets. Though they contain no sandalwood, they often include the Chinese character for sandalwood on the label, as a generic term for incense.

 

Highly scented Chinese incense sticks are used by some Buddhists. These are often quite expensive due to the use of large amounts of sandalwood, agarwood, or floral scents used. The sandalwood used in Chinese incenses does not come from India, its native home, but rather from groves planted within Chinese territory. Sites belonging to Tzu Chi, Chung Tai Shan, Dharma Drum Mountain, Xingtian Temple, or City of Ten Thousand Buddhas do not use incense.

 

INDIAN

Incense sticks, also known as agarbathi (or agarbatti) and joss sticks, in which an incense paste is rolled or moulded around a bamboo stick, are the main forms of incense in India. The bamboo method originated in India, and is distinct from the Nepali/Tibetan and Japanese methods of stick making without bamboo cores. Though the method is also used in the west, it is strongly associated with India.

 

The basic ingredients are the bamboo stick, the paste (generally made of charcoal dust and joss/jiggit/gum/tabu powder – an adhesive made from the bark of litsea glutinosa and other trees), and the perfume ingredients - which would be a masala (spice mix) powder of ground ingredients into which the stick would be rolled, or a perfume liquid sometimes consisting of synthetic ingredients into which the stick would be dipped. Perfume is sometimes sprayed on the coated sticks. Stick machines are sometimes used, which coat the stick with paste and perfume, though the bulk of production is done by hand rolling at home. There are about 5,000 incense companies in India that take raw unperfumed sticks hand-rolled by approximately 200,000 women working part-time at home, and then apply their own brand of perfume, and package the sticks for sale. An experienced home-worker can produce 4,000 raw sticks a day. There are about 50 large companies that together account for up to 30% of the market, and around 500 of the companies, including a significant number of the main ones, including Moksh Agarbatti and Cycle Pure, are based in Mysore.

 

JEWISH TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM

KETORET

Ketoret was the incense offered in the Temple in Jerusalem and is stated in the Book of Exodus to be a mixture of stacte, onycha, galbanum and frankincense.

 

TIBETAN

Tibetan incense refers to a common style of incense found in Tibet, Nepal, and Bhutan. These incenses have a characteristic "earthy" scent to them. Ingredients vary from cinnamon, clove, and juniper, to kusum flower, ashvagandha, and sahi jeera.

 

Many Tibetan incenses are thought to have medicinal properties. Their recipes come from ancient Vedic texts that are based on even older Ayurvedic medical texts. The recipes have remained unchanged for centuries.

 

JAPANESE

In Japan incense appreciation folklore includes art, culture, history, and ceremony. It can be compared to and has some of the same qualities as music, art, or literature. Incense burning may occasionally take place within the tea ceremony, just like calligraphy, ikebana, and scroll arrangement. The art of incense appreciation, or koh-do, is generally practiced as a separate art form from the tea ceremony, and usually within a tea room of traditional Zen design.

 

Agarwood (沈香 Jinkō) and sandalwood (白檀 byakudan) are the two most important ingredients in Japanese incense. Agarwood is known as "jinkō" in Japan, which translates as "incense that sinks in water", due to the weight of the resin in the wood. Sandalwood is one of the most calming incense ingredients and lends itself well to meditation. It is also used in the Japanese tea ceremony. The most valued Sandalwood comes from Mysore in the state of Karnataka in India.

 

Another important ingredient in Japanese incense is kyara (伽羅). Kyara is one kind of agarwood (Japanese incense companies divide agarwood into 6 categories depending on the region obtained and properties of the agarwood). Kyara is currently worth more than its weight in gold.

 

Some terms used in Japanese incense culture include:

 

Incense arts: [香道, kodo]

Agarwood: [ 沈香 ] – from heartwood from Aquilaria trees, unique, the incense wood most used in incense ceremony, other names are: lignum aloes or aloeswood, gaharu, jinko, or oud.

Censer/Incense burner: [香爐] – usually small and used for heating incense not burning, or larger and used for burning

Charcoal: [木炭] – only the odorless kind is used.

Incense woods: [ 香木 ] – a naturally fragrant resinous wood.

 

USAGE

PRACTICAL

Incense fragrances can be of such great strength that they obscure other less desirable odours. This utility led to the use of incense in funerary ceremonies because the incense could smother the scent of decay. An example, as well as of religious use, is the giant Botafumeiro thurible that swings from the ceiling of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela. It is used in part to mask the scent of the many tired, unwashed pilgrims huddled together in the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela.

 

A similar utilitarian use of incense can be found in the post-Reformation Church of England. Although the ceremonial use of incense was abandoned until the Oxford Movement, it was common to have incense (typically frankincense) burned before grand occasions, when the church would be crowded. The frankincense was carried about by a member of the vestry before the service in a vessel called a 'perfuming pan'. In iconography of the day, this vessel is shown to be elongated and flat, with a single long handle on one side. The perfuming pan was used instead of the thurible, as the latter would have likely offended the Protestant sensibilities of the 17th and 18th centuries.

 

The regular burning of direct-burning incense has been used for chronological measurement in incense clocks. These devices can range from a simple trail of incense material calibrated to burn in a specific time period, to elaborate and ornate instruments with bells or gongs, designed to involve multiple senses.

 

Incense made from materials such as citronella can repel mosquitoes and other irritating, distracting, or pestilential insects. This use has been deployed in concert with religious uses by Zen Buddhists who claim that the incense that is part of their meditative practice is designed to keep bothersome insects from distracting the practitioner. Currently, more effective pyrethroid-based mosquito repellent incense is widely available in Asia.

 

Papier d'Arménie was originally sold as a disinfectant as well as for the fragrance.

 

Incense is also used often by people who smoke indoors and do not want the smell to linger.

 

AESTHETIC

Many people burn incense to appreciate its smell, without assigning any other specific significance to it, in the same way that the foregoing items can be produced or consumed solely for the contemplation or enjoyment of the aroma. An example is the kōdō (香道), where (frequently costly) raw incense materials such as agarwood are appreciated in a formal setting.

 

RELIGIOUS

Religious use of incense is prevalent in many cultures and may have roots in the practical and aesthetic uses, considering that many of these religions have little else in common. One common motif is incense as a form of sacrificial offering to a deity. Such use was common in Judaic worship and remains in use for example in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican churches, Taoist and Buddhist Chinese jingxiang (敬香 "offer incense), etc.

 

Aphrodisiac Incense has been used as an aphrodisiac in some cultures. Both ancient Greek and ancient Egyptian mythology suggest the usage of incense by goddesses and nymphs. Incense is thought to heighten sexual desires and sexual attraction.

 

Time-keeper Incense clocks are used to time social, medical and religious practices in parts of eastern Asia. They are primarily used in Buddhism as a timer of mediation and prayer. Different types of incense burn at different rates; therefore, different incense are used for different practices. The duration of burning ranges from minutes to months.

 

Healing stone cleanser Incense is claimed to cleanse and restore energy in healing stones. The technique used is called “smudging” and is done by holding a healing stone over the smoke of burning incense for 20 to 30 seconds. Some people believe that this process not only restores energy but eliminates negative energy.

 

HEALTH RISK FROM INCENSE SMOKE

Incense smoke contains various contaminants including gaseous pollutants, such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and adsorbed toxic pollutants (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and toxic metals). The solid particles range between ~10 and 500 nm. In a comparison, Indian sandalwood was found to have the highest emission rate, followed by Japanese aloeswood, then Taiwanese aloeswood, while Chinese smokeless sandalwood had the least.

 

Research carried out in Taiwan in 2001 linked the burning of incense sticks to the slow accumulation of potential carcinogens in a poorly ventilated environment by measuring the levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (including benzopyrene) within Buddhist temples. The study found gaseous aliphatic aldehydes, which are carcinogenic and mutagenic, in incense smoke.

 

A survey of risk factors for lung cancer, also conducted in Taiwan, noted an inverse association between incense burning and adenocarcinoma of the lung, though the finding was not deemed significant.

 

In contrast, epidemiologists at the Hong Kong Anti-Cancer Society, Aichi Cancer Center in Nagoya, and several other centers found: "No association was found between exposure to incense burning and respiratory symptoms like chronic cough, chronic sputum, chronic bronchitis, runny nose, wheezing, asthma, allergic rhinitis, or pneumonia among the three populations studied: i.e. primary school children, their non-smoking mothers, or a group of older non-smoking female controls. Incense burning did not affect lung cancer risk among non-smokers, but it significantly reduced risk among smokers, even after adjusting for lifetime smoking amount." However, the researchers qualified their findings by noting that incense burning in the studied population was associated with certain low-cancer-risk dietary habits, and concluded that "diet can be a significant confounder of epidemiological studies on air pollution and respiratory health."

 

Although several studies have not shown a link between incense and lung cancer, many other types of cancer have been directly linked to burning incense. A study published in 2008 in the medical journal Cancer found that incense use is associated with a statistically significant higher risk of cancers of the upper respiratory tract, with the exception of nasopharyngeal cancer. Those who used incense heavily also were 80% more likely to develop squamous-cell carcinomas. The link between incense use and increased cancer risk held when the researchers weighed other factors, including cigarette smoking, diet and drinking habits. The research team noted that "This association is consistent with a large number of studies identifying carcinogens in incense smoke, and given the widespread and sometimes involuntary exposure to smoke from burning incense, these findings carry significant public health implications."

 

In 2015, the South China University of Technology found toxicity of incense to Chinese hamsters' ovarian cells to be even higher than cigarettes.

 

Incensole acetate, a component of Frankincense, has been shown to have anxiolytic-like and antidepressive-like effects in mice, mediated by activation of poorly-understood TRPV3 ion channels in the brain.

Aeroscopia est un musée aéronautique français implanté à Blagnac (Haute-Garonne), près du site AéroConstellation, et accueille notamment deux exemplaires du Concorde, dont l'ouverture a eu lieu le 14 janvier 2015

 

Le tarmac Sud du musée n'est capable d'accueillir que trois gros appareils. L'installation des appareils fut définitivement terminée après que le premier prototype de l'A400M-180 y fut arrivé le 16 juillet 2015, en dépit de la possibilité de 360 000 euros de TVA.

 

Concorde, F-BVFC, MSN209 aux couleurs d'Air France

Caravelle 12, F-BTOE, MSN280 aux couleurs d'Air Inter, dernier exemplaire construit

A400M-180, F-WWMT, MSN001 stationné depuis le 16 juillet 2015

 

La réalisation en 2019 du nouveau tarmac au Nord du musée permet l'accueil d'appareils supplémentaires issus des entreprises locales Airbus et ATR. Le transfert des avions entre le site Airbus "Lagardère" et le musée a lieu sur une semaine, à raison d'un appareil par jour :

 

ATR 72-600, F-WWEY, MSN098 aux couleurs d'ATR, transféré sur site le 26 août 2019, premier exemplaire du 72 dans sa version 600

Airbus A340-600, F-WWCA, MSN360 aux couleurs d'Airbus, transféré sur site le 27 août 2019, premier exemplaire de l'A340 dans sa version 600

Airbus A320-111, F-WWAI, MSN001 aux anciennes couleurs d'Airbus, transféré sur site le 28 août 2019, premier exemplaire de l'A320 : inauguration le 14 février 1987 en présence de Lady Diana et du Prince Charles, premier vol le 22 février 1987

Airbus A380-800, F-WXXL, MSN002 aux couleurs d'Airbus, transféré sur site le 29 août 2019, second exemplaire de l'A380. Les deux ponts de cet appareil sont visitables, ainsi que le cockpit.

ATR 42-300, F-WEGC, MSN003 aux anciennes couleurs d'ATR, transféré sur site le 30 août 2019, troisième exemplaire du 42. Cet exemplaire est décoré aux couleurs du MSN001 et porte l'immatriculation F-WEGA

 

Concorde, F-WTSB, MSN201 (ANAE), il s'agit d'un appareil de présérie qui a servi entre autres à transporter plusieurs présidents de la République française.

Airbus A300B4-203, F-WUAB, MSN238 (Airbus Heritage), décoré aux couleurs du prototype, au lieu de MSN001 démantelé. L'intérieur est visitable. Dans la première section des vitrages transparents permettent de voir la structure et les systèmes de l'avion, tandis que dans les sections suivantes sont représentés des aménagements de première classe et VIP.

Super Guppy de l'association Ailes Anciennes Toulouse, l'appareil qui servait au transport des tronçons d'Airbus est exposé porte ouverte, et une passerelle permet l'accès à la soute où un film est projeté. L'ouverture n'a pas été une mince affaire, l'appareil n'ayant pas été ouvert pendant 15 ans. L'aide des anciens mécaniciens de l'avion a été primordiale pour permettre une ouverture en toute sécurité.

 

Corvette (Airbus)

Falcon 10 no 02, prototype ayant servi aux essais du turboréacteur Larzac (Ailes Anciennes Toulouse)

Fouga Magister (AAT)

Gazelle prototype (AAT)

Mirage III C (AAT)

Nord 1100 (AAT)

Lockheed F-104G (AAT)

MiG-15 (AAT)

MS.760 Paris (AAT)

Vought F-8E(FN) Crusader et son réacteur (AAT)

Alouette II Marine (AAT)

Cessna Skymaster (AAT)

Fairchild Metro, ancien avion de Météo-France (AAT)

HM-293, de Rodolphe Grunberg

Chagnes MicroStar, avion de construction amateur, version biréacteur de Rutan VariViggen (AAT)

Saab J35OE Draken (AAT)

 

Aeroscopia is a French aeronautical museum located in Blagnac (Haute-Garonne), near the AéroConstellation site, and notably hosts two copies of the Concorde, which opened on January 14, 2015

 

The south tarmac of the museum can only accommodate three large aircraft. The installation of the devices was definitively finished after the first prototype of the A400M-180 arrived there on July 16, 2015, despite the possibility of 360,000 euros in VAT.

 

Concorde, F-BVFC, MSN209 in Air France colors

Caravelle 12, F-BTOE, MSN280 in Air Inter colors, last model built

A400M-180, F-WWMT, MSN001 parked since July 16, 2015

 

The construction in 2019 of the new tarmac north of the museum will accommodate additional aircraft from local Airbus and ATR companies. The transfer of planes between the Airbus "Lagardère" site and the museum takes place over a week, at the rate of one aircraft per day:

 

ATR 72-600, F-WWEY, MSN098 in ATR colors, transferred to site on August 26, 2019, first copy of the 72 in its 600 version

Airbus A340-600, F-WWCA, MSN360 in Airbus colors, transferred to site on August 27, 2019, first copy of the A340 in its 600 version

Airbus A320-111, F-WWAI, MSN001 in the old Airbus colors, transferred to site on August 28, 2019, first copy of the A320: inauguration on February 14, 1987 in the presence of Lady Diana and Prince Charles, first flight on February 22, 1987

Airbus A380-800, F-WXXL, MSN002 in Airbus colors, transferred to site on August 29, 2019, second copy of the A380. The two decks of this aircraft can be visited, as well as the cockpit.

ATR 42-300, F-WEGC, MSN003 in the old ATR colors, transferred to the site on August 30, 2019, third specimen of the 42. This specimen is decorated in the colors of the MSN001 and bears the registration F-WEGA

 

Concorde, F-WTSB, MSN201 (ANAE), this is a pre-production aircraft which was used, among other things, to transport several presidents of the French Republic.

Airbus A300B4-203, F-WUAB, MSN238 (Airbus Heritage), decorated in the colors of the prototype, instead of dismantled MSN001. The interior can be visited. In the first section transparent glazing allows to see the structure and systems of the aircraft, while in the following sections are shown first class and VIP fittings.

Super Guppy from the Ailes Anciennes Toulouse association, the aircraft which was used to transport the Airbus sections is on display with the door open, and a gangway allows access to the hold where a film is shown. Opening was no small feat, as the device has not been opened for 15 years. The help of the former mechanics of the aircraft was essential to allow a safe opening.

 

Corvette (Airbus)

Falcon 10 no 02, prototype used for testing the Larzac turbojet engine (Ailes Anciennes Toulouse)

Fouga Magister (AAT)

Prototype Gazelle (AAT)

Mirage III C (AAT)

North 1100 (AAT)

Lockheed F-104G (AAT)

MiG-15 (AAT)

MS.760 Paris (AAT)

Vought F-8E (FN) Crusader and its engine (AAT)

Alouette II Marine (AAT)

Cessna Skymaster (AAT)

Fairchild Metro, former Météo-France (AAT) aircraft

HM-293, by Rodolphe Grunberg

Chagnes MicroStar, amateur-built aircraft, twin-jet version of Rutan VariViggen (AAT)

Saab J35OE Draken (AAT)

Some background:

The need for a specialized self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, capable of keeping up with the armored divisions, had become increasingly urgent for the German Armed Forces, as from 1943 on the German Air Force was less and less able to protect itself against enemy fighter bombers.

 

Therefore, a multitude of improvised and specially designed self-propelled anti-aircraft guns were built, many based on the Panzer IV chassis. This development started with the Flakpanzer IV “Möbelwagen”, which was only a turretless Kampfpanzer IV with the turret removed and a 20mm Flakvierling installed instead, together with foldable side walls that offered only poor protection for the gun crew. The lineage then progressed through the Wirbelwind and Ostwind models, which had their weapons and the crew protected in fully rotating turrets, but these were still open at the top. This flaw was to be eliminated in the Kugelblitz, the final development of the Flakpanzer IV.

 

The first proposal for the Kugelblitz envisioned mounting a modified anti-aircraft turret, which had originally been developed for U-boats, on the Panzer IV chassis. It was armed with dual 30 mm MK 303 Brunn guns. However, this was eventually abandoned, since development of this gun had not yet been completed, and, in any case, the entire production run of this weapon turret would have been reserved for Germany's Kriegsmarine. However, enough firepower that enabled the Flakpanzer to cope with armoured attack aircraft, namely the Soviet Ilyushin Il-2, which was a major threat to German tanks, was direly needed.

 

As the best readily available alternative, the Kugelblitz eventually used the 30 mm MK 103 cannon in a Zwillingsflak ("twin flak") 103/38 arrangement, and it combined the chassis and basic superstructure of the existing Panzer IV medium battle tank with a newly designed turret. This vehicle received the official designation SdKfz. 161/7 Leichter Flakpanzer IV 3 cm „Kugelblitz”.

 

The turret’s construction was unique, because its spherical body, which was protected with 20 mm steel shells in front and back, was hanging in a ring mount from the Tiger I, suspended by two spigots – it was effectively an independent capsule that only slightly protruded from the tank’s upper side and kept the vehicle’s profile very low, unlike its predecessors. Elevation of the weapons (as well as of the crew sitting inside of the turret!) was from -5° to +80°, turning speed was 60°/sec. The turret was fully enclosed, with full overhead protection, 360° traverse and (rather limited) space for the crew of three plus weapons and ammunition. Driver and radio operator were located in the front of the hull, as with all German tanks. The commander/gunner, who had a small observation cupola on top of the turret, was positioned in the middle, behind the main guns. The two gunner assistants were placed on the left and right side in front of him, in a slightly lower position. The assistant situated left of the guns was responsible for the turret’s movements, the one on the right side was responsible for loading the guns. The spare ammunition was located on the right side. Each of these three crew members had separate hatch doors, which they could use to enter or exit the vehicle. The gunner assistants’ hatch doors each had a small round shaped extra hatch, which were used for mounting sighting devices, and there were plans to outfit the turret with a stereoscopic range finder for the commander.

 

The tank’s MK 103 was a powerful weapon that had formerly been fitted in single mounts to such planes as the Henschel Hs 129 or Bf 1110 in a ventral gun pod against tanks, and it was also fitted to the twin-engine Dornier Do 335 heavy fighter and other interceptors against Allied bombers. When used by the army, it received the designation “3 cm Flak 38”. It had a weight of only 141 kg (311 lb) and a length of 235 cm (93 in) with muzzle brake. Barrel length was 134 cm (53 in), resulting in Kaliber L/44.7 (44.7 caliber). The weapon’s muzzle velocity was around 900 m/s (3,000 ft/s), allowing an armour penetration for APCR 42–52 mm (1.7–2.0 in)/60°/300 m (980 ft) or 75–95 mm (3.0–3.7 in)/ 90°/ 300 m (980 ft), with an effective maximum firing range of around 5.700 m (18.670 ft).

 

The MK 103 was gas-operated, fully automatic and belt-fed (an innovative feature at that time for AA guns). In the Kugelblitz turret the weapons could be fired singly or simultaneously and their theoretical rate of fire was 450 rounds a minute, even though 250 rpm in short bursts was more practical. The total ammunition load for both weapons was 1,200 rounds and the discharged cases fell into canvas bags placed under the guns. Due to the fact that the MK 103 cannons produced a lot of powder smoke when operated, fume extractors were added, which was another novelty.

 

A production rate of 30 per month by December 1944 was planned, but never achieved, because tank production had become seriously hampered and production of the Panzer IV was about to be terminated in favor of the new E-series tank family, anyway. Therefore, almost all Flakpanzer IV with the Kugelblitz turret were conversions of existing hulls, mostly coming from repair shops. In parallel, work was under way to adapt the Kugelblitz turret to the Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer hull, which was still in production in the former Czechoslovakian Skoda works, and to the new, light E-10 and E-25 tank chassis. Due to this transitional and slightly chaotic situation, production numbers of the Panzer IV-based Kugelblitz remained limited.

 

By early 1945, only around 50 operational vehicles had been built and production of the SdKfz. 161/7 already ceased in May. The first five produced vehicles were given to the newly formed “Panzerflak Ersatz- und Ausbildungsabteilung” (armored Flak training and replacement battalion) located near the city of Ohrdruf (Freistaat Thüringen region in central Germany). One company was divided into three platoons equipped with a mix of different Flakpanzers vehicles. The first platoon was equipped with the Wirbelwind, the second with Ostwind, and the third platoon was equipped with experimental vehicles, such as the Kugelblitz or the “Zerstörer 45”, which was basically a Wirbelwind with a 3-cm-Flak-Vierling 103/38 (armed with four MK 103s).

 

During the unit’s initial trials and deployments, the 3 cm Flak 38 turned out to be a troublesome design, largely because of the strong vibration when firing, and gun smoke frequently filled the turret with hazardous effects on the crews. The vibrations made the target aiming difficult and could even cause damage on the mounting itself – but due to the dire war situation, production was kept up. However, during the running production of the Kugelblitz turret, reinforcements to the mount structure were gradually added, as well as improved sighting systems. None of the operational SdKfz. 161/7s received these upgrades, though, since it was only regarded as a transitional model that filled the most urgent defense gaps. Later production Panzer IV Kugelblitz vehicles were almost exclusively sent to units that defended Berlin, where they fought against the Soviet assault on the German capital.

  

Specifications:

Crew: Five (commander/gunner, 2 assistants, driver, radio operator)

Weight: 23 tons

Length: 5.92 m (19 ft 5 in)

Width: 2.88 m (9 ft 5 ¼ in)

Height: 2.3 m (7 ft 6 ½ in)

Suspension: Leaf spring

Fuel capacity: 470 l (120 US gal)

 

Armour:

10 – 50 mm (0.39 – 1.96 in)

 

Performance:

Maximum road speed: 40 km/h (25 mph)

Sustained road speed: 34 km/h (21.1 mph)

Off-road speed: 24 km/h (15 mph)

Operational range: 210 km (125 mi); 130 km (80 mi) off-road

Power/weight: 13 PS/t

 

Engine:

Maybach HL 120 TRM V12 petrol engine with 300 PS (296 hp, 221 kW)

 

Transmission:

ZF Synchromesh SSG 77 gear with 6 forward and 1 reverse ratios

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm 3 cm Flak 38 (MK 103/3) with a total of 1.200 rounds

1× 7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 34 with 1,250 rounds in bow mount

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is a model of a tank that actually existed, but only in marginal numbers – not more than five Panzer IV with the revolutionary Kugelblitz turret are known to have existed or even seen service. However, it fits well into the ranks of fictional/projected Heer ’46 tanks, and I have been wanting to build or create one for along time.

 

There are some 1:72 kits available, e. g. from Mako, but they are rare and/or expensive. So I rather went for an improvisation approach, and it turned out to be very successful. The complete turret comes from one of the Modelcollect “Vierfüssler” mecha kits – these carry such an installation under the belly(!), what makes absolutely NO sense to me. I especially wonder how the crew is supposed to enter and operate the turret in its upside down position? Not to mention a totally confined field of fire…

 

However, the Modelcollect Kugelblitz tower comes complete with its bearing and the armored collar. It was simply mated with the hull from a late Hasegawa Panzer IV – in my case even a Wirbelwind, which also came with some suitable additional details like stowing boxes for gun barrels. The attachment ring for the turret had just to be widened far enough to accept the Kugelblitz installation – and it worked well! Very simple, but highly effective.

  

Painting and markings:

Well, this did not work 100% as intended. I wanted to emphasize the fact that the tanks would have been built from revamped hulls, so I gave all parts an initial overall coat with RAL 3009, Oxydrot. These were then overpainted with a three-tone Hinterhalt scheme in Dunkelgelb (RAL 7028), Olivgrün (RAL 6003) and Rotbraun (RAL 8012). The pattern was adapted from a Wirbelwind, which I had found in literature, consisting of narrow stripes across the hull with additional spots of Dunkelgelb on top of the darker tones. In order to emphasize the idea of a converted tank with the turret coming from another source, I gave the latter a uniform Dunkelgelb livery.

 

The colors used were Humbrol enamels, this time a different selection of tones, namely 167 (RAF Hemp), 159 (Khaki Drab) and a mix of 160 and 10 (German Rotbraun and Chocolate Brown, for a darker hue). However, I wanted the Oxydrot to shine through the camouflage, but despite efforts with thinned paint and sparse use of the enamels the effect is not as visible as expected. I left it that way, though, here and there the red primer is visible, but a lot of the livery became obscured through the following wash with dark red brown, highly thinned acrylic paint and a final coat of pigment dust on the model’s lower areas.

 

The original black vinyl track was treated with a cloudy mix of grey, red brown and iron acrylic paint, and finally dusted with pigments, too.

 

The decals were gathered from several sources – the tactical code was puzzled together with Roman and Arabic numbers in red (seen on some vehicles from assault gun units), the emblem on the turret shows Berlin’s mascot, the bear, taken from a Modelcollect Heer ’46 kit’s sheet.

 

Some dry-brushing with light grey was done to simulate dust and worn edges, but not too much since the vehicle was to be presented in a more or less new state. And then the model was sealed with acrylic matt varnish.

  

A relatively simple build, since only the turret was exchanged/transplanted. The result looks better than expected, though, and the Kugelblitz turret fit into the Panzer IV hull like the hand into a tight glove. Very convincing. And I might add another Kugelblitz variant, this time either on a Hetzer hull (which was a real alternative to the Panzer IV) or on an E-25, it seems as if an 1:72 kit becomes soon available from Modelcollect.

 

+++ 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 North American FJ-4 Fury was a swept-wing carrier-capable fighter-bomber for the United States Navy and Marine Corps. The final development in a lineage that included the Air Force's F-86 Sabre, the FJ-4 shared its general layout and engine with the earlier FJ-3, but, compared to that of the FJ-3, the FJ-4's new wing was much thinner, with a six percent thickness-to-chord ratio, and featured skin panels milled from solid alloy plates. It also had an increased area and tapered more sharply towards the tips. Slight camber behind the leading edge improved low speed characteristics. The main landing gear design had to be considerably modified to fold wheel and strut within the contours of the new wing. The track of the main wheels was increased, and because they were closer to the center of gravity, there was less weight on the nosewheel. Wing folding was limited to the outer wing panels.

 

The FJ-4 was intended as an all-weather interceptor, a role that required considerable range on internal fuel. The FJ-4 had 50% more fuel capacity than the FJ-3 and was lightened by omitting armor and reducing ammunition capacity. The new wing was "wet"; that is, it provided for integral fuel tankage. The fuselage was deepened to add more fuel and had a distinctive "razorback" rear deck. A modified cockpit made the pilot more comfortable during the longer missions. The tail surfaces were also extensively modified, had a thinner profile and featured an extended, taller fin. The overall changes resulted in an aircraft that had little in common with the earlier models, although a family resemblance was still present.

 

The FJ-4 was developed into a family of aircraft. Of the original order for 221 FJ-4 day fighters, the last 71 were modified into the FJ-4B fighter-bomber version. This had a stronger wing with six instead of four underwing stations and stronger landing gear. Additional aerodynamic brakes under the aft fuselage made landing safer by allowing pilots to use higher thrust settings and were also useful for dive attacks. External load was doubled. The most important characteristic of the FJ-4B was, since the Navy was eager to maintain a nuclear role in its rivalry with the Air Force, that it was capable of carrying a nuclear weapon on the inboard port station. For the delivery of nuclear weapons, the FJ-4B was equipped with the Low-Altitude Bombing System (LABS), and with this capability it replaced the carrier-based A-3 Skywarrior bombers, which were not suited well for the new low-level approach tactics.

 

In April 1956, the Navy ordered 151 more FJ-4Bs, 10 US Navy squadrons became equipped with the FJ-4B, and the type was also flown by three Marine squadrons. At the same time, the Navy requested a carrier-borne fighter with all-weather capability, radar-guided missiles and a higher performance. This new type was to replace several 1st generation US Navy jets, including the ponderous and heavy Douglas F3D Skyknight, the lackluster Vought F7U as well as the Grumman F9F-8 Cougar. This requirement led to the Douglas F4D Skyray and North American’s FJ-5, another thorough modification of the Fury’s basic design and its eventual final evolution stage.

 

North American’s FJ-5 was designed with compact dimensions in mind, so that the type could be operated on older Essex Class carriers, which offered rather limited storage and lift space. At the time of the FJ-5’s conception, several of these carriers were still in service – and this argument led to an order for the FJ-5 in addition to the F4D.

 

For the FJ-5, the FJ-4’s aerodynamic surfaces were retained, but the fuselage had to be modified considerably in order to accept an APQ-50A radar with a parabolic 24 inches diameter antenna in the nose. The radome was placed above the air intake, similar to the F-86D, and coupled with an Aero 13F fire-control system, which together provided full all-weather capability and information on automatic firing of rockets.

A deeper rear fuselage became necessary, too, because the FJ-5 was powered by a reheated J65-W-18 engine (a development of the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojet, optimized for a naval environment), which delivered up to 10,500 lbf (47 kN) at full power instead of the FJ-4’s original 7,700 lbf (34 kN). This upgrade had, limited by the airframe’s aerodynamics, only marginal impact on the aircraft’s top speed, but the extra power almost doubled its initial rate of climb, slightly raised the service ceiling and markedly improved acceleration and carrier operations handling through a better response to throttle input and a higher margin of power reserves.

 

Internal armament still consisted of four 20mm cannon. These had to be placed lower in the nose now, flanking the air intake underneath the radome. The FJ-4B’s six underwing hardpoints were retained and could carry AIM-9 Sidewinders (both the IR-guided AIM-9B as well as the Semi-Active Radar Homing (SARH) AIM-9C) as well as the new radar-guided medium-range AIM-7C Sparrow, even though the latter only on the outer pylons, limiting their number to four. Up to six pods with nineteen unguided 70 mm/2.75” unguided Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket (Mighty Mouse FFARs) were another armament option.

 

Beyond these air-to-air weapons, a wide range of other ordnance could be carried. This included the AGM-12 “Bullpup” guided missile (which necessitated a guidance pod on the right inner wing hardpoint), bombs or napalm tanks of up to 1.000 lb caliber, missile pods, drop tanks and ECM pods. The FJ-4B’s strike capabilities were mostly retained, even though the dedicated fighter lost the ability to carry and deliver nuclear weapons in order to save weight and internal space for the radar equipment.

 

The first FJ-5, a converted early FJ-4, made its maiden flight in April 1958. After a short and successful test phase, the type was quickly put into production and introduced to service with US Navy and US Marine Corps units. The new fighter was quickly nicknamed “Fury Dog” by its crews, a reminiscence of the USAF’s F-86D “Sabre Dog” and its characteristic nose section, even though the FJ-5 was officially still just called “Fury”, like its many quite different predecessors.

 

With the new unified designation system adopted in 1962, the FJ-4 became the F-1E, the FJ-4B the AF-1E and the FJ-5 the F-1F. From the prolific Fury family, only the FJ-5/F-1F became involved in a hot conflict: in late 1966, the USMC deployed F-1Fs to Vietnam, where they primarily flew escort and top cover missions for fighter bombers (esp. A-4 Skyhawks) from Da Nang AB, South Vietnam, plus occasional close air support missions (CAS) on their own. The Marines’ F-1Fs remained in Vietnam until 1970, with a single air-to-air victory (a North-Vietnamese MiG-17 was shot down with a Sidewinder missile), no losses and only one aircraft seriously damaged by anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) fire.

 

After this frontline experience, a radar upgrade with an AN/APQ-124 was briefly considered but never carried out, since the F-1F showed the age of the original Fifties design – the type already lacked overall performance for an all-weather fighter that could effectively engage supersonic bomber targets or low flying attack aircraft. However, the aircraft was still popular because of its ruggedness, good handling characteristics and compact dimensions.

Other upgrades that would improve the F-1F’s strike capability, e. g. additional avionics to deploy the AGM-62 Walleye glide bomb or the new AGM-65 Maverick, esp. the USMC’s laser-guided AGM-65E variant, were also rejected, because more capable types for both interceptor and attack roles, namely the Mach 2 Douglas F-4 Phantom II and the LTV A-7 Corsair II, had been introduced in the meantime.

Another factor that denied any updates were military budget cuts. Furthermore, the contemporary F-8 Crusader offered a better performance and was therefore selected in favor of the F-1F to be updated to the H-L variants. In the wake of this decision, all F-1Fs still in Navy service were, together with the decommission of the last Essex Class carriers, in 1975 handed over to the USMC in order to purge the Navy’s inventory and simplify maintenance and logistics.

 

FJ-4 and FJ-4B Fury fighter bombers served with United States Naval Reserve units until the late 1960s, while the F-1F soldiered on with the USMC until the early Eighties, even though only in reserve units. A considerable number had the heavy radar equipment removed and replaced by ballast in the late Seventies, and they were used as fighter-bombers, for dissimilar air combat training (simulating Soviet fighter types like the MiG-17 and -19), as high-speed target tugs or as in-flight refueling tankers, since the FJ-5 inherited this capability from the FJ-4, with up to two buddy packs under the wings. A few machines survived long enough to receive a new low-visibility livery.

 

However, even in the USMC reserve units, the FJ-5 was soon replaced by A-4 Skyhawks, due to the age of the airframes and further fleet reduction measures. The last F-1F was retired in 1982, ending the long career of North American’s F-86 design in US service.

 

A total of 1,196 Furies of all variants were received by the Navy and Marine Corps over the course of its production life, including 152 FJ-4s, 222 FJ-4Bs and 102 FJ-5s.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 40 ft 3 in (12.27 m)

Wingspan: 39 ft 1 in (11.9 m)

Height: 13 ft 11 in (4.2 m)

Wing area: 338.66 ft² (31.46 m²)

Empty weight: 13,518 lb (6,132 kg)

Gross weight: 19,975 lb (9,060 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 25,880 lb (11,750 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Wright J65-W-18 turbojet with 7,400 lbf (32.9 kN) dry thrust

and 10,500 lbf (46.7 kN) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 708 mph (1,139 km/h, 615 kn) at sea level,

737 mph (1,188 km/h/Mach 0.96) at height

Range: 2,020 mi (3,250 km) with 2× 200 gal (760 l) drop tanks and 2× AIM-9 missiles

Service ceiling: 49,750 ft (15,163 m)

Rate of climb: 12,150 ft/min (61.7 m/s)

Wing loading: 69.9 lb/ft² (341.7 kg/m²)

 

Armament:

4× 20 mm (0.787 in) Colt Mk 12 cannon (144 RPG, 578 rounds in total)

6× underwing hardpoints for 3,000 lb (1,400 kg) of ordnance, including AIM-9 and AIM-7 missiles

  

The kit and its assembly:

A project I had on the agenda for a long time. But, due to the major surgeries involved, I have been pushing it away – until the “In the navy” group build at whatifmolders.com came along in early 2020. So I collected my courage, dusted off the donor kits that had already been stashed away for years, and eventually started work.

 

The original inspiration was the F-8 Crusader’s career: I really like the look of the late RF-8s, which were kept long enough in service to receive the Eighties’ Low-Viz USN “Compass Ghost” livery. This looks cool, but also a little wrong. And what if the FJ-4B had been kept in service long enough to receive a similar treatment…?

 

In order to justify a career extension, I made up an all-weather development of the FJ-4B with a radar and a more powerful engine, a kind of light alternative to the Vought A-7. A plausible solution was a mix of FJ-4B and F-86D parts – this sounds easy, but both aircraft and their respective model kits actually have only VERY little in common.

 

At its core, the FJ-5 model is a kitbashing of parts from an Emhar FJ-4B (Revell re-boxing) and an Airfix F-86D. The FJ-4B provided the raised cockpit section with the canopy, spine and fin in the form of a complete transplant, which furthermore had to be extended by about 1cm/0.5” because the F-86D is longer than the Fury. The FJ-4B also provided its wings, stabilizers and the landing gear. The Fury’s ventral arrester hook section, a separate part, was also transferred into the F-86D’s lower rear fuselage, under the openings for the air brakes.

For a more lively look, the (thick!) Fury canopy was sawed into two pieces for open display and the flaps were lowered, too.

 

The cockpit was taken from the Airfix kit, since it would fit well into the lower fuselage and it looked much better than their respective counterparts from the relatively basic Emhar kit, which just comes with a narrow board with a strange, bulky seat-thing. As an extra, the cockpit received side consoles, a scratched gunsight and a different ejection seat that raised the pilot’s position into the Fury’s higher canopy.

 

Since the F-1F was supposed to be a fighter, still equipped with the radar set, I retained the OOB pylons from the Fury with its four launch rails. For an aircraft late in the career, I gave it a reduced ordnance, though, just a pair of drop tanks (left over from a Matchbox F3D Skyknight; I wanted something more slender than the stubby OOB drop tanks from the Emhar Fury kit), plus a better Sidewinder training round (hence its blue body) and a single red ACMI data pod on the outer pylons, as an aerial combat training outfit and nice color highlights on the otherwise dull/grey aircraft.

  

Painting and markings:

As mentioned above, the idea for livery was a vintage aircraft in modern, subdued markings. So I adapted the early USN Compass Ghost scheme, and the F-1F received a two-tone livery in FS 36320 and 36375 (Dark and Light Compass Ghost Grey, Humbrol 128 and 127, respectively) with a high, wavy waterline and a light fin. In front of the cockpit, a slightly darker anti-glare panel in Humbrol 145 (FS 35237) was added, inspired by early USN F-14s in Compass Ghost camouflage.

The radome was painted with Humbrol 156, for a slightly darker/different shade of grey than the aircraft’s upper surfaces – I considered a black or a beige (unpainted glass fiber) radome first, but that would have been a very harsh contrast to the rest.

 

The landing gear as well as the air intake duct were painted glossy white (Humbrol 22), the cockpit became medium grey (Humbrol 140, Dark Gull Gray). The inside of the air brakes as well es the edges of the flaps, normally concealed when they are retracted, were painted in bright red (Humbrol 174). The same tone was also used to highlight the edges of the land gear covers.

 

The grey leading edges on the wings the stabilizers were created with decal sheet strips (generic material from TL Modellbau), the gun blast plates were made with silver decal material.

In order to give the model a worn look, I applied a black ink wash, an overall, light treatment with graphite and some post shading. Some extra graphite was applied around the exhaust and the gun nozzles.

 

The markings were taken for an USMC A-4E/F from a Revell kit (which turned out to be a bit bluish). I wanted a consequent dull/toned-down look, typical for early Compass Ghost aircraft. Later, colored highlights, roundels and squadron markings crept back onto the aircraft, but in the early Eighties many USN/USMC machines were consequently finished in a grey-in-grey livery.

 

Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and the ordnance added.

  

Well, the end result looks simple, but creating this kitbashed Fury all-weather fighter was pretty demanding. Even though both the Fury and the F-86D are based on the same aircraft, they are completely different, and the same is also true for the model kits. It took major surgeries and body sculpting to weld the parts together. But I am quite happy with the outcome, the fictional F-1F looks pretty conclusive and natural, also in the (for this aircraft) unusual low-viz livery.

 

The early 1950s Soviet Navy introduction of the Sverdlov-class cruisers seriously threatened Atlantic merchant fleets. The Royal Navy decided to counter the Sverdlovs with a new specialised strike aircraft employing conventional or nuclear weapons operating from Fleet carriers and attacking at high-speed and low-level. Naval Staff Requirement NA39, called for a two-seat aircraft with folding wings, capable of flying at M0.85 at 200 ft, having a combat range of over 400 nm, and carrying a nuclear weapon internally. Blackburn's design by B. P. Laight, Project B-103, won the tender.

 

The Buccaneer was a mid-winged, twin-engined monoplane with a crew of two seated in tandem under a sliding canopy. To meet the specification the Buccaneer featured a number of advanced design features. The fuselage was area ruled; meaning it was designed to reduce drag at transonic speeds. This gives rise to the characteristic curvy "Coke bottle" shape. It featured a variable incidence tailplane that could be trimmed to suit the particular requirements of low-speed handling or high-speed flight.

 

At the low levels and high speeds traditional bomb bay doors could not be opened safely into the airstream, so doors were developed that rotated into the fuselage to expose the payload; this was also useful in assisting ground-level access. The nose cone and radar antennae could also be swung around by 180° to reduce the length of the aircraft in the carrier hangar, particularly important as contemporary British aircraft carriers were small.

 

With the introduction of the Martel air-to-surface missile, some Mk 2 aircraft were converted to carry it, and became S.2D. The remainder became S.2C. 16 aircraft were built (and 15 delivered) for the South African Air Force as the S.50.

 

When the FAA's fixed-wing operations ended in 1978, 62 of the 84 Buccaneer Mk 2s were transferred to the RAF as S.2A, joining 26 aircraft built by Blackburn's successor, Hawker Siddeley for the RAF as the S.2B. These aircraft were not navalised and, like the S.2A, had RAF-type communications and avionics equipment. They were able to operate the AN/AVQ 23E Pave Spike laser designator pod for Paveway II LGBs and act as target designators for other aircraft. From 1986 No. 208 Squadron RAF used them with the Sea Eagle anti-ship missile.

 

The Buccaneer entered service in 1962. In addition to conventional ordnance, in 1965 it was approved for nuclear weapons delivery i.e. the Red Beard and WE177 bombs. The Buccaneer saw war service during the 1991 Gulf War when examples were rushed to the area to provide a laser designation capability for British aircraft, and dropping small numbers of LGBs themselves. The last Buccaneers were withdrawn in March 1994 when 208 Squadron disbanded.

 

Seen at the Imperial War Museum's RAF Duxford site in Cambridgeshire.

Like many of the fans who endured the cold, drizzly conditions inside Reliant Stadium to start the game, the Texans took a few minutes to warm up Sunday afternoon in the regular season finale against the Chicago Bears.

 

After a wake-up call courtesy of a momentum-changing sack by defensive end Mario Williams and a stern message from coach Gary Kubiak, the fans were treated to a spectacular offensive display led by Pro Bowler Andre Johnson and rookie running back Steve Slaton .

 

The 31-24 win gave Houston its second-consecutive 8-8 record to end the season, and it shut out the Bears from postseason contention.

Texans owner Bob McNair admired the team's strong finish to the season.

 

"I'd rather be 16-0," McNair said. "But I think starting out the way we did, 0-4, coming back, understand that only nine other teams have ever done that (start 0-4 and finish .500 or better) in this history of the NFL. So I think it was an accomplishment for our team."

 

Early on, the Texans appeared to suffer from the same malaise they showed at Oakland a week earlier. But the team erased a 10-0 deficit in the first quarter with 21 unanswered points to take a 21-10 lead early in the third quarter.

 

In that stretch, Johnson scored back-to-back touchdowns to bring the franchise-record crowd of 70,838 to its feet. The Pro Bowler finished with 10 catches for 148 yards (14.8 avg.) to end the season with the NFL lead in receptions (115) and receiving yards (1,575).

 

Meanwhile, Slaton rebounded from a first half in which he totaled only 19 rushing yards and lost a fumble to put the offense on his back in the final quarter of play. By gaining 128 total yards from scrimmage and scoring a touchdown in the game, Slaton may have sealed NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year honors.

 

Slaton’s five-yard gain with 1:24 remaining in the contest gave Houston a first down and allowed the team to run out the remainder of the clock.

 

"I really like the way we came back and played after we played pretty poorly on both sides of the ball throughout the first quarter," Kubiak said.

 

Chicago scored its first touchdown with 5:57 remaining in the first quarter when wide receiver Brandon Lloyd stretched out for a four-yard touchdown grab near the front left pylon. A 15-yard reception by wide receiver Devin Hester and a 15-yard penalty on defensive end Tim Bulman for roughing the passer set up the score.

 

Wide receiver André Davis ' 39-yard kickoff return down the Bears' sideline gave the Texans solid field position at their 42-yard line to begin their second possession. But Slaton fumbled on the first play from scrimmage after being tackled by cornerback Charles Tillman. Defensive end Alex Brown recovered the fumble and returned it 17 yards to the Houston 38.

 

Three plays later, Robbie Gould's 37-yard field goal made the score 10-0.

 

The next drive started promising when quarterback Matt Schaub threw a tight spiral to Davis for a 33-yard gain up the middle of the field. But tight end Owen Daniels was penalized 15 yards for unnecessary roughness on the next play, and Schaub was flagged 10 yards for intentional grounding one play later to derail the drive and force a punt.

 

Upon returning to the sideline, the offense received an earful from Kubiak.

 

"I just didn't think we were going about our business the way we were capable of playing," Kubiak said. "That's not us. We're usually a pretty poised group as a football team and right there is losing poise and getting a shot in on a guy and all of a sudden it took a lot of momentum away from us."

 

With 11:26 left in the first half, Chicago took over at the Houston 49 following a three-and-out series by the Texans. But Williams saved the defense with his 12th sack of the season by tackling quarterback Kyle Orton at the Chicago 45 for a 10-yard loss on third down.

 

From there, Johnson caught three passes for 72 yards, including a 43-yard touchdown where he dragged two defenders with him over the goal line. Kris Brown's extra point cut the Bears' lead to 10-7 with 5:50 remaining before halftime.

 

Running back Ryan Moats forced a fumble on the ensuing kickoff when he tackled Devin Hester. Brown dove on the ball at the Chicago 38 for the Texans' first takeaway.

 

On third-and-goal at the three-yard line, Schaub threw a fade route to Johnson in the back right corner of the end zone, and Johnson ripped away the ball from Tillman for the score.

 

Safety Danieal Manning returned the opening kickoff of the second half 40 yards to the Chicago 45. But on third-and-six, rookie safety Dominique Barber blitzed off the right side to sack Orton for a nine-yard loss.

 

Picking up where he left off in the first half, Johnson gained 21 yards to the Houston 48 on his first reception of the third quarter. Later, Slaton's 17-yard catch and wide receiver Kevin Walter's 23-yard grab helped give the Texans a first down at the Chicago 17.

 

Moats scored his first touchdown with the team on a two-yard rush off the left guard to cap the nine-play drive. Brown's extra point extended the Texans' lead to 21-10 with 8:30 left in the third quarter.

 

The Bears refused to lie down and responded with a seven-play, 77-yard drive over 3:00. A 37-yard catch by Hester to the Texans' one-yard line set up Orton's touchdown pass to tight end Greg Olsen.

 

Late in the third quarter, the Texans moved into scoring range thanks to a 33-yard catch by Daniels to the Chicago 15. On third-and-10 at the 15-yard line, wide receiver David Anderson made a diving nine-yard reception, and Schaub dove forward on fourth down to keep the drive alive.

 

Following two short rushes by Slaton, Schaub's pass intended for Anderson on third-and-goal from the four-yard line fell incomplete, setting up Brown's 22-yard field goal.

 

Following a Chicago punt to the Houston 11 midway through the fourth quarter, Schaub drove the offense 89 yards in 11 plays. On the first play of the series, he avoided a safety on first down by tossing a pass in the flats to Slaton, who outran a defensive lineman for an 11-yard gain. Two plays later, Slaton rushed for 47 yards before Manning tackled him at the Chicago 29.

 

A 14-yard reception by Johnson set up Slaton's 15-yard touchdown run, but a holding call on right guard Mike Brisiel negated the score. On the next run by Slaton, he was tackled and fumbled after a one-yard run, but Kubiak challenged the call. Replays showed Slaton's elbow was down before the ball came loose, and officials overturned the call.

 

On third-and-14, Bears linebacker Nick Roach was penalized for holding, giving the Texans an automatic first down at the 14-yard line. Slaton capped the team’s second-consecutive 11-play series with a two-yard touchdown run to make the score 31-17 after Brown's extra point.

 

The Bears made things interesting by picking apart the Texans' prevent defense on an 11-play, 72-yard drive over 1:55. On fourth-and-one at the Houston 11, Orton dove forward for a first down at the two-minute warning. He moved the Bears to the one-yard line by finding running back Adrian Peterson open on a nine-yard screen pass.

 

Safety Eugene Wilson was injured on the play, resulting in a burned timeout for Houston. Once play was restored, Orton pushed his way over the goal line for a touchdown that made the score 31-23 with 1:29 left in the game.

 

But Gould’s onside kick was recovered by Walter at the Chicago 44, and Slaton preserved the win on his final carry of the game for five yards and a first down.

The Lamborghini Diablo is a high-performance mid-engined sports car that was built by Italian automaker Lamborghini between 1990 and 2001. It was the first Lamborghini capable of attaining a top speed in excess of 200 miles per hour (320 km/h). After the end of its production run in 2001, the Diablo was replaced by the Lamborghini Murciélago. Diablo is "devil" in Spanish, which is diavolo in Italian.

 

History of development

 

At a time when the company was financed by the Swiss-based Mimran brothers, Lamborghini began development of what was codenamed Project 132 in June 1985 as a replacement for the Countach model. The brief stated that its top speed had to be at least 315 km/h (196 mph).

 

The design of the car was contracted to Marcello Gandini, who had designed its two predecessors. When Chrysler bought the company in 1987, providing money to complete its development, its management was uncomfortable with Gandini’s designs and commissioned its design team in Detroit to execute a third extensive redesign, smoothing out the trademark sharp edges and corners of Gandini's original design, and leaving him famously unimpressed. In fact, Gandini was so disappointed with the "softened" shape that he would later realize his original design in the Cizeta-Moroder V16T.

 

The car became known as the Diablo, carrying on Lamborghini's tradition of naming its cars after breeds of fighting bull. The Diablo was named after a ferocious bull raised by the Duke of Veragua in the 19th century, famous for fighting an epic battle with 'El Chicorro' in Madrid on July 11, 1869. In the words of Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson, the Diablo was designed "solely to be the biggest head-turner in the world."

 

The development is believed to have cost a total of 6 billion Italian lira.

 

Diablo VT Roadster

 

1995-1998 Lamborghini Diablo VT Roadster

 

The Diablo VT Roadster was introduced in December 1995 and featured an electrically operated carbon fiber targa top which was stored above the engine lid when not in use. Besides the roof, the roadster's body was altered from the fixed-top VT model in a number of ways. The front bumper was revised, replacing the quad rectangular driving lamps with two rectangular and two round units. The brake cooling ducts were moved inboard of the driving lamps and changed to a straked design, while the rear ducts featured the vertical painted design seen on the SE30.

 

The engine lid was changed substantially in order to vent properly when the roof panel was covering it. The roadster also featured revised 17 inch wheels. The air intakes on top/sides were made larger than the coupe Diablos. In 1998 the wheels have been updated to 18 inch, and the engine power raised to 530 HP by adding the variable valve timing system. Top speed specification was raised to 335 km/h (208 mph).

 

In 1999 the dashboard received a major optical update by Audi, and the pop-up headlights were replaced by fixed headlights, same as for the coupés. This resulted in a better aerodynamic shape and modern optics.

 

[Text from Wikipedia]

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini_Diablo

 

This Lego miniland scale Lamborghini Diablo VT Roadster has been created for Flickr LUGNuts' 96th Build Challenge - The 8th Birthday, titled - 'Happy Crazy Eight Birthday, LUGNuts' - where all previous build challenges are available to build to. This model is built to the LUGNuts 92nd build challenge, - "Stuck in the 90s" featuring vehicles from the decade of the 1990s

+++ 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 ASTA (Aerospace Technologies of Australia, formerly Government Aircraft Factories) Baza development was started in 1995 when the Royal Australian Air Force was searching for a two-seat training aircraft that would allow the transition from initial training on piston-engined aircraft to jets, and could also be used for weapon training and CAS/reconnaissance duties.

 

ASTA responded with a low-wing two-turboprop-engined all-metal monoplane with retractable landing gear, capable of operating from unprepared strips when operationally required. The aircraft, internally coded “A-31”, was of conventional, all-metal (mainly duralumin) construction. The unswept cantilever wings have 3° of dihedral and are fitted with slotted trailing-edge flaps.

 

The A-31 had a tandem cockpit arrangement; the crew of two was seated under the upward opening clamshell canopy on Martin-Baker Mk 6AP6A zero/zero ejection seats and were provided with dual controls.

 

Armor plating was fitted to protect the crew and engines from hostile ground fire. The aircraft was powered by a pair of Garrett TPE 331 engines, driving sets of three-bladed propellers which were also capable of being used as air brakes.

 

The A-31 was designed for operations from short, rough airstrips.[The retractable tricycle landing gear, with a single nose wheel and twin main wheels retracting into the engine nacelles, is therefore fitted with low pressure tires to suit operations on rough ground, while the undercarriage legs are tall to give good clearance for underslung weapon loads. The undercarriage, flaps and brakes are operated hydraulically, with no pneumatic systems.

 

Two JATO rockets can be fitted under the fuselage to allow extra-short take-off.

Fuel is fed from two fuselage tanks of combined capacity of 800 L (180 imp gal; 210 US gal) and two self-sealing tanks of 460 L (100 imp gal; 120 US gal) in the wings.

 

Fixed armament of the A-31 consisted of two 30mm Aden cannons mounted under the cockpits with 200 rounds each. A total of nine hardpoints were fitted for the carriage of external stores such as bombs, rockets or external fuel tanks, with one of 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) capacity mounted under the fuselage and the remaining two pairs of 500 kg (1,100 lb) capacity beneath the wing roots and wings inside of the engine nacelles, and two more pairs of hardpoints outside of the engines for another 500 kg and 227 kg, respectively. Total external weapons load was limited to 6,800 lb (3,085 kg) of weapons, though.

Onboard armaments were aimed by a simple reflector sight, since no all weather/night capabilities were called for – even though provisions were made that external sensors could be carried (e. g. a TISEO or a PAVE Spike pod).

 

Severe competition arose through the BAe Hawk, though: the Royal Australian Air Force ordered 33 Hawk 127 Lead-in Fighters (LIFs) in June 1997, 12 of which were produced in the UK and 21 in Australia – and this procurement severely hampered the A-31’s progress. The initial plan to build 66 aircraft for domestic use, with prospects for export, e. g. to Sri Lanka, Indonesia or Turkey, was cut down to a mere 32 aircraft which were to be used in conjunction with the Australian Army in the FAC role and against mobile ground targets.

 

This extended role required an upgrade with additional avionics, an optional forward looking infrared (FLIR) sensor and a laser ranger in an extended nose section, which lead to the Mk. II configuration - effectively, only five machines were produced as Mk.I types, and they were updated to Mk. II configuration even before delivery to the RAAF in August 1999.

 

Since then, the ASTA A-31 has been used in concunction with RAAF's Pilatus PC-9 and BAe Hawk Mk. 127 trainers. Beyond educational duties the type is also employed for Fleet support to Navy operations and for close air support to Army operations.

 

The 'Baza' (christened by a small sized bird of prey found in the forests of South Asia and Southeast Asia) has even seen serious military duty and already fired in anger: since August 2007, a detachment of No. 114 Mobile Control and Reporting Unit RAAF has been on active service at Kandahar Airfield in southern Afghanistan, and a constant detachment of six A-31's from RAAF 76 Suqadron has been assigned to armed reconnaissance and protection of approximately 75 personnel deployed with the AN/TPS-77 radar, assigned the responsibility to co-ordinate coalition air operations.

  

General characteristics

Crew: 2

Length (incl. Pitot): 14.69 m (48 ft 1 ½ in)

Wingspan: 14.97 m (49 ft)

Height: 3, 75 m (12 ft 3 in)

Wing area: 30.30 m2 (326.1 sq ft)

Aspect ratio: 6.9:1

Airfoil: NACA 642A215 at root, NACA641 at tip

Empty weight: 4,020 kg (8,863 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 6,800 kg (14,991 lb)

Internal fuel capacity: 1,280 L (280 imp gal; 340 US gal)

 

Powerplant:

2 × Garrett TPE 331-11U-601G turboprop engines, 820 kW (1.100 hp) each

 

Performance

Maximum speed: 515 km/h (311 mph; 270 kn) at 4.570 m (15.000 ft)

Cruising speed: 430 km/h (267 mph; 232 kn) at 2.500 m (8.200 ft)

Stall speed: 143 km/h (89 mph; 77 kn) (flaps and undercarriage down)

Never exceed speed: 750 km/h (466 mph; 405 kn)

Range:1.611 km (1.000 mi; 868 nmi), clean and internal fuel only

Ferry range: 3,710 km (2,305 mi; 2,003 nmi) max internal and external fuel

Service ceiling: 10,000 m (32,808 ft)

g limits: +6/-3 g

Rate of climb: 6.5 m/s (1.276 ft/min)

 

Armament

2× 30 mm ADEN cannons in the lower nose

Up to 6,800 lb (3,085 kg) of weapons on nine external hardpoints

  

The kit and its assembly:

Like many of my whifs, this was spawned by a project at whatifmodelers.com from fellow user silverwindblade that ran under the handle "COIN aircraft from a Hawk" - and in fact, the BAe Hawk's fuselage with its staggered cockpit and good field of view appears as a good basis for a conversion.

 

I liked the idea VERY much, and while silverwindblade's work would rather develop into a futuristic canard layout aircraft, I decided to keep the COIN aircraft rather conservative - the FMA 58 'Pucara' from Argentina would be a proper benchmark.

 

The basis here is the Italeri BAe Hawk Mk. 127 kit which comes with the longer nose and modified wings for the RAAF version, as well as with false decals.

Anyway, I'd only use the fuselage, anything else is implanted, partly from unlikely donation kits! Wings incl. engine nacelles and stablizers come from the vintage box scale (1:166?) Revell Convair R3Y-2 Tradewind flying boat(!), the fin from an Academy OV-10 Bronco.

The landing gear was puzzled together, among other from parts of a 1:200 Concorde, the propellers were scratched.

 

Biggest mod to the fuselage is the dissection of the air intakes (and their blending with the fuselage) as well as a new tail section where the Adour jet engine's exhaust had been.

  

Painting and markings:

This model was agood excuse to finally apply an SIOP color scheme, which was originally carried by USAF's strategic bombers like B-52 or FB-111. But what actually inspired me were Australian C-130s - it took some time to figure out that their scheme were the USAF's SIOP colors (FS 34201, 34159 and 34079). But that made the Baza's potential user's choice (and fictional origin) easy.

 

As a COIN role aircraft I settled on a wraparound scheme. I found a pattern scheme on an USN Aggerssor A-4 Skyhawk that had been painted in SIOP colors, too, and adapted it for the model. Basic colors were Humbrol 31, 84 and 116, good approximations - the result looks odd, but suits the Baza well.

 

Later, panels were emphasized through dry painting with lighter shades and a light black ink wash was applied.

 

The landing gear became classic white, the cockpit interior medium gray - nothing fancy.

 

The markings were improvised - the Italeri Hawk Mk. 127 features RAAF 'roos, but these are printed in black - wrong for the OOB kit, but very welcome on my aircraft. The rest was salvaged from the scrap box, the tactical code A-31-06 created with single letters from TL Modellbau.

+++ 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 Fiat G.91 was an Italian jet fighter aircraft, the winner of the NATO competition in 1953 as standard equipment for Allied air forces. European manufacturers were invited to submit their designs for this requested Light Weight Strike Fighter (LWSF) role. The G.91 was designed to this specification by the Italian engineer Giuseppe Gabrielli, hence the "G" designation. The competition was intended to produce an aircraft that was light, small, expendable, equipped with basic weapons and avionics and capable of operating with minimal ground support. These specifications were developed for two reasons: the first was the nuclear threat to large air bases, many cheaper aircraft could be better dispersed, and the other was to counter the trend towards larger and more expensive aircraft.

 

The technical requirements were:

• 1,100 m (3,610 ft) takeoff distance over a 15 m (49 ft) obstacle

• Capability to operate from grass strips and streets

• Maximum speed of Mach 0.95

• Range of 280 km (170 mi) with 10 minutes over the target

• Armoured protection for the pilot and the fuel tanks

• 4 × 12.7 mm (.5 in) or 2 × 20 mm or 30 mm guns

• A maximum of 2,200 kg (4,850 lb) empty weight and 4,700 kg (10,360 lb) max weight

 

The challenge of providing an engine that matched the requirements of lightness and power, reliability and ease of maintenance was solved by using the Bristol Siddeley Orpheus turbojet.

After the loss of the G.91 prototype, the French government preferred to pursue development of the locally-designed Étendard. The British government similarly ignored the competition to concentrate on Hawker Hunter production for the same role. The type was also considered by Austria, Norway, Switzerland, and even the United States Army, which briefly evaluated the type as a possible Forward Air Control (FAC) aircraft before relinquishing all fixed-wing aircraft operations to the USAF.

 

The G.91 entered operational service with the Italian Air Force in 1961, with West Germany's Luftwaffe in 1962, and later with the Portuguese Air Force (German surplus machines). The first G.91s entered service with the Royal Norwegian Air Force in August 1967. The original R/5 variant for Norway with increased range had been cancelled, but the RNoAF took over fourty-two G.91 R/4 aircraft from a cancelled Greek/Turkish order. These planes were originally armed with four 12.7 mm (0.5 in) Colt-Browning machine guns and powered by the Rolls-Royce Orpheus turbojet engine. Their main role was close air support, tactical sea combat and reconnaissance. One special Norwegian feature was the retrofitted brake parachute housing under the base of the fin.

 

In 1980, the Norwegian planes saw a major overhaul (MLU), combined with an update concerning both performance and attack capability. The Orpheus was replaced by a single Rolls-Royce Turbomeca Adour Mk. 106 turbofan (developed for the SEPECAT Jaguar), which offered not only slightly better dry thrust than the former engine but also a better fuel consumption and an afterburner for enhanced rate of climb and acceleration. As a side effect. top speed was slightly improved, as well as range and the weapon load. A similar step was taken with the G.91 Y in Italy, where the original Bristol Siddeley Orpheus engine was replaced with two General Electric afterburner J85 units - only that this "Yankee" was literally a new aircraft.

 

In order to achieve true all-weather capability, esp. against targets at sea, the G.91N, how the planes were called now, were fitted with a Thomson-CSF Agave radar in a new nose section, reminiscent of the F-86D/K "Sabre Dog" interceptor. The original cameras in the nose were deleted, an external camera pod was developed for reconnaissance duties.

 

The planes’ strike potential was also heavily augmented by the integration of the Norwegian AGM-119 "Penguin" short-to-medium range (up to 50km) naval guided missile. The AGM-119 was developed by Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace (KDA) and was the first AShM of the western world with a passive IR seeker instead of the commonly used active radar technology. Propelled by a solid rocket engine and flying at low altitude and high subsonmic speed, it performs random weaving maneuvres at target approach and hits the target close to the waterline, its 120 kg warhead detonates inside the target ship by using a delay fuze. Additionally, the original four 0.5” machine guns were replaced by a pair of DEFA 552 30 mm cannons with 125 RPG, and AIM-9 Sidewinder could be carried for self-defense.

 

In this new guise, the Norwegian "Ginos", as they were called by their crews, soldiered on until 1991, when they were retired and replaced by the much more capable and versatile F-16.

 

All in all, the G.91 remained in production for 19 years, the last planes retired in Italy in 1995. 756 aircraft were completed, including the prototypes and pre-production models. The assembly lines were finally closed in 1977. The Fiat G.91 enjoyed a long service life that extended over 35 years.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 10.5 m (34 ft 5 in)

Wingspan: 8.56 m (28 ft 1 in)

Height: 4.0 m (13 ft 1 in)

Wing area: 16.4 m² (177 ft²)

Empty weight: 3,300 kg (6,830 lb)

Loaded weight: 5,640 kg (11,990 lb)

Max. take-off weight: 5,700 kg (12,100 lb)

 

Maximum speed: 1,125 km/h (608 kn, 700 mph) at optimum height

Range: 1,700 km (920 nmi, 1.060 mi)

Service ceiling: 13,100 m (43,000 ft)

Rate of climb: 85 m/s (16.725 ft/min)

Wing loading: 331 kg/m² (67.8 lb/ft²)

Thrust/weight: 0.42

 

Powerplant:

Rolls-Royce/Turbomeca Adour Mk 106 turbofan with 6,000 lb (27.0 KN) dry / 8,430 lb (37.5 KN) with reheat

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm (1.18 in) DEFA 552 30 mm cannon with 125 rounds per gun

4× under-wing pylon stations holding up to maximum of 1,814 kg/4,000 lb of payload, including 2x AGM-119 Penguin missiles, Matra rocket pods (each with 19× SNEB 68 mm rockets or 18× Hispano SURA R80 80 mm rockets. AIM-9 Sidewinder can be carried for self defense, as well as a wide variety of air-to-ground ordnance including unguided iron bombs, gun pods in addition to auxiliary drop tanks for extended range.

  

The kit and its assembly

This model came to be after finding a discussion at whatifmodelers.com, where the (tragic) fate of the Fiat G.91 was discussed. This light NATO attack fighter would have entered the air forces of virtually all European countries, but it became victim of politics and just ended up in Italy, Germany and (in late days) Portugal. Anyway, an inspiring thought is what would have been possible, e .g. in countries like Spain, Greece or Norway?

 

The basis is a G.91 P.A.N. from the Frecce Tricolori 50th anniversary kit, made by Italeri. It is, in fact, the Revell kit, nicely detailed and only with few trouble zones (e .g. the fuselage halves needed putty to fit, as well as the panels with the alternative guns). The kit was mostly built right out of the box. Only changes are the new radar nose - the front part of a P-61 drop tank - some antennae on the fin which sports a radar warning system. Additionally, a new and longer jet exhaust nozzle was fitted, simulating the new afterburner engine.

 

Landing flaps were partly opened from neutral position, the air brakes under the belly fixed into an open position (the latter is a standard kit feature, though). Further mods include a brake parachute container under the tail fin and the armament: The DEFA guns come as alternative side panels with the kit, and the guns themselves were simulated with steel tubes (syringes). The Penguin missiles as well as the ALQ-131 ECM pod come from Hasegawa weapon sets. The fourth free weapon station was filled with a Bofors BOZ-107 chaff/flare dispenser, lent from a Tornado.

  

Painting

The true whif comes with livery and markings, and IMHO the more subtle the look, the more convincing the result. Hence I chose a very simple livery for my G.91N: an overall finish in FS36270 (US Medium Grey, Humbrol 126), the same as RNoAF F-16 aircraft. Only contrast marks are the black nose, the colourful roundels and some red warning markings all over the plane.

 

The national markings come from an aftermarket sheet from TL Decals. Stencilling is taken from an old Matchbox G.91Y and the scrap box. Numbers etc. were improvised, too, based on pictures from other Norwegian planes (airliners.net is a great source for reference here).

 

I did some light washing with black ink to emphasize panel lines and engravings, and also did some weathering with dry-brushed lighter shades of grey (mainly Humbrol 140, very subtle), giving the uniform grey a faded/bleached look on the upper sides and leading edges. Finally, the kit received a coat of matte varnish (Dupli Color Acryllic, form the rattle can), the radome was painted with Humbrol's semi-matte varnish.

 

The result: a simple but effective whif, which also shows what could have become of the original G.91 design over time and technical development, if it had not become victim to political decisions and national vanities.

+++ 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 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.

Mining, like farming, is capable of producing building material in abundance - so long as you were planning a stone construction.

Established in the early 1860's to supply an influx of gold miners, Woods Point is still hidden in the high country of Victoria and serviced by dirt roads. A boom town that once boasted 36 hotels in 1864, now caters for 4WD enthusiasts and motor-cyclists who enjoy the rugged terrain and challenging tracks.

Like many of the fans who endured the cold, drizzly conditions inside Reliant Stadium to start the game, the Texans took a few minutes to warm up Sunday afternoon in the regular season finale against the Chicago Bears.

 

After a wake-up call courtesy of a momentum-changing sack by defensive end Mario Williams and a stern message from coach Gary Kubiak, the fans were treated to a spectacular offensive display led by Pro Bowler Andre Johnson and rookie running back Steve Slaton .

 

The 31-24 win gave Houston its second-consecutive 8-8 record to end the season, and it shut out the Bears from postseason contention.

Texans owner Bob McNair admired the team's strong finish to the season.

 

"I'd rather be 16-0," McNair said. "But I think starting out the way we did, 0-4, coming back, understand that only nine other teams have ever done that (start 0-4 and finish .500 or better) in this history of the NFL. So I think it was an accomplishment for our team."

 

Early on, the Texans appeared to suffer from the same malaise they showed at Oakland a week earlier. But the team erased a 10-0 deficit in the first quarter with 21 unanswered points to take a 21-10 lead early in the third quarter.

 

In that stretch, Johnson scored back-to-back touchdowns to bring the franchise-record crowd of 70,838 to its feet. The Pro Bowler finished with 10 catches for 148 yards (14.8 avg.) to end the season with the NFL lead in receptions (115) and receiving yards (1,575).

 

Meanwhile, Slaton rebounded from a first half in which he totaled only 19 rushing yards and lost a fumble to put the offense on his back in the final quarter of play. By gaining 128 total yards from scrimmage and scoring a touchdown in the game, Slaton may have sealed NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year honors.

 

Slaton’s five-yard gain with 1:24 remaining in the contest gave Houston a first down and allowed the team to run out the remainder of the clock.

 

"I really like the way we came back and played after we played pretty poorly on both sides of the ball throughout the first quarter," Kubiak said.

 

Chicago scored its first touchdown with 5:57 remaining in the first quarter when wide receiver Brandon Lloyd stretched out for a four-yard touchdown grab near the front left pylon. A 15-yard reception by wide receiver Devin Hester and a 15-yard penalty on defensive end Tim Bulman for roughing the passer set up the score.

 

Wide receiver André Davis ' 39-yard kickoff return down the Bears' sideline gave the Texans solid field position at their 42-yard line to begin their second possession. But Slaton fumbled on the first play from scrimmage after being tackled by cornerback Charles Tillman. Defensive end Alex Brown recovered the fumble and returned it 17 yards to the Houston 38.

 

Three plays later, Robbie Gould's 37-yard field goal made the score 10-0.

 

The next drive started promising when quarterback Matt Schaub threw a tight spiral to Davis for a 33-yard gain up the middle of the field. But tight end Owen Daniels was penalized 15 yards for unnecessary roughness on the next play, and Schaub was flagged 10 yards for intentional grounding one play later to derail the drive and force a punt.

 

Upon returning to the sideline, the offense received an earful from Kubiak.

 

"I just didn't think we were going about our business the way we were capable of playing," Kubiak said. "That's not us. We're usually a pretty poised group as a football team and right there is losing poise and getting a shot in on a guy and all of a sudden it took a lot of momentum away from us."

 

With 11:26 left in the first half, Chicago took over at the Houston 49 following a three-and-out series by the Texans. But Williams saved the defense with his 12th sack of the season by tackling quarterback Kyle Orton at the Chicago 45 for a 10-yard loss on third down.

 

From there, Johnson caught three passes for 72 yards, including a 43-yard touchdown where he dragged two defenders with him over the goal line. Kris Brown's extra point cut the Bears' lead to 10-7 with 5:50 remaining before halftime.

 

Running back Ryan Moats forced a fumble on the ensuing kickoff when he tackled Devin Hester. Brown dove on the ball at the Chicago 38 for the Texans' first takeaway.

 

On third-and-goal at the three-yard line, Schaub threw a fade route to Johnson in the back right corner of the end zone, and Johnson ripped away the ball from Tillman for the score.

 

Safety Danieal Manning returned the opening kickoff of the second half 40 yards to the Chicago 45. But on third-and-six, rookie safety Dominique Barber blitzed off the right side to sack Orton for a nine-yard loss.

 

Picking up where he left off in the first half, Johnson gained 21 yards to the Houston 48 on his first reception of the third quarter. Later, Slaton's 17-yard catch and wide receiver Kevin Walter's 23-yard grab helped give the Texans a first down at the Chicago 17.

 

Moats scored his first touchdown with the team on a two-yard rush off the left guard to cap the nine-play drive. Brown's extra point extended the Texans' lead to 21-10 with 8:30 left in the third quarter.

 

The Bears refused to lie down and responded with a seven-play, 77-yard drive over 3:00. A 37-yard catch by Hester to the Texans' one-yard line set up Orton's touchdown pass to tight end Greg Olsen.

 

Late in the third quarter, the Texans moved into scoring range thanks to a 33-yard catch by Daniels to the Chicago 15. On third-and-10 at the 15-yard line, wide receiver David Anderson made a diving nine-yard reception, and Schaub dove forward on fourth down to keep the drive alive.

 

Following two short rushes by Slaton, Schaub's pass intended for Anderson on third-and-goal from the four-yard line fell incomplete, setting up Brown's 22-yard field goal.

 

Following a Chicago punt to the Houston 11 midway through the fourth quarter, Schaub drove the offense 89 yards in 11 plays. On the first play of the series, he avoided a safety on first down by tossing a pass in the flats to Slaton, who outran a defensive lineman for an 11-yard gain. Two plays later, Slaton rushed for 47 yards before Manning tackled him at the Chicago 29.

 

A 14-yard reception by Johnson set up Slaton's 15-yard touchdown run, but a holding call on right guard Mike Brisiel negated the score. On the next run by Slaton, he was tackled and fumbled after a one-yard run, but Kubiak challenged the call. Replays showed Slaton's elbow was down before the ball came loose, and officials overturned the call.

 

On third-and-14, Bears linebacker Nick Roach was penalized for holding, giving the Texans an automatic first down at the 14-yard line. Slaton capped the team’s second-consecutive 11-play series with a two-yard touchdown run to make the score 31-17 after Brown's extra point.

 

The Bears made things interesting by picking apart the Texans' prevent defense on an 11-play, 72-yard drive over 1:55. On fourth-and-one at the Houston 11, Orton dove forward for a first down at the two-minute warning. He moved the Bears to the one-yard line by finding running back Adrian Peterson open on a nine-yard screen pass.

 

Safety Eugene Wilson was injured on the play, resulting in a burned timeout for Houston. Once play was restored, Orton pushed his way over the goal line for a touchdown that made the score 31-23 with 1:29 left in the game.

 

But Gould’s onside kick was recovered by Walter at the Chicago 44, and Slaton preserved the win on his final carry of the game for five yards and a first down.

The Lamborghini Diablo is a high-performance mid-engined sports car that was built by Italian automaker Lamborghini between 1990 and 2001. It was the first Lamborghini capable of attaining a top speed in excess of 200 miles per hour (320 km/h). After the end of its production run in 2001, the Diablo was replaced by the Lamborghini Murciélago. Diablo is "devil" in Spanish, which is diavolo in Italian.

 

History of development

 

At a time when the company was financed by the Swiss-based Mimran brothers, Lamborghini began development of what was codenamed Project 132 in June 1985 as a replacement for the Countach model. The brief stated that its top speed had to be at least 315 km/h (196 mph).

 

The design of the car was contracted to Marcello Gandini, who had designed its two predecessors. When Chrysler bought the company in 1987, providing money to complete its development, its management was uncomfortable with Gandini’s designs and commissioned its design team in Detroit to execute a third extensive redesign, smoothing out the trademark sharp edges and corners of Gandini's original design, and leaving him famously unimpressed. In fact, Gandini was so disappointed with the "softened" shape that he would later realize his original design in the Cizeta-Moroder V16T.

 

The car became known as the Diablo, carrying on Lamborghini's tradition of naming its cars after breeds of fighting bull. The Diablo was named after a ferocious bull raised by the Duke of Veragua in the 19th century, famous for fighting an epic battle with 'El Chicorro' in Madrid on July 11, 1869. In the words of Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson, the Diablo was designed "solely to be the biggest head-turner in the world."

 

The development is believed to have cost a total of 6 billion Italian lira.

 

Diablo VT Roadster

 

1995-1998 Lamborghini Diablo VT Roadster

 

The Diablo VT Roadster was introduced in December 1995 and featured an electrically operated carbon fiber targa top which was stored above the engine lid when not in use. Besides the roof, the roadster's body was altered from the fixed-top VT model in a number of ways. The front bumper was revised, replacing the quad rectangular driving lamps with two rectangular and two round units. The brake cooling ducts were moved inboard of the driving lamps and changed to a straked design, while the rear ducts featured the vertical painted design seen on the SE30.

 

The engine lid was changed substantially in order to vent properly when the roof panel was covering it. The roadster also featured revised 17 inch wheels. The air intakes on top/sides were made larger than the coupe Diablos. In 1998 the wheels have been updated to 18 inch, and the engine power raised to 530 HP by adding the variable valve timing system. Top speed specification was raised to 335 km/h (208 mph).

 

In 1999 the dashboard received a major optical update by Audi, and the pop-up headlights were replaced by fixed headlights, same as for the coupés. This resulted in a better aerodynamic shape and modern optics.

 

[Text from Wikipedia]

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini_Diablo

 

This Lego miniland scale Lamborghini Diablo VT Roadster has been created for Flickr LUGNuts' 96th Build Challenge - The 8th Birthday, titled - 'Happy Crazy Eight Birthday, LUGNuts' - where all previous build challenges are available to build to. This model is built to the LUGNuts 92nd build challenge, - "Stuck in the 90s" featuring vehicles from the decade of the 1990s

+++ 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 ASTA (Aerospace Technologies of Australia, formerly Government Aircraft Factories) Baza development was started in 1995 when the Royal Australian Air Force was searching for a two-seat training aircraft that would allow the transition from initial training on piston-engined aircraft to jets, and could also be used for weapon training and CAS/reconnaissance duties.

 

ASTA responded with a low-wing two-turboprop-engined all-metal monoplane with retractable landing gear, capable of operating from unprepared strips when operationally required. The aircraft, internally coded “A-31”, was of conventional, all-metal (mainly duralumin) construction. The unswept cantilever wings have 3° of dihedral and are fitted with slotted trailing-edge flaps.

 

The A-31 had a tandem cockpit arrangement; the crew of two was seated under the upward opening clamshell canopy on Martin-Baker Mk 6AP6A zero/zero ejection seats and were provided with dual controls.

 

Armor plating was fitted to protect the crew and engines from hostile ground fire. The aircraft was powered by a pair of Garrett TPE 331 engines, driving sets of three-bladed propellers which were also capable of being used as air brakes.

 

The A-31 was designed for operations from short, rough airstrips.[The retractable tricycle landing gear, with a single nose wheel and twin main wheels retracting into the engine nacelles, is therefore fitted with low pressure tires to suit operations on rough ground, while the undercarriage legs are tall to give good clearance for underslung weapon loads. The undercarriage, flaps and brakes are operated hydraulically, with no pneumatic systems.

 

Two JATO rockets can be fitted under the fuselage to allow extra-short take-off.

Fuel is fed from two fuselage tanks of combined capacity of 800 L (180 imp gal; 210 US gal) and two self-sealing tanks of 460 L (100 imp gal; 120 US gal) in the wings.

 

Fixed armament of the A-31 consisted of two 30mm Aden cannons mounted under the cockpits with 200 rounds each. A total of nine hardpoints were fitted for the carriage of external stores such as bombs, rockets or external fuel tanks, with one of 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) capacity mounted under the fuselage and the remaining two pairs of 500 kg (1,100 lb) capacity beneath the wing roots and wings inside of the engine nacelles, and two more pairs of hardpoints outside of the engines for another 500 kg and 227 kg, respectively. Total external weapons load was limited to 6,800 lb (3,085 kg) of weapons, though.

Onboard armaments were aimed by a simple reflector sight, since no all weather/night capabilities were called for – even though provisions were made that external sensors could be carried (e. g. a TISEO or a PAVE Spike pod).

 

Severe competition arose through the BAe Hawk, though: the Royal Australian Air Force ordered 33 Hawk 127 Lead-in Fighters (LIFs) in June 1997, 12 of which were produced in the UK and 21 in Australia – and this procurement severely hampered the A-31’s progress. The initial plan to build 66 aircraft for domestic use, with prospects for export, e. g. to Sri Lanka, Indonesia or Turkey, was cut down to a mere 32 aircraft which were to be used in conjunction with the Australian Army in the FAC role and against mobile ground targets.

 

This extended role required an upgrade with additional avionics, an optional forward looking infrared (FLIR) sensor and a laser ranger in an extended nose section, which lead to the Mk. II configuration - effectively, only five machines were produced as Mk.I types, and they were updated to Mk. II configuration even before delivery to the RAAF in August 1999.

 

Since then, the ASTA A-31 has been used in concunction with RAAF's Pilatus PC-9 and BAe Hawk Mk. 127 trainers. Beyond educational duties the type is also employed for Fleet support to Navy operations and for close air support to Army operations.

 

The 'Baza' (christened by a small sized bird of prey found in the forests of South Asia and Southeast Asia) has even seen serious military duty and already fired in anger: since August 2007, a detachment of No. 114 Mobile Control and Reporting Unit RAAF has been on active service at Kandahar Airfield in southern Afghanistan, and a constant detachment of six A-31's from RAAF 76 Suqadron has been assigned to armed reconnaissance and protection of approximately 75 personnel deployed with the AN/TPS-77 radar, assigned the responsibility to co-ordinate coalition air operations.

  

General characteristics

Crew: 2

Length (incl. Pitot): 14.69 m (48 ft 1 ½ in)

Wingspan: 14.97 m (49 ft)

Height: 3, 75 m (12 ft 3 in)

Wing area: 30.30 m2 (326.1 sq ft)

Aspect ratio: 6.9:1

Airfoil: NACA 642A215 at root, NACA641 at tip

Empty weight: 4,020 kg (8,863 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 6,800 kg (14,991 lb)

Internal fuel capacity: 1,280 L (280 imp gal; 340 US gal)

 

Powerplant:

2 × Garrett TPE 331-11U-601G turboprop engines, 820 kW (1.100 hp) each

 

Performance

Maximum speed: 515 km/h (311 mph; 270 kn) at 4.570 m (15.000 ft)

Cruising speed: 430 km/h (267 mph; 232 kn) at 2.500 m (8.200 ft)

Stall speed: 143 km/h (89 mph; 77 kn) (flaps and undercarriage down)

Never exceed speed: 750 km/h (466 mph; 405 kn)

Range:1.611 km (1.000 mi; 868 nmi), clean and internal fuel only

Ferry range: 3,710 km (2,305 mi; 2,003 nmi) max internal and external fuel

Service ceiling: 10,000 m (32,808 ft)

g limits: +6/-3 g

Rate of climb: 6.5 m/s (1.276 ft/min)

 

Armament

2× 30 mm ADEN cannons in the lower nose

Up to 6,800 lb (3,085 kg) of weapons on nine external hardpoints

  

The kit and its assembly:

Like many of my whifs, this was spawned by a project at whatifmodelers.com from fellow user silverwindblade that ran under the handle "COIN aircraft from a Hawk" - and in fact, the BAe Hawk's fuselage with its staggered cockpit and good field of view appears as a good basis for a conversion.

 

I liked the idea VERY much, and while silverwindblade's work would rather develop into a futuristic canard layout aircraft, I decided to keep the COIN aircraft rather conservative - the FMA 58 'Pucara' from Argentina would be a proper benchmark.

 

The basis here is the Italeri BAe Hawk Mk. 127 kit which comes with the longer nose and modified wings for the RAAF version, as well as with false decals.

Anyway, I'd only use the fuselage, anything else is implanted, partly from unlikely donation kits! Wings incl. engine nacelles and stablizers come from the vintage box scale (1:166?) Revell Convair R3Y-2 Tradewind flying boat(!), the fin from an Academy OV-10 Bronco.

The landing gear was puzzled together, among other from parts of a 1:200 Concorde, the propellers were scratched.

 

Biggest mod to the fuselage is the dissection of the air intakes (and their blending with the fuselage) as well as a new tail section where the Adour jet engine's exhaust had been.

  

Painting and markings:

This model was agood excuse to finally apply an SIOP color scheme, which was originally carried by USAF's strategic bombers like B-52 or FB-111. But what actually inspired me were Australian C-130s - it took some time to figure out that their scheme were the USAF's SIOP colors (FS 34201, 34159 and 34079). But that made the Baza's potential user's choice (and fictional origin) easy.

 

As a COIN role aircraft I settled on a wraparound scheme. I found a pattern scheme on an USN Aggerssor A-4 Skyhawk that had been painted in SIOP colors, too, and adapted it for the model. Basic colors were Humbrol 31, 84 and 116, good approximations - the result looks odd, but suits the Baza well.

 

Later, panels were emphasized through dry painting with lighter shades and a light black ink wash was applied.

 

The landing gear became classic white, the cockpit interior medium gray - nothing fancy.

 

The markings were improvised - the Italeri Hawk Mk. 127 features RAAF 'roos, but these are printed in black - wrong for the OOB kit, but very welcome on my aircraft. The rest was salvaged from the scrap box, the tactical code A-31-06 created with single letters from TL Modellbau.

+++ 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 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-engined Skyhawk was designed and produced by Douglas Aircraft Company, and later by McDonnell Douglas. It was originally designated A4D under the U.S. Navy's pre-1962 designation system.

 

Skyhawks played key roles in the Vietnam War, the Yom Kippur War, and the Falklands War. Sixty years after the aircraft's first flight in 1954, some of the 2,960 produced (through February 1979). The Skyhawk found many users all around the world, and some still remain in service with the Argentine Air Force and the Brazilian Naval Aviation. Operators in Asia included Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand.

 

Thailand procured the Skyhawk in 1984, for the Royal Thai Navy air arm to be used for naval and air space surveillance, against sea surface targets and for close air support for the Royal Thai Marine Corps. A total of thirty aircraft were purchased from the USA, twenty-four single seaters and six two-seat TA-4J trainers.

 

The single seaters were refurbished A-4Cs from USN overstock, modernized to a standard that came close to the USN’s A-4L, but with some specific differences and unique features that made them suitable for all-weather strike operations. This modified version was re-designated as A-4LT and featured the late Skyhawk versions’ distinct “Camelback” fairing that house the additional avionics as well as a heat exchanger. The most distinctive external difference to any other Skyhawk version was a unique, pointed radome.

 

The update for Thailand included an AN/APQ-126 terrain following radar in the nose, which was integrated into an ILAAS digital navigation system – a very modern system of its era. The radar also fed a navigation and weapons delivery computer which made possible accurate delivery of bombs from a greater stand-off distance, greatly improving survivability.

Further special equipment for the Thai Skyhawks included, among others, a Hughes AN/ASB-19 Angle Rate Bombing System, a Bendix AN/APN-141 Low altitude radar altimeter, an AN/AVQ-7(V) Head Up display (HUD), air refueling capability (with a fixed but detachable refueling probe), a brake parachute housing below the jet pipe, two additional underwing hardpoints (for a total for five, like the A-4E) and an increased payload. Avionics were modernized and expanded, giving the Thai Skyhawks ability to carry modern AIM-9L Sidewinder AAMs and AGM-65 Maverick AGMs. The latter became, beyond standard iron bombs and pods with unguided missiles, the aircrafts’ main armament against naval targets.

However, despite the modernization of the avionics, the A-4LTs retained the A-4Cs’ Wright J65-W-20 engine with 8,200 lbf (36 kN) of takeoff thrust.

 

The first aircraft were delivered in December 1985 to the Royal Thai Navy (RTN / กองทัพเรือไทย / Kong thap ruea thai), carrying a USN grey/white livery. They served in the No.104 RTN Squadron, distributed among two wings based at U-Tapao near Bangkok and at Songkhla in the south of Thailand, close to the Malaysian border. During regular overhauls (executed at Singapore Aircraft Industries, now ST Aerospace), the RTN Skyhawks soon received a new wraparound camouflage with reduced insignia and markings.

 

While in service, the Thai Skyhawks soon suffered from frequent maintenance issues and a low availability rate, since replacement parts for the reliable yet old J65 engine became more and more difficult to obtain. At times, half of the A-4LT fleet had to remain grounded because of engine problems. In consequence, the Thai Skyhawks were in the mid-Nineties supplemented by fourteen Vought A-7E Corsairs (plus four two-seaters) in the coastal defense, sea patrol and anti-shipping role. In 1999, they were retired and replaced by Royal Thai Air Force F-16s.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: one

Length: 40 ft 3 in (12.29 m)

Wingspan: 26 ft 6 in (8.38 m)

Height: 15 ft (4.57 m)

Wing area: 259 ft² (24.15 m²)

Airfoil: NACA 0008-1.1-25 root, NACA 0005-0.825-50 tip

Empty weight: 9,146 lb (4,152 kg)

Loaded weight: 18,300 lb (8,318 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 24,500 lb (11,136 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Curtiss-Wright J65-W-20 turbojet with 8,200 lbf (36 kN)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 575 kn (661 mph, 1,064 km/h)

Range: 1,700 nmi (2,000 mi, 3,220 km)

Combat radius: 625 nmi, 1,158 km

Service ceiling: 42,250 ft (12,880 m)

Rate of climb: 8,440 ft/min (43 m/s)

Wing loading: 70.7 lb/ft² (344.4 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.51

g-limit: +8/-3 g

 

Armament:

2× 20 mm (0.79 in) Colt Mk. 12 cannons in the wing roots, 100 RPG

Total effective payload of up to 7,700 lb (3,500 kg) on five hardpoints

- 1× Centerline: 3,500 lb capability

- 2× Inboard wing: 2,200 lb capability each

- 2× Outboard wing: 1,000 lb capability each

  

The kit and its assembly:

I originally had this project stashed away for the upcoming "1 Week Group Build" at whatifmodelers.com in June 2020, but since the current "In the Navy" GB had some days to go (and even received a two week extension) I decided to tackle this build on short notice.

 

The original idea was simply to build an A-4L, a modernized A-4C for the USN Reserve units, but similar machines had also been exported to Malaysia. For the naval theme I came across the Royal Thai Navy and its A-7E Corsairs - and from that the idea of a Skyhawk predecessor from the Eighties was born.

 

Instead of an A-4C (Fujimi does one in 1:72, but it's a rare kit) I based my build upon the nice Airfix A-4B/Q kit. Its biggest difference is the shorter nose, so that I decided to modify this "flaw" first and added a pointed radome instead of the usual blunt Skyhawk nose; not certain where it came from – it looks very Sea-Harrier-ish, but it’s actually the tip of a large drop tank (Italeri Tornado?). Nevertheless, this small change created a weird look, even more so with the black paint added to it later.

 

Further additions and mods are a dorsal avionics bulge from an Italeri A-4M, a scratched kinked refueling probe (made from wire and white glue, the early Skyhawks had straight probes but this would certainly interfere with the new radar in the nose), a brake parachute fairing under the tail (scratched, too, from sprue material) and additional antennae under the nose and behind the cockpit. Nothing fancy, rather details from more modern Skyhawk versions.

The AGM-65 Maverick missiles and their respective launch rails came from an Italeri Saab 39 Gripen, the drop tank on the ventral pylon is OOB.

  

Painting and markings:

This was a tough decision. The Thai Corsairs as primary (and historically later) benchmark carried a standard USN grey/white high-viz livery, even though with small roundels. There were also VTOL Harriers (former Spanish Matadors) operated for a short period by the Thai navy on board of the multi-purpose carrier HTMS Chakri Naruebet, which wore a darker two-tone grey livery, pretty boring, too. I rather wanted something more exciting (if not exotic), a more modern wraparound scheme, suited for both overwater and high-altitude duties. That brought me to the Thai F-5Ts (a.k.a. Tigris), which carried - among others - a quite unique US export/aggressor scheme in three shades of light grey, including FS 35414, which looked like a pale turquoise on these machines. I furthermore took inspiration by early Indonesian A-4s, which also carried an US export scheme, nicknamed "Grape", which included darker shades of blue, blue-gray and the bright FS 35414, too.

 

I eventually settled upon a compromise between these two liveries and tried to adapt the standard F-5 aggressor camouflage pattern for the A-4, made up from FS 36440 (Light Gull Grey), 35164 (Intermediate Blue) and 35414 (Light Blue). Current Thai L-39 Albatros trainers seem to carry a similar livery, even though I am not certain about the tones that are actually used.

The basic enamel paints I used are Humbrol 129 and 144, and for the greenish Light Blue I used "Fulcrum Grey Green" from Modelmaster (#2134), a tone that is quite greenish but markedly darker and more dull than e.g. Humbrol 65, so that the color would not stand out brightly from the other greys and better fit between them. Worked quite well.

 

The inside of the slats as well as of the air brakes on the flanks were painted in bright red (Humbrol 19), while the landing gear and the interior of the air intake were painted in white (Humbrol 130). The cockpit was painted in a bluish mid grey (Revell 57).

 

After basic overall painting, the model received the usual light black ink washing and some post-panel-shading, for a lightly used/weathered look.

Most decals/markings come from a Thai Harrier (from an Italeri AV-8A kit), some other markings and stencils were puzzled together from the scrap box, e.g. from a USN F-5E aggressor and from a Peruvian Mirage 2000. Some additional details like the black gun soot areas on the wing roots or the fine white lines on the radome were created with generic decal sheet material.

Finally, the kit received an overall coat of matt acrylic varnish, except for the radome, which became semi-gloss.

  

As intended, this build was realized in just a couple of days - and I am positively surprised how good the Skyhawk looks in its unusual, if not exotic colors! This fictional livery certainly looks different from a potential standard USN grey/white outfit, and more exciting than a dull grey-in-grey livery. And it’s so weird that it even adds some credibility to this whiffy aircraft model. 😉

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.

 

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 be replaced in 2020 as the primary Variable Fighter of the U.N. Spacy by the more capable, but also much bigger, VF-4 Lightning III, a long service record and continued production after the war proved the lasting worth of the design.

 

The versatile aircraft also underwent constant upgrade programs, leading to improved versions like the VF-1N and P. For instance, about a third of all VF-1 Valkyries were upgraded with Infrared Search and Track (IRST) systems from 2016 onwards. Many Valkyries also received improved radar warning systems, with receivers, depending on the systems, mounted on the wing-tips, on the fins and/or on the LERXs. Improved ECM measures were also mounted on some machines, typically in conformal fairings on the flanks of the legs/engine pods.

 

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 in several variants.

 

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 and U.N. Spacy Marines

 

Accommodation:

Single pilot 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

 

Powerplant:

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 (1x counter reverse vernier thruster nozzle mounted on the side of each leg nacelle/air intake, 1x 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 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:

1x 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 kit and its assembly:

Another spontaneous interim build in a busy time - if I want to build something "on autopilot", an ARII VF-1 in fighter mode is a safe bet. The trigger was that I realized that I had, despite having built far more than twenty VF-1s so far, none of them carried a US Navy "low viz" paint scheme? No idea why this had slipped my attention - even though I had already built one in a USAF "Egypt One" scheme and a modified (non-transformable) VF-1D in a low contrast Keith Ferris splinter scheme with USN colors.

 

I dug out VF-1 fighter from the pile and built the kit mostly OOB - but with some detail updates. This time, the kit would receive an extended landing gear and an open canopy for ground display. Consequently, I added side consoles and a dashboard extension to the cockpit. On the wings, the slats and the flaps were lowered, but not extended, and for additional excitement I opened the spoilers on the wings - because their red interior would be a nice contrast to the overall grey aircraft (see below).

Characteristic blade antennae were added to the nose flanks and on the spine, and the pilot figure was only added for the beauty pics.

 

The ordnance was in part taken OOB, too, with six AMM-1 missiles on the outer pylons but an 1:100 AN/ALQ-131 ECM pod (from a Revell 1:100 A-10) and a single stand-off missile (an 1:144 AGM-86 ALCM, left over from an Academy B-1B kit, just mounted upside down) on the inner pair of pylons.

Even though the model would later stand on its own legs, I added the option to attach a display (my almost-patented wire construction that uses the OOB display base) to the back of the ventral gun pod.

  

Painting and markings:

I am not certain if the "Compass Ghost" paint scheme is actually canonical for the Macross universe - Hasegawa offered such a "low viz" VF-1 as an option in one of their fighter kits, but I haven't found any sign of a USN paint scheme in official source material, except for some all light-grey Battroids that do not look like a "Compass Ghost" aircraft/mecha. After 2009, many VF-1s were officially painted in a low-viz scheme - but this would rather be an overall FS 36440 (Light Gull Grey) livery with full color markings than a totally subdued multi-grey paint scheme?

 

However, I found the idea plausible, and also took it as a challenge. Consequently, the aircraft was painted in typical USN colors: FS 36320 (Dark Compass Ghost Grey) from Modelmaster on the upper surfaces and FS 36375 (Light Compass Ghost Grey, Humbrol 127) from below. The area around the cockpit was painted with FS 35237 (Grey Blue, Humbrol 145), inspired by USN F-14 Tomcats, as well as the head unit.

Air intakes, the gun pod and some details were painted with Revell 77 (RAL 7012), the land gear was painted glossy white. The cockpit was held in standard colors, with medium gray interior, a black ejection seat and reddish brown upholstery and brown "black boxes". As a stark contrast to the all-grey exterior, I painted the interior of the spoilers on the wings in bright red (Revell 330, RAL 3000 Feuerrot) and added thin red decal strips to the lowered slats, too.

 

Many markings like the roundels and the modex' were designed and printed on clear decal sheet with an inkjet printer, and any other bright marking was replaced with grey alternatives from the decal scrap box. The lightning markings on the fins come belong to a Malaysian MiG-29, taken from a Begemot sheet. All in all I wanted a very "dry" and subdued look, with only the ordnance not being light bluish grey.

 

Once painted the kit received a light black ink wash and the engraved panel lines were traced with a very soft pencil, with some additional thin panel lines and details. Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).

  

I guess that I might be able to build this kit blindfolded, and the whole affair was completed in just three days, since the paint scheme itself was not complex. The result is interesting, though, and a nice contrast to the normally very bright and colorful VF-1s in my collection.

+++ 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:

Although Japan had designed and manufactured a number of military aircraft before and during World War II, it was forbidden according to the Potsdam Declaration from engaging in the production of airplanes and other products that could be used to rearm a military. These restrictions, however, were lightened by the United States during the Korean War, opening up the possibility for a Japanese company to produce a civilian aircraft.

 

Actually a consortium of several different manufacturing companies and university professors, NAMC was founded in April 1957 by executives from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Fuji Heavy Industries, Shin Meiwa Manufacturing, Sumitomo, Japan Aircraft, Showa Aircraft, and Kawasaki Heavy Industries with the goal of designing and manufacturing a Japanese civilian turboprop airliner to replace the successful but aging Douglas DC-3. The resulting aircraft, the YS-11, a low-winged twin-turboprop-engine monoplane, capable of seating up to 60 passengers, became a successful civilian airliner.

On 30 August 1962, the first YS-11 prototype performed its maiden flight. Deliveries commenced on 30 March 1965 and commercial operations began the following month. The majority of orders for the type were issued from various Japanese airliners. While sales to such customers were swift in the YS-11's initial years of availability, this limited market soon became saturated, leading to a slump in demand. By the late 1970s, after producing several variations of the YS-11, NAMC hoped to introduce a jet airliner in order to replace and upgrade the primarily domestic operators and compete with those short-haul airliners being produced in the U.S. by companies such as Boeing and McDonnell Douglas.

 

This project was called YS-21 and work started in 1968. During the design phase, a high level of attention was paid to market research and operator concerns – even though this was almost exclusively limited to the domestic, Japanese market. Amongst other changes made, the prospective jetliner was increased in size, changing its maximum seating capacity from the YS-11’s 60 to at least 85 passengers in a five-abreast configuration, with a maximum of 100 seats in a tight single-class arrangement.

The aircraft’s general layout resembled the contemporary Boeing 737: a low-wing twin-jet airliner with a conventional tail and podded engines slung under the only slightly swept (just 25°at quarter chord) wings. However, the engines were not directly mounted under the wings, but rather in pods on pylons that set them apart from the wings’ undersurfaces. Fuel was stored within both the outer wings and within the lower fuselage. As a special feature, additional pylon-mounted tanks could be installed under the outer wings for extended range operations if so required.

 

Special care was taken to allow the aircraft to operate from the same smaller airfields as the YS-11, and various elements of the YS-21 were designed to maximize passenger comfort and operator convenience during operations on 2nd class airfields. One such measure was the rear entry door with built-in stairs that, while adding structural complexity, meant that mobile airport stairs were unnecessary for boarding. In order to ensure operations on smaller airfields and reduce ground pressure, the aircraft received, despite its compact size, four-wheel bogies on its main landing gear. The machine furthermore feature an autonomous power unit (APU) for operations independent from most airfield equipment.

 

However, a central problem of the YS-21’s development became the powerplant: there was no indigenous engine available to power the aircraft, and developing one at a timely schedule for the YS-21 program turned out to be prohibitively expensive and time-consuming. At one stage of development, NAMC had reportedly intended the YS-21 to be powered by a pair of Bristol Siddeley BS.75 turbofans. However, this selection was hotly contested by rival British engine manufacturer Rolls-Royce, who proposed their Rolls-Royce Spey Junior, a simplified version of the Rolls-Royce Spey.

The engine procurement from foreign sources caused a lot of debate, not only among the NAMC engineers, but also on a political level, since the YS-21 was intended to be a 100% domestic product. Eventually, pragmatism prevailed and the Pratt & Whitney JT8D-9 with thrust reversers and an output of 14,500 lbf (64.50 kN) was chosen, because it was, at the time of the YS-21’s development, to be built under license by Mitsubishi for the Kawasaki C-1 JASDF military jet transport aircraft. A compromise that more or less saved face of the project leaders and the political powers that promoted the aircraft.

 

A distinctive design trademark of the YS-21 became its engine pods: in order to gain as much ground clearance as possible and keep the landing gear short, the JT8s’ auxiliary installations were mounted to the engines’ sides, resulting in a noticeable bulge on the pods’ outer flanks and a noticeable oval air intake orifice.

 

Initial domestic market response was quite positive, mostly boosted by national pride, though, and NAMC tried to attract the interest of major national airlines (primarily JAL and ANA, but also smaller companies) and several foreign regional airlines, touting the YS-21 as the better alternative to the foreign Douglas DC-9 or Boeing 737. A few airlines, also from other countries, showed some initial interest but only ANA and JAL placed concrete orders. These were (mis)interpreted as a very positive sign, though, and production was prematurely greenlighted with only 15 firm orders and 10 options in the books.

 

This lack of interest could be, despite the YS-21’s qualities, contributed to several factors. The main influence was the oil crisis of the 1970s, but another factor was the YS-21’s limited capacity and range – suitable for domestic service in Japan with many short routes, but unattractive for many other potential users. At maximum payload, the aircraft's range was only a mere 1,700 km (a comparable early Boeing 737 had a range of 2.800km), and the optional underwing tanks did not help much since drag and extra weight almost entirely compensated for the potential increase in range. This inherent flaw resulted in a high refueling frequency that grounded the aircraft more often than other types and, as a further effect, relatively high operating costs.

 

Consequently, the YS-21 achieved no foreign sales, and beyond JAL and ANA as launch customers and main operators of the type, only Japan Transocean Air ordered four machines. With a total of only thirty-three sales and with one of the three prototypes refurbished and sold as the 11th YS-21 to ANA, the airliner represented a severe failure for NAMC and the Japanese commercial airliner industry. Plans for an enlarged version with a stretched fuselage for up to 120 passengers never left the drawing board, since both the domestic and the international markets for short and medium range passenger aircraft were already dominated by other types like the Boeing 727 and 737.

 

In service, the YS-21 was quickly nicknamed “Karigane” (かりがね; Wild Goose), due to its slender fuselage, the streamlined cockpit section that resembled a goose’s head on a long neck, and the engine nacelles under the rather straight wings, which reminded of the bird’s stretched feet upon landing. This nickname was never officially adopted, though, but frequently used by the crews and in public.

 

The YS-21 turned out to be a reliable and sturdy aircraft, popular among its crews for its good low speed handling. On 29 April 1995, the last YS-21s in service flew their last commercial flights. Throughout their combined cumulative operational lifetimes, the YS-21s accumulated a total of 1.18 mio. flight hours, during which 80.4 million passengers were carried across 1.3 mio. individual flights, without any accidents and an impressive 98% in-service reliability.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 3

Capacity: 85 with 8,400 kg (18,519 lb) payload

Length: 32.40 m (106 ft 1 1/2 in)

Wingspan: 34.3 m (112 ft 6 in)

Height: 10.80 m (35 ft 4 1/2 in)

Wing area: 146.7 m2 (1,579 sq ft)

Empty weight: 22,200 kg (48,943 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 46,000 kg (101,413 lb)

Powerplant:

2× Mitsubishi-built Pratt & Whitney JT8D-9 low bypass turbofans, 64 kN (14,500 lbf) thrust each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 590 mph (950 km/h, 510 kn) at 6,100 m (20,000 ft)

Cruise speed: 470–530 mph (750–850 km/h, 400–460 kn) at 6,100 m (20,000 ft)

Range: 1,700 km (1,100 mi, 920 nmi)

Service ceiling: 12,000 m (39,000 ft)

Rate of climb: 16.7 m/s (3,300 ft/min) at 2,135 m (7,005 ft)

Takeoff roll: 1,859 m (6,099 ft)

Landing roll: 1,755 m (5,670 ft)

  

The kit and its assembly:

Even though I am not a fan of small-scale airliners, I have recently (and successfully) built two what-if conversions, and I still had the idea of this short-haul airliner in the back of my mind since my Il-60 airliner build. The latter was based on a Caravelle airliner and featured two turboprops on the wings in new nacelles as well as a low tail. However, when I built it, I already considered a similar conversion, just with podded jet engines under the wings like the Dassault Mercure or the Boeing 737.

I had based the Il-60 on the rather crappy Caravelle kit from Mastercraft, so that I switched this time to the new (but much more expensive) Amodel kit – in this case the Caravelle 10R model, which comes with proper JT8 engine pods.

 

Despite a completely new layout of the aircraft, I wanted to change as little as possible and use only few donor parts. In fact, the only additional/new parts are the radome (actually a propeller spinner from a Matchbox He 115, simply glued onto the Caravelle’s nose and blended into the fuselage with PSR) and longer landing gear struts, because the re-located engines under the wings called for a bigger ground clearance. The front leg was completely replaced (taken from a 1:200 Space Shuttle, but still with OOB wheels), while on the main struts only the legs were replaced with longer parts from a 1:72 F4U. A weird detail: the kit comes with separate struts and bogies, but this makes this surgery relatively easy. In order to change the profile of the aircraft I replaced the round fin tip with a square one, scratched with styrene sheet and PSR.

 

Lots of PSR went into the build, in part because of peculiar solutions the mold designers chose. For instance, the window section consists of three clear panels per side, to be glued into recesses on the flanks, which have back walls. The benefit of this construction is beyond me, because it just causes surface mess and calls for sanding and filling. Naturally, the three panels per side do not lie perfectly flat or even in their recesses, and they are in total 2mm too long for their intended openings…? WHY!? If Amodel had wanted a clean solution, they could (and should) have molded the complete fuselage halves as clear parts? Another weak point I came across was the windshield, which comes (Minicraft style) as a clear cockpit area section and seemed to belong to an altogether different aircraft – it did not fit into the respective fuselage opening at all and called for massive trimming and more PSR…

 

These problems with the clear parts almost ruined everything, and that’s a shame because the Amodel Caravelle is a nice kit of this airliner, with fine, recessed surface details and delicate details. Nevertheless, even though it is a modern mold the kit does not get together easily, a typical short-run affair without locator pins.

 

As a typical feature of my airliner builds, I added a vertical styrene tube in the fuselage’s center of gravity as a display holder adapter for the in-flight scenes.

  

Painting and markings:

I had a hard time figuring out a potential manufacturer and operator for this aircraft – placed into the Seventies time frame, there were many similar designs on the market, so why add another short-/medium range airliner with a rather limited capacity which would rather be a Sixties design? After long considerations I settled upon a Japanese aircraft – national pride and stubborn processes might certainly lead to such an aircraft, and the YS-11 shows that the idea is not far-fetched.

 

I also considered a fictional airline as operator, but when I checked options for an aftermarket decal sheet, I realized that the early ANA livery, the so-called “Mohican” scheme due to the blue dorsal stripe, featured a da Vinci helicopter as a logo. I never noticed this before or wasn’t able to identify it, and I found this badge so charming and weird that I eventually settled for ANA as the aircraft’s operator. After some more search I even found a decal sheet from 26decals for an ANA Boeing 767 from 2009 in a retro scheme, and I was also able to organize a Mohican livery sheet from a Hasegawa 1:200 Boeing 737, because the 767 fin emblems were simply oversized for the Caravelle’s fin.

 

Creating and adapting the early ANA scheme to the model was complicated, though. In an initial step I gave the model’s underside and the upper wing surfaces a coat of White Aluminum from the rattle can – I opted for this simple quasi-NMF finish because of its retro look. The upper fuselage became white, with the help of decal sheet material and enamel paint (Humbrol 22). The blue spine and the fin were also painted with a brush in French Blue (Modelmaster), which came close to the cheat lines’ blue tone from the retro 767 sheet – even though these are IMHO a bit dark. Some fine-tuning and decal trimming had to be done in order to make the livery work, though, but I think the result looks quite good – better than expected after this material mish-mash.

 

Once the basic livery had been applied, the windows were added with decals. The cockpit windows had to be improvised, since Amodel’s Caravelle sheet does not offer a decal option for the windscreen. But I am not sure if it would have matched the modified nose section at all? So I trimmed down the Boeing 767 windscreen from the 26decal sheet and improvised. The cabin windows were taken from the 767, too. I wanted a very different look from the Caravelle’s original triangular window rows, and with the 767 windows' rather oval shape and higher density, this worked well. It also makes the YS-21 look bigger than it actually is.

After that, the airline markings and some more details like walkways on the wings (created with generic decal strips from TL Modellbau) were added.

 

In a final step, the landing gear was finished and some more detail painting (position lights, exhausts and thrust reversers) was done, before the kit was sealed with an overall coat of gloss acrylic varnish for a clean and shiny look.

 

I am torn about the outcome of this build, esp. the Amodel base. After long waiting, I hoped for a decent Caravelle kit in 1:144 scale. It is basically there, but the weird window panel construction really ruins what could have been a crisp up-to-date offering. This does not ruin the model as such, but the panel solution is IMHO far from perfect and user-friendly. :(

The layout conversion into the 737-style YS-21 whif worked well, despite some problems, and I think there’s only little left of what reminds of the model’s Caravelle heritage. The ANA Mohican livery also looks stylish, it adds a nice retro touch to the aircraft, very Seventies (if not Sixties?). With the glossy and bright finish, the model even looks, from certain angles, like a vintage Chinese tin toy?

+++ 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 North American FJ-4 Fury was a swept-wing carrier-capable fighter-bomber for the United States Navy and Marine Corps. The final development in a lineage that included the Air Force's F-86 Sabre, the FJ-4 shared its general layout and engine with the earlier FJ-3, but, compared to that of the FJ-3, the FJ-4's new wing was much thinner, with a six percent thickness-to-chord ratio, and featured skin panels milled from solid alloy plates. It also had an increased area and tapered more sharply towards the tips. Slight camber behind the leading edge improved low speed characteristics. The main landing gear design had to be considerably modified to fold wheel and strut within the contours of the new wing. The track of the main wheels was increased, and because they were closer to the center of gravity, there was less weight on the nosewheel. Wing folding was limited to the outer wing panels.

 

The FJ-4 was intended as an all-weather interceptor, a role that required considerable range on internal fuel. The FJ-4 had 50% more fuel capacity than the FJ-3 and was lightened by omitting armor and reducing ammunition capacity. The new wing was "wet"; that is, it provided for integral fuel tankage. The fuselage was deepened to add more fuel and had a distinctive "razorback" rear deck. A modified cockpit made the pilot more comfortable during the longer missions. The tail surfaces were also extensively modified, had a thinner profile and featured an extended, taller fin. The overall changes resulted in an aircraft that had little in common with the earlier models, although a family resemblance was still present.

 

The FJ-4 was developed into a family of aircraft. Of the original order for 221 FJ-4 day fighters, the last 71 were modified into the FJ-4B fighter-bomber version. This had a stronger wing with six instead of four underwing stations and stronger landing gear. Additional aerodynamic brakes under the aft fuselage made landing safer by allowing pilots to use higher thrust settings and were also useful for dive attacks. External load was doubled. The most important characteristic of the FJ-4B was, since the Navy was eager to maintain a nuclear role in its rivalry with the Air Force, that it was capable of carrying a nuclear weapon on the inboard port station. For the delivery of nuclear weapons, the FJ-4B was equipped with the Low-Altitude Bombing System (LABS), and with this capability it replaced the carrier-based A-3 Skywarrior bombers, which were not suited well for the new low-level approach tactics.

 

In April 1956, the Navy ordered 151 more FJ-4Bs, 10 US Navy squadrons became equipped with the FJ-4B, and the type was also flown by three Marine squadrons. At the same time, the Navy requested a carrier-borne fighter with all-weather capability, radar-guided missiles and a higher performance. This new type was to replace several 1st generation US Navy jets, including the ponderous and heavy Douglas F3D Skyknight, the lackluster Vought F7U as well as the Grumman F9F-8 Cougar. This requirement led to the Douglas F4D Skyray and North American’s FJ-5, another thorough modification of the Fury’s basic design and its eventual final evolution stage.

 

North American’s FJ-5 was designed with compact dimensions in mind, so that the type could be operated on older Essex Class carriers, which offered rather limited storage and lift space. At the time of the FJ-5’s conception, several of these carriers were still in service – and this argument led to an order for the FJ-5 in addition to the F4D.

 

For the FJ-5, the FJ-4’s aerodynamic surfaces were retained, but the fuselage had to be modified considerably in order to accept an APQ-50A radar with a parabolic 24 inches diameter antenna in the nose. The radome was placed above the air intake, similar to the F-86D, and coupled with an Aero 13F fire-control system, which together provided full all-weather capability and information on automatic firing of rockets.

A deeper rear fuselage became necessary, too, because the FJ-5 was powered by a reheated J65-W-18 engine (a development of the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojet, optimized for a naval environment), which delivered up to 10,500 lbf (47 kN) at full power instead of the FJ-4’s original 7,700 lbf (34 kN). This upgrade had, limited by the airframe’s aerodynamics, only marginal impact on the aircraft’s top speed, but the extra power almost doubled its initial rate of climb, slightly raised the service ceiling and markedly improved acceleration and carrier operations handling through a better response to throttle input and a higher margin of power reserves.

 

Internal armament still consisted of four 20mm cannon. These had to be placed lower in the nose now, flanking the air intake underneath the radome. The FJ-4B’s six underwing hardpoints were retained and could carry AIM-9 Sidewinders (both the IR-guided AIM-9B as well as the Semi-Active Radar Homing (SARH) AIM-9C) as well as the new radar-guided medium-range AIM-7C Sparrow, even though the latter only on the outer pylons, limiting their number to four. Up to six pods with nineteen unguided 70 mm/2.75” unguided Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket (Mighty Mouse FFARs) were another armament option.

 

Beyond these air-to-air weapons, a wide range of other ordnance could be carried. This included the AGM-12 “Bullpup” guided missile (which necessitated a guidance pod on the right inner wing hardpoint), bombs or napalm tanks of up to 1.000 lb caliber, missile pods, drop tanks and ECM pods. The FJ-4B’s strike capabilities were mostly retained, even though the dedicated fighter lost the ability to carry and deliver nuclear weapons in order to save weight and internal space for the radar equipment.

 

The first FJ-5, a converted early FJ-4, made its maiden flight in April 1958. After a short and successful test phase, the type was quickly put into production and introduced to service with US Navy and US Marine Corps units. The new fighter was quickly nicknamed “Fury Dog” by its crews, a reminiscence of the USAF’s F-86D “Sabre Dog” and its characteristic nose section, even though the FJ-5 was officially still just called “Fury”, like its many quite different predecessors.

 

With the new unified designation system adopted in 1962, the FJ-4 became the F-1E, the FJ-4B the AF-1E and the FJ-5 the F-1F. From the prolific Fury family, only the FJ-5/F-1F became involved in a hot conflict: in late 1966, the USMC deployed F-1Fs to Vietnam, where they primarily flew escort and top cover missions for fighter bombers (esp. A-4 Skyhawks) from Da Nang AB, South Vietnam, plus occasional close air support missions (CAS) on their own. The Marines’ F-1Fs remained in Vietnam until 1970, with a single air-to-air victory (a North-Vietnamese MiG-17 was shot down with a Sidewinder missile), no losses and only one aircraft seriously damaged by anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) fire.

 

After this frontline experience, a radar upgrade with an AN/APQ-124 was briefly considered but never carried out, since the F-1F showed the age of the original Fifties design – the type already lacked overall performance for an all-weather fighter that could effectively engage supersonic bomber targets or low flying attack aircraft. However, the aircraft was still popular because of its ruggedness, good handling characteristics and compact dimensions.

Other upgrades that would improve the F-1F’s strike capability, e. g. additional avionics to deploy the AGM-62 Walleye glide bomb or the new AGM-65 Maverick, esp. the USMC’s laser-guided AGM-65E variant, were also rejected, because more capable types for both interceptor and attack roles, namely the Mach 2 Douglas F-4 Phantom II and the LTV A-7 Corsair II, had been introduced in the meantime.

Another factor that denied any updates were military budget cuts. Furthermore, the contemporary F-8 Crusader offered a better performance and was therefore selected in favor of the F-1F to be updated to the H-L variants. In the wake of this decision, all F-1Fs still in Navy service were, together with the decommission of the last Essex Class carriers, in 1975 handed over to the USMC in order to purge the Navy’s inventory and simplify maintenance and logistics.

 

FJ-4 and FJ-4B Fury fighter bombers served with United States Naval Reserve units until the late 1960s, while the F-1F soldiered on with the USMC until the early Eighties, even though only in reserve units. A considerable number had the heavy radar equipment removed and replaced by ballast in the late Seventies, and they were used as fighter-bombers, for dissimilar air combat training (simulating Soviet fighter types like the MiG-17 and -19), as high-speed target tugs or as in-flight refueling tankers, since the FJ-5 inherited this capability from the FJ-4, with up to two buddy packs under the wings. A few machines survived long enough to receive a new low-visibility livery.

 

However, even in the USMC reserve units, the FJ-5 was soon replaced by A-4 Skyhawks, due to the age of the airframes and further fleet reduction measures. The last F-1F was retired in 1982, ending the long career of North American’s F-86 design in US service.

 

A total of 1,196 Furies of all variants were received by the Navy and Marine Corps over the course of its production life, including 152 FJ-4s, 222 FJ-4Bs and 102 FJ-5s.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 40 ft 3 in (12.27 m)

Wingspan: 39 ft 1 in (11.9 m)

Height: 13 ft 11 in (4.2 m)

Wing area: 338.66 ft² (31.46 m²)

Empty weight: 13,518 lb (6,132 kg)

Gross weight: 19,975 lb (9,060 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 25,880 lb (11,750 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Wright J65-W-18 turbojet with 7,400 lbf (32.9 kN) dry thrust

and 10,500 lbf (46.7 kN) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 708 mph (1,139 km/h, 615 kn) at sea level,

737 mph (1,188 km/h/Mach 0.96) at height

Range: 2,020 mi (3,250 km) with 2× 200 gal (760 l) drop tanks and 2× AIM-9 missiles

Service ceiling: 49,750 ft (15,163 m)

Rate of climb: 12,150 ft/min (61.7 m/s)

Wing loading: 69.9 lb/ft² (341.7 kg/m²)

 

Armament:

4× 20 mm (0.787 in) Colt Mk 12 cannon (144 RPG, 578 rounds in total)

6× underwing hardpoints for 3,000 lb (1,400 kg) of ordnance, including AIM-9 and AIM-7 missiles

  

The kit and its assembly:

A project I had on the agenda for a long time. But, due to the major surgeries involved, I have been pushing it away – until the “In the navy” group build at whatifmolders.com came along in early 2020. So I collected my courage, dusted off the donor kits that had already been stashed away for years, and eventually started work.

 

The original inspiration was the F-8 Crusader’s career: I really like the look of the late RF-8s, which were kept long enough in service to receive the Eighties’ Low-Viz USN “Compass Ghost” livery. This looks cool, but also a little wrong. And what if the FJ-4B had been kept in service long enough to receive a similar treatment…?

 

In order to justify a career extension, I made up an all-weather development of the FJ-4B with a radar and a more powerful engine, a kind of light alternative to the Vought A-7. A plausible solution was a mix of FJ-4B and F-86D parts – this sounds easy, but both aircraft and their respective model kits actually have only VERY little in common.

 

At its core, the FJ-5 model is a kitbashing of parts from an Emhar FJ-4B (Revell re-boxing) and an Airfix F-86D. The FJ-4B provided the raised cockpit section with the canopy, spine and fin in the form of a complete transplant, which furthermore had to be extended by about 1cm/0.5” because the F-86D is longer than the Fury. The FJ-4B also provided its wings, stabilizers and the landing gear. The Fury’s ventral arrester hook section, a separate part, was also transferred into the F-86D’s lower rear fuselage, under the openings for the air brakes.

For a more lively look, the (thick!) Fury canopy was sawed into two pieces for open display and the flaps were lowered, too.

 

The cockpit was taken from the Airfix kit, since it would fit well into the lower fuselage and it looked much better than their respective counterparts from the relatively basic Emhar kit, which just comes with a narrow board with a strange, bulky seat-thing. As an extra, the cockpit received side consoles, a scratched gunsight and a different ejection seat that raised the pilot’s position into the Fury’s higher canopy.

 

Since the F-1F was supposed to be a fighter, still equipped with the radar set, I retained the OOB pylons from the Fury with its four launch rails. For an aircraft late in the career, I gave it a reduced ordnance, though, just a pair of drop tanks (left over from a Matchbox F3D Skyknight; I wanted something more slender than the stubby OOB drop tanks from the Emhar Fury kit), plus a better Sidewinder training round (hence its blue body) and a single red ACMI data pod on the outer pylons, as an aerial combat training outfit and nice color highlights on the otherwise dull/grey aircraft.

  

Painting and markings:

As mentioned above, the idea for livery was a vintage aircraft in modern, subdued markings. So I adapted the early USN Compass Ghost scheme, and the F-1F received a two-tone livery in FS 36320 and 36375 (Dark and Light Compass Ghost Grey, Humbrol 128 and 127, respectively) with a high, wavy waterline and a light fin. In front of the cockpit, a slightly darker anti-glare panel in Humbrol 145 (FS 35237) was added, inspired by early USN F-14s in Compass Ghost camouflage.

The radome was painted with Humbrol 156, for a slightly darker/different shade of grey than the aircraft’s upper surfaces – I considered a black or a beige (unpainted glass fiber) radome first, but that would have been a very harsh contrast to the rest.

 

The landing gear as well as the air intake duct were painted glossy white (Humbrol 22), the cockpit became medium grey (Humbrol 140, Dark Gull Gray). The inside of the air brakes as well es the edges of the flaps, normally concealed when they are retracted, were painted in bright red (Humbrol 174). The same tone was also used to highlight the edges of the land gear covers.

 

The grey leading edges on the wings the stabilizers were created with decal sheet strips (generic material from TL Modellbau), the gun blast plates were made with silver decal material.

In order to give the model a worn look, I applied a black ink wash, an overall, light treatment with graphite and some post shading. Some extra graphite was applied around the exhaust and the gun nozzles.

 

The markings were taken for an USMC A-4E/F from a Revell kit (which turned out to be a bit bluish). I wanted a consequent dull/toned-down look, typical for early Compass Ghost aircraft. Later, colored highlights, roundels and squadron markings crept back onto the aircraft, but in the early Eighties many USN/USMC machines were consequently finished in a grey-in-grey livery.

 

Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and the ordnance added.

  

Well, the end result looks simple, but creating this kitbashed Fury all-weather fighter was pretty demanding. Even though both the Fury and the F-86D are based on the same aircraft, they are completely different, and the same is also true for the model kits. It took major surgeries and body sculpting to weld the parts together. But I am quite happy with the outcome, the fictional F-1F looks pretty conclusive and natural, also in the (for this aircraft) unusual low-viz livery.

 

+++ 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 North American FJ-4 Fury was a swept-wing carrier-capable fighter-bomber for the United States Navy and Marine Corps. The final development in a lineage that included the Air Force's F-86 Sabre, the FJ-4 shared its general layout and engine with the earlier FJ-3, but, compared to that of the FJ-3, the FJ-4's new wing was much thinner, with a six percent thickness-to-chord ratio, and featured skin panels milled from solid alloy plates. It also had an increased area and tapered more sharply towards the tips. Slight camber behind the leading edge improved low speed characteristics. The main landing gear design had to be considerably modified to fold wheel and strut within the contours of the new wing. The track of the main wheels was increased, and because they were closer to the center of gravity, there was less weight on the nosewheel. Wing folding was limited to the outer wing panels.

 

The FJ-4 was intended as an all-weather interceptor, a role that required considerable range on internal fuel. The FJ-4 had 50% more fuel capacity than the FJ-3 and was lightened by omitting armor and reducing ammunition capacity. The new wing was "wet"; that is, it provided for integral fuel tankage. The fuselage was deepened to add more fuel and had a distinctive "razorback" rear deck. A modified cockpit made the pilot more comfortable during the longer missions. The tail surfaces were also extensively modified, had a thinner profile and featured an extended, taller fin. The overall changes resulted in an aircraft that had little in common with the earlier models, although a family resemblance was still present.

 

The FJ-4 was developed into a family of aircraft. Of the original order for 221 FJ-4 day fighters, the last 71 were modified into the FJ-4B fighter-bomber version. This had a stronger wing with six instead of four underwing stations and stronger landing gear. Additional aerodynamic brakes under the aft fuselage made landing safer by allowing pilots to use higher thrust settings and were also useful for dive attacks. External load was doubled. The most important characteristic of the FJ-4B was, since the Navy was eager to maintain a nuclear role in its rivalry with the Air Force, that it was capable of carrying a nuclear weapon on the inboard port station. For the delivery of nuclear weapons, the FJ-4B was equipped with the Low-Altitude Bombing System (LABS), and with this capability it replaced the carrier-based A-3 Skywarrior bombers, which were not suited well for the new low-level approach tactics.

 

In April 1956, the Navy ordered 151 more FJ-4Bs, 10 US Navy squadrons became equipped with the FJ-4B, and the type was also flown by three Marine squadrons. At the same time, the Navy requested a carrier-borne fighter with all-weather capability, radar-guided missiles and a higher performance. This new type was to replace several 1st generation US Navy jets, including the ponderous and heavy Douglas F3D Skyknight, the lackluster Vought F7U as well as the Grumman F9F-8 Cougar. This requirement led to the Douglas F4D Skyray and North American’s FJ-5, another thorough modification of the Fury’s basic design and its eventual final evolution stage.

 

North American’s FJ-5 was designed with compact dimensions in mind, so that the type could be operated on older Essex Class carriers, which offered rather limited storage and lift space. At the time of the FJ-5’s conception, several of these carriers were still in service – and this argument led to an order for the FJ-5 in addition to the F4D.

 

For the FJ-5, the FJ-4’s aerodynamic surfaces were retained, but the fuselage had to be modified considerably in order to accept an APQ-50A radar with a parabolic 24 inches diameter antenna in the nose. The radome was placed above the air intake, similar to the F-86D, and coupled with an Aero 13F fire-control system, which together provided full all-weather capability and information on automatic firing of rockets.

A deeper rear fuselage became necessary, too, because the FJ-5 was powered by a reheated J65-W-18 engine (a development of the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojet, optimized for a naval environment), which delivered up to 10,500 lbf (47 kN) at full power instead of the FJ-4’s original 7,700 lbf (34 kN). This upgrade had, limited by the airframe’s aerodynamics, only marginal impact on the aircraft’s top speed, but the extra power almost doubled its initial rate of climb, slightly raised the service ceiling and markedly improved acceleration and carrier operations handling through a better response to throttle input and a higher margin of power reserves.

 

Internal armament still consisted of four 20mm cannon. These had to be placed lower in the nose now, flanking the air intake underneath the radome. The FJ-4B’s six underwing hardpoints were retained and could carry AIM-9 Sidewinders (both the IR-guided AIM-9B as well as the Semi-Active Radar Homing (SARH) AIM-9C) as well as the new radar-guided medium-range AIM-7C Sparrow, even though the latter only on the outer pylons, limiting their number to four. Up to six pods with nineteen unguided 70 mm/2.75” unguided Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket (Mighty Mouse FFARs) were another armament option.

 

Beyond these air-to-air weapons, a wide range of other ordnance could be carried. This included the AGM-12 “Bullpup” guided missile (which necessitated a guidance pod on the right inner wing hardpoint), bombs or napalm tanks of up to 1.000 lb caliber, missile pods, drop tanks and ECM pods. The FJ-4B’s strike capabilities were mostly retained, even though the dedicated fighter lost the ability to carry and deliver nuclear weapons in order to save weight and internal space for the radar equipment.

 

The first FJ-5, a converted early FJ-4, made its maiden flight in April 1958. After a short and successful test phase, the type was quickly put into production and introduced to service with US Navy and US Marine Corps units. The new fighter was quickly nicknamed “Fury Dog” by its crews, a reminiscence of the USAF’s F-86D “Sabre Dog” and its characteristic nose section, even though the FJ-5 was officially still just called “Fury”, like its many quite different predecessors.

 

With the new unified designation system adopted in 1962, the FJ-4 became the F-1E, the FJ-4B the AF-1E and the FJ-5 the F-1F. From the prolific Fury family, only the FJ-5/F-1F became involved in a hot conflict: in late 1966, the USMC deployed F-1Fs to Vietnam, where they primarily flew escort and top cover missions for fighter bombers (esp. A-4 Skyhawks) from Da Nang AB, South Vietnam, plus occasional close air support missions (CAS) on their own. The Marines’ F-1Fs remained in Vietnam until 1970, with a single air-to-air victory (a North-Vietnamese MiG-17 was shot down with a Sidewinder missile), no losses and only one aircraft seriously damaged by anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) fire.

 

After this frontline experience, a radar upgrade with an AN/APQ-124 was briefly considered but never carried out, since the F-1F showed the age of the original Fifties design – the type already lacked overall performance for an all-weather fighter that could effectively engage supersonic bomber targets or low flying attack aircraft. However, the aircraft was still popular because of its ruggedness, good handling characteristics and compact dimensions.

Other upgrades that would improve the F-1F’s strike capability, e. g. additional avionics to deploy the AGM-62 Walleye glide bomb or the new AGM-65 Maverick, esp. the USMC’s laser-guided AGM-65E variant, were also rejected, because more capable types for both interceptor and attack roles, namely the Mach 2 Douglas F-4 Phantom II and the LTV A-7 Corsair II, had been introduced in the meantime.

Another factor that denied any updates were military budget cuts. Furthermore, the contemporary F-8 Crusader offered a better performance and was therefore selected in favor of the F-1F to be updated to the H-L variants. In the wake of this decision, all F-1Fs still in Navy service were, together with the decommission of the last Essex Class carriers, in 1975 handed over to the USMC in order to purge the Navy’s inventory and simplify maintenance and logistics.

 

FJ-4 and FJ-4B Fury fighter bombers served with United States Naval Reserve units until the late 1960s, while the F-1F soldiered on with the USMC until the early Eighties, even though only in reserve units. A considerable number had the heavy radar equipment removed and replaced by ballast in the late Seventies, and they were used as fighter-bombers, for dissimilar air combat training (simulating Soviet fighter types like the MiG-17 and -19), as high-speed target tugs or as in-flight refueling tankers, since the FJ-5 inherited this capability from the FJ-4, with up to two buddy packs under the wings. A few machines survived long enough to receive a new low-visibility livery.

 

However, even in the USMC reserve units, the FJ-5 was soon replaced by A-4 Skyhawks, due to the age of the airframes and further fleet reduction measures. The last F-1F was retired in 1982, ending the long career of North American’s F-86 design in US service.

 

A total of 1,196 Furies of all variants were received by the Navy and Marine Corps over the course of its production life, including 152 FJ-4s, 222 FJ-4Bs and 102 FJ-5s.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 40 ft 3 in (12.27 m)

Wingspan: 39 ft 1 in (11.9 m)

Height: 13 ft 11 in (4.2 m)

Wing area: 338.66 ft² (31.46 m²)

Empty weight: 13,518 lb (6,132 kg)

Gross weight: 19,975 lb (9,060 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 25,880 lb (11,750 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Wright J65-W-18 turbojet with 7,400 lbf (32.9 kN) dry thrust

and 10,500 lbf (46.7 kN) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 708 mph (1,139 km/h, 615 kn) at sea level,

737 mph (1,188 km/h/Mach 0.96) at height

Range: 2,020 mi (3,250 km) with 2× 200 gal (760 l) drop tanks and 2× AIM-9 missiles

Service ceiling: 49,750 ft (15,163 m)

Rate of climb: 12,150 ft/min (61.7 m/s)

Wing loading: 69.9 lb/ft² (341.7 kg/m²)

 

Armament:

4× 20 mm (0.787 in) Colt Mk 12 cannon (144 RPG, 578 rounds in total)

6× underwing hardpoints for 3,000 lb (1,400 kg) of ordnance, including AIM-9 and AIM-7 missiles

  

The kit and its assembly:

A project I had on the agenda for a long time. But, due to the major surgeries involved, I have been pushing it away – until the “In the navy” group build at whatifmolders.com came along in early 2020. So I collected my courage, dusted off the donor kits that had already been stashed away for years, and eventually started work.

 

The original inspiration was the F-8 Crusader’s career: I really like the look of the late RF-8s, which were kept long enough in service to receive the Eighties’ Low-Viz USN “Compass Ghost” livery. This looks cool, but also a little wrong. And what if the FJ-4B had been kept in service long enough to receive a similar treatment…?

 

In order to justify a career extension, I made up an all-weather development of the FJ-4B with a radar and a more powerful engine, a kind of light alternative to the Vought A-7. A plausible solution was a mix of FJ-4B and F-86D parts – this sounds easy, but both aircraft and their respective model kits actually have only VERY little in common.

 

At its core, the FJ-5 model is a kitbashing of parts from an Emhar FJ-4B (Revell re-boxing) and an Airfix F-86D. The FJ-4B provided the raised cockpit section with the canopy, spine and fin in the form of a complete transplant, which furthermore had to be extended by about 1cm/0.5” because the F-86D is longer than the Fury. The FJ-4B also provided its wings, stabilizers and the landing gear. The Fury’s ventral arrester hook section, a separate part, was also transferred into the F-86D’s lower rear fuselage, under the openings for the air brakes.

For a more lively look, the (thick!) Fury canopy was sawed into two pieces for open display and the flaps were lowered, too.

 

The cockpit was taken from the Airfix kit, since it would fit well into the lower fuselage and it looked much better than their respective counterparts from the relatively basic Emhar kit, which just comes with a narrow board with a strange, bulky seat-thing. As an extra, the cockpit received side consoles, a scratched gunsight and a different ejection seat that raised the pilot’s position into the Fury’s higher canopy.

 

Since the F-1F was supposed to be a fighter, still equipped with the radar set, I retained the OOB pylons from the Fury with its four launch rails. For an aircraft late in the career, I gave it a reduced ordnance, though, just a pair of drop tanks (left over from a Matchbox F3D Skyknight; I wanted something more slender than the stubby OOB drop tanks from the Emhar Fury kit), plus a better Sidewinder training round (hence its blue body) and a single red ACMI data pod on the outer pylons, as an aerial combat training outfit and nice color highlights on the otherwise dull/grey aircraft.

  

Painting and markings:

As mentioned above, the idea for livery was a vintage aircraft in modern, subdued markings. So I adapted the early USN Compass Ghost scheme, and the F-1F received a two-tone livery in FS 36320 and 36375 (Dark and Light Compass Ghost Grey, Humbrol 128 and 127, respectively) with a high, wavy waterline and a light fin. In front of the cockpit, a slightly darker anti-glare panel in Humbrol 145 (FS 35237) was added, inspired by early USN F-14s in Compass Ghost camouflage.

The radome was painted with Humbrol 156, for a slightly darker/different shade of grey than the aircraft’s upper surfaces – I considered a black or a beige (unpainted glass fiber) radome first, but that would have been a very harsh contrast to the rest.

 

The landing gear as well as the air intake duct were painted glossy white (Humbrol 22), the cockpit became medium grey (Humbrol 140, Dark Gull Gray). The inside of the air brakes as well es the edges of the flaps, normally concealed when they are retracted, were painted in bright red (Humbrol 174). The same tone was also used to highlight the edges of the land gear covers.

 

The grey leading edges on the wings the stabilizers were created with decal sheet strips (generic material from TL Modellbau), the gun blast plates were made with silver decal material.

In order to give the model a worn look, I applied a black ink wash, an overall, light treatment with graphite and some post shading. Some extra graphite was applied around the exhaust and the gun nozzles.

 

The markings were taken for an USMC A-4E/F from a Revell kit (which turned out to be a bit bluish). I wanted a consequent dull/toned-down look, typical for early Compass Ghost aircraft. Later, colored highlights, roundels and squadron markings crept back onto the aircraft, but in the early Eighties many USN/USMC machines were consequently finished in a grey-in-grey livery.

 

Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and the ordnance added.

  

Well, the end result looks simple, but creating this kitbashed Fury all-weather fighter was pretty demanding. Even though both the Fury and the F-86D are based on the same aircraft, they are completely different, and the same is also true for the model kits. It took major surgeries and body sculpting to weld the parts together. But I am quite happy with the outcome, the fictional F-1F looks pretty conclusive and natural, also in the (for this aircraft) unusual low-viz livery.

 

The M3 variant has a revised tail turret with a single-barreled cannon, capable of firing 4,000 rounds/min, and a revised aerodynamic housing. The Backfire-C still functioned as a missile platform as well as a bombing platform but was upgraded to accommodate newer missiles and munitions. Provision was made in the internal bomb-bay for an internal rotary launcher for the Raduga Kh-15 hypersonic missile (NATO reporting name: AS-16 “Kickback”). The M3 variant carried the upgraded Kh-22M missiles for both naval or ground targets, retaining the recessed centreline mount as well as the two wing-mounted pylons. The new missile had a speed of Mach 3.3 and a range of 600 km (370 mi). The bombing platform variant could carry conventional and nuclear weapons up to a total weight of 24 tons in the internal bomb-bay and 12 tons on the two under-fuselage and underwing pylons.

 

In this image, a Backfire-C from the 840th Red Banner Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment (840th TBAP) stationed at Sol’sty-2 (Air Base) in the Novogorod Oblast flies a training mission along the Baltic coast. The regiment was activated on 4 April 1942 as the 840th Aviation Regiment Long-Range and switched to the 840th Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment in 1951 flying Tu-4 bombers. It was awarded Red Banner status on 22 February 1968 and in December 1988, part of the unit was deployed to Mary in Mary Oblast (modern-day Turkmenistan) for operations over Afghanistan. The 840th TBAP flew 71 combat missions, the last in February 1989. The regiment was disbanded in 1994.

To replace various helicopters in service at the time, namely the SH-34 Seahorse, the US Navy awarded Sikorsky a contract to develop a helicopter that would combine several roles into one airframe: hunter/killer antisubmarine warfare, cargo transport, and search and rescue. It would also have to be capable of amphibious operations and had to be able to operate from smaller ships as well as aircraft carriers. Sikorsky’s HSS-2 Sea King was the response, and it first flew in March 1959. The HSS-2 had a distinctive “boat” hull for water landings, including flotation bags in the sponsons, good visibility from the cockpit, and a folding tail section for stowage. In the antisubmarine role, the HSS-2 was equipped with a dipping sonar unreeled from the forward hull, 21 sonobuoys, and a MAD “bird” capable of being deployed from the port sponson. In 1962, the type’s designation was changed to SH-3A.

 

The SH-3 would remain in US Navy service for the next 50 years. During Vietnam and the Third World War, it operated in plane guard duties for carriers, the first aircraft to launch and the last to recover; it also served in SAR duties from the carriers and smaller ships, flying over water and often over land to rescue downed pilots. In this role, the SH-3 is probably responsible for the rescue of more people than any other aircraft type. Dedicated SAR helicopters often were equipped with heavy or light machine guns. Other versions were converted to UH-3 utility helicopters and VH-3 VIP transports. The latter are the last Sea Kings in US service; the US Navy began replacing the aging SH-3 following the First Gulf War, with ASW/SAR SH-3s mostly gone from fleet service by 1997. Cargo and utility variants remained in service until 2006. Besides its service in the US armed forces, Sea Kings were heavily exported to 17 air forces, including license-built versions made by Westland (Sea Kings), United Aircraft of Canada (CH-124), Agusta (AS-61), and Mitsubishi (HSS-2); foreign variants are used both in traditional roles for the Sea King, as well as antishipping duties, troop transports, minesweeping, and even AEW. It remains in service worldwide.

 

The USS Yorktown (CVS-10) carried a squadron of SH-3s for ASW work during the 1960s, usually HS-4 on the West Coast. During its Vietnam service, as North Vietnam had no submarines, the Yorktown used its SH-3s for search and rescue. Though HS-4's helicopters were painted in standard US Navy gray over white during Vietnam, a number were armored and armed with door guns and painted overall gray. The Yorktown's "normal" SH-3s used the callsign Fetch, but the gray SAR birds were known as Big Mother. (The most famous SH-3 was "Fetch 66," which picked up the crew of Apollo 8 from the Yorktown in December 1968, and subsequently picked up other Apollo missions on other carriers.)

 

As such, the markings on this SH-3 are somewhat confusing. Before 1964, the Yorktown's SH-3s were painted overall engine gray with high-visibility red panels, before switching over to gray over white. This scheme is close to engine gray, but uses the smaller insignia of the Big Mothers. However, the Big Mothers used subdued lettering and did not carry the large white numbers seen here.

 

My dad controlled quite a few SH-3 rescue missions as a radarman aboard the Yorktown from 1964 to 1969, and got to ride in a SH-3 once. Whatever its color scheme, it was nice to see one of these in May 2014. Bureau Number 149932 was originally built as a SH-3G.

The display reads:

 

ADA in Vietnam – M42 Duster

 

Combat experience in the Korea War quickly showed that while the M19 40mm Gun Motor Carriage was a capable platform, it needed improvement. By 1952, a new anti-aircraft tank was in development, designated the T141. The new vehicle used the same turret and gun mount from the M19, but mated it with the larger, more powerful M41 Walker Bulldog light tank hull. The resulting vehicle was standardized as the M42 40mm Gun Motor Carriage by 1952 and entered full production that year.

 

However, with the service entry of the Nike Ajax system in 1953, the Army was focused on missile systems and with the introduction of the Hawk missile in the late 1950s, the M42 was quickly passed to National Guard units and all but removed from the active inventory by 1963.

 

Just two years later, US forces entered combat in South Vietnam. Two Hawk missile battalions were deployed to provide air defense around Saigon and along the DMZ, but an additional system was needed to cover potential low-altitude threats. In addition to the air defense requirement, the Army also needed a vehicle that could provide heavy firepower for both convoy escort and firebase defense. The M42 was back in demand and by the beginning of 1966, three battalions were formed for service in Vietnam.

 

Those three units, 1st Battalion, 44th Artillery; 4th Battalion, 60th Artillery; and 5th Battalion, 2nd Artillery arrived in-theater by mid-year and immediately had a significant impact on operations in their respective areas of operation. Each “Duster” battalion had a quad .50 battery and searchlight battery attached, forming an air defense task force that could respond to both air and ground threats, day or night.

 

On 20 June 1968, Air Defense and Field Artillery split the Artillery branch and the Duster, Quad, Searchlight and Hawk units were then designated ADA rather than “Artillery,” with the parenthetical Automatic Weapons, Searchlight or Guided Missile designation.

 

The story of Army Air Defense in Vietnam provides a fascinating contrast to the operations and equipment of the rest of the branch during the 1960s and early 1970s. While Army Air Defense of the day was focused on the strategic threat of a Soviet nuclear strike and were using the latest technology to deter that threat, the three ADA Duster battalions effectively used weapon systems from the “last war” to provide low altitude air defense and on-call direct fire support to infantry and artillery units across the entirety of South Vietnam from 1966 through 1972.

 

M42 Duster Specifications:

 

Weight: 50,000 lbs fully loaded

Height: 9 feet 4 inches

Length: 19 feet

Width: 10 feet 7 inches

Crew: Commander, driver, two loaders, two gunners

Armament: Two M2A1 40mm automatic anti-aircraft guns with 240 rounds per gun; 1-2 7.62 M60 Machine Guns with 1,750 rounds

Main Armament Rate of Fire: 120 rounds per minute, per gun

Engine: Continental AOS-895-3 6-cylinder opposed gasoline engine

Range: 100 miles

Speed 45 mph

 

The museum’s Duster served with the 1-44th Artillery in 1968.

 

The Duster occasionally towed the M332 ammunition trailer, which doubled the Duster’s ammunition capacity. However, it would be a liability in combat and would normally be removed before the Duster would be used in the convoy escort role.

 

Most Dusters in Vietnam carried some form of artwork. Usually the crew would name both the front hatch and the gun shield above the main armament.

 

Sergeant Mitchell W. Stout was born in Lenoir City, Tennessee on 24 February, 1950. He enlisted in the Army on 15 August 1967 and served his first tour in Vietnam as a rifleman with the 2nd Battalion, 47th Infantry Regiment in the Mekong Delta from August 1968 to August 1969. After completing his first tour, SGT Stout rotated back to the US, but returned to South Vietnam just five months later as a M42 Duster crewman.

 

Three months into his second tour, SGT Stout was commanding an M42 Duster at the Khe Gio bridge along Route 9, a strategic east-west route that was the supply lifeline to friendly outposts in western I Corps.

 

SGT Mitchell Stout

C/1-44th Artillery (Automatic Weapons), Khe Gio Bridge

 

The U.S. Army outpost at Khe Gio Bridge on Highway 9 near the DMZ was overrun by North Vietnamese troops on 12 March 1970. Fourteen Americans held the outpost along with a platoon of ARVN Infantry. Two M42 Dusters from C Battery 1-44th Artillery gave the small force a significant amount of firepower to protect the bridge, while an M151A1 searchlight jeep from G Battery, 29th Artillery provided nighttime battlefield illumination. Of those fourteen Americans, two were killed in action, five wounded and one was captured. Yet they fought valiantly and protected the bridge on Route 9, sparing it from destruction. Sergeant Mitchell Stout’s actions during the battle would earn him a posthumous Medal of Honor:

 

Citation:

 

Sgt. Stout distinguished himself during an attack by a North Vietnamese Army Sapper company on his unit's firing position at Khe Gio Bridge. Sgt. Stout was in a bunker with members of a searchlight crew when the position came under heavy enemy mortar fire and ground attack. When the intensity of the mortar attack subsided, an enemy grenade was thrown into the bunker. Displaying great courage, Sgt. Stout ran to the grenade, picked it up, and started out of the bunker. As he reached the door, the grenade exploded. By holding the grenade close to his body and shielding its blast, he protected his fellow soldiers in the bunker from further injury or death. Sgt. Stout's conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action, at the cost of his own life, are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon him, his unit and the U.S. Army.

 

Taken December 13th, 2013.

+++ 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 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 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…

+++ 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 North American FJ-4 Fury was a swept-wing carrier-capable fighter-bomber for the United States Navy and Marine Corps. The final development in a lineage that included the Air Force's F-86 Sabre, the FJ-4 shared its general layout and engine with the earlier FJ-3, but, compared to that of the FJ-3, the FJ-4's new wing was much thinner, with a six percent thickness-to-chord ratio, and featured skin panels milled from solid alloy plates. It also had an increased area and tapered more sharply towards the tips. Slight camber behind the leading edge improved low speed characteristics. The main landing gear design had to be considerably modified to fold wheel and strut within the contours of the new wing. The track of the main wheels was increased, and because they were closer to the center of gravity, there was less weight on the nosewheel. Wing folding was limited to the outer wing panels.

 

The FJ-4 was intended as an all-weather interceptor, a role that required considerable range on internal fuel. The FJ-4 had 50% more fuel capacity than the FJ-3 and was lightened by omitting armor and reducing ammunition capacity. The new wing was "wet"; that is, it provided for integral fuel tankage. The fuselage was deepened to add more fuel and had a distinctive "razorback" rear deck. A modified cockpit made the pilot more comfortable during the longer missions. The tail surfaces were also extensively modified, had a thinner profile and featured an extended, taller fin. The overall changes resulted in an aircraft that had little in common with the earlier models, although a family resemblance was still present.

 

The FJ-4 was developed into a family of aircraft. Of the original order for 221 FJ-4 day fighters, the last 71 were modified into the FJ-4B fighter-bomber version. This had a stronger wing with six instead of four underwing stations and stronger landing gear. Additional aerodynamic brakes under the aft fuselage made landing safer by allowing pilots to use higher thrust settings and were also useful for dive attacks. External load was doubled. The most important characteristic of the FJ-4B was, since the Navy was eager to maintain a nuclear role in its rivalry with the Air Force, that it was capable of carrying a nuclear weapon on the inboard port station. For the delivery of nuclear weapons, the FJ-4B was equipped with the Low-Altitude Bombing System (LABS), and with this capability it replaced the carrier-based A-3 Skywarrior bombers, which were not suited well for the new low-level approach tactics.

 

In April 1956, the Navy ordered 151 more FJ-4Bs, 10 US Navy squadrons became equipped with the FJ-4B, and the type was also flown by three Marine squadrons. At the same time, the Navy requested a carrier-borne fighter with all-weather capability, radar-guided missiles and a higher performance. This new type was to replace several 1st generation US Navy jets, including the ponderous and heavy Douglas F3D Skyknight, the lackluster Vought F7U as well as the Grumman F9F-8 Cougar. This requirement led to the Douglas F4D Skyray and North American’s FJ-5, another thorough modification of the Fury’s basic design and its eventual final evolution stage.

 

North American’s FJ-5 was designed with compact dimensions in mind, so that the type could be operated on older Essex Class carriers, which offered rather limited storage and lift space. At the time of the FJ-5’s conception, several of these carriers were still in service – and this argument led to an order for the FJ-5 in addition to the F4D.

 

For the FJ-5, the FJ-4’s aerodynamic surfaces were retained, but the fuselage had to be modified considerably in order to accept an APQ-50A radar with a parabolic 24 inches diameter antenna in the nose. The radome was placed above the air intake, similar to the F-86D, and coupled with an Aero 13F fire-control system, which together provided full all-weather capability and information on automatic firing of rockets.

A deeper rear fuselage became necessary, too, because the FJ-5 was powered by a reheated J65-W-18 engine (a development of the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojet, optimized for a naval environment), which delivered up to 10,500 lbf (47 kN) at full power instead of the FJ-4’s original 7,700 lbf (34 kN). This upgrade had, limited by the airframe’s aerodynamics, only marginal impact on the aircraft’s top speed, but the extra power almost doubled its initial rate of climb, slightly raised the service ceiling and markedly improved acceleration and carrier operations handling through a better response to throttle input and a higher margin of power reserves.

 

Internal armament still consisted of four 20mm cannon. These had to be placed lower in the nose now, flanking the air intake underneath the radome. The FJ-4B’s six underwing hardpoints were retained and could carry AIM-9 Sidewinders (both the IR-guided AIM-9B as well as the Semi-Active Radar Homing (SARH) AIM-9C) as well as the new radar-guided medium-range AIM-7C Sparrow, even though the latter only on the outer pylons, limiting their number to four. Up to six pods with nineteen unguided 70 mm/2.75” unguided Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket (Mighty Mouse FFARs) were another armament option.

 

Beyond these air-to-air weapons, a wide range of other ordnance could be carried. This included the AGM-12 “Bullpup” guided missile (which necessitated a guidance pod on the right inner wing hardpoint), bombs or napalm tanks of up to 1.000 lb caliber, missile pods, drop tanks and ECM pods. The FJ-4B’s strike capabilities were mostly retained, even though the dedicated fighter lost the ability to carry and deliver nuclear weapons in order to save weight and internal space for the radar equipment.

 

The first FJ-5, a converted early FJ-4, made its maiden flight in April 1958. After a short and successful test phase, the type was quickly put into production and introduced to service with US Navy and US Marine Corps units. The new fighter was quickly nicknamed “Fury Dog” by its crews, a reminiscence of the USAF’s F-86D “Sabre Dog” and its characteristic nose section, even though the FJ-5 was officially still just called “Fury”, like its many quite different predecessors.

 

With the new unified designation system adopted in 1962, the FJ-4 became the F-1E, the FJ-4B the AF-1E and the FJ-5 the F-1F. From the prolific Fury family, only the FJ-5/F-1F became involved in a hot conflict: in late 1966, the USMC deployed F-1Fs to Vietnam, where they primarily flew escort and top cover missions for fighter bombers (esp. A-4 Skyhawks) from Da Nang AB, South Vietnam, plus occasional close air support missions (CAS) on their own. The Marines’ F-1Fs remained in Vietnam until 1970, with a single air-to-air victory (a North-Vietnamese MiG-17 was shot down with a Sidewinder missile), no losses and only one aircraft seriously damaged by anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) fire.

 

After this frontline experience, a radar upgrade with an AN/APQ-124 was briefly considered but never carried out, since the F-1F showed the age of the original Fifties design – the type already lacked overall performance for an all-weather fighter that could effectively engage supersonic bomber targets or low flying attack aircraft. However, the aircraft was still popular because of its ruggedness, good handling characteristics and compact dimensions.

Other upgrades that would improve the F-1F’s strike capability, e. g. additional avionics to deploy the AGM-62 Walleye glide bomb or the new AGM-65 Maverick, esp. the USMC’s laser-guided AGM-65E variant, were also rejected, because more capable types for both interceptor and attack roles, namely the Mach 2 Douglas F-4 Phantom II and the LTV A-7 Corsair II, had been introduced in the meantime.

Another factor that denied any updates were military budget cuts. Furthermore, the contemporary F-8 Crusader offered a better performance and was therefore selected in favor of the F-1F to be updated to the H-L variants. In the wake of this decision, all F-1Fs still in Navy service were, together with the decommission of the last Essex Class carriers, in 1975 handed over to the USMC in order to purge the Navy’s inventory and simplify maintenance and logistics.

 

FJ-4 and FJ-4B Fury fighter bombers served with United States Naval Reserve units until the late 1960s, while the F-1F soldiered on with the USMC until the early Eighties, even though only in reserve units. A considerable number had the heavy radar equipment removed and replaced by ballast in the late Seventies, and they were used as fighter-bombers, for dissimilar air combat training (simulating Soviet fighter types like the MiG-17 and -19), as high-speed target tugs or as in-flight refueling tankers, since the FJ-5 inherited this capability from the FJ-4, with up to two buddy packs under the wings. A few machines survived long enough to receive a new low-visibility livery.

 

However, even in the USMC reserve units, the FJ-5 was soon replaced by A-4 Skyhawks, due to the age of the airframes and further fleet reduction measures. The last F-1F was retired in 1982, ending the long career of North American’s F-86 design in US service.

 

A total of 1,196 Furies of all variants were received by the Navy and Marine Corps over the course of its production life, including 152 FJ-4s, 222 FJ-4Bs and 102 FJ-5s.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 40 ft 3 in (12.27 m)

Wingspan: 39 ft 1 in (11.9 m)

Height: 13 ft 11 in (4.2 m)

Wing area: 338.66 ft² (31.46 m²)

Empty weight: 13,518 lb (6,132 kg)

Gross weight: 19,975 lb (9,060 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 25,880 lb (11,750 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Wright J65-W-18 turbojet with 7,400 lbf (32.9 kN) dry thrust

and 10,500 lbf (46.7 kN) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 708 mph (1,139 km/h, 615 kn) at sea level,

737 mph (1,188 km/h/Mach 0.96) at height

Range: 2,020 mi (3,250 km) with 2× 200 gal (760 l) drop tanks and 2× AIM-9 missiles

Service ceiling: 49,750 ft (15,163 m)

Rate of climb: 12,150 ft/min (61.7 m/s)

Wing loading: 69.9 lb/ft² (341.7 kg/m²)

 

Armament:

4× 20 mm (0.787 in) Colt Mk 12 cannon (144 RPG, 578 rounds in total)

6× underwing hardpoints for 3,000 lb (1,400 kg) of ordnance, including AIM-9 and AIM-7 missiles

  

The kit and its assembly:

A project I had on the agenda for a long time. But, due to the major surgeries involved, I have been pushing it away – until the “In the navy” group build at whatifmolders.com came along in early 2020. So I collected my courage, dusted off the donor kits that had already been stashed away for years, and eventually started work.

 

The original inspiration was the F-8 Crusader’s career: I really like the look of the late RF-8s, which were kept long enough in service to receive the Eighties’ Low-Viz USN “Compass Ghost” livery. This looks cool, but also a little wrong. And what if the FJ-4B had been kept in service long enough to receive a similar treatment…?

 

In order to justify a career extension, I made up an all-weather development of the FJ-4B with a radar and a more powerful engine, a kind of light alternative to the Vought A-7. A plausible solution was a mix of FJ-4B and F-86D parts – this sounds easy, but both aircraft and their respective model kits actually have only VERY little in common.

 

At its core, the FJ-5 model is a kitbashing of parts from an Emhar FJ-4B (Revell re-boxing) and an Airfix F-86D. The FJ-4B provided the raised cockpit section with the canopy, spine and fin in the form of a complete transplant, which furthermore had to be extended by about 1cm/0.5” because the F-86D is longer than the Fury. The FJ-4B also provided its wings, stabilizers and the landing gear. The Fury’s ventral arrester hook section, a separate part, was also transferred into the F-86D’s lower rear fuselage, under the openings for the air brakes.

For a more lively look, the (thick!) Fury canopy was sawed into two pieces for open display and the flaps were lowered, too.

 

The cockpit was taken from the Airfix kit, since it would fit well into the lower fuselage and it looked much better than their respective counterparts from the relatively basic Emhar kit, which just comes with a narrow board with a strange, bulky seat-thing. As an extra, the cockpit received side consoles, a scratched gunsight and a different ejection seat that raised the pilot’s position into the Fury’s higher canopy.

 

Since the F-1F was supposed to be a fighter, still equipped with the radar set, I retained the OOB pylons from the Fury with its four launch rails. For an aircraft late in the career, I gave it a reduced ordnance, though, just a pair of drop tanks (left over from a Matchbox F3D Skyknight; I wanted something more slender than the stubby OOB drop tanks from the Emhar Fury kit), plus a better Sidewinder training round (hence its blue body) and a single red ACMI data pod on the outer pylons, as an aerial combat training outfit and nice color highlights on the otherwise dull/grey aircraft.

  

Painting and markings:

As mentioned above, the idea for livery was a vintage aircraft in modern, subdued markings. So I adapted the early USN Compass Ghost scheme, and the F-1F received a two-tone livery in FS 36320 and 36375 (Dark and Light Compass Ghost Grey, Humbrol 128 and 127, respectively) with a high, wavy waterline and a light fin. In front of the cockpit, a slightly darker anti-glare panel in Humbrol 145 (FS 35237) was added, inspired by early USN F-14s in Compass Ghost camouflage.

The radome was painted with Humbrol 156, for a slightly darker/different shade of grey than the aircraft’s upper surfaces – I considered a black or a beige (unpainted glass fiber) radome first, but that would have been a very harsh contrast to the rest.

 

The landing gear as well as the air intake duct were painted glossy white (Humbrol 22), the cockpit became medium grey (Humbrol 140, Dark Gull Gray). The inside of the air brakes as well es the edges of the flaps, normally concealed when they are retracted, were painted in bright red (Humbrol 174). The same tone was also used to highlight the edges of the land gear covers.

 

The grey leading edges on the wings the stabilizers were created with decal sheet strips (generic material from TL Modellbau), the gun blast plates were made with silver decal material.

In order to give the model a worn look, I applied a black ink wash, an overall, light treatment with graphite and some post shading. Some extra graphite was applied around the exhaust and the gun nozzles.

 

The markings were taken for an USMC A-4E/F from a Revell kit (which turned out to be a bit bluish). I wanted a consequent dull/toned-down look, typical for early Compass Ghost aircraft. Later, colored highlights, roundels and squadron markings crept back onto the aircraft, but in the early Eighties many USN/USMC machines were consequently finished in a grey-in-grey livery.

 

Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and the ordnance added.

  

Well, the end result looks simple, but creating this kitbashed Fury all-weather fighter was pretty demanding. Even though both the Fury and the F-86D are based on the same aircraft, they are completely different, and the same is also true for the model kits. It took major surgeries and body sculpting to weld the parts together. But I am quite happy with the outcome, the fictional F-1F looks pretty conclusive and natural, also in the (for this aircraft) unusual low-viz livery.

 

+++ 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 North American FJ-4 Fury was a swept-wing carrier-capable fighter-bomber for the United States Navy and Marine Corps. The final development in a lineage that included the Air Force's F-86 Sabre, the FJ-4 shared its general layout and engine with the earlier FJ-3, but, compared to that of the FJ-3, the FJ-4's new wing was much thinner, with a six percent thickness-to-chord ratio, and featured skin panels milled from solid alloy plates. It also had an increased area and tapered more sharply towards the tips. Slight camber behind the leading edge improved low speed characteristics. The main landing gear design had to be considerably modified to fold wheel and strut within the contours of the new wing. The track of the main wheels was increased, and because they were closer to the center of gravity, there was less weight on the nosewheel. Wing folding was limited to the outer wing panels.

 

The FJ-4 was intended as an all-weather interceptor, a role that required considerable range on internal fuel. The FJ-4 had 50% more fuel capacity than the FJ-3 and was lightened by omitting armor and reducing ammunition capacity. The new wing was "wet"; that is, it provided for integral fuel tankage. The fuselage was deepened to add more fuel and had a distinctive "razorback" rear deck. A modified cockpit made the pilot more comfortable during the longer missions. The tail surfaces were also extensively modified, had a thinner profile and featured an extended, taller fin. The overall changes resulted in an aircraft that had little in common with the earlier models, although a family resemblance was still present.

 

The FJ-4 was developed into a family of aircraft. Of the original order for 221 FJ-4 day fighters, the last 71 were modified into the FJ-4B fighter-bomber version. This had a stronger wing with six instead of four underwing stations and stronger landing gear. Additional aerodynamic brakes under the aft fuselage made landing safer by allowing pilots to use higher thrust settings and were also useful for dive attacks. External load was doubled. The most important characteristic of the FJ-4B was, since the Navy was eager to maintain a nuclear role in its rivalry with the Air Force, that it was capable of carrying a nuclear weapon on the inboard port station. For the delivery of nuclear weapons, the FJ-4B was equipped with the Low-Altitude Bombing System (LABS), and with this capability it replaced the carrier-based A-3 Skywarrior bombers, which were not suited well for the new low-level approach tactics.

 

In April 1956, the Navy ordered 151 more FJ-4Bs, 10 US Navy squadrons became equipped with the FJ-4B, and the type was also flown by three Marine squadrons. At the same time, the Navy requested a carrier-borne fighter with all-weather capability, radar-guided missiles and a higher performance. This new type was to replace several 1st generation US Navy jets, including the ponderous and heavy Douglas F3D Skyknight, the lackluster Vought F7U as well as the Grumman F9F-8 Cougar. This requirement led to the Douglas F4D Skyray and North American’s FJ-5, another thorough modification of the Fury’s basic design and its eventual final evolution stage.

 

North American’s FJ-5 was designed with compact dimensions in mind, so that the type could be operated on older Essex Class carriers, which offered rather limited storage and lift space. At the time of the FJ-5’s conception, several of these carriers were still in service – and this argument led to an order for the FJ-5 in addition to the F4D.

 

For the FJ-5, the FJ-4’s aerodynamic surfaces were retained, but the fuselage had to be modified considerably in order to accept an APQ-50A radar with a parabolic 24 inches diameter antenna in the nose. The radome was placed above the air intake, similar to the F-86D, and coupled with an Aero 13F fire-control system, which together provided full all-weather capability and information on automatic firing of rockets.

A deeper rear fuselage became necessary, too, because the FJ-5 was powered by a reheated J65-W-18 engine (a development of the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojet, optimized for a naval environment), which delivered up to 10,500 lbf (47 kN) at full power instead of the FJ-4’s original 7,700 lbf (34 kN). This upgrade had, limited by the airframe’s aerodynamics, only marginal impact on the aircraft’s top speed, but the extra power almost doubled its initial rate of climb, slightly raised the service ceiling and markedly improved acceleration and carrier operations handling through a better response to throttle input and a higher margin of power reserves.

 

Internal armament still consisted of four 20mm cannon. These had to be placed lower in the nose now, flanking the air intake underneath the radome. The FJ-4B’s six underwing hardpoints were retained and could carry AIM-9 Sidewinders (both the IR-guided AIM-9B as well as the Semi-Active Radar Homing (SARH) AIM-9C) as well as the new radar-guided medium-range AIM-7C Sparrow, even though the latter only on the outer pylons, limiting their number to four. Up to six pods with nineteen unguided 70 mm/2.75” unguided Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket (Mighty Mouse FFARs) were another armament option.

 

Beyond these air-to-air weapons, a wide range of other ordnance could be carried. This included the AGM-12 “Bullpup” guided missile (which necessitated a guidance pod on the right inner wing hardpoint), bombs or napalm tanks of up to 1.000 lb caliber, missile pods, drop tanks and ECM pods. The FJ-4B’s strike capabilities were mostly retained, even though the dedicated fighter lost the ability to carry and deliver nuclear weapons in order to save weight and internal space for the radar equipment.

 

The first FJ-5, a converted early FJ-4, made its maiden flight in April 1958. After a short and successful test phase, the type was quickly put into production and introduced to service with US Navy and US Marine Corps units. The new fighter was quickly nicknamed “Fury Dog” by its crews, a reminiscence of the USAF’s F-86D “Sabre Dog” and its characteristic nose section, even though the FJ-5 was officially still just called “Fury”, like its many quite different predecessors.

 

With the new unified designation system adopted in 1962, the FJ-4 became the F-1E, the FJ-4B the AF-1E and the FJ-5 the F-1F. From the prolific Fury family, only the FJ-5/F-1F became involved in a hot conflict: in late 1966, the USMC deployed F-1Fs to Vietnam, where they primarily flew escort and top cover missions for fighter bombers (esp. A-4 Skyhawks) from Da Nang AB, South Vietnam, plus occasional close air support missions (CAS) on their own. The Marines’ F-1Fs remained in Vietnam until 1970, with a single air-to-air victory (a North-Vietnamese MiG-17 was shot down with a Sidewinder missile), no losses and only one aircraft seriously damaged by anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) fire.

 

After this frontline experience, a radar upgrade with an AN/APQ-124 was briefly considered but never carried out, since the F-1F showed the age of the original Fifties design – the type already lacked overall performance for an all-weather fighter that could effectively engage supersonic bomber targets or low flying attack aircraft. However, the aircraft was still popular because of its ruggedness, good handling characteristics and compact dimensions.

Other upgrades that would improve the F-1F’s strike capability, e. g. additional avionics to deploy the AGM-62 Walleye glide bomb or the new AGM-65 Maverick, esp. the USMC’s laser-guided AGM-65E variant, were also rejected, because more capable types for both interceptor and attack roles, namely the Mach 2 Douglas F-4 Phantom II and the LTV A-7 Corsair II, had been introduced in the meantime.

Another factor that denied any updates were military budget cuts. Furthermore, the contemporary F-8 Crusader offered a better performance and was therefore selected in favor of the F-1F to be updated to the H-L variants. In the wake of this decision, all F-1Fs still in Navy service were, together with the decommission of the last Essex Class carriers, in 1975 handed over to the USMC in order to purge the Navy’s inventory and simplify maintenance and logistics.

 

FJ-4 and FJ-4B Fury fighter bombers served with United States Naval Reserve units until the late 1960s, while the F-1F soldiered on with the USMC until the early Eighties, even though only in reserve units. A considerable number had the heavy radar equipment removed and replaced by ballast in the late Seventies, and they were used as fighter-bombers, for dissimilar air combat training (simulating Soviet fighter types like the MiG-17 and -19), as high-speed target tugs or as in-flight refueling tankers, since the FJ-5 inherited this capability from the FJ-4, with up to two buddy packs under the wings. A few machines survived long enough to receive a new low-visibility livery.

 

However, even in the USMC reserve units, the FJ-5 was soon replaced by A-4 Skyhawks, due to the age of the airframes and further fleet reduction measures. The last F-1F was retired in 1982, ending the long career of North American’s F-86 design in US service.

 

A total of 1,196 Furies of all variants were received by the Navy and Marine Corps over the course of its production life, including 152 FJ-4s, 222 FJ-4Bs and 102 FJ-5s.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 40 ft 3 in (12.27 m)

Wingspan: 39 ft 1 in (11.9 m)

Height: 13 ft 11 in (4.2 m)

Wing area: 338.66 ft² (31.46 m²)

Empty weight: 13,518 lb (6,132 kg)

Gross weight: 19,975 lb (9,060 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 25,880 lb (11,750 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Wright J65-W-18 turbojet with 7,400 lbf (32.9 kN) dry thrust

and 10,500 lbf (46.7 kN) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 708 mph (1,139 km/h, 615 kn) at sea level,

737 mph (1,188 km/h/Mach 0.96) at height

Range: 2,020 mi (3,250 km) with 2× 200 gal (760 l) drop tanks and 2× AIM-9 missiles

Service ceiling: 49,750 ft (15,163 m)

Rate of climb: 12,150 ft/min (61.7 m/s)

Wing loading: 69.9 lb/ft² (341.7 kg/m²)

 

Armament:

4× 20 mm (0.787 in) Colt Mk 12 cannon (144 RPG, 578 rounds in total)

6× underwing hardpoints for 3,000 lb (1,400 kg) of ordnance, including AIM-9 and AIM-7 missiles

  

The kit and its assembly:

A project I had on the agenda for a long time. But, due to the major surgeries involved, I have been pushing it away – until the “In the navy” group build at whatifmolders.com came along in early 2020. So I collected my courage, dusted off the donor kits that had already been stashed away for years, and eventually started work.

 

The original inspiration was the F-8 Crusader’s career: I really like the look of the late RF-8s, which were kept long enough in service to receive the Eighties’ Low-Viz USN “Compass Ghost” livery. This looks cool, but also a little wrong. And what if the FJ-4B had been kept in service long enough to receive a similar treatment…?

 

In order to justify a career extension, I made up an all-weather development of the FJ-4B with a radar and a more powerful engine, a kind of light alternative to the Vought A-7. A plausible solution was a mix of FJ-4B and F-86D parts – this sounds easy, but both aircraft and their respective model kits actually have only VERY little in common.

 

At its core, the FJ-5 model is a kitbashing of parts from an Emhar FJ-4B (Revell re-boxing) and an Airfix F-86D. The FJ-4B provided the raised cockpit section with the canopy, spine and fin in the form of a complete transplant, which furthermore had to be extended by about 1cm/0.5” because the F-86D is longer than the Fury. The FJ-4B also provided its wings, stabilizers and the landing gear. The Fury’s ventral arrester hook section, a separate part, was also transferred into the F-86D’s lower rear fuselage, under the openings for the air brakes.

For a more lively look, the (thick!) Fury canopy was sawed into two pieces for open display and the flaps were lowered, too.

 

The cockpit was taken from the Airfix kit, since it would fit well into the lower fuselage and it looked much better than their respective counterparts from the relatively basic Emhar kit, which just comes with a narrow board with a strange, bulky seat-thing. As an extra, the cockpit received side consoles, a scratched gunsight and a different ejection seat that raised the pilot’s position into the Fury’s higher canopy.

 

Since the F-1F was supposed to be a fighter, still equipped with the radar set, I retained the OOB pylons from the Fury with its four launch rails. For an aircraft late in the career, I gave it a reduced ordnance, though, just a pair of drop tanks (left over from a Matchbox F3D Skyknight; I wanted something more slender than the stubby OOB drop tanks from the Emhar Fury kit), plus a better Sidewinder training round (hence its blue body) and a single red ACMI data pod on the outer pylons, as an aerial combat training outfit and nice color highlights on the otherwise dull/grey aircraft.

  

Painting and markings:

As mentioned above, the idea for livery was a vintage aircraft in modern, subdued markings. So I adapted the early USN Compass Ghost scheme, and the F-1F received a two-tone livery in FS 36320 and 36375 (Dark and Light Compass Ghost Grey, Humbrol 128 and 127, respectively) with a high, wavy waterline and a light fin. In front of the cockpit, a slightly darker anti-glare panel in Humbrol 145 (FS 35237) was added, inspired by early USN F-14s in Compass Ghost camouflage.

The radome was painted with Humbrol 156, for a slightly darker/different shade of grey than the aircraft’s upper surfaces – I considered a black or a beige (unpainted glass fiber) radome first, but that would have been a very harsh contrast to the rest.

 

The landing gear as well as the air intake duct were painted glossy white (Humbrol 22), the cockpit became medium grey (Humbrol 140, Dark Gull Gray). The inside of the air brakes as well es the edges of the flaps, normally concealed when they are retracted, were painted in bright red (Humbrol 174). The same tone was also used to highlight the edges of the land gear covers.

 

The grey leading edges on the wings the stabilizers were created with decal sheet strips (generic material from TL Modellbau), the gun blast plates were made with silver decal material.

In order to give the model a worn look, I applied a black ink wash, an overall, light treatment with graphite and some post shading. Some extra graphite was applied around the exhaust and the gun nozzles.

 

The markings were taken for an USMC A-4E/F from a Revell kit (which turned out to be a bit bluish). I wanted a consequent dull/toned-down look, typical for early Compass Ghost aircraft. Later, colored highlights, roundels and squadron markings crept back onto the aircraft, but in the early Eighties many USN/USMC machines were consequently finished in a grey-in-grey livery.

 

Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and the ordnance added.

  

Well, the end result looks simple, but creating this kitbashed Fury all-weather fighter was pretty demanding. Even though both the Fury and the F-86D are based on the same aircraft, they are completely different, and the same is also true for the model kits. It took major surgeries and body sculpting to weld the parts together. But I am quite happy with the outcome, the fictional F-1F looks pretty conclusive and natural, also in the (for this aircraft) unusual low-viz livery.

 

+++ 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 North American FJ-4 Fury was a swept-wing carrier-capable fighter-bomber for the United States Navy and Marine Corps. The final development in a lineage that included the Air Force's F-86 Sabre, the FJ-4 shared its general layout and engine with the earlier FJ-3, but, compared to that of the FJ-3, the FJ-4's new wing was much thinner, with a six percent thickness-to-chord ratio, and featured skin panels milled from solid alloy plates. It also had an increased area and tapered more sharply towards the tips. Slight camber behind the leading edge improved low speed characteristics. The main landing gear design had to be considerably modified to fold wheel and strut within the contours of the new wing. The track of the main wheels was increased, and because they were closer to the center of gravity, there was less weight on the nosewheel. Wing folding was limited to the outer wing panels.

 

The FJ-4 was intended as an all-weather interceptor, a role that required considerable range on internal fuel. The FJ-4 had 50% more fuel capacity than the FJ-3 and was lightened by omitting armor and reducing ammunition capacity. The new wing was "wet"; that is, it provided for integral fuel tankage. The fuselage was deepened to add more fuel and had a distinctive "razorback" rear deck. A modified cockpit made the pilot more comfortable during the longer missions. The tail surfaces were also extensively modified, had a thinner profile and featured an extended, taller fin. The overall changes resulted in an aircraft that had little in common with the earlier models, although a family resemblance was still present.

 

The FJ-4 was developed into a family of aircraft. Of the original order for 221 FJ-4 day fighters, the last 71 were modified into the FJ-4B fighter-bomber version. This had a stronger wing with six instead of four underwing stations and stronger landing gear. Additional aerodynamic brakes under the aft fuselage made landing safer by allowing pilots to use higher thrust settings and were also useful for dive attacks. External load was doubled. The most important characteristic of the FJ-4B was, since the Navy was eager to maintain a nuclear role in its rivalry with the Air Force, that it was capable of carrying a nuclear weapon on the inboard port station. For the delivery of nuclear weapons, the FJ-4B was equipped with the Low-Altitude Bombing System (LABS), and with this capability it replaced the carrier-based A-3 Skywarrior bombers, which were not suited well for the new low-level approach tactics.

 

In April 1956, the Navy ordered 151 more FJ-4Bs, 10 US Navy squadrons became equipped with the FJ-4B, and the type was also flown by three Marine squadrons. At the same time, the Navy requested a carrier-borne fighter with all-weather capability, radar-guided missiles and a higher performance. This new type was to replace several 1st generation US Navy jets, including the ponderous and heavy Douglas F3D Skyknight, the lackluster Vought F7U as well as the Grumman F9F-8 Cougar. This requirement led to the Douglas F4D Skyray and North American’s FJ-5, another thorough modification of the Fury’s basic design and its eventual final evolution stage.

 

North American’s FJ-5 was designed with compact dimensions in mind, so that the type could be operated on older Essex Class carriers, which offered rather limited storage and lift space. At the time of the FJ-5’s conception, several of these carriers were still in service – and this argument led to an order for the FJ-5 in addition to the F4D.

 

For the FJ-5, the FJ-4’s aerodynamic surfaces were retained, but the fuselage had to be modified considerably in order to accept an APQ-50A radar with a parabolic 24 inches diameter antenna in the nose. The radome was placed above the air intake, similar to the F-86D, and coupled with an Aero 13F fire-control system, which together provided full all-weather capability and information on automatic firing of rockets.

A deeper rear fuselage became necessary, too, because the FJ-5 was powered by a reheated J65-W-18 engine (a development of the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojet, optimized for a naval environment), which delivered up to 10,500 lbf (47 kN) at full power instead of the FJ-4’s original 7,700 lbf (34 kN). This upgrade had, limited by the airframe’s aerodynamics, only marginal impact on the aircraft’s top speed, but the extra power almost doubled its initial rate of climb, slightly raised the service ceiling and markedly improved acceleration and carrier operations handling through a better response to throttle input and a higher margin of power reserves.

 

Internal armament still consisted of four 20mm cannon. These had to be placed lower in the nose now, flanking the air intake underneath the radome. The FJ-4B’s six underwing hardpoints were retained and could carry AIM-9 Sidewinders (both the IR-guided AIM-9B as well as the Semi-Active Radar Homing (SARH) AIM-9C) as well as the new radar-guided medium-range AIM-7C Sparrow, even though the latter only on the outer pylons, limiting their number to four. Up to six pods with nineteen unguided 70 mm/2.75” unguided Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket (Mighty Mouse FFARs) were another armament option.

 

Beyond these air-to-air weapons, a wide range of other ordnance could be carried. This included the AGM-12 “Bullpup” guided missile (which necessitated a guidance pod on the right inner wing hardpoint), bombs or napalm tanks of up to 1.000 lb caliber, missile pods, drop tanks and ECM pods. The FJ-4B’s strike capabilities were mostly retained, even though the dedicated fighter lost the ability to carry and deliver nuclear weapons in order to save weight and internal space for the radar equipment.

 

The first FJ-5, a converted early FJ-4, made its maiden flight in April 1958. After a short and successful test phase, the type was quickly put into production and introduced to service with US Navy and US Marine Corps units. The new fighter was quickly nicknamed “Fury Dog” by its crews, a reminiscence of the USAF’s F-86D “Sabre Dog” and its characteristic nose section, even though the FJ-5 was officially still just called “Fury”, like its many quite different predecessors.

 

With the new unified designation system adopted in 1962, the FJ-4 became the F-1E, the FJ-4B the AF-1E and the FJ-5 the F-1F. From the prolific Fury family, only the FJ-5/F-1F became involved in a hot conflict: in late 1966, the USMC deployed F-1Fs to Vietnam, where they primarily flew escort and top cover missions for fighter bombers (esp. A-4 Skyhawks) from Da Nang AB, South Vietnam, plus occasional close air support missions (CAS) on their own. The Marines’ F-1Fs remained in Vietnam until 1970, with a single air-to-air victory (a North-Vietnamese MiG-17 was shot down with a Sidewinder missile), no losses and only one aircraft seriously damaged by anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) fire.

 

After this frontline experience, a radar upgrade with an AN/APQ-124 was briefly considered but never carried out, since the F-1F showed the age of the original Fifties design – the type already lacked overall performance for an all-weather fighter that could effectively engage supersonic bomber targets or low flying attack aircraft. However, the aircraft was still popular because of its ruggedness, good handling characteristics and compact dimensions.

Other upgrades that would improve the F-1F’s strike capability, e. g. additional avionics to deploy the AGM-62 Walleye glide bomb or the new AGM-65 Maverick, esp. the USMC’s laser-guided AGM-65E variant, were also rejected, because more capable types for both interceptor and attack roles, namely the Mach 2 Douglas F-4 Phantom II and the LTV A-7 Corsair II, had been introduced in the meantime.

Another factor that denied any updates were military budget cuts. Furthermore, the contemporary F-8 Crusader offered a better performance and was therefore selected in favor of the F-1F to be updated to the H-L variants. In the wake of this decision, all F-1Fs still in Navy service were, together with the decommission of the last Essex Class carriers, in 1975 handed over to the USMC in order to purge the Navy’s inventory and simplify maintenance and logistics.

 

FJ-4 and FJ-4B Fury fighter bombers served with United States Naval Reserve units until the late 1960s, while the F-1F soldiered on with the USMC until the early Eighties, even though only in reserve units. A considerable number had the heavy radar equipment removed and replaced by ballast in the late Seventies, and they were used as fighter-bombers, for dissimilar air combat training (simulating Soviet fighter types like the MiG-17 and -19), as high-speed target tugs or as in-flight refueling tankers, since the FJ-5 inherited this capability from the FJ-4, with up to two buddy packs under the wings. A few machines survived long enough to receive a new low-visibility livery.

 

However, even in the USMC reserve units, the FJ-5 was soon replaced by A-4 Skyhawks, due to the age of the airframes and further fleet reduction measures. The last F-1F was retired in 1982, ending the long career of North American’s F-86 design in US service.

 

A total of 1,196 Furies of all variants were received by the Navy and Marine Corps over the course of its production life, including 152 FJ-4s, 222 FJ-4Bs and 102 FJ-5s.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 40 ft 3 in (12.27 m)

Wingspan: 39 ft 1 in (11.9 m)

Height: 13 ft 11 in (4.2 m)

Wing area: 338.66 ft² (31.46 m²)

Empty weight: 13,518 lb (6,132 kg)

Gross weight: 19,975 lb (9,060 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 25,880 lb (11,750 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Wright J65-W-18 turbojet with 7,400 lbf (32.9 kN) dry thrust

and 10,500 lbf (46.7 kN) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 708 mph (1,139 km/h, 615 kn) at sea level,

737 mph (1,188 km/h/Mach 0.96) at height

Range: 2,020 mi (3,250 km) with 2× 200 gal (760 l) drop tanks and 2× AIM-9 missiles

Service ceiling: 49,750 ft (15,163 m)

Rate of climb: 12,150 ft/min (61.7 m/s)

Wing loading: 69.9 lb/ft² (341.7 kg/m²)

 

Armament:

4× 20 mm (0.787 in) Colt Mk 12 cannon (144 RPG, 578 rounds in total)

6× underwing hardpoints for 3,000 lb (1,400 kg) of ordnance, including AIM-9 and AIM-7 missiles

  

The kit and its assembly:

A project I had on the agenda for a long time. But, due to the major surgeries involved, I have been pushing it away – until the “In the navy” group build at whatifmolders.com came along in early 2020. So I collected my courage, dusted off the donor kits that had already been stashed away for years, and eventually started work.

 

The original inspiration was the F-8 Crusader’s career: I really like the look of the late RF-8s, which were kept long enough in service to receive the Eighties’ Low-Viz USN “Compass Ghost” livery. This looks cool, but also a little wrong. And what if the FJ-4B had been kept in service long enough to receive a similar treatment…?

 

In order to justify a career extension, I made up an all-weather development of the FJ-4B with a radar and a more powerful engine, a kind of light alternative to the Vought A-7. A plausible solution was a mix of FJ-4B and F-86D parts – this sounds easy, but both aircraft and their respective model kits actually have only VERY little in common.

 

At its core, the FJ-5 model is a kitbashing of parts from an Emhar FJ-4B (Revell re-boxing) and an Airfix F-86D. The FJ-4B provided the raised cockpit section with the canopy, spine and fin in the form of a complete transplant, which furthermore had to be extended by about 1cm/0.5” because the F-86D is longer than the Fury. The FJ-4B also provided its wings, stabilizers and the landing gear. The Fury’s ventral arrester hook section, a separate part, was also transferred into the F-86D’s lower rear fuselage, under the openings for the air brakes.

For a more lively look, the (thick!) Fury canopy was sawed into two pieces for open display and the flaps were lowered, too.

 

The cockpit was taken from the Airfix kit, since it would fit well into the lower fuselage and it looked much better than their respective counterparts from the relatively basic Emhar kit, which just comes with a narrow board with a strange, bulky seat-thing. As an extra, the cockpit received side consoles, a scratched gunsight and a different ejection seat that raised the pilot’s position into the Fury’s higher canopy.

 

Since the F-1F was supposed to be a fighter, still equipped with the radar set, I retained the OOB pylons from the Fury with its four launch rails. For an aircraft late in the career, I gave it a reduced ordnance, though, just a pair of drop tanks (left over from a Matchbox F3D Skyknight; I wanted something more slender than the stubby OOB drop tanks from the Emhar Fury kit), plus a better Sidewinder training round (hence its blue body) and a single red ACMI data pod on the outer pylons, as an aerial combat training outfit and nice color highlights on the otherwise dull/grey aircraft.

  

Painting and markings:

As mentioned above, the idea for livery was a vintage aircraft in modern, subdued markings. So I adapted the early USN Compass Ghost scheme, and the F-1F received a two-tone livery in FS 36320 and 36375 (Dark and Light Compass Ghost Grey, Humbrol 128 and 127, respectively) with a high, wavy waterline and a light fin. In front of the cockpit, a slightly darker anti-glare panel in Humbrol 145 (FS 35237) was added, inspired by early USN F-14s in Compass Ghost camouflage.

The radome was painted with Humbrol 156, for a slightly darker/different shade of grey than the aircraft’s upper surfaces – I considered a black or a beige (unpainted glass fiber) radome first, but that would have been a very harsh contrast to the rest.

 

The landing gear as well as the air intake duct were painted glossy white (Humbrol 22), the cockpit became medium grey (Humbrol 140, Dark Gull Gray). The inside of the air brakes as well es the edges of the flaps, normally concealed when they are retracted, were painted in bright red (Humbrol 174). The same tone was also used to highlight the edges of the land gear covers.

 

The grey leading edges on the wings the stabilizers were created with decal sheet strips (generic material from TL Modellbau), the gun blast plates were made with silver decal material.

In order to give the model a worn look, I applied a black ink wash, an overall, light treatment with graphite and some post shading. Some extra graphite was applied around the exhaust and the gun nozzles.

 

The markings were taken for an USMC A-4E/F from a Revell kit (which turned out to be a bit bluish). I wanted a consequent dull/toned-down look, typical for early Compass Ghost aircraft. Later, colored highlights, roundels and squadron markings crept back onto the aircraft, but in the early Eighties many USN/USMC machines were consequently finished in a grey-in-grey livery.

 

Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and the ordnance added.

  

Well, the end result looks simple, but creating this kitbashed Fury all-weather fighter was pretty demanding. Even though both the Fury and the F-86D are based on the same aircraft, they are completely different, and the same is also true for the model kits. It took major surgeries and body sculpting to weld the parts together. But I am quite happy with the outcome, the fictional F-1F looks pretty conclusive and natural, also in the (for this aircraft) unusual low-viz livery.

 

+++ 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 North American FJ-4 Fury was a swept-wing carrier-capable fighter-bomber for the United States Navy and Marine Corps. The final development in a lineage that included the Air Force's F-86 Sabre, the FJ-4 shared its general layout and engine with the earlier FJ-3, but, compared to that of the FJ-3, the FJ-4's new wing was much thinner, with a six percent thickness-to-chord ratio, and featured skin panels milled from solid alloy plates. It also had an increased area and tapered more sharply towards the tips. Slight camber behind the leading edge improved low speed characteristics. The main landing gear design had to be considerably modified to fold wheel and strut within the contours of the new wing. The track of the main wheels was increased, and because they were closer to the center of gravity, there was less weight on the nosewheel. Wing folding was limited to the outer wing panels.

 

The FJ-4 was intended as an all-weather interceptor, a role that required considerable range on internal fuel. The FJ-4 had 50% more fuel capacity than the FJ-3 and was lightened by omitting armor and reducing ammunition capacity. The new wing was "wet"; that is, it provided for integral fuel tankage. The fuselage was deepened to add more fuel and had a distinctive "razorback" rear deck. A modified cockpit made the pilot more comfortable during the longer missions. The tail surfaces were also extensively modified, had a thinner profile and featured an extended, taller fin. The overall changes resulted in an aircraft that had little in common with the earlier models, although a family resemblance was still present.

 

The FJ-4 was developed into a family of aircraft. Of the original order for 221 FJ-4 day fighters, the last 71 were modified into the FJ-4B fighter-bomber version. This had a stronger wing with six instead of four underwing stations and stronger landing gear. Additional aerodynamic brakes under the aft fuselage made landing safer by allowing pilots to use higher thrust settings and were also useful for dive attacks. External load was doubled. The most important characteristic of the FJ-4B was, since the Navy was eager to maintain a nuclear role in its rivalry with the Air Force, that it was capable of carrying a nuclear weapon on the inboard port station. For the delivery of nuclear weapons, the FJ-4B was equipped with the Low-Altitude Bombing System (LABS), and with this capability it replaced the carrier-based A-3 Skywarrior bombers, which were not suited well for the new low-level approach tactics.

 

In April 1956, the Navy ordered 151 more FJ-4Bs, 10 US Navy squadrons became equipped with the FJ-4B, and the type was also flown by three Marine squadrons. At the same time, the Navy requested a carrier-borne fighter with all-weather capability, radar-guided missiles and a higher performance. This new type was to replace several 1st generation US Navy jets, including the ponderous and heavy Douglas F3D Skyknight, the lackluster Vought F7U as well as the Grumman F9F-8 Cougar. This requirement led to the Douglas F4D Skyray and North American’s FJ-5, another thorough modification of the Fury’s basic design and its eventual final evolution stage.

 

North American’s FJ-5 was designed with compact dimensions in mind, so that the type could be operated on older Essex Class carriers, which offered rather limited storage and lift space. At the time of the FJ-5’s conception, several of these carriers were still in service – and this argument led to an order for the FJ-5 in addition to the F4D.

 

For the FJ-5, the FJ-4’s aerodynamic surfaces were retained, but the fuselage had to be modified considerably in order to accept an APQ-50A radar with a parabolic 24 inches diameter antenna in the nose. The radome was placed above the air intake, similar to the F-86D, and coupled with an Aero 13F fire-control system, which together provided full all-weather capability and information on automatic firing of rockets.

A deeper rear fuselage became necessary, too, because the FJ-5 was powered by a reheated J65-W-18 engine (a development of the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojet, optimized for a naval environment), which delivered up to 10,500 lbf (47 kN) at full power instead of the FJ-4’s original 7,700 lbf (34 kN). This upgrade had, limited by the airframe’s aerodynamics, only marginal impact on the aircraft’s top speed, but the extra power almost doubled its initial rate of climb, slightly raised the service ceiling and markedly improved acceleration and carrier operations handling through a better response to throttle input and a higher margin of power reserves.

 

Internal armament still consisted of four 20mm cannon. These had to be placed lower in the nose now, flanking the air intake underneath the radome. The FJ-4B’s six underwing hardpoints were retained and could carry AIM-9 Sidewinders (both the IR-guided AIM-9B as well as the Semi-Active Radar Homing (SARH) AIM-9C) as well as the new radar-guided medium-range AIM-7C Sparrow, even though the latter only on the outer pylons, limiting their number to four. Up to six pods with nineteen unguided 70 mm/2.75” unguided Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket (Mighty Mouse FFARs) were another armament option.

 

Beyond these air-to-air weapons, a wide range of other ordnance could be carried. This included the AGM-12 “Bullpup” guided missile (which necessitated a guidance pod on the right inner wing hardpoint), bombs or napalm tanks of up to 1.000 lb caliber, missile pods, drop tanks and ECM pods. The FJ-4B’s strike capabilities were mostly retained, even though the dedicated fighter lost the ability to carry and deliver nuclear weapons in order to save weight and internal space for the radar equipment.

 

The first FJ-5, a converted early FJ-4, made its maiden flight in April 1958. After a short and successful test phase, the type was quickly put into production and introduced to service with US Navy and US Marine Corps units. The new fighter was quickly nicknamed “Fury Dog” by its crews, a reminiscence of the USAF’s F-86D “Sabre Dog” and its characteristic nose section, even though the FJ-5 was officially still just called “Fury”, like its many quite different predecessors.

 

With the new unified designation system adopted in 1962, the FJ-4 became the F-1E, the FJ-4B the AF-1E and the FJ-5 the F-1F. From the prolific Fury family, only the FJ-5/F-1F became involved in a hot conflict: in late 1966, the USMC deployed F-1Fs to Vietnam, where they primarily flew escort and top cover missions for fighter bombers (esp. A-4 Skyhawks) from Da Nang AB, South Vietnam, plus occasional close air support missions (CAS) on their own. The Marines’ F-1Fs remained in Vietnam until 1970, with a single air-to-air victory (a North-Vietnamese MiG-17 was shot down with a Sidewinder missile), no losses and only one aircraft seriously damaged by anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) fire.

 

After this frontline experience, a radar upgrade with an AN/APQ-124 was briefly considered but never carried out, since the F-1F showed the age of the original Fifties design – the type already lacked overall performance for an all-weather fighter that could effectively engage supersonic bomber targets or low flying attack aircraft. However, the aircraft was still popular because of its ruggedness, good handling characteristics and compact dimensions.

Other upgrades that would improve the F-1F’s strike capability, e. g. additional avionics to deploy the AGM-62 Walleye glide bomb or the new AGM-65 Maverick, esp. the USMC’s laser-guided AGM-65E variant, were also rejected, because more capable types for both interceptor and attack roles, namely the Mach 2 Douglas F-4 Phantom II and the LTV A-7 Corsair II, had been introduced in the meantime.

Another factor that denied any updates were military budget cuts. Furthermore, the contemporary F-8 Crusader offered a better performance and was therefore selected in favor of the F-1F to be updated to the H-L variants. In the wake of this decision, all F-1Fs still in Navy service were, together with the decommission of the last Essex Class carriers, in 1975 handed over to the USMC in order to purge the Navy’s inventory and simplify maintenance and logistics.

 

FJ-4 and FJ-4B Fury fighter bombers served with United States Naval Reserve units until the late 1960s, while the F-1F soldiered on with the USMC until the early Eighties, even though only in reserve units. A considerable number had the heavy radar equipment removed and replaced by ballast in the late Seventies, and they were used as fighter-bombers, for dissimilar air combat training (simulating Soviet fighter types like the MiG-17 and -19), as high-speed target tugs or as in-flight refueling tankers, since the FJ-5 inherited this capability from the FJ-4, with up to two buddy packs under the wings. A few machines survived long enough to receive a new low-visibility livery.

 

However, even in the USMC reserve units, the FJ-5 was soon replaced by A-4 Skyhawks, due to the age of the airframes and further fleet reduction measures. The last F-1F was retired in 1982, ending the long career of North American’s F-86 design in US service.

 

A total of 1,196 Furies of all variants were received by the Navy and Marine Corps over the course of its production life, including 152 FJ-4s, 222 FJ-4Bs and 102 FJ-5s.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 40 ft 3 in (12.27 m)

Wingspan: 39 ft 1 in (11.9 m)

Height: 13 ft 11 in (4.2 m)

Wing area: 338.66 ft² (31.46 m²)

Empty weight: 13,518 lb (6,132 kg)

Gross weight: 19,975 lb (9,060 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 25,880 lb (11,750 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Wright J65-W-18 turbojet with 7,400 lbf (32.9 kN) dry thrust

and 10,500 lbf (46.7 kN) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 708 mph (1,139 km/h, 615 kn) at sea level,

737 mph (1,188 km/h/Mach 0.96) at height

Range: 2,020 mi (3,250 km) with 2× 200 gal (760 l) drop tanks and 2× AIM-9 missiles

Service ceiling: 49,750 ft (15,163 m)

Rate of climb: 12,150 ft/min (61.7 m/s)

Wing loading: 69.9 lb/ft² (341.7 kg/m²)

 

Armament:

4× 20 mm (0.787 in) Colt Mk 12 cannon (144 RPG, 578 rounds in total)

6× underwing hardpoints for 3,000 lb (1,400 kg) of ordnance, including AIM-9 and AIM-7 missiles

  

The kit and its assembly:

A project I had on the agenda for a long time. But, due to the major surgeries involved, I have been pushing it away – until the “In the navy” group build at whatifmolders.com came along in early 2020. So I collected my courage, dusted off the donor kits that had already been stashed away for years, and eventually started work.

 

The original inspiration was the F-8 Crusader’s career: I really like the look of the late RF-8s, which were kept long enough in service to receive the Eighties’ Low-Viz USN “Compass Ghost” livery. This looks cool, but also a little wrong. And what if the FJ-4B had been kept in service long enough to receive a similar treatment…?

 

In order to justify a career extension, I made up an all-weather development of the FJ-4B with a radar and a more powerful engine, a kind of light alternative to the Vought A-7. A plausible solution was a mix of FJ-4B and F-86D parts – this sounds easy, but both aircraft and their respective model kits actually have only VERY little in common.

 

At its core, the FJ-5 model is a kitbashing of parts from an Emhar FJ-4B (Revell re-boxing) and an Airfix F-86D. The FJ-4B provided the raised cockpit section with the canopy, spine and fin in the form of a complete transplant, which furthermore had to be extended by about 1cm/0.5” because the F-86D is longer than the Fury. The FJ-4B also provided its wings, stabilizers and the landing gear. The Fury’s ventral arrester hook section, a separate part, was also transferred into the F-86D’s lower rear fuselage, under the openings for the air brakes.

For a more lively look, the (thick!) Fury canopy was sawed into two pieces for open display and the flaps were lowered, too.

 

The cockpit was taken from the Airfix kit, since it would fit well into the lower fuselage and it looked much better than their respective counterparts from the relatively basic Emhar kit, which just comes with a narrow board with a strange, bulky seat-thing. As an extra, the cockpit received side consoles, a scratched gunsight and a different ejection seat that raised the pilot’s position into the Fury’s higher canopy.

 

Since the F-1F was supposed to be a fighter, still equipped with the radar set, I retained the OOB pylons from the Fury with its four launch rails. For an aircraft late in the career, I gave it a reduced ordnance, though, just a pair of drop tanks (left over from a Matchbox F3D Skyknight; I wanted something more slender than the stubby OOB drop tanks from the Emhar Fury kit), plus a better Sidewinder training round (hence its blue body) and a single red ACMI data pod on the outer pylons, as an aerial combat training outfit and nice color highlights on the otherwise dull/grey aircraft.

  

Painting and markings:

As mentioned above, the idea for livery was a vintage aircraft in modern, subdued markings. So I adapted the early USN Compass Ghost scheme, and the F-1F received a two-tone livery in FS 36320 and 36375 (Dark and Light Compass Ghost Grey, Humbrol 128 and 127, respectively) with a high, wavy waterline and a light fin. In front of the cockpit, a slightly darker anti-glare panel in Humbrol 145 (FS 35237) was added, inspired by early USN F-14s in Compass Ghost camouflage.

The radome was painted with Humbrol 156, for a slightly darker/different shade of grey than the aircraft’s upper surfaces – I considered a black or a beige (unpainted glass fiber) radome first, but that would have been a very harsh contrast to the rest.

 

The landing gear as well as the air intake duct were painted glossy white (Humbrol 22), the cockpit became medium grey (Humbrol 140, Dark Gull Gray). The inside of the air brakes as well es the edges of the flaps, normally concealed when they are retracted, were painted in bright red (Humbrol 174). The same tone was also used to highlight the edges of the land gear covers.

 

The grey leading edges on the wings the stabilizers were created with decal sheet strips (generic material from TL Modellbau), the gun blast plates were made with silver decal material.

In order to give the model a worn look, I applied a black ink wash, an overall, light treatment with graphite and some post shading. Some extra graphite was applied around the exhaust and the gun nozzles.

 

The markings were taken for an USMC A-4E/F from a Revell kit (which turned out to be a bit bluish). I wanted a consequent dull/toned-down look, typical for early Compass Ghost aircraft. Later, colored highlights, roundels and squadron markings crept back onto the aircraft, but in the early Eighties many USN/USMC machines were consequently finished in a grey-in-grey livery.

 

Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and the ordnance added.

  

Well, the end result looks simple, but creating this kitbashed Fury all-weather fighter was pretty demanding. Even though both the Fury and the F-86D are based on the same aircraft, they are completely different, and the same is also true for the model kits. It took major surgeries and body sculpting to weld the parts together. But I am quite happy with the outcome, the fictional F-1F looks pretty conclusive and natural, also in the (for this aircraft) unusual low-viz livery.

 

+++ 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. :-/

A variety of 15 shekel Bakhoor incense burners at the Turkish bazaar market I briefly lagged behind the group to make this purchase. Thankfully the group had stopped not too far ahead.

 

John Maguire, master tinsmith at Black Creek Pioneer Village made up a copper burner plate in just a few minutes from his scrap copper. It will last years as opposed to the thin poor quality tin/metal of the original.

 

Incense is aromatic biotic material that releases fragrant smoke when burned. The term refers to the material itself, rather than to the aroma that it produces. Incense is used for aesthetic reasons, and in therapy, meditation, and ceremony. It may also be used as a simple deodorant or insectifuge.

 

Incense is composed of aromatic plant materials, often combined with essential oils. The forms taken by incense differ with the underlying culture, and have changed with advances in technology and increasing number of uses.

 

Incense can generally be separated into two main types: "indirect-burning" and "direct-burning". Indirect-burning incense (or "non-combustible incense") is not capable of burning on its own, and requires a separate heat source. Direct-burning incense (or "combustible incense") is lit directly by a flame and then fanned or blown out, leaving a glowing ember that smoulders and releases a smoky fragrance. Direct-burning incense is either a paste formed around a bamboo stick, or a paste that is extruded into a stick or cone shape.

 

HISTORY:

 

The word incense comes from Latin incendere meaning "to burn".

 

Combustible bouquets were used by the ancient Egyptians, who employed incense in both pragmatic and mystical capacities. Incense was burnt to counteract or obscure malodorous products of human habitation, but was widely perceived to also deter malevolent demons and appease the gods with its pleasant aroma. Resin balls were found in many prehistoric Egyptian tombs in El Mahasna, giving evidence for the prominence of incense and related compounds in Egyptian antiquity. One of the oldest extant incense burners originates from the 5th dynasty. The Temple of Deir-el-Bahari in Egypt contains a series of carvings that depict an expedition for incense.

 

The Babylonians used incense while offering prayers to divining oracles. Incense spread from there to Greece and Rome.

 

Incense burners have been found in the Indus Civilization (3300–1300 BCE). Evidence suggests oils were used mainly for their aroma. India also adopted techniques from East Asia, adapting the formulation to encompass aromatic roots and other indigenous flora. This was the first usage of subterranean plant parts in incense. New herbs like Sarsaparilla seeds, frankincense, and cypress were used by Indians.

 

At around 2000 BCE, Ancient China began the use of incense in the religious sense, namely for worship. Incense was used by Chinese cultures from Neolithic times and became more widespread in the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties. The earliest documented use of incense comes from the ancient Chinese, who employed incense composed of herbs and plant products (such as cassia, cinnamon, styrax, and sandalwood) as a component of numerous formalized ceremonial rites. Incense usage reached its peak during the Song dynasty with numerous buildings erected specifically for incense ceremonies.

 

Brought to Japan in the 6th century by Korean Buddhist monks, who used the mystical aromas in their purification rites, the delicate scents of Koh (high-quality Japanese incense) became a source of amusement and entertainment with nobles in the Imperial Court during the Heian Era 200 years later. During the 14th-century Ashikaga shogunate, a samurai warrior might perfume his helmet and armor with incense to achieve an aura of invincibility (as well as to make a noble gesture to whoever might take his head in battle). It wasn't until the Muromachi period during the 15th and 16th century that incense appreciation (kōdō) spread to the upper and middle classes of Japanese society.

 

COMPOSITION:

 

A variety of materials have been used in making incense. Historically there has been a preference for using locally available ingredients. For example, sage and cedar were used by the indigenous peoples of North America. Trading in incense materials comprised a major part of commerce along the Silk Road and other trade routes, one notably called the Incense Route.

 

Local knowledge and tools were extremely influential on the style, but methods were also influenced by migrations of foreigners, such as clergy and physicians.

 

COMBUSTIBLE BASE:

 

The combustible base of a direct burning incense mixture not only binds the fragrant material together but also allows the produced incense to burn with a self-sustained ember, which propagates slowly and evenly through an entire piece of incense with such regularity that it can be used to mark time. The base is chosen such that it does not produce a perceptible smell. Commercially, two types of incense base predominate:

 

Fuel and oxidizer mixtures: Charcoal or wood powder provides the fuel for combustion while an oxidizer such as sodium nitrate or potassium nitrate sustains the burning of the incense. Fragrant materials are added to the base prior to shaping, as in the case of powdered incense materials, or after, as in the case of essential oils. The formula for charcoal-based incense is superficially similar to black powder, though it lacks the sulfur.

 

Natural plant-based binders: Gums such as Gum Arabic or Gum Tragacanth are used to bind the mixture together. Mucilaginous material, which can be derived from many botanical sources, is mixed with fragrant materials and water. The mucilage from the wet binding powder holds the fragrant material together while the cellulose in the powder combusts to form a stable ember when lit. The dry binding powder usually comprises about 10% of the dry weight in the finished incense. These include:

Makko (incense powder) made from the bark of various trees in the genus Persea (such as Persea thunbergii) Xiangnan pi (made from the bark of trees of genus Phoebe such as Phoebe nanmu or Persea zuihoensis.

 

Jigit: a resin based binder used in India.

Laha or Dar: bark based powders used in Nepal, Tibet, and other East Asian countries.

 

Typical compositions burn at a temperature between 220 °C and 260 °C.

 

TYPES:

 

Incense is available in various forms and degrees of processing. They can generally be separated into "direct-burning" and "indirect-burning" types. Preference for one form or another varies with culture, tradition, and personal taste. The two differ in their composition due to the former's requirement for even, stable, and sustained burning.

 

INDIRECT-BURNING:

 

Indirect-burning incense, also called "non-combustible incense", is an aromatic material or combination of materials, such as resins, that does not contain combustible material and so requires a separate heat source. Finer forms tend to burn more rapidly, while coarsely ground or whole chunks may be consumed very gradually, having less surface area. Heat is traditionally provided by charcoal or glowing embers. In the West, the best known incense materials of this type are the resins frankincense and myrrh, likely due to their numerous mentions in the Bible. Frankincense means "pure incense", though in common usage refers specifically to the resin of the boswellia tree.

 

Whole: The incense material is burned directly in raw form on top of coal embers.

Powdered or granulated: Incense broken into smaller pieces burns quickly and provides brief but intense odor.

 

Paste: Powdered or granulated incense material is mixed with a sticky incombustible binder, such as dried fruit, honey, or a soft resin and then formed to balls or small pastilles. These may then be allowed to mature in a controlled environment where the fragrances can commingle and unite. Much Arabian incense, also called "Bukhoor" or "Bakhoor", is of this type, and Japan has a history of kneaded incense, called nerikō or awasekō, made using this method. Within the Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition, raw frankincense is ground into a fine powder and then mixed with various sweet-smelling essential oils.

 

DIRECT-BURNING:

 

Direct-burning incense, also called "combustible incense", is lit directly by a flame. The glowing ember on the incense will continue to smoulder and burn the rest of the incense without further application of external heat or flame. Direct-burning incense is either extruded, pressed into forms, or coated onto a supporting material. This class of incense is made from a moldable substrate of fragrant finely ground (or liquid) incense materials and odourless binder. The composition must be adjusted to provide fragrance in the proper concentration and to ensure even burning. The following types are commonly encountered, though direct-burning incense can take nearly any form, whether for expedience or whimsy.

 

Coil: Extruded and shaped into a coil without a core, coil incense can burn for an extended period, from hours to days, and is commonly produced and used in Chinese cultures.

 

Cone: Incense in this form burns relatively quickly. Incense cones were invented in Japan in the 1800s.

Cored stick: A supporting core of bamboo is coated with a thick layer of incense material that burns away with the core. Higher-quality variations have fragrant sandalwood cores. This type of incense is commonly produced in India and China. When used in Chinese folk religion, these are sometimes known as "joss sticks".

 

Dhoop or solid stick: With no bamboo core, dhoop incense is easily broken for portion control. This is the most commonly produced form of incense in Japan and Tibet.

 

Powder: The loose incense powder used for making indirect burning incense is sometimes burned without further processing. Powder incense is typically packed into long trails on top of wood ash using a stencil and burned in special censers or incense clocks.

 

Paper: Paper infused with incense, folded accordion style, is lit and blown out. Examples include Carta d'Armenia and Papier d'Arménie.

 

Rope: The incense powder is rolled into paper sheets, which are then rolled into ropes, twisted tightly, then doubled over and twisted again, yielding a two-strand rope. The larger end is the bight, and may be stood vertically, in a shallow dish of sand or pebbles. The smaller (pointed) end is lit. This type of incense is easily transported and stays fresh for extremely long periods. It has been used for centuries in Tibet and Nepal.

 

Moxa tablets, which are disks of powdered mugwort used in Traditional Chinese medicine for moxibustion, are not incenses; the treatment is by heat rather than fragrance.

Incense sticks may be termed joss sticks, especially in parts of East Asia, South Asia and Southeast Asia. Among ethnic Chinese and Chinese-influenced communities these are traditionally burned at temples, before the threshold of a home or business, before an image of a religious divinity or local spirit, or in shrines, large and small, found at the main entrance of every village. Here the earth god is propitiated in the hope of bringing wealth and health to the village. They can also be burned in front of a door or open window as an offering to heaven, or the devas. The word "joss" is derived from the Latin deus (god) via the Portuguese deos through the Javanese dejos, through Chinese pidgin English.

 

PRODUCTION:

 

The raw materials are powdered and then mixed together with a binder to form a paste, which, for direct burning incense, is then cut and dried into pellets. Incense of the Athonite Orthodox Christian tradition is made by powdering frankincense or fir resin, mixing it with essential oils. Floral fragrances are the most common, but citrus such as lemon is not uncommon. The incense mixture is then rolled out into a slab approximately 1 cm thick and left until the slab has firmed. It is then cut into small cubes, coated with clay powder to prevent adhesion, and allowed to fully harden and dry. In Greece this rolled incense resin is called 'Moskolibano', and generally comes in either a pink or green colour denoting the fragrance, with pink being rose and green being jasmine.

 

Certain proportions are necessary for direct-burning incense:

 

Oil content: an excess of oils may prevent incense from smoldering effectively. Resinous materials such as myrrh and frankincense are typically balanced with "dry" materials such as wood, bark and leaf powders.

 

Oxidizer quantity: Too little oxidizer in gum-bound incense may prevent the incense from igniting, while too much will cause the incense to burn too quickly, without producing fragrant smoke.

Binder: Water-soluble binders such as "makko" ensure that the incense mixture does not crumble when dry, dilute the mixture.

 

Mixture density: Incense mixtures made with natural binders must not be combined with too much water in mixing, or over-compressed while being formed, which would result in either uneven air distribution or undesirable density in the mixture, causing the incense to burn unevenly, too slowly, or too quickly.

 

Particulate size: The incense mixture has to be well pulverized with similarly sized particulates. Uneven and large particulates result in uneven burning and inconsistent aroma production when burned.

 

"Dipped" or "hand-dipped" direct-burning incense is created by dipping "incense blanks" made of unscented combustible dust into any suitable kind of essential or fragrance oil. These are often sold in the United States by flea-market and sidewalk vendors who have developed their own styles. This form of incense requires the least skill and equipment to manufacture, since the blanks are pre-formed in China or South East Asia.

 

Incense mixtures can be extruded or pressed into shapes. Small quantities of water are combined with the fragrance and incense base mixture and kneaded into a hard dough. The incense dough is then pressed into shaped forms to create cone and smaller coiled incense, or forced through a hydraulic press for solid stick incense. The formed incense is then trimmed and slowly dried. Incense produced in this fashion has a tendency to warp or become misshapen when improperly dried, and as such must be placed in climate-controlled rooms and rotated several times through the drying process.

 

Traditionally, the bamboo core of cored stick incense is prepared by hand from Phyllostachys heterocycla cv. pubescens since this species produces thick wood and easily burns to ashes in the incense stick. In a process known as "splitting the foot of the incense stick", the bamboo is trimmed to length, soaked, peeled, and split in halves until the thin sticks of bamboo have square cross sections of less than 3mm. This process has been largely replaced by machines in modern incense production.

 

In the case of cored incensed sticks, several methods are employed to coat the sticks cores with incense mixture:

 

Paste rolling: A wet, malleable paste of incense mixture is first rolled into a long, thin coil, using a paddle. Then, a thin stick is put next to the coil and the stick and paste are rolled together until the stick is centered in the mixture and the desired thickness is achieved. The stick is then cut to the desired length and dried.

 

Powder-coating: Powder-coating is used mainly to produce cored incense of either larger coil (up to 1 meter in diameter) or cored stick forms. A bundle of the supporting material (typically thin bamboo or sandalwood slivers) is soaked in water or a thin water/glue mixture for a short time. The thin sticks are evenly separated, then dipped into a tray of incense powder consisting of fragrance materials and occasionally a plant-based binder. The dry incense powder is then tossed and piled over the sticks while they are spread apart. The sticks are then gently rolled and packed to maintain roundness while more incense powder is repeatedly tossed onto the sticks. Three to four layers of powder are coated onto the sticks, forming a 2 mm thick layer of incense material on the stick. The coated incense is then allowed to dry in open air. Additional coatings of incense mixture can be applied after each period of successive drying. Incense sticks produced in this fashion and burned in temples of Chinese folk religion can have a thickness between 2 and 4 millimeters.

 

Compression: A damp powder is mechanically formed around a cored stick by compression, similar to the way uncored sticks are formed. This form is becoming more common due to the higher labor cost of producing powder-coated or paste-rolled sticks.

 

BURNING INCENSE:

 

Indirect-burning incense burned directly on top of a heat source or on a hot metal plate in a censer or thurible.

 

In Japan a similar censer called a egōro (柄香炉) is used by several Buddhist sects. The egōro is usually made of brass, with a long handle and no chain. Instead of charcoal, makkō powder is poured into a depression made in a bed of ash. The makkō is lit and the incense mixture is burned on top. This method is known as sonae-kō (religious burning).

 

For direct-burning incense, the tip or end of the incense is ignited with a flame or other heat source until the incense begins to turn into ash at the burning end. The flame is then fanned or blown out, leaving the incense to smolder.

 

CULTURAL VARIATIONS:

 

ARABIAN:

 

In most Arab countries, incense is burned in the form of scented chips or blocks called bakhoor (Arabic: بخور‎ [bɑˈxuːɾ, bʊ-]. Incense is used on special occasions like weddings or on Fridays or generally to perfume the house. The bakhoor is usually burned in a mabkhara, a traditional incense burner (censer) similar to the Somali Dabqaad. It is customary in many Arab countries to pass bakhoor among the guests in the majlis ('congregation'). This is done as a gesture of hospitality.

 

CHINESE:

 

For over two thousand years, the Chinese have used incense in religious ceremonies, ancestor veneration, Traditional Chinese medicine, and daily life. Agarwood (chénxiāng) and sandalwood (tánxiāng) are the two most important ingredients in Chinese incense.

 

Along with the introduction of Buddhism in China came calibrated incense sticks and incense clocks. The first known record is by poet Yu Jianwu (487-551): "By burning incense we know the o'clock of the night, With graduated candles we confirm the tally of the watches." The use of these incense timekeeping devices spread from Buddhist monasteries into Chinese secular society.

Incense-stick burning is an everyday practice in traditional Chinese religion. There are many different types of stick used for different purposes or on different festive days. Many of them are long and thin. Sticks are mostly coloured yellow, red, or more rarely, black. Thick sticks are used for special ceremonies, such as funerals. Spiral incense, with exceedingly long burn times, is often hung from temple ceilings. In some states, such as Taiwan,

 

Singapore, or Malaysia, where they celebrate the Ghost Festival, large, pillar-like dragon incense sticks are sometimes used. These generate so much smoke and heat that they are only burned outside.

 

Chinese incense sticks for use in popular religion are generally odorless or only use the slightest trace of jasmine or rose, since it is the smoke, not the scent, which is important in conveying the prayers of the faithful to heaven. They are composed of the dried powdered bark of a non-scented species of cinnamon native to Cambodia, Cinnamomum cambodianum. Inexpensive packs of 300 are often found for sale in Chinese supermarkets. Though they contain no sandalwood, they often include the Chinese character for sandalwood on the label, as a generic term for incense.

 

Highly scented Chinese incense sticks are used by some Buddhists. These are often quite expensive due to the use of large amounts of sandalwood, agarwood, or floral scents used. The sandalwood used in Chinese incenses does not come from India, its native home, but rather from groves planted within Chinese territory. Sites belonging to Tzu Chi, Chung Tai Shan, Dharma Drum Mountain, Xingtian Temple, or City of Ten Thousand Buddhas do not use incense.

 

INDIAN:

 

Incense sticks, also known as agarbathi (or agarbatti) and joss sticks, in which an incense paste is rolled or moulded around a bamboo stick, are the main forms of incense in India. The bamboo method originated in India, and is distinct from the Nepali/Tibetan and Japanese methods of stick making without bamboo cores. Though the method is also used in the west, it is strongly associated with India.

 

The basic ingredients are the bamboo stick, the paste (generally made of charcoal dust and joss/jiggit/gum/tabu powder – an adhesive made from the bark of litsea glutinosa and other trees), and the perfume ingredients - which would be a masala (spice mix) powder of ground ingredients into which the stick would be rolled, or a perfume liquid sometimes consisting of synthetic ingredients into which the stick would be dipped. Perfume is sometimes sprayed on the coated sticks. Stick machines are sometimes used, which coat the stick with paste and perfume, though the bulk of production is done by hand rolling at home. There are about 5,000 incense companies in India that take raw unperfumed sticks hand-rolled by approximately 200,000 women working part-time at home, and then apply their own brand of perfume, and package the sticks for sale. An experienced home-worker can produce 4,000 raw sticks a day. There are about 50 large companies that together account for up to 30% of the market, and around 500 of the companies, including a significant number of the main ones, including Moksh Agarbatti and Cycle Pure, are based in Mysore.

 

JEWISH TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM:

 

KETORET:

 

Ketoret was the incense offered in the Temple in Jerusalem and is stated in the Book of Exodus to be a mixture of stacte, onycha, galbanum and frankincense.

 

TIBETAN:

 

Tibetan incense refers to a common style of incense found in Tibet, Nepal, and Bhutan. These incenses have a characteristic "earthy" scent to them. Ingredients vary from cinnamon, clove, and juniper, to kusum flower, ashvagandha, and sahi jeera.

 

Many Tibetan incenses are thought to have medicinal properties. Their recipes come from ancient Vedic texts that are based on even older Ayurvedic medical texts. The recipes have remained unchanged for centuries.

 

JAPANESE:

 

In Japan incense appreciation folklore includes art, culture, history, and ceremony. It can be compared to and has some of the same qualities as music, art, or literature. Incense burning may occasionally take place within the tea ceremony, just like calligraphy, ikebana, and scroll arrangement. The art of incense appreciation, or koh-do, is generally practiced as a separate art form from the tea ceremony, and usually within a tea room of traditional Zen design.

 

Agarwood (沈香 Jinkō) and sandalwood (白檀 byakudan) are the two most important ingredients in Japanese incense. Agarwood is known as "jinkō" in Japan, which translates as "incense that sinks in water", due to the weight of the resin in the wood. Sandalwood is one of the most calming incense ingredients and lends itself well to meditation. It is also used in the Japanese tea ceremony. The most valued Sandalwood comes from Mysore in the state of Karnataka in India.

 

Another important ingredient in Japanese incense is kyara (伽羅). Kyara is one kind of agarwood (Japanese incense companies divide agarwood into 6 categories depending on the region obtained and properties of the agarwood). Kyara is currently worth more than its weight in gold.

 

Some terms used in Japanese incense culture include:

 

Incense arts: [香道, kodo]

Agarwood: [ 沈香 ] – from heartwood from Aquilaria trees, unique, the incense wood most used in incense ceremony, other names are: lignum aloes or aloeswood, gaharu, jinko, or oud.

Censer/Incense burner: [香爐] – usually small and used for heating incense not burning, or larger and used for burning

Charcoal: [木炭] – only the odorless kind is used.

Incense woods: [ 香木 ] – a naturally fragrant resinous wood.

 

USAGE:

 

PRACTICAL:

 

Incense fragrances can be of such great strength that they obscure other less desirable odours. This utility led to the use of incense in funerary ceremonies because the incense could smother the scent of decay. An example, as well as of religious use, is the giant Botafumeiro thurible that swings from the ceiling of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela. It is used in part to mask the scent of the many tired, unwashed pilgrims huddled together in the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela.

 

A similar utilitarian use of incense can be found in the post-Reformation Church of England. Although the ceremonial use of incense was abandoned until the Oxford Movement, it was common to have incense (typically frankincense) burned before grand occasions, when the church would be crowded. The frankincense was carried about by a member of the vestry before the service in a vessel called a 'perfuming pan'. In iconography of the day, this vessel is shown to be elongated and flat, with a single long handle on one side. The perfuming pan was used instead of the thurible, as the latter would have likely offended the Protestant sensibilities of the 17th and 18th centuries.

 

The regular burning of direct-burning incense has been used for chronological measurement in incense clocks. These devices can range from a simple trail of incense material calibrated to burn in a specific time period, to elaborate and ornate instruments with bells or gongs, designed to involve multiple senses.

 

Incense made from materials such as citronella can repel mosquitoes and other irritating, distracting, or pestilential insects. This use has been deployed in concert with religious uses by Zen Buddhists who claim that the incense that is part of their meditative practice is designed to keep bothersome insects from distracting the practitioner. Currently, more effective pyrethroid-based mosquito repellent incense is widely available in Asia.

 

Papier d'Arménie was originally sold as a disinfectant as well as for the fragrance.

 

Incense is also used often by people who smoke indoors and do not want the smell to linger.

 

AESTHETIC:

 

Many people burn incense to appreciate its smell, without assigning any other specific significance to it, in the same way that the foregoing items can be produced or consumed solely for the contemplation or enjoyment of the aroma. An example is the kōdō (香道), where (frequently costly) raw incense materials such as agarwood are appreciated in a formal setting.

 

RELIGIOUS:

 

Religious use of incense is prevalent in many cultures and may have roots in the practical and aesthetic uses, considering that many of these religions have little else in common. One common motif is incense as a form of sacrificial offering to a deity. Such use was common in Judaic worship and remains in use for example in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican churches, Taoist and Buddhist Chinese jingxiang (敬香 "offer incense), etc.

 

Aphrodisiac Incense has been used as an aphrodisiac in some cultures. Both ancient Greek and ancient Egyptian mythology suggest the usage of incense by goddesses and nymphs. Incense is thought to heighten sexual desires and sexual attraction.

 

Time-keeper Incense clocks are used to time social, medical and religious practices in parts of eastern Asia. They are primarily used in Buddhism as a timer of mediation and prayer. Different types of incense burn at different rates; therefore, different incense are used for different practices. The duration of burning ranges from minutes to months.

 

Healing stone cleanser Incense is claimed to cleanse and restore energy in healing stones. The technique used is called “smudging” and is done by holding a healing stone over the smoke of burning incense for 20 to 30 seconds. Some people believe that this process not only restores energy but eliminates negative energy.

 

HEALTH RISK FROM INCENSE SMOKE:

 

Incense smoke contains various contaminants including gaseous pollutants, such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and adsorbed toxic pollutants (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and toxic metals). The solid particles range between ~10 and 500 nm. In a comparison, Indian sandalwood was found to have the highest emission rate, followed by Japanese aloeswood, then Taiwanese aloeswood, while Chinese smokeless sandalwood had the least.

 

Research carried out in Taiwan in 2001 linked the burning of incense sticks to the slow accumulation of potential carcinogens in a poorly ventilated environment by measuring the levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (including benzopyrene) within Buddhist temples. The study found gaseous aliphatic aldehydes, which are carcinogenic and mutagenic, in incense smoke.

 

A survey of risk factors for lung cancer, also conducted in Taiwan, noted an inverse association between incense burning and adenocarcinoma of the lung, though the finding was not deemed significant.

 

In contrast, epidemiologists at the Hong Kong Anti-Cancer Society, Aichi Cancer Center in Nagoya, and several other centers found: "No association was found between exposure to incense burning and respiratory symptoms like chronic cough, chronic sputum, chronic bronchitis, runny nose, wheezing, asthma, allergic rhinitis, or pneumonia among the three populations studied: i.e. primary school children, their non-smoking mothers, or a group of older non-smoking female controls. Incense burning did not affect lung cancer risk among non-smokers, but it significantly reduced risk among smokers, even after adjusting for lifetime smoking amount." However, the researchers qualified their findings by noting that incense burning in the studied population was associated with certain low-cancer-risk dietary habits, and concluded that "diet can be a significant confounder of epidemiological studies on air pollution and respiratory health."

 

Although several studies have not shown a link between incense and lung cancer, many other types of cancer have been directly linked to burning incense. A study published in 2008 in the medical journal Cancer found that incense use is associated with a statistically significant higher risk of cancers of the upper respiratory tract, with the exception of nasopharyngeal cancer. Those who used incense heavily also were 80% more likely to develop squamous-cell carcinomas. The link between incense use and increased cancer risk held when the researchers weighed other factors, including cigarette smoking, diet and drinking habits. The research team noted that "This association is consistent with a large number of studies identifying carcinogens in incense smoke, and given the widespread and sometimes involuntary exposure to smoke from burning incense, these findings carry significant public health implications."

 

In 2015, the South China University of Technology found toxicity of incense to Chinese hamsters' ovarian cells to be even higher than cigarettes.

 

Incensole acetate, a component of Frankincense, has been shown to have anxiolytic-like and antidepressive-like effects in mice, mediated by activation of poorly-understood TRPV3 ion channels in the brain.

Local vendors offered quite a variety of incense, but at very high prices. I purchased several bags of incense at one store for 250 shekels. On passing the next shop they asked what I'd paid. I replied 50 shekels and they said that they'd give me more for that price. I made the second purchase to help lessen my losses.

 

Incense is aromatic biotic material that releases fragrant smoke when burned. The term refers to the material itself, rather than to the aroma that it produces. Incense is used for aesthetic reasons, and in therapy, meditation, and ceremony. It may also be used as a simple deodorant or insectifuge.

 

Incense is composed of aromatic plant materials, often combined with essential oils. The forms taken by incense differ with the underlying culture, and have changed with advances in technology and increasing number of uses.

 

Incense can generally be separated into two main types: "indirect-burning" and "direct-burning". Indirect-burning incense (or "non-combustible incense") is not capable of burning on its own, and requires a separate heat source. Direct-burning incense (or "combustible incense") is lit directly by a flame and then fanned or blown out, leaving a glowing ember that smoulders and releases a smoky fragrance. Direct-burning incense is either a paste formed around a bamboo stick, or a paste that is extruded into a stick or cone shape.

 

A variety of incense cones which thankfully were not overly sweet. I am sad to have likely lost this annual Toronto ON sconce of incense cones.

 

Incense is aromatic biotic material that releases fragrant smoke when burned. The term refers to the material itself, rather than to the aroma that it produces. Incense is used for aesthetic reasons, and in therapy, meditation, and ceremony. It may also be used as a simple deodorant or insectifuge.

 

Incense is composed of aromatic plant materials, often combined with essential oils. The forms taken by incense differ with the underlying culture, and have changed with advances in technology and increasing number of uses.

 

Incense can generally be separated into two main types: "indirect-burning" and "direct-burning". Indirect-burning incense (or "non-combustible incense") is not capable of burning on its own, and requires a separate heat source. Direct-burning incense (or "combustible incense") is lit directly by a flame and then fanned or blown out, leaving a glowing ember that smoulders and releases a smoky fragrance. Direct-burning incense is either a paste formed around a bamboo stick, or a paste that is extruded into a stick or cone shape.

 

HISTORY:

 

The word incense comes from Latin incendere meaning "to burn".

 

Combustible bouquets were used by the ancient Egyptians, who employed incense in both pragmatic and mystical capacities. Incense was burnt to counteract or obscure malodorous products of human habitation, but was widely perceived to also deter malevolent demons and appease the gods with its pleasant aroma. Resin balls were found in many prehistoric Egyptian tombs in El Mahasna, giving evidence for the prominence of incense and related compounds in Egyptian antiquity. One of the oldest extant incense burners originates from the 5th dynasty. The Temple of Deir-el-Bahari in Egypt contains a series of carvings that depict an expedition for incense.

 

The Babylonians used incense while offering prayers to divining oracles. Incense spread from there to Greece and Rome.

 

Incense burners have been found in the Indus Civilization (3300–1300 BCE). Evidence suggests oils were used mainly for their aroma. India also adopted techniques from East Asia, adapting the formulation to encompass aromatic roots and other indigenous flora. This was the first usage of subterranean plant parts in incense. New herbs like Sarsaparilla seeds, frankincense, and cypress were used by Indians.

 

At around 2000 BCE, Ancient China began the use of incense in the religious sense, namely for worship. Incense was used by Chinese cultures from Neolithic times and became more widespread in the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties. The earliest documented use of incense comes from the ancient Chinese, who employed incense composed of herbs and plant products (such as cassia, cinnamon, styrax, and sandalwood) as a component of numerous formalized ceremonial rites. Incense usage reached its peak during the Song dynasty with numerous buildings erected specifically for incense ceremonies.

 

Brought to Japan in the 6th century by Korean Buddhist monks, who used the mystical aromas in their purification rites, the delicate scents of Koh (high-quality Japanese incense) became a source of amusement and entertainment with nobles in the Imperial Court during the Heian Era 200 years later. During the 14th-century Ashikaga shogunate, a samurai warrior might perfume his helmet and armor with incense to achieve an aura of invincibility (as well as to make a noble gesture to whoever might take his head in battle). It wasn't until the Muromachi period during the 15th and 16th century that incense appreciation (kōdō) spread to the upper and middle classes of Japanese society.

 

COMPOSITION:

 

A variety of materials have been used in making incense. Historically there has been a preference for using locally available ingredients. For example, sage and cedar were used by the indigenous peoples of North America. Trading in incense materials comprised a major part of commerce along the Silk Road and other trade routes, one notably called the Incense Route.

 

Local knowledge and tools were extremely influential on the style, but methods were also influenced by migrations of foreigners, such as clergy and physicians.

 

COMBUSTIBLE BASE:

 

The combustible base of a direct burning incense mixture not only binds the fragrant material together but also allows the produced incense to burn with a self-sustained ember, which propagates slowly and evenly through an entire piece of incense with such regularity that it can be used to mark time. The base is chosen such that it does not produce a perceptible smell. Commercially, two types of incense base predominate:

 

Fuel and oxidizer mixtures: Charcoal or wood powder provides the fuel for combustion while an oxidizer such as sodium nitrate or potassium nitrate sustains the burning of the incense. Fragrant materials are added to the base prior to shaping, as in the case of powdered incense materials, or after, as in the case of essential oils. The formula for charcoal-based incense is superficially similar to black powder, though it lacks the sulfur.

Natural plant-based binders: Gums such as Gum Arabic or Gum Tragacanth are used to bind the mixture together. Mucilaginous material, which can be derived from many botanical sources, is mixed with fragrant materials and water. The mucilage from the wet binding powder holds the fragrant material together while the cellulose in the powder combusts to form a stable ember when lit. The dry binding powder usually comprises about 10% of the dry weight in the finished incense. These include:

Makko (incense powder) made from the bark of various trees in the genus Persea (such as Persea thunbergii) Xiangnan pi (made from the bark of trees of genus Phoebe such as Phoebe nanmu or Persea zuihoensis.

 

Jigit: a resin based binder used in India

Laha or Dar: bark based powders used in Nepal, Tibet, and other East Asian countries.

 

Typical compositions burn at a temperature between 220 °C and 260 °C.

 

TYPES:

 

Incense is available in various forms and degrees of processing. They can generally be separated into "direct-burning" and "indirect-burning" types. Preference for one form or another varies with culture, tradition, and personal taste. The two differ in their composition due to the former's requirement for even, stable, and sustained burning.

 

INDIRECT-BURNING:

 

Indirect-burning incense, also called "non-combustible incense", is an aromatic material or combination of materials, such as resins, that does not contain combustible material and so requires a separate heat source. Finer forms tend to burn more rapidly, while coarsely ground or whole chunks may be consumed very gradually, having less surface area. Heat is traditionally provided by charcoal or glowing embers. In the West, the best known incense materials of this type are the resins frankincense and myrrh, likely due to their numerous mentions in the Bible. Frankincense means "pure incense", though in common usage refers specifically to the resin of the boswellia tree.

 

Whole: The incense material is burned directly in raw form on top of coal embers.

Powdered or granulated: Incense broken into smaller pieces burns quickly and provides brief but intense odour.

 

Paste: Powdered or granulated incense material is mixed with a sticky incombustible binder, such as dried fruit, honey, or a soft resin and then formed to balls or small pastilles. These may then be allowed to mature in a controlled environment where the fragrances can commingle and unite. Much Arabian incense, also called "Bukhoor" or "Bakhoor", is of this type, and Japan has a history of kneaded incense, called nerikō or awasekō, made using this method. Within the Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition, raw frankincense is ground into a fine powder and then mixed with various sweet-smelling essential oils.

 

DIRECT-BURNING:

 

Direct-burning incense, also called "combustible incense", is lit directly by a flame. The glowing ember on the incense will continue to smoulder and burn the rest of the incense without further application of external heat or flame. Direct-burning incense is either extruded, pressed into forms, or coated onto a supporting material. This class of incense is made from a moldable substrate of fragrant finely ground (or liquid) incense materials and odourless binder. The composition must be adjusted to provide fragrance in the proper concentration and to ensure even burning. The following types are commonly encountered, though direct-burning incense can take nearly any form, whether for expedience or whimsy.

 

Coil: Extruded and shaped into a coil without a core, coil incense can burn for an extended period, from hours to days, and is commonly produced and used in Chinese cultures.

 

Cone: Incense in this form burns relatively quickly. Incense cones were invented in Japan in the 1800s.

Cored stick: A supporting core of bamboo is coated with a thick layer of incense material that burns away with the core. Higher-quality variations have fragrant sandalwood cores. This type of incense is commonly produced in India and China. When used in Chinese folk religion, these are sometimes known as "joss sticks".

 

Dhoop or solid stick: With no bamboo core, dhoop incense is easily broken for portion control. This is the most commonly produced form of incense in Japan and Tibet.

Powder: The loose incense powder used for making indirect burning incense is sometimes burned without further processing. Powder incense is typically packed into long trails on top of wood ash using a stencil and burned in special censers or incense clocks.

Paper: Paper infused with incense, folded accordion style, is lit and blown out. Examples include Carta d'Armenia and Papier d'Arménie.

Rope: The incense powder is rolled into paper sheets, which are then rolled into ropes, twisted tightly, then doubled over and twisted again, yielding a two-strand rope. The larger end is the bight, and may be stood vertically, in a shallow dish of sand or pebbles. The smaller (pointed) end is lit. This type of incense is easily transported and stays fresh for extremely long periods. It has been used for centuries in Tibet and Nepal.

 

Moxa tablets, which are disks of powdered mugwort used in Traditional Chinese medicine for moxibustion, are not incenses; the treatment is by heat rather than fragrance.

Incense sticks may be termed joss sticks, especially in parts of East Asia, South Asia and Southeast Asia. Among ethnic Chinese and Chinese-influenced communities these are traditionally burned at temples, before the threshold of a home or business, before an image of a religious divinity or local spirit, or in shrines, large and small, found at the main entrance of every village. Here the earth god is propitiated in the hope of bringing wealth and health to the village. They can also be burned in front of a door or open window as an offering to heaven, or the devas. The word "joss" is derived from the Latin deus (god) via the Portuguese deos through the Javanese dejos, through Chinese pidgin English.

 

PRODUCTION:

 

The raw materials are powdered and then mixed together with a binder to form a paste, which, for direct burning incense, is then cut and dried into pellets. Incense of the Athonite Orthodox Christian tradition is made by powdering frankincense or fir resin, mixing it with essential oils. Floral fragrances are the most common, but citrus such as lemon is not uncommon. The incense mixture is then rolled out into a slab approximately 1 cm thick and left until the slab has firmed. It is then cut into small cubes, coated with clay powder to prevent adhesion, and allowed to fully harden and dry. In Greece this rolled incense resin is called 'Moskolibano', and generally comes in either a pink or green colour denoting the fragrance, with pink being rose and green being jasmine.

 

Certain proportions are necessary for direct-burning incense:

 

Oil content: an excess of oils may prevent incense from smoldering effectively. Resinous materials such as myrrh and frankincense are typically balanced with "dry" materials such as wood, bark and leaf powders.

Oxidizer quantity: Too little oxidizer in gum-bound incense may prevent the incense from igniting, while too much will cause the incense to burn too quickly, without producing fragrant smoke.

Binder: Water-soluble binders such as "makko" ensure that the incense mixture does not crumble when dry, dilute the mixture.

Mixture density: Incense mixtures made with natural binders must not be combined with too much water in mixing, or over-compressed while being formed, which would result in either uneven air distribution or undesirable density in the mixture, causing the incense to burn unevenly, too slowly, or too quickly.

Particulate size: The incense mixture has to be well pulverized with similarly sized particulates. Uneven and large particulates result in uneven burning and inconsistent aroma production when burned.

 

"Dipped" or "hand-dipped" direct-burning incense is created by dipping "incense blanks" made of unscented combustible dust into any suitable kind of essential or fragrance oil. These are often sold in the United States by flea-market and sidewalk vendors who have developed their own styles. This form of incense requires the least skill and equipment to manufacture, since the blanks are pre-formed in China or South East Asia.

 

Incense mixtures can be extruded or pressed into shapes. Small quantities of water are combined with the fragrance and incense base mixture and kneaded into a hard dough. The incense dough is then pressed into shaped forms to create cone and smaller coiled incense, or forced through a hydraulic press for solid stick incense. The formed incense is then trimmed and slowly dried. Incense produced in this fashion has a tendency to warp or become misshapen when improperly dried, and as such must be placed in climate-controlled rooms and rotated several times through the drying process.

 

Traditionally, the bamboo core of cored stick incense is prepared by hand from Phyllostachys heterocycla cv. pubescens since this species produces thick wood and easily burns to ashes in the incense stick. In a process known as "splitting the foot of the incense stick", the bamboo is trimmed to length, soaked, peeled, and split in halves until the thin sticks of bamboo have square cross sections of less than 3mm. This process has been largely replaced by machines in modern incense production.

 

In the case of cored incensed sticks, several methods are employed to coat the sticks cores with incense mixture:

 

Paste rolling: A wet, malleable paste of incense mixture is first rolled into a long, thin coil, using a paddle. Then, a thin stick is put next to the coil and the stick and paste are rolled together until the stick is centered in the mixture and the desired thickness is achieved. The stick is then cut to the desired length and dried.

 

Powder-coating: Powder-coating is used mainly to produce cored incense of either larger coil (up to 1 meter in diameter) or cored stick forms. A bundle of the supporting material (typically thin bamboo or sandalwood slivers) is soaked in water or a thin water/glue mixture for a short time. The thin sticks are evenly separated, then dipped into a tray of incense powder consisting of fragrance materials and occasionally a plant-based binder. The dry incense powder is then tossed and piled over the sticks while they are spread apart. The sticks are then gently rolled and packed to maintain roundness while more incense powder is repeatedly tossed onto the sticks. Three to four layers of powder are coated onto the sticks, forming a 2 mm thick layer of incense material on the stick. The coated incense is then allowed to dry in open air. Additional coatings of incense mixture can be applied after each period of successive drying. Incense sticks produced in this fashion and burned in temples of Chinese folk religion can have a thickness between 2 and 4 millimeters.

Compression: A damp powder is mechanically formed around a cored stick by compression, similar to the way uncored sticks are formed. This form is becoming more common due to the higher labor cost of producing powder-coated or paste-rolled sticks.

 

BURNING INCENSE:

 

Indirect-burning incense burned directly on top of a heat source or on a hot metal plate in a censer or thurible.

 

In Japan a similar censer called a egōro (柄香炉) is used by several Buddhist sects. The egōro is usually made of brass, with a long handle and no chain. Instead of charcoal, makkō powder is poured into a depression made in a bed of ash. The makkō is lit and the incense mixture is burned on top. This method is known as sonae-kō (religious burning).

 

For direct-burning incense, the tip or end of the incense is ignited with a flame or other heat source until the incense begins to turn into ash at the burning end. The flame is then fanned or blown out, leaving the incense to smolder.

 

CULTURAL VARIATIONS:

 

ARABIAN:

 

In most Arab countries, incense is burned in the form of scented chips or blocks called bakhoor (Arabic: بخور‎ [bɑˈxuːɾ, bʊ-]. Incense is used on special occasions like weddings or on Fridays or generally to perfume the house. The bakhoor is usually burned in a mabkhara, a traditional incense burner (censer) similar to the Somali Dabqaad. It is customary in many Arab countries to pass bakhoor among the guests in the majlis ('congregation'). This is done as a gesture of hospitality.

 

CHINESE:

 

For over two thousand years, the Chinese have used incense in religious ceremonies, ancestor veneration, Traditional Chinese medicine, and daily life. Agarwood (chénxiāng) and sandalwood (tánxiāng) are the two most important ingredients in Chinese incense.

 

Along with the introduction of Buddhism in China came calibrated incense sticks and incense clocks. The first known record is by poet Yu Jianwu (487-551): "By burning incense we know the o'clock of the night, With graduated candles we confirm the tally of the watches." The use of these incense timekeeping devices spread from Buddhist monasteries into Chinese secular society.

Incense-stick burning is an everyday practice in traditional Chinese religion. There are many different types of stick used for different purposes or on different festive days. Many of them are long and thin. Sticks are mostly coloured yellow, red, or more rarely, black. Thick sticks are used for special ceremonies, such as funerals. Spiral incense, with exceedingly long burn times, is often hung from temple ceilings. In some states, such as Taiwan,

 

Singapore, or Malaysia, where they celebrate the Ghost Festival, large, pillar-like dragon incense sticks are sometimes used. These generate so much smoke and heat that they are only burned outside.

 

Chinese incense sticks for use in popular religion are generally odorless or only use the slightest trace of jasmine or rose, since it is the smoke, not the scent, which is important in conveying the prayers of the faithful to heaven. They are composed of the dried powdered bark of a non-scented species of cinnamon native to Cambodia, Cinnamomum cambodianum. Inexpensive packs of 300 are often found for sale in Chinese supermarkets. Though they contain no sandalwood, they often include the Chinese character for sandalwood on the label, as a generic term for incense.

 

Highly scented Chinese incense sticks are used by some Buddhists. These are often quite expensive due to the use of large amounts of sandalwood, agarwood, or floral scents used. The sandalwood used in Chinese incenses does not come from India, its native home, but rather from groves planted within Chinese territory. Sites belonging to Tzu Chi, Chung Tai Shan, Dharma Drum Mountain, Xingtian Temple, or City of Ten Thousand Buddhas do not use incense.

 

INDIAN:

 

Incense sticks, also known as agarbathi (or agarbatti) and joss sticks, in which an incense paste is rolled or moulded around a bamboo stick, are the main forms of incense in India. The bamboo method originated in India, and is distinct from the Nepali/Tibetan and Japanese methods of stick making without bamboo cores. Though the method is also used in the west, it is strongly associated with India.

 

The basic ingredients are the bamboo stick, the paste (generally made of charcoal dust and joss/jiggit/gum/tabu powder – an adhesive made from the bark of litsea glutinosa and other trees), and the perfume ingredients - which would be a masala (spice mix) powder of ground ingredients into which the stick would be rolled, or a perfume liquid sometimes consisting of synthetic ingredients into which the stick would be dipped. Perfume is sometimes sprayed on the coated sticks. Stick machines are sometimes used, which coat the stick with paste and perfume, though the bulk of production is done by hand rolling at home. There are about 5,000 incense companies in India that take raw unperfumed sticks hand-rolled by approximately 200,000 women working part-time at home, and then apply their own brand of perfume, and package the sticks for sale. An experienced home-worker can produce 4,000 raw sticks a day. There are about 50 large companies that together account for up to 30% of the market, and around 500 of the companies, including a significant number of the main ones, including Moksh Agarbatti and Cycle Pure, are based in Mysore.

 

JEWISH TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM:

 

KETORET:

 

Ketoret was the incense offered in the Temple in Jerusalem and is stated in the Book of Exodus to be a mixture of stacte, onycha, galbanum and frankincense.

 

TIBETAN:

 

Tibetan incense refers to a common style of incense found in Tibet, Nepal, and Bhutan. These incenses have a characteristic "earthy" scent to them. Ingredients vary from cinnamon, clove, and juniper, to kusum flower, ashvagandha, and sahi jeera.

 

Many Tibetan incenses are thought to have medicinal properties. Their recipes come from ancient Vedic texts that are based on even older Ayurvedic medical texts. The recipes have remained unchanged for centuries.

 

JAPANESE:

 

In Japan incense appreciation folklore includes art, culture, history, and ceremony. It can be compared to and has some of the same qualities as music, art, or literature. Incense burning may occasionally take place within the tea ceremony, just like calligraphy, ikebana, and scroll arrangement. The art of incense appreciation, or koh-do, is generally practiced as a separate art form from the tea ceremony, and usually within a tea room of traditional Zen design.

 

Agarwood (沈香 Jinkō) and sandalwood (白檀 byakudan) are the two most important ingredients in Japanese incense. Agarwood is known as "jinkō" in Japan, which translates as "incense that sinks in water", due to the weight of the resin in the wood. Sandalwood is one of the most calming incense ingredients and lends itself well to meditation. It is also used in the Japanese tea ceremony. The most valued Sandalwood comes from Mysore in the state of Karnataka in India.

 

Another important ingredient in Japanese incense is kyara (伽羅). Kyara is one kind of agarwood (Japanese incense companies divide agarwood into 6 categories depending on the region obtained and properties of the agarwood). Kyara is currently worth more than its weight in gold.

 

Some terms used in Japanese incense culture include:

 

Incense arts: [香道, kodo]

Agarwood: [ 沈香 ] – from heartwood from Aquilaria trees, unique, the incense wood most used in incense ceremony, other names are: lignum aloes or aloeswood, gaharu, jinko, or oud.

Censer/Incense burner: [香爐] – usually small and used for heating incense not burning, or larger and used for burning

Charcoal: [木炭] – only the odorless kind is used.

Incense woods: [ 香木 ] – a naturally fragrant resinous wood.

 

USAGE:

 

PRACTICAL:

 

Incense fragrances can be of such great strength that they obscure other less desirable odours. This utility led to the use of incense in funerary ceremonies because the incense could smother the scent of decay. An example, as well as of religious use, is the giant Botafumeiro thurible that swings from the ceiling of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela. It is used in part to mask the scent of the many tired, unwashed pilgrims huddled together in the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela.

 

A similar utilitarian use of incense can be found in the post-Reformation Church of England. Although the ceremonial use of incense was abandoned until the Oxford Movement, it was common to have incense (typically frankincense) burned before grand occasions, when the church would be crowded. The frankincense was carried about by a member of the vestry before the service in a vessel called a 'perfuming pan'. In iconography of the day, this vessel is shown to be elongated and flat, with a single long handle on one side. The perfuming pan was used instead of the thurible, as the latter would have likely offended the Protestant sensibilities of the 17th and 18th centuries.

 

The regular burning of direct-burning incense has been used for chronological measurement in incense clocks. These devices can range from a simple trail of incense material calibrated to burn in a specific time period, to elaborate and ornate instruments with bells or gongs, designed to involve multiple senses.

 

Incense made from materials such as citronella can repel mosquitoes and other irritating, distracting, or pestilential insects. This use has been deployed in concert with religious uses by Zen Buddhists who claim that the incense that is part of their meditative practice is designed to keep bothersome insects from distracting the practitioner. Currently, more effective pyrethroid-based mosquito repellent incense is widely available in Asia.

 

Papier d'Arménie was originally sold as a disinfectant as well as for the fragrance.

 

Incense is also used often by people who smoke indoors and do not want the smell to linger.

 

AESTHETIC:

 

Many people burn incense to appreciate its smell, without assigning any other specific significance to it, in the same way that the foregoing items can be produced or consumed solely for the contemplation or enjoyment of the aroma. An example is the kōdō (香道), where (frequently costly) raw incense materials such as agarwood are appreciated in a formal setting.

 

RELIGIOUS:

 

Religious use of incense is prevalent in many cultures and may have roots in the practical and aesthetic uses, considering that many of these religions have little else in common. One common motif is incense as a form of sacrificial offering to a deity. Such use was common in Judaic worship and remains in use for example in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican churches, Taoist and Buddhist Chinese jingxiang (敬香 "offer incense), etc.

 

Aphrodisiac Incense has been used as an aphrodisiac in some cultures. Both ancient Greek and ancient Egyptian mythology suggest the usage of incense by goddesses and nymphs. Incense is thought to heighten sexual desires and sexual attraction.

 

Time-keeper Incense clocks are used to time social, medical and religious practices in parts of eastern Asia. They are primarily used in Buddhism as a timer of mediation and prayer. Different types of incense burn at different rates; therefore, different incense are used for different practices. The duration of burning ranges from minutes to months.

 

Healing stone cleanser Incense is claimed to cleanse and restore energy in healing stones. The technique used is called “smudging” and is done by holding a healing stone over the smoke of burning incense for 20 to 30 seconds. Some people believe that this process not only restores energy but eliminates negative energy.

 

HEALTH RISK FROM INCENSE SMOKE:

 

Incense smoke contains various contaminants including gaseous pollutants, such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and adsorbed toxic pollutants (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and toxic metals). The solid particles range between ~10 and 500 nm. In a comparison, Indian sandalwood was found to have the highest emission rate, followed by Japanese aloeswood, then Taiwanese aloeswood, while Chinese smokeless sandalwood had the least.

 

Research carried out in Taiwan in 2001 linked the burning of incense sticks to the slow accumulation of potential carcinogens in a poorly ventilated environment by measuring the levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (including benzopyrene) within Buddhist temples. The study found gaseous aliphatic aldehydes, which are carcinogenic and mutagenic, in incense smoke.

 

A survey of risk factors for lung cancer, also conducted in Taiwan, noted an inverse association between incense burning and adenocarcinoma of the lung, though the finding was not deemed significant.

 

In contrast, epidemiologists at the Hong Kong Anti-Cancer Society, Aichi Cancer Center in Nagoya, and several other centers found: "No association was found between exposure to incense burning and respiratory symptoms like chronic cough, chronic sputum, chronic bronchitis, runny nose, wheezing, asthma, allergic rhinitis, or pneumonia among the three populations studied: i.e. primary school children, their non-smoking mothers, or a group of older non-smoking female controls. Incense burning did not affect lung cancer risk among non-smokers, but it significantly reduced risk among smokers, even after adjusting for lifetime smoking amount." However, the researchers qualified their findings by noting that incense burning in the studied population was associated with certain low-cancer-risk dietary habits, and concluded that "diet can be a significant confounder of epidemiological studies on air pollution and respiratory health."

 

Although several studies have not shown a link between incense and lung cancer, many other types of cancer have been directly linked to burning incense. A study published in 2008 in the medical journal Cancer found that incense use is associated with a statistically significant higher risk of cancers of the upper respiratory tract, with the exception of nasopharyngeal cancer. Those who used incense heavily also were 80% more likely to develop squamous-cell carcinomas. The link between incense use and increased cancer risk held when the researchers weighed other factors, including cigarette smoking, diet and drinking habits. The research team noted that "This association is consistent with a large number of studies identifying carcinogens in incense smoke, and given the widespread and sometimes involuntary exposure to smoke from burning incense, these findings carry significant public health implications."

 

In 2015, the South China University of Technology found toxicity of incense to Chinese hamsters' ovarian cells to be even higher than cigarettes.

 

Incensole acetate, a component of Frankincense, has been shown to have anxiolytic-like and antidepressive-like effects in mice, mediated by activation of poorly-understood TRPV3 ion channels in the brain.

CommScope has introduced new 3.5 GHz-capable antennas for macro and small cell densification to help increase network capacity and migration to 5G. Customers deploying newly licensed spectrum bands will be able to increase capacity in existing LTE networks and prepare for future 5G networks with CommScope’s 3.5 GHz-capable base station antennas.

A VTOL capable experimental VicViper designed for special-op missions. It has six guns and is capable of carrying a payload of rockets and/or missiles. Since it is designed to be able to land in remote areas it is also built with space for weapons and supplies for the pilot, who is trained in ground combat along with his space flight training.

 

My 1st VV. I barely finished this in time for Novvember. I made most of it on Thanksgiving weekend but was working on finishing the details and taking pictures of it to the last day.

In 1937, the Imperial Japanese Navy issued a requirement for a replacement for the Mitsubishi A5M then entering service. The IJN wanted a carrier-capable fighter with a top speed of 300 mph, an endurance of eight hours, cannon armament, good manueverability, with a wingspan less than 40 feet—the width of elevators on Japanese aircraft carriers. All of this had to be done with an existing powerplant. Nakajima promptly declared that the IJN was asking the impossible and did not bother trying to submit a design.

 

Mitsubishi’s chief designer, Jiro Horikoshi, felt differently and began working on a prototype. Using the Nakajima Sakae 12 as the powerplant, he lightened his design as much as physically possible, leaving off all crew armor and self-sealing fuel tanks (which Japanese aircraft rarely carried in any case), and using a special kind of light but brittle duralumin in its construction. Though it delayed production, the wing and fuselage were constructed as a single piece for better durability. Using flush rivetting also made for an aerodynamically clean design; it had a stall speed below that of any contemporary fighter at 70 mph. Its wide tracked landing gear also made it fairly simple to recover on both carriers and land on unimproved airstrips. Horikoshi had delivered, and the IJN accepted the new fighter into service in July 1940 as the A6M Rei-sen (Type 0), referring to the Imperial calendar date used by the Emperor of Japan; 1940 was Imperial year 2400. Both friend and foe would refer to the A6M simply as the Zero.

 

The Zero had its first combat encounter with Chinese Polikarpov I-16s in September 1940, a fighter that was the equal of the A5Ms and Ki-27s then in Japanese service, yet 13 Zeroes were easily able to handle 27 I-16s, shooting all of them down without loss in three minutes. Claire Chennault, the American advisor to the Chinese Nationalists, sent reports of this amazing new fighter to the United States, but he was ignored. The Allies would therefore learn of the Zero’s prowess first-hand on 7 December 1941 at Pearl Harbor. Making matters worse for the Allies was that the Zeroes they encountered were flown by IJN pilots, who were among the best in the world. Teaming elite pilots with a supremely manueverable fighter was a deadly combination that seemed unstoppable in 1942, when Zeroes over New Guinea

sustained a kill ratio of 12 to 1 over Allied opponents.

 

Even at this dark stage of the war for the Allies, however, their pilots were learning the Zero’s weaknesses. Hirokoshi’s sacrifices had given the Japanese a fast, manueverable, and very long-ranged fighter (A6Ms regularly made the round trip between Rabaul and Guadalcanal in 1942, which no Allied fighter could come close to matching), but it had come at a price. P-40 and F4F Wildcat pilots in China and the Pacific learned that the Zero, lacking any sort of armor or self-sealing fuel tanks, was very prone to catching fire and exploding with only a few hits. They also learned that the best defense against a Zero was to dive away from it, as Japanese pilots could not keep up with either the P-40 or the F4F in a dive, as it would tear their fragile fighter apart. These sort of tactics allowed Allied pilots to survive and learn how to deal with the Japanese fighter. Japanese pilots also learned that the rifle-caliber 7.7mm machine guns in the Zero’s cowl were ineffective aganst armored Allied fighters, and the 20mm cannon often had poor fusing on the shells. The Allies gave the Zero the reporting name “Zeke,” while later models were codenamed “Hamp” and floatplane A6M2-Ns were codenamed “Rufe,” but most pilots continued to call it the Zero.

 

As World War II continued, the Allies began drawing on those lessons in fighter design, helped immensely when an intact A6M2 was captured in the Aleutians in summer 1942. First to arrive was the F4U Corsair, which still could not turn with the Zero but was faster and better in a climb; the second was the F6F Hellcat, which was also faster and better in the vertical, but could stay with the Zero in a sustained turn. The Allies also benefited from the Japanese losing so many experienced pilots in battles such as Midway and the Guadalcanal campaign: the IJN’s pilot replacement program was too selective, and could not replace the heavy losses of 1942 and 1943. Japanese industry was also slow to come up with a replacement for the A6M. As a result, by late 1943, the Zero menace had been reduced drastically; the Battle of the Philippine Sea—which US Navy pilots named the “Great Marianas Turkey Shoot”—brought this out dramatically, when nearly 700 Japanese aircraft, a significant number of which were A6Ms, were shot down with less than 40 losses amongst the Americans. While the Zero was still deadly in the hands of a good pilot, these pilots were increasingly scarce by 1945.

 

Though Mitsubishi kept upgrading the Zero throughout World War II, the design simply was too specialized to do much with. By 1945, it was being used mainly as a kamikaze suicide aircraft, flown by half-trained former college students. While the kamikazes did a great deal of damage and killed thousands of Allied sailors, it was a desperation tactic that only lengthened a war that Japan had already lost. The Zero had exacted a price, however: it was responsible for the loss of 1550 Allied aircraft, a conservative estimate.

 

By war’s end, 10, 939 A6Ms had been built and Mitsubishi was working on a replacement, the similar A7M Reppu. Of these, the aircraft that survived the war were mostly scrapped and few preserved, and no flyable aircraft were left; directors attempting to make World War II movies were forced to convert a number of T-6 Texan trainers to look something like Zeroes. A few have since been restored to flying condition. Today, about 17 Zeroes remain, though some are being recovered from wartime wreck sites and restored to museum display.

 

The Malmstrom Museum’s A6M Zero is an A6M3 Type 22, which introduced a smaller wing than the earlier A6M2 and a supercharger for the Sakae engine. This particular aircraft, UI-105, was flown by Japanese top ace Hiroyoshi Nishizawa with the Tainan Air Group of the 23rd Air Flotilla, Imperial Japanese Naval Air Arm. As a naval fighter, it was painted in overall light IJN Gray, but as the Tainan Group was based on land, it was crudely hand-painted with Imperial Japanese Army Air Force Green to help camouflage it with the jungles of New Guinea. It retained gray undersurfaces and black cowl common to IJN aircraft, and carries an underfuselage external fuel tank to further extend its phenomenal range. The final fate of this aircraft is unknown; it is sometimes reported that this aircraft was used as a kamikaze that crashed into the USS Suwannee, but that particular aircraft was an A6M5.

 

Some background:

The need for a specialized self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, capable of keeping up with the armored divisions, had become increasingly urgent for the German Armed Forces, as from 1943 on the German Air Force was less and less able to protect itself against enemy fighter bombers.

 

Therefore, a multitude of improvised and specially designed self-propelled anti-aircraft guns were built, many based on the Panzer IV chassis. This development started with the Flakpanzer IV “Möbelwagen”, which was only a turretless Kampfpanzer IV with the turret removed and a 20mm Flakvierling installed instead, together with foldable side walls that offered only poor protection for the gun crew. The lineage then progressed through the Wirbelwind and Ostwind models, which had their weapons and the crew protected in fully rotating turrets, but these were still open at the top. This flaw was to be eliminated in the Kugelblitz, the final development of the Flakpanzer IV.

 

The first proposal for the Kugelblitz envisioned mounting a modified anti-aircraft turret, which had originally been developed for U-boats, on the Panzer IV chassis. It was armed with dual 30 mm MK 303 Brunn guns. However, this was eventually abandoned, since development of this gun had not yet been completed, and, in any case, the entire production run of this weapon turret would have been reserved for Germany's Kriegsmarine. However, enough firepower that enabled the Flakpanzer to cope with armoured attack aircraft, namely the Soviet Ilyushin Il-2, which was a major threat to German tanks, was direly needed.

 

As the best readily available alternative, the Kugelblitz eventually used the 30 mm MK 103 cannon in a Zwillingsflak ("twin flak") 103/38 arrangement, and it combined the chassis and basic superstructure of the existing Panzer IV medium battle tank with a newly designed turret. This vehicle received the official designation SdKfz. 161/7 Leichter Flakpanzer IV 3 cm „Kugelblitz”.

 

The turret’s construction was unique, because its spherical body, which was protected with 20 mm steel shells in front and back, was hanging in a ring mount from the Tiger I, suspended by two spigots – it was effectively an independent capsule that only slightly protruded from the tank’s upper side and kept the vehicle’s profile very low, unlike its predecessors. Elevation of the weapons (as well as of the crew sitting inside of the turret!) was from -5° to +80°, turning speed was 60°/sec. The turret was fully enclosed, with full overhead protection, 360° traverse and (rather limited) space for the crew of three plus weapons and ammunition. Driver and radio operator were located in the front of the hull, as with all German tanks. The commander/gunner, who had a small observation cupola on top of the turret, was positioned in the middle, behind the main guns. The two gunner assistants were placed on the left and right side in front of him, in a slightly lower position. The assistant situated left of the guns was responsible for the turret’s movements, the one on the right side was responsible for loading the guns. The spare ammunition was located on the right side. Each of these three crew members had separate hatch doors, which they could use to enter or exit the vehicle. The gunner assistants’ hatch doors each had a small round shaped extra hatch, which were used for mounting sighting devices, and there were plans to outfit the turret with a stereoscopic range finder for the commander.

 

The tank’s MK 103 was a powerful weapon that had formerly been fitted in single mounts to such planes as the Henschel Hs 129 or Bf 1110 in a ventral gun pod against tanks, and it was also fitted to the twin-engine Dornier Do 335 heavy fighter and other interceptors against Allied bombers. When used by the army, it received the designation “3 cm Flak 38”. It had a weight of only 141 kg (311 lb) and a length of 235 cm (93 in) with muzzle brake. Barrel length was 134 cm (53 in), resulting in Kaliber L/44.7 (44.7 caliber). The weapon’s muzzle velocity was around 900 m/s (3,000 ft/s), allowing an armour penetration for APCR 42–52 mm (1.7–2.0 in)/60°/300 m (980 ft) or 75–95 mm (3.0–3.7 in)/ 90°/ 300 m (980 ft), with an effective maximum firing range of around 5.700 m (18.670 ft).

 

The MK 103 was gas-operated, fully automatic and belt-fed (an innovative feature at that time for AA guns). In the Kugelblitz turret the weapons could be fired singly or simultaneously and their theoretical rate of fire was 450 rounds a minute, even though 250 rpm in short bursts was more practical. The total ammunition load for both weapons was 1,200 rounds and the discharged cases fell into canvas bags placed under the guns. Due to the fact that the MK 103 cannons produced a lot of powder smoke when operated, fume extractors were added, which was another novelty.

 

A production rate of 30 per month by December 1944 was planned, but never achieved, because tank production had become seriously hampered and production of the Panzer IV was about to be terminated in favor of the new E-series tank family, anyway. Therefore, almost all Flakpanzer IV with the Kugelblitz turret were conversions of existing hulls, mostly coming from repair shops. In parallel, work was under way to adapt the Kugelblitz turret to the Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer hull, which was still in production in the former Czechoslovakian Skoda works, and to the new, light E-10 and E-25 tank chassis. Due to this transitional and slightly chaotic situation, production numbers of the Panzer IV-based Kugelblitz remained limited.

 

By early 1945, only around 50 operational vehicles had been built and production of the SdKfz. 161/7 already ceased in May. The first five produced vehicles were given to the newly formed “Panzerflak Ersatz- und Ausbildungsabteilung” (armored Flak training and replacement battalion) located near the city of Ohrdruf (Freistaat Thüringen region in central Germany). One company was divided into three platoons equipped with a mix of different Flakpanzers vehicles. The first platoon was equipped with the Wirbelwind, the second with Ostwind, and the third platoon was equipped with experimental vehicles, such as the Kugelblitz or the “Zerstörer 45”, which was basically a Wirbelwind with a 3-cm-Flak-Vierling 103/38 (armed with four MK 103s).

 

During the unit’s initial trials and deployments, the 3 cm Flak 38 turned out to be a troublesome design, largely because of the strong vibration when firing, and gun smoke frequently filled the turret with hazardous effects on the crews. The vibrations made the target aiming difficult and could even cause damage on the mounting itself – but due to the dire war situation, production was kept up. However, during the running production of the Kugelblitz turret, reinforcements to the mount structure were gradually added, as well as improved sighting systems. None of the operational SdKfz. 161/7s received these upgrades, though, since it was only regarded as a transitional model that filled the most urgent defense gaps. Later production Panzer IV Kugelblitz vehicles were almost exclusively sent to units that defended Berlin, where they fought against the Soviet assault on the German capital.

  

Specifications:

Crew: Five (commander/gunner, 2 assistants, driver, radio operator)

Weight: 23 tons

Length: 5.92 m (19 ft 5 in)

Width: 2.88 m (9 ft 5 ¼ in)

Height: 2.3 m (7 ft 6 ½ in)

Suspension: Leaf spring

Fuel capacity: 470 l (120 US gal)

 

Armour:

10 – 50 mm (0.39 – 1.96 in)

 

Performance:

Maximum road speed: 40 km/h (25 mph)

Sustained road speed: 34 km/h (21.1 mph)

Off-road speed: 24 km/h (15 mph)

Operational range: 210 km (125 mi); 130 km (80 mi) off-road

Power/weight: 13 PS/t

 

Engine:

Maybach HL 120 TRM V12 petrol engine with 300 PS (296 hp, 221 kW)

 

Transmission:

ZF Synchromesh SSG 77 gear with 6 forward and 1 reverse ratios

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm 3 cm Flak 38 (MK 103/3) with a total of 1.200 rounds

1× 7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 34 with 1,250 rounds in bow mount

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is a model of a tank that actually existed, but only in marginal numbers – not more than five Panzer IV with the revolutionary Kugelblitz turret are known to have existed or even seen service. However, it fits well into the ranks of fictional/projected Heer ’46 tanks, and I have been wanting to build or create one for along time.

 

There are some 1:72 kits available, e. g. from Mako, but they are rare and/or expensive. So I rather went for an improvisation approach, and it turned out to be very successful. The complete turret comes from one of the Modelcollect “Vierfüssler” mecha kits – these carry such an installation under the belly(!), what makes absolutely NO sense to me. I especially wonder how the crew is supposed to enter and operate the turret in its upside down position? Not to mention a totally confined field of fire…

 

However, the Modelcollect Kugelblitz tower comes complete with its bearing and the armored collar. It was simply mated with the hull from a late Hasegawa Panzer IV – in my case even a Wirbelwind, which also came with some suitable additional details like stowing boxes for gun barrels. The attachment ring for the turret had just to be widened far enough to accept the Kugelblitz installation – and it worked well! Very simple, but highly effective.

  

Painting and markings:

Well, this did not work 100% as intended. I wanted to emphasize the fact that the tanks would have been built from revamped hulls, so I gave all parts an initial overall coat with RAL 3009, Oxydrot. These were then overpainted with a three-tone Hinterhalt scheme in Dunkelgelb (RAL 7028), Olivgrün (RAL 6003) and Rotbraun (RAL 8012). The pattern was adapted from a Wirbelwind, which I had found in literature, consisting of narrow stripes across the hull with additional spots of Dunkelgelb on top of the darker tones. In order to emphasize the idea of a converted tank with the turret coming from another source, I gave the latter a uniform Dunkelgelb livery.

 

The colors used were Humbrol enamels, this time a different selection of tones, namely 167 (RAF Hemp), 159 (Khaki Drab) and a mix of 160 and 10 (German Rotbraun and Chocolate Brown, for a darker hue). However, I wanted the Oxydrot to shine through the camouflage, but despite efforts with thinned paint and sparse use of the enamels the effect is not as visible as expected. I left it that way, though, here and there the red primer is visible, but a lot of the livery became obscured through the following wash with dark red brown, highly thinned acrylic paint and a final coat of pigment dust on the model’s lower areas.

 

The original black vinyl track was treated with a cloudy mix of grey, red brown and iron acrylic paint, and finally dusted with pigments, too.

 

The decals were gathered from several sources – the tactical code was puzzled together with Roman and Arabic numbers in red (seen on some vehicles from assault gun units), the emblem on the turret shows Berlin’s mascot, the bear, taken from a Modelcollect Heer ’46 kit’s sheet.

 

Some dry-brushing with light grey was done to simulate dust and worn edges, but not too much since the vehicle was to be presented in a more or less new state. And then the model was sealed with acrylic matt varnish.

  

A relatively simple build, since only the turret was exchanged/transplanted. The result looks better than expected, though, and the Kugelblitz turret fit into the Panzer IV hull like the hand into a tight glove. Very convincing. And I might add another Kugelblitz variant, this time either on a Hetzer hull (which was a real alternative to the Panzer IV) or on an E-25, it seems as if an 1:72 kit becomes soon available from Modelcollect.

 

+++ 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 North American FJ-4 Fury was a swept-wing carrier-capable fighter-bomber for the United States Navy and Marine Corps. The final development in a lineage that included the Air Force's F-86 Sabre, the FJ-4 shared its general layout and engine with the earlier FJ-3, but, compared to that of the FJ-3, the FJ-4's new wing was much thinner, with a six percent thickness-to-chord ratio, and featured skin panels milled from solid alloy plates. It also had an increased area and tapered more sharply towards the tips. Slight camber behind the leading edge improved low speed characteristics. The main landing gear design had to be considerably modified to fold wheel and strut within the contours of the new wing. The track of the main wheels was increased, and because they were closer to the center of gravity, there was less weight on the nosewheel. Wing folding was limited to the outer wing panels.

 

The FJ-4 was intended as an all-weather interceptor, a role that required considerable range on internal fuel. The FJ-4 had 50% more fuel capacity than the FJ-3 and was lightened by omitting armor and reducing ammunition capacity. The new wing was "wet"; that is, it provided for integral fuel tankage. The fuselage was deepened to add more fuel and had a distinctive "razorback" rear deck. A modified cockpit made the pilot more comfortable during the longer missions. The tail surfaces were also extensively modified, had a thinner profile and featured an extended, taller fin. The overall changes resulted in an aircraft that had little in common with the earlier models, although a family resemblance was still present.

 

The FJ-4 was developed into a family of aircraft. Of the original order for 221 FJ-4 day fighters, the last 71 were modified into the FJ-4B fighter-bomber version. This had a stronger wing with six instead of four underwing stations and stronger landing gear. Additional aerodynamic brakes under the aft fuselage made landing safer by allowing pilots to use higher thrust settings and were also useful for dive attacks. External load was doubled. The most important characteristic of the FJ-4B was, since the Navy was eager to maintain a nuclear role in its rivalry with the Air Force, that it was capable of carrying a nuclear weapon on the inboard port station. For the delivery of nuclear weapons, the FJ-4B was equipped with the Low-Altitude Bombing System (LABS), and with this capability it replaced the carrier-based A-3 Skywarrior bombers, which were not suited well for the new low-level approach tactics.

 

In April 1956, the Navy ordered 151 more FJ-4Bs, 10 US Navy squadrons became equipped with the FJ-4B, and the type was also flown by three Marine squadrons. At the same time, the Navy requested a carrier-borne fighter with all-weather capability, radar-guided missiles and a higher performance. This new type was to replace several 1st generation US Navy jets, including the ponderous and heavy Douglas F3D Skyknight, the lackluster Vought F7U as well as the Grumman F9F-8 Cougar. This requirement led to the Douglas F4D Skyray and North American’s FJ-5, another thorough modification of the Fury’s basic design and its eventual final evolution stage.

 

North American’s FJ-5 was designed with compact dimensions in mind, so that the type could be operated on older Essex Class carriers, which offered rather limited storage and lift space. At the time of the FJ-5’s conception, several of these carriers were still in service – and this argument led to an order for the FJ-5 in addition to the F4D.

 

For the FJ-5, the FJ-4’s aerodynamic surfaces were retained, but the fuselage had to be modified considerably in order to accept an APQ-50A radar with a parabolic 24 inches diameter antenna in the nose. The radome was placed above the air intake, similar to the F-86D, and coupled with an Aero 13F fire-control system, which together provided full all-weather capability and information on automatic firing of rockets.

A deeper rear fuselage became necessary, too, because the FJ-5 was powered by a reheated J65-W-18 engine (a development of the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojet, optimized for a naval environment), which delivered up to 10,500 lbf (47 kN) at full power instead of the FJ-4’s original 7,700 lbf (34 kN). This upgrade had, limited by the airframe’s aerodynamics, only marginal impact on the aircraft’s top speed, but the extra power almost doubled its initial rate of climb, slightly raised the service ceiling and markedly improved acceleration and carrier operations handling through a better response to throttle input and a higher margin of power reserves.

 

Internal armament still consisted of four 20mm cannon. These had to be placed lower in the nose now, flanking the air intake underneath the radome. The FJ-4B’s six underwing hardpoints were retained and could carry AIM-9 Sidewinders (both the IR-guided AIM-9B as well as the Semi-Active Radar Homing (SARH) AIM-9C) as well as the new radar-guided medium-range AIM-7C Sparrow, even though the latter only on the outer pylons, limiting their number to four. Up to six pods with nineteen unguided 70 mm/2.75” unguided Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket (Mighty Mouse FFARs) were another armament option.

 

Beyond these air-to-air weapons, a wide range of other ordnance could be carried. This included the AGM-12 “Bullpup” guided missile (which necessitated a guidance pod on the right inner wing hardpoint), bombs or napalm tanks of up to 1.000 lb caliber, missile pods, drop tanks and ECM pods. The FJ-4B’s strike capabilities were mostly retained, even though the dedicated fighter lost the ability to carry and deliver nuclear weapons in order to save weight and internal space for the radar equipment.

 

The first FJ-5, a converted early FJ-4, made its maiden flight in April 1958. After a short and successful test phase, the type was quickly put into production and introduced to service with US Navy and US Marine Corps units. The new fighter was quickly nicknamed “Fury Dog” by its crews, a reminiscence of the USAF’s F-86D “Sabre Dog” and its characteristic nose section, even though the FJ-5 was officially still just called “Fury”, like its many quite different predecessors.

 

With the new unified designation system adopted in 1962, the FJ-4 became the F-1E, the FJ-4B the AF-1E and the FJ-5 the F-1F. From the prolific Fury family, only the FJ-5/F-1F became involved in a hot conflict: in late 1966, the USMC deployed F-1Fs to Vietnam, where they primarily flew escort and top cover missions for fighter bombers (esp. A-4 Skyhawks) from Da Nang AB, South Vietnam, plus occasional close air support missions (CAS) on their own. The Marines’ F-1Fs remained in Vietnam until 1970, with a single air-to-air victory (a North-Vietnamese MiG-17 was shot down with a Sidewinder missile), no losses and only one aircraft seriously damaged by anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) fire.

 

After this frontline experience, a radar upgrade with an AN/APQ-124 was briefly considered but never carried out, since the F-1F showed the age of the original Fifties design – the type already lacked overall performance for an all-weather fighter that could effectively engage supersonic bomber targets or low flying attack aircraft. However, the aircraft was still popular because of its ruggedness, good handling characteristics and compact dimensions.

Other upgrades that would improve the F-1F’s strike capability, e. g. additional avionics to deploy the AGM-62 Walleye glide bomb or the new AGM-65 Maverick, esp. the USMC’s laser-guided AGM-65E variant, were also rejected, because more capable types for both interceptor and attack roles, namely the Mach 2 Douglas F-4 Phantom II and the LTV A-7 Corsair II, had been introduced in the meantime.

Another factor that denied any updates were military budget cuts. Furthermore, the contemporary F-8 Crusader offered a better performance and was therefore selected in favor of the F-1F to be updated to the H-L variants. In the wake of this decision, all F-1Fs still in Navy service were, together with the decommission of the last Essex Class carriers, in 1975 handed over to the USMC in order to purge the Navy’s inventory and simplify maintenance and logistics.

 

FJ-4 and FJ-4B Fury fighter bombers served with United States Naval Reserve units until the late 1960s, while the F-1F soldiered on with the USMC until the early Eighties, even though only in reserve units. A considerable number had the heavy radar equipment removed and replaced by ballast in the late Seventies, and they were used as fighter-bombers, for dissimilar air combat training (simulating Soviet fighter types like the MiG-17 and -19), as high-speed target tugs or as in-flight refueling tankers, since the FJ-5 inherited this capability from the FJ-4, with up to two buddy packs under the wings. A few machines survived long enough to receive a new low-visibility livery.

 

However, even in the USMC reserve units, the FJ-5 was soon replaced by A-4 Skyhawks, due to the age of the airframes and further fleet reduction measures. The last F-1F was retired in 1982, ending the long career of North American’s F-86 design in US service.

 

A total of 1,196 Furies of all variants were received by the Navy and Marine Corps over the course of its production life, including 152 FJ-4s, 222 FJ-4Bs and 102 FJ-5s.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 40 ft 3 in (12.27 m)

Wingspan: 39 ft 1 in (11.9 m)

Height: 13 ft 11 in (4.2 m)

Wing area: 338.66 ft² (31.46 m²)

Empty weight: 13,518 lb (6,132 kg)

Gross weight: 19,975 lb (9,060 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 25,880 lb (11,750 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Wright J65-W-18 turbojet with 7,400 lbf (32.9 kN) dry thrust

and 10,500 lbf (46.7 kN) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 708 mph (1,139 km/h, 615 kn) at sea level,

737 mph (1,188 km/h/Mach 0.96) at height

Range: 2,020 mi (3,250 km) with 2× 200 gal (760 l) drop tanks and 2× AIM-9 missiles

Service ceiling: 49,750 ft (15,163 m)

Rate of climb: 12,150 ft/min (61.7 m/s)

Wing loading: 69.9 lb/ft² (341.7 kg/m²)

 

Armament:

4× 20 mm (0.787 in) Colt Mk 12 cannon (144 RPG, 578 rounds in total)

6× underwing hardpoints for 3,000 lb (1,400 kg) of ordnance, including AIM-9 and AIM-7 missiles

  

The kit and its assembly:

A project I had on the agenda for a long time. But, due to the major surgeries involved, I have been pushing it away – until the “In the navy” group build at whatifmolders.com came along in early 2020. So I collected my courage, dusted off the donor kits that had already been stashed away for years, and eventually started work.

 

The original inspiration was the F-8 Crusader’s career: I really like the look of the late RF-8s, which were kept long enough in service to receive the Eighties’ Low-Viz USN “Compass Ghost” livery. This looks cool, but also a little wrong. And what if the FJ-4B had been kept in service long enough to receive a similar treatment…?

 

In order to justify a career extension, I made up an all-weather development of the FJ-4B with a radar and a more powerful engine, a kind of light alternative to the Vought A-7. A plausible solution was a mix of FJ-4B and F-86D parts – this sounds easy, but both aircraft and their respective model kits actually have only VERY little in common.

 

At its core, the FJ-5 model is a kitbashing of parts from an Emhar FJ-4B (Revell re-boxing) and an Airfix F-86D. The FJ-4B provided the raised cockpit section with the canopy, spine and fin in the form of a complete transplant, which furthermore had to be extended by about 1cm/0.5” because the F-86D is longer than the Fury. The FJ-4B also provided its wings, stabilizers and the landing gear. The Fury’s ventral arrester hook section, a separate part, was also transferred into the F-86D’s lower rear fuselage, under the openings for the air brakes.

For a more lively look, the (thick!) Fury canopy was sawed into two pieces for open display and the flaps were lowered, too.

 

The cockpit was taken from the Airfix kit, since it would fit well into the lower fuselage and it looked much better than their respective counterparts from the relatively basic Emhar kit, which just comes with a narrow board with a strange, bulky seat-thing. As an extra, the cockpit received side consoles, a scratched gunsight and a different ejection seat that raised the pilot’s position into the Fury’s higher canopy.

 

Since the F-1F was supposed to be a fighter, still equipped with the radar set, I retained the OOB pylons from the Fury with its four launch rails. For an aircraft late in the career, I gave it a reduced ordnance, though, just a pair of drop tanks (left over from a Matchbox F3D Skyknight; I wanted something more slender than the stubby OOB drop tanks from the Emhar Fury kit), plus a better Sidewinder training round (hence its blue body) and a single red ACMI data pod on the outer pylons, as an aerial combat training outfit and nice color highlights on the otherwise dull/grey aircraft.

  

Painting and markings:

As mentioned above, the idea for livery was a vintage aircraft in modern, subdued markings. So I adapted the early USN Compass Ghost scheme, and the F-1F received a two-tone livery in FS 36320 and 36375 (Dark and Light Compass Ghost Grey, Humbrol 128 and 127, respectively) with a high, wavy waterline and a light fin. In front of the cockpit, a slightly darker anti-glare panel in Humbrol 145 (FS 35237) was added, inspired by early USN F-14s in Compass Ghost camouflage.

The radome was painted with Humbrol 156, for a slightly darker/different shade of grey than the aircraft’s upper surfaces – I considered a black or a beige (unpainted glass fiber) radome first, but that would have been a very harsh contrast to the rest.

 

The landing gear as well as the air intake duct were painted glossy white (Humbrol 22), the cockpit became medium grey (Humbrol 140, Dark Gull Gray). The inside of the air brakes as well es the edges of the flaps, normally concealed when they are retracted, were painted in bright red (Humbrol 174). The same tone was also used to highlight the edges of the land gear covers.

 

The grey leading edges on the wings the stabilizers were created with decal sheet strips (generic material from TL Modellbau), the gun blast plates were made with silver decal material.

In order to give the model a worn look, I applied a black ink wash, an overall, light treatment with graphite and some post shading. Some extra graphite was applied around the exhaust and the gun nozzles.

 

The markings were taken for an USMC A-4E/F from a Revell kit (which turned out to be a bit bluish). I wanted a consequent dull/toned-down look, typical for early Compass Ghost aircraft. Later, colored highlights, roundels and squadron markings crept back onto the aircraft, but in the early Eighties many USN/USMC machines were consequently finished in a grey-in-grey livery.

 

Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and the ordnance added.

  

Well, the end result looks simple, but creating this kitbashed Fury all-weather fighter was pretty demanding. Even though both the Fury and the F-86D are based on the same aircraft, they are completely different, and the same is also true for the model kits. It took major surgeries and body sculpting to weld the parts together. But I am quite happy with the outcome, the fictional F-1F looks pretty conclusive and natural, also in the (for this aircraft) unusual low-viz livery.

 

+++ 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 North American FJ-4 Fury was a swept-wing carrier-capable fighter-bomber for the United States Navy and Marine Corps. The final development in a lineage that included the Air Force's F-86 Sabre, the FJ-4 shared its general layout and engine with the earlier FJ-3, but, compared to that of the FJ-3, the FJ-4's new wing was much thinner, with a six percent thickness-to-chord ratio, and featured skin panels milled from solid alloy plates. It also had an increased area and tapered more sharply towards the tips. Slight camber behind the leading edge improved low speed characteristics. The main landing gear design had to be considerably modified to fold wheel and strut within the contours of the new wing. The track of the main wheels was increased, and because they were closer to the center of gravity, there was less weight on the nosewheel. Wing folding was limited to the outer wing panels.

 

The FJ-4 was intended as an all-weather interceptor, a role that required considerable range on internal fuel. The FJ-4 had 50% more fuel capacity than the FJ-3 and was lightened by omitting armor and reducing ammunition capacity. The new wing was "wet"; that is, it provided for integral fuel tankage. The fuselage was deepened to add more fuel and had a distinctive "razorback" rear deck. A modified cockpit made the pilot more comfortable during the longer missions. The tail surfaces were also extensively modified, had a thinner profile and featured an extended, taller fin. The overall changes resulted in an aircraft that had little in common with the earlier models, although a family resemblance was still present.

 

The FJ-4 was developed into a family of aircraft. Of the original order for 221 FJ-4 day fighters, the last 71 were modified into the FJ-4B fighter-bomber version. This had a stronger wing with six instead of four underwing stations and stronger landing gear. Additional aerodynamic brakes under the aft fuselage made landing safer by allowing pilots to use higher thrust settings and were also useful for dive attacks. External load was doubled. The most important characteristic of the FJ-4B was, since the Navy was eager to maintain a nuclear role in its rivalry with the Air Force, that it was capable of carrying a nuclear weapon on the inboard port station. For the delivery of nuclear weapons, the FJ-4B was equipped with the Low-Altitude Bombing System (LABS), and with this capability it replaced the carrier-based A-3 Skywarrior bombers, which were not suited well for the new low-level approach tactics.

 

In April 1956, the Navy ordered 151 more FJ-4Bs, 10 US Navy squadrons became equipped with the FJ-4B, and the type was also flown by three Marine squadrons. At the same time, the Navy requested a carrier-borne fighter with all-weather capability, radar-guided missiles and a higher performance. This new type was to replace several 1st generation US Navy jets, including the ponderous and heavy Douglas F3D Skyknight, the lackluster Vought F7U as well as the Grumman F9F-8 Cougar. This requirement led to the Douglas F4D Skyray and North American’s FJ-5, another thorough modification of the Fury’s basic design and its eventual final evolution stage.

 

North American’s FJ-5 was designed with compact dimensions in mind, so that the type could be operated on older Essex Class carriers, which offered rather limited storage and lift space. At the time of the FJ-5’s conception, several of these carriers were still in service – and this argument led to an order for the FJ-5 in addition to the F4D.

 

For the FJ-5, the FJ-4’s aerodynamic surfaces were retained, but the fuselage had to be modified considerably in order to accept an APQ-50A radar with a parabolic 24 inches diameter antenna in the nose. The radome was placed above the air intake, similar to the F-86D, and coupled with an Aero 13F fire-control system, which together provided full all-weather capability and information on automatic firing of rockets.

A deeper rear fuselage became necessary, too, because the FJ-5 was powered by a reheated J65-W-18 engine (a development of the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojet, optimized for a naval environment), which delivered up to 10,500 lbf (47 kN) at full power instead of the FJ-4’s original 7,700 lbf (34 kN). This upgrade had, limited by the airframe’s aerodynamics, only marginal impact on the aircraft’s top speed, but the extra power almost doubled its initial rate of climb, slightly raised the service ceiling and markedly improved acceleration and carrier operations handling through a better response to throttle input and a higher margin of power reserves.

 

Internal armament still consisted of four 20mm cannon. These had to be placed lower in the nose now, flanking the air intake underneath the radome. The FJ-4B’s six underwing hardpoints were retained and could carry AIM-9 Sidewinders (both the IR-guided AIM-9B as well as the Semi-Active Radar Homing (SARH) AIM-9C) as well as the new radar-guided medium-range AIM-7C Sparrow, even though the latter only on the outer pylons, limiting their number to four. Up to six pods with nineteen unguided 70 mm/2.75” unguided Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket (Mighty Mouse FFARs) were another armament option.

 

Beyond these air-to-air weapons, a wide range of other ordnance could be carried. This included the AGM-12 “Bullpup” guided missile (which necessitated a guidance pod on the right inner wing hardpoint), bombs or napalm tanks of up to 1.000 lb caliber, missile pods, drop tanks and ECM pods. The FJ-4B’s strike capabilities were mostly retained, even though the dedicated fighter lost the ability to carry and deliver nuclear weapons in order to save weight and internal space for the radar equipment.

 

The first FJ-5, a converted early FJ-4, made its maiden flight in April 1958. After a short and successful test phase, the type was quickly put into production and introduced to service with US Navy and US Marine Corps units. The new fighter was quickly nicknamed “Fury Dog” by its crews, a reminiscence of the USAF’s F-86D “Sabre Dog” and its characteristic nose section, even though the FJ-5 was officially still just called “Fury”, like its many quite different predecessors.

 

With the new unified designation system adopted in 1962, the FJ-4 became the F-1E, the FJ-4B the AF-1E and the FJ-5 the F-1F. From the prolific Fury family, only the FJ-5/F-1F became involved in a hot conflict: in late 1966, the USMC deployed F-1Fs to Vietnam, where they primarily flew escort and top cover missions for fighter bombers (esp. A-4 Skyhawks) from Da Nang AB, South Vietnam, plus occasional close air support missions (CAS) on their own. The Marines’ F-1Fs remained in Vietnam until 1970, with a single air-to-air victory (a North-Vietnamese MiG-17 was shot down with a Sidewinder missile), no losses and only one aircraft seriously damaged by anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) fire.

 

After this frontline experience, a radar upgrade with an AN/APQ-124 was briefly considered but never carried out, since the F-1F showed the age of the original Fifties design – the type already lacked overall performance for an all-weather fighter that could effectively engage supersonic bomber targets or low flying attack aircraft. However, the aircraft was still popular because of its ruggedness, good handling characteristics and compact dimensions.

Other upgrades that would improve the F-1F’s strike capability, e. g. additional avionics to deploy the AGM-62 Walleye glide bomb or the new AGM-65 Maverick, esp. the USMC’s laser-guided AGM-65E variant, were also rejected, because more capable types for both interceptor and attack roles, namely the Mach 2 Douglas F-4 Phantom II and the LTV A-7 Corsair II, had been introduced in the meantime.

Another factor that denied any updates were military budget cuts. Furthermore, the contemporary F-8 Crusader offered a better performance and was therefore selected in favor of the F-1F to be updated to the H-L variants. In the wake of this decision, all F-1Fs still in Navy service were, together with the decommission of the last Essex Class carriers, in 1975 handed over to the USMC in order to purge the Navy’s inventory and simplify maintenance and logistics.

 

FJ-4 and FJ-4B Fury fighter bombers served with United States Naval Reserve units until the late 1960s, while the F-1F soldiered on with the USMC until the early Eighties, even though only in reserve units. A considerable number had the heavy radar equipment removed and replaced by ballast in the late Seventies, and they were used as fighter-bombers, for dissimilar air combat training (simulating Soviet fighter types like the MiG-17 and -19), as high-speed target tugs or as in-flight refueling tankers, since the FJ-5 inherited this capability from the FJ-4, with up to two buddy packs under the wings. A few machines survived long enough to receive a new low-visibility livery.

 

However, even in the USMC reserve units, the FJ-5 was soon replaced by A-4 Skyhawks, due to the age of the airframes and further fleet reduction measures. The last F-1F was retired in 1982, ending the long career of North American’s F-86 design in US service.

 

A total of 1,196 Furies of all variants were received by the Navy and Marine Corps over the course of its production life, including 152 FJ-4s, 222 FJ-4Bs and 102 FJ-5s.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 40 ft 3 in (12.27 m)

Wingspan: 39 ft 1 in (11.9 m)

Height: 13 ft 11 in (4.2 m)

Wing area: 338.66 ft² (31.46 m²)

Empty weight: 13,518 lb (6,132 kg)

Gross weight: 19,975 lb (9,060 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 25,880 lb (11,750 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Wright J65-W-18 turbojet with 7,400 lbf (32.9 kN) dry thrust

and 10,500 lbf (46.7 kN) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 708 mph (1,139 km/h, 615 kn) at sea level,

737 mph (1,188 km/h/Mach 0.96) at height

Range: 2,020 mi (3,250 km) with 2× 200 gal (760 l) drop tanks and 2× AIM-9 missiles

Service ceiling: 49,750 ft (15,163 m)

Rate of climb: 12,150 ft/min (61.7 m/s)

Wing loading: 69.9 lb/ft² (341.7 kg/m²)

 

Armament:

4× 20 mm (0.787 in) Colt Mk 12 cannon (144 RPG, 578 rounds in total)

6× underwing hardpoints for 3,000 lb (1,400 kg) of ordnance, including AIM-9 and AIM-7 missiles

  

The kit and its assembly:

A project I had on the agenda for a long time. But, due to the major surgeries involved, I have been pushing it away – until the “In the navy” group build at whatifmolders.com came along in early 2020. So I collected my courage, dusted off the donor kits that had already been stashed away for years, and eventually started work.

 

The original inspiration was the F-8 Crusader’s career: I really like the look of the late RF-8s, which were kept long enough in service to receive the Eighties’ Low-Viz USN “Compass Ghost” livery. This looks cool, but also a little wrong. And what if the FJ-4B had been kept in service long enough to receive a similar treatment…?

 

In order to justify a career extension, I made up an all-weather development of the FJ-4B with a radar and a more powerful engine, a kind of light alternative to the Vought A-7. A plausible solution was a mix of FJ-4B and F-86D parts – this sounds easy, but both aircraft and their respective model kits actually have only VERY little in common.

 

At its core, the FJ-5 model is a kitbashing of parts from an Emhar FJ-4B (Revell re-boxing) and an Airfix F-86D. The FJ-4B provided the raised cockpit section with the canopy, spine and fin in the form of a complete transplant, which furthermore had to be extended by about 1cm/0.5” because the F-86D is longer than the Fury. The FJ-4B also provided its wings, stabilizers and the landing gear. The Fury’s ventral arrester hook section, a separate part, was also transferred into the F-86D’s lower rear fuselage, under the openings for the air brakes.

For a more lively look, the (thick!) Fury canopy was sawed into two pieces for open display and the flaps were lowered, too.

 

The cockpit was taken from the Airfix kit, since it would fit well into the lower fuselage and it looked much better than their respective counterparts from the relatively basic Emhar kit, which just comes with a narrow board with a strange, bulky seat-thing. As an extra, the cockpit received side consoles, a scratched gunsight and a different ejection seat that raised the pilot’s position into the Fury’s higher canopy.

 

Since the F-1F was supposed to be a fighter, still equipped with the radar set, I retained the OOB pylons from the Fury with its four launch rails. For an aircraft late in the career, I gave it a reduced ordnance, though, just a pair of drop tanks (left over from a Matchbox F3D Skyknight; I wanted something more slender than the stubby OOB drop tanks from the Emhar Fury kit), plus a better Sidewinder training round (hence its blue body) and a single red ACMI data pod on the outer pylons, as an aerial combat training outfit and nice color highlights on the otherwise dull/grey aircraft.

  

Painting and markings:

As mentioned above, the idea for livery was a vintage aircraft in modern, subdued markings. So I adapted the early USN Compass Ghost scheme, and the F-1F received a two-tone livery in FS 36320 and 36375 (Dark and Light Compass Ghost Grey, Humbrol 128 and 127, respectively) with a high, wavy waterline and a light fin. In front of the cockpit, a slightly darker anti-glare panel in Humbrol 145 (FS 35237) was added, inspired by early USN F-14s in Compass Ghost camouflage.

The radome was painted with Humbrol 156, for a slightly darker/different shade of grey than the aircraft’s upper surfaces – I considered a black or a beige (unpainted glass fiber) radome first, but that would have been a very harsh contrast to the rest.

 

The landing gear as well as the air intake duct were painted glossy white (Humbrol 22), the cockpit became medium grey (Humbrol 140, Dark Gull Gray). The inside of the air brakes as well es the edges of the flaps, normally concealed when they are retracted, were painted in bright red (Humbrol 174). The same tone was also used to highlight the edges of the land gear covers.

 

The grey leading edges on the wings the stabilizers were created with decal sheet strips (generic material from TL Modellbau), the gun blast plates were made with silver decal material.

In order to give the model a worn look, I applied a black ink wash, an overall, light treatment with graphite and some post shading. Some extra graphite was applied around the exhaust and the gun nozzles.

 

The markings were taken for an USMC A-4E/F from a Revell kit (which turned out to be a bit bluish). I wanted a consequent dull/toned-down look, typical for early Compass Ghost aircraft. Later, colored highlights, roundels and squadron markings crept back onto the aircraft, but in the early Eighties many USN/USMC machines were consequently finished in a grey-in-grey livery.

 

Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and the ordnance added.

  

Well, the end result looks simple, but creating this kitbashed Fury all-weather fighter was pretty demanding. Even though both the Fury and the F-86D are based on the same aircraft, they are completely different, and the same is also true for the model kits. It took major surgeries and body sculpting to weld the parts together. But I am quite happy with the outcome, the fictional F-1F looks pretty conclusive and natural, also in the (for this aircraft) unusual low-viz livery.

 

NEDERLAND, NETHERLANDS, HOLLAND, PAYS-BAS, HOLANDA, PAISES BAJOS, Barendrecht, Un pueblo llamado Barendrecht, A town called Barendrecht, Une ville appelée Barendrecht, LAGARTIJAS, LEZARDS , LIZARDS, HAGEDISSEN, ECHSEN, LAGARTO,

 

AXOLOTIS.-

 

There was a time when I thought a great deal about the axolotls. I went to see them in the aquarium at the Jardin des Plantes and stayed for hours watching them, observing their immobility, their faint movements. Now I am an axolotl.

 

I got to them by chance one spring morning when Paris was spreading its peacock tail after a slow wintertime. I was heading down tbe boulevard Port-Royal, then I took Saint-Marcel and L'Hôpital and saw green among all that grey and remembered the lions. I was friend of the lions and panthers, but had never gone into the dark, humid building that was the aquarium. I left my bike against tbe gratings and went to look at the tulips. The lions were sad and ugly and my panther was asleep. I decided on the aquarium, looked obliquely at banal fish until, unexpectedly, I hit it off with the axolotls. I stayed watching them for an hour and left, unable to think of anything else.

 

In the library at Sainte-Geneviève, I consulted a dictionary and learned that axolotls are the larval stage (provided with gills) of a species of salamander of the genus Ambystoma. That they were Mexican I knew already by looking at them and their little pink Aztec faces and the placard at the top of the tank. I read that specimens of them had been found in Africa capable of living on dry land during the periods of drought, and continuing their life under water when the rainy season came. I found their Spanish name, ajolote, and the mention that they were edible, and that their oil was used (no longer used, it said ) like cod-liver oil.

 

I didn't care to look up any of the specialized works, but the next day I went back to the Jardin des Plantes. I began to go every morning, morning and aftemoon some days. The aquarium guard smiled perplexedly taking my ticket. I would lean up against the iron bar in front of the tanks and set to watching them. There's nothing strange in this, because after the first minute I knew that we were linked, that something infinitely lost and distant kept pulling us together. It had been enough to detain me that first morning in front of the sheet of glass where some bubbles rose through the water. The axolotls huddled on the wretched narrow (only I can know how narrow and wretched) floor of moss and stone in the tank. There were nine specimens, and the majority pressed their heads against the glass, looking with their eyes of gold at whoever came near them. Disconcerted, almost ashamed, I felt it a lewdness to be peering at these silent and immobile figures heaped at the bottom of the tank. Mentally I isolated one, situated on the right and somewhat apart from the others, to study it better. I saw a rosy little body, translucent (I thought of those Chinese figurines of milky glass), looking like a small lizard about six inches long, ending in a fish's tail of extraordinary delicacy, the most sensitive part of our body. Along the back ran a transparent fin which joined with the tail, but what obsessed me was the feet, of the slenderest nicety, ending in tiny fingers with minutely human nails. And then I discovered its eyes, its face. Inexpressive features, with no other trait save the eyes, two orifices, like brooches, wholly of transparent gold, lacking any life but looking, letting themselves be penetrated by my look, which seemed to travel past the golden level and lose itself in a diaphanous interior mystery. A very slender black halo ringed the eye and etched it onto the pink flesh, onto the rosy stone of the head, vaguely triangular, but with curved and triangular sides which gave it a total likeness to a statuette corroded by time. The mouth was masked by the triangular plane of the face, its considerable size would be guessed only in profile; in front a delicate crevice barely slit the lifeless stone. On both sides of the head where the ears should have been, there grew three tiny sprigs, red as coral, a vegetal outgrowth, the gills, I suppose. And they were the only thing quick about it; every ten or fifteen seconds the sprigs pricked up stiffly and again subsided. Once in a while a foot would barely move, I saw the diminutive toes poise mildly on the moss. It's that we don't enjoy moving a lot, and the tank is so cramped—we barely move in any direction and we're hitting one of the others with our tail or our head—difficulties arise, fights, tiredness. The time feels like it's less if we stay quietly.

 

It was their quietness that made me lean toward them fascinated the first time I saw the axolotls. Obscurely I seemed to understand their secret will, to abolish space and time with an indifferent immobility. I knew better later; the gill contraction, the tentative reckoning of the delicate feet on the stones, the abrupt swimming (some of them swim with a simple undulation of the body) proved to me that they were capable of escaping that mineral lethargy in which they spent whole hours. Above all else, their eyes obsessed me. In the standing tanks on either side of them, different fishes showed me the simple stupidity of their handsome eyes so similar to our own. The eyes of the axolotls spoke to me of the presence of a different life, of another way of seeing. Glueing my face to the glass (the guard would cough fussily once in a while), I tried to see better those diminutive golden points, that entrance to the infinitely slow and remote world of these rosy creatures. It was useless to tap with one finger on the glass directly in front of their faces; they never gave the least reaction. The golden eyes continued burning with their soft, terrible light; they continued looking at me from an unfathomable depth which made me dizzy.

 

And nevertheless they were close. I knew it before this, before being an axolotl. I learned it the day I came near them for the first time. The anthropomorphic features of a monkey reveal the reverse of what most people believe, the distance that is traveled from them to us. The absolute lack of similarity between axolotls and human beings proved to me that my recognition was valid, that I was not propping myself up with easy analogies. Only the little hands . . . But an eft, the common newt, has such hands also, and we are not at all alike. I think it was the axolotls' heads, that triangular pink shape with the tiny eyes of gold. That looked and knew. That laid the claim. They were not animals.

 

It would seem easy, almost obvious, to fall into mythology. I began seeing in the axolotls a metamorphosis which did not succeed in revoking a mysterious humanity. I imagined them aware, slaves of their bodies, condemned infinitely to the silence of the abyss, to a hopeless meditation. Their blind gaze, the diminutive gold disc without expression and nonetheless terribly shining, went through me like a message: "Save us, save us." I caught myself mumbling words of advice, conveying childish hopes. They continued to look at me, immobile; from time to time the rosy branches of the gills stiffened. In that instant I felt a muted pain; perhaps they were seeing me, attracting my strength to penetrate into the impenetrable thing of their lives. They were not human beings, but I had found in no animal such a profound relation with myself. The axolotls were like witnesses of something, and at times like horrible judges. I felt ignoble in front of them; there was such a terrifying purity in those transparent eyes. They were larvas, but larva means disguise and also phantom. Behind those Aztec faces, without expression but of an implacable cruelty, what semblance was awaiting its hour?

 

I was afraid of them. I think that had it not been for feeling the proximity of other visitors and the guard, I would not have been bold enough to remain alone with them. "You eat them alive with your eyes, hey," the guard said, laughing; he likely thought I was a little cracked. What he didn't notice was that it was they devouring me slowly with their eyes, in a cannibalism of gold. At any distance from the aquarium, I had only to think of them, it was as though I were being affected from a distance. It got to the point that I was going every day, and at night I thought of them immobile in the darkness, slowly putting a hand out which immediately encountered another. Perhaps their eyes could see in the dead of night, and for them the day continued indefinitely. The eyes of axolotls have no lids.

 

I know now that there was nothing strange, that that had to occur. Leaning over in front of the tank each morning, the recognition was greater. They were suffering, every fiber of my body reached toward that stifled pain, that stiff torment at the bottom of the tank. They were lying in wait for something, a remote dominion destroyed, an age of liberty when the world had been that of the axolotls. Not possible that such a terrible expression which was attaining the overthrow of that forced blankness on their stone faces should carry any message other than one of pain, proof of that eternal sentence, of that liquid hell they were undergoing. Hopelessly, I wanted to prove to myself that my own sensibility was projecting a nonexistent consciousness upon the axolotls. They and I knew. So there was nothing strange in what happened. My face was pressed against the glass of the aquarium, my eyes were attempting once more to penetrate the mystery of those eyes of gold without iris, without pupil. I saw from very close up the face of an axolotl immobile next to the glass. No transition and no surprise, I saw my face against the glass, I saw it on the outside of the tank, I saw it on the other side of the glass. Then my face drew back and I understood.

 

Only one thing was strange: to go on thinking as usual, to know. To realize that was, for the first moment, like the horror of a man buried alive awaking to his fate. Outside, my face came close to the glass again, I saw my mouth, the lips compressed with the effort of understanding the axolotls. I was an axolotl and now I knew instantly that no understanding was possible. He was outside the aquarium, his thinking was a thinking outside the tank. Recognizlng him, being him himself, I was an axolotl and in my world. The horror began—I learned in the same moment —of believing myself prisoner in the body of an axolotl, metamorphosed into him with my human mind intact, buried alive in an axolotl, condemned to move lucidly among unconscious creatures. But that stopped when a foot just grazed my face, when I moved just a little to one side and saw an axolotl next to me who was looking at me, and understood that he knew also, no communication possible, but very clearly. Or I was also in him, or all of us were thinking humanlike, incapable of expression, limited to the golden splendor of our eyes looking at the face of the man pressed against the aquarium.

 

He returned many times, but he comes less often now. Weeks pass without his showing up. I saw him yesterday, he looked at me for a long time and left briskly. It seemed to me that he was not so much interested in us any more, that he was coming out of habit. Since the only thing I do is think, I could think about him a lot. It occurs to me that at the beginning we continued to communicate, that he felt more than ever one with the mystery which was claiming him. But the bridges were broken between him and me, because what was his obsession is now an axolotl, alien to his human life. I think that at the beginning I was capable of returning to him in a certain way—ah, only in a certain way—and of keeping awake his desire to know us better. I am an axolotl for good now, and if I think like a man it's only because every axolotl thinks like a man inside his rosy stone semblance. I believe that all this succeeded in communicating something to him in those first days, when I was still he. And in this final solitude to which he no longer comes, I console myself by thinking that perhaps he is going to write a story about us, that, believing he's making up a story, he's going to write all this about axolotls.

  

Il fut une époque où je pensais beaucoup aux axolotls. J’allais les voir à l’aquarium du Jardin des Plantes et je passais des heures à les regarder, à observer leur immobilité, leurs mouvements obscurs. Et maintenant je suis un axolotl. Le hasard me conduisit vers eux un matin de printemps où Paris déployait sa queue de paon après le lent hiver. Je descendis le boulevard Saint-Marcel, celui de l’hôpital, je vis les premiers verts parmi tout le gris et je me souvins des lions. J’étais très amis des lions et des panthères, mais je n’étais jamais entré dans l’enceinte humide et sombre des aquariums. Je laissai ma bicyclette contre les grilles et j’allais voir les tulipes. Les lions étaient laids et tristes et ma panthère dormait. Je me décidai pour les aquariums et, après avoir regardé avec indifférence des poissons ordinaires, je tombai par hasard sur les axolotls. Je passai une heure à les regarder, puis je partis, incapable de penser à autre chose.

 

À la bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève je consultai un dictionnaire et j’appris que les axolotls étaient les formes larvaires, pourvues de branchies, de batraciens du genre amblystone. Qu’ils étaient originaires du Mexique, je le savais déjà, rien qu’à voir leur petit visage aztèque. Je lus qu’on en avait trouvé des spécimens en Afrique capables de vivre hors de l’eau pendant les périodes de sécheresse et qui reprenaient leur vie normale à la saison des pluies. On donnait leur nom espagnol, ajolote, on signalait qu’ils étaient comestibles et qu’on utilisait leur huile (on ne l’utilise plus) comme l’huile de foie de morue.

 

Je ne voulus pas consulter d’ouvrages spécialisés mais je revins le jour suivant au jardin des Plantes. Je pris l’habitude d’y aller tous les matins, et parfois même matin et soir. Le gardien des aquariums souriait d’un air perplexe en prenant mon ticket. Je m’appuyais contre la barre de fer qui borde les aquariums et je regardais les axolotls. Il n’y avait rien d’étrange à cela ; dès le premier instant j’avais senti que quelque chose me liait à eux, quelque chose d’infiniment lointain et oublié qui cependant nous unissait encore. Il m’avait suffit de m’arrêter un matin devant cet aquarium où des bulles couraient dans l’eau. Les axolotls s’entassaient sur l’étroit et misérable (personne mieux que moi ne sait à quel point il est étroit et misérable) fond de pierre et de mousse. Il y en avait neuf, la plupart d’entre eux appuyaient leur tête contre la vitre et regardaient de leurs yeux d’or ceux qui s’approchaient. Troublé, presque honteux, je trouvais qu’il y avait de l’impudeur à se pencher sur ces formes silencieuses et immobiles entassées au fond de l’aquarium. Mentalement, j’en isolai un, un peu à l’écart sur la droite, pour mieux l’étudier. Je vis un petit corps rose, translucide (je pensai aux statuettes chinoises en verre laiteux), semblable à un petit lézard de quinze centimètres, terminé par une queue de poisson d’une extraordinaire délicatesse - c’est la partie la plus sensible de notre corps. Sur son dos, une nageoire transparente se rattachait à la queue ; mais ce furent les pattes qui me fascinèrent, des pattes d’une incroyable finesse, terminés par de tout petits doigts avec des ongles - absolument humains, sans pourtant avoir la forme de la main humaine - mais comment aurais-je pu ignorer qu’ils étaient humains ? c’est alors que je découvris leurs yeux, leur visage. Un visage inexpressif sans autre trait que les yeux, deux orifices comme des têtes d’épingles entièrement d’or transparent, sans aucune vie, mais qui regardaient et qui se laissaient pénétrer par mon regard qui passait à travers le point doré et se perdait dans un mystère diaphane. Un très mince halo noir entourait l’oeil et l’inscrivait dans la chair rose, dans la pierre rose de la tête vaguement triangulaire, au contours courbes et irréguliers, qui la faisaient ressembler à une statue rongée par le temps. La bouche était dissimulée par le plan triangulaire de la tête et ce n’est que de profil que l’on s’apercevait qu’elle était très grande. Vue de face, c’était une fine rainure, comme une fissure dans de l’albâtre. De chaque côté de la tête, à la place des oreilles, se dressaient de très petites branches rouges comme du corail, une excroissance végétale, les branchies, je suppose. C’était la seule chose qui eût l’air vivante dans ce corps. Chaque vingt secondes elles se dressaient, toutes raides, puis s’abaissaient de nouveau. Parfois une patte bougeait, à peine, et je voyais les doigts minuscules se poser doucement sur la mousse. C’est que nous n’aimons pas beaucoup bouger, l’aquarium est si étroit ; si peu que nous remuions nous heurtons la tête ou la queue d’un autre ; il s’ensuit des difficultés, des disputes, de la fatigue. Le temps se sent moins si l’on reste immobile.

 

Ce fut leur immobilité qui me fit me pencher vers eux, fasciné, la première fois que je les vis. Il me sembla comprendre obscurément leur volonté secrète : abolir l’espace et le temps par une immobilité pleine d’indifférence. Par la suite, j’appris à mieux les comprendre, les branchies qui se contractent, les petites pattes fines qui tâtonnent sur les pierres, leurs fuites brusques (ils nagent par une simple ondulation du corps) me prouvèrent qu’ils étaient capables de s’évader de cette torpeur minérale où ils passaient des heures entières. Leurs yeux surtout m’obsédaient. A côté d’eux, dans les autres aquariums, des poissons me montraient la stupide simplicité de leurs beaux yeux semblables aux nôtres. Les yeux des axolotls me parlaient de la présence d’une vie différente, d’une autre façon de regarder. Je collais mon visage à la vitre (le gardien, inquiet, toussait de temps en temps) pour mieux voir les tout petits points dorés, cette ouverture sur le monde infiniment lent et éloigné des bêtes roses. Inutile de frapper du doigt contre la vitre, sous leur nez, jamais la moindre réaction. Les yeux d’or continuaient à brûler de leur douce et terrible lumière, continuaient à me regarder du fond d’un abîme insondable qui me donnait le vertige.

 

Et cependant les axolotls étaient proches de nous. Je le savais avant même de devenir un axolotl. Je le sus dès le jour où je m’approchai d’eux pour la première fois. Les traits anthropomorphiques d’un singe accusent la différence qu’il y a entre lui et nous, contrairement à ce que pensent la plupart des gens. L’absence totale de ressemblance entre un axolotl et un être humain me prouva que ma reconnaissance

était valable, que je ne m’appuyais pas sur des analogies faciles. Il y avait bien les petites mains. Mais un lézard a les mêmes mains et ne ressemble en rien à l’homme. Je crois que tout venait de la tête des axolotls, de sa forme triangulaire rose et de ses petits yeux d’or. Cela regardait et savait. Cela réclamait. Les axolotls n’étaient pas des animaux.

 

De là à tomber dans la mythologie, il n’y avait qu’un pas, facile à franchir, presque inévitable. Je finis par voir dans les axolotls une métamorphose qui n’arrivait pas à renoncer tout à fait à une mystérieuse humanité. Je les imaginais conscients, esclaves de leur corps, condamnés indéfiniment à un silence abyssal, à une méditation désespérée. Leur regard aveugle, le petit disque d’or inexpressif - et cependant terriblement lucide - me pénétrait comme un message : "Sauve-nous, sauve-nous." Je me surprenais en train de murmurer des paroles de consolation, de transmettre des espoirs puérils. Ils continuaient à me regarder, immobiles. Soudain les petites branches roses se dressaient sur leur tête, et je sentais à ce moment-là comme une douleur sourde. Ils me voyaient peut-être, ils captaient mes efforts pour pénétrer dans l’impénétrable de leur vie. Ce n’étaient pas des êtres humains mais jamais je ne m’étais senti un rapport aussi étroit entre des animaux et moi. Les axolotls étaient comme témoins de quelque chose et parfois ils devenaient de terribles juges. Je me trouvais ignoble devant eux, il y avait dans ces yeux transparents une si effrayante pureté. C’était des larves, mais larve veut dire masque et aussi fantôme. Derrière ces visages aztèques, inexpressifs, et cependant d’une cruauté implacable, quelle image attendait

son heure ?

 

Ils me faisaient peur. Je crois que sans la présence du gardien et des autres visiteurs je n’aurais jamais osé rester devant eux. " Vous les mangez des yeux ", me disait le gardien en riant, et il devait penser que je n’étais pas tout à fait normal. Il ne se rendait pas compte que c’était eux qui me dévoraient lentement des yeux, en un cannibalisme d’or. Loin d’eux je ne pouvais penser à autre chose, comme s’ils m’influençaient à distance. Je finis par y aller tous les jours et la nuit je les imaginais immobiles dans l’obscurité, avançant lentement une petite patte qui rencontrait soudain celle d’un autre. Leurs yeux voyaient peut-être la nuit et le jour pour eux n’avait pas de fin. Les yeux des axolotls n’ont pas de paupières.

 

Maintenant je sais qu’il n’y a rien eu d’étrange dans tout cela, que cela devait arriver. Ils me reconnaissaient un peu plus chaque matin quand je me penchais vers l’aquarium. Ils souffraient. Chaque fibre de mon corps enregistrait cette souffrance bâillonnée, cette torture rigide au fond de l’eau. Ils épiaient quelque chose, un lointain royaume aboli, un temps de liberté où le monde avait appartenu aux axolotls. Une expression aussi terrible qui arrivait à vaincre l’impassibilité forcée de ces visages de pierre contenait sûrement un message de douleur, la preuve de cette condamnation éternelle, de cet enfer liquide qu’ils enduraient. En vain essayai-je de me persuader que c’était ma propre sensibilité qui projetait sur les axolotls une conscience qu’ils n’avaient pas. Eux et moi nous savions. C’est pour cela que ce qui arriva n’est pas étrange. Je collais mon visage à la vitre de l’aquarium, mes yeux essayèrent une fois de plus de percer le mystère de ces yeux d’or sans iris et sans pupille. Je voyais de très près la tête d’un axolotl immobile contre la vitre. Puis mon visage s’éloigna et je compris. Une seule chose était étrange : continuer à penser comme avant, savoir. Quand j’en pris conscience, je ressentis l’horreur de celui qui s’éveille enterré vivant. Au-dehors, mon visage s’approchait à nouveau de la vitre, je voyais ma bouche aux lèvres serrées par l’effort que je faisais pour comprendre les axolotls. J’étais un axolotl et je venais de savoir en un éclair qu’aucune communication n’était possible. Il était hors de l’aquarium, sa pensée était une pensée hors de l’aquarium. Tout en le connaissant, tout en étant lui-même, j’étais un axolotl et j’étais dans mon monde. L’horreur venait de ce que - je le sus instantanément - je me croyais prisonnier dans le corps d’un axolotl, transféré en lui avec ma pensée d’homme, enterré vivant dans un axolotl, condamné à me mouvoir en toute lucidité parmi des créatures insensibles. Mais cette impression ne dura pas, une patte vint effleurer mon visage et en me tournant un peu je vis un axolotl à côté de moi qui me regardait et je compris que lui aussi savait, sans communication possible mais si clairement. Ou bien j’étais encore en l’homme, ou bien nous pensions comme des êtres humains, incapables de nous exprimer, limités à l’éclat doré de nos yeux qui regardaient ce visage d’homme collé à la vitre.

 

Il revint encore plusieurs fois mais il vient moins souvent à présent. Des semaines se passent sans qu’on le voie. Il est venu hier, il m’a regardé longuement et puis il est parti brusquement. Il me semble que ce n’est plus à nous qu’il s’intéresse, qu’il obéit plutôt à une habitude. Comme penser est la seule chose que je puisse faire, je pense beaucoup à lui. Pendant un certain temps nous avons continué d’être en communication lui et moi, et il se sentait plus que jamais lié au mystère qui l’obsédait. Mais les ponts sont coupés à présent, car ce qui était son obsession est devenu un axolotl, étranger à sa vie d’homme. Je crois qu’au début je pouvais encore revenir en lui, dans une certaine mesure - ah ! seulement dans une certaine

mesure - et maintenir éveillé son désir de mieux nous connaître. Maintenant je suis définitivement un axolotl et si je pense comme un être humain c’est tout simplement parce que les axolotls pensent comme les humains sous leur masque de pierre rose. Il me semble que j’étais arrivé à lui communiquer cette vérité, les premiers jours, lorsque j’étais encore en lui. Et dans cette solitude finale vers laquelle il ne revient déjà plus, cela me console de penser qu’il va peut-être écrire quelque chose sur nous ; il croira qu’il invente un conte et il écrira tout cela sur les axolotls.

 

Julio Cortázar (1914-1984)

 

“Ability is what you're capable of doing. Motivation determines what you do. Attitude determines how well you do it." ~ Lou Holtz

 

It was an awful day for morning picture when I took this shot. :(

 

 

I will change the license to several pictures I've uploaded here to "Creative Commons". I use many free Open Source software so it is a way to give back to the wonderful community of the Internet. Thank you all.

 

 

It must have been fun to make this video.

 

..

Let's go all the way tonight

No regrets just love

We can dance until we die

You and I, we'll be young forever

..

You make me feel

Like I'm livin' a

Teenage dream

The way you turn me on

I can't sleep

Let's run away and

Don't ever look back,

Don't ever look back

..

 

Land Rover has a long history of delivering capable and premium offroad vehicles. The Range Rover has set the benchmark for premium offroad (now known as SUV) vehicle types. And, the original Land Rover (recently known as 'Defender') has set the benchmark for capable offroad attributes since its inception in 1948.

 

One thing the Defender isn't is comfortable, stylish, safe or pretty much anything you would use to describe a newly engineered car. Problem is, Land Rover has not been able to identify and produce a replacement vehicle design.

 

A few years ago Land Rover produced a series of concepts, under the title DC 100 (Defender Concept 100) looking at a modern interpretation of the core Land Rover values: offroad capability & robustness.

 

The version shown here was a followup concept, based on the three door DC 100 design.

 

The production version of this vehicle had been due in 2016/17, but at this stage there is no confirmation regarding the vehicle or the production date.

 

What we are left with are some interesting concepts glimpsing the thoughts of one of the original offroad capable product companies.

 

More info can be found at the following wikipedia link:

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Rover_DC100

 

This Lego miniland-scale Land Rover DC 100 Concept - has been created for Flickr LUGNuts' 105th Build Challenge, titled - 'The Great Outdoors!' - a challenge for any vehicle designed for outdoor adventuring.

  

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 electriicty 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.

+++ 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 ASTA (Aerospace Technologies of Australia, formerly Government Aircraft Factories) Baza development was started in 1995 when the Royal Australian Air Force was searching for a two-seat training aircraft that would allow the transition from initial training on piston-engined aircraft to jets, and could also be used for weapon training and CAS/reconnaissance duties.

 

ASTA responded with a low-wing two-turboprop-engined all-metal monoplane with retractable landing gear, capable of operating from unprepared strips when operationally required. The aircraft, internally coded “A-31”, was of conventional, all-metal (mainly duralumin) construction. The unswept cantilever wings have 3° of dihedral and are fitted with slotted trailing-edge flaps.

 

The A-31 had a tandem cockpit arrangement; the crew of two was seated under the upward opening clamshell canopy on Martin-Baker Mk 6AP6A zero/zero ejection seats and were provided with dual controls.

 

Armor plating was fitted to protect the crew and engines from hostile ground fire. The aircraft was powered by a pair of Garrett TPE 331 engines, driving sets of three-bladed propellers which were also capable of being used as air brakes.

 

The A-31 was designed for operations from short, rough airstrips.[The retractable tricycle landing gear, with a single nose wheel and twin main wheels retracting into the engine nacelles, is therefore fitted with low pressure tires to suit operations on rough ground, while the undercarriage legs are tall to give good clearance for underslung weapon loads. The undercarriage, flaps and brakes are operated hydraulically, with no pneumatic systems.

 

Two JATO rockets can be fitted under the fuselage to allow extra-short take-off.

Fuel is fed from two fuselage tanks of combined capacity of 800 L (180 imp gal; 210 US gal) and two self-sealing tanks of 460 L (100 imp gal; 120 US gal) in the wings.

 

Fixed armament of the A-31 consisted of two 30mm Aden cannons mounted under the cockpits with 200 rounds each. A total of nine hardpoints were fitted for the carriage of external stores such as bombs, rockets or external fuel tanks, with one of 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) capacity mounted under the fuselage and the remaining two pairs of 500 kg (1,100 lb) capacity beneath the wing roots and wings inside of the engine nacelles, and two more pairs of hardpoints outside of the engines for another 500 kg and 227 kg, respectively. Total external weapons load was limited to 6,800 lb (3,085 kg) of weapons, though.

Onboard armaments were aimed by a simple reflector sight, since no all weather/night capabilities were called for – even though provisions were made that external sensors could be carried (e. g. a TISEO or a PAVE Spike pod).

 

Severe competition arose through the BAe Hawk, though: the Royal Australian Air Force ordered 33 Hawk 127 Lead-in Fighters (LIFs) in June 1997, 12 of which were produced in the UK and 21 in Australia – and this procurement severely hampered the A-31’s progress. The initial plan to build 66 aircraft for domestic use, with prospects for export, e. g. to Sri Lanka, Indonesia or Turkey, was cut down to a mere 32 aircraft which were to be used in conjunction with the Australian Army in the FAC role and against mobile ground targets.

 

This extended role required an upgrade with additional avionics, an optional forward looking infrared (FLIR) sensor and a laser ranger in an extended nose section, which lead to the Mk. II configuration - effectively, only five machines were produced as Mk.I types, and they were updated to Mk. II configuration even before delivery to the RAAF in August 1999.

 

Since then, the ASTA A-31 has been used in concunction with RAAF's Pilatus PC-9 and BAe Hawk Mk. 127 trainers. Beyond educational duties the type is also employed for Fleet support to Navy operations and for close air support to Army operations.

 

The 'Baza' (christened by a small sized bird of prey found in the forests of South Asia and Southeast Asia) has even seen serious military duty and already fired in anger: since August 2007, a detachment of No. 114 Mobile Control and Reporting Unit RAAF has been on active service at Kandahar Airfield in southern Afghanistan, and a constant detachment of six A-31's from RAAF 76 Suqadron has been assigned to armed reconnaissance and protection of approximately 75 personnel deployed with the AN/TPS-77 radar, assigned the responsibility to co-ordinate coalition air operations.

  

General characteristics

Crew: 2

Length (incl. Pitot): 14.69 m (48 ft 1 ½ in)

Wingspan: 14.97 m (49 ft)

Height: 3, 75 m (12 ft 3 in)

Wing area: 30.30 m2 (326.1 sq ft)

Aspect ratio: 6.9:1

Airfoil: NACA 642A215 at root, NACA641 at tip

Empty weight: 4,020 kg (8,863 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 6,800 kg (14,991 lb)

Internal fuel capacity: 1,280 L (280 imp gal; 340 US gal)

 

Powerplant:

2 × Garrett TPE 331-11U-601G turboprop engines, 820 kW (1.100 hp) each

 

Performance

Maximum speed: 515 km/h (311 mph; 270 kn) at 4.570 m (15.000 ft)

Cruising speed: 430 km/h (267 mph; 232 kn) at 2.500 m (8.200 ft)

Stall speed: 143 km/h (89 mph; 77 kn) (flaps and undercarriage down)

Never exceed speed: 750 km/h (466 mph; 405 kn)

Range:1.611 km (1.000 mi; 868 nmi), clean and internal fuel only

Ferry range: 3,710 km (2,305 mi; 2,003 nmi) max internal and external fuel

Service ceiling: 10,000 m (32,808 ft)

g limits: +6/-3 g

Rate of climb: 6.5 m/s (1.276 ft/min)

 

Armament

2× 30 mm ADEN cannons in the lower nose

Up to 6,800 lb (3,085 kg) of weapons on nine external hardpoints

  

The kit and its assembly:

Like many of my whifs, this was spawned by a project at whatifmodelers.com from fellow user silverwindblade that ran under the handle "COIN aircraft from a Hawk" - and in fact, the BAe Hawk's fuselage with its staggered cockpit and good field of view appears as a good basis for a conversion.

 

I liked the idea VERY much, and while silverwindblade's work would rather develop into a futuristic canard layout aircraft, I decided to keep the COIN aircraft rather conservative - the FMA 58 'Pucara' from Argentina would be a proper benchmark.

 

The basis here is the Italeri BAe Hawk Mk. 127 kit which comes with the longer nose and modified wings for the RAAF version, as well as with false decals.

Anyway, I'd only use the fuselage, anything else is implanted, partly from unlikely donation kits! Wings incl. engine nacelles and stablizers come from the vintage box scale (1:166?) Revell Convair R3Y-2 Tradewind flying boat(!), the fin from an Academy OV-10 Bronco.

The landing gear was puzzled together, among other from parts of a 1:200 Concorde, the propellers were scratched.

 

Biggest mod to the fuselage is the dissection of the air intakes (and their blending with the fuselage) as well as a new tail section where the Adour jet engine's exhaust had been.

  

Painting and markings:

This model was agood excuse to finally apply an SIOP color scheme, which was originally carried by USAF's strategic bombers like B-52 or FB-111. But what actually inspired me were Australian C-130s - it took some time to figure out that their scheme were the USAF's SIOP colors (FS 34201, 34159 and 34079). But that made the Baza's potential user's choice (and fictional origin) easy.

 

As a COIN role aircraft I settled on a wraparound scheme. I found a pattern scheme on an USN Aggerssor A-4 Skyhawk that had been painted in SIOP colors, too, and adapted it for the model. Basic colors were Humbrol 31, 84 and 116, good approximations - the result looks odd, but suits the Baza well.

 

Later, panels were emphasized through dry painting with lighter shades and a light black ink wash was applied.

 

The landing gear became classic white, the cockpit interior medium gray - nothing fancy.

 

The markings were improvised - the Italeri Hawk Mk. 127 features RAAF 'roos, but these are printed in black - wrong for the OOB kit, but very welcome on my aircraft. The rest was salvaged from the scrap box, the tactical code A-31-06 created with single letters from TL Modellbau.

+++ 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 North American FJ-4 Fury was a swept-wing carrier-capable fighter-bomber for the United States Navy and Marine Corps. The final development in a lineage that included the Air Force's F-86 Sabre, the FJ-4 shared its general layout and engine with the earlier FJ-3, but, compared to that of the FJ-3, the FJ-4's new wing was much thinner, with a six percent thickness-to-chord ratio, and featured skin panels milled from solid alloy plates. It also had an increased area and tapered more sharply towards the tips. Slight camber behind the leading edge improved low speed characteristics. The main landing gear design had to be considerably modified to fold wheel and strut within the contours of the new wing. The track of the main wheels was increased, and because they were closer to the center of gravity, there was less weight on the nosewheel. Wing folding was limited to the outer wing panels.

 

The FJ-4 was intended as an all-weather interceptor, a role that required considerable range on internal fuel. The FJ-4 had 50% more fuel capacity than the FJ-3 and was lightened by omitting armor and reducing ammunition capacity. The new wing was "wet"; that is, it provided for integral fuel tankage. The fuselage was deepened to add more fuel and had a distinctive "razorback" rear deck. A modified cockpit made the pilot more comfortable during the longer missions. The tail surfaces were also extensively modified, had a thinner profile and featured an extended, taller fin. The overall changes resulted in an aircraft that had little in common with the earlier models, although a family resemblance was still present.

 

The FJ-4 was developed into a family of aircraft. Of the original order for 221 FJ-4 day fighters, the last 71 were modified into the FJ-4B fighter-bomber version. This had a stronger wing with six instead of four underwing stations and stronger landing gear. Additional aerodynamic brakes under the aft fuselage made landing safer by allowing pilots to use higher thrust settings and were also useful for dive attacks. External load was doubled. The most important characteristic of the FJ-4B was, since the Navy was eager to maintain a nuclear role in its rivalry with the Air Force, that it was capable of carrying a nuclear weapon on the inboard port station. For the delivery of nuclear weapons, the FJ-4B was equipped with the Low-Altitude Bombing System (LABS), and with this capability it replaced the carrier-based A-3 Skywarrior bombers, which were not suited well for the new low-level approach tactics.

 

In April 1956, the Navy ordered 151 more FJ-4Bs, 10 US Navy squadrons became equipped with the FJ-4B, and the type was also flown by three Marine squadrons. At the same time, the Navy requested a carrier-borne fighter with all-weather capability, radar-guided missiles and a higher performance. This new type was to replace several 1st generation US Navy jets, including the ponderous and heavy Douglas F3D Skyknight, the lackluster Vought F7U as well as the Grumman F9F-8 Cougar. This requirement led to the Douglas F4D Skyray and North American’s FJ-5, another thorough modification of the Fury’s basic design and its eventual final evolution stage.

 

North American’s FJ-5 was designed with compact dimensions in mind, so that the type could be operated on older Essex Class carriers, which offered rather limited storage and lift space. At the time of the FJ-5’s conception, several of these carriers were still in service – and this argument led to an order for the FJ-5 in addition to the F4D.

 

For the FJ-5, the FJ-4’s aerodynamic surfaces were retained, but the fuselage had to be modified considerably in order to accept an APQ-50A radar with a parabolic 24 inches diameter antenna in the nose. The radome was placed above the air intake, similar to the F-86D, and coupled with an Aero 13F fire-control system, which together provided full all-weather capability and information on automatic firing of rockets.

A deeper rear fuselage became necessary, too, because the FJ-5 was powered by a reheated J65-W-18 engine (a development of the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojet, optimized for a naval environment), which delivered up to 10,500 lbf (47 kN) at full power instead of the FJ-4’s original 7,700 lbf (34 kN). This upgrade had, limited by the airframe’s aerodynamics, only marginal impact on the aircraft’s top speed, but the extra power almost doubled its initial rate of climb, slightly raised the service ceiling and markedly improved acceleration and carrier operations handling through a better response to throttle input and a higher margin of power reserves.

 

Internal armament still consisted of four 20mm cannon. These had to be placed lower in the nose now, flanking the air intake underneath the radome. The FJ-4B’s six underwing hardpoints were retained and could carry AIM-9 Sidewinders (both the IR-guided AIM-9B as well as the Semi-Active Radar Homing (SARH) AIM-9C) as well as the new radar-guided medium-range AIM-7C Sparrow, even though the latter only on the outer pylons, limiting their number to four. Up to six pods with nineteen unguided 70 mm/2.75” unguided Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket (Mighty Mouse FFARs) were another armament option.

 

Beyond these air-to-air weapons, a wide range of other ordnance could be carried. This included the AGM-12 “Bullpup” guided missile (which necessitated a guidance pod on the right inner wing hardpoint), bombs or napalm tanks of up to 1.000 lb caliber, missile pods, drop tanks and ECM pods. The FJ-4B’s strike capabilities were mostly retained, even though the dedicated fighter lost the ability to carry and deliver nuclear weapons in order to save weight and internal space for the radar equipment.

 

The first FJ-5, a converted early FJ-4, made its maiden flight in April 1958. After a short and successful test phase, the type was quickly put into production and introduced to service with US Navy and US Marine Corps units. The new fighter was quickly nicknamed “Fury Dog” by its crews, a reminiscence of the USAF’s F-86D “Sabre Dog” and its characteristic nose section, even though the FJ-5 was officially still just called “Fury”, like its many quite different predecessors.

 

With the new unified designation system adopted in 1962, the FJ-4 became the F-1E, the FJ-4B the AF-1E and the FJ-5 the F-1F. From the prolific Fury family, only the FJ-5/F-1F became involved in a hot conflict: in late 1966, the USMC deployed F-1Fs to Vietnam, where they primarily flew escort and top cover missions for fighter bombers (esp. A-4 Skyhawks) from Da Nang AB, South Vietnam, plus occasional close air support missions (CAS) on their own. The Marines’ F-1Fs remained in Vietnam until 1970, with a single air-to-air victory (a North-Vietnamese MiG-17 was shot down with a Sidewinder missile), no losses and only one aircraft seriously damaged by anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) fire.

 

After this frontline experience, a radar upgrade with an AN/APQ-124 was briefly considered but never carried out, since the F-1F showed the age of the original Fifties design – the type already lacked overall performance for an all-weather fighter that could effectively engage supersonic bomber targets or low flying attack aircraft. However, the aircraft was still popular because of its ruggedness, good handling characteristics and compact dimensions.

Other upgrades that would improve the F-1F’s strike capability, e. g. additional avionics to deploy the AGM-62 Walleye glide bomb or the new AGM-65 Maverick, esp. the USMC’s laser-guided AGM-65E variant, were also rejected, because more capable types for both interceptor and attack roles, namely the Mach 2 Douglas F-4 Phantom II and the LTV A-7 Corsair II, had been introduced in the meantime.

Another factor that denied any updates were military budget cuts. Furthermore, the contemporary F-8 Crusader offered a better performance and was therefore selected in favor of the F-1F to be updated to the H-L variants. In the wake of this decision, all F-1Fs still in Navy service were, together with the decommission of the last Essex Class carriers, in 1975 handed over to the USMC in order to purge the Navy’s inventory and simplify maintenance and logistics.

 

FJ-4 and FJ-4B Fury fighter bombers served with United States Naval Reserve units until the late 1960s, while the F-1F soldiered on with the USMC until the early Eighties, even though only in reserve units. A considerable number had the heavy radar equipment removed and replaced by ballast in the late Seventies, and they were used as fighter-bombers, for dissimilar air combat training (simulating Soviet fighter types like the MiG-17 and -19), as high-speed target tugs or as in-flight refueling tankers, since the FJ-5 inherited this capability from the FJ-4, with up to two buddy packs under the wings. A few machines survived long enough to receive a new low-visibility livery.

 

However, even in the USMC reserve units, the FJ-5 was soon replaced by A-4 Skyhawks, due to the age of the airframes and further fleet reduction measures. The last F-1F was retired in 1982, ending the long career of North American’s F-86 design in US service.

 

A total of 1,196 Furies of all variants were received by the Navy and Marine Corps over the course of its production life, including 152 FJ-4s, 222 FJ-4Bs and 102 FJ-5s.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 40 ft 3 in (12.27 m)

Wingspan: 39 ft 1 in (11.9 m)

Height: 13 ft 11 in (4.2 m)

Wing area: 338.66 ft² (31.46 m²)

Empty weight: 13,518 lb (6,132 kg)

Gross weight: 19,975 lb (9,060 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 25,880 lb (11,750 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Wright J65-W-18 turbojet with 7,400 lbf (32.9 kN) dry thrust

and 10,500 lbf (46.7 kN) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 708 mph (1,139 km/h, 615 kn) at sea level,

737 mph (1,188 km/h/Mach 0.96) at height

Range: 2,020 mi (3,250 km) with 2× 200 gal (760 l) drop tanks and 2× AIM-9 missiles

Service ceiling: 49,750 ft (15,163 m)

Rate of climb: 12,150 ft/min (61.7 m/s)

Wing loading: 69.9 lb/ft² (341.7 kg/m²)

 

Armament:

4× 20 mm (0.787 in) Colt Mk 12 cannon (144 RPG, 578 rounds in total)

6× underwing hardpoints for 3,000 lb (1,400 kg) of ordnance, including AIM-9 and AIM-7 missiles

  

The kit and its assembly:

A project I had on the agenda for a long time. But, due to the major surgeries involved, I have been pushing it away – until the “In the navy” group build at whatifmolders.com came along in early 2020. So I collected my courage, dusted off the donor kits that had already been stashed away for years, and eventually started work.

 

The original inspiration was the F-8 Crusader’s career: I really like the look of the late RF-8s, which were kept long enough in service to receive the Eighties’ Low-Viz USN “Compass Ghost” livery. This looks cool, but also a little wrong. And what if the FJ-4B had been kept in service long enough to receive a similar treatment…?

 

In order to justify a career extension, I made up an all-weather development of the FJ-4B with a radar and a more powerful engine, a kind of light alternative to the Vought A-7. A plausible solution was a mix of FJ-4B and F-86D parts – this sounds easy, but both aircraft and their respective model kits actually have only VERY little in common.

 

At its core, the FJ-5 model is a kitbashing of parts from an Emhar FJ-4B (Revell re-boxing) and an Airfix F-86D. The FJ-4B provided the raised cockpit section with the canopy, spine and fin in the form of a complete transplant, which furthermore had to be extended by about 1cm/0.5” because the F-86D is longer than the Fury. The FJ-4B also provided its wings, stabilizers and the landing gear. The Fury’s ventral arrester hook section, a separate part, was also transferred into the F-86D’s lower rear fuselage, under the openings for the air brakes.

For a more lively look, the (thick!) Fury canopy was sawed into two pieces for open display and the flaps were lowered, too.

 

The cockpit was taken from the Airfix kit, since it would fit well into the lower fuselage and it looked much better than their respective counterparts from the relatively basic Emhar kit, which just comes with a narrow board with a strange, bulky seat-thing. As an extra, the cockpit received side consoles, a scratched gunsight and a different ejection seat that raised the pilot’s position into the Fury’s higher canopy.

 

Since the F-1F was supposed to be a fighter, still equipped with the radar set, I retained the OOB pylons from the Fury with its four launch rails. For an aircraft late in the career, I gave it a reduced ordnance, though, just a pair of drop tanks (left over from a Matchbox F3D Skyknight; I wanted something more slender than the stubby OOB drop tanks from the Emhar Fury kit), plus a better Sidewinder training round (hence its blue body) and a single red ACMI data pod on the outer pylons, as an aerial combat training outfit and nice color highlights on the otherwise dull/grey aircraft.

  

Painting and markings:

As mentioned above, the idea for livery was a vintage aircraft in modern, subdued markings. So I adapted the early USN Compass Ghost scheme, and the F-1F received a two-tone livery in FS 36320 and 36375 (Dark and Light Compass Ghost Grey, Humbrol 128 and 127, respectively) with a high, wavy waterline and a light fin. In front of the cockpit, a slightly darker anti-glare panel in Humbrol 145 (FS 35237) was added, inspired by early USN F-14s in Compass Ghost camouflage.

The radome was painted with Humbrol 156, for a slightly darker/different shade of grey than the aircraft’s upper surfaces – I considered a black or a beige (unpainted glass fiber) radome first, but that would have been a very harsh contrast to the rest.

 

The landing gear as well as the air intake duct were painted glossy white (Humbrol 22), the cockpit became medium grey (Humbrol 140, Dark Gull Gray). The inside of the air brakes as well es the edges of the flaps, normally concealed when they are retracted, were painted in bright red (Humbrol 174). The same tone was also used to highlight the edges of the land gear covers.

 

The grey leading edges on the wings the stabilizers were created with decal sheet strips (generic material from TL Modellbau), the gun blast plates were made with silver decal material.

In order to give the model a worn look, I applied a black ink wash, an overall, light treatment with graphite and some post shading. Some extra graphite was applied around the exhaust and the gun nozzles.

 

The markings were taken for an USMC A-4E/F from a Revell kit (which turned out to be a bit bluish). I wanted a consequent dull/toned-down look, typical for early Compass Ghost aircraft. Later, colored highlights, roundels and squadron markings crept back onto the aircraft, but in the early Eighties many USN/USMC machines were consequently finished in a grey-in-grey livery.

 

Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and the ordnance added.

  

Well, the end result looks simple, but creating this kitbashed Fury all-weather fighter was pretty demanding. Even though both the Fury and the F-86D are based on the same aircraft, they are completely different, and the same is also true for the model kits. It took major surgeries and body sculpting to weld the parts together. But I am quite happy with the outcome, the fictional F-1F looks pretty conclusive and natural, also in the (for this aircraft) unusual low-viz livery.

 

+++ 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?