View allAll Photos Tagged kitbash
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
How it came to be:
It has been a long time since I built a "real" airplane kit, and this one here is a one-of-a-kind. After a bleak phase with lots of reading about German WWII airplane projects I found a spark to fire up a project I kept in the back of my mind for a long time: building one of these semi-fictional WWII airplanes from scratch. These astonishing designs were on the drawing boards at their time and rarely made it beyond that. Only a few reached prototype status at the end of the war, but today these partly weird designs are the basis of today's Luft '46 model kit genre: What-if airplanes, based on sketches, construction plans and pure speculation, in the case the war would have gone on.
At this point I want to make clear that this kit has NO political background. It is not even intended, and any Nazi symbolism is intentionally avoided and rejected. It is rather a hommage to an impressive design and, from my personal point of view, pure science fiction, based on vague historic facts.
Some historic background on this plane:
This plane is a Focke-Wulf study from 1941 for a heavy fighter. It was developes shortly after the Fw 190 introduction and surely influenced by the twin-boom Fw 189 reconnaissance aircraft, which became very popular due to its high agility, stable flight characteristics and toughness against enemy fire. The small "Flitzer" turbine engine fighter will surely also have had some impact, since it was on Focke Wulf's drawing boards in 1943, too.
This beast here would have been a much larger airplane, though: a heavy, high performance fighter built around the potent BMW 803 engine: a 28 cylinder, liquid-cooled radial engine in the 4.000 hp output range - comparable to the P&W-R-4360 Wasp Major engine (the so-called "corncob") which actually found its way into the Vought F2G Corsair but "just" put out 3.000 hp.
For reference, this Focke Wulf design was quite comparable to the US American XP-54, both in design and performance
The Focke Wulf fighter never received an official designation, and saw some mutation in the course of 1943. Even though the basic layout as a twin-boom, single pusher engine airplane with a tricycle landing gear was retained, the radiator placements, wing and tail shape changed.
From the original 1941 annular radiator design (a ring opening around the central fuselage), the arrangement was modified in April 1943 to a single drum radiator in the nose and, alternatively, twin drum radiators in the front ends of the tailbooms. The latter design is the layout I chose for my model, or better: where I ended up (see below).
Valuable sources:
Walter Schick, Ingolf Meyer: Luftwaffe Secret Projects, Fighters 1939-1945, Hinckley, 2005 (this is an English translation of the original German edition, Stuttgart, 1994, but with many colored illustrations added).
Sundin, Claes; Bergstroem, Christer: Deutsche Jaqgdflugzeuge 1939-1945 in Farbprofilen, Bonn, 1999.
www.luft46.com - a great online institution which offers many facts, information and artwork about secret German WWII airplane designs like this one - you can find a nice CG graphic of the initial 1941 design of this machine there.
wp.scn.ru - "Wings Palette" - a Russian website which collects plane profiles and some details about the respective machine's history. A nice reference archive, since a lot information concerning colors can be found there, too. Handling is poor, though. But once you get it, it is a great model kit building source.
The construction:
Anyway, this Focke Wulf design never left the drawing board, and this model here is just an interpretation of the vague design sketches I found in literature. It is also limited by the use of various existing kits as a kitbashing basis. My idea was to build a what-if version of the airplane if it had entered service, which would allow some deviations from the blueprints and also leave some room for a semi-realistic Luftwaffe livery.
What went into this model:
Grumman Panther (1:72, Matchbox/Revell):
- Main body,
- Parts of the outer wings
- Cockpit interior
- Canopy
Lockheed P-38E Lightning (1:72; Airfix):
- Tailbooms
- Horizontal fin
- Cockpit parts
- Landing gear
- Propeller spinners
Messerschmidt Me 262 A-2a (1:72, Hobby Master):
- Outer wings
- Wheels
Dornier Do 217N (1:72, Italeri):
- Engine cowling (rear central fuselage)
- Propellers
Other smaller donations:
- Kamow Ka-25 (1:72, Airfix): Vertical fins
- Chance Vought XF5U-1 (1:72, Hasegawa): Propeller spinners
- Chance Vought F4U (1:72, Matchbox): Engine block
- Messerschmidt Me-110 (1:72, Matchbox): Pilot figure
...and a lot of small stuff of unknown origin!
Laying the foundations
The basic choice for donation kits was quickly done: the central body would come from the Grumman F9F-4 Panther kit from Matchbox (currently released by Revell). Its overall proportions match well with the Focke Wulf design's central body and its size well, and the kit's construction with folded wings and a separate tail fin allowed easy modification for the pusher engine layout.
Originally, I wanted to use the Panther's jet intakes as radiator openings for a fictional (and more elegant) design alternative to the "official" radiator solutions, but I had to skip this idea (see below). The slender tailbooms come from a vintage Airfix P-38H kit and are much more slender than the Focke Wulf designs. Furthermore, the original Focke Wulf main landing gear looks as if it would retract inwards - which collided with my intial radiator ideas! Due to the pusher propeller, a much longer landing gear than the Panther's wpould be necessary, and this would have needed much bigger compartments. Enlarging them appeared too complex, and there's be actually no space with my inital wing root radiator idea. Therefore, I decided to retract the main wheels into the twin booms, and the P-38 pieces were just perfect for my ideas (and at hand). They'd undergo major modifications, though.
The twin booms were to be mounted onto the Panther's inner wings, and from there the rest of the model design would come when the parts were needed or available, since matching proportions for a balanced look is an important aspect when you build from scratch - a lesson I learned through varioius mecha bashings and modifications. I had some plans though: for the outer wings, for instance, I considered straight wings from a Fw 190 or parts from a Do 335 "Arrow", since these are slightly swept and would match the original drawings quite well.
The body parts get assembled
Work started straightforward with the tailbooms: they needed total cleaning, so that the P-38 look would disappear as much as possible: intercooolers and turbochargers had to go, and the engines were to "disappear", too. The Airfix kit is pretty old and clumsy, but offers massive material to work with. Another positive aspect is that the main landing gear compartments are complete parts, including the doors and all the inside. A neat arrangement which would later allow a switch between extended and retracted wheels!
The Panther's fuselage was cut open at the rear end to hold the BMW 803 engine, which requiered a new cowling. This came from a Dornier Do 217 with BMW 801 engines from Italeri, the BMW 803 dummy inside comes from a Matchbox F4U kit. The diameters of both segments were pretty equal and were easily merged with putty.
The Panther's front end was taken as it is, including the cockpit. The latter is actually very detailed for a Matchbox kit, with side consoles, a dashboard with instruments and even steering stick is included. I just fitted a better seat and a WWII pilot figure, which received an oxygen mask and its head was turned left for a more vivid look.
Since the front wheel had to be much longer than the Panther pieces I decided to use the P-38 front landing gear. Consequently, I enlarged its compartment (towards the nose, with a transplanted interior) and moved the Panther's nose guns from their original low position upwards. The kit's nose was filled with lots of lead in order to ensure a good weight on the front wheel for free standing on its tricycle undercarriage.
The BMW 803's contraprops had to be built from scratch. The basis were two leftover three-bladed rotors from the aforementioned Do 217 Italeri kit (they had just the correct diameter!) for the static display version, and two transparent plastic discs of the same diameter in order to mimic running propellers for photo shooting purposes in flight.
The spinners were a nightmare, though. They come from a wrecked 1:72 Hasegawa kit of a Chance Vought XF5U-1 (The "Flying Pancake"). Cut into three pieces, the three-bladed props were implanted into the spinner segments and a metal axis inserted, so that the propellers can be moved and interchanged. A plastic tube inside of the engine dummy is the respective adapter and offers a stable hold.
Trouble! ...and even more trouble!
As rough work progressed, some fundamental problems became obvious:
a) the P-38 booms were too long at their front, and their diameter was much too large. Cutting the front ends off did not help much, since I would have had to create new front covers/noses from putty and their bulky shape would look very unsinspired - way off of the Focke Wulf design! Hence, I finally decided to switch my personal design plan from the wing root intake arrangement to the authetic twin drum radiator layout from April 1943.
The Panther's air intakes would be totally closed, leaving pretty "fat" wing roots of high thickness. But since armament was supposed to be loacted in both the nose and wing roots of this machine (see below), this offered a good chance to cover the mess up a little.
Finding something to act as drum radiators was another problem that followed suit! At first I thought I'd become happy with two leftover engines from a Matchbox PB4-Y2 Privateer in 1:72 scale. These are/were actually Twin Wasp radial engines, but their diameter, the grates inside and their cooling flaps made them suited for my kit. They fitted well, but it just did not look right (see some of the WIP pics).
Heavy-hearted I skipped this approach and also built the drums radiators from scratch. I finally found some good parts in model railraod equipment: in a HO Modulars set from Cornerstone with various roof detils for industrial buildings, I found two nice "tubs" (parts for motorized vents) which were merged with lots of putty and sanding onto the clipped tail booms. The radiator arrangement inside was made up from parts from a 1:72 scale Panzer IV(!) and from the Airfix P-38 spinners. The cooling flaps are very thin Plasticard. Comparing this solution with the original plane sketches, the result looks convicing and more "realistic" than originally planned! Whew...
b) The wing root/twin boom area was another source of headaches, since I had to merge parts that were never supposed to meet, in places even less intended for construction. But a mini drill with a diamond cutter and epoxy putty are wonderful things!
Spacers between the Panther hull and the booms had to be made, closing a 5mm gap on each side because the propeller needed this much space between the booms. Parts of the leftover Panther kit's outer wings were the basis, and the original P-38's horizonmtal fin could be used, too. Sound simple, but almost the complete area had to be remodeled with putty.
The big picture becomes clear(er)
Now that the main part of the body was finished, the final missing pieces could be added and first details defined.
For the outer wings, I finally settled on parts from a Me 262 from Hobby Boss. These have the advantage that they are massive pieces (not two halves, as usual) and that the Me 262's engine nacelles could easily be left away. As a result, I had two thin, slightly swept wings which could easily be cut into the right length for my project. Fixing them to the P-38 tail booms was another story, though!
The original Focke Wulf design uses simpler and thicker wings, which look very similar to the Do 335. But I justify my choice with the advancements in aerodynamics since the 1943 revision of the original plane's design and the effective introduction of the Me 262 into production and service. Using these parts or a similar design for high speeds in another airplane appears plausible in order to get this machine into the air quickly, and the slender Me 262 wings blend well with the angles of the inner wings from the Panther.
The vertical fins also puzzled me for some time. The round P-38 fins had definitively to go, but the different Focke Wulf design sketches did not show a definitive vertical fin shape or arrangement. Since I wanted an old-fashioned, not jet-like look, I went for parts from the scrap box again. And, believe it or not, the model's retro-looking vertical fins actually come from a helicopter: from an antique 1:72 scale Kamow Ka-25 "Hokum" from Airfix!
The main landing gear was taken from the P-38, but the wheels come from the scrap box. I am not sure where these come from - they could come from a Douglas Skyknight from Matchbox. Since the Airfix kit's contruction offers the main landing gear to be inserted as complete units, I also used the covers for the retracted gear for the photo shootings, for some pictures in flight.
Armament:
Being a heavy daylight fighter, I stuck to the original 1941 design armament: four fixed 20mm MG 151/20 in the nose, plus "provision for two larger calibre cannons", plus two or four machine guns installed in the wing-roots. The firepower would have been massive!
For my model I adopted the four 20mm guns in the upper nose and added four 30mm MK 103 cannons in the wing roots. Since these offered now lots of space, this arrangement would make the thick wing and the blended bodywork plausible, without looking exagerrated.
The nose guns are just thin polystyrol sticks, the larger calibre guns are syringe needles cut to length with the beloved diamond cutter.
But beyond the guns, I also wanted to add some of the experimental air-to-air weapons that were under development against allied bomber forces in 1945. Among those was the world's probably first guided AAM, the Kramer X-4: a relatively small, wire-guided missile with a range of just 3 miles and a contact detonator.
Tests with this innovative weapon were conducted in the late war months, and the X-4 was suppoesed to be carried by e. g. Me 262 fighters. The targeting procedure would easily overstress a single pilot's capabilities, though, esp. in the heat of a bomber formation attack at high speeds. Therefore, field tests were rather performed by multi-seated planes like the Ju 88, and the X-4 did not enter serious service.
But this missile would have been a plausible weapon for this Focke Wulf design, and so two X-4s found their way with starting racks under my model's wings.
Each missile consists of nine parts and had to be built from scratch. The body is a streamlined, modern 250 lbs. Mk 81 bomb, the wings were cut from thin polystyrol. The wire spools on the wing tips are actually parts from a HO scale fence(!), the acoustic detonator nose are leftover tool handles from a 1:35 scale tank kit.
Livery and markings:
Being a semi-fictional design that never left the drawing board, I tried to implement a "typical" late war Luftwaffe livery. Benchmarks were Me 262 fighter paint schemes, as well as late Fw 190D-9 and Ta-152 machines. Since the plane itself was already centre of attraction, the paint job should be rather subtle, yet authentic.
All interior areas (cockpit, engine, landing gear) were painted in RLM 02. For the outside I ended up with a basic livery in RLM 74/75/76, using colors from Testor's Military Models and Figures range, 2071, 2084, 2085, 2086.
The upper splinter scheme with faded/mottled fuselage sides (which includes RLM 02 in order to create a soft color transition from the dark upper sides into the light RLM 76 underneath, a common practice in field conditions) was derived from a Me 262 profile. This machine also contributed the dark green (RLM 82) color fields on the nose and other fuselage parts. These would not have been standard livery, I think, rather improvised in the field. But this subtle detail prevents the plane from being all grey-in-grey.
The markings come from various decal sheets and were a kind of challenge. I intended to mark this machine as being part of an Erprobungskommando (test unit), or EKdo or EK, for short. But these squadrons would not have special designations, though. Prototypes woud carry a "V"-number (for Versuch/test), but I wanted a machine already in service. So I made up a semi-fictional squadron marking as a part of the late Reich defense.
Typical markings are the colored band at the rear fuselage, its color and scheme being associated with certain Jagdgeschwader (JG) wings, dedicated to interception tasks. The red tail band(s) denote this machine as being part of JG 1, which comprised several Staffeln/groups and squadrons with individual emblems. The JG 1's red tail band would not have been used in the late war years in real life, but, hey, it LOOKS good, and we're finally doing fictional things here! As a side note, JG 1 was the only wing (to be exact: 1./JG 1 and later, in April 1945 III./JG 1) to use the He 162 Salamender jet fighter, so JG 1 appears to be a general plausible choice for this fictional Focke Wulf fighter.
The red wave symbol should, AFAIK, mark the 2nd group of that wing, but it could also be a symbol for the pilot's rank - that's quite obscure and had not been handled consistently. For squadron markings I setlled on 6./JG 1 - the red wyvern was this group's squadron emblem.
Decals come from aftermarkets sheet from TL-Modellbau (superb quality) and others i e. from a MiG-25 from Hasegawa (the red bort number) or the leftover decal sheet of the Hobby Boss Me 262 (mostly stencellings and warning signs).
After application of the decals on the semi-matte paint, everything was sealed under matte varnish.
The X-4 missiles were painted in a color livery I found for a museum X-4. Other test missiles were painted in black and white, checkered. Not sure if the field use missiles would have looked that bright, but for a test unit, the blank fuselage and the hi-vis, orange fins look just right and make a nice contrast to the dull rest of the machine.
Finally...
Lots of work, but the result looks better and more harmonious than I expected. O.K., the Panther's fuselage and cockpit deviate from the Focke Wulf sketches - but the plane I built would have had entered service 3 years after its redesign to the drum radiator design, and details like the bubble canopy or more modern weaponry would have certainly been incorporated.
The finish is not as good as a kit "out of the box", but considering the massive putty work, this machine looks quite good :)
And, after all, it is a fictional design!
+++ 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 OV-10 Bronco was initially conceived in the early 1960s through an informal collaboration between W. H. Beckett and Colonel K. P. Rice, U.S. Marine Corps, who met at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California, and who also happened to live near each other. The original concept was for a rugged, simple, close air support aircraft integrated with forward ground operations. At the time, the U.S. Army was still experimenting with armed helicopters, and the U.S. Air Force was not interested in close air support.
The concept aircraft was to operate from expedient forward air bases using roads as runways. Speed was to be from very slow to medium subsonic, with much longer loiter times than a pure jet. Efficient turboprop engines would give better performance than piston engines. Weapons were to be mounted on the centerline to get efficient aiming. The inventors favored strafing weapons such as self-loading recoilless rifles, which could deliver aimed explosive shells with less recoil than cannons, and a lower per-round weight than rockets. The airframe was to be designed to avoid the back blast.
Beckett and Rice developed a basic platform meeting these requirements, then attempted to build a fiberglass prototype in a garage. The effort produced enthusiastic supporters and an informal pamphlet describing the concept. W. H. Beckett, who had retired from the Marine Corps, went to work at North American Aviation to sell the aircraft.
The aircraft's design supported effective operations from forward bases. The OV-10 had a central nacelle containing a crew of two in tandem and space for cargo, and twin booms containing twin turboprop engines. The visually distinctive feature of the aircraft is the combination of the twin booms, with the horizontal stabilizer that connected them at the fin tips. The OV-10 could perform short takeoffs and landings, including on aircraft carriers and large-deck amphibious assault ships without using catapults or arresting wires. Further, the OV-10 was designed to take off and land on unimproved sites. Repairs could be made with ordinary tools. No ground equipment was required to start the engines. And, if necessary, the engines would operate on high-octane automobile fuel with only a slight loss of power.
The aircraft had responsive handling and could fly for up to 5½ hours with external fuel tanks. The cockpit had extremely good visibility for both pilot and co-pilot, provided by a wrap-around "greenhouse" that was wider than the fuselage. North American Rockwell custom ejection seats were standard, with many successful ejections during service. With the second seat removed, the OV-10 could carry 3,200 pounds (1,500 kg) of cargo, five paratroopers, or two litter patients and an attendant. Empty weight was 6,969 pounds (3,161 kg). Normal operating fueled weight with two crew was 9,908 pounds (4,494 kg). Maximum takeoff weight was 14,446 pounds (6,553 kg).
The bottom of the fuselage bore sponsons or "stub wings" that improved flight performance by decreasing aerodynamic drag underneath the fuselage. Normally, four 7.62 mm (.308 in) M60C machine guns were carried on the sponsons, accessed through large forward-opening hatches. The sponsons also had four racks to carry bombs, pods, or fuel. The wings outboard of the engines contained two additional hardpoints, one per side. Racked armament in the Vietnam War was usually seven-shot 2.75 in (70 mm) rocket pods with white phosphorus marker rounds or high-explosive rockets, or 5" (127 mm) four-shot Zuni rocket pods. Bombs, ADSIDS air-delivered/para-dropped unattended seismic sensors, Mk-6 battlefield illumination flares, and other stores were also carried.
Operational experience showed some weaknesses in the OV-10's design. It was significantly underpowered, which contributed to crashes in Vietnam in sloping terrain because the pilots could not climb fast enough. While specifications stated that the aircraft could reach 26,000 feet (7,900 m), in Vietnam the aircraft could reach only 18,000 feet (5,500 m). Also, no OV-10 pilot survived ditching the aircraft.
The OV-10 served in the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corps, and U.S. Navy, as well as in the service of a number of other countries. In U.S. military service, the Bronco was operated until the early Nineties, and obsoleted USAF OV-10s were passed on to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms for anti-drug operations. A number of OV-10As furthermore ended up in the hands of the California Department of Forestry (CDF) and were used for spotting fires and directing fire bombers onto hot spots.
This was not the end of the OV-10 in American military service, though: In 2012, the type gained new attention because of its unique qualities. A $20 million budget was allocated to activate an experimental USAF unit of two airworthy OV-10Gs, acquired from NASA and the State Department. These machines were retrofitted with military equipment and were, starting in May 2015, deployed overseas to support Operation “Inherent Resolve”, flying more than 120 combat sorties over 82 days over Iraq and Syria. Their concrete missions remained unclear, and it is speculated they provided close air support for Special Forces missions, esp. in confined urban environments where the Broncos’ loitering time and high agility at low speed and altitude made them highly effective and less vulnerable than helicopters.
Furthermore, these Broncos reputedly performed strikes with the experimental AGR-20A “Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System (APKWS)”, a Hydra 70-millimeter rocket with a laser-seeking head as guidance - developed for precision strikes against small urban targets with little collateral damage. The experiment ended satisfactorily, but the machines were retired again, and the small unit was dissolved.
However, the machines had shown their worth in asymmetric warfare, and the U.S. Air Force decided to invest in reactivating the OV-10 on a regular basis, despite the overhead cost of operating an additional aircraft type in relatively small numbers – but development and production of a similar new type would have caused much higher costs, with an uncertain time until an operational aircraft would be ready for service. Re-activating a proven design and updating an existing airframe appeared more efficient.
The result became the MV-10H, suitably christened “Super Bronco” but also known as “Black Pony”, after the program's internal name. This aircraft was derived from the official OV-10X proposal by Boeing from 2009 for the USAF's Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance requirement. Initially, Boeing proposed to re-start OV-10 manufacture, but this was deemed uneconomical, due to the expected small production number of new serial aircraft, so the “Black Pony” program became a modernization project. In consequence, all airframes for the "new" MV-10Hs were recovered OV-10s of various types from the "boneyard" at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona.
While the revamped aircraft would maintain much of its 1960s-vintage rugged external design, modernizations included a completely new, armored central fuselage with a highly modified cockpit section, ejection seats and a computerized glass cockpit. The “Black Pony” OV-10 had full dual controls, so that either crewmen could steer the aircraft while the other operated sensors and/or weapons. This feature would also improve survivability in case of incapacitation of a crew member as the result from a hit.
The cockpit armor protected the crew and many vital systems from 23mm shells and shrapnel (e. g. from MANPADS). The crew still sat in tandem under a common, generously glazed canopy with flat, bulletproof panels for reduced sun reflections, with the pilot in the front seat and an observer/WSO behind. The Bronco’s original cargo capacity and the rear door were retained, even though the extra armor and defensive measures like chaff/flare dispensers as well as an additional fuel cell in the central fuselage limited the capacity. However, it was still possible to carry and deploy personnel, e. g. small special ops teams of up to four when the aircraft flew in clean configuration.
Additional updates for the MV-10H included structural reinforcements for a higher AUW and higher g load maneuvers, similar to OV-10D+ standards. The landing gear was also reinforced, and the aircraft kept its ability to operate from short, improvised airstrips. A fixed refueling probe was added to improve range and loiter time.
Intelligence sensors and smart weapon capabilities included a FLIR sensor and a laser range finder/target designator, both mounted in a small turret on the aircraft’s nose. The MV-10H was also outfitted with a data link and the ability to carry an integrated targeting pod such as the Northrop Grumman LITENING or the Lockheed Martin Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod (ATP). Also included was the Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receiver (ROVER) to provide live sensor data and video recordings to personnel on the ground.
To improve overall performance and to better cope with the higher empty weight of the modified aircraft as well as with operations under hot-and-high conditions, the engines were beefed up. The new General Electric CT7-9D turboprop engines improved the Bronco's performance considerably: top speed increased by 100 mph (160 km/h), the climb rate was tripled (a weak point of early OV-10s despite the type’s good STOL capability) and both take-off as well as landing run were almost halved. The new engines called for longer nacelles, and their circular diameter markedly differed from the former Garrett T76-G-420/421 turboprop engines. To better exploit the additional power and reduce the aircraft’s audio signature, reversible contraprops, each with eight fiberglass blades, were fitted. These allowed a reduced number of revolutions per minute, resulting in less noise from the blades and their tips, while the engine responsiveness was greatly improved. The CT7-9Ds’ exhausts were fitted with muzzlers/air mixers to further reduce the aircraft's noise and heat signature.
Another novel and striking feature was the addition of so-called “tip sails” to the wings: each wingtip was elongated with a small, cigar-shaped fairing, each carrying three staggered, small “feather blade” winglets. Reputedly, this installation contributed ~10% to the higher climb rate and improved lift/drag ratio by ~6%, improving range and loiter time, too.
Drawing from the Iraq experience as well as from the USMC’s NOGS test program with a converted OV-10D as a night/all-weather gunship/reconnaissance platform, the MV-10H received a heavier gun armament: the original four light machine guns that were only good for strafing unarmored targets were deleted and their space in the sponsons replaced by avionics. Instead, the aircraft was outfitted with a lightweight M197 three-barrel 20mm gatling gun in a chin turret. This could be fixed in a forward position at high speed or when carrying forward-firing ordnance under the stub wings, or it could be deployed to cover a wide field of fire under the aircraft when it was flying slower, being either slaved to the FLIR or to a helmet sighting auto targeting system.
The original seven hardpoints were retained (1x ventral, 2x under each sponson, and another pair under the outer wings), but the total ordnance load was slightly increased and an additional pair of launch rails for AIM-9 Sidewinders or other light AAMs under the wing tips were added – not only as a defensive measure, but also with an anti-helicopter role in mind; four more Sidewinders could be carried on twin launchers under the outer wings against aerial targets. Other guided weapons cleared for the MV-10H were the light laser-guided AGR-20A and AGM-119 Hellfire missiles, the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System upgrade to the light Hydra 70 rockets, the new Laser Guided Zuni Rocket which had been cleared for service in 2010, TV-/IR-/laser-guided AGM-65 Maverick AGMs and AGM-122 Sidearm anti-radar missiles, plus a wide range of gun and missile pods, iron and cluster bombs, as well as ECM and flare/chaff pods, which were not only carried defensively, but also in order to disrupt enemy ground communication.
In this configuration, a contract for the conversion of twelve mothballed American Broncos to the new MV-10H standard was signed with Boeing in 2016, and the first MV-10H was handed over to the USAF in early 2018, with further deliveries lasting into early 2020. All machines were allocated to the newly founded 919th Special Operations Support Squadron at Duke Field (Florida). This unit was part of the 919th Special Operations Wing, an Air Reserve Component (ARC) of the United States Air Force. It was assigned to the Tenth Air Force of Air Force Reserve Command and an associate unit of the 1st Special Operations Wing, Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC). If mobilized the wing was gained by AFSOC (Air Force Special Operations Command) to support Special Tactics, the U.S. Air Force's special operations ground force. Similar in ability and employment to Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC), U.S. Army Special Forces and U.S. Navy SEALs, Air Force Special Tactics personnel were typically the first to enter combat and often found themselves deep behind enemy lines in demanding, austere conditions, usually with little or no support.
The MV-10Hs are expected to provide support for these ground units in the form of all-weather reconnaissance and observation, close air support and also forward air control duties for supporting ground units. Precision ground strikes and protection from enemy helicopters and low-flying aircraft were other, secondary missions for the modernized Broncos, which are expected to serve well into the 2040s. Exports or conversions of foreign OV-10s to the Black Pony standard are not planned, though.
General characteristics:
Crew: 2
Length: 42 ft 2½ in (12,88 m) incl. pitot
Wingspan: 45 ft 10½ in(14 m) incl. tip sails
Height: 15 ft 2 in (4.62 m)
Wing area: 290.95 sq ft (27.03 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 64A315
Empty weight: 9,090 lb (4,127 kg)
Gross weight: 13,068 lb (5,931 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 17,318 lb (7,862 kg)
Powerplant:
2× General Electric CT7-9D turboprop engines, 1,305 kW (1,750 hp) each,
driving 8-bladed Hamilton Standard 8 ft 6 in (2.59 m) diameter constant-speed,
fully feathering, reversible contra-rotating propellers with metal hub and composite blades
Performance:
Maximum speed: 390 mph (340 kn, 625 km/h)
Combat range: 198 nmi (228 mi, 367 km)
Ferry range: 1,200 nmi (1,400 mi, 2,200 km) with auxiliary fuel
Maximum loiter time: 5.5 h with auxiliary fuel
Service ceiling: 32.750 ft (10,000 m)
13,500 ft (4.210 m) on one engine
Rate of climb: 17.400 ft/min (48 m/s) at sea level
Take-off run: 480 ft (150 m)
740 ft (227 m) to 50 ft (15 m)
1,870 ft (570 m) to 50 ft (15 m) at MTOW
Landing run: 490 ft (150 m)
785 ft (240 m) at MTOW
1,015 ft (310 m) from 50 ft (15 m)
Armament:
1x M197 3-barreled 20 mm Gatling cannon in a chin turret with 750 rounds ammo capacity
7x hardpoints for a total load of 5.000 lb (2,270 kg)
2x wingtip launch rails for AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs
The kit and its assembly:
This fictional Bronco update/conversion was simply spawned by the idea: could it be possible to replace the original cockpit section with one from an AH-1 Cobra, for a kind of gunship version?
The basis is the Academy OV-10D kit, mated with the cockpit section from a Fujimi AH-1S TOW Cobra (Revell re-boxing, though), chosen because of its “boxy” cockpit section with flat glass panels – I think that it conveys the idea of an armored cockpit section best. Combining these parts was not easy, though, even though the plan sound simple. Initially, the Bronco’s twin booms, wings and stabilizer were built separately, because this made PSR on these sections easier than trying the same on a completed airframe. One of the initial challenges: the different engines. I wanted something uprated, and a different look, and I had a pair of (excellent!) 1:144 resin engines from the Russian company Kompakt Zip for a Tu-95 bomber at hand, which come together with movable(!) eight-blade contraprops that were an almost perfect size match for the original three-blade props. Biggest problem: the Tu-95 nacelles have a perfectly circular diameter, while the OV-10’s booms are square and rectangular. Combining these parts and shapes was already a messy PST affair, but it worked out quite well – even though the result rather reminds of some Chinese upgrade measure (anyone know the Tu-4 copies with turboprops? This here looks similar!). But while not pretty, I think that the beafier look works well and adds to the idea of a “revived” aircraft. And you can hardly beat the menacing look of contraprops on anything...
The exotic, so-called “tip sails” on the wings, mounted on short booms, are a detail borrowed from the Shijiazhuang Y-5B-100, an updated Chinese variant/copy of the Antonov An-2 biplane transporter. The booms are simple pieces of sprue from the Bronco kit, the winglets were cut from 0.5mm styrene sheet.
For the cockpit donor, the AH-1’s front section was roughly built, including the engine section (which is a separate module, so that the basic kit can be sold with different engine sections), and then the helicopter hull was cut and trimmed down to match the original Bronco pod and to fit under the wing. This became more complicated than expected, because a) the AH-1 cockpit and the nose are considerably shorter than the OV-10s, b) the AH-1 fuselage is markedly taller than the Bronco’s and c) the engine section, which would end up in the area of the wing, features major recesses, making the surface very uneven – calling for massive PSR to even this out. PSR was also necessary to hide the openings for the Fujimi AH-1’s stub wings. Other issues: the front landing gear (and its well) had to be added, as well as the OV-10 wing stubs. Furthermore, the new cockpit pod’s rear section needed an aerodynamical end/fairing, but I found a leftover Academy OV-10 section from a build/kitbashing many moons ago. Perfect match!
All these challenges could be tackled, even though the AH-1 cockpit looks surprisingly stout and massive on the Bronco’s airframe - the result looks stockier than expected, but it works well for the "Gunship" theme. Lots of PSR went into the new central fuselage section, though, even before it was mated with the OV-10 wing and the rest of the model.
Once cockpit and wing were finally mated, the seams had to disappear under even more PSR and a spinal extension of the canopy had to be sculpted across the upper wing surface, which would meld with the pod’s tail in a (more or less) harmonious shape. Not an easy task, and the fairing was eventually sculpted with 2C putty, plus even more PSR… Looks quite homogenous, though.
After this massive body work, other hardware challenges appeared like small distractions. The landing gear was another major issue because the deeper AH-1 section lowered the ground clearance, also because of the chin turret. To counter this, I raised the OV-10’s main landing gear by ~2mm – not much, but it was enough to create a credible stance, together with the front landing gear transplant under the cockpit, which received an internal console to match the main landing gear’s length. Due to the chin turret and the shorter nose, the front wheel retracts backwards now. But this looks quite plausible, thanks to the additional space under the cockpit tub, which also made a belt feed for the gun’s ammunition supply believable.
To enhance the menacing look I gave the model a fixed refueling boom, made from 1mm steel wire and a receptor adapter sculpted with white glue. The latter stuff was also used add some antenna fairings around the hull. Some antennae, chaff dispensers and an IR decoy were taken from the Academy kit.
The ordnance came from various sources. The Sidewinders under the wing tips were taken from an Italeri F-16C/D kit, they look better than the missiles from the Academy Bronco kit. Their launch rails came from an Italeri Bae Hawk 200. The quadruple Hellfire launchers on the underwing hardpoints were left over from an Italeri AH-1W, and they are a perfect load for this aircraft and its role. The LAU-10 and -19 missile pods on the stub wings were taken from the OV-10 kit.
Painting and markings:
Finding a suitable and somewhat interesting – but still plausible – paint scheme was not easy. Taking the A-10 as benchmark, an overall light grey livery (with focus on low contrast against the sky as protection against ground fire) would have been a likely choice – and in fact the last operational American OV-10s were painted in this fashion. But in order to provide a different look I used the contemporary USAF V-22Bs and Special Operations MC-130s as benchmark, which typically carry a darker paint scheme consisting of FS 36118 (suitably “Gunship Gray” :D) from above, FS 36375 underneath, with a low, wavy waterline, plus low-viz markings. Not spectacular, but plausible – and very similar to the late r/w Colombian OV-10s.
The cockpit tub became Dark Gull Grey (FS 36231, Humbrol 140) and the landing gear white (Revell 301).
The model received an overall black ink washing and some post-panel-shading, to liven up the dull all-grey livery. The decals were gathered from various sources, and I settled for black USAF low-viz markings. The “stars and bars” come from a late USAF F-4, the “IP” tail code was tailored from F-16 markings and the shark mouth was taken from an Academy AH-64. Most stencils came from another Academy OV-10 sheet and some other sources.
Decals were also used to create the trim on the propeller blades and markings on the ordnance.
Finally, the model was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and some exhaust soot stains were added with graphite along the tail boom flanks.
A successful transplantation – but is this still a modified Bronco or already a kitbashing? The result looks quite plausible and menacing, even though the TOW Cobra front section appears relatively massive. But thanks to the bigger engines and extended wing tips the proportions still work. The large low-pressure tires look a bit goofy under the aircraft, but they are original. The grey livery works IMHO well, too – a more colorful or garish scheme would certainly have distracted from the modified technical basis.
+++ 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:
After World War I, the German aircraft industry had several problems. German airlines were forbidden to operate multi engine aircraft and during a period all manufacturing of aircraft in Germany was banned. By 1921, some of the restrictions was lifted, civilian aircraft could be made after approval of an international control commission if they fulfilled certain requirements. To bypass these rules and to be able to make whatever aircraft they wanted several aircraft manufacturers moved abroad. In 1921, Carl Bücker handled the purchase of a reconnaissance aircraft from Caspar-Werke in Travemünde. Because they expected problems due to the rules in the peace treaty regarding the export of German fighter aircraft, Bücker explored the possibility to smuggle the parts out of Germany and assemble the aircraft in Sweden.
To make the purchase easier, Ernst Heinkel and Bücker started Svenska Aero in Lidingö in 1921. The contract on the aircraft was transferred from Caspar to Svenska Aero. Heinkel and some German assembly workers temporarily moved to Lidingö to assemble the aircraft. During 1922 to 1923, the company moved into a former shipyard in Skärsätra on Lidingö since the company had received additional orders from the navy's air force. The parts for those aircraft were made in Sweden by Svenska Aero but assembled by TDS. In 1928, the navy ordered four J 4 (Heinkel HD 19) as a fighter with pontoons. That delivery came to be the last licens- built aircraft by Svenska Aero. In the mid-1920s, Svenska Aero created their own design department to be able to make their own aircraft models. Sven Blomberg, earlier employed by Heinkel Flugzeugwerke, was hired as head of design. In 1930, he was joined by Anders Johan Andersson from Messerschmitt. Despite that, Svenska Aero designed and made several different models on their own.
One of them was the model SA-16, a direct response to the Swedish Air Force and Navy’s interest in the new dive bomber tactics, which had become popular in Germany since the mid-Thirties and had spawned several specialized aircraft, the Junkers Ju 87 being the best-known type. The Flygvapnet (Swedish Air Force) had already conducted dive bombing trials with Hawker Hart (B 4) biplanes, but only with mixed results. Diving towards the target simplified the bomb's trajectory and allowed the pilot to keep visual contact throughout the bomb run. This allowed attacks on point targets and ships, which were difficult to attack with conventional level bombers, even en masse. While accuracy was increased through bombing runs at almost vertical dive, the aircraft were not suited for this kind of operations – structurally, and through the way the bombs were dropped.
Therefore, Svenska Aero was tasked to develop an indigenous dedicated dive bomber, primarily intended to attack ships, and with a secondary role as reconnaissance aircraft – a mission profile quite similar to American ship-based “SB” aircraft of the time. Having learnt from the tests with the Hawker Harts, the SA-16 was a very robust monoplane, resulting in an almost archaic look. It was a single-engine all-metal cantilever monoplane with a fixed undercarriage and carried a two-person crew. The main construction material was duralumin, and the external coverings were made of duralumin sheeting, bolts and parts that were required to take heavy stress were made of steel. The wings were of so-called “double-wing” construction, which gave the SA-16 considerable advantage on take-off; even at a shallow angle, large lift forces were created through the airfoil, reducing take-off and landing runs. Retractable perforated air brakes were mounted under the wings’ leading edges. The fully closed “greenhouse cabin” offered space for a crew of two in tandem, with the pilot in front and a navigator/radio operator/observer/gunner behind. To provide the rear-facing machine gun with an increased field of fire, the stabilizers were of limited span but deeper to compensate for the loss of surface, what resulted in unusual proportions. As a side benefit, the short stabilizers had, compared with a wider standard layout, increased structural integrity. Power came from an air-cooled Bristol Mercury XII nine-cylinder radial engine with 880 hp (660 kW), built by Nohab in Sweden.
Internal armament consisted of two fixed forward-firing 8 mm (0.315 in) Flygplanskulspruta Ksp m/22F (M1919 Browning AN/M2) machine guns in the wings outside of the propeller disc. A third machine gun of the same type was available in the rear cockpit on a flexible mount as defensive weapon. A total of 700 kg (1,500 lb) of bombs could be carried externally. On the fuselage centerline, a swing arm could hold bombs of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber and deploy them outside of the propeller arc when released in a, additional racks under the outer wings could hold bombs of up to 250 kg (550 lb) caliber each or clusters of smaller bombs, e. g. four 50 (110 lb) or six 12 kg (26 ½ lb) bombs.
Flight testing of the first SA-16 prototype began on 14 August 1936. The aircraft could take off in 250 m (820 ft) and climb to 1,875 m (6,152 ft) in eight minutes with a 250 kg (550 lb) bomb load, and its cruising speed was 250 km/h (160 mph). This was less than expected, and pilots also complained that navigation and powerplant instruments were cluttered and not easy to read, especially in combat. To withstand strong forces during a dive, heavy plating, along with brackets riveted to the frame and longeron, was added to the fuselage. Despite this, pilots praised the aircraft's handling qualities and strong airframe. These problems were quickly resolved, but subsequent testing and progress still fell short of the designers’ hopes. With some refinements the machine's speed was increased to 274 km/h (170 mph) at ground level and 319 km/h 319 km/h (198 mph, 172 kn) at 3,650 m (11,980 ft), while maintaining its good handling ability.
Since the Swedish Air Force was in dire need for a dive bomber, the SA-16 was accepted into service as the B 9 – even though it was clear that it was only a stopgap solution on the way to a more capable light bomber with dive attack capabilities. This eventually became the Saab 17, which was initiated in 1938 as a request from the Flygvapnet to replace its fleet of dive bombers of American origin, the B 5 (Northrop A-17), the B 6 (Seversky A8V1) and the obsolete Fokker S 6 (C.Ve) sesquiplane, after the deal with Fokker to procure the two-engine twin-boom G.I as a standardized type failed due to the German invasion of the Netherlands. The B 9 dive bomber would subsequently be replaced by the more modern and capable B 17 in the long run, too, which made its first flight on 18 May 1940 and was introduced to frontline units in March 1942. Until then, 93 SA-16s had been produced between 1937 and 1939. When the B 17 became available, the slow B 9 was quickly retired from the attack role. Plans to upgrade the aircraft with a stronger 14 cylinder engine (a Piaggio P.XIbis R.C.40D with 790 kW/1,060 hp) were not carried out, as it was felt that the design lacked further development potential in an offensive role.
Because the airframes were still young and had a lot of service life ahead of them, most SA-16s were from 1941 on relegated to patrol and reconnaissance missions along the Swedish coastlines, observing ship and aircraft traffic in the Baltic Sea and undertaking rescue missions with droppable life rafts. For long-range missions, the forked ventral swing arm was replaced with a fixed plumbed pylon for an external 682 liters (150 Imp. gal.) auxiliary tank that more than doubled the aircraft’s internal fuel capacity of 582 liters, giving it an endurance of around 8 hours. In many cases, the machine guns on these aircraft were removed to save weight. In this configuration the SA-16 was re-designated S 9 (“S” for Spaning) and the machines served in their naval observation and SAR role well into the Fifties, when the last SA-16s were retired.
General characteristics:
Crew: two, pilot and observer
Length: 9,58 m (31 ft 11 in)
Wingspan: 10,67 m (34 ft 11 in)
Height: 3,82 m (12 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 30.2 m² (325 sq ft)
Empty weight: 2,905 kg (6,404 lb)
Gross weight: 4,245 kg (9,359 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 4,853 kg (10,700 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Bristol Mercury XII nine-cylinder radial engine with 880 hp (660 kW),
driving a three-bladed variable pitch metal propeller
u>Performance:
Maximum speed: 319 km/h (198 mph, 172 kn) at 3,650 m (11,980 ft)
274 km/h (170 mph; 148 kn) at sea level
299 km/h (186 mph; 161 kn) at 2,000 m (6,600 ft)
308 km/h (191 mph; 166 kn) at 5,000 m (16,000 ft)
Stall speed: 110 km/h (68 mph, 59 kn)
Range: 1,260 km (780 mi, 680 nmi)
Service ceiling: 7,300 m (24,000 ft)
Time to altitude: 2,000 m (6,600 ft) in 4 minutes 45 seconds
4,000 m (13,000 ft) in 15 minutes 10 seconds
Armament:
2× fixed 8 mm (0.315 in) Flygplanskulspruta Ksp m/22F (M1919 Browning AN/M2) machine guns
in the wings outside of the propeller disc (with 600 RPG), plus
1× 8 mm (0.315 in) Ksp m/22F machine gun on a flexible mount in the rear cockpit with 800 rounds
Ventral and underwing hardpoints for a total external bomb load of 700 kg (1,500 lb)
The kit and its assembly:
This purely fictional Swedish dive bomber was inspired by reading about Flygvapnet‘s pre-WWII trials with dive bombing tactics and the unsuited aircraft fleet for this task. When I found a Hasegawa SOC Seagull floatplane in The Stash™ and looks at the aircraft’s profile, I thought that it could be converted into a two-seat monoplane – what would require massive changes, though.
However, I liked the SOC’s boxy and rustic look, esp. the fuselage, and from this starting point other ingredients/donors were integrated. Work started with the tail. Originally, I wanted to retain the SOCs fin and stabilizer, but eventually found them oversized for a land-based airplane. In the scrap box I found a leftover fin from an Academy P-47, and it turned out to be a very good, smaller alternative, with the benefit that it visually lengthened the rear fuselage. The stabilizers were replaced with leftover parts from a NOVO Supermarine Attacker – an unlikely choice, but their size was good, they blended well into the overall lines of the aircraft, and they helped to stabilize the fin donor. Blending these new parts into to SOC’s hull required massive PSR, though.
The wings were also not an easy choice, and initially I planned the aircraft with a retractable landing gear. I eventually settled on the outer wings (just outside of the gullwing kink) from an MPM Ju 87 B, because of their shape and the archaic “double wings” that would complement the SOC’s rustic fuselage. However, at this point I refrained from the retractable landing gear and instead went for a fixed spatted alternative, left over from an Airfix Hs 123, which would round up the aircraft’s somewhat vintage look. Because the wheels were missing, I inserted two Matchbox MiG-21 wheels (which were left over in the spares bin from two different kits, though). The tail wheel came from an Academy Fw 190.
Cowling and engine inside (thankfully a 9-cylinder radial that could pose as a Mercury) were taken OOB, just the original two-blade propeller was replaced with a more appropriate three-blade alternative, IIRC from a Hobby Boss Grumman F4F. The cockpit was taken OOB, and I also used the two pilot figures from the kit. The rear crew member just had the head re-positioned to look sideways, and had to have the legs chopped off because there’s hardly and space under the desk with the radio set he’s sitting at.
The ventral 500 kg bomb came from a Matchbox Ju 87, the bomb arms are Fw 189 landing gear parts. Additional underwing pylons came from an Intech P-51, outfitted with 50 kg bombs of uncertain origin (they look as if coming from an old Hasegawa kit). The protruding machine gun barrel fairings on the wings were scratched from styrene rod material, with small holes drilled into them.
A real Frankenstein creation, but it does not look bad or implausible!
Painting and markings:
I gave the B 9 a camouflage that was carried by some Flygvapnet aircraft in the late Thirties, primarily by fighters imported from the United States but also some bombers like the B 3 (Ju 86). The IMHO quite attractive scheme consists on the upper surfaces of greenish-yellow zinc chromate primer (Humbrol 81, FS 33481), on top of which a dense net of fine dark green wriggles (supposed to be FS 34079, but I rather used Humbrol 163, RAF Dark Green, because it is more subdued) was manually applied with a thin brush, so that the primer would still shine through, resulting in a mottled camouflage.
On the real aircraft, this was sealed with a protective clear lacquer to which 5% of the dark green had been added, and I copied this procedure on the model, too, using semi-gloss acrylic varnish with a bit of Revell 46 added. The camouflage was wrapped around the wings’ leading edges and the spatted landing gear was painted with the upper camouflage, too.
The undersides were painted with Humbrol 87 (Steel Grey), to come close to the original blue-grey tone, which is supposed to be FS 35190 on this type of camouflage. The tone is quite dark, almost like RAF PRU Blue.
The interior was painted – using a Saab J 21 cockpit as benchmark – in a dark greenish grey (RAL 7009).
The model received the usual light black ink washing and some post-panel shading on the lower surfaces, because this effect would hardly be recognizable on the highly fragmented upper surface.
The markings are reflecting Flygvapnet’s m/37 regulations, from the direct pre-WWII era when the roundels had turned from black on white to yellow on blue but still lacked the yellow edge around the roundel for more contrast. F6 Västgöta flygflottilj was chosen because it was a dive bomber unit in the late Thirties, and the individual aircraft code (consisting of large white two-digit numbers) was added with the fin and the front of the fuselage. “27” would indicate an aircraft of the unit’s 2nd division, which normally had blue as a standardized color code, incorporated through the blue bands on the spats and the small "2nd div." tag on the rudder (from a contemporary F8 Swedish Gladiator).
Roundels and codes came from an SBS Models sheet, even though they belong to various aircraft types. Everything was finally sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
+++ 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:
After World War I, the German aircraft industry had several problems. German airlines were forbidden to operate multi engine aircraft and during a period all manufacturing of aircraft in Germany was banned. By 1921, some of the restrictions was lifted, civilian aircraft could be made after approval of an international control commission if they fulfilled certain requirements. To bypass these rules and to be able to make whatever aircraft they wanted several aircraft manufacturers moved abroad. In 1921, Carl Bücker handled the purchase of a reconnaissance aircraft from Caspar-Werke in Travemünde. Because they expected problems due to the rules in the peace treaty regarding the export of German fighter aircraft, Bücker explored the possibility to smuggle the parts out of Germany and assemble the aircraft in Sweden.
To make the purchase easier, Ernst Heinkel and Bücker started Svenska Aero in Lidingö in 1921. The contract on the aircraft was transferred from Caspar to Svenska Aero. Heinkel and some German assembly workers temporarily moved to Lidingö to assemble the aircraft. During 1922 to 1923, the company moved into a former shipyard in Skärsätra on Lidingö since the company had received additional orders from the navy's air force. The parts for those aircraft were made in Sweden by Svenska Aero but assembled by TDS. In 1928, the navy ordered four J 4 (Heinkel HD 19) as a fighter with pontoons. That delivery came to be the last licens- built aircraft by Svenska Aero. In the mid-1920s, Svenska Aero created their own design department to be able to make their own aircraft models. Sven Blomberg, earlier employed by Heinkel Flugzeugwerke, was hired as head of design. In 1930, he was joined by Anders Johan Andersson from Messerschmitt. Despite that, Svenska Aero designed and made several different models on their own.
One of them was the model SA-16, a direct response to the Swedish Air Force and Navy’s interest in the new dive bomber tactics, which had become popular in Germany since the mid-Thirties and had spawned several specialized aircraft, the Junkers Ju 87 being the best-known type. The Flygvapnet (Swedish Air Force) had already conducted dive bombing trials with Hawker Hart (B 4) biplanes, but only with mixed results. Diving towards the target simplified the bomb's trajectory and allowed the pilot to keep visual contact throughout the bomb run. This allowed attacks on point targets and ships, which were difficult to attack with conventional level bombers, even en masse. While accuracy was increased through bombing runs at almost vertical dive, the aircraft were not suited for this kind of operations – structurally, and through the way the bombs were dropped.
Therefore, Svenska Aero was tasked to develop an indigenous dedicated dive bomber, primarily intended to attack ships, and with a secondary role as reconnaissance aircraft – a mission profile quite similar to American ship-based “SB” aircraft of the time. Having learnt from the tests with the Hawker Harts, the SA-16 was a very robust monoplane, resulting in an almost archaic look. It was a single-engine all-metal cantilever monoplane with a fixed undercarriage and carried a two-person crew. The main construction material was duralumin, and the external coverings were made of duralumin sheeting, bolts and parts that were required to take heavy stress were made of steel. The wings were of so-called “double-wing” construction, which gave the SA-16 considerable advantage on take-off; even at a shallow angle, large lift forces were created through the airfoil, reducing take-off and landing runs. Retractable perforated air brakes were mounted under the wings’ leading edges. The fully closed “greenhouse cabin” offered space for a crew of two in tandem, with the pilot in front and a navigator/radio operator/observer/gunner behind. To provide the rear-facing machine gun with an increased field of fire, the stabilizers were of limited span but deeper to compensate for the loss of surface, what resulted in unusual proportions. As a side benefit, the short stabilizers had, compared with a wider standard layout, increased structural integrity. Power came from an air-cooled Bristol Mercury XII nine-cylinder radial engine with 880 hp (660 kW), built by Nohab in Sweden.
Internal armament consisted of two fixed forward-firing 8 mm (0.315 in) Flygplanskulspruta Ksp m/22F (M1919 Browning AN/M2) machine guns in the wings outside of the propeller disc. A third machine gun of the same type was available in the rear cockpit on a flexible mount as defensive weapon. A total of 700 kg (1,500 lb) of bombs could be carried externally. On the fuselage centerline, a swing arm could hold bombs of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber and deploy them outside of the propeller arc when released in a, additional racks under the outer wings could hold bombs of up to 250 kg (550 lb) caliber each or clusters of smaller bombs, e. g. four 50 (110 lb) or six 12 kg (26 ½ lb) bombs.
Flight testing of the first SA-16 prototype began on 14 August 1936. The aircraft could take off in 250 m (820 ft) and climb to 1,875 m (6,152 ft) in eight minutes with a 250 kg (550 lb) bomb load, and its cruising speed was 250 km/h (160 mph). This was less than expected, and pilots also complained that navigation and powerplant instruments were cluttered and not easy to read, especially in combat. To withstand strong forces during a dive, heavy plating, along with brackets riveted to the frame and longeron, was added to the fuselage. Despite this, pilots praised the aircraft's handling qualities and strong airframe. These problems were quickly resolved, but subsequent testing and progress still fell short of the designers’ hopes. With some refinements the machine's speed was increased to 274 km/h (170 mph) at ground level and 319 km/h 319 km/h (198 mph, 172 kn) at 3,650 m (11,980 ft), while maintaining its good handling ability.
Since the Swedish Air Force was in dire need for a dive bomber, the SA-16 was accepted into service as the B 9 – even though it was clear that it was only a stopgap solution on the way to a more capable light bomber with dive attack capabilities. This eventually became the Saab 17, which was initiated in 1938 as a request from the Flygvapnet to replace its fleet of dive bombers of American origin, the B 5 (Northrop A-17), the B 6 (Seversky A8V1) and the obsolete Fokker S 6 (C.Ve) sesquiplane, after the deal with Fokker to procure the two-engine twin-boom G.I as a standardized type failed due to the German invasion of the Netherlands. The B 9 dive bomber would subsequently be replaced by the more modern and capable B 17 in the long run, too, which made its first flight on 18 May 1940 and was introduced to frontline units in March 1942. Until then, 93 SA-16s had been produced between 1937 and 1939. When the B 17 became available, the slow B 9 was quickly retired from the attack role. Plans to upgrade the aircraft with a stronger 14 cylinder engine (a Piaggio P.XIbis R.C.40D with 790 kW/1,060 hp) were not carried out, as it was felt that the design lacked further development potential in an offensive role.
Because the airframes were still young and had a lot of service life ahead of them, most SA-16s were from 1941 on relegated to patrol and reconnaissance missions along the Swedish coastlines, observing ship and aircraft traffic in the Baltic Sea and undertaking rescue missions with droppable life rafts. For long-range missions, the forked ventral swing arm was replaced with a fixed plumbed pylon for an external 682 liters (150 Imp. gal.) auxiliary tank that more than doubled the aircraft’s internal fuel capacity of 582 liters, giving it an endurance of around 8 hours. In many cases, the machine guns on these aircraft were removed to save weight. In this configuration the SA-16 was re-designated S 9 (“S” for Spaning) and the machines served in their naval observation and SAR role well into the Fifties, when the last SA-16s were retired.
General characteristics:
Crew: two, pilot and observer
Length: 9,58 m (31 ft 11 in)
Wingspan: 10,67 m (34 ft 11 in)
Height: 3,82 m (12 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 30.2 m² (325 sq ft)
Empty weight: 2,905 kg (6,404 lb)
Gross weight: 4,245 kg (9,359 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 4,853 kg (10,700 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Bristol Mercury XII nine-cylinder radial engine with 880 hp (660 kW),
driving a three-bladed variable pitch metal propeller
u>Performance:
Maximum speed: 319 km/h (198 mph, 172 kn) at 3,650 m (11,980 ft)
274 km/h (170 mph; 148 kn) at sea level
299 km/h (186 mph; 161 kn) at 2,000 m (6,600 ft)
308 km/h (191 mph; 166 kn) at 5,000 m (16,000 ft)
Stall speed: 110 km/h (68 mph, 59 kn)
Range: 1,260 km (780 mi, 680 nmi)
Service ceiling: 7,300 m (24,000 ft)
Time to altitude: 2,000 m (6,600 ft) in 4 minutes 45 seconds
4,000 m (13,000 ft) in 15 minutes 10 seconds
Armament:
2× fixed 8 mm (0.315 in) Flygplanskulspruta Ksp m/22F (M1919 Browning AN/M2) machine guns
in the wings outside of the propeller disc (with 600 RPG), plus
1× 8 mm (0.315 in) Ksp m/22F machine gun on a flexible mount in the rear cockpit with 800 rounds
Ventral and underwing hardpoints for a total external bomb load of 700 kg (1,500 lb)
The kit and its assembly:
This purely fictional Swedish dive bomber was inspired by reading about Flygvapnet‘s pre-WWII trials with dive bombing tactics and the unsuited aircraft fleet for this task. When I found a Hasegawa SOC Seagull floatplane in The Stash™ and looks at the aircraft’s profile, I thought that it could be converted into a two-seat monoplane – what would require massive changes, though.
However, I liked the SOC’s boxy and rustic look, esp. the fuselage, and from this starting point other ingredients/donors were integrated. Work started with the tail. Originally, I wanted to retain the SOCs fin and stabilizer, but eventually found them oversized for a land-based airplane. In the scrap box I found a leftover fin from an Academy P-47, and it turned out to be a very good, smaller alternative, with the benefit that it visually lengthened the rear fuselage. The stabilizers were replaced with leftover parts from a NOVO Supermarine Attacker – an unlikely choice, but their size was good, they blended well into the overall lines of the aircraft, and they helped to stabilize the fin donor. Blending these new parts into to SOC’s hull required massive PSR, though.
The wings were also not an easy choice, and initially I planned the aircraft with a retractable landing gear. I eventually settled on the outer wings (just outside of the gullwing kink) from an MPM Ju 87 B, because of their shape and the archaic “double wings” that would complement the SOC’s rustic fuselage. However, at this point I refrained from the retractable landing gear and instead went for a fixed spatted alternative, left over from an Airfix Hs 123, which would round up the aircraft’s somewhat vintage look. Because the wheels were missing, I inserted two Matchbox MiG-21 wheels (which were left over in the spares bin from two different kits, though). The tail wheel came from an Academy Fw 190.
Cowling and engine inside (thankfully a 9-cylinder radial that could pose as a Mercury) were taken OOB, just the original two-blade propeller was replaced with a more appropriate three-blade alternative, IIRC from a Hobby Boss Grumman F4F. The cockpit was taken OOB, and I also used the two pilot figures from the kit. The rear crew member just had the head re-positioned to look sideways, and had to have the legs chopped off because there’s hardly and space under the desk with the radio set he’s sitting at.
The ventral 500 kg bomb came from a Matchbox Ju 87, the bomb arms are Fw 189 landing gear parts. Additional underwing pylons came from an Intech P-51, outfitted with 50 kg bombs of uncertain origin (they look as if coming from an old Hasegawa kit). The protruding machine gun barrel fairings on the wings were scratched from styrene rod material, with small holes drilled into them.
A real Frankenstein creation, but it does not look bad or implausible!
Painting and markings:
I gave the B 9 a camouflage that was carried by some Flygvapnet aircraft in the late Thirties, primarily by fighters imported from the United States but also some bombers like the B 3 (Ju 86). The IMHO quite attractive scheme consists on the upper surfaces of greenish-yellow zinc chromate primer (Humbrol 81, FS 33481), on top of which a dense net of fine dark green wriggles (supposed to be FS 34079, but I rather used Humbrol 163, RAF Dark Green, because it is more subdued) was manually applied with a thin brush, so that the primer would still shine through, resulting in a mottled camouflage.
On the real aircraft, this was sealed with a protective clear lacquer to which 5% of the dark green had been added, and I copied this procedure on the model, too, using semi-gloss acrylic varnish with a bit of Revell 46 added. The camouflage was wrapped around the wings’ leading edges and the spatted landing gear was painted with the upper camouflage, too.
The undersides were painted with Humbrol 87 (Steel Grey), to come close to the original blue-grey tone, which is supposed to be FS 35190 on this type of camouflage. The tone is quite dark, almost like RAF PRU Blue.
The interior was painted – using a Saab J 21 cockpit as benchmark – in a dark greenish grey (RAL 7009).
The model received the usual light black ink washing and some post-panel shading on the lower surfaces, because this effect would hardly be recognizable on the highly fragmented upper surface.
The markings are reflecting Flygvapnet’s m/37 regulations, from the direct pre-WWII era when the roundels had turned from black on white to yellow on blue but still lacked the yellow edge around the roundel for more contrast. F6 Västgöta flygflottilj was chosen because it was a dive bomber unit in the late Thirties, and the individual aircraft code (consisting of large white two-digit numbers) was added with the fin and the front of the fuselage. “27” would indicate an aircraft of the unit’s 2nd division, which normally had blue as a standardized color code, incorporated through the blue bands on the spats and the small "2nd div." tag on the rudder (from a contemporary F8 Swedish Gladiator).
Roundels and codes came from an SBS Models sheet, even though they belong to various aircraft types. Everything was finally sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
+++ 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 Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Luxembourgeois (Luxembourg National Railway Company, abbreviated CFL) is the national railway company of Luxembourg. The Luxembourg rail system comprises (only) 275 route-kilometres (170 miles), of which 140 kilometres (87 mi) is double track and 135 kilometres (84 mi) single track. Of the total track length of 617 kilometres (383 mi), 576 kilometres (358 mi) are electrified at 25 kV, 50 Hz AC.
Luxembourg borders Belgium, France and Germany. Correspondingly, there are cross-border services into these countries. Some are wholly run by CFL, whereas others are run by SNCF, NMBS/SNCB and DB. CFL passenger trains cover most of the network and are operated by EMUs and electric locomotives, typically with push-pull stock. Despite a high degree of electrification, the CFL also had a fleet of diesel locomotives for hauling freight trains and for general shunting purposes. CFL.
The CFLs first electric locomotive, introduced in 1958, was the Class 3600, the so-called “fer à repasser” (= “electric iron”), a group of twenty electric locomotives that were built to the design of the French BB 12000 class. These were primarily intended for freight trains but also capable of pulling light passenger trains with up to 120 km/h (75 mph). The Class 3600 was originally designed to be capable of pulling 750 ton trains along a grade of 10 ‰, but in service it proved more than capable, frequently pulling 1100 tons and then even 1400 ton trains without problems.
However, for fast and heavier passenger trains, especially those that crossed the borders to Northern France with the same 25 kV, 50 Hz alternating current system as Luxembourg as well as to Germany with its 15 kV, 16.7 Hz electrification, the CFL ordered twelve additional dual system locomotive. They were more powerful and faster than the Class 3600 and became the new Class 3800 – roughly comparable with the German E 310/BR 181 dual system locomotives that were operated in the same region. The Class 3800 machines were designed and built between 1959 and 1961 in the Netherlands by Werkspoor in Utrecht, with technical support from the German Siemens-Schuckert-Werke (SSW) for the electric systems. They were heavily influenced by the contemporary Co′Co′ multipurpose Series 1200 electric locomotives for the Netherlands Spoorwegen (NS), originally designed by Baldwin and sporting typical American styling with a brawny silhouette, stepped “Cab unit” style nose sections and doors at the locomotives’ front ends to allow direct access to a coupled wagon from the driver cabins.
Even though they were based on the NS Series 1200, the CFL Class 3800 units used a shortened main frame and newly developed bogies with a Bo′Bo’ arrangement. All in all, the Class 3800 was more than 20 tons lighter than its Dutch six-axle sibling and only shared a superficial similarity – under the hood, the locomotive was technically totally different from the NS’ Series 1200 (which was designed for the Dutch 1.5 kV DC system).
The locomotives drew their energy from the 15 kV / 16 2/3 Hz or 25 kV / 50 Hz catenary via two diamond pantographs with contact strips of different lengths for the different areas of application. The 3-core transformers were oil-cooled, to which the control unit with its 28 running steps was connected. The acceleration was designed to function in delayed mode, where the engineer chose the running step, and the control unit would initiate the chosen setting independently. For emergency operation manual control by hand crank was possible, too. The voltage reached the main transformer via an air-operated main switch. On the secondary side, the traction motors were controlled via thyristors using stepless phase angle control, a modern technology at the time, as were the comparatively light mixed current motors. Mechanical switching mechanisms were therefore no longer required, and the vehicle control technology also worked with modern electronics. To ensure a good frictional connection between rail and wheel, the power converters always regulated a slightly lower tractive force on the preceding wheel sets of each bogie. If, however, one or more wheelsets slipped, the drive control reduced the tractive effort for a short time.
The CFL Class 3800’s four traction motors collective output was 3,700 kW (5,000 hp). This gave the Class 3800 a tractive effort of 275 kN (62,000 lbf) and a theoretical top speed of 150 km/h (93 mph), even though this was in practice limited to 140 km/h (87 mph). A time-division multiplex push-pull and double-traction control system was installed, too, so that two of these locomotives could together handle heavier freight trains and exploit the locomotives’ good traction. All locomotives featured an indirect air brake, with automatically stronger braking action at high speeds; for shunting/switching service an additional direct brake was present, too. All units featured a separately excited rheostatic/regenerative brake, which was coupled to the air brake. The heat generated by the electric brakes was dissipated via roof exhausts, supported by a pair of cooling fans.
The safety equipment in the driver's cab featured a mechanical or electronic deadman's device, punctiform automatic train controls, and train radio equipment with GSM-R communication. For operations in Germany the units received a third front light and separate red taillights, as well as an “Indusi” inductive system for data transfer between the track and locomotive by magnets mounted beside the rails and on the locomotive. Later in their career, automatic door locking at 0 km/h was retrofitted, which had become a compulsory requirement for all locomotives in passenger service.
After a thorough test phase of the pre-production locomotives 3801 and 3802 in 1960, the first Class 3800 serial units went into service in 1961 and were, due to the characteristic design of their driver’s cabins and their bulky shape, quickly nicknamed “Bouledogue” (Bulldog). The initial two locomotives were delivered in a pale blue-grey livery, but they were soon repainted in the CFL’s standard burgundy/yellow corporate paint scheme, and all following Class 3800 locomotives from 3803 on were directly delivered in this guise.
Initially, the service spectrum of the Bouledogues comprised primarily fast passenger trains on the CFL’s domestic main routes to the North and to the East, with additional border-crossing express trains, including prestigious TEE connections, to Germany (e. g. to Trier and Cologne) and France (Paris via Reims). The 3800s supplemented the CFL’s fast Series 1600 diesel locomotives on these important international destinations once they had been fully electrified. Occasionally, they were also used for freight trains in the industrial Esch-sur-Alzette region and for fast freight trains on the electrified main routes, as well as for regional passenger traffic on push-pull trains. Heavier freight trains remained the working field of the CFL Class 3600, even though occasional ore trains were handled by Class 3800 locomotives in double traction, too.
Even though Werkspoor hoped for more CFL orders for this dual-system type, the twelve Series 3800 locomotives remained the sole specimen. Potential buyers like Belgium or the Netherlands also did not show much interest – even though the SNCB ordered several multi-system locomotives, including eight indigenous Class 16 locomotives, equipped to run in France, Netherlands and Germany, or the six Class 18 four-system machines derived from the French SNCF CC 40100 express passenger locomotives.
During the Nineties the CFL started to use more and more EMUs on the domestic passenger routes, so that the Class 3800s gradually took over more and more freight train duties, relieving the older Series 3600s and replacing diesel-powered locomotives (esp. the Class 1800) on electrified routes. Border-crossing passenger train services were furthermore limited to trains to Germany since long-distance passenger train services in France switched to the TGV train system with its separate high-speed lines. Freight trains to France were still frequent Class 3800 duties, though, and occasionally coal trains were pulled directly to the industrial Ruhr Area region in Western Germany.
After the Millennium the Class 3800s gradually lost their duties to the new CFL Class 4000 multi-system locomotives, a variant of the Bombardier TRAXX locos found working across Europe. On 31 December 2006 the last Class 3800 (3809) was retired. Their versatility, robustness and performance have, however, allowed some of these locomotives to exceed 45 years of service. Bouledogue “3803” reached more than 9,2 million kilometers (5.7 million miles), a remarkable performance.
Only two 3800s had to be written off during the type’s career: 3804 suffered a major transformer damage and was destroyed by the ensuing fire near Troisvierges in Northern Luxembourg and 3810 was involved in a freight train derailment south of Differdange, where it was damaged beyond repair and had to be broken up on site. A single Class 3800 locomotive (3811) survived the retirement and has been kept as a static exhibition piece at the CFL Dépot at Luxembourg, the rest was scrapped.
General characteristics:
Gauge: 1,435 mm (4 ft 8½ in) standard gauge
UIC axle arrangement: Bo´Bo´
Overall length: 16.49 m (54 ft 1 in)
Pivot distance: 7,9 m (25 ft 10 in)
Bogie distance: 3,4 m (11 ft 1½ in)
Wheel diameter (when new): 1.250 mm (4 ft 1½ in)
Service weight: 83 t
Engine:
Four traction motors with a collective output of 3,700 kW (5,000 hp)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 150 km/h (93 mph), limited to 140 km/h (87 mph) in service
Torque: 275 kN starting tractive effort
164 kN continuous traction effort
The model and its assembly:
My second attempt to create a functional H0 scale what-if locomotive – and after I “only” did a color variant with some cosmetic changes on the basis of a Märklin V160/BR 216 diesel locomotive, I wanted something more special and challenging. However, kitbashing model locomotives with a metal chassis that includes a functional motor, respective drivetrain/gearing and electronics is not as easy as gluing some plastic parts together. And finding “matching” donor parts for such a stunt is also not as easy as it may seem. But what would life be without attempts to widen its boundaries?
This time I wanted an electric locomotive. Inspiration (and occasion) somewhat struck when I stumbled upon a running/functional chassis of a Märklin E 10/BR 110 (#3039), just without light and naturally missing the whole upper hull. Due to its incompleteness, I got it for a reasonable price, though. With this basis I started to watch out for eventual (and affordable) donor parts for a new superstructure, and remembered the collectible, non-powered all-plastic locomotive models from Atlas/IXO.
The good thing about the Märklin 3039 chassis was that it was just a solid and flat piece of metal without integrated outer hull elements, headstock or side skirts, so that a new hull could (theoretically) be simply tailored to fit over this motorized platform. Finding something with the exact length would be impossible, so I settled upon an Atlas H0 scale Nederlands Spoorwegen Series 1200 locomotive model, which is markedly longer than the German BR 110, due to its six axles vs. the E 10/BR 110’s four. Another selling point: the NS 1200’s body is virtually blank in its middle section, ideal for shortening it to match the different chassis. Detail of the Atlas plastic models is also quite good, so there was the potential for something quite convincing.
Work started with the disassembly of the static Atlas NS Class 1200 model. It's all-styrene, just with a metal plate as a chassis. Against my expectations the model's hull was only held on the chassis by two tiny screws under the "noses", so that I did not have to use force to separate it. The body's walls were also relatively thin, good for the upcoming modifications. The model also featured two nice driver's stations, which could be removed easily, too. Unfortunately; they had to go to make enough room for the electronics of the Märklin 3039 all-metal chassis.
Dry-fitting the chassis under the Class 1200 hull revealed that the stunt would basically work - the chassis turned out to be only marginally too wide. I just had to grind a little of the chassis' front edges away to reduce pressure on the styrene body, and I had to bend the end sections of the chassis’ stabilizing side walls.
To make the Class 1200 hull fit over the shorter BR 110 chassis a section of about 3 cm had to be taken out of the body’s middle section. The Class 1200 lent itself to this measure because the body is rather bare and uniform along its mid-section, so that re-combining two shortened halves should not pose too many problems.
To make the hull sit properly on the chassis I added styrene profiles inside of it - easy to glue them into place, thanks to the material. At this time, the original fixed pantographs and some wiring on the roof had gone, brake hoses on the nose were removed to make space for the BR 110 couplers, and the clear windows were removed after a little fight (they were glued into their places, but thankfully each side has three separate parts instead of just one that would easily break). PSR on the seam between the hull halves followed, plus some grey primer to check the surface quality.
Even though the new body now had a proper position on the metal chassis, a solution had to be found to securely hold it in place. My solution: an adapter for a screw in the chassis’ underside, scratched. I found a small area next to the central direction switch where I could place a screw and a respective receiver that could attached to the body’s roof. A 3 mm hole was drilled into the chassis’ floor and a long Spax screw with a small diameter was mated with a hollow square styrene profile, roughly trimmed down in length to almost reach the roof internally. Then a big lump of 2C putty was put into the hull, and the styrene adapter pressed into it, so that it would held well in place. Fiddly, but it worked!
Unfortunately, the pantographs of the Atlas/IXO model were static and not flexible at all. One was displayed raised while the other one was retracted. Due to the raised pantograph’s stiffness the model might lose contact to or even damage the model railroad catenary, even when not pulling power through it – not a satisfactory condition. Since the chassis could be powered either from below or through the pantographs (the Märklin 3039 chassis offers an analogue switch underneath to change between power sources) I decided to pimp my build further and improve looks and functionality. I organized a pair of aftermarket diamond pantographs, made from metal, fully functional and held in place on the model’s roof with (very short and) small screws from the inside.
I was not certain if the screws were conductive, and I had to somehow connect them with the switch in the chassis. I eventually soldered thin wire to the pantographs’ bases, led them through additional small holes in the roof inside and soldered them to the switch input, with an insulating screw joint in-between to allow a later detachment/disassembly without damage to the body. There might have been more elegant solutions, but my limited resources and skills did not allow more. It works, though, and I am happy with it, since the cables won’t be visible from the outside. This layout allows to draw power through them, I just had to create a flexible and detachable connection internally. Some plugs, wire and soldering created a solution – rough (electronics is not my strength!), but it worked! Another investment of money, time and effort into this project, but I think that the new pantographs significantly improve the overall look and the functionality of this model.
Internally, the missing light bulbs were retrofitted with OEM parts. A late external addition were PE brass ladders for the shunting platforms and under the doors for the driver’s cabins. They were rather delicate, but the model would not see much handling or railroading action, anyway, and the improve the overall impression IMHO a lot. On the roof, some details like cooling fans and tailored conduits (from the Atlas Series 1200) were added, they partly obscure the seam all around the body.
Unfortunately, due to the necessary space for the chassis, its motor and the electronics, the driver stations’ interiors could not be re-mounted – but this is not too obvious, despite the clear windows.
Painting and markings:
Finding a suitable operator took some time – I wanted a European company, and the livery had to be rather simple and easy to create with my limited means at hand, so that a presentable finish could be achieved. Belgium was one candidate, but I eventually settled on the small country of Luxembourg after I saw the CFL’s Class 3600s in their all-over wine-red livery with discreet yellow cheatlines.
The overall basic red was, after a coat with grey primer, applied with a rattle can, and I guesstimated the tone with RAL 3005 (Weinrot), based on various pictures of CFL locomotives in different states of maintenance and weathering. Apparently, the fresh paint was pretty bright, while old paint gained a rather brownish/maroon hue. For some contrast, the roof was painted in dark grey (Humbrol 67; RAL 7024), based on the CFL’s Class 3600 design, and the pantographs’ bases were painted and dry-brushed with this tone, too, for a coherent look. The chassis with its bogies and wheels remained basically black, but it was turned matt, and the originally bare metal wheel discs were painted, too. The visible lower areas were thoroughly treated with dry-brushed red-brown and dark grey, simulating rust and dust while emphasizing many delicate details on the bogies at the same time.
The hull was slightly treated with dry-brushed/cloudy wine red, so that the red would look a bit weathered and not so uniform. The grey roof was treated similarly.
The yellow cheatlines were created with yellow (RAL 1003) decal stripes from TL Modellbau in 5 and 2mm width. Generic H0 scale sheets from the same company provided the yellow CFL logos and the serial numbers on the flanks, so that the colors matched well. Stencils and some other small markings were procured from Andreas Nothaft (Modellbahndecals.de).
After securing the decals with some acrylic varnish the model was weathered with watercolors and some dry-brushing, simulating brownish-grey dust and dirt from the overhead contact line that frequently collects on the roof and is then washed down by rain. Finally, the whole body was sealed with matt acrylic varnish from the rattle can – even though it turned out to be rather glossy. But it does not look wrong, so I stuck with this flaw.
Among the last steps was the re-mounting of the clear windows (which had OOB thin silver trim, which was retained) and head- and taillights were created with ClearFix and white and red clear window color.
+++ 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:
After the Ukrainian independence in 1991, the Ukrainian Air Force (Повітряні Сили України, Povitryani Syly Ukrayiny) was established on March 17, 1992, in accordance with a Directive of the General Staff Chief of the Armed Forces. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, many aircraft were left on Ukrainian territory, including a wide range of fighters and attack aircraft, helicopters and even strategic bombers, and these became the initial equipment. Ever since, the Ukrainian air force has been downsizing and upgrading its forces, but for many years the main inventory still consisted of Soviet-made aircraft.
Following the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution and subsequent March 2014 Russian annexation of the Crimea peninsula and the following violence and insurgency in east Ukraine, the Ukrainian government tried to increase its defense spending and capabilities. Returning equipment (of Russian origin, though) to service was a key part of the spending drive, but in parallel attempts were made to procure flying material from Western sources in order to become moer and more independent from the obtrusive neighbor. In April 2014 two MiG-29 aircraft were restored to flight on short notice and in August a decommissioned An-26 transport aircraft was restored to active service by a volunteer group. On 5 January 2015 the air force received another 4 restored airplanes, two MiG-29s and two Su-27s, as well as two Mi-8 and Mi-2 helicopters. However, since these aircraft had already accumulated a considerable number of flying hours, this could only have been an interim solution and the Ukraine turned directly to NATO for material support.
This politically highly delicate help was eventually granted in the form of eight General Dynamics F-16 C (six) and D (two) multi-role fighters of early Block 40 standard, leased from the U.S.A. and diverted from active aircraft which were about to become surplus stock and mothballed, anyway.
The F-16 Fighting Falcon itself was a single-engine supersonic multirole fighter aircraft originally developed by General Dynamics for the United States Air Force (USAF). Designed as a light air superiority day fighter as a complement to the heavier F-15 Eagle interceptor, it evolved into a successful all-weather multirole aircraft. Over 4,600 aircraft were built since production was approved in 1976. In 1993, General Dynamics sold its aircraft manufacturing business to the Lockheed Corporation, which in turn became part of Lockheed Martin after a 1995 merger with Martin Marietta.
Although no longer being purchased by the launch customer, the U.S. Air Force, improved versions are still being built for export customers – the F-16 has been procured to serve in the air forces of 25 other nations all around the world, making it one of the world's most numerous fixed-wing aircraft in military service.
The Fighting Falcon's key features include a frameless bubble canopy for better visibility, side-mounted control stick to ease control while maneuvering, an ejection seat reclined 30 degrees from vertical to reduce the effect of g-forces on the pilot, and the first use of a relaxed static stability/fly-by-wire flight control system which helps to make it an agile aircraft. The F-16 has an internal M61 Vulcan cannon and the advanced C/D version features a total of 11 locations for mounting weapons and other mission equipment.
The eight machines for the Ukraine arrived in June 2016 via direct transfer flights over the Atlantic and Western Europe. The former USAF machines were delivered “as is”, even though they had some state-of-the-art avionics replaced by less sensitive alternatives from older F-16 production blocks. Together with the fighters, an undisclosed number of AIM-9M Sidewinder and AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles were delivered, but the leasing agreement did not include LANTIRN pods that would provide the F-16C/D with improved all-day/all-weather strike capability. Other equipment like ECM pods was also not included. Service, maintenance and logistics for the new type in Ukrainian service was, due to the small operational number, secured with the help of the Polish air force, which had been operating 48 F-16C/D+ Block 52 fighters since 2006 and had the required experience and facilities at its 31st Tactical Air Base in Poznań-Krzesiny.
Upon arrival, the aircraft were immediately re-painted in a striking digital camouflage and received non-consecutive tactical codes, apparently based on the airframe’s former U.S. serial numbers, using the last two digits. They were all allocated to the 40th Tactical Aviation Brigade, based at Vasylkiv air base, south of Kiev, where they replaced a number of outdated and partly grounded MiG-29 fighters. They were exclusively tasked with aerial defense of the Ukrainian capital city – also as a political sign that the machines were not intended for attack missions.
Since their introduction, the Ukrainian F-16s have been fulfilling QRA duties and airspace patrol, and the corresponding maintenance infrastructure has been gradually built up, so that F-16 operations became independent from Poland in 2019. With the worsening relationship to Russia, more military hardware of Western origin is expected to enter Ukrainian service. If the tight Ukrainian defense budget allows it, twenty more 2nd hand F-16s are to be delivered in 2021 to replace more Soviet fighter types (primarily the rest of the Ukrainian MiG-29 “Fulcrum” single and two seater fleet), and the procurement of LANTIRN pods to expand the type’s capabilities is under consideration and negotiations, too.
General characteristics:
Length: 49 ft 5 in (15.06 m)
Wingspan: 32 ft 8 in (9.96 m)
Height: 16 ft (4.9 m)
Wing area: 300 sq ft (28 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 64A204
Empty weight: 18,900 lb (8,573 kg)
Gross weight: 26,500 lb (12,020 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 42,300 lb (19,187 kg)
Internal fuel capacity: 7,000 pounds (3,200 kg)
Powerplant:
1× General Electric F110-GE-100 afterburning turbofan
with 17,155 lbf (76.31 kN) dry and 28,600 lbf (127 kN) thrust with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: Mach 2.05 at altitude in clean configuration
Mach 1.2, 800 kn (921 mph; 1,482 km/h) at sea level
Combat range: 295 nmi (339 mi, 546 km) on a hi-lo-hi mission with 4x 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs
Ferry range: 2,277 nmi (2,620 mi, 4,217 km) with drop tanks
Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,000 m) plus
g limits: +9.0 (limited by flight control system)
Rate of climb: +50,000 ft/min (250 m/s)
Wing loading: 88.3 lb/sq ft (431 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 1.095 (1.24 with loaded weight & 50% internal fuel)
Armament:
1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A1 Vulcan 6-barrel rotary cannon with 511 rounds
2× wing-tip air-to-air missile launch rails plus 6× under-wing
and 3× under-fuselage pylon (2 of these for sensors) stations
with a capacity of up to 17,000 lb (7,700 kg) of a wide range of stores
The kit and its assembly:
I am not a big F-16 fan, but in some cases it’s an unavoidable canvas – just like in this case here. This fictional aircraft model (or better: this model of a [yet] fictional F-16 operator) was spawned by two ideas. One was the simple question: what if the Ukraine had after the USSR’s dissolution chosen a stronger attachment to (old) Western forces after the dissolution of the USSSR? And/or: what if the Ukraine had started to procure non-Russian equipment, esp. aircraft? So, what would an Ukrainian F-16 might have looked like, in general but esp. after the Crimea annexation in 2014 when such a scenario had become even more possible?
The other source of inspiration was a picture of an Ukrainian Su-24 with grey digital camouflage, a scheme that was/is also worn by some Su-25s. When I stumbled upon an Authentic Decals sheet for this unique paint scheme that allows to apply the complex and delicate pattern through water-slide transfers, I thought that the relatively “flat” F-16 surface would be an ideal basis to try this stunt?
What sounded like a very simple livery whif on an OOB model turned into a construction nightmare. Originally, this project provided me with a purpose for a dubious Trumpeter F-16 kit that I had bought some years ago – dead cheap, but righteously so. This kit is cruel, the model even has no concrete variant specification and is apparently the re-boxing of a kit from an obscure Chinese company called “Income”. Effectively, the Trumpeter F-16 is a rip-off of Italeri’s quite nice F-16C/D kit – but the Income/Trumpeter clone comes with MUCH deeper engravings esp. on the fuselage that remind a lot of the dreaded Matchbox “trenches”. Everything is rather “soft” and toylike, the clear parts are poor and the (few) decals look like toy stickers (!!!). I’d call it crude, even the instructions are apparently poor scans or photocopies from the Italeri kit, including hints for detail painting with no corresponding reference what colors should be used at all… All that could have been overlooked, but after starting with the kit I could not commit myself to use it any further. It’s rare that I give up because of a kit’s basis!
Next idea to “save” the project’s idea of an Ukrainian F-16 was to dig out a surplus Intech F-16 from the pile, also bought long ago because it was cheap, as conversion fodder. This kit has also been re-released in infinite variations under the Mister-/Mastercraft label. Upon closer inspection this kit turned out to have massive flaws, too, but in different areas from the Trumpeter thing. For instance, the Intech kit’s wings are utterly thick, certainly 1mm thicker than the Trumpeter model’s parts. This does not sound much, but on the really thin F-16 wings and stabilizers this looks really awful! Furthermore, the clear parts had not been fully molded, so I’d have needed a replacement canopy, anyway. Again, I gave up on building…
…until I decided to make the best of this mess and combine the “best” parts from both gimp models, trying to mend the worst flaws to an acceptable level. This led to the glorious kitbashing that this model eventually became! From the Intech kit I took the acceptable fuselage, including cockpit interior, air intake and landing gear, as well as the fin and the weapon pylons. The Trumpeter kit donated its thinner wings and the stabilizers, as well as the much better open exhaust nozzle (there’s an optional closed one, too; the Intech kit only offers an open nozzle, without ANY surface detail at all, it’s just a blank pipe!).
Beyond these basic ingredients, some more donors became necessary: All clear parts from both Intech and Trumpeter kit turned out to be rubbish for various reasons. The decision to build an F-16D two-seater was dictated by the fact that I had a leftover canopy from an Italeri F-16 kit in the donor bank – luckily it fitted well to the Intech kit’s body. Two crewmen from the spares box populate the cockpit and hide the rather basic interior, which was not improved at all. Furthermore, the ordnance came from external sources, too. The characteristic drop tanks with their cut-off tails were also leftover parts from the Italeri F-16, all AAMs come from a Hasegawa weapon set.
Some PSR was necessary to blend the parts from different kits together – thankfully, almost all F-16 kits are constructed in a similar fashion, even though there are small detail differences. In this case, the wings had to be slightly modified to fit onto the Intech fuselage. However, even those parts from the original kit(s) that are supposed to fit, e.g. the fin or the alternative cockpit opening frames for the optional single- and two-seater canopies, do hardly match at all. Horrible.
I rather focused on the model’s exterior, and a personal addition to improve the overall look of the otherwise rather basic/poor model, I added some small blade antennae that were totally missing on either model. Another extra detail are the small static dischargers on the trailing edges, created with thin, heated sprue material. Only small details, but they improve IMHO the model’s look considerably.
Painting and markings:
Until today, I never dared to apply decal camouflage to a model, but I expected that the flat/smooth F-16 surface would make this stunt relatively easy. This application method would also make painting the model easy, since only a single, uniform color had to be laid down from above and below.
To my surprise, the painting instructions of the Authentic Decals sheet for a number of Ukrainian Su-25 (which all carry the same standardized pixel camouflage) indicated RAL tones – a little surprising, but: why not? Since no other authentic color references were available, I cross-checked the paint suggestions with real life pictures of Su-24s and -25s in this striking paint scheme, and the indicated tones appear very plausible.
The problem: not every RAL tone is available as a model paint, so I had to make guesstimates. This eventually led to Modelmaster 2133 (Fulcrum Grey) as a light grey overall basis (suggested: RAL 7030 Achatgrau/Agate Grey, a tone with a brownish hue) from above and Humbrol 47 (Sea Blue Gloss) for a pale blue underside. The recommendation for the belly is RAL 7001 (Silbergrau/Silver Grey, very close to FS 36375), and this appears plausible, too, even though real-life pictures suggest a more bluish tone. But for a more dramatic look and some color contrast to the upper side’s all-grey I deliberately settled upon the Humbrol color, and this looks IMHO good.
The other suggested grey tones that make up the pixel patterns are RAL 7040 (Fenstergrau/Window Grey), RAL 7037 (Staubgrau/Dust Grey) and RAL 7043 (Verkehrsgrau B/Traffic Grey).
The cockpit interior was painted in medium grey (FS 36231, Humbrol 140), the air intake and the landing gear in white (Humbrol 22). The exhaust nozzle was painted externally with individual Metallizer mixes (with blue and gold added), while the inside was painted with Burnt Steel Metallizer towards the afterburner section while the ceramic nozzle petals were painted in a pale, almost white grey with darker lines, applied wet-in-wet. This looks pretty good – but does not withstand a closer inspection, just like the rest of this Franken-bashed F-16 thing.
Applying the digital camouflage pattern went better than expected. The decals turned out to be very thin and delicate, though, with almost no excessive clear film outside of the printed areas, so that application had to be executed swiftly and with lots of water to slide them into place. Nothing for modelers who are faint at heart! Because the single pixel clouds partly follow the Su-25 outlines, the decals had partly to be tailored to the rather different F-16 shape, and due to the different proportions I also had to improvise with the material at hand – fortunately the Su-25 sheet offered enough material to cover the F-16! Some small areas lacked decal material and had to be filled through painting, though, with replacement model paints for the aforementioned darker RAL greys, namely Humbrol 246 (RLM 75) and a 2:1 mix of Humbrol 125 and 67. The lightest grey on the prints turned out to be very close to the Fulcrum Grey, so there’s unfortunately very little contrast, and this only became clear after the decals had already dried. However, I left it that way, because lightening the Fulcrum Grey up further would have been a quite messy affair, ending in a rather dirty look that I wanted to avoid, and it had called for an almost white tone.
Another challenge became the weathering process, since I normally apply a black ink wash and some post-panel shading to the finished and painted model before I add the decals to a model. Fearing that the ink might creep under the decals’ clear sections, I left that step out completely. The delicate static dischargers were another complicating factor. So, I decided to finish the upper camouflage with the light grey base and the decals cammo first. This made trimming down excess decal material easier. After that had been roughly finished, the dischargers were added and the underside was painted blue. On top of that came the “normal” decals with national markings, codes and stencils. The latter were mostly taken from a vintage Microscale F-16 sheet, the tactical code came from a Begemot Ka-27 sheet. Since the bort number on the air intake was not well visible frame every angle, I added a white 77 to the fin, too. Thereafter I added some panel lines with the help of thinned black ink and a soft pencil. This way the model appears pretty clean, and I think that’s fine since many recent Ukrainian aircraft I know from pictures look well-tended. Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish overall.
A simple F-16 in alternative markings – that’s what this model was supposed to be. I did not expect that the building phase would become such a challenge, and I’d sincerely recommend to any modeler who wants to build a “serious” F-16 in 1:72 to stay away from the Trumpeter and the Intech/Mister-/Mastercraft kits. They might be cheap, but that does not outweigh their flaws and building troubles.
Beyond these technical issues, I like the look of this “Ukrainized” Viper, the digital camouflage looks very special and works well on the aircraft. The light grey base could have been lighter, though. In fact, the F-16 now looks like an exaggerated U.S. Aggressor on first sight, but with the Ukrainian markings the whole thing looks pretty different and conclusive - a “what if” in the best sense. 😉
+++ 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:
In December 1953, NATO Supreme Command issued specifications for a new light tactical support aircraft. European manufacturers were invited to submit their designs for this requested Light Weight Strike Fighter role. The G.91 was one contender and 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 roads
• 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.
Project selections took 18 months to complete and the final selection of the three remaining competing designs was planned for late 1957. In September 1957, at the Centre d'Essais en Vol at Brétigny-sur-Orge, in France, the three rival aircraft types met for evaluation trials. During the trials the Italian aircraft performed impressively and, in January 1958, the Fiat G.91 was officially declared the winner.
Following a meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in April 1958 it was agreed that the G.91 would be the first NATO lightweight strike fighter. A production meeting was planned for May 1958 to discuss the production of the aircraft with financial support from the United States, the Americans would provide some of the finance for the French, German and Italian aircraft and pay for the Turkish aircraft. Other NATO states were supposed to buy the G.91, too., and the defence ministers reached agreement to order 50 aircraft for each country.
Given the large economic and commercial interests at stake, there was a certain amount of controversy surrounding this decision. 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 Italian government ordered the G.91 for the Italian Air Force before the results of the competition were known. An initial pre-production batch of machines would later go on to serve for many years with the Italian aerobatic team, the Frecce Tricolori as the G.91 PAN.
The G.91 was also considered by Austria, Norway, Spain, Greece, Switzerland, and even the United States Army, which briefly evaluated the type as a possible Forward Air Control aircraft before relinquishing all fixed-wing aircraft operations to the Air Force.
Spain bought the intended 50 aircraft (42 single seaters called G.91R/2, outfitting two fighter bomber squadrons, plus 8 trainers with tandem seats, comparable with the Italian G.91T/1 trainers), which were produced in Italy from early 1961 onwards and became operational with the Ejército del Aire in late 1962, replacing the F-86 and HA-220 Super Saetas in the ground attack/CAS role.
The G.91R/2 was a hybrid between the simple Italian G.91R/1 and the later, more sophisticated G.91R/4 for Greece and Turkey. It used the R/1's airframe with the modified nose housing three cameras, but already had four underwing hardpoints, structural reinforcements and improved avionics, including a Doppler radar and a revised instrumentation that was also introduced with the Italian R/1A.
The G.91 in Spanish service was already phased out from the mid 70ies onwards and completely retired in 1986, being replaced by F-5 and Mirage F.1.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 10.3 m (33 ft 9 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: 3,100 kg (6,830 lb)
Loaded weight: 5,440 kg (11,990 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 5,500 kg (12,100 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Bristol Siddeley Orpheus 803 turbojet, 22.2 kN (5,000 lbf)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,075 km/h (580 kn, 668 mph)
Range: 1,150 km (621 nmi, 715 mi)
Service ceiling: 13,100 m (43,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 30 m/s (6,000 ft/min)
Wing loading: 331 kg/m² (67.8 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.42
Armament:
4× 12.7 mm (0.50 in) M2 Browning machine guns,
4× under-wing pylon stations holding up to 680 kg/1.500 lb of payload
The kit and its assembly:
Second entry for the "1 Week group Build" at whatifmodelers.com, since my first model was finished in just three days... This one struck me recently when I browsed through the F-5 book of the "Planes and Pilots" series, and came across the Spanish machines. What if Spain had bought the G.91...?
The resulting aircraft would surely have looked pretty in the three-tone "Small Asia" paint scheme, so the idea landed on the list and now entered the hardware stage.
...not until I got hands on a G.91 kit. Not easy, at least if you do not want to sink a fortune. I was lucky to find a pair of Airfix G.91s - from Japanese production, the boxes are dated 1981! And the kit is accordingly rather basic, especially anything concerning the interior is primitive, the wheels are a joke and the ordnance better ignored.
However, the fuselage lines are not bad, and since I had some leftover sprues from the more modern Revell G.91 in store I decided to pimp the Airfix kit with some donation parts and build an Ejércite del Aire whif.
It's not a true kitbashing, but a lot of Revell parts went into the vintage Airfix kit:
• The cockpit tub (which includes an upper wall for the air intake) was implanted
• The ejection seat and the dashboard, too
• An improvised jet nozzle was added - the Airfix kit just offers a bare hole(!)
• From the landing gear only the main struts were taken
• Even the landing gear covers were taken from the Revell kit
• The outer pylons are donations, too, while the inner ones were modified
• Ordnance is new, too, all from the spares box
The kit needed some putty work, but fit was surprisingly good.
Painting and markings:
Well, Spain is the theme and so I gave this Gina a "typical" livery, borrowed from export F-5s (e .g. for Spain, Iran, Jordania), the “Small Asia” paint scheme.
As basic colors I used Humbrol 74 (Linen), 29 (RAF Dark Earth) and 116 (FS34079), with pale grey undersides in Humbrol 129 (FS36440). The landing gear, its wells and the air intake were painted in Aluminum (Modelmaster), while the cockpit was kept in Dark Sea Grey (Humbrol 164) with a light blue dashboard - confirmed by real life pics.
As per usual the kit received a light black ink wash, light panel shading (also adding to a sun-bleached look) and some dry painting with light grey. No OOB decal was and could be used - 35 years took their toll!
Anyway, the decals come primarily from a Heller Mirage III, as well as some additional stencils e .g. from a BAC Lightning (Xtradecal sheet) and many red stripes or the camera ports, which were cut from TL Modellbau decal stripes.
Soot/exhaust stains were created with grinded graphite and around the nozzle and the gun ports. Finally, everything was sealed under a coat of matt acrylic varnish.
This Hispanic Gina is not a great piece of work, but the paint scheme changes IMHO the total look of the small aircraft, very different from what you usually see? And it's a second proud addition to whatifmodelers.com's "1 Week Group Build", created in the leftover five day timeframe after the first whif kit.
And does anybody doubt that Spain flew the G.91...?
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
The A-14 program originally started in 2005 as a private venture, initiated by Northrop-Grumman together with the Elbit Group as a joint venture through Elbit’s Texas-based aircraft division M7 Aerosystems, an approved supplier to major aerospace clients. The aircraft was intended to replace the USAF’s A-10 attack aircraft as well as early F-16s in the strike role from 2010 onwards. The time slot for the project turned out to be advantageous, because at that time the USAF was contemplating to replace the simple and sturdy A-10 with the much more complex F-35, eventually even with its VTOL variant, and the highly specialized F-117 was retired, too.
The A-14 revived conceptual elements of Grumman’s stillborn A-12 stealth program for the US Navy, which had also been part of the USAF’s plans to replace the supersonic F-111 tactical bomber, but on a less ambitious and expensive level concerning technology, aiming for a more effective compromise between complexity, survivability and costs. The basic idea was an updated LTV A-7D (the A-10’s predecessor from the Vietnam War era), which had far more sophisticated sensor and navigation equipment than the rather simple but sturdy A-10, but with pragmatic stealth features and a high level of survivability in a modern frontline theatre or operations.
M7 Aerosystems started on a blank sheet, even though Northrop-Grumman’s A-12 influence was clearly visible, and to a certain degree the aircraft shared the basic layout with the F-117A. The A-14 was tailored from the start to the ground attack role, and therefore a subsonic design. Measures to reduce radar cross-section included airframe shaping such as alignment of edges, fixed-geometry serpentine inlets that prevented line-of-sight of the engine faces from any exterior view, use of radar-absorbent material (RAM), and attention to detail such as hinges and maintenance covers that could provide a radar return. The A-14 was furthermore designed to have decreased radio emissions, infrared signature and acoustic signature as well as reduced visibility to the naked eye.
The resulting airframe was surprisingly large for an attack aircraft – in fact, it rather reminded of a tactical bomber in the F-111/Su-24 class than an alternative to the A-10. The A-14 consisted of a rhomboid-shaped BWB (blended-wing-and-body) with extended wing tips and only a moderate (35°) wing sweep, cambered leading edges, a jagged trailing edge and a protruding cockpit section which extended forward of the main body.
The majority of the A-14’s structure and surface were made out of a carbon-graphite composite material that is stronger than steel, lighter than aluminum, and absorbs a significant amount of radar energy. The central fuselage bulge ended in a short tail stinger with a pair of swept, canted fins as a butterfly tail, which also shrouded the engine’s hot efflux. The fins could have been omitted, thanks to the aerodynamically unstable aircraft’s fly-by-wire steering system, and they effectively increased the A-14’s radar signature as well as its visual profile, but the gain in safety in case of FBW failure or physical damage was regarded as a worthwhile trade-off. Due to its distinctive shape and profile, the A-14 quickly received the unofficial nickname “Squatina”, after the angel shark family.
The spacious and armored cockpit offered room for the crew of two (pilot and WSO or observer for FAC duties), seated side-by-side under a generous glazing, with a very good field of view forward and to the sides. The fuselage structure was constructed around a powerful cannon, the five-barrel GAU-12/U 25 mm ‘Equalizer’ gun, which was, compared with the A-10’s large GAU-8/A, overall much lighter and more compact, but with only little less firepower. It fired a new NATO series of 25 mm ammunition at up to 4.200 RPM. The gun itself was located under the cockpit tub, slightly set off to port side, and the front wheel well was offset to starboard to compensate, similar in arrangement to the A-10 or Su-25. The gun’s ammunition drum and a closed feeding belt system were located behind the cockpit in the aircraft’s center of gravity. An in-flight refueling receptor (for the USAF’s boom system) was located in the aircraft’s spine behind the cockpit, normally hidden under a flush cover.
Due to the gun installation in the fuselage, however, no single large weapon bay to minimize radar cross section and drag through external ordnance was incorporated, since this feature would have increased airframe size and overall weight. Instead, the A-14 received four, fully enclosed compartments between the wide main landing gear wells and legs. The bays could hold single iron bombs of up to 2.000 lb caliber each, up to four 500 lb bombs or CBUs, single laser-guided GBU-14 glide bombs, AGM-154 JSOW or GBU-31/38 JDAM glide bombs, AGM-65 Maverick guided missiles or B61 Mod 11 tactical nuclear weapons, as well as the B61 Mod 12 standoff variant, under development at that time). Retractable launch racks for defensive AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles were available, too, and additional external pylons could be added, e.g. for oversize ordnance like AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) or AGM-158 Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), or drop tanks for ferry flights. The total in- and external ordnance load was 15,000 lb (6,800 kg).
The A-14 was designed with superior maneuverability at low speeds and altitude in mind and therefore featured a large wing area, with high wing aspect ratio on the outer wing sections, and large ailerons areas. The ailerons were placed at the far ends of the wings for greater rolling moment and were split, making them decelerons, so that they could also be used as air brakes in flight and upon landing.
This wing configuration promoted short takeoffs and landings, permitting operations from primitive forward airfields near front lines. The sturdy landing gear with low-pressure tires supported these tactics, and a retractable arrester hook, hidden by a flush cover under the tail sting, made it possible to use mobile arrested-recovery systems.
The leading edge of the wing had a honeycomb structure panel construction, providing strength with minimal weight; similar panels covered the flap shrouds, elevators, rudders and sections of the fins. The skin panels were integral with the stringers and were fabricated using computer-controlled machining, reducing production time and cost, and this construction made the panels more resistant to damage. The skin was not load-bearing, so damaged skin sections could be easily replaced in the field, with makeshift materials if necessary.
Power came from a pair of F412-GE-114 non-afterburning turbofans, engines that were originally developed for the A-12, but de-navalized and lightened for the A-14. These new engines had an output of 12,000 lbf (53 kN) each and were buried in blended fairings above the wing roots, with jagged intakes and hidden ducts. Flat exhausts on the wings’ upper surface minimized both radar and IR signatures.
Thanks to the generous internal fuel capacity in the wings and the fuselage, the A-14 was able to loiter and operate under 1,000 ft (300 m) ceilings for extended periods. It typically flew at a relatively low speed of 300 knots (350 mph; 560 km/h), which made it a better platform for the ground-attack role than fast fighter-bombers, which often have difficulty targeting small, slow-moving targets or executing more than just a single attack run on a selected target.
A mock-up was presented and tested in the wind tunnel and for radar cross-section in late 2008. The A-14’s exact radar cross-section (RCS) remained classified, but in 2009 M7 Aerosystems released information indicating it had an RCS (from certain angles) of −40 dBsm, equivalent to the radar reflection of a "steel marble". With this positive outcome and the effective design, M7 Aerosystems eventually received federal funding for the production of prototypes for an official DT&E (Demonstration Testing and Evaluation) program.
Three prototypes/pre-production aircraft were built in the course of 2010 and 2011, and the first YA-14 made its maiden flight on 10 May 2011. The DT&E started immediately, and the machines (a total of three flying prototypes were completed, plus two additional airframes for static tests) were gradually outfitted with mission avionics and other equipment. This included GPS positioning, an inertial navigation system, passive sensors to detect radar usage, a small, gyroscopically stabilized turret, mounted under the nose of the aircraft, containing a FLIR boresighted with a laser spot-tracker/designator, and an experimental 3-D laser scanning LIDAR in the nose as a radiation-less alternative to a navigation and tracking radar.
Soon after the DT&E program gained momentum in 2012, the situation changed for M7 Aerosystems when the US Air Force considered the F-35B STOVL variant as its favored replacement CAS aircraft, but concluded that the aircraft could not generate a sufficient number of sorties. However, the F-35 was established as the A-14’s primary rival and remained on the USAF’s agenda. For instance, at that time the USAF proposed disbanding five A-10 squadrons in its budget request to cut its fleet of 348 A-10s by 102 to lessen cuts to multi-mission aircraft in service that could replace the specialized attack aircraft.
In August 2013, Congress and the Air Force examined various proposals for an A-10 replacement, including the A-14, F-35 and the MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle, and, despite the A-14’s better qualities in the ground attack role, the F-35 came out as the overall winner, since it was the USAF’s favorite. Despite its complexity, the F-35 was – intended as a multi-role tri-service aircraft and also with the perspective of bigger international sales than the more specialized A-14 – regarded as the more versatile and, in the long run, more cost-efficient procurement option. This sealed the A-14’s fate and the F-35A entered service with U.S. Air Force F-35A in August 2016 (after the F-35B was introduced to the U.S. Marine Corps in July 2015). At that time, the U.S. planned to buy 2,456 F-35s through 2044, which would represent the bulk of the crewed tactical airpower of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps for several decades.
Since the A-14’s technology was considered to be too critical to be marketed to export customers (Israel showed early interest in the aircraft, as well as South Korea), the program was cancelled in 2016.
General characteristics:
Crew: 2 (pilot, WSO)
Length: 54 ft 11 1/2 in (16.78 m)
Wingspan: 62 ft 11 1/2 in (19.22 m)
Height: 11 ft 3 3/4 in (3.45 m)
Wing area: 374.9 ft² (117.5 m²)
Empty weight: 24,959 lb (11,321 kg)
Loaded weight: 30,384 lb (13,782 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 50,000 lb (22,700 kg)
Internal fuel capacity: 11,000 lb (4,990 kg)
Powerplant:
2× General Electric Whitney F412-GE-114 non-afterburning turbofans
with 12,000 lbf (53 kN) thrust each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 630 mph (1,010 km/h, 550 kn) at 40,000 ft altitude /
Mach 0.95 at sea level
Cruise speed: 560 mph (900 km/h, 487 kn) at 40,000 ft altitude
Range: 1,089 nmi (1,253 mi, 2,017 km)
Ferry range: 1,800 nmi (2,100 mi, 3,300 km)
Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,200 m)
Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min (250 m/s)
Wing loading: 133 lb/ft² (193 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.48 (full internal fuel, no stores)
Take-off run: 1,200 m (3,930 ft) at 42,000 lb (19,000 kg) over a 15 m (30 ft) obstacle
Armament:
1× General Dynamics GAU-12/U Equalizer 25 mm (0.984 in) 5-barreled rotary cannon
with 1,200 rounds (max. capacity 1,350 rounds)
4x internal weapon bays plus 4x external optional hardpoints with a total capacity of
15,000 lb (6,800 kg) and provisions to carry/deploy a wide range of ordnance
The kit and its assembly:
A major kitbashing project which I had on my idea list for a long time and its main ingredients/body donors already stashed away – but, as with many rather intimidating builds, it takes some external motivation to finally tackle the idea and bring it into hardware form. This came in August 2020 with the “Prototypes” group build at whatifmodellers.com, even though is still took some time to find the courage and mojo to start.
The original inspiration was the idea of a stealthy successor for the A-10, or a kind of more modern A-7 as an alternative to the omnipresent (and rather boring, IMHO) F-35. An early “ingredient” became the fuselage of a Zvezda Ka-58 stealth helicopter kit – I liked the edgy shape, the crocodile-like silhouette and the spacious side-by-side cockpit. Adding wings, however, was more challenging, and I remembered a 1:200 B-2A which I had turned into a light Swedish 1:72 attack stealth aircraft. Why not use another B-2 for the wings and the engines, but this time a bigger 1:144 model that would better match the quite bulbous Ka-58 fuselage? This donor became an Italeri kit.
Work started with the fuselage: the Ka-58’s engine and gearbox hump had to go first and a generous, new dorsal section had to be scratched with 1mm styrene sheet and some PSR. The cockpit and its glazing could be retained and were taken OOB. Under the nose, the Ka-58’s gun turret was omitted and a scratched front landing gear well was implanted instead.
The wings consist of the B-2 model; the lower “fuselage half” had its front end cut away, then the upper fuselage half of the Ka-58 was used as benchmark to cut the B-2’s upper wing/body part in two outer wing panels. Once these elements had been glued together, the Ka-58’s lower nose and tail section were tailored to match the B-2 parts. The B-2 engine bays were taken OOB and mounted next, so that the A-14’s basic hull was complete and the first major PSR session could start. Blending the parts into each other turned out to be a tedious process, since some 2-3 mm wide gaps had to be filled.
Once the basic BWP pack had been finished, I added the fins. These were taken from an 1:72 F-117 kit (IIRC from Italeri), which I had bought in a lot many moons ago. The fins were just adapted at their base to match the tail sting slope, and they were mounted in a 45° angle. This looks very F-117ish but was IMHO the most plausible solution.
Now that the overall length of the aircraft was defined, I could work on the final major assembly part: the wing tips. The 1:144 B-2 came with separate wing tip sections, but they proved to be much too long for the Squatina. After some trials I reduced their length by more than half, so that the B-2’s jagged wing trailing edge was kept. The result looks quite natural, even though blending the cut wing tips to the BWB turned out to be a PSR nightmare because their thickness reduces gently towards the tip – since I took out a good part of the inner section, the resulting step had to be sanded away and hidden with more PSR.
Detail work started next, including the cockpit glazing, the bomb bay (the B-2 kit comes with one of its bays open, and I kept this detail and modified the interior) and the landing gear, the latter was taken from the F-117 donor bank and fitted surprisingly well.
Some sensors were added, too, including a flat glass panel on the nose tip and a triangular IRST fairing under the nose, next to the landing gear well.
Painting and markings:
For a stealth aircraft and a prototype I wanted something subdued or murky, but not an all-black or -grey livery. I eventually settled for the rather dark paint scheme that the USAF applied to its late B-52Gs and the B-1Bs, which consists of two tones from above, FS 36081 (Dark Grey, a.k.a. Dark Gunship Grey) and 34086 (Green Drab), and underneath (FS 36081 and 36118 (Gunship Grey). The irregular pattern was adapted (in a rather liberal fashion) from the USAF’s early B-1Bs, using Humbrol 32, 108 and 125 as basic colors. The 108 turned out to be too bright, so I toned it down with an additional coat of thinned Humbrol 66. While this considerably reduced the contrast between the green and the grey, the combination looks much better and B-1B-esque.
The wings’ leading edges were painted for more contrast with a greyish black (Tar Black, Revell 09), while the landing gear, the interior of the air intakes and the open bomb bay became glossy white. The cockpit was painted in medium grey (Humbrol 140) and the clear parts received a thinned inner coating with a mix of transparent yellow and brown, simulating an anti-radar coating – even though the effect turned out to be minimal, now it looks as of the plastic parts had just yellowed from age…
After the initial livery had been finished the model received a black ink washing and some post-panel shading with slightly brightened variations of the basic tones (using Humbrol 79, 144 and 224). Decals were added next, an individual mix from various sources. The “Stars-and-Bars” come from a PrintScale A-7 sheet, most stencils come from an F-16 sheet.
After some more detail painting and a treatment with graphite on the metal areas (exhausts, gun port), the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).
Batman’s next Batwing? Maybe, there’s certainly something fictional about this creation. But the “Squatina” turned out much more conclusive (and even pretty!) than I expected, even though it became a bigger aircraft than intended. And I am positively surprised how good the bodywork became – after all, lots of putty had to be used to fill all the gaps between parts that no one ever expected to be grafted together.
Painting and markings:
Finding a suitable and somewhat interesting – but still plausible – paint scheme was not easy. Taking the A-10 as benchmark, an overall light grey livery (with focus on low contrast against the sky as protection against ground fire) would have been a likely choice – and in fact the last operational American OV-10s were painted in this fashion. But in order to provide a different look I used the contemporary USAF V-22Bs and Special Operations MC-130s as benchmark, which typically carry a darker paint scheme consisting of FS 36118 from above, FS 36375 underneath (with a low, wavy waterline), plus low-viz markings. Not spectacular, but plausible – and very similar to the late r/w Colombian OV-10s, and its suitable “Gunship Gray”. :D
The cockpit tub became Dark Gull Grey (FS 36231, Humbrol 140) and the landing gear white (Revell 301).
The model received an overall black ink washing and some post-panel-shading, to liven up the dull all-grey livery. The decals were gathered from various sources, and I settled for black USAF low-viz markings. The “stars and bars” come from a late USAF F-4, the “IP” tail code was tailored from F-16 markings and the shark mouth from an Academy AH-64. Most stencils came from another Academy OV-10 sheet and some other sources.
Decals were also used to create the trim on the propeller blades and markings on the ordnance.
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 mighty Suchoj SuCh-1 started its life in early March 1943, when the Sukhoi OKB finished work on the design of a high-speed fighter with a unique powerplant arrangement. The aircraft was an all-metal low-wing monoplane with conventional tail surfaces. The three-section wings had constant dihedral and basically trapezoidal planform; the stabilizers had zero dihedral.
Two Klimov M-107 water-cooled Vee-12 engines, each with a. take-off power of 1 ,600 hp (1,193 kW) and a maximum design power of 1,500 hp (1,119 kW) at 5,500 m (18,045 ft), were mounted in the center fuselage in a staggered-tandem arrangement: the front engine was offset to starboard and of the rear one to port. Thus, the total power was increased but the drag was the same as for a single-engined aircraft, which was expected to increase fight speed considerably. Consequently, the project was internally designated 'I-2M107', literally "Article powered by two M107 engines".
Furthermore, the left cylinder bank of the front engine and the right cylinder bank of the rear engine were disposed vertically, so that each engine had one set of exhaust stubs on top of the fuselage and one on the fuselage side. Both engines drove a single three blade tractor propeller of 4.0 m (13 tt 2 in) diameter via parallel extension shafts and a common reduction gearbox. Both water radiators were located side by side in a chin housing, while the oil coolers were buried in the wings. The total fuel capacity of the four tanks arranged in the center fuselage was 1,113 litres (244.86 Imp. gal).
Because of the power plant arrangement and the large ground angle (necessary to give adequate ground clearance for the large propeller) the cockpit was offset to port and placed ahead of the wing leading edge to provide better forward visibility on take-off and landing. The cockpit was protected by a bulletproof windscreen, a front armor plate and an armored backrest; the armor weight totaled 70kg (154Ib).
The main landing gear units with 800 x 280 mm (31.5x11 in) wheels retracted inwards into the wing roots and the 400 x 150 mm (15.7 x 5.9 in) tail wheel retracted aft. The fighter's armament consisted of two wing-mounted 12.7-mm Berezin UBS machine-guns firing outside the propeller disc and a single 20-mm ShVAK cannon firing through the propeller hub*.
A full-scale mock-up was inspected in December 1943, and with German long range bombers threatening the Western front line as well as the lack of a fast and powerful fighters to intercept them (the earlier MiG-5 had turned out to be a disappointment, and Mikoyan's I-211/221 family if high altitude fighters also suffered from serious technical problems at that time), OKB Suchoj received an immediate go-ahead for further development of the SuCh-1, how the I-2M107 was now officially called, since Vladimir A. Chizhevskiy took lead of the project.
In the course of 1944 three prototypes went through a fast development program. While the aircraft itself was easy to handle, overheating problems and trouble with the gearbox for the two engines could only partly be rectified - esp. the power transmission should remain the SuCh-1s Achilles Heel.
Anyway, the Su-5 was ready for service introduction towards late 1944, and the powerful type was exclusively to be used as an interceptor. Several improvements had been made, compared to the prototypes: now two slightly more powerful Klimov VK-107A engines were used, which were better suited for high altitude operations, and the chin-mounted water cooler was considerably enlarged. The oil coolers had been re-designed and they were now placed under the wing roots.
The wing span had been extended by 6' and a bigger (now 4.3m diameter!), four-bladed propeller was added in order to improve performance at high altitude. No pressurized cabin was installed, but the cockpit received an extended glazing for better all-round field of vision.
Armament had also been augmented: now a Nudelman N-23 23mm cannon was firing through the propeller hub, and the number of UBS machine-guns in the wings was increased to four.
As initial duty experience was gathered, it became quickly clear that the firepower had to be augmented, so that the propeller-hub-mounted 23mm cannon was quickly replaced by a Nudelman-Richter NR-37 37mm cannon, and the four wing-mounted UBS machine guns were replaced by two 20-mm ShVAK cannons or even two Nudelman N-23 23mm cannons - the latter became the production standard from March 1945 on, even though the type's designation did not change.
Experience also showed that the overheating problem had been cured, but the complicated gear box tended to malfunction, esp. when full power was called for in aerial combat: high G forces took their toll and damaged the bearings, even warping the extension shafts and structural parts, so that some SuCh-1 were literally torn apart in mid-air.
The high torque powers of the large propeller also took their toll on handling: starting and landing was described as "hazardous", esp. when the fuel tanks were empty or in cross winds.
Consequently, SuCh-1 pilots were warned to engage into any dogfight or enter close combat with single-engined enemy fighters, and just focus on large enemy aircraft.
On the other side, the SuCh-1's powerful cannon armament made it a deadly foe: a single hit with the NR-37 cannon could down an aircraft, and its top speed of roundabout 700 km/h (435 mph) was more than enough for the Luftwaffe's heavy bomber types like the He 177.
Several engine and armament experiments were undertaken. For instance, at least one SuCh-1 was outfitted with a Nudelman-Sooranov NS-45 45mm cannon firing through the propeller hub, even a 57mm cannon was envisaged. Furthermore, one airframe was prepared to carry two Charomskiy M-30V 12 cylinder diesel engines, in order to produce a heavy long-range escort fighter (internally called I-2M30V).
In order to minimize the torque problems a contraprop arrangement with two three-bladed propellers and a diameter of only 3.6m was under development.
All in all only 120 of these powerful machines were built until the end of hostilities, as the feared mass attacks of German long range bombers did not materialize. as the Su-7 was complicated to operate and jet engines promised a far more efficient way of propulsion for high speeds, the type was already retired in 1947 and replaced by 1st generation jet fighters like the Yak-15 and MiG-9, which carried a similar armament, attained a better performance (except for the range) but weighed only half of the large and heavy SuCh-1.
.
General characteristics
Crew: One
Length: 11.75 m (38 ft 5 3/4 in)
Wingspan: 13.85 m (45 ft 3 1/4 in)
Height: 5.30 m (17 ft 4 in)
Empty weight: 5.250 kg (11.565 lb)
Max. take-off weight: 8.100 kg (17.840 lb)
Powerplant:
2× Klimov VK-107A liquid-cooled V12 engines with an output of 1.650 hp (1.210 kW) each at sea level and 900 hp (650 kW) at 8.300m (27.220 ft)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 720 km/h (447 mph) at height, clean configuration
Range: 750 km (465 mi)
Service ceiling: 11.700 m (38.400 ft)
Rate of climb: 876 m/mim (2.850 ft/min)
Armament:
1× Nudelman-Richter NR-37 37mm cannon with 60 RPG, firing through the propeller hub
2× Nudelman N-23 23mm cannons with 120 RPG in the wings
Many different cannon and machine gun arrangements coulod be found, though.
*Information about the conceptual Suchoj I-2M107 was primarily gathered from the book 'OKB Suchoj', written by Yefim Gordon & Dmitriy Komissarov; Hersham (UK), 2010.
.
The kit and its assembly (a long story!):
This abomination of an aircraft is/was real, even though the I-2M107 was never built – the fictional name Suchoj-Chizhevskiy SuCh-1 was actually chosen because I could not find any plausible Su-X code for a WWII fighter. Vladimir A. Chizhevskiy actually joined the Suchoj OKB in mid WWII, so I deemed this alternative to be plausible.
I had this on the agenda for a long time, but the horrors of kitbashing kept me from building it - until now. The current Anthony P memorial Group Build (for the deceased fellow member at whatifmodelers.com, RIP) was a good motivation to tackle this brute thing. Fortunately, I already had some major ingredients in store, so work could start asap.
From that, anything else was improvised from the scrap box, and with only a three side view of the I-2M107 as guidance. It became a true Frankenstein creation with...
● Fuselage and inner wings from the (horrible) NOVO Attacker
● Wings from an Italeri Fw 190 D-9 attached to them
● Nose is a resin Griffon from an Avro Lincoln conversion set from OzMods
● Tail cone is a radar nose from an F-4J Phantom II
● Tail fin is a horizontal stabilizer from a Matchbox SB2C Helldiver
● Vertical stabilizers come from a Matchbox Me 410
● Oil coolers are modified front landing gear wells from two Revell G.91 kits
● Cockpit hood comes from a Revell P-39 Airacobra
● Landing gear comes from an Italeri Fw 190 D-9, covers were modified/improvised
● Main wheels belong to a MPM Ryan Dark Shark
● Tail wheel belongs to a Matchbox Harrier
● The propeller was scratched, IIRC from a Grumman Hellcat drop tank front and blades from an Airfix A-1 Skyraider. Inside, a metal axis was mounted.
.
Work started with the fuselage and the wings as separate segments.
The Attacker fuselage lost its fin and the cockpit and air intakes were simply cut away, just as the tail pipe. The resin Griffon was slightly shortened at the front, but more or less directly attached to the fuselage, after I had cut out openings for the four rows of exhaust nozzles.
Then, the new tail cone was glued onto the end and the original fairings for the Attacker's stabilizer cut away and sanded even - anything had to be made new.
The wings were a bit tricky. I had hoped to use the Attacker's OOB wings, but these were not only much too small and did not have the proper shape, they also lacked landing gear wells!
Finding a solution was not easy, and I had to improvise. After some trials I decided to cut the Attacker wing span at about the width where the guns are located, and then add Fw 190 wings.
The depth would be fine, even though the Fw 190 wings were a bit thicker, and they offered a leading edge kink which was good for the original and characteristic I-2M107's wing root extensions. The latter were sculpted from a 6mm thick core or styrene sheet, added to the Attacker parts' leading edge, and the rest, as well as the lacking Attacker wing's thickness, sculpted with 2C and later NC putty.
Furthermore I cut out and sculpted landing gear wells, another challenging, since these had to cover the Attacker/Fw 190 parts' intersection! LOTS of putty work, sanding and shaving, but as a benefit I was able to use the Attacker kit's original wing/fuselage joints. Effectively, my placement turned out to be a bit far outside, so the track appears too wide - the price to pay when you work on single parts. Anyway, I left it was it turned out, as a major correction at a late working stage would mean to tear anything apart again...
Back to the nose: adding the propeller and the cockpit into the massive nose was the next working station. The propeller had to be huge, and also needed a rather big spinner. A contraprop was ruled out, even though it would have looked great here. But eventually I settled for a scratch-built thing, made from a teardrop-shaped drop tank front onto which the four blades from a A-1 Skyraider were glued. Probably the biggest prop I have ever put onto a 1:72 scale model! Since the resin nose was massive, drilling a hole and adding a metal axis to the propeller was enough.
With that in place I started carving out a cockpit opening - it worked better and easier than expected with a mini drill and a coarse shaving head! The opening is still rather small, a seat and a pilot hardly fit, but it works - I found a rather smallish pilot figure, and added a seat and some other small details from the scrap box, just to have something inside.
For a canopy I found a very old (30 years, I guess...) clear part from a Revell P-39 Airacobra in the scrap box, which was almost perfect in shape and width. It was a bit blind and stained with ancient enamel paint, but some wet sanding and serious polishing almost got it back to translucent status. Since I would not open the cockpit, this was a sufficient solution.
The asymmetrical cockpit opening was, in an initial step, faired with styrene strips, for a rough outline, and then sculpted with 2C and later NC putty, blending it into the rest of the fuselage.
For the tail surfaces, the SB2C stabilizer was cut away at its base - it is not a bad donation piece, its shape and rudder come pretty close to the I-2M107's original design!
The stabilizers I used on my kitbash come from a Me 410, and their leading edge was a cut away so that the sweep angle would be a bit larger. They lack depth, compared to the I-2M107's original design, but since the wings have become more slender, too, I think it's a good compromise, and the best what I had at hand in the spares stash.
Finally, and before detail work could start, the wings were attached to the fuselage. I eventually set them back by ~6mm, so that the new, extended leading edge would match the respective fairing on the fuselage. The resulting gap at the trailing edge was, again, filled with 2C and NC putty.
A personal change was a different oil cooler arrangement. The original location was to be in the wings' leading edge, just in front of the landing gear wells - but that appeared a bit doubtful, as I could not find a plausible solution where the exit for the air would be? Consequently, and in order to avoid even more messy putty sculpting on the wings, I decided to re-locate the oil coolers completely, into shallow, tunnel-like fairings under the wing roots, not unlike the radiator arrangement on a Spitfire or Bf 109.
In order to check the surface quality I decided to add a coat of grey primer, once the fuselage/wing segments had been connected. This showed only minor flaws, but made another turn with NC putty and wet sanding necessary.
Now it was time for finishing touches, e .g. mounting the landing gear, completing the cockpit and adding exhaust stubs - cut individually from HO scale model railroad roof tiles and inserted into the four fuselage fairings.
The canopy was fixed into place with white glue, which also helped closing some small gaps.
.
Painting and markings:
While the I-2M107 looks odd, to say the least, I wanted to keep the paint scheme rather simple and quasi-authentic. I went for a pale grey/green camouflage, used e. g. on late war Yakovlev Yak-3 fighters.
Basic colors are Humbrol 31 (Slate Grey, it has a very greenish, even teal, hue), ModelMaster 1740 (Dark Gull Grey, FS 36231) and Humbrol 167 (Barley Grey) for the lower sides with a wavy waterline. Since only marginal surface details were left over, I decided to fake panels and panel lines with paint.
Panels were simulated with lighter shades of the basic tones (RLM 62 from ModelMaster, Humbrol 140 and 127 below), panel lines were painted with highly thinned grey acrylic paint and a special brush - in German it's called a 'Schlepppinsel', it's got very long hairs and is also used to paint scallops on car models, and similar things are used for real car tuning/custom paintwork, too.
Sure, the painted panel lines are a bit rough, but I did not want to risk any damage through manual engraving on the rather delicate mixed-media surface of the kitbashed model. For an overall look or first impression it's very good, though.
As 'highlights' I added a white spinner and half of the fin was painted white, too.
The decals were puzzled together. The flashes and the tactical code number come from a Hobby Boss La-7, the Red Stars, IIRC, belong to a vintage MiG-21F from Hasegawa. The "Rodinu" slogan actually belongs to a 1:35 Soviet Tank decals set.
Finally, after some additional dry painting with light grey, some oil stains around the engines and coolers and soot stains at the exhaust stubs and guns (painted, plus some grinded graphite, as it yields a nice, metallic shimmer that looks like oil or burnt metal), everything was sealed under a coat of matt acrylic varnish.
If it had been built, the Suchoj I-2M107 must have been an impressive aircraft - it was bigger than a P-47 Thunderbolt or an A-1 Skyraider, and one can only wonder how its field performance would have been?
Similar concepts had been underway in UK, too, e. g. for a heavy naval attack aircraft, but the I-2M107 with its asymmetrical cockpit and engine arrangement were unique. A worthy whif, even if some details like the landing gear or the borrowed nose section are not 100% 'correct'.
+++ 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 TIE/LN starfighter, or TIE/line starfighter, simply known as the TIE Fighter or T/F, was the standard Imperial starfighter seen in massive numbers throughout most of the Galactic Civil War and onward.
The TIE Fighter was manufactured by Sienar Fleet Systems and led to several upgraded TIE models such as TIE/sa bomber, TIE/IN interceptor, TIE/D Defender, TIE/D automated starfighter, and many more.
The original TIEs were designed to attack in large numbers, overwhelming the enemy craft. The Imperials used so many that they came to be considered symbols of the Empire and its might. They were also very cheap to produce, reflecting the Imperial philosophy of quantity over quality.
However, a disadvantage of the fighter was its lack of deflector shields. In combat, pilots had to rely on the TIE/LN's maneuverability to avoid damage. The cockpit did incorporate crash webbing, a repulsorlift antigravity field, and a high-g shock seat to help protect the pilot, however these did next to nothing to help protect against enemy blaster fire.
Due to the lack of life-support systems, each TIE pilot had a fully sealed flight suit superior to their Rebel counterparts. The absence of a hyperdrive also rendered the light fighter totally dependent on carrier ships when deployed in enemy systems. TIE/LNs also lacked landing gear, another mass-reducing measure. While the ships were structurally capable of "sitting" on their wings, they were not designed to land or disembark their pilots without special support. On Imperial ships, TIEs were launched from racks in the hangar bays.
The high success rate of more advanced Rebel starfighters against standard Imperial TIE Fighters resulted in a mounting cost of replacing destroyed fighters and their pilots. That, combined with the realization that the inclusion of a hyperdrive would allow the fleet to be more flexible, caused the Imperial Navy to rethink its doctrine of using swarms of cheap craft instead of fewer high-quality ones, leading to the introduction of the TIE Advanced x1 and its successor, the TIE Avenger. The following TIE/D Defender as well as the heavy TIE Escort Fighter (or TIE/E) were touted as the next "logical advance" of the TIE Series—representing a shift in starfighter design from previous, expendable TIE models towards fast, well armed and protected designs, capable of hyperspace travel and long-term crew teams which gained experience and capabilities over time.
The TIE/E Escort, was a high-performance TIE Series starfighter developed for the Imperial Navy by Sienar Fleet Systems and it was introduced into service shortly before the Battle of Endor. It was a much heavier counterpart to the agile and TIE/D fighter, and more of an attack ship or even a light bomber than a true dogfighter. Its role were independent long range operations, and in order to reduce the work load and boost morale a crew of two was introduced (a pilot and a dedicated weapon systems officer/WSO). The primary duty profile included attack and escort task, but also reconnoiter missions. The TIE/E shared the general layout with the contemporary TIE/D fighter, but the cockpit section as well as the central power unit were much bigger, and the ship was considerably heavier.
The crew enjoyed – compared with previous TIE fighter designs – a spacious and now fully pressurized cockpit, so that no pressurized suits had to be worn anymore. The crew members sat in tandem under a large, clear canopy. The pilot in front had a very good field of view, while the WSO sat behind him, in a higher, staggered position with only a limited field of view. Both work stations had separate entries, though, and places could not be switched in flight: the pilot mounted the cockpit through a hatch on port side, while the WSO entered the rear compartment through a roof hatch.
In a departure from the design of previous TIE models, instead of two parallel wings to either side of the pilot module, the TIE Escort had three quadanium steel solar array wings mounted symmetrically around an aft section, which contained an I-s4d solar ionization reactor to store and convert solar energy collected from the wing panels. The inclusion of a third wing provided additional solar power to increase the ship's range and the ship's energy management system was designed to allow weapons and shields to be charged with minimum loss of power to the propulsion system.
Although it was based on the standard twin ion engine design, the TIE/E’s propulsion system was upgraded to the entirely new, powerful P-sz9.8 triple ion engine. This allowed the TIE/E a maximum acceleration of 4,220 G or 21 MGLT/s and a top speed of 144 MGLT, or 1,680 km/h in an atmosphere — almost 40 percent faster than a former standard TIE Fighter. With tractor beam recharge power (see below) redirected to the engines, the top speed could be increased to 180 MGLT in a dash.
In addition to the main thrusters located in the aft section, the TIE Escort's triple wing design allowed for three arrays of maneuvering jets and it featured an advanced F-s5x flight avionics system to process the pilot's instructions. Production models received a class 2, ND9 hyperdrive motivator, modified from the version developed for the TIE Avenger. The TIE/E also carried a Sienar N-s6 Navcon navigation computer with a ten-jump memory.
Special equipment included a small tractor beam projector, originally developed for the TIE Avenger, which could be easily fitted to the voluminous TIE Escort. Models produced by Ysanne Isard's production facility regularly carried such tractor beams and the technology found other uses, such as towing other damaged starfighters until they could achieve the required velocity to enter hyperspace. The tractor beam had limited range and could only be used for a short time before stopping to recharge, but it added new tactics, too. For instance, the beam allowed the TIE/E crews to temporarily inhibit the mobility of enemy fighters, making it easier to target them with the ship's other weapon systems, or prevent enemies from clear shots.
The TIE Escort’s weapons systems were primarily designed to engage bigger ships and armored or shielded targets, like armed freighters frequently used by the Alliance. Thanks to its complex weapon and sensor suite, it could also engage multiple enemy fighters at once. The sensors also allowed an effective attack of ground targets, so that atmospheric bombing was a potential mission for the TIE/E, too.
.
The TIE Escort Fighter carried a formidable array of weaponry in two modular weapon bays that were mounted alongside the lower cabin. In standard configuration, the TIE/E had two L-s9.3 laser cannons and two NK-3 ion cannons. The laser and ion cannons could be set to fire separately or, if concentrated power was required, to fire-linked in either pairs or as a quartet.
The ship also featured two M-g-2 general-purpose warhead launchers, each of which could be equipped with a standard load of three proton torpedoes or four concussion missiles. Depending on the mission profile, the ship could be fitted with alternative warheads such as proton rockets, proton bombs, or magnetic pulse warheads.
Additionally, external stores could be carried under the fuselage, which included a conformal sensor pallet for reconnaissance missions or a cargo bay with a capacity for 500 kg (1.100 lb).
The ship's defenses were provided by a pair of forward and rear projecting Novaldex deflector shield generators—another advantage over former standard TIE models. The shields were designed to recharge more rapidly than in previous Imperial fighters and were nearly as powerful as those found on capital ships, so that the TIE/E could engage other ships head-on with a very high survivability. The fighters were not equipped with particle shields, though, relying on the reinforced titanium hull to absorb impacts from matter. Its hull and wings were among the strongest of any TIE series Starfighter yet.
The advanced starfighter attracted the attention of several other factions, and the Empire struggled to prevent the spread of the technology. The ship's high cost, together with political factors, kept it from achieving widespread use in the Empire, though, and units were assigned only to the most elite crews.
The TIE/E played a central role in the Empire's campaign against rogue Grand Admiral Demetrius Zaarin, and mixed Defender and Escort units participated in several other battles, including the Battle of Endor. The TIE Escort continued to see limited use by the Imperial Remnant up to at least 44 ABY, and was involved in numerous conflicts, including the Yuuzhan Vong War..
The kit and its assembly:
Another group build contribution, this time to the Science Fiction GB at whatifmodelers.com during summer 2017. Originally, this one started as an attempt to build a vintage MPC TIE Interceptor kit which I had bought and half-heartedly started to build probably 20 years ago. But I did not have the right mojo (probably, The Force was not strong enough…?), so the kit ended up in a dark corner and some parts were donated to other projects.
The sun collectors were still intact, though, and in the meantime I had the idea of reviving the kit’s remains, and convert it into (what I thought was) a fictional TIE Fighter variant with three solar panels. For this plan I got myself another TIE Interceptor kit, and stashed it away, too. Mojo was still missing, though.
Well, then came the SF GB and I took it as an occasion to finally tackle the build. But when I prepared for the build I found out that my intended design (over the years) more or less actually existed in the Star Wars universe: the TIE/D Defender! I could have built it with the parts and hand and some improvisation, but the design similarity bugged me. Well, instead of a poor copy of something that was more or less clearly defined, I rather decided to create something more individual, yet plausible, from the parts at hand.
The model was to stay a TIE design, though, in order to use as much donor material from the MPC kits as possible. Doing some legwork, I settled for a heavy fighter – bigger than the TIE Interceptor and the TIE/D fighter, a two-seater.
Working out the basic concept and layout took some time and evolved gradually. The creative spark for the TIE/E eventually came through a Revell “Obi Wan’s Jedi Starfighter” snap fit kit in my pile – actually a prize from a former GB participation at phoxim.de (Thanks a lot, Wolfgang!), and rather a toy than a true model kit.
The Jedi Fighter was in so far handy as it carries some TIE Fighter design traits, like the pilot capsule and the characteristic spider web windscreen. Anyway, it’s 1:32, much bigger than the TIE Interceptor’s roundabout 1:50 scale – but knowing that I’d never build the Jedi Starfighter OOB I used it as a donor bank, and from this starting point things started to evolve gradually.
Work started with the cockpit section, taken from the Jedi Starfighter kit. The two TIE Interceptor cockpit tubs were then mounted inside, staggered, and the gaps to the walls filled with putty. A pretty messy task, and once the shapes had been carved out some triangular tiles were added to the surfaces – a detail I found depicted in SW screenshots and some TIE Fighter models.
Another issue became the crew – even though I had two MPC TIE Interceptors and, theorectically, two pilot figures, only one of them could be found and the second crewman had to be improvised. I normally do not build 1:48 scale things, but I was lucky (and happy) to find an SF driver figure, left over from a small Dougram hoovercraft kit (from Takara, as a Revell “Robotech” reboxing). This driver is a tad bigger than the 1:50 TIE pilot, but I went with it because I did not want to invest money and time in alternatives. In order to justify the size difference I decided to paint the Dougram driver as a Chiss, based on the expanded SW universe (with blue skin and hair, and glowing red eyes). Not certain if this makes sense during the Battle of Endor timeframe, but it adds some color to the project – and the cockpit would not be visible in much detail since it would be finished fully closed.
Reason behind the closed canopy is basically the poor fit of the clear part. OOB, this is intended as an action toy – but also the canopy’s considerable size in 1:50 would prevent its original opening mechanism.
Additional braces on the rel. large window panels were created with self-adhesive tape and later painted over.
The rear fuselage section and the solar panel pylons were scratched. The reactor behind the cockpit section is actually a plastic adapter for water hoses, found in a local DIY market. It was slightly modified, attached to the cockpit “egg” and both parts blended with putty. The tail opening was closed with a hatch from the OOB TIE Interceptor – an incidental but perfect match in size and style.
The three pylons are also lucky finds: actually, these are SF wargaming/tabletop props and would normally be low walls or barriers, made from resin. For my build, they were more or less halved and trimmed. Tilted by 90°, they are attached to the hull with iron wire stabilizers, and later blended to the hull with putty, too.
Once the cockpit was done, things moved more swiftly. The surface of the hull was decorated with many small bits and pieces, including thin styrene sheet and profiles, steel and iron wire in various strengths, and there are even 1:72 tank tracks hidden somewhere, as well as protective caps from syringes (main guns and under the rear fuselage). It’s amazing how much stuff you can add to such a model – but IMHO it’s vital in order to create some structure and to emulate the (early) Star Wars look.
Painting and markings:
The less spectacular part of the project, even though still a lot of work because of the sheer size of the model’s surface. Since the whole thing is fictional, I tried to stay true to the Imperial designs from Episode IV-VI and gave the TIE/E a simple, all-light grey livery. All basic painting was done with rattle cans.
Work started with a basic coat of grey primer. On top of that, an initial coat of RAL 7036 Platingrau was added, esp. to the lower surfaces and recesses, for a rough shading effect. Then, the actual overall tone, RAL 7047, called “Telegrau 4”, one of Deutsche Telekom’s corporate tones, was added - mostly sprayed from abone and the sides onto the model. Fuselage and panels were painted separately, overall assembly was one of the final steps.
The solar panels were to stand out from the grey rest of the model, and I painted them with Revell Acrylic “Iron Metallic” (91) first, and later applied a rather rich wash with black ink , making sure the color settled well into the many small cells. The effect is pretty good, and the contrast was slightly enhanced through a dry-brushing treatment.
Only a few legible stencils were added all around the hull (most from the scrap box or from mecha sheets), the Galactic Empire Seal were inkjet-printed at home, as well as some tactical markings on the flanks, puzzled together from single digits in "Aurebash", one of the Imperial SW languages/fonts.
For some variety and color highlights, dozens of small, round and colorful markings were die-punched from silver, yellow, orange, red and blue decal sheet and were placed all over the hull - together with the large panels they blur into the the overall appearance, though. The hatches received thin red linings, also made from generic decals strips.
The cockpit interior was a bit challenging, though. Good TIE Fighter cockpit interior pictures are hard to find, but they suggest a dark grey tone. More confusingly, the MPC instructions call for a “Dark Green” cockpit? Well, I did not like the all-grey option, since the spaceship is already monochrome grey on the outside.
As a compromise I eventually used Tamiya XF-65 "Field Grey". The interior recieved a black ink in and dry-brushing treatment, and some instruments ansd screens were created with black decal material and glossy black paint; some neon paint was used for sci-fi-esque conmtraol lamps everywhere - I did not pay too much intention on the interior, since the cockpit would stay closed, and the thick clear material blurs everything inside.
Following this rationale, the crew was also painted in arather minimal fashion - both wear a dark grey uniform, only the Chiss pilot stands aout with his light blue skin and the flourescent red eyes.
After an overall black ink wash the model received a dry brusing treatment with FS 36492 and FS 36495, for a weathered and battle-worn look. After all, the "Vehement" would not survive the Ballte of Endor, but who knows what became of TIE/E "801"'s mixed crew...?
Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish, and some final cosmetic corrections made.
The display is a DIY creation, too, made from a 6x6" piece of wood, it's edges covered with edgebonder, a steel wire as holder, and finally the display was paited with semi-matt black acrylic paint from the rattle can.
A complex build, and the TIE/E more or less evolved along the way, with only the overall layout in mind. Work took a month, but I think it was worth the effort. This fantasy creation looks pretty plausible and blends well into the vast canonical TIE Fighter family - and I am happy that I finally could finish this mummy project, including the surplus Jedi Starfighter kit which now also find a very good use!
An epic one, and far outside my standard comfort zone. But a wothwhile build!
+++ 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 Republic P-47 Thunderbolt was one of the largest and heaviest fighter aircraft in history to be powered by a single piston engine. It was heavily armed with eight .50-caliber machine guns, four per wing. When fully loaded, the P-47 weighed up to eight tons, and in the fighter-bomber ground-attack roles could carry five-inch rockets or a significant bomb load of 2,500 pounds; it could carry over half the payload of the B-17 bomber on long-range missions (although the B-17 had a far greater range).
The P-47, originally based on the powerful Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp engine, was to be very effective as a short-to-medium range escort fighter in high-altitude air-to-air combat and, when unleashed as a fighter-bomber, proved especially adept at ground attack in both the World War II European and Pacific Theaters.
The P-47 was one of the main United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) fighters of World War II, and served with other Allied air forces, notably those of France, Britain, and Russia. Mexican and Brazilian squadrons fighting alongside the U.S. were equipped with the P-47.
In 1943, two P-47D-15-RE airframes (serials 42-23297/23298) were selected for testing with the new experimental 2300 hp Chrysler XIV-2220-1 sixteen-cylinder inverted Vee liquid-cooled engine. These aircraft were re-designated XP-47H. The liquid-cooled Chrysler engine with its large under-fuselage radiator radically changed the appearance of the Thunderbolt, and increased overall length to 39 feet 2 inches. With the increased power and improved streamlining, a maximum speed of 490 mph was anticipated.
The two P-47D-15-RE airframes were converted until early 1944 and test flights began on July 26, 1945. During flight trails, one of the XP-47Hs actually attained a speed of 490 mph in level flight, and the new aircraft was primarily intended as a fast interceptor for the European theater, where especially Great Britain was endangered by the fast V1 missiles, and initial reports about German jet fighters and reconnaissance aircraft that were hard to counter with current piston-engine types, stirred the need for this fast aircraft.
Production P-47Hs received several amendments that had already been introduced with the late D types, e. g. the lowered back and a bubble canopy that offered excellent view. The P-47H also received the new wing from the P-47N, recognizable by its characteristic square wing tips which allowed better roll manoeuvers. Not visible at first glance were the integral wing tanks, which enhanced the internal fuel load to 4.792,3 liters, resulting in a range of 3.500 km (2.175 ml), so that the P-47H was also suited for long range bomber escorts. Air brakes were added to the wing's lower surfaces, too, to allow braking after a dive onto its prey.
Furthermore, serial production machines received an uprated, more reliable Chrysler XIV-2220-2 engine, which had an output of 2.450 hp.
The P-47H was put into limited production with 130 built, sufficient for one group. However, the type suffered serious teething problems in the field due to the highly tuned engine. Engines were unable to reach operating temperatures and power settings and frequently failed in early flights from a variety of causes: ignition harnesses cracked at high altitudes, severing electrical connections between the magneto and distributor, and carburetor valve diaphragms also failed. Poor corrosion protection during shipments across the Atlantic also took their toll on the engines and airframes.
By the time the bugs were worked out, the war in Europe was nearly over. However, P-47Hs still destroyed 15 enemy jet aircraft in aerial combat in March-May 1945 when aerial encounters with the Luftwaffe were rare. The type also proved itself to be a valuable V1 missile interceptor over the Channel.
The entire production total of 130 P-47Hs were delivered to the 358th Fighter Group, which was part of the 9th Air Force and operated from Great Britain, France and finally on German ground. From the crews the P-47H received several nicknames like 'torpedo', 'Thunderbullet' or 'Anteater', due to its elongated nose section.
Twelve P-47H were lost in operational crashes with the 358th Group resulting in 11 deaths, two after VE Day, and two (44-21134 on 13 April 1945 and 44-21230 on 16 April 1945) were shot down in combat, both by ground fire.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 39 ft 2 in (11.96 m)
Wingspan: 40 ft 9 in (12.42 m)
Height: 14 ft 8 in (4.47 m)
Wing area: 300 ft² (27.87 m²)
Empty weight: 10,000 lb (4,535 kg)
Loaded weight: 13,300 lb (6,032 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 17,500 lb (7,938 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Chrysler XIV-2220-2 sixteen-cylinder inverted Vee liquid-cooled engine, rated at 2.450 hp.
Performance:
Maximum speed: 503 mph at 30,000 ft (810 km/h at 9,145 m)
Range: 920 mi combat, 2.175 ml ferry (1.480 km / 3.500 km)
Service ceiling: 43,000 ft (13,100 m)
Rate of climb: 3,120 ft/min (15.9 m/s)
Wing loading: 44.33 lb/ft² ()
Power/mass: 0.19 hp/lb (238 W/kg)
Armament:
8× .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns (3.400 rounds)
Up to 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) of bombs, drop tanks and/or 10× 5 in (127 mm) unguided rockets
The kit and its assembly:
I had the (X)P-47H on the agenda for some time, and even the respective MPM kit stashed away. But it took some time to start this project - one reason actually being the, well, crudeness of the MPM offering. Anyway, I wanted to build a service aircraft, and I wondered how this would have looked like, way beyond 1944? That brought me towards the late bubble canopy versions of the P-47D - and suddenly the idea was born to convert the XP-47H into a respective service aircraft which would not only carry the Chrysler XIV-2220-1 V16 engine, but also other improvements of the type. This eventually led to the decision to make this build a kitbash, as a spine implantation would be the easiest way to incorporate the lowered back - or so I thought...
I chose the ancient Heller P-47(N) as donation kit. Not because it was “good”, it just had the right ingredients and was cheap and easy to procure. What sounded like a simple plan turned into a twisted route to vague success. I took the front fuselage and the lower belly from the MPM kit, as well as the horizontal stabilizers and mated it with the upper and rear fuselage of the Heller Thunderbolt. This could have been easy, if both kits would not have had different fuselage diameters - the Heller kit is about 1mm too narrow, even though the length is fine. In order to compensate, I built two new fuselage halves from the salvaged pieces, and once these were stable and more or less sanded even, put together. Inside, the cockpit was taken from the Heller kit, but the seat comes from the MPM kit, and a pilot figure was added. Another problem is the fact that the MPM kit features engraved panel lines, while the Heller kit has old school, raised details and lots of rivets.
The propeller from the MPM kit is a joke, so I built a replacement from scratch - from a drop tank front half from an ancient Revell F4U, and the individual propeller blades were taken from an Italeri F4U. Inside the fuselage, a styrene tube was implanted which holds the new propeller on a metal axis, so it can spin freely.
Other personal mods include lowered flaps and the large cooler intake was opened, with foamed styrene placed inside which mimics some mesh. The same method was also used inside of the intercooler outlets (primarily in order to block any light from shining through). Inside of the landing gear wells I added some structure made from styrene profiles.
Another bigger challenge was the wing attachment - Heller and MPM kit differ considerably in this aspect, so that swapping parts is not easy. The MPM kit has the wing roots molded onto the fuselage halves, while the Heller wings are, more or less, directly attached to the fuselage. As a consequence the Heller wings hold the complete landing gear wells, while the MPM solution has divided sections. I decided to get rid of the MPM wing roots, about 3mm of material, and onto these stubs the Heller wings were attached. The landing gear came from the Heller kit, but the main wheels come from a (new) Revell Me 262 - both MPM and Heller parts are not recommended for serious use... Finally, the many exhausts and cooler flaps were either sanded away and replaced by scratched parts, or added - e. g. the vents behind the cockpit. While the Heller kit features bomb and missile hardpoints under the wings I decided to leave them away - this is supposed to be a fast interceptor, not a train-hunting plough.
Painting and markings:
As this was to be a very late WWII aircraft, NMF was certain, and I wanted to place the service P-47H into the European conflict theatre, where its speed would IMHO be best used against German jet threats. I wanted a colorful aircraft, though, and settled for a machine of the 358th FG. This group actually flew Thunderbolts in the 365-367th Squadrons, and I found several profiles of these gaudy things.
Common to all of them was an orange tail and a dark blue back, while the engine cowling would be decorated with a red front and the air outlets would carry bands in red, white and blue, with lots of tiny stars sprinkled upon. Furthermore, I found specimen with white cowlings behind the red front end, or even yellow cowlings. Pretty cool.
I tried to mimic this look. The model was basically painted with Aluminum Metallizer (Humbrol 27002) overall. The effect is really good, even without rubbing treatment. Some panels were contrasted with Aluminium Plate and Polished Steel Metallizer (Modelmaster), as well as with Aluminum (Humbrol 56, which is rather a metallic grey). The latter was also used on the landing gear. The anti-glare panel in front of the cockpit was painted with Olive Drab (ANA 613 from Modelmaster).
Since there is no air intake opening on the inline engine I decided to paint the spinner in bright red (Humbrol 19), and tried to incorporate the white and blue theme with stars decoration to the rest of the nose. As a convenient coincidence, I found decals from an Italeri B-66 in the stash: it features a version with dark blue jet air intake decorations in the right size, colors and style for what I had been looking for. So, instead of painting everything by hand I decided to incorporate this decal option.
The area behind the spinner was painted white and then the B-66 decals applied to the front flanks. The radiator air intake scoop had to be cut out, but the overall size and shape were a very good match. Even the transition into the blue spine and cockpit area worked well!
The tail was painted with Humbrol 18, later some shading with Humbrol 82 was added. The blue spine was done with a mix of Humbrol 104 and 15 (Oxford Blue and Midnight Blue) - not a perfect match for the B-66 decal colors, but after some dirt and weathering these differences would blur.
Cockpit interior was painted in Humbrol 159 (Khaki Drab) and Zinc Chromate Green from Model Master. The landing gear wells received a chrome yellow primer (Humbrol 225 - actually RAF Mid Stone but a perfect match for the task) finish.
For weathering the kit received a rubbing treatment with grinded graphite, which adds a dark, metallic shine and emphasizes the kit’s raised panel lines. Some dry painting with Aluminum was added, too, simulating chipped paint on the leading edges. I also added some oil stains around the engine, and serious soot stains at the exhaust.
Decals were, beyond the B-66 decoration, puzzled together. The aircraft' code 'CH-F[bar]' is another exotic twist, in two ways. The bar under the letter marks a second use of that code within the squadron, and as a difference from normal code placement (normally exclusively on the fuselage) I placed the aircraft's individual code letter on the fin, a practice on some P-51s and a consequence of the relatively large letter decals.
The nose art is a fictional puzzle, consisting of a Czech MiG-21 pin-up from the Pardubice '89 meeting. The “Ohio Express” tag comes from a Tamiya 1:100 F-105 Thunderchief. A neat combination that even matches the overall colors well!
As a final step, a coat of semi matt acrylic varnish was applied, with the exception of the anti glare panel, which became purely matt.
A better XP-47H? Hard to tell, since this kitbashing was a messy and rather crude work, so the overall finish does not look as good as I hoped for. But the lowered spine and the fin root extension adds to a fast look of this thing, more elegant (if that's possible in this case?) than the Razorback prototypes. I can't help, but the finished article looks like an Evel Knievel stunt vehicle? The red spinner looks a bit odd, but I'll leave it this way.
+++ 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 Parder was a successor of the Tiger I & II tanks, combining the latter's thick armor with the armor sloping used on the Panther medium tank (which was, in fact, inspired by Soviet designs, most of all by the T-34). While several Entwicklungspanzer designs were under development, the Parder was a short-term attempt to overcome the Tiger II's main shortcoming: its weight of almost seventy metric tons (it was protected by up to 180 mm/7.1" of front armor!), the resulting lack of mobility and an overburdened drivetrain originally intended for a lighter vehicle. Leaking seals and gaskets also took their toll on reliability.
In order to keep the development phase short the Parder used basically the same chassis as the Tiger II, as well as the engine, transmission and the long barreled 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71 gun. But it reveiced a new hull with optimized armor and many detail modifications that reduced the overall weight by more than ten tons, getting overall weight back to the level of the Tiger I
The SdKfz. 190 used a conventional hull design with sloped armor from all sides, resembling the layout of the T-34 a lot. Its was so effective that the front armor could be reduced to 120 mm (4.7 in) with only little loss in protection. The crew was reduced to four, only the driver remained in the hull and the front machine gun was omitted, too.
The 'Parder' (archaic German term for leopard), how the vehicle was semi-officially christened by the Entwicklungskommission Panzer, had a rear mounted engine and used nine steel-tired overlapping road wheels per side with internal springing, mounted on transverse torsion bars.
The turret had been designed by Krupp and featured a rounded front and steeply sloped sides, with a difficult-to-manufacture curved bulge on the turret's left side to accommodate the commander's cupola (often related to as the "Porsche" turret). The powerful 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71 gun was combined with the Turmzielfernrohr 9d (German "turret telescopic sight") monocular sight by Leitz - a very accurate and deadly weapon.
During practice, the estimated probability of a first round hit on a 2 m (6 ft 7 in) high, 2.5 m (8 ft 2 in) wide target only dropped below 100 percent at ranges beyond 1,000 m (0.62 mi), to 95–97 percent at 1,500 metres (0.93 mi) and 85–87 percent at 2,000 m (1.2 mi), depending on ammunition type. Recorded combat performance was lower, but still over 80 percent at 1,000 m, in the 60s at 1,500 m and the 40s at 2,000 m.
Penetration of armored plate inclined at 30 degrees was 202 and 132 mm (8.0 and 5.2 in) at 100 m (110 yd) and 2,000 m (1.2 mi) respectively for the Panzergranate 39/43 projectile (PzGr—armor-piercing shell), and 238 and 153 mm (9.4 and 6.0 in) for the PzGr. 40/43 projectile between the same ranges. The Sprenggranate 43 (SpGr) high-explosive round was available for soft targets, or the Hohlgranate or Hohlgeschoss 39 (HlGr—HEAT or High explosive anti-tank warhead) round, which had 90 mm (3.5 in) penetration at any range, could be used as a dual-purpose munition against soft or armored targets.
Like all German tanks, the Parder had a gasoline engine; in this case the same 700 PS (690 hp, 515 kW) V-12 Maybach HL 230 P30 which powered the Panther, Tiger I and Tiger II tanks. The Tiger II was under-powered with it, though, and consumed a lot of fuel, which was in short supply for the Germans, but in the Parder it proved to be adequate, even though performance was not oustanding. The transmission was the Maybach OLVAR EG 40 12 16 Model B, giving eight forward gears and four reverse, which drove the steering gear.
In order to distribute the tank's weight an extra wide track was used, but this meant that each tank was issued with two sets of tracks: a normal "battle track" and a narrower "transport" version used during rail movement. The transport tracks reduced the overall width of the load and could be used to drive the tank short distances on firm ground.
The Parder was, like many German late war designs, rushed into combat, but thanks to its Tiger I & II heritage many mechanical teething problems had already been corrected. Reliability was considerably improved compared to the much heavier Tiger II, and the Parder did prove to be a very effective fighting vehicle, especially in a defensive role. However, some design flaws, such as its weak final drive units, were never corrected due to raw material shortages, and more tanks were given up by the crews than actually destroyed in combat.
The Parder was issued to heavy tank battalions of the Army (Schwere Heerespanzerabteilung – abbreviated s.H.Pz.Abt) where it replaced the Tiger I & II.
Specifications:
Crew Four (commander, gunner, loader, driver)
Weight 54 tonnes (60 short tons)
Length 7.02 metres (23 ft in) (hull only)
10.64 metres (34 ft 10 1/3 in) with gun forward
Width 3.88 metres (12 ft 9 in)
4.14 metres (13 ft 6 3/4 in) with optional Thoma shields
Height 2.84 metres (9 ft 4 in) w/o AA machine gun
Suspension torsion-bar
Ground clearance: 495 to 510 mm (1 ft 7.5 in to 1 ft 8.1 in)
Fuel capacity: 820 l (180 imp gal; 220 US gal)
Armor:
30–120 mm (1.2 – 4.7 in)
Performance:
Speed
- Maximum, road: 41.5 km/h (25.8 mph)
- Sustained, road: 38 km/h (24 mph)
- Cross country: 15 to 20 km/h (9.3 to 12.4 mph)
Operational range: 240 km (150 mi)
Power/weight: 12,96 PS/tonne (11,5 hp/ton)
Engine:
V-12 Maybach HL 230 P30 gasoline with 700 PS (690 hp, 515 kW)
Transmission:
Maybach OLVAR EG 40 12 16 B (8 forward and 4 reverse)
Armament:
1× 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71 with 80 rounds
1× co-axial 7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 34 with 3.000 rounds
The kit and its assembly:
Something different… a whif tank! This was spawned from curiosity and the “wish” to build a German vehicle that would fit right into the E-25… E-100 range of experimental tanks.
It was to become a battle tank, and while browsing options and donation kits, I settled upon a replacement for the formidable but heavy and cumbersome Tiger B, also known as Tiger II, Königstiger or (wrongfully translated) King Tiger.
Anyway, creating a tank that would look (late war) German and still be whiffy was trickier than expected, and finally easier than expected, too. My solution would be a kit bashing: using many Tiger B parts (including the stylish Porsche tower and the running gear) and combining it with a hull that would offer better armor angles and look less “boxy”.
I effectively bashed two kits: one is the excellent 1:72 early Tiger B from Dragon, the other is Roden’s Soviet IS-3 tank – also very nice, even though the styrene is somewhat brittle.
My biggest fear was the running gear – combining the IS-3 hull with the Tiger B’s totally different legs scared me a lot – until I found that the parts from both kits (the Tiger B’s lower hull with all the suspension and the IS-3’s upper hull) could be combined rather easily combined. Just some cuts and improvised intersections, and the “new” tank hull was done!
As a side effect, the huge turret moved forward, and this considerably changes the silhouette. The IS-3’s opening had only to be widened slightly in order to accept the Porsche turret. Things matched up pretty well, also concerning size and proportions.
Otherwise, not much was changed. All wheels and tracks come from the Trumpeter Tiger B, the turret was also borrowed wholesale. I just changed some details (e. g. moving the spare track elements to the hull front), added some handles and also a heavy AA machine gun on the commander’s cupola, which is OOB, too.
Too simple? Well, for me it was not enough. For a more personal edge to the kit I decided to add Thoma skirts! Not the massive 5mm plates you frequently see on late Panzer IV tanks and its derivatives, rather the mesh type – lighter, less material-consuming, and a very special detail.
These were scratched. There are PE sets available, but that was too expensive and I was not certain if such items would fit in shape and size? So I made a cardboard template for the flanks and built a pair of skirts from styrene strips and a fine PET mesh that I had salvaged from a wallet long time ago.
The stuff is hard to glue onto something, so the styrene frame had to carry the mesh parts – and it works! The attachments to the hull were also scratched from styrene.
The Thoma shields add more width to the flat tank, but I think that they set the kit even more apart than just the borrowed IS-3 hull?
Painting and markings:
Hmmm, not totally happy with the finish. This was supposed to become a simple Hinterhalt (Ambush) paint scheme in Dark Yellow, Olive Green and Red Brown, but I did so much weathering that not much from the scheme can be recognized…
Painting was straightforward, though – I used Humbrol 94 and 173 as well as Modelmaster’s RAL 6003 as basic colors. The scheme’s benchmark is the official Tiger B scheme.
The basic colors received mottles in green on the yellow and yellow on the green and brown, and then the thing was thoroughly weathered with a black ink wash, dry-brushing, some aquarelle paint to simulate dust, and finally some pigments that simulate mud.
The tracks are made from soft vinyl, and also received a paint treatment in order to get rid of that shiny vinyl look: at first, with a mix of black and silver, which was immediately wiped off again, and later with a second, similar turn with silver and dark brown.
The mud was added just before the whole running gear was mounted as one of the final assembly stages, and final retouches were made with acrylic umbra paint.
Alas, I think I overdid it – much of the formidable and very attractive paint scheme was lost, even though the yucky, brownish finish now also works fine and looks like rough duty?
So, an experiment with good and bad results. Certainly not the last whif tank (at least one more on the agenda), and after so many aircraft a new kind of challenge. ^^
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
How it came to be:
It has been a long time since I built a "real" airplane kit, and this one here is a one-of-a-kind. After a bleak phase with lots of reading about German WWII airplane projects I found a spark to fire up a project I kept in the back of my mind for a long time: building one of these semi-fictional WWII airplanes from scratch. These astonishing designs were on the drawing boards at their time and rarely made it beyond that. Only a few reached prototype status at the end of the war, but today these partly weird designs are the basis of today's Luft '46 model kit genre: What-if airplanes, based on sketches, construction plans and pure speculation, in the case the war would have gone on.
At this point I want to make clear that this kit has NO political background. It is not even intended, and any Nazi symbolism is intentionally avoided and rejected. It is rather a hommage to an impressive design and, from my personal point of view, pure science fiction, based on vague historic facts.
Some historic background on this plane:
This plane is a Focke-Wulf study from 1941 for a heavy fighter. It was developes shortly after the Fw 190 introduction and surely influenced by the twin-boom Fw 189 reconnaissance aircraft, which became very popular due to its high agility, stable flight characteristics and toughness against enemy fire. The small "Flitzer" turbine engine fighter will surely also have had some impact, since it was on Focke Wulf's drawing boards in 1943, too.
This beast here would have been a much larger airplane, though: a heavy, high performance fighter built around the potent BMW 803 engine: a 28 cylinder, liquid-cooled radial engine in the 4.000 hp output range - comparable to the P&W-R-4360 Wasp Major engine (the so-called "corncob") which actually found its way into the Vought F2G Corsair but "just" put out 3.000 hp.
For reference, this Focke Wulf design was quite comparable to the US American XP-54, both in design and performance
The Focke Wulf fighter never received an official designation, and saw some mutation in the course of 1943. Even though the basic layout as a twin-boom, single pusher engine airplane with a tricycle landing gear was retained, the radiator placements, wing and tail shape changed.
From the original 1941 annular radiator design (a ring opening around the central fuselage), the arrangement was modified in April 1943 to a single drum radiator in the nose and, alternatively, twin drum radiators in the front ends of the tailbooms. The latter design is the layout I chose for my model, or better: where I ended up (see below).
Valuable sources:
Walter Schick, Ingolf Meyer: Luftwaffe Secret Projects, Fighters 1939-1945, Hinckley, 2005 (this is an English translation of the original German edition, Stuttgart, 1994, but with many colored illustrations added).
Sundin, Claes; Bergstroem, Christer: Deutsche Jaqgdflugzeuge 1939-1945 in Farbprofilen, Bonn, 1999.
www.luft46.com - a great online institution which offers many facts, information and artwork about secret German WWII airplane designs like this one - you can find a nice CG graphic of the initial 1941 design of this machine there.
wp.scn.ru - "Wings Palette" - a Russian website which collects plane profiles and some details about the respective machine's history. A nice reference archive, since a lot information concerning colors can be found there, too. Handling is poor, though. But once you get it, it is a great model kit building source.
The construction:
Anyway, this Focke Wulf design never left the drawing board, and this model here is just an interpretation of the vague design sketches I found in literature. It is also limited by the use of various existing kits as a kitbashing basis. My idea was to build a what-if version of the airplane if it had entered service, which would allow some deviations from the blueprints and also leave some room for a semi-realistic Luftwaffe livery.
What went into this model:
Grumman Panther (1:72, Matchbox/Revell):
- Main body,
- Parts of the outer wings
- Cockpit interior
- Canopy
Lockheed P-38E Lightning (1:72; Airfix):
- Tailbooms
- Horizontal fin
- Cockpit parts
- Landing gear
- Propeller spinners
Messerschmidt Me 262 A-2a (1:72, Hobby Master):
- Outer wings
- Wheels
Dornier Do 217N (1:72, Italeri):
- Engine cowling (rear central fuselage)
- Propellers
Other smaller donations:
- Kamow Ka-25 (1:72, Airfix): Vertical fins
- Chance Vought XF5U-1 (1:72, Hasegawa): Propeller spinners
- Chance Vought F4U (1:72, Matchbox): Engine block
- Messerschmidt Me-110 (1:72, Matchbox): Pilot figure
...and a lot of small stuff of unknown origin!
Laying the foundations
The basic choice for donation kits was quickly done: the central body would come from the Grumman F9F-4 Panther kit from Matchbox (currently released by Revell). Its overall proportions match well with the Focke Wulf design's central body and its size well, and the kit's construction with folded wings and a separate tail fin allowed easy modification for the pusher engine layout.
Originally, I wanted to use the Panther's jet intakes as radiator openings for a fictional (and more elegant) design alternative to the "official" radiator solutions, but I had to skip this idea (see below). The slender tailbooms come from a vintage Airfix P-38H kit and are much more slender than the Focke Wulf designs. Furthermore, the original Focke Wulf main landing gear looks as if it would retract inwards - which collided with my intial radiator ideas! Due to the pusher propeller, a much longer landing gear than the Panther's wpould be necessary, and this would have needed much bigger compartments. Enlarging them appeared too complex, and there's be actually no space with my inital wing root radiator idea. Therefore, I decided to retract the main wheels into the twin booms, and the P-38 pieces were just perfect for my ideas (and at hand). They'd undergo major modifications, though.
The twin booms were to be mounted onto the Panther's inner wings, and from there the rest of the model design would come when the parts were needed or available, since matching proportions for a balanced look is an important aspect when you build from scratch - a lesson I learned through varioius mecha bashings and modifications. I had some plans though: for the outer wings, for instance, I considered straight wings from a Fw 190 or parts from a Do 335 "Arrow", since these are slightly swept and would match the original drawings quite well.
The body parts get assembled
Work started straightforward with the tailbooms: they needed total cleaning, so that the P-38 look would disappear as much as possible: intercooolers and turbochargers had to go, and the engines were to "disappear", too. The Airfix kit is pretty old and clumsy, but offers massive material to work with. Another positive aspect is that the main landing gear compartments are complete parts, including the doors and all the inside. A neat arrangement which would later allow a switch between extended and retracted wheels!
The Panther's fuselage was cut open at the rear end to hold the BMW 803 engine, which requiered a new cowling. This came from a Dornier Do 217 with BMW 801 engines from Italeri, the BMW 803 dummy inside comes from a Matchbox F4U kit. The diameters of both segments were pretty equal and were easily merged with putty.
The Panther's front end was taken as it is, including the cockpit. The latter is actually very detailed for a Matchbox kit, with side consoles, a dashboard with instruments and even steering stick is included. I just fitted a better seat and a WWII pilot figure, which received an oxygen mask and its head was turned left for a more vivid look.
Since the front wheel had to be much longer than the Panther pieces I decided to use the P-38 front landing gear. Consequently, I enlarged its compartment (towards the nose, with a transplanted interior) and moved the Panther's nose guns from their original low position upwards. The kit's nose was filled with lots of lead in order to ensure a good weight on the front wheel for free standing on its tricycle undercarriage.
The BMW 803's contraprops had to be built from scratch. The basis were two leftover three-bladed rotors from the aforementioned Do 217 Italeri kit (they had just the correct diameter!) for the static display version, and two transparent plastic discs of the same diameter in order to mimic running propellers for photo shooting purposes in flight.
The spinners were a nightmare, though. They come from a wrecked 1:72 Hasegawa kit of a Chance Vought XF5U-1 (The "Flying Pancake"). Cut into three pieces, the three-bladed props were implanted into the spinner segments and a metal axis inserted, so that the propellers can be moved and interchanged. A plastic tube inside of the engine dummy is the respective adapter and offers a stable hold.
Trouble! ...and even more trouble!
As rough work progressed, some fundamental problems became obvious:
a) the P-38 booms were too long at their front, and their diameter was much too large. Cutting the front ends off did not help much, since I would have had to create new front covers/noses from putty and their bulky shape would look very unsinspired - way off of the Focke Wulf design! Hence, I finally decided to switch my personal design plan from the wing root intake arrangement to the authetic twin drum radiator layout from April 1943.
The Panther's air intakes would be totally closed, leaving pretty "fat" wing roots of high thickness. But since armament was supposed to be loacted in both the nose and wing roots of this machine (see below), this offered a good chance to cover the mess up a little.
Finding something to act as drum radiators was another problem that followed suit! At first I thought I'd become happy with two leftover engines from a Matchbox PB4-Y2 Privateer in 1:72 scale. These are/were actually Twin Wasp radial engines, but their diameter, the grates inside and their cooling flaps made them suited for my kit. They fitted well, but it just did not look right (see some of the WIP pics).
Heavy-hearted I skipped this approach and also built the drums radiators from scratch. I finally found some good parts in model railraod equipment: in a HO Modulars set from Cornerstone with various roof detils for industrial buildings, I found two nice "tubs" (parts for motorized vents) which were merged with lots of putty and sanding onto the clipped tail booms. The radiator arrangement inside was made up from parts from a 1:72 scale Panzer IV(!) and from the Airfix P-38 spinners. The cooling flaps are very thin Plasticard. Comparing this solution with the original plane sketches, the result looks convicing and more "realistic" than originally planned! Whew...
b) The wing root/twin boom area was another source of headaches, since I had to merge parts that were never supposed to meet, in places even less intended for construction. But a mini drill with a diamond cutter and epoxy putty are wonderful things!
Spacers between the Panther hull and the booms had to be made, closing a 5mm gap on each side because the propeller needed this much space between the booms. Parts of the leftover Panther kit's outer wings were the basis, and the original P-38's horizonmtal fin could be used, too. Sound simple, but almost the complete area had to be remodeled with putty.
The big picture becomes clear(er)
Now that the main part of the body was finished, the final missing pieces could be added and first details defined.
For the outer wings, I finally settled on parts from a Me 262 from Hobby Boss. These have the advantage that they are massive pieces (not two halves, as usual) and that the Me 262's engine nacelles could easily be left away. As a result, I had two thin, slightly swept wings which could easily be cut into the right length for my project. Fixing them to the P-38 tail booms was another story, though!
The original Focke Wulf design uses simpler and thicker wings, which look very similar to the Do 335. But I justify my choice with the advancements in aerodynamics since the 1943 revision of the original plane's design and the effective introduction of the Me 262 into production and service. Using these parts or a similar design for high speeds in another airplane appears plausible in order to get this machine into the air quickly, and the slender Me 262 wings blend well with the angles of the inner wings from the Panther.
The vertical fins also puzzled me for some time. The round P-38 fins had definitively to go, but the different Focke Wulf design sketches did not show a definitive vertical fin shape or arrangement. Since I wanted an old-fashioned, not jet-like look, I went for parts from the scrap box again. And, believe it or not, the model's retro-looking vertical fins actually come from a helicopter: from an antique 1:72 scale Kamow Ka-25 "Hokum" from Airfix!
The main landing gear was taken from the P-38, but the wheels come from the scrap box. I am not sure where these come from - they could come from a Douglas Skyknight from Matchbox. Since the Airfix kit's contruction offers the main landing gear to be inserted as complete units, I also used the covers for the retracted gear for the photo shootings, for some pictures in flight.
Armament:
Being a heavy daylight fighter, I stuck to the original 1941 design armament: four fixed 20mm MG 151/20 in the nose, plus "provision for two larger calibre cannons", plus two or four machine guns installed in the wing-roots. The firepower would have been massive!
For my model I adopted the four 20mm guns in the upper nose and added four 30mm MK 103 cannons in the wing roots. Since these offered now lots of space, this arrangement would make the thick wing and the blended bodywork plausible, without looking exagerrated.
The nose guns are just thin polystyrol sticks, the larger calibre guns are syringe needles cut to length with the beloved diamond cutter.
But beyond the guns, I also wanted to add some of the experimental air-to-air weapons that were under development against allied bomber forces in 1945. Among those was the world's probably first guided AAM, the Kramer X-4: a relatively small, wire-guided missile with a range of just 3 miles and a contact detonator.
Tests with this innovative weapon were conducted in the late war months, and the X-4 was suppoesed to be carried by e. g. Me 262 fighters. The targeting procedure would easily overstress a single pilot's capabilities, though, esp. in the heat of a bomber formation attack at high speeds. Therefore, field tests were rather performed by multi-seated planes like the Ju 88, and the X-4 did not enter serious service.
But this missile would have been a plausible weapon for this Focke Wulf design, and so two X-4s found their way with starting racks under my model's wings.
Each missile consists of nine parts and had to be built from scratch. The body is a streamlined, modern 250 lbs. Mk 81 bomb, the wings were cut from thin polystyrol. The wire spools on the wing tips are actually parts from a HO scale fence(!), the acoustic detonator nose are leftover tool handles from a 1:35 scale tank kit.
Livery and markings:
Being a semi-fictional design that never left the drawing board, I tried to implement a "typical" late war Luftwaffe livery. Benchmarks were Me 262 fighter paint schemes, as well as late Fw 190D-9 and Ta-152 machines. Since the plane itself was already centre of attraction, the paint job should be rather subtle, yet authentic.
All interior areas (cockpit, engine, landing gear) were painted in RLM 02. For the outside I ended up with a basic livery in RLM 74/75/76, using colors from Testor's Military Models and Figures range, 2071, 2084, 2085, 2086.
The upper splinter scheme with faded/mottled fuselage sides (which includes RLM 02 in order to create a soft color transition from the dark upper sides into the light RLM 76 underneath, a common practice in field conditions) was derived from a Me 262 profile. This machine also contributed the dark green (RLM 82) color fields on the nose and other fuselage parts. These would not have been standard livery, I think, rather improvised in the field. But this subtle detail prevents the plane from being all grey-in-grey.
The markings come from various decal sheets and were a kind of challenge. I intended to mark this machine as being part of an Erprobungskommando (test unit), or EKdo or EK, for short. But these squadrons would not have special designations, though. Prototypes woud carry a "V"-number (for Versuch/test), but I wanted a machine already in service. So I made up a semi-fictional squadron marking as a part of the late Reich defense.
Typical markings are the colored band at the rear fuselage, its color and scheme being associated with certain Jagdgeschwader (JG) wings, dedicated to interception tasks. The red tail band(s) denote this machine as being part of JG 1, which comprised several Staffeln/groups and squadrons with individual emblems. The JG 1's red tail band would not have been used in the late war years in real life, but, hey, it LOOKS good, and we're finally doing fictional things here! As a side note, JG 1 was the only wing (to be exact: 1./JG 1 and later, in April 1945 III./JG 1) to use the He 162 Salamender jet fighter, so JG 1 appears to be a general plausible choice for this fictional Focke Wulf fighter.
The red wave symbol should, AFAIK, mark the 2nd group of that wing, but it could also be a symbol for the pilot's rank - that's quite obscure and had not been handled consistently. For squadron markings I setlled on 6./JG 1 - the red wyvern was this group's squadron emblem.
Decals come from aftermarkets sheet from TL-Modellbau (superb quality) and others i e. from a MiG-25 from Hasegawa (the red bort number) or the leftover decal sheet of the Hobby Boss Me 262 (mostly stencellings and warning signs).
After application of the decals on the semi-matte paint, everything was sealed under matte varnish.
The X-4 missiles were painted in a color livery I found for a museum X-4. Other test missiles were painted in black and white, checkered. Not sure if the field use missiles would have looked that bright, but for a test unit, the blank fuselage and the hi-vis, orange fins look just right and make a nice contrast to the dull rest of the machine.
Finally...
Lots of work, but the result looks better and more harmonious than I expected. O.K., the Panther's fuselage and cockpit deviate from the Focke Wulf sketches - but the plane I built would have had entered service 3 years after its redesign to the drum radiator design, and details like the bubble canopy or more modern weaponry would have certainly been incorporated.
The finish is not as good as a kit "out of the box", but considering the massive putty work, this machine looks quite good :)
And, after all, it is a fictional design!
New pics form an old model.
This is one of (in the meantime...) four major kit conversions - or better: kit-bashings - I did on the basis of 1:100 Bandai Gerwalk Valkyries and leftover pieces from other 1:100 scale Valkyries in Battroid mode, plus material from the junkyard.
These "Super Valkyries" carry rocket boosters for non-atmospherical use, so-called FAST packages ("Fuel And Sensor Trays"). Parts for these extra items were included in some Arii/Bandai VF-1 Gerwalk and Battroid kits. However, there is/was only a single vintage 1:100 Imai kit of an OOB VF-1S Super Valkyrie in Fighter Mode, but it is really crappy and calls for lots of improvements. Therefore I decided to build my own model from scratch.
At the time of making, I just had vague visuals as reference, so some details on this model (it's ~25 years old, even the internet was just nerd stuff at that time and offered only limited content!) are not 100% accurate ;)
The legs were completely re-built through kitbashing: they are modified pieces from a Gerwalk Valkyri,e combined with lower legs from a transformable 1:100 scale kit. The folded arms between the legs are completely improvised, too, made from two lower arm halves and tailored to fit the gap between the bulky new legs.
The big RMS-1 missiles under the wings were made from scratch. These are modified 1.000 lbs. bombs in 1:72 scale from old Matchbox kits, their rear fin arrangement is a simple piece of flexible plastic straw that fits perfectly.
The color scheme was inspired by a VF-1 side profile drawing in the source book "This is animation, Special: MACROSS PLUS", an overall deep blue machine, with a white radar nose and dark grey FAST packs. The look resembles US Navy fighters from the 50ies - and as simple as it is, it looks gorgeous on a VF-1!
I just did not use the authentic blue (FS 15042), which was a bit too murky at the kit's small scale and too greenish for my personal taste. So I rather settled for Humbrol's 15 "Midnight Blue".
The FAST pieces were painted in Humbrol 184 ("Stock Freight Grey"), a very dark tone.
Markings came from the scrap box, the dragon emblem of the fictional SVF-406 fighter squadron (stationed on ARMD-03 in Earth orbit) are insignia of US Marines' VMA-324 attack fighter squadron, which flew A-4 Skyhawks.
+++ 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 "Entwicklung" tank series (= "development"), more commonly known as the E-Series, was a late-World War II attempt by Germany to produce a standardized series of tank designs. There were to be six standard designs in different weight classes, from which several specialized variants were to be developed. This intended to reverse the trend of extremely complex tank designs that had resulted in poor production rates and mechanical unreliability.
The E-series designs were simpler, cheaper to produce and more efficient than their predecessors; however, their design offered only modest improvements in armor and firepower over the designs they were intended to replace, such as the Jagdpanzer 38(t), Panther Ausf.G or Tiger II. However, the resulting high degree of standardization of German armored vehicles would also have made logistics and maintenance easier. Indeed, nearly all of the E-series vehicles — up through and including the E-75 — were intended to use what were essentially the Tiger II's eighty centimeter diameter, steel-rimmed road wheels for their suspension, meant to overlap each other (as on the later production Tiger I-E and Panther designs that also used them), even though in a much simplified fashion.
Focus of initial chassis and combat vehicle development was the E-50/75 Standardpanzer, designed by Adler, both being mostly identical and only differing in armor thickness, overall weight and running gear design to cope with the different weights.
The E-50 Standardpanzer was intended as a medium tank, replacing the Panther and Tiger I battle tanks and the conversions based on these older vehicles. The E-50 hull was to be longer than the Panther, and in fact it was practically identical to the Königstiger (Tiger II) in overall dimensions except for the glacis plate layout. Compared with the earlier designs, however, the amount of drilling and machining involved in producing the Standardpanzer designs was reduced drastically, which would have made them quicker, easier and cheaper to produce, as would the proposed conical spring system, replacing their predecessors' torsion bar system which required a special steel alloy.
The basis development, the combat tank, was to carry the narrow-mantlet 'Schmalturm' turret (designed for the Panther Ausf. F), coupled with a variant of the powerful 88 mm L/71 gun.
In service the vehicle received the inventory ordnance number "SdKfZ. 304" and was officially called "Einheitspanzer 50" (Standard tank), retaining its E-50 abbreviation. The weight of the E-50 vehicle family would fall between 50 and 75 tons. The engine was an improved Maybach HL234 with up to 900 hp output. Maximum speed was supposed to be up to 60 km/h.
The E-75 Standardpanzer (SdKfz. 305), based on the same hull, was intended to be the standard heavy tank and as a replacement of the heavy Tiger II and Jagdtiger tanks. The E-75 would have been built on the same production lines as the E-50 for ease of manufacture, and the two vehicles were to share many components, including the same Maybach HL 234 engine.
As its name indicates, the resulting vehicle would have weighed in at over 75 tons, reducing its speed to around 40 km/h. To offset the increased weight, the bogies were spaced differently from on the E-50, with an extra pair added on each side and eight instead of six wheels plus a slightly wider track, giving the E-75 a slightly improved track to ground contact length.
The basic combat tank version was to be equipped with the same turret and 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71 as the E-50 battle tank, but along with an optical rangefinder for increased long range accuracy. Anyway, heavier guns (10,5 cm and 12,8 cm caliber) in bigger turrets were under development.
The E-50/E-75 chassis would also become the basis for a family special purpose vehicles like anti-aircraft tanks, assault guns or tank destroyers. One of the earliest developments for the latter class of vehicles was the SdKfz. 191/2, a self-propelled gun carrier for the powerful 12.8 cm KwK L/61 gun, a proven weapon with immense range and firepower, based on the 12.8 cm FlaK 40 anti-aircraft cannon.
The SdKfz. 191/2 was to be much more mobile and lighter than its predecessors, the Jagdtiger and Keiler tank hunters, which had suffered from being overweight and - consequently - underpowered. The new tank hunter was not to exceed 55 tons and offer a field performance similar to the highly effective Jagdpanther, which was only armed with an 88mm cannon, though.
As an appropriate vehicle basis the new E-50 chassis was chosen, but the internal layout was radically modified in order to accept the large and heavy weapon, the crew of six and a decent load of ammunition (which consisted of two parts) in a fully closed combat compartment.
In order to simplify the tank and save weight, the engine section was, together with the gearbox, moved to the hull's front. The complete crew section, including the driver’s position, was placed behind the engine. This was a radically new layout approach, and this form of the standard chassis was called E-50(F) (“F” standing for “Front”; there was also an “M” (= Mitte) for a mid-engine layout, with a separate driver compartment in front of the engine; the standard layout with a rear engine did not receive a dedicated suffix).
The driver’s position behind a long ‘bonnet’ considerably impaired the field of view, and both driver and radio operator, placed on the other side of the hull, had sit in separate "cabins" in front of the casemate-style box main structure. These positions were separated by parts of the engine and the gearbox between them, and accessible from the main combat room.
Despite some inherent weaknesses, this arrangement was regarded as an acceptable price to pay for space and weight savings through only a single major internal fire bulkhead, no need for a long power shaft running all through the hull and an improved crew survivability behind the massive engine against frontal attacks.
The large 12.8 cm cannon was completely covered under a box-shaped superstructure, which had almost vertical side walls. The gun could traverse 7° to each side, elevate 15° and depress -10°. 32 rounds were carried inside of the hull, including armor piercing and explosive shells.
In order to keep the SdKfz. 191/2 within a 60 tons overall weight limit, the vehicle’s front armor was limited to 70mm. This was deemed satisfactory, since the SdKfz. 191/2 was primarily intended for long-range combat only (the weapon had an effective range of 3,500 m (2.2 mi) and more even against heavily armored targets), primarily against heavy Soviet combat tanks and assault guns.
Having learned painful lessons with the Sturmgeschütz IV "Brummbär" and its vulnerability to close range attacks of infantry soldiers, the SdKfz. 191/2 was from the start outfitted with a ball mount for a MG 34 machine gun in the front plate of the superstructure. Another MG 34 on board could be mounted on the commander's cupola for anti-aircraft defense. Smoke dischargers were also available.
A small batch of the SdKfz. 304/2 was built at Deutsche Eisenwerke in mid-1945, to be tested under field conditions. Due to the lack of 12.8cm anti tank guns, around half of the 40 vehicles (production numbers are unclear, since the vehicles were manually converted from initial, unfinished E-50 chassis') were outfitted with the lighter 8,8cm Pak. Both variants were distinguished by "A" and "B" suffixes, respectively, and officially called “Jagdpanzer 12.8cm auf Fahrwerk E-50(F)”, frequently shortened to "Jagdpanzer E-50 (F) A or B".
In service, the relatively agile vehicles were dubbed "Uhlan" (after German light lancer groups in WWI) by their crews, and the more simple name quickly caught on. Another unofficial nickname, based on the separated driver/radio operator compartment and the boxy shape of the tank, was “Beichtstuhl” (“Confessional Box”), but this name was soon forbidden.
The new tank hunters only saw limited use, though, since they suffered from many early production flaws, and general technical reliability was also low. Other weaknesses were soon revealed, too. The SdKfz. 191/2's high casemate design made the vehicle hard to camouflage. With its almost vertical front and side armor, as well as the separate and edgy driver and radio operator compartments, it proved to be very vulnerable, too, so that - on the same chassis - an improved hull (similar to the Jagdpanther, but with the engine in front of the crew section and armed with a new 105 mm cannon) for the newly developed SdKfz 195 hull (a.k.a. "Jagdpanther II") was quickly developed, offering a much improved ballistic protection from any angle.
Specifications:
Crew: Six (commander, gunner, 2x loader, radio operator, driver)
Weight: 54 tonnes (60 short tons)
Length: 7.27 metres (23 ft 8 in) (hull only)
9.36 metres (30 ft 8 in) incl. gun
Width: 3.88 metres (12 ft 9 in)
Height 3.35 metres (11 ft)
Ground clearance: 495 to 510 mm (1 ft 7.5 in to 1 ft 8.1 in)
Suspension: Conical spring
Fuel capacity: 720 litres (160 imp gal; 190 US gal)
Armor:
10–70 mm (0.4 – 2.75 in)
Performance:
Speed
- Maximum, road: 46 km/h (28.6 mph)
- Sustained, road: 38 km/h (24 mph)
- Cross country: 15 to 20 km/h (9.3 to 12.4 mph)
Operational range: 160 km (99 miles)
Power/weight: 16,67 PS/tonne (14,75 hp/ton)
Engine:
V-12 Maybach HL 234 gasoline engine with 900 PS (885 hp/650 kW)
Transmission:
ZF AK 7-200 with 7 forward 1 reverse gears
Armament:
1× 12.8 cm KwK L/61 with 32 rounds
2× 7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 34 with a total of 5.200 rounds (one in the casemate front
and an optional AA gun on the commander's cupola)
The kit and its assembly:
This build was spawned from the question: with the German Experimental-Panzer designs becoming available, what would have been an initial solution for the large 12,8cm PaK, and a kind or predecessor of the more effective designs that were to follow (like the Jagdpanther II on E-50/75 basis or the heavy ‘Krokodil’ from the E-100 chassis)? Creations like the Jagdtiger or the Elefant/Ferdinand had failed due to their weight, and roofless self-propelled designs like the Nashorn or the lighter Marder family had also not been very effective designs.
Consequently I tried my luck with a kitbash: the standard E-50 chassis (from a Model Collect combat tank variant), combined with the superstructure of the “Sturer Emil” SPG prototype (Trumpeter kit).
Work started with the lower hull, which was more or less taken OOB – just the upper side was completely re-arranged and the engine roof cut out, together with the attachment ring for the original Schmalturm turret, and transplanted to the front. In this step, the original driver hatches on top of the hull were deleted, too.
On the hull’s gaping rear end I tried to integrate the (originally roofless) weapon compartment from the “Sturer Emil” SPG. The latter comes as a single piece and turned out to be a little too narrow. I could have taken it OOB, but then a small step in the hull’s side walls had to be accepted. So I cut the box structure into pieces and tried to blend them as smoothly into the lower hull’s lines as possible – with the benefit of slightly more angled side walls. The resulting gaps at all four corners were filled with styrene sheet and putty, and the rear wall called for some major adjustments because it has a convex shape with an entry hatch. A bit messy, but the flanking exhaust pipes cover most of the mess.
On the new roof (cut from styrene sheet using a pattern made from adhesive tape and graphite rubbed along the edges), a commander cupola from a Panzer IV and some details like rangefinder optics or air vents were added. Since the interior would not be visible anymore, I only added a primitive console that would hold the OOB cannon bearing and allow slight movement with the barrel in place.
The kit would receive new tracks – vinyl pieces instead of the single styrene pieces from the Model Collect kit. And for a more lively look, the mud guards and side skirts (integral part of the upper hull half) were dented – using a candle flame to warm and warp the material.
Painting and markings:
The rather massive and tall tank was to look simple, yet a bit improvised, so I decided to mimic a primer finish with some thin camouflage paint added on top, so that much of the primer would still shine through.
In an initial step, the hull and still separate parts like the barrel and the wheels received a uniform coat of RAL 3009 Oxidrot – a rich, rust-red tone that comes close to the German primer used on late-war tank hulls. This basic tone was considerably lightened, through dry-brushing and shading with Humbrol 70, 113 and 119 (Brick Red, Rust and Red Brown, respectively), since paint was sparse in Germany in late WWII and colors frequently stretched and thinned with added pigments like white lead, resulting in an almost pinkish tone.
Once dry, the kit received an overall cover with thinned acrylic Sand and Beige (Revell 16 and 314) – almost a custard-colored wash - so that a good amount of the light paint would cling to details and run down the vertical surfaces, leaving an uneven, partly translucent coat on top the red primer that shines through everywhere. This finish was later tailored with brass brush, steel wool and sand paper treatments. No further camouflage (e. g. with Olivgrün) was added, for a simple look.
On top of the basic paint, a dark brown washing was added and the edges further emphasized through dry-brushing with light grey and pale sand tones, plus some acrylic silver. Once the wheels and tracks were fitted into place and the few decals applied, a coat of matt acrylic varnish was added. Finally, dust and dry mud were simulated with mixed pigments, applied with a soft brush onto wet stains of varnish.
An impressive whif tank, and the complex superstructure was quite challenging. Even though it’s a kitbashing, the whole thing looks pretty plausible and “German”, so the original objective was accomplished.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the model, the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
Alexander Martin Lippisch (November 2, 1894 – February 11, 1976) was a German aeronautical engineer, a pioneer of aerodynamics who made important contributions to the understanding of flying wings, delta wings and the ground effect.
After working intially for the Zeppelin company, Reichsluftfahrtsministerium (RLM, Reich Aviation Ministry) transferred Lippisch and his team in 1939 to work at the Messerschmitt factory, in order to design a high-speed fighter aircraft around the rocket engines then under development by Hellmuth Walter. The team quickly adapted their most recent design, the DFS 194, to rocket power, the first example successfully flying in early 1940. This successfully demonstrated the technology for what would become the Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet, his most famous design.
In 1943, Lippisch transferred to Vienna’s Aeronautical Research Institute (Luftfahrtforschungsanstalt Wien, LFW), to concentrate on the problems of high-speed flight.That same year, he was awarded a doctoral degree in engineering by the University of Heidelberg. However, his research work did not stop Lippisch from designing further, mostly jet-powered and tailless fighter aircraft, e. g. for Henschel.
In early 1944, the RLM became aware of Allied jet developments and the high altitude B-29 in the Pacific TO, which was expected to appear soon over Europe, too. In response, the RLM instituted the Emergency Fighter Program, which took effect on July 3, 1944, ending production of most bomber and multi-role aircraft in favour of fighters, especially jet fighters. Additionally, they accelerated the development of experimental designs that would guarantee a performance edge over the Allied opponents, and designs that would replace the first generation of the German jet fighters, namely the Messerschmitt Me 262 and Heinkel He 162.
One of these advanced designs was the Ta 183 fighter, built by Focke Wulf and developed by Kurt Tank. The Ta 183 had a short fuselage with the air intake passing under the cockpit and proceeding to the rear where the single engine was located. The wings were swept back at 40° and were mounted in the mid-fuselage position. The pilot sat in a pressurized cockpit with a bubble canopy, which provided excellent vision. The primary armament of the aircraft consisted of four 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 108 cannons arranged around the air intake. The Ta 183 had a planned speed of about 1,000 km/h (620 mph) at 7,000 m (22,970 ft) and was powered by a 2nd generation jet engine, the Heinkel HeS 011 turbojet with 13 kN (2,700 lbf) of thrust. Several, steadily improved variants of the Ta 183 entered service from mid 1945 onwards, and the type was also the basis for more thorough derivatives - including a high altitude jet fighter proposed by Alexander Lippisch.
The resulting aircraft mated the structural basis of the proven Ta 183 with advanced aerodynamics, namely a tailless design with a much increased wing and fin area, and the machine was also powered by the new BMW 018 jet engine which delivered at this early stage 25kN (5.200 lb) of thrust and was expected to achieve more than 36 kN (7.500 lb) soon, without bigger dimensions than the widely used HeS 011 at the time.
The resulting machine, designated Li 383 in order to honor the developer, sacrificed some of the Ta 183' agility and speed for sheer altitude and climb performance, and the new wings were mostly built from non-strategic material, what increased weight considerably - the Li 383 was 1.5 times as heavy as the nimble Ta 183 fighter, but the new wing was more than twice as large.
Nevertheless, the modifications were effective and the RLM quickly accepted the radical re-design, since no better options were available on short notice. While the Ta 183 fighter was able to reach 14.000m (45,935 ft) in a zoom climb, the Li 383 could easily operate at 16.000m (52.500 ft) and even above that. However, Alexander Lippisch's original design, the Li 383A, had, despite positive wind tunnel tests, turned out to be unstable and prone to spinning. The reason was quickly found to be a lack of latitudal surfaces, and this was quickly fixed with a bigger tail fin and a characteristic gull wing that gave it the inofficial nickname for the serial Li 383B, "Sturmvogel".
When the Allied Forces eventually added the high-flying B-29 bombers to their air raids over Germany in late 1945, the Li 383 B-1 serial production variant was just ready for service. The new machines were quickly delivered to front line units, primarily fighter squadrons that defended vital centers like Berlin, Munich or the Ruhrgebiet. However, even though the Li 383 B-1's performance was sufficient, the type suffered from an inherent weakness against the well-armed Allied bombers: the range of the MK 108 cannon. While this weapon was relatively light and compact, and the four guns delivered an impressive weight of fire, a close attack against massive bomber formations was highly hazardous for the pilots. As a consequence, since bigger guns could not be mounted in the compact Ta 183 airframe, several weapon sets for filed modifications (so-called Rüstsätze) were offered that added a variety of weapons with a longer range and a bigger punch to the Li 383 B-1's arsenal, including unguided and guided air-to-air missiles.
Anyway, the Li 383's overall impact was not significant. Production numbers remained low, and all in all, only a total of 80-100 machines were completed and made operational when the hostilities ended.
General characteristics:
Crew: one
Length: 7.78 m (25 ft 5 1/2 in)
Wingspan: 12.67 m (41 ft 6 in)
Height: 3.86 m (12 ft 8 in)
Wing area: 46.8 m² (502.1 ft²)
Empty weight: 4,600 kg (10,141 lb)
Loaded weight: 6,912 kg (15,238 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 8,100 kg (17,857 lb)
Powerplant:
1× BMW 018A turbojet, 25kN (5.200 lb)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 977 km/h (estimated) (607 mph) at 12,000 meters (39,000 ft)
Service ceiling: 16,000 m (estimated) (52,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 22 m/s (estimated) (4,330 ft/min)
Wing loading: 147.7 kg/m² (20.2 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.34
Armament:
4× 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 108 cannons around the air intake with 75 RPG
2x underwing hardpoints for two 300l drop tanks or 2x 250 kg (550 lb) bombs;
alternatively, various weapon sets (Rüstsätze) were available, including racks for 8× (R1) or 12× (R3)
R 65 “Föhn” or for 24x R4M unguided missiles (R2), or for 2× Ruhrstahl X-4 Wire Guided AAMs (R4)
The kit and its assembly:
This fictional Luft ’46 aircraft was inspired by the question what a further developed Ta 183 could have looked like, and it was also influenced by the many tailless Lippisch designs that never left the drawing board.
From the hardware perspective, the design is more or less the salvage of the most useable parts of the PM Model Horten IX/Go 229 kit – namely the outer wing sections. The PM Model Ta 183 is only marginally “better”, and I had one of these in the stash (Revell re-boxing), too. So, why not combine two dreadful kits into something …new?
Well, that was the plan, and building was rather straightforward. In the cockpit, I added simple side consoles, a dashboard, some oxygen flasks, a different seat and a pilot figure (seatbelts simulated with tape strips) – the kit would be finished with closed canopy.
An exhaust pipe was integrated and the air intake filled with a better compressor fan (from an Airfix D.H. Venom, IIRC, fits perfectly). The inner walls of the landing gear wells (well, they are not existent) were cut away and replaced with leftover jet engine parts, so that there was some structure and depth. The landing gear was taken OOB, though, I just used slightly bigger wheels, since the “new” aircraft would have considerably more mass than the Ta 183.
The highly swept, long Ta 183 tail was cut off and replaced by a surplus Me 262 fin and tail section (Matchbox). Despite the different shape and size, and the resulting side view profile reminds strangely of the Saab 29?
The original Ta 183 wings were not mounted and their attachment points on the fuselage cut/sanded away. Instead, I used the outer wing sections from the Go 229, with clipped wing tips for a different shape.
When I held the wings to the fuselage, the whole thing looked …boring. Something was missing, hard to pinpoint. After consulting some Luft ’46 literature I adapted a trick for better stability: a gull wing shape. This was achieved through simple cuts to the wings’ upper halves. Then the wings were bent down, the gap filled with a styrene strip, and finally PSRed away. Looks very dynamic, and also much better!
Another late addition was the underwing armament. I was about to start painting when I again found that something was missing… The new wings made the aircraft pretty large, so I considered some underwing ordnance. Anyway, I did not want to disrupt the relatively clean lines with ugly bombs or drop tanks, so I installed a pair of racks with six launch tubes for R 65 “Föhn” unguided AAMs into the lower wing surfaces, in a semi-recessed position and with a deflector plate for the rocket exhausts.
Painting and markings:
As a high altitude interceptor and late war design, this one was to receive a simple and relatively light livery, even though I stuck with classic RLM tones. The Li 383 was basically painted all-over RLM 76 (Humbrol 247), onto which RLM 75 (from Modelmaster) was added, in the form of highly thinned enamel paint for a cloudy and improvised effect, applied with a big and soft brush. On top of the wings, a typical two-tone scheme was created, while on the fuselage’s upper sides only some thin mottles were added.
In order to lighten the scheme up and add a unique twist, I added further mottles to the flanks and the fin, but this time with RLM 77. This is a very light grey – originally reserved for tactical markings, but also “abused” in the field for camouflage mods, e. g. on high-flying He 177 bombers. I used Humbrol 195 (RAL 7035), again applied with a brush and highly thinned for a rather cloudy finish.
The air intake section and the intake duct were painted in aluminum, while the engine exhaust section as well as the missile racks and the areas around the gun ports were painted with Revell 99 (Iron Metallic) and Steel Metallizer.
The cockpit interior became dark grey (RLM 66) while the landing gear, the wells and the visible engine parts inside became RLM 02.
The kit was lightly weathered with a thin black ink wash and some dry-brushing.
The markings were puzzled together; due to the light basic tones of the model, the upper crosses became black, with only a very small cross on the flanks due to the lack of space, and for the wings’ undersides I used “old school” full color markings in black and white. The red color for the tactical code was basically chosen because it would be a nice contrast to the bluish-grey overall livery.
Finally the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish and some gun soot stains added with grinded graphite, as well as some traces of flaked paint on the wings’ leading edges and around the cockpit.
Well, the attempt to bash two mediocre (at best) kits into something else and hopefully better worked out well – the Li 383 does not look totally out of place, even though it turned out to become a bigger aircraft than expected. However, the aircraft has this certain, futuristic Luft ’46 look – probably thanks to the gull wings, which really change the overall impression from a simple kitbash to a coherent design which-could-have-been. The livery also fits well and looks better than expected. Overall, a positive surprise.
+++ 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 Northrop Grumman-IAI F-24 is the latest reincarnation of the USAF "Lightweight Fighter Program" which dates back to the 1950ies and started with the development of Northrop's F-5 "Freedom Fighter".
The 1st generation F-5 became very successful in the export market and saw a long line of development, including the much more powerful F-5E "Tiger II" and the F-20 Tigershark (initially called F-5G). Northrop had high hopes for the F-20 in the international market; however, policy changes following Ronald Reagan's election meant the F-20 had to compete for sales against aircraft like the F-16, the USAF's latest fighter design (which was politically favored). The F-20 development program was eventually abandoned in 1986 after three prototypes had been built and a fourth partially completed.
But this was not the end for Northrop’s Lightweight Fighter. In the early 1980s, two X-29As experimental aircraft were built by Grumman from two existing Northrop F-5A Freedom Fighter airframes. The Grumman X-29 was a testbed for forward-swept wings, canard control surfaces, and other novel aircraft technologies. The aerodynamic instability of this arrangement increased agility but required the use of computerized fly-by-wire control. Composite materials were used to control the aeroelastic divergent twisting experienced by forward-swept wings, also reducing the weight. The NASA test program continued from 1984 to 1991 and the X-29s flew 242 times, gathering valuable data and breaking ground for new aerodynamic technologies of 4th and 5th generation fighters.
Even though no service aircraft directly evolved from the X-29, its innovative FBW system as well as the new material technologies also opened the door for an updated F-20 far beyond the 1990ies. It became clear that ever expensive and complex aircraft could not be the answer to modern, asymmetrical warfare in remote corners of the world, with exploding development costs and just a limited number of aircraft in service that could not generate true economies of scale, esp. when their state-of-the-art design would not permit any export.
Anyway, a global market for simpler fighter aircraft was there, as 1st generation F-16s as well as the worldwide, aging F-5E fleet and types of Soviet/Russian origin like the MiG-29 provided the need for a modern, yet light and economical jet fighter. Contemporary types like the Indian HAL Tejas, the Swedish Saab Gripen, the French Dassault Rafale and the Pakistani/Chinese FC-1/JF-17 ”Thunder” proved this trend among 4th - 4.5th generation fighter aircraft.
Northrop Grumman (Northrop bought Grumman in 1994) initiated studies and basic design work on a respective New Lightweight Fighter (NLF) as a private venture in 1995. Work on the NLF started at a slow pace, as the company was busy with re-structuring.
The idea of an updated lightweight fighter was fueled by another source, too: Israel. In 1998 IAI started looking in the USA for a development partner for a new, light fighter that would replace its obsolete Kfir fleet and partly relieve its F-16 and F-15 fleet from interception tasks. The domestic project for that role, the IAI Lavi, had been stillborn, but lots of its avionics and research were still at hand and waited for an airframe for completion.
The new aircraft for the IAF was to be superior to the MiG-29, at least on par with the F-16C/D, but easier to maintain, smaller and overall cheaper. Since the performance profiles appeared to be similar to what Northrop Grumman was developing under the NLF label, the US company eventually teamed up with IAI in 2000 and both started the mutual project "Namer" (=נמר, “Tiger” in Hebrew), which eventually lead to the F-24 I for the IAF which kept its project name for service and to the USAF’s F-24A “Tigershark”.
The F-24, as the NLF, was based on the F-20 airframe, but outwardly showed only little family heritage, onle the forward fuselage around the cockpit reminds of the original F-5 design . Many aerodynamic details, e. g. the air intakes and air ducts, were taken over from the X-29, though, as the experimental aircraft and its components had been developed for extreme maneuvers and extra high agility. Nevertheless, the X-29's forward-swept wing was considered to be too exotic and fragile for a true service aircraft, but the F-24 was to feature an Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) system.
AAW Technology integrates wing aerodynamics, controls, and structure to harness and control wing aeroelastic twist at high speeds and dynamic pressures. By using multiple leading and trailing edge controls like "aerodynamic tabs", subtle amounts of aeroelastic twist can be controlled to provide large amounts of wing control power, while minimizing maneuver air loads at high wing strain conditions or aerodynamic drag at low wing strain conditions. This system was initially tested on the X-29 and later on the X-53 research aircraft, a modified F-18, until 2006.
Both USAF and IAF versions feature this state-of-the-art aerodynamic technology, but it is uncertain if other customers will receive it. While details concerning the F-24's system have not been published yet, it is assumed that its AAW is so effective that canard foreplanes could be omitted without sacrificing lift and maneuverability, and that drag is effectively minimized as the wing profile can be adjusted according to the aircraft’s speed, altitude, payload and mission – much like a VG wing, but without its clumsy and heavy swiveling mechanism which has to bear high g forces. As a result, the F-24 is, compared to the F-20, which could carry an external payload of about 3.5 tons, rumored to be able to carry up to 5 tons of ordnance.
The delta wing shape proved to be a perfect choice for the required surface and flap actuators inside of the wings, and it would also offer a very good compromise between lift and drag for a wide range of performance. Anyway, there was one price to pay: in order to keep the wing profile thin and simple, the F-24’s landing gear retracts into the lower fuselage, leaving the aircraft with a relatively narrow track.
Another major design factor for the outstanding performance of this rather small aircraft was weight reduction and structural integrity – combined with simplicity, ruggedness and a modular construction which would allow later upgrades. Instead of “going big” and expensive, the new F-24 was to create its performance through dedicated loss of weight, which was in some part also a compensation for the AAW system in the wings and its periphery.
Weight was saved wherever possible, e .g. a newly developed, lightweight M199A1 gatling gun. This 20mm cannon is a three-barreled, heavily modified version of the already “stripped” M61A2 gun in the USAF’s current F-18E and F-22. One of the novel features is a pneumatic drive instead of the traditional electric mechanism, what not only saves weight but also improves trigger response. The new gun weighs only a mere 65kg (the six-barreled M61A2 weighs 92kg, the original M61A1 112 kg), but still reaches a burst rate of fire of 1.800 RPM (about 800 RPM under cyclic fire, standard practice is to fire the cannon in 30 to 50-round bursts, though) and a muzzle velocity of 1.050 metres per second (3,450 ft/s) with a PGU-28/B round.
While the F-16 was and is still made from 80% aluminum alloys and only from 3% composites, the F-24 makes major use of carbon fiber and other lightweight materials, which make up about 40% of the aircraft’s structure, plus an increased share of Titanium and Magnesium alloys. As a consequence and through many other weight-saving measures like keeping stealth capabilities to a minimum (even though RAM was deliberately used and many details designed to have a natural low radar signature, resulting in modest radar cross-section (RCS) reductions), a single, relatively small engine, a fuel-efficient F404-GE-402 turbofan, is enough to make the F-24 a fast and very agile aircraft, coupled with a good range. The F-24’s thrust/weight ratio is considerably higher than 1, and later versions with a vectored thrust nozzle (see below) will take this level of agility even further – with the pilot becoming the limiting factor for the aircraft’s performance.
USAF and IAF F-24s are outfitted with Northrop Grumman's AN/APG-80 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, also used in the F-16 Block 60 aircraft. Other customers might only receive the AN/APG-68, making the F-24 comparable to the F-16C/D.
The first prototype, the YF-24, flew on 8th of March 2008, followed by two more aircraft plus a static airframe until summer 2010. In early 2011 the USAF placed an initial order of 101 aircraft (probably also to stir export sales – the earlier lightweight fighters from Northrop suffered from the fact that the manufacturer’s country would not use the aircraft in its own forces). These initial aircraft will replace older F-16 in the interceptor role, or free them for fighter bomber tasks. The USN and USMC also showed interest in the aircraft for their aggressor squadrons, for dissimilar air combat training. A two-seater, called the F-24B, is supposed to follow soon, too, and a later version for 2020 onwards, tentatively designated F-24C, is to feature an even stronger F404 engine and a 3D vectoring nozzle.
Israel is going to produce its own version domestically from late 2014 on, which will exclusively be used by the IAF. These aircraft will be outfitted with different avionics, built by Elta in Israel, and cater to national requirements which focus more on multi-purpose service, while the USAF focusses with its F-24A on aerial combat and interception tasks.
International interest for the F-24A is already there: in late 2013 Grumman stated that initial talks have been made with various countries, and potential export candidates from 2015 on are Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, Finland, Norway, Australia and Japan.
General F-24A characteristics:
Crew: 1 pilot
Length: 47 ft 4 in (14.4 m)
Wingspan: 27 ft 11.9 in / 8.53 m; with wingtip missiles (26 ft 8 in/ 8.13 m; without wingtip missiles)
Height: 13 ft 10 in (4.20 m)
Wing area: 36.55 m² (392 ft²)
Empty weight: 13.150 lb (5.090 kg)
Loaded weight: 15.480 lb (6.830 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 27.530 lb (12.500 kg)
Powerplant
1× General Electric F404-GE-402 turbofan with a dry thrust of 11,000 lbf (48.9 kN) and 17,750 lbf (79.2 kN) with afterburner
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2+
Combat radius: 300 nmi (345 mi, 556 km); for hi-lo-hi mission with 2 × 330 US gal (1,250 L) drop tanks
Ferry range: 1,490 nmi (1715 mi, 2759 km); with 3 × 330 US gal (1,250 L) drop tanks
Service ceiling: 55,000 ft (16,800 m)
Rate of climb: 52,800 ft/min (255 m/s)
Wing loading: 70.0 lb/ft² (342 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 1.09 (1.35 with loaded weight & 50% fuel)
Armament
1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M199A1 3-barreled Gatling cannon in the lower fuselage with 400 RPG
Eleven external hardpoints (two wingtip tails, six underwing hardpoints, three underfuselage hardpoints) and a total capacity of 11.000 lb (4.994 kg) of missiles (incl. AIM 9 Sidewinder and AIM 120 AMRAAM), bombs, rockets, ECM pods and drop tanks for extended range.
The kit and its assembly:
A spontaneous project. This major kitbash was inspired by fellow user nighthunter at whatifmodelers.com, who came up with a profile of a mashed-up US fighter, created “out of boredom”. The original idea was called F-21C, and it was to be a domestic successor to the IAI Kfirs which had been used by the US as aggressor aircraft in USN and USMC service for a few years.
As a weird(?) coincidence I had many of the necessary ingredients for this fictional aircraft in store, even though some parts and details were later changed. This model here is an interpretation of the original design. The idea was spun further, and the available parts that finally went into the model also had some influence on design and background.
I thank nighthunter for sharing the early ideas, inviting me to take the design to the hardware stage (sort of…) and adapting my feedback into new design sketches, too, which, in return, inspired the model building process.
Well, what went into this thing? To cook up a F-24 à la Dizzyfugu you just need (all in 1:72):
● Fuselage from a Hasegawa X-29, including the cockpit and the landing gear
● Fin and nose cone from an Italeri F-16A
● Inner wings from a (vintage) Hasegawa MiG-21F
● Outer wings from a F-4 (probably a J, Hasegawa or Fujimi)
The wing construction deviates from nighthunter’s original idea. The favorite ingredients would have been F-16XL or simple Mirage III wings, but I found the composite wing to be more attractive and “different”. The big F-16XL wings, despite their benefit of a unique shape, might also have created scale/size problems with a F-20 style fuselage? So I built hybrid wings: The MiG-21 landing gear wells were filled with putty and the F-4 outer wings simply glued onto the MiG inner wing sections, which were simply cut down in span. It sounds like an unlikely combo, but these parts fit together almost perfectly! In order to hide the F-4 origins I modified them to carry wingtip launch rails, though, which were also part of nighthunter’s original design.
The AAW technology detail mentioned in the background came in handy as it explains the complicated wing shape and the fact that the landing gear retracts into the fuselage, not into the wings, which would have been more plausible… Anyway, there’s still room for a simpler export version, with Mirage III or Kfir C.2/7 wings, and maybe canards?
Using the X-29 as basis also made fitting the new wings onto the area-ruled fuselage pretty easy, as I could use the wing root parts from the X-29 to bridge the gap. The original, forward-swept wings were just cut away, and the remains used as consoles for the new hybrid delta wings. Took some SERIOUS putty work, but the result is IMHO fine.
The bigger/square X-29 air intakes were taken over, and they change the look of the aircraft, making it look less F-5-ish than a true F-20 fuselage. For the same reason I kept the large fairing at the fin base, combining it with a bigger F-16 tail, though, as a counter-balance to the new, bigger wings. Again, the F-16 fin was/is part of nighthunter’s idea, so the model stays true to the original concept.
For the same reason I omitted the original X-29 nose, which is rather pointy, sports vanes and a large sensor boom. The F-16 nose was a plausible choice, as the AN/APG-80 is also carried by late Fighting Falcons, and its shape fits well, too.
All around the hull, some small details like radar warning sensors, pitots and air scoops were added. Not really necessary, but such thing add IMHO to the overall impression of such a fictional aircraft beyond the prototype stage.
Cockpit and landing gear were taken OOB, I just added a pilot figure and slightly modified the seat.
The ordnance was puzzled together from the scrap box, the AIM-9Ls come from the same F-4 kit which donated its outer wings, the AIM-120s come from an Italeri NATO weapons kit. The drop tanks belong to an F-16.
Painting and markings:
At first I considered an F-24I in IAF markings, or even a Japanese aircraft, but then reverted to one of nighthunter’s initial, simple ideas: an USAF aircraft in the “Hill II” paint scheme (F-16 style), made up from three shades of gray (FS 36118, 36270 and 36375) with low-viz markings and stencils. Dutch/Turkish NF-5A/Bs in the “Hill II” scheme were used as design benchmarks, too. It’s a simple livery, but on this delta wing aircraft it looks pretty interesting. I used enamels, what I had at hand: Humbrol 127 and 126, and Modelmaster's 1723.
A light black ink wash was applied, in order to em,phasize the engraved panel lines, in contrast to that, panels were manually highlighted through dry-brushed, lighter shades of gray (Humbrol 27, 166 and 167).
“Hill II” also adds to a generic, realistic touch for this whif. Doing an exotic air force thing is rather easy, but creating a convincing whif for a huge military machinery like the USAF’s takes more subtlety, I think.
The cockpit was painted in medium Gray (Dark Gull Grey, FS 36231, Humbrol 140), as well as the radome. The landing gear and the air intakes were painted white. The radome was painted with Revell 47 and dry-brushed with Humbrol 140.
Decals were puzzled together from various USAF aircraft, including sheets from an Airfix F-117, an Italeri F-15E and even an Academy OV-10D.
Tadah: a hardware tribute to an idea, born from boredom - and the aircraft does not look even bad at all? What I wanted to achieve was to make the F-24 neither look like a F-20, nor a Saab Gripen clone, as the latter comes close in overall shape, size and design.
Some background:
A vanship is a type of flying machine from the animated series Last Exile. It is often referred to as a "flying boat" in that it does not fly by means of aerodynamics like planes do, but rather by floating on the air and propelling itself through the use of a substance known as "Claudia" (see below).
Vanships in general were couriers prior to the events of Last Exile, traveling long distances to deliver cargoes (usually messages). Some Vanships thus include tools for towing solid objects.
The design of several vanships throughout the series bears great resemblance to various famed 1930s racecars than any aircraft, most notably the Anatoray millitary vanships which bear great resemblance to the 1933 Napier Railton. The resemblance is found in the grill shape of the cowl vents and the shape of the tail cone, as well as the aerodynamic bulges on the car which cover the valve covers and exaust on the car, which are also found on the Anatoray vanships.
Other Vanships bear striking design elements from Junkers aircraft in the pre-WWII era, e. g. from the A 35 monoplane.
"Spirit of Grand Stream" is a courier-type vanship (see below) owned by Claus Valca and Lavie Head, and its design is very similar to that of Hayao Miyazaki's gunship from Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind. The matches are really focused on the two seated open cockpit, and the navigator section which has matching interface panels of small glass cylinders.
Courier vanships, also known as racing vanships, are one of the main types of vanship featured in Last Exile. Courier vanships are small and narrow with a single, high-powered thruster. Like any vanship intended to achieve high speeds, they have stub wings, far too small themselves to provide lift. They simply act as mounts for ailerons to provide better steering, as pivoting the thruster would put undue stress on the assembly at high speeds.
Over the course of Last Exile, Vanships were adapted for combat. The process resembles the evolving roles that aircraft held during WW1; originally developed for scouting and surveillance, but eventually equipped with bombs and machine guns to become potent fightercraft.
Claudia is a fluorescent blue ore mined on the floating world of Prester. It is the foundation of Prester's technology, fueling steam engines and is a key element of the claudia units that allow vanships to fly. Claudia is also the primary currency of Prester. It is well suited for the purpose, as it is constantly generated by Prester and is not possible to counterfeit.
Claudia, when dissolved in water, serves as the primary drive fluid in a claudia unit. When Claudia fluid is heated and compressed, it generates lift. A vanship engine has a distinctive claudia circulation pipe loop, where the supercritical fluid generates both lift and thrust.
Dissolving Claudia in alcohol dramatically increases the energy density of the fuel. This is why steam engines are the predominant technology of Last Exile, instead of the internal combustion engine. Technology design documents from the production of the show indicate that the steam engines of Last Exile have a power to weight ratio exceeding that of a modern gasoline fueled internal combustion engine.
All vanships in the series were rendered as 3D images, a hallmark of Japanese animation studio Gonzo, makers of such series as Vandread and Blue Submarine No. 6.
The kit and its assembly:
I love the Vanships from Last Exile - even though I have never seen the series.
While these vehicles appear as retro stuff, they are very original and unique in look and feel - a modeler's dream if you are into scratchbuilding and kitbashing. There's also a 1:72 Vanship kit available (actually, in two versions) from Hasegawa, but it is IMHO overpriced. And there are so many different Vanships in the series that it is a shame that not more of them have been kitted, scratched, or at least used as a source of modelling inspiration.
The latter's the case here. I had a scratched Vanship on the agenda for a long time and also a basic idea with what I'd start, but it took a SF racing GB at phoxim.de ( a German SF model building forum) to make a move.
I wanted a small and fast single seater, and this evolved through the GB into a Racer with a more prominent engine unit and a rather purposeful livery instead of bright colors. But the basic concept was retained: originally, the plan was to use a 1:72 F4U as fuselage basis, and I had the idea to integrate some parts of a 1:43 Citroen 11CV from Heller, e. g. its grill and bonnet.
The F4U is the SMER kit, and it has the benefit of having separate wings for a folded display. The fin was cut off and the landing gear wells covered.
The cockpit opening was slightly enlarged in order to take a 1:48 Japanese WWII resin pilot and a seat from the 1:43 11CV - pretty cramped, but it worked and looks good. Only the wind screen of the OOB F4U canopy was used, as well as the original dashboard.
Most work was done on the outside, though. The first problem turned up when I realized that the 11CV bonnet could hardly be mated with the F4U. As a plan B I found a cover for the brush head of a Philipps electric toothbrush in my donor bank - a bit too high and narrow, but overall a unique addition and characteristic nose for my creation!
The landing gear comes from an Amodel Ju-87A - together with the drooped F4U inner wings the result looked a bit stalky at first, but the Vanship still needed its engines.
As a racer, I went for double power, and the long pods that carry the propulsion system were scratched from several non-model-kit parts:
- Front comes from a Revell 1:32 AH-64 Apache, its engines
- The intakes come from a Matchbox Gloster Meteor NF.14
- The "ring" consists of wheel parts from the Heller 11CV
- The conic isolators are ball pen grips, cut to size and closed with tank wheels on both ends
- The fins are plastic knives, primarily the blades and parts of the handles
In between these engine pods, which are only held under the wings and stabilized internally through steel wire, a generator pod from a 1:72 Matchbox EA-6B fills the void. It also holds a characteristic "knife" under the front grill - again carved from the handle of the plastic knives.
In order to blend the changes in fuselage shape and diameter and create a kind of Cord-style grill I added three styrene strips which were wrapped around the nose, the upper line reaching back to the cockpit - a kind of 3D rally stripe that also streches the shape.
Some air scoops and surface details were added, made from styrene, and stiff cable was used under the front fuselage to create hoses between the bonnet with the Claudia reactor and the engines.
I was frequently tempted to add more things and details or decoration, but found that a rather clean look would better suit a dedicated racer Vanship - the Stutz Blackhawk land speed record car was a vague benchmark.
Painting and markings:
I wanted to keep things simple and dry. Before this turned into a racer I considered several colors like pale blue, a greyish-green, British Racing Green or Crimson, with ivory trim. Anyway, I rejected this in favir of a pure, bare metal finish. I even did not add colorful stripes - the only "color" comes from the mechanical parts (ivory and dark brown on the engine pods, the idea was to add an isolator impression) and the small sponsor decals.
The kit initially received a basic coat of Revell's acrylic Aluminum, and onto that panels/field with several Metallizer tones (Steel, Magnesium, Titanium, polished Aluminum) were added. On top of that, the whole thing received a rubbing with grinded graphite - intensifying the metal shine and also weathering the vehicle.
The pilot received a rather conservatie outfit, with a brown leather jacket - matching the overall style of the Vanship. Some engine parts (e. g. the blades and the knife under the nose) were painted with a mix of Steel Metallizer and Gold. The cockpit interior was painted in RLM 02.
The markings were puzzled together. The start number '24' in that nice retro type comes from an 1:72 Airfix Il-2, the black disc below is from a slot car aftermarket sheet. The many sponsor stickers come mostly from an 1:72 Su-27 demonstrator aircraft sheet from Begemot - with their cyrillic typo they blend well into the Last Exile look and feel (where Greek/Cyrillic typo pops up).
Finally, the kit received a coat with acrylic gloss varnish, while the anti glare panel in front of the windscreen became matt.
+++ 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 Gudkov Gu-1 was a Soviet fighter aircraft produced shortly after World War II in small numbers at the start of the jet age, but work on the Gudkov Gu-1 already started in 1944. Towards the end of World War II the Soviet Union saw the need for a strategic bombing capability similar to that of the United States Army Air Forces. The Soviet VVS air arm had the locally designed Petlyakov Pe-8 four-engined heavy bomber in service at the start of the war, but only 93 had been built by the end of the war and the type had become obsolete. By that time the U.S. regularly conducted bombing raids on Japan from distant Pacific forward bases using B-29 Superfortresses, and the Soviet Air Force lacked this capability.
Joseph Stalin ordered the development of a comparable bomber, and the U.S. twice refused to supply the Soviet Union with B-29s under Lend Lease. However, on four occasions during 1944, individual B-29s made emergency landings in Soviet territory and one crashed after the crew bailed out. In accordance with the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact, the Soviets were neutral in the Pacific War and the bombers were therefore interned and kept by the Soviets. Despite Soviet neutrality, America demanded the return of the bombers, but the Soviets refused. Three repairable B-29s were flown to Moscow and delivered to the Tupolev OKB. One B-29 was dismantled, the second was used for flight tests and training, and the third one was left as a standard for cross-reference.
Stalin told Tupolev to clone the Superfortress in as short a time as possible. The reverse-engineering effort involved 900 factories and research institutes, who finished the design work during the first year. 105,000 drawings were made, and the American technology had to be adapted to local material and manufacturing standards – and ended in a thorough re-design of the B-29 “under the hood”. By the end of the second year, the Soviet industry was to produce 20 copies of the aircraft ready for State acceptance trials.
While work on what would become the Tupolev Tu-4 was on the way, the need for a long range escort fighter arose, too. Soviet officials were keen on the P-51 Mustang, but, again, the USA denied deliveries, so that an indigenous solution had to be developed. With the rising tension of international relationships, this became eventually the preferred solution, too.
While the design bureau Lavochkin had already started with work on the La-9 fighter (which entered service after WWII) and the jet age was about to begin, the task of designing a long range escort fighter for the Tu-4 was relegated to Mikhail I. Gudkov who had been designing early WWII fighters like the LaGG-1 and -3 together with Lavochkin. Internally, the new fighter received the project handle "DIS" (Dalnij Istrebitel' Soprovozhdenya ="long-range escort fighter").
In order to offer an appropriate range and performance that could engage enemy interceptors in the bombers’ target area it was soon clear that neither a pure jet nor a pure piston-engine fighter was a viable solution – a dilemma the USAAF was trying to solve towards 1945, too. The jet engine alone did not offer sufficient power, and fuel consumption was high, so that the necessary range could never be achieved with an agile fighter. Late war radials had sufficient power and offered good range, but the Soviet designers were certain that the piston engine fighter had no future – especially when fast jet fighters had to be expected over enemy territory.
Another problem arose through the fact that the Soviet Union did not have an indigenous jet engine at hand at all in late 1945. War booty from Germany in the form of Junkers Jumo 004 axial jet engines and blueprints of the more powerful HeS 011 were still under evaluation, and these powerplants alone did neither promise enough range nor power for a long range fighter aircraft. Even for short range fighters their performance was rather limited – even though fighters like the Yak-15 and the MiG-9 were designed around them.
After many layout experiments and calculation, Gudkov eventually came up with a mixed powerplant solution for the DIS project. But unlike the contemporary, relatively light I-250 (also known as MiG-13) interceptor, which added a mechanical compressor with a primitive afterburner (called VRDK) to a Klimov VK-107R inline piston engine, the DIS fighter was equipped with a powerful radial engine and carried a jet booster – similar to the US Navy’s Ryan FR-1 “Fireball”. Unlike the FR-1, though, the DIS kept a conservative tail-sitter layout and was a much bigger aircraft.
The choice for the main powerplant fell on the Shvetsov ASh-82TKF engine, driving a large four blade propeller. This was a boosted version of the same 18 cylinder twin row radial that powered the Tu-4, the ASh-73. The ASh-82TKF for the escort fighter project had a rating of 2,720 hp (2,030 kW) while the Tu-4's ASh-73TK had "only" a temporary 2,400 hp (1,800 kW) output during take-off. The airframe was designed around this massive and powerful engine, and the aircraft’s sheer size was also a result of the large fuel capacity which was necessary to meet the range target of at least 3.000 km (1.860 mi, 1.612 nmi).
The ASh-82TKF alone offered enough power for a decent performance, but in order to take on enemy jet fighters and lighter, more agile propeller-driven fighters, a single RD-20 axial-flow turbojet with 7.8 kN (1,754 lbf) thrust was added in the rear-fuselage. It was to add power for take-off and in combat situations only. Its fixed air intakes were placed on the fuselage flanks, right behind the cockpit, and the jet pipe was placed under the fin and the stabilizers.
Outwardly, Gudkov’s DIS resembled the late American P-47D or the A-1 Skyraider a lot, and the beefy aircraft was comparable in size and weight, too. But the Soviet all-metal aircraft was a completely new construction and featured relatively small and slender laminar flow wings. The wide-track landing gear retracted inwards into the inner wings while the tail wheel retracted fully into a shallow compartment under the jet pipe.
The pilot sat in a spacious cockpit under a frameless bubble canopy with very good all-round visibility and enjoyed amenities for long flights such as increased padding in the seat, armrests, and even a urinal. In addition, a full radio navigation suite was installed for the expected long range duties over long stretches of featureless landscape like the open sea.
Armament consisted of four 23 mm Nudelman-Suranov NS-23 cannons with 100 RPG in the wings, outside of the propeller arc. The guns were good for a weight of fire of 6kg (13.2 lb)/sec, a very good value. Five wet hardpoints under the fuselage, the wings outside of the landing gear well and under the wing tips could primarily carry auxiliary drop tanks or an external ordnance of up to 1.500 kg (3.300 lb).
Alternatively, iron bombs of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber could be carried on the centerline pylon, and a pair of 250 kg (550 lb) bombs under the wings, but a fighter bomber role was never seriously considered for the highly specialized and complex aircraft.
The first DIS prototype, still without the jet booster, flew in May 1947. The second prototype, with both engines installed, had its fuel capacity increased by an additional 275 l (73 US gal) in an additional fuel tank behind the cockpit. The aircraft was also fitted with larger tires to accommodate the increased all-up weight, esp. with all five 300 l drop tanks fitted for maximum range and endurance.
Flight testing continued until 1948 and the DIS concept proved to be satisfactory, even though the complicated ASh-82TKF hampered the DIS’ reliability - to the point that fitting the ASh-73TK from the Tu-4 was considered for serial production, even if this would have meant a significant reduction in performance. The RD-20 caused lots of trouble, too. Engine reliability was generally poor, and re-starting the engine in flight did not work satisfactorily – a problem that, despite several changes to the starter and ignition system, could never be fully cured. The jet engine’s placement in the tail, together with the small tail wheel, also caused problems because the pilots had to take care that the tail would not aggressively hit the ground upon landings, because the RD-20 and its attachments were easily damaged.
Nevertheless, the DIS basically fulfilled the requested performance specifications and was, despite many shortcomings, eventually cleared for production in mid 1948. It received the official designation Gudkov Gu-1, honoring the engineer behind the aircraft, even though the aircraft was produced by Lavochkin.
The first machines were delivered to VVS units in early 1949 - just in time for the Tu-4's service introduction after the Russians had toiled endlessly on solving several technical problems. In the meantime, jet fighter development had quickly progressed, even though a purely jet-powered escort fighter for the Tu-4 was still out of question. Since the Gu-1 was capricious, complex and expensive to produce, only a limited number left the factories and emphasis was put on the much simpler and more economical Lavochkin La-11 escort fighter, a lightweight evolution of the proven La-9. Both types were regarded as an interim solution until a pure jet escort fighter would be ready for service.
Operationally the Gu-1s remained closely allocated to the VVS’ bomber squadrons and became an integral part of them. Anyway, since the Tu-4 bomber never faced a serious combat situation, so did the Gu-1, which was to guard it on its missions. For instance, both types were not directly involved in the Korean War, and the Gu-1 was primarily concentrated at the NATO borders to Western Europe, since bomber attacks in this theatre would certainly need the heavy fighter’s protection.
The advent of the MiG-15 - especially the improved MiG-15bis with additional fuel capacities and drop tanks, quickly sounded the death knell for the Gu-1 and any other post-WWII piston-engine fighter in Soviet Service. As Tu-4 production ended in the Soviet Union in 1952, so did the Gu-1’s production after only about 150 aircraft. The Tu-4s and their escort fighters were withdrawn in the 1960s, being replaced by more advanced aircraft including the Tupolev Tu-16 jet bomber (starting in 1954) and the Tupolev Tu-95 turboprop bomber (starting in 1956).
The Gudkov Gu-1, receiving the NATO ASCC code “Flout”, remained a pure fighter. Even though it was not a success, some proposals for updates were made - but never carried out. These included pods with unguided S-5 air-to-air-rockets, to be carried on the wing hardpoints, bigger, non-droppable wing tip tanks for even more range or, alternatively, the addition of two pulsejet boosters on the wing tips.
There even was a highly modified mixed powerplant version on the drawing boards in 1952, the Gu-1M. Its standard radial powerplant for cruise flight was enhanced with a new, non-afterburning Mikulin AM-5 axial flow jet engine with 2.270 kgf/5,000 lbf/23 kN additional thrust in the rear fuselage. With this temporary booster, a top speed of up to 850 km/h was expected. But to no avail - the pure jet fighter promised a far better performance and effectiveness, and the Gu-1 remained the only aircraft to exclusively carry the Gudkov name.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 12 m (39 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 14 m (45 ft 11 in)
Height: 4.65 m (15 ft 3 in)
Wing area: 28 m² (301.388 ft²)
Airfoil:
Empty weight: 4,637 kg (10,337 lb)
Loaded weight: 6.450 kg (14.220 lb)
Maximum take-off weight: 7,938 kg (17,500 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Shvetsov ASh-82TKF 18-cylinder air-cooled radial engine, rated at 2,720 hp (2,030 kW)
1x RD-20 axial-flow turbojet with 7.8 kN (1,754 lbf) thrust as temporary booster
Performance
Maximum speed: 676 km/h (420 mph) at 29,000 ft (8,839 m) with the radial only,
800 km/h (497 mph/432 kn,) with additional jet booster
Cruise speed: 440 km/h (237 kn, 273 mph)
Combat radius: 820 nmi (945 mi, 1,520 km)
Maximum range: 3.000 km (1.860 mi, 1.612 nmi) with drop tanks
Service ceiling: 14,680 m (48,170 ft)
Wing loading: 230.4 kg/m² (47.2 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 0.28 kW/kg (0.17 hp/lb)
Climb to 5,000 m (16,400 ft): 5 min 9 sec;
Climb to 10,000 m (32,800 ft): 17 min 38 sec;
Climb to 13,000 m (42,640 ft): 21 min 03 sec
Armament
4× 23 mm Nudelman-Suranov NS-23 cannons with 100 RPG in the outer wings
Five hardpoints for an external ordnance of 1.500 kg (3.300 lb)
The kit and its assembly:
This whif is the incarnation of a very effective kitbashing combo that already spawned my fictional Japanese Ki-104 fighter, and it is another submission to the 2018 “Cold War” group build at whatifmodelers.com. This purely fictional Soviet escort fighter makes use of my experiences from the first build of this kind, yet with some differences.
The kit is a bashing of various parts and pieces:
· Fuselage, wing roots, landing gear and propeller from an Academy P-47D
· Wings from an Ark Model Supermarine Attacker (ex Novo)
· Tail fin comes from a Heller F-84G
· The stabilizers were taken from an Airfix Ki-46
· Cowling from a Matchbox F6F, mounted and blended onto the P-47 front
· Jet exhaust is the intake of a Matchbox Me 262 engine pod
My choice fell onto the Academy Thunderbolt because it has engraved panel lines, offers the bubble canopy as well as good fit, detail and solid material. The belly duct had simply been sliced off, and the opening later faired over with styrene sheet and putty, so that the P-47’s deep belly would not disappear.
The F6F cowling was chosen because it looks a lot like the ASh-73TK from the Tu-4. But this came at a price: the P-47 cowling is higher, tighter and has a totally different shape. It took serious body sculpting with putty to blend the parts into each other. Inside of the engine, a styrene tube was added for a metal axis that holds the uncuffed OOB P-47 four blade propeller. The P-47’s OOB cockpit tub was retained, too, just the seat received scratched armrests for a more luxurious look.
The Attacker wings were chosen because of their "modern" laminar profile. The Novo kit itself is horrible and primitive, but acceptable for donations. OOB, the Attacker wings had too little span for the big P-47, so I decided to mount the Thunderbolt's OOB wings and cut them at a suitable point: maybe 0.5", just outside of the large main wheel wells. The intersection with the Attacker wings is almost perfect in depth and width, relatively little putty work was necessary in order to blend the parts into each other. I just had to cut out new landing gear wells from the lower halves of the Attacker wings, and with new attachment points the P-47’s complete OOB landing gear could be used.
With the new wing shape, the tail surfaces had to be changed accordingly. The trapezoid stabilizers come from an Airfix Mitsubishi Ki-46, and their shape is a good match. The P-47 fin had to go, since I wanted something bigger and a different silhouette. The fuselage below was modified with a jet exhaust, too. I actually found a leftover F-84G (Heller) tail, complete with the jet pipe and the benefit that it has plausible attachment points for the stabilizers far above the jet engine in the Gu-1’s tail.
However, the F-84 jet pipe’s diameter turned out to be too large, so I went for a smaller but practical alternative, a Junkers Jumo 004 nacelle from a Me 262 (the ancestor of the Soviet RD-20!). Its intake section was cut off, flipped upside down, the fin was glued on top of it and then the new tail was glued to the P-47 fuselage. Some (more serious) body sculpting was necessary to create a more or less harmonious transition between the parts, but it worked.
The plausible placement of the air intakes and their shape was a bit of a challenge. I wanted them to be obvious, but still keep an aerodynamic look. An initial idea had been to keep the P-47’s deep belly and widen the central oil cooler intake under the nose, but I found the idea wacky and a bit pointless, since such a long air duct would not make much sense since it would waste internal space and the long duct’s additional weight would not offer any benefit?
Another idea were air intakes in the wing roots, but these were also turned down since the landing gear wells would be in the way, and placing the ducts above or below the wings would also make no sense. A single ventral scoop (looking like a P-51 radiator bath) or two smaller, dorsal intakes (XP-81 style) behind the cockpit were other serious candidates – but these were both rejected because I wanted to keep a clean side profile.
I eventually settled for very simple, fixed side intakes, level with the jet exhaust, somewhat inspired by the Lavochkin La-200B heavy fighter prototype. The air scoops are simply parts from an Italeri Saab 39 Gripen centerline drop tank (which has a flat, oval diameter), and their shape is IMHO a perfect match.
Painting and markings:
While the model itself is a wild mix of parts with lots of improvisation involved, I wanted to keep the livery rather simple. The most plausible choice would have been an NMF finish, but I rather wanted some paint – so I used Soviet La-9 and -11 as a benchmark and settled for a simple two-tone livery: uniform light grey upper and light blue lower surfaces.
I used RAF Medium Sea Grey (Humbrol 165) and Soviet Underside Blue (Humbrol 114) as basic tones, and, after a black ink wash, these were lightened up through dry-brushed post-shading. The yellow spinner and fin tip are based on typical (subtle) squadron markings of the late 40ies era.
The cockpit as well the engine and landing gear interior became blue-grey (Revell 57), similar to the typical La-9/11’s colors. The green wheel discs and the deep blue propeller blades are not 100% in the aircraft's time frame, but I added these details in order to enhance the Soviet touch and some color accents.
Tactical markings were kept simple, too. The "38" and the Red Stars come form a Mastercraft MiG-15, the Guards badge from a Begemoth MiG-25 sheet and most of the stencils were taken from a Yak-38 sheet, also from Begemoth.
Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and it received some mild soot stains and chipped paint around the cockpit and on the leading edges. Some oil stains were added around the engine (with Tamiya Smoke), too.
A massive aircraft, and this new use of the P-47/Attacker combo results again in a plausible solution. The added jet engine might appear a bit exotic, but the mixed powerplant concept was en vogue after WWII, but only a few aircraft made it beyond the prototype stage.
While painting the model I also wondered if an all dark blue livery and some USN markings could also have made this creation the Grumman JetCat? With the tall fin, the Gu-1 could also be an F8F Bearcat on steroids? Hmmm...
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
In the late 1970s the Mikoyan OKB began development of a hypersonic high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft. Designated "Izdeliye 301" (also known as 3.01), the machine had an unusual design, combining a tailless layout with variable geometry wings. The two engines fueled by kerosene were located side by side above the rear fuselage, with the single vertical fin raising above them, not unlike the Tu-22 “Blinder” bomber of that time, but also reminiscent of the US-American SR-71 Mach 3 reconnaissance aircraft.
Only few and rather corny information leaked into the West, and the 301 was believed not only to act as a reconnaissance plane , it was also believed to have (nuclear) bombing capabilities. Despite wind tunnel testing with models, no hardware of the 301 was ever produced - aven though the aircraft could have become a basis for a long-range interceptor that would replace by time the PVO's Tupolew Tu-28P (ASCC code "Fiddler"), a large aircraft armed solely with missiles.
Despite limitations, the Tu-28P served well in its role, but the concept of a very fast interceptor aircraft, lingered on, since the Soviet Union had large areas to defend against aerial intruders, esp. from the North and the East. High speed, coupled with long range and the ability to intercept an incoming target at long distances independently from ground guidance had high priority for the Soviet Air Defence Forces. Even though no official requirement was issued, the concept of Izdeliye 301 from the Seventies was eventually developed further into the fixed-wing "Izdeliye 701" ultra-long-range high-altitude interceptor in the 1980ies.
The impulse for this new approach came when Oleg S. Samoylovich joined the Mikoyan OKB after having worked at Suchoi OKB on the T-60S missile carrier project. Similar in overall design to the former 301, the 701 was primarily intended as a kind of successor for the MiG-31 Foxhound for the 21st century, which just had completed flight tests and was about to enter PVO's front line units.
Being based on a long range cruise missile carrier, the 701 would have been a huge plane, featuring a length of 30-31m, a wing span of 19m (featuring a highly swept double delta wing) and having a maximum TOW of 70 tons! Target performance figures included a top speed of 2.500km/h, a cruising speed of 2.100km/h at 17.000m and an effective range of 7.000km in supersonic or 11.000km in subsonic mode. Eventually, the 701 program was mothballed, too, being too ambitious and expensive for a specialized development that could also have been a fighter version of the Tu-22 bomber!
Anyway, while the MiG-31 was successfully introduced in 1979 and had evolved in into a capable long-range interceptor with a top speed of more than Mach 3 (limited to Mach 2.8 in order to protect the aircraft's structural integrity), MiG OKB decided in 1984 to take further action and to develop a next-generation technology demonstrator, knowing that even the formidable "Foxhound" was only an interim solution on the way to a true "Four plus" of even a 6th generation fighter. Other new threats like low-flying cruise missiles, the USAF's "Project Pluto" or the assumed SR-71 Mach 5 successor “Aurora” kept Soviet military officials on the edge of their seats, too.
Main objective was to expand the Foxhound's state-of the-art performance, and coiple it with modern features like aerodynamic instability, supercruise, stealth features and further development potential.
The aircraft's core mission objectives comprised:
- Provide strategic air defense and surveillance in areas not covered by ground-based air defense systems (incl. guidance of other aircraft with less sophisticated avionics)
- Top speed of Mach 3.2 or more in a dash and cruise at Mach 3.0 for prolonged periods
- Long range/high speed interception of airspace intruders of any kind, including low flying cruise missiles, UAVs and helicopters
- Intercept cruise missiles and their launch aircraft from sea level up to 30.000m altitude by reaching missile launch range in the lowest possible time after departing the loiter area
Because funding was scarce and no official GOR had been issued, the project was taken on as a private venture. The new project was internally known as "Izdeliye 710" or "71.0". It was based on both 301 and 701 layout ideas and the wind tunnel experiences with their unusual layouts, as well as Oleg Samoylovich's experience with the Suchoi T-4 Mach 3 bomber project and the T-60S.
"Izdeliye 710" was from the start intended only as a proof-of-concept prototype, yet fully functional. It would also incorporate new technologies like heat-resistant ceramics against kinetic heating at prolonged high speeds (the airframe had to resist temperatures of 300°C/570°F and more for considerable periods), but with potential for future development into a full-fledged interceptor, penetrator and reconnaissance aircraft.
Overall, “Izdeliye 710" looked like a shrinked version of a mix of both former MiG OKB 301 and 701 designs, limited to the MiG-31's weight class of about 40 tons TOW. Compared with the former designs, the airframe received an aerodynamically more refined, partly blended, slender fuselage that also incorporated mild stealth features like a “clean” underside, softened contours and partly shielded air intakes. Structurally, the airframe's speed limit was set at Mach 3.8.
From the earlier 301 design,the plane retained the variable geometry wing. Despite the system's complexity and weight, this solution was deemed to be the best approach for a combination of a high continuous top speed, extended loiter time in the mission’s patrol areas and good performance on improvised airfields. Minimum sweep was a mere 10°, while, fully swept at 68°, the wings blended into the LERXes. Additional lift was created through the fuselage shape itself, so that aerodynamic surfaces and therefore drag could be reduced.
Pilot and radar operator sat in tandem under a common canopy with rather limited sight. The cockpit was equipped with a modern glass cockpit with LCD screens. The aircraft’s two engines were, again, placed in a large, mutual nacelle on the upper rear fuselage, fed by large air intakes with two-dimensional vertical ramps and a carefully modulated airflow over the aircraft’s dorsal area.
Initially, the 71.0 was to be powered by a pair of Soloviev D-30F6 afterburning turbofans with a dry thrust of 93 kN (20,900 lbf) each, and with 152 kN (34,172 lbf) with full afterburner. These were the same engines that powered the MiG-31, but there were high hopes for the Kolesov NK-101 engine: a variable bypass engine with a maximum thrust in the 200kN range, at the time of the 71.0's design undergoing bench tests and originally developed for the advanced Suchoj T-4MS strike aircraft.
With the D-30F6, the 71.0 was expected to reach Mach 3.2 (making the aircraft capable of effectively intercepting the SR-71), but the NK-101 would offer in pure jet mode a top speed in excess of Mach 3.5 and also improve range and especially loiter time when running as a subsonic turbofan engine.
A single fin with an all-moving top and an additional deep rudder at its base was placed on top of the engine nacelle. Additional maneuverability at lower speed was achieved by retractable, all-moving foreplanes, stowed in narrow slits under the cockpit. Longitudinal stability at high speed was improved through deflectable stabilizers: these were kept horizontal for take-off and added to the overall lift, but they could be folded down by up to 60° in flight, acting additionally as stabilizer strakes.
Due to the aircraft’s slender shape and unique proportions, the 71.0 quickly received the unofficial nickname "жура́вль" (‘Zhurávl' = Crane). The aircaft’s stalky impression was emphasized even more through its unusual landing gear arrangement: Due to the limited internal space for the main landing gear wells between the weapons bay, the wing folding mechanisms and the engine nacelle, MiG OKB decided to incorporate a bicycle landing gear, normally a trademark of Yakovlew OKB designs, but a conventional landing gear could simply not be mounted, or its construction would have become much too heavy and complex.
In order to facilitate operations from improvised airfields and on snow the landing gear featured twin front wheels on a conventional strut and a single four wheel bogie as main wheels. Smaller, single stabilizer wheels were mounted on outriggers that retracted into slender fairings at the wings’ fixed section trailing edge, reminiscent of early Tupolev designs.
All standard air-to-air weaponry, as well as fuel, was to be carried internally. Main armament would be the K-100 missile (in service eventually designated R-100), stored in a large weapons bay behind the cockpit on a rotary mount. The K-100 had been under development at that time at NPO Novator, internally coded ‘Izdeliye 172’. The K-100 missile was an impressive weapon, and specifically designed to attack vital and heavily defended aerial targets like NATO’s AWACS aircraft at BVR distance.
Being 15’ (4.57 m) long and weighing 1.370 lb (620 kg), this huge ultra-long-range weapon had a maximum range of 250 mi (400 km) in a cruise/glide profile and attained a speed of Mach 6 with its solid rocket engine. This range could be boosted even further with a pair of jettisonable ramjets in tubular pods on the missile’s flanks for another 60 mi (100 km). The missile could attack targets ranging in altitude between 15 – 25,000 meters.
The weapon would initially be allocated to a specified target through the launch aircraft’s on-board radar and sent via inertial guidance into the target’s direction. Closing in, the K-100’s Agat 9B-1388 active seeker would identify the target, lock on, and independently attack it, also in coordination with other K-100’s shot at the same target, so that the attack would be coordinated in time and approach directions in order to overload defense and ensure a hit.
The 71.0’s internal mount could hold four of these large missiles, or, alternatively, the same number of the MiG-31’s R-33 AAMs. The mount also had a slot for the storage of additional mid- and short-range missiles for self-defense, e .g. three R-60 or two R-73 AAMs. An internal gun was not considered to be necessary, since the 71.0 or potential derivatives would fight their targets at very long distances and rather rely on a "hit-and-run" tactic, sacrificing dogfight capabilities for long loitering time in stand-by mode, high approach speed and outstanding acceleration and altitude performance.
Anyway, provisions were made to carry a Gsh-301-250 gun pod on a retractable hardpoint in the weapons bay instead of a K-100. Alternatively, such pods could be carried externally on four optional wing root pylons, which were primarily intended for PTB-1500 or PTB-3000 drop tanks, or further missiles - theoretically, a maximum of ten K-100 missiles could be carried, plus a pair of short-range AAMs.
Additionally, a "buddy-to-buffy" IFR set with a retractable drogue (probably the same system as used on the Su-24) was tested (71.2 was outfitted with a retractable refuelling probe in front of the cockpit), as well as the carriage of simple iron bombs or nuclear stores, to be delivered from very high altitudes. Several pallets with cameras and sensors (e .g. a high resolution SLAR) were also envisioned, which could easily replace the missile mounts and the folding weapon bay covers for recce missions.
Since there had been little official support for the project, work on the 710 up to the hardware stage made only little progress, since the MiG-31 already filled the long-range interceptor role in a sufficient fashion and offered further development potential.
A wooden mockup of the cockpit section was presented to PVO and VVS officials in 1989, and airframe work (including tests with composite materials on structural parts, including ceramic tiles for leading edges) were undertaken throughout 1990 and 1991, including test rigs for the engine nacelle and the swing wing mechanism.
Eventually, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 suddenly stopped most of the project work, after two prototype airframes had been completed. Their internal designations were Izdeliye 71.1 and 71.2, respectively. It took a while until the political situation as well as the ex-Soviet Air Force’s status were settled, and work on Izdeliye 710 resumed at a slow pace.
After taking two years to be completed, 71.1 eventually made its roll-out and maiden flight in summer 1994, just when MiG-31 production had ended. MiG OKB still had high hopes in this aircraft, since the MiG-31 would have to be replaced in the next couple of years and "Izdeliye 710" was just in time for the potential procurement process. The first prototype wore a striking all-white livery, with dark grey ceramic tiles on the wings’ leading edges standing out prominently – in this guise and with its futuristic lines the slender aircraft reminded a lot of the American Space Shuttle.
71.1 was primarily intended for engine and flight tests (esp. for the eagerly awaited NK-101 engines), as well as for the development of the envisioned ramjet propulsion system for full-scale production and further development of Izdeliye 710 into a Mach 3+ interceptor. No mission avionics were initially fitted to this plane, but it carried a comprehensive test equipment suite and ballast.
Its sister ship 71.2 flew for the first time in late 1994, wearing a more unpretentious grey/bare metal livery. This plane was earmarked for avionics development and weapons integration, especially as a test bed for the K-100 missile, which shared Izdeliye 710’s fate of being a leftover Soviet project with an uncertain future and an even more corny funding outlook.
Anyway, aircraft 71.2 was from the start equipped with a complete RP-31 ('Zaslon-M') weapon control system, which had been under development at that time as an upgrade for the Russian MiG-31 fleet being part of the radar’s development program secured financial support from the government and allowed the flight tests to continue. The RP-31 possessed a maximum detection range of 400 km (250 mi) against airliner-sized targets at high altitude or 200 km against fighter-sized targets; the typical width of detection along the front was given as 225 km. The system could track 24 airborne targets at one time at a range of 120 km, 6 of which could be simultaneously attacked with missiles.
With these capabilities the RP-31 suite could, coupled with an appropriate carrier airframe, fulfil the originally intended airspace control function and would render a dedicated and highly vulnerable airspace control aircraft (like the Beriev A-50 derivative of the Il-76 transport) more or less obsolete. A group of four aircraft equipped with the 'Zaslon-M' suite would be able to permanently control an area of airspace across a total length of 800–900 km, while having ultra-long range weapons at hand to counter any intrusion into airspace with a quicker reaction time than any ground-based fighter on QRA duty. The 71.0, outfitted with the RP-31/K-100 system, would have posed a serious threat to any aggressor.
In March 1995 both prototypes were eventually transferred to the Kerchenskaya Guards Air Base at Savasleyka in the Oblast Vladimir, 300 km east of Mocsow, where they received tactical codes of '11 Blue' and '12 Blue'. Besides the basic test program and the RP-31/K-100 system tests, both machines were directly evaluated against the MiG-31 and Su-27 fighters by the Air Force's 4th TsBPi PLS, based at the same site.
Both aircraft exceeded expectations, but also fell short in certain aspects. The 71.0’s calculated top speed of Mach 3.2 was achieved during the tests with a top speed of 3,394 km/h (2.108 mph) at 21,000 m (69.000 ft). Top speed at sea level was confirmed at 1.200 km/h (745 mph) indicated airspeed.
Combat radius with full weapon load and internal fuel only was limited to 1,450 km (900 mi) at Mach 0.8 and at an altitude of 10,000 m (33,000 ft), though, and it sank to a mere 720 km (450 mi) at Mach 2.35 and at an altitude of 18,000 m (59,000 ft). Combat range with 4x K-100 internally and 2 drop tanks was settled at 3,000 km (1,860 mi), rising to 5,400 km (3,360 mi) with one in-flight refueling, tested with the 71.2. Endurance at altitude was only slightly above 3 hours, though. Service ceiling was 22,800 m (74,680 ft), 2.000 m higher than the MiG-31.
While these figures were impressive, Soviet officials were not truly convinced: they did not show a significant improvement over the simpler MiG-31. MiG OKB tried to persuade the government into more flight tests and begged for access to the NK-101, but the Soviet Union's collapse halted this project, too, so that both Izdeliye 710 had to keep the Soloviev D-30F6.
Little is known about the Izdeliye 710 project’s progress or further developments. The initial tests lasted until at least 1997, and obviously the updated MiG-31M received official favor instead of a completely new aircraft. The K-100 was also dropped, since the R-33 missile and later its R-37 derivative sufficiently performed in the long-range aerial strike role.
Development on the aircraft as such seemed to have stopped with the advent of modernized Su-27 derivatives and the PAK FA project, resulting in the Suchoi T-50 prototype. Unconfirmed reports suggest that one of the prototypes (probably 71.1) was used in the development of the N014 Pulse-Doppler radar with a passive electronically scanned array antenna in the wake of the MFI program. The N014 was designed with a range of 420 km, detection target of 250km to 1m and able to track 40 targets while able to shoot against 20.
Most interestingly, Izdeliye 710 was never officially presented to the public, but NATO became aware of its development through satellite pictures in the early Nineties and the aircraft consequently received the ASCC reporting codename "Fastback".
Until today, only the two prototypes have been known to exist, and it is assumed – had the type entered service – that the long-range fighter had received the official designation "MiG-41".
General characteristics:
Crew: 2 (Pilot, weapon system officer)
Length (incl. pitot): 93 ft 10 in (28.66 m)
Wingspan:
- minimum 10° sweep: 69 ft 4 in (21.16 m)
- maximum 68° sweep: 48 ft 9 in (14,88 m)
Height: 23 ft 1 1/2 in (7,06 m )
Wing area: 1008.9 ft² (90.8 m²)
Weight: 88.151 lbs (39.986 kg)
Performance:
Maximum speed:
- Mach 3.2 (2.050 mph (3.300 km/h) at height
- 995 mph (1.600 km/h) supercruise speed at 36,000 ft (11,000 m)
- 915 mph (1.470 km/h) at sea level
Range: 3.705 miles (5.955 km) with internal fuel
Service ceiling: 75.000 ft (22.500 m)
Rate of climb: 31.000 ft/min (155 m/s)
Engine:
2x Soloviev D-30F6 afterburning turbofans with a dry thrust of 93 kN (20,900 lbf) each
and with 152 kN (34,172 lbf) with full afterburner.
Armament:
Internal weapons bay, main armament comprises a flexible missile load; basic ordnance of 4x K-100 ultra long range AAMs plus 2x R-73 short-range AAMs: other types like the R-27, R-33, R-60 and R-77 have been carried and tested, too, as well as podded guns on internal and external mounts. Alternatively, the weapon bay can hold various sensor pallets.
Four hardpoints under the wing roots, the outer pair “wet” for drop tanks of up to 3.000 l capacity, ECM pods or a buddy-buddy refueling drogue system. Maximum payload mass is 9000 kg.
The kit and its assembly
The second entry for the 2017 “Soviet” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com – a true Frankenstein creation, based on the scarce information about the real (but never realized) MiG 301 and 701 projects, the Suchoj T-60S, as well as some vague design sketches you can find online and in literature.
This one had been on my project list for years and I already had donor kits stashed away – but the sheer size (where will I leave it once done…?) and potential complexity kept me from tackling it.
The whole thing was an ambitious project and just the unique layout with a massive engine nacelle on top of the slender fuselage instead of an all-in-one design makes these aircraft an interesting topic to build. The GB was a good motivator.
“My” fictional interpretation of the MiG concepts is mainly based on a Dragon B-1B in 1:144 scale (fuselage, wings), a PM Model Su-15 two seater (donating the nose section and the cockpit, as well as wing parts for the fin) and a Kangnam MiG-31 (for the engine pod and some small parts). Another major ingredient is a pair of horizontal stabilizers from a 1:72 Hasegawa A-5 Vigilante.
Fitting the cockpit section took some major surgery and even more putty to blend the parts smoothly together. Another major surgical area was the tail; the "engine box" came to be rather straightforward, using the complete rear fuselage section from the MiG-31 and adding the intakes form the same kit, but mounted horizontally with a vertical splitter.
Blending the thing to the cut-away tail section of the B-1 was quite a task, though, since I not only wanted to add the element to the fuselage, but rather make it look a bit 'organic'. More than putty was necessary, I also had to made some cuts and transplantations. And after six PSR rounds I stopped counting…
The landing gear was built from scratch – the front wheel comes mostly from the MiG-31 kit. The central bogie and its massive leg come from a VEB Plasticart 1:100 Tu-20/95 bomber, plus some additional struts. The outriggers are leftover landing gear struts from a Hobby Boss Fw 190, mated with wheels which I believe come from a 1:200 VEB Plasticart kit, an An-24. Not certain, though. The fairings are slender MiG-21 drop tanks blended into the wing training edge. For the whole landing gear, the covers were improvised with styrene sheet, parts from a plastic straw(!) or leftover bits from the B-1B.
The main landing gear well was well as the weapons’ bay themselves were cut into the B-1B underside and an interior scratched from sheet and various leftover materials – I tried to maximize their space while still leaving enough room for the B-1B kit’s internal VG mechanism.
The large missiles (two were visible fitted and the rotary launcher just visibly hinted at) are, in fact, AGM-78 ‘Standard’ ARMs in a fantasy guise. They look pretty Soviet, though, like big brothers of the already not small R-33 missiles from the MiG-31.
While not in the focus of attention, the cockpit interior is completely new, too – OOB, the Su-15 cockpit only has a floor and rather stubby seats, under a massive single piece canopy. On top of the front wheel well (from a Hasegawa F-4) I added a new floor and added side consoles, scratched from styrene sheet. F-4 dashboards improve the decoration, and I added a pair of Soviet election seats from the scrap box – IIRC left over from two KP MiG-19 kits.
The canopy was taken OOB, I just cut it into five parts for open display. The material’s thickness does not look too bad on this aircraft – after all, it would need a rather sturdy construction when flying at Mach 3+ and withstanding the respective pressures and temperatures.
Painting
As a pure whif, I was free to use a weirdo design - but I rejected this idea quickly. I did not want a garish splinter scheme or a bright “Greenbottle Fly” Su-27 finish.
With the strange layout of the aircraft, the prototype idea was soon settled – and Soviet prototypes tend to look very utilitarian and lusterless, might even be left in grey. Consequently, I adapted a kind of bare look for this one, inspired by the rather shaggy Soviet Tu-22 “Blinder” bombers which carried a mix of bare metal and white and grey panels. With additional black leading edges on the aerodynamic surfaces, this would create a special/provisional but still purposeful look.
For the painting, I used a mix of several metallizer tones from ModelMaster and Humbrol (including Steel, Magnesium, Titanium, as well as matt and polished aluminum, and some Gun Metal and Exhaust around the engine nozzles, partly mixed with a bit of blue) and opaque tones (Humbrol 147 and 127). The “scheme” evolved panel-wise and step by step. The black leading edges were an interim addition, coming as things evolved, and they were painted first with black acrylic paint as a rough foundation and later trimmed with generic black decal stripes (from TL Modellbau). A very convenient and clean solution!
The radomes on nose and tail and other di-electric panels became dark grey (Humbrol 125). The cockpit tub was painted with Soviet Cockpit Teal (from ModelMaster), while the cockpit opening and canopy frames were kept in a more modest medium grey (Revell 57). On the outside of the cabin windows, a fat, deep yellow sealant frame (Humbrol 93, actually “Sand”) was added.
The weapon bay was painted in a yellow-ish primer tone (seen on pics of Tu-160 bombers) while the landing gear wells received a mix of gold and sand; the struts were painted in a mixed color, too, made of Humbrol 56 (Aluminum) and 34 (Flat White). The green wheel discs (Humbrol 131), a typical Soviet detail, stand out well from the rather subdued but not boring aircraft, and they make a nice contrast to the red Stars and the blue tactical code – the only major markings, besides a pair of MiG OKB logos under the cockpit.
Decals were puzzled together from various sheets, and I also added a lot of stencils for a more technical look. In order to enhance the prototype look further I added some photo calibration markings on the nose and the tail, made from scratch.
A massive kitbashing project that I had pushed away for years - but I am happy that I finally tackled it, and the result looks spectacular. The "Firefox" similarity was not intended, but this beast really looks like a movie prop - and who knwos if the Firefox was not inspired by the same projects (the MiG 301 and 701) as my kitbash model?
The background info is a bit lengthy, but there's some good background info concerning the aforementioned projects, and this aircraft - as a weapon system - would have played a very special and complex role, so a lot of explanations are worthwhile - also in order to emphasize that I di not simply try to glue some model parts together, but rather try to spin real world ideas further.
Mighty bird!
Painting and markings:
Finding a suitable and somewhat interesting – but still plausible – paint scheme was not easy. Taking the A-10 as benchmark, an overall light grey livery (with focus on low contrast against the sky as protection against ground fire) would have been a likely choice – and in fact the last operational American OV-10s were painted in this fashion. But in order to provide a different look I used the contemporary USAF V-22Bs and Special Operations MC-130s as benchmark, which typically carry a darker paint scheme consisting of FS 36118 from above, FS 36375 underneath (with a low, wavy waterline), plus low-viz markings. Not spectacular, but plausible – and very similar to the late r/w Colombian OV-10s, and its suitable “Gunship Gray”. :D
The cockpit tub became Dark Gull Grey (FS 36231, Humbrol 140) and the landing gear white (Revell 301).
The model received an overall black ink washing and some post-panel-shading, to liven up the dull all-grey 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 РТАК-30 attack vintoplan (also known as vintokryl) owed its existence to the Mil Mi-30 plane/helicopter project that originated in 1972. The Mil Mi-30 was conceived as a transport aircraft that could hold up to 19 passengers or two tons of cargo, and its purpose was to replace the Mi-8 and Mi-17 Helicopters in both civil and military roles. With vertical takeoff through a pair of tiltrotor engine pods on the wing tips (similar in layout to the later V-22 Osprey) and the ability to fly like a normal plane, the Mil Mi-30 had a clear advantage over the older models.
Since the vintoplan concept was a completely new field of research and engineering, a dedicated design bureau was installed in the mid-Seventies at the Rostov-na-Donu helicopter factory, where most helicopters from the Mil design bureau were produced, under the title Ростов Тилт Ротор Авиационная Компания (Rostov Tilt Rotor Aircraft Company), or РТАК (RTRA), for short.
The vintoplan project lingered for some time, with basic research being conducted concerning aerodynamics, rotor design and flight control systems. Many findings later found their way into conventional planes and helicopters. At the beginning of the 1980s, the project had progressed far enough that the vintoplan received official backing so that РТАК scientists and Mil helicopter engineers assembled and tested several layouts and components for this complicated aircraft type.
At that time the Mil Mi-30 vintoplan was expected to use a single TV3-117 Turbo Shaft Engine with a four-bladed propeller rotors on each of its two pairs of stub wings of almost equal span. The engine was still installed in the fuselage and the proprotors driven by long shafts.
However, while being a very clean design, this original layout revealed several problems concerning aeroelasticity, dynamics of construction, characteristics for the converter apparatuses, aerodynamics and flight dynamics. In the course of further development stages and attempts to rectify the technical issues, the vintoplan layout went through several revisions. The layout shifted consequently from having 4 smaller engines in rotating pods on two pairs of stub wings through three engines with rotating nacelles on the front wings and a fixed, horizontal rotor over the tail and finally back to only 2 engines (much like the initial concept), but this time mounted in rotating nacelles on the wing tips and a canard stabilizer layout.
In August 1981 the Commission of the Presidium of the USSR Council of Ministers on weapons eventually issued a decree on the development of a flyworthy Mil Mi-30 vintoplan prototype. Shortly afterwards the military approved of the vintoplan, too, but desired bigger, more powerful engines in order to improve performance and weight capacity. In the course of the ensuing project refinement, the weight capacity was raised to 3-5 tons and the passenger limit to 32. In parallel, the modified type was also foreseen for civil operations as a short range feederliner, potentially replacing Yak-40 and An-24 airliners in Aeroflot service.
In 1982, РТАК took the interest from the military and proposed a dedicated attack vintoplan, based on former research and existing components of the original transport variant. This project was accepted by MAP and received the separate designation РТАК-30. However, despite having some close technical relations to the Mi-30 transport (primarily the engine nacelles, their rotation mechanism and the flight control systems), the РТАК-30 was a completely different aircraft. The timing was good, though, and the proposal was met with much interest, since the innovative vintoplan concept was to compete against traditional helicopters: the design work on the dedicated Mi-28 and Ka-50 attack helicopters had just started at that time, too, so that РТАК received green lights for the construction of five prototypes: four flyworthy machines plus one more for static ground tests.
The РТАК-30 was based on one of the early Mi-30 layouts and it combined two pairs of mid-set wings with different wing spans with a tall tail fin that ensured directional stability. Each wing carried a rotating engine nacelle with a so-called proprotor on its tip, each with three high aspect ratio blades. The proprotors were handed (i.e. revolved in opposite directions) in order to minimize torque effects and improve handling, esp. in the hover. The front and back pair of engines were cross-linked among each other on a common driveshaft, eliminating engine-out asymmetric thrust problems during V/STOL operations. In the event of the failure of one engine, it would automatically disconnect through torque spring clutches and both propellers on a pair of wings would be driven by the remaining engine.
Four engines were chosen because, despite the weight and complexity penalty, this extra power was expected to be required in order to achieve a performance that was markedly superior to a conventional helicopter like the Mi-24, the primary Soviet attack helicopter of that era the РТАК-30 was supposed to replace. It was also expected that the rotating nacelles could also be used to improve agility in level flight through a mild form of vectored thrust.
The РТАК-30’s streamlined fuselage provided ample space for avionics, fuel, a fully retractable tricycle landing gear and a two man crew in an armored side-by-side cockpit with ejection seats. The windshield was able to withstand 12.7–14.5 mm caliber bullets, the titanium cockpit tub could take hits from 20 mm cannon. An autonomous power unit (APU) was housed in the fuselage, too, making operations of the aircraft independent from ground support.
While the РТАК-30 was not intended for use as a transport, the fuselage was spacious enough to have a small compartment between the front wings spars, capable of carrying up to three people. The purpose of this was the rescue of downed helicopter crews, as a cargo hold esp. for transfer flights and as additional space for future mission equipment or extra fuel.
In vertical flight, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotor system used controls very similar to a twin or tandem-rotor helicopter. Yaw was controlled by tilting its rotors in opposite directions. Roll was provided through differential power or thrust, supported by ailerons on the rear wings. Pitch was provided through rotor cyclic or nacelle tilt and further aerodynamic surfaces on both pairs of wings. Vertical motion was controlled with conventional rotor blade pitch and a control similar to a fixed-wing engine control called a thrust control lever (TCL). The rotor heads had elastomeric bearings and the proprotor blades were made from composite materials, which could sustain 30 mm shells.
The РТАК-30 featured a helmet-mounted display for the pilot, a very modern development at its time. The pilot designated targets for the navigator/weapons officer, who proceeded to fire the weapons required to fulfill that particular task. The integrated surveillance and fire control system had two optical channels providing wide and narrow fields of view, a narrow-field-of-view optical television channel, and a laser rangefinder. The system could move within 110 degrees in azimuth and from +13 to −40 degrees in elevation and was placed in a spherical dome on top of the fuselage, just behind the cockpit.
The aircraft carried one automatic 2A42 30 mm internal gun, mounted semi-rigidly fixed near the center of the fuselage, movable only slightly in elevation and azimuth. The arrangement was also regarded as being more practical than a classic free-turning turret mount for the aircraft’s considerably higher flight speed than a normal helicopter. As a side effect, the semi-rigid mounting improved the cannon's accuracy, giving the 30 mm a longer practical range and better hit ratio at medium ranges. Ammunition supply was 460 rounds, with separate compartments for high-fragmentation, explosive incendiary, or armor-piercing rounds. The type of ammunition could be selected by the pilot during flight.
The gunner can select one of two rates of full automatic fire, low at 200 to 300 rds/min and high at 550 to 800 rds/min. The effective range when engaging ground targets such as light armored vehicles is 1,500 m, while soft-skinned targets can be engaged out to 4,000 m. Air targets can be engaged flying at low altitudes of up to 2,000 m and up to a slant range of 2,500 m.
A substantial range of weapons could be carried on four hardpoints under the front wings, plus three more under the fuselage, for a total ordnance of up to 2,500 kg (with reduced internal fuel). The РТАК-30‘s main armament comprised up to 24 laser-guided Vikhr missiles with a maximum range of some 8 km. These tube-launched missiles could be used against ground and aerial targets. A search and tracking radar was housed in a thimble radome on the РТАК-30’s nose and their laser guidance system (mounted in a separate turret under the radome) was reported to be virtually jam-proof. The system furthermore featured automatic guidance to the target, enabling evasive action immediately after missile launch. Alternatively, the system was also compatible with Ataka laser-guided anti-tank missiles.
Other weapon options included laser- or TV-guided Kh-25 missiles as well as iron bombs and napalm tanks of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber and several rocket pods, including the S-13 and S-8 rockets. The "dumb" rocket pods could be upgraded to laser guidance with the proposed Ugroza system. Against helicopters and aircraft the РТАК-30 could carry up to four R-60 and/or R-73 IR-guided AAMs. Drop tanks and gun pods could be carried, too.
When the РТАК-30's proprotors were perpendicular to the motion in the high-speed portions of the flight regime, the aircraft demonstrated a relatively high maximum speed: over 300 knots/560 km/h top speed were achieved during state acceptance trials in 1987, as well as sustained cruise speeds of 250 knots/460 km/h, which was almost twice as fast as a conventional helicopter. Furthermore, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotors and stub wings provided the aircraft with a substantially greater cruise altitude capability than conventional helicopters: during the prototypes’ tests the machines easily reached 6,000 m / 20,000 ft or more, whereas helicopters typically do not exceed 3,000 m / 10,000 ft altitude.
Flight tests in general and flight control system refinement in specific lasted until late 1988, and while the vintoplan concept proved to be sound, the technical and practical problems persisted. The aircraft was complex and heavy, and pilots found the machine to be hazardous to land, due to its low ground clearance. Due to structural limits the machine could also never be brought to its expected agility limits
During that time the Soviet Union’s internal tensions rose and more and more hampered the РТАК-30’s development. During this time, two of the prototypes were lost (the 1st and 4th machine) in accidents, and in 1989 only two machines were left in flightworthy condition (the 5th airframe had been set aside for structural ground tests). Nevertheless, the РТАК-30 made its public debut at the Paris Air Show in June 1989 (the 3rd prototype, coded “33 Yellow”), together with the Mi-28A, but was only shown in static display and did not take part in any flight show. After that, the aircraft received the NATO ASCC code "Hemlock" and caused serious concern in Western military headquarters, since the РТАК-30 had the potential to dominate the European battlefield.
And this was just about to happen: Despite the РТАК-30’s development problems, the innovative attack vintoplan was included in the Soviet Union’s 5-year plan for 1989-1995, and the vehicle was eventually expected to enter service in 1996. However, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dwindling economics, neither the РТАК-30 nor its civil Mil Mi-30 sister did soar out in the new age of technology. In 1990 the whole program was stopped and both surviving РТАК-30 prototypes were mothballed – one (the 3rd prototype) was disassembled and its components brought to the Rostov-na-Donu Mil plant, while the other, prototype No. 1, is rumored to be stored at the Central Russian Air Force Museum in Monino, to be restored to a public exhibition piece some day.
General characteristics:
Crew: Two (pilot, copilot/WSO) plus space for up to three passengers or cargo
Length: 45 ft 7 1/2 in (13,93 m)
Rotor diameter: 20 ft 9 in (6,33 m)
Wingspan incl. engine nacelles: 42 ft 8 1/4 in (13,03 m)
Total width with rotors: 58 ft 8 1/2 in (17,93 m)
Height: 17 ft (5,18 m) at top of tailfin
Disc area: 4x 297 ft² (27,65 m²)
Wing area: 342.2 ft² (36,72 m²)
Empty weight: 8,500 kg (18,740 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 12,000 kg (26,500 lb)
Powerplant:
4× Klimov VK-2500PS-03 turboshaft turbines, 2,400 hp (1.765 kW) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 275 knots (509 km/h, 316 mph) at sea level
305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)
Cruise speed: 241 kn (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level
Stall speed: 110 kn (126 mph, 204 km/h) in airplane mode
Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)
Combat radius: 390 nmi (426 mi, 722 km)
Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (2,230 mi, 3,590 km) with auxiliary external fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
Rate of climb: 2,320–4,000 ft/min (11.8 m/s)
Glide ratio: 4.5:1
Disc loading: 20.9 lb/ft² at 47,500 lb GW (102.23 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)
Armament:
1× 30 mm (1.18 in) 2A42 multi-purpose autocannon with 450 rounds
7 external hardpoints for a maximum ordnance of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb)
The kit and its assembly:
This exotic, fictional aircraft-thing is a contribution to the “The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2019. While the propulsion system itself is not that unconventional, I deemed the quadrocopter concept (which had already been on my agenda for a while) to be suitable for a worthy submission.
The Mil Mi-30 tiltrotor aircraft, mentioned in the background above, was a real project – but my alternative combat vintoplan design is purely speculative.
I had already stashed away some donor parts, primarily two sets of tiltrotor backpacks for 1:144 Gundam mecha from Bandai, which had been released recently. While these looked a little toy-like, these parts had the charm of coming with handed propellers and stub wings that would allow the engine nacelles to swivel.
The search for a suitable fuselage turned out to be a more complex safari than expected. My initial choice was the spoofy Italeri Mi-28 kit (I initially wanted a staggered tandem cockpit), but it turned out to be much too big for what I wanted to achieve. Then I tested a “real” Mi-28 (Dragon) and a Ka-50 (Italeri), but both failed for different reasons – the Mi-28 was too slender, while the Ka-50 had the right size – but converting it for my build would have been VERY complicated, because the engine nacelles would have to go and the fuselage shape between the cockpit and the fuselage section around the original engines and stub wings would be hard to adapt. I eventually bought an Italeri Ka-52 two-seater as fuselage donor.
In order to mount the four engines to the fuselage I’d need two pairs of wings of appropriate span – and I found a pair of 1:100 A-10 wings as well as the wings from an 1:72 PZL Iskra (not perfect, but the most suitable donor parts I could find in the junkyard). On the tips of these wings, the swiveling joints for the engine nacelles from the Bandai set were glued. While mounting the rear wings was not too difficult (just the Ka-52’s OOB stabilizers had to go), the front pair of wings was more complex. The reason: the Ka-52’s engines had to go and their attachment points, which are actually shallow recesses on the kit, had to be faired over first. Instead of filling everything with putty I decided to cover the areas with 0.5mm styrene sheet first, and then do cosmetic PSR work. This worked quite well and also included a cover for the Ka-52’s original rotor mast mount. Onto these new flanks the pair of front wings was attached, in a mid position – a conceptual mistake…
The cockpit was taken OOB and the aircraft’s nose received an additional thimble radome, reminiscent of the Mi-28’s arrangement. The radome itself was created from a German 500 kg WWII bomb.
At this stage, the mid-wing mistake reared its ugly head – it had two painful consequences which I had not fully thought through. Problem #1: the engine nacelles turned out to be too long. When rotated into a vertical position, they’d potentially hit the ground! Furthermore, the ground clearance was very low – and I decided to skip the Ka-52’s OOB landing gear in favor of a heavier and esp. longer alternative, a full landing gear set from an Italeri MiG-37 “Ferret E” stealth fighter, which itself resembles a MiG-23/27 landing gear. Due to the expected higher speeds of the vintoplan I gave the landing gear full covers (partly scratched, plus some donor parts from an Academy MiG-27). It took some trials to get the new landing gear into the right position and a suitable stance – but it worked. With this benchmark I was also able to modify the engine nacelles, shortening their rear ends. They were still very (too!) close to the ground, but at least the model would not sit on them!
However, the more complete the model became, the more design flaws turned up. Another mistake is that the front and rear rotors slightly overlap when in vertical position – something that would be unthinkable in real life…
With all major components in place, however, detail work could proceed. This included the completion of the cockpit and the sensor turrets, the Ka-52 cannon and finally the ordnance. Due to the large rotors, any armament had to be concentrated around the fuselage, outside of the propeller discs. For this reason (and in order to prevent the rear engines to ingest exhaust gases from the front engines in level flight), I gave the front wings a slightly larger span, so that four underwing pylons could be fitted, plus a pair of underfuselage hardpoints.
The ordnance was puzzled together from the Italeri Ka-52 and from an ESCI Ka-34 (the fake Ka-50) kit.
Painting and markings:
With such an exotic aircraft, I rather wanted a conservative livery and opted for a typical Soviet tactical four-tone scheme from the Eighties – the idea was to build a prototype aircraft from the state acceptance trials period, not a flashy demonstrator. The scheme and the (guesstimated) colors were transferred from a Soviet air force MiG-21bis of that era, and it consists of a reddish light brown (Humbrol 119, Light Earth), a light, yellowish green (Humbrol 159, Khaki Drab), a bluish dark green (Humbrol 195, Dark Satin Green, a.k.a. RAL 6020 Chromdioxidgrün) and a dark brown (Humbrol 170, Brown Bess). For the undersides’ typical bluish grey I chose Humbrol 145 (FS 35237, Gray Blue), which is slightly lighter and less greenish than the typical Soviet tones. A light black ink wash was applied and some light post-shading was done in order to create panels that are structurally not there, augmented by some pencil lines.
The cockpit became light blue (Humbrol 89), with medium gray dashboard and consoles. The ejection seats received bright yellow seatbelts and bright blue pads – a detail seen on a Mi-28 cockpit picture.
Some dielectric fairings like the fin tip were painted in bright medium green (Humbrol 101), while some other antenna fairings were painted in pale yellow (Humbrol 71).
The landing gear struts and the interior of the wells became Aluminum Metalic (Humbrol 56), the wheels dark green discs (Humbrol 30).
The decals were puzzled together from various sources, including some Begemot sheets. Most of the stencils came from the Ka-52 OOB sheet, and generic decal sheet material was used to mark the walkways or the rotor tips and leading edges.
Only some light weathering was done to the leading edges of the wings, and then the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
A complex kitbashing project, and it revealed some pitfalls in the course of making. However, the result looks menacing and still convincing, esp. in flight – even though the picture editing, with four artificially rotating proprotors, was probably more tedious than building the model itself!
+++ 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 Bell XP-68A owed its existence to the manufacturer’s rather disappointing outcome of its first jet fighter design, the XP-59A Airacomet. The Airacomet was a twin jet-engined fighter aircraft, designed and built during World War II after Major General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold became aware of the United Kingdom's jet program when he attended a demonstration of the Gloster E.28/39 in April 1941. He requested, and was given, the plans for the aircraft's powerplant, the Power Jets W.1, which he took back to the U.S. He also arranged for an example of the engine, the Whittle W.1X turbojet, to be flown to the U.S., along with drawings for the more powerful W.2B/23 engine and a small team of Power Jets engineers. On 4 September 1941, he offered the U.S. company General Electric a contract to produce an American version of the engine, which subsequently became the General Electric I-A. On the following day, he approached Lawrence Dale Bell, head of Bell Aircraft Corporation, to build a fighter to utilize it. As a disinformation tactic, the USAAF gave the project the designation "P-59A", to suggest it was a development of the unrelated, canceled Bell XP-59 fighter project. The P-59A was the first design fighter to have its turbojet engine and air inlet nacelles integrated within the main fuselage. The jet aircraft’s design was finalized on 9 January 1942 and the first prototype flew in October of the same year.
The following 13 service test YP-59As had a more powerful engine than their predecessor, the General Electric J31, but the improvement in performance was negligible, with top speed increased by only 5 mph and a slight reduction in the time they could be used before an overhaul was needed. One of these aircraft, the third YP-59A, was supplied to the Royal Air Force, in exchange for the first production Gloster Meteor I for evaluation and flight-offs with domestic alternatives.
British pilots found that the YP-59A compared very unfavorably with the jets that they were already flying. The United States Army Air Forces were not impressed by its performance either and cancelled the contract when fewer than half of the originally ordered aircraft had been produced. No P-59s entered combat, but the type paved the way for the next design generation of U.S. turbojet-powered aircraft and helped to develop appropriate maintenance structures and procedures.
In the meantime, a new, more powerful jet engine had been developed in Great Britain, the Halford H-1, which became later better known as the De Havilland Goblin. It was another centrifugal compressor design, but it produced almost twice as much thrust as the XP-59A’s J31 engines. Impressed by the British Gloster Meteor during the USAAF tests at Muroc Dry Lake - performance-wise as well as by the aircraft’s simplicity and ruggedness - Bell reacted promptly and proposed an alternative fighter with wing-mounted engine nacelles, since the XP-59A’s layout had proven to be aerodynamically sub-optimal and unsuited for the installation of H-1 engines. In order to save development time and because the aircraft was rather regarded as a proof-of-concept demonstrator instead of a true fighter prototype, the new aircraft was structurally based on Bell’s current piston-engine P-63 “Kingcobra”. The proposal was accepted and, in order to maintain secrecy, the new jet aircraft inherited once more a designation of a recently cancelled project, this time from the Vultee XP-68 “Tornado” fighter. Similar to the Airacomet two years before, just a simple “A” suffix was added.
Bell’s development contract covered only three XP-68A aircraft. The H-1 units were directly imported from Great Britain in secrecy, suspended in the bomb bays of B-24 Liberator bombers. A pair of these engines was mounted in mid-wing nacelles, very similar to the Gloster Meteor’s arrangement. The tailplane was given a 5° dihedral to move it out of the engine exhaust. In order to bear the new engines and their power, the wing main spars were strengthened and the main landing gear wells were moved towards the aircraft’s centerline, effectively narrowing track width. The landing gear wells now occupied the space of the former radiator ducts for the P-63’s omitted Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled V12 engine. Its former compartment behind the cockpit was used for a new fuel tank and test equipment. Having lost the propeller and its long drive shaft, the nose section was also redesigned: the front fuselage became deeper and the additional space there was used for another fuel tank in front of the cockpit and a bigger weapon bay. Different armament arrangements were envisioned, one of each was to be tested on the three prototypes: one machine would be armed with six 0.5” machine guns, another with four 20mm Hispano M2 cannon, and the third with two 37mm M10 cannon and two 0.5” machine guns. Provisions for a ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb were made, but this was never fitted on any of the prototypes. Additional hardpoints under the outer wings for smaller bombs or unguided missiles followed the same fate.
The three XP-68As were built at Bell’s Atlanta plant in the course of early 1944 and semi-officially christened “Airagator”. After their clandestine transfer to Muroc Dry Lake for flight tests and evaluations, the machines were quickly nicknamed “Barrelcobra” by the test staff – not only because of the characteristic shape of the engine nacelles, but also due to the sheer weight of the machines and their resulting sluggish handling on the ground and in the air. “Cadillac” was another nickname, due to the very soft acceleration through the new jet engines and the lack of vibrations that were typical for piston-engine- and propeller-driven aircraft.
Due to the structural reinforcements and modifications, the XP-68A had become a heavy aircraft with an empty weight of 4 tons and a MTOW of almost 8 tons – the same as the big P-47 Thunderbolt piston fighter, while the P-63 had an MTOW of only 10,700 lb (4,900 kg). The result was, among other flaws, a very long take-off distance, especially in the hot desert climate of the Mojave Desert (which precluded any external ordnance) and an inherent unwillingness to change direction, its turning radius was immense. More than once the brakes overheated during landing, so that extra water cooling for the main landing gear was retrofitted.
Once in the air, the aircraft proved to be quite fast – as long as it was flying in a straight line, though. Only the roll characteristics were acceptable, but flying the XP-68A remained hazardous, esp. after the loss of one of the H-1s engines: This resulted in heavily asymmetrical propulsion, making the XP-68A hard to control at all and prone to spin in level flight.
After trials and direct comparison, the XP-68A turned out not to be as fast and, even worse, much less agile than the Meteor Mk III (the RAF’s then current, operational fighter version), which even had weaker Derwent engines. The operational range was insufficient, too, esp. in regard of the planned Pacific theatre of operations, and the high overall weight precluded any considerable external load like drop tanks.
However, compared with the XP-59A, the XP-68A was a considerable step forward, but it had become quickly clear that the XP-68A and its outfit-a-propeller-design-with jet-engines approach did not bear the potential for any service fighter development: it was already outdated when the prototypes were starting their test program. No further XP-68A was ordered or built, and the three prototypes fulfilled their test and evaluation program until May 1945. During these tests, the first prototype was lost on the ground due to an engine fire. After the program’s completion, the two remaining machines were handed over to the US Navy and used for research at the NATC Patuxent River Test Centre, where they were operated until 1949 and finally scrapped.
General characteristics.
Crew: 1
Length: 33 ft 9 in (10.36 m)
Wingspan: 38 ft 4 in (11.7 m)
Height: 13 ft (3.96 m)
Wing area: 248 sq ft (23 m²)
Empty weight: 8,799 lb (3,995 kg)
Loaded weight: 15,138 lb (6,873 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 17,246 lb (7,830 kg)
Powerplant:
2× Halford H-1 (De Havilland Goblin) turbojets, rated at 3,500 lbf (15.6 kN) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 559 mph (900 km/h)
Range: 500 mi (444 nmi, 805 km)
Service ceiling: 37,565 ft (11,450 m)
Rate of climb: 3.930 ft/min (20 m/s)
Wing loading: 44.9 lb/ft² (218.97 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.45
Time to altitude: 5.0 min to 30,000 ft (9,145 m)
Armament:
4× Hispano M2 20 mm cannon with 150 rounds
One ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb
6× 60 lb (30 kg) rockets or 2× 500 lb (227 kg) bombs under the outer wings
The kit and its assembly:
This whiffy Kingcobra conversion was spawned by a post by fellow user nighthunter in January 2019 at whatifmodelers.com about a potential jet-powered variant. In found the idea charming, since the XP-59 had turned out to be a dud and the Gloster Meteor had been tested by the USAAF. Why not combine both into a fictional, late WWII Bell prototype?
The basic idea was simple: take a P-63 and add a Meteor’s engine nacelles, while keeping the Kingcobra’s original proportions. This sounds pretty easy but was more challenging than the first look at the outcome might suggest.
The donor kits are a vintage Airfix 1:72 Gloster Meteor Mk.III, since it has the proper, small nacelles, and an Eastern Express P-63 Kingcobra. The latter looked promising, since this kit comes with very good surface and cockpit details (even with a clear dashboard) as well as parts for several P-63 variants, including the A, C and even the exotic “pinball” manned target version. However, anything comes at a price, and the kit’s low price point is compensated by soft plastic (which turned out to be hard to sand), some flash and mediocre fit of any of the major components like fuselage halves, the wings or the clear parts. It feels a lot like a typical short-run kit. Nevertheless, I feel inclined to build another one in a more conventional fashion some day.
Work started with the H-1 nacelles, which had to be cut out from the Meteor wings. Since they come OOB only with a well-visible vertical plate and a main wing spar dummy in the air intake, I added some fine mesh to the plate – normally, you can see directly onto the engine behind the wing spar. Another issue was the fact that the Meteor’s wings are much thicker and deeper than the P-63s, so that lots of PSR work was necessary.
Simply cutting the P-63 OOB wings up and inserting the Meteor nacelles was also not possible: the P-63 has a very wide main landing gear, due to the ventral radiators and oil coolers, which were originally buried in the wing roots and under the piston engine. The only solution: move the complete landing gear (including the wells) inward, so that the nacelles could be placed as close as possible to the fuselage in a mid-span position. Furthermore, the - now useless - radiator openings had to disappear, resulting in a major redesign of the wing root sections. All of this became a major surgery task, followed by similarly messy work on the outer wings during the integration of the Meteor nacelles. LOTS of PSR, even though the outcome looks surprisingly plausible and balanced.
Work on the fuselage started in parallel. It was built mainly OOB, using the optional ventral fin for a P-63C. The exhaust stubs as well as the dorsal carburetor intake had to disappear (the latter made easy thanks to suitable optional parts for the manned target version). Since the P-63 had a conventional low stabilizer arrangement (unlike the Meteor with its cruciform tail), I gave them a slight dihedral to move them out of the engine efflux, a trick Sukhoi engineers did on the Su-11 prototype with afterburner engines in 1947, too.
Furthermore, the whole nose ahead of the cockpit was heavily re-designed, because I wanted the “new” aircraft to lose its propeller heritage and the P-63’s round and rather pointed nose. Somewhat inspired by the P-59 and the P-80, I omitted the propeller parts altogether and re-sculpted the nose with 2C putty, creating a deeper shape with a tall, oval diameter, so that the lower fuselage line was horizontally extended forward. In a profile view the aircraft now looks much more massive and P-80esque. The front landing gear was retained, just its side walls were extended downwards with the help of 0.5mm styrene sheet material, so that the original stance could be kept. Lots of lead in the nose ensured that the model would properly stand on its three wheels.
Once the rhinoplasty was done I drilled four holes into the nose and used hollow steel needles as gun barrels, with a look reminiscent of the Douglas A-20G.
Adding the (perfectly) clear parts of the canopy as a final assembly step also turned out to be a major fight against the elements.
Painting and markings:
With an USAAF WWII prototype in mind, there were only two options: either an NMF machine, or a camouflage in Olive Drab and Neutral Grey. I went for the latter and used Tamiya XF-62 for the upper surfaces and Humbrol 156 (Dark Camouflage Grey) underneath. The kit received a light black ink wash and some post shading in order to emphasize panels. A little dry-brushing with silver around the leading edges and the cockpit was done, too.
The cockpit interior became chromate green (I used Humbrol 150, Forest Green) while the landing gear wells were painted with zinc chromate yellow (Humbrol 81). The landing gear itself was painted in aluminum (Humbrol 56).
Markings/decals became minimal, puzzled together from various sources – only some “Stars and Bars” insignia and the serial number.
Somehow this conversion ended up looking a lot like the contemporary Soviet Sukhoi Su-9 and -11 (Samolyet K and LK) jet fighter prototype – unintentionally, though. But I am happy with the outcome – the P-63 ancestry is there, and the Meteor engines are recognizable, too. But everything blends into each other well, the whole affair looks very balanced and believable. This is IMHO furthermore emphasized by the simple paint scheme. A jet-powered Kingcobra? Why not…?
A kitbash using a Phicen body and the blonde headsculpt by Kimi , also wearing a cowgirl outfit by Super Duck .
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
The F-112 started life as a privately funded light fighter program by Republic under the handle AP-95 in the mid-1950s, aiming at export markets which were about to replace their 1st generation jet fighters like the F-86 or F-84 and air forces which could not afford or simply want the heavy supersonic fighters under development at that time. In the USA, it was also aimed at the replacement of these Korean War era types in the Air National Guards.
The AP-95 was inspired by both Lockheed's CL-246 (the later F-104 Starfighter) and Northrop's N-156 Light Fighter concept (which eventually developed into the highly successful F-5 fighter family, aiming at the same niches. In size and performance the aircraft fell more or less in between these two design – it was heavier and larger than Northrop’s project, and a less radical alternative to the CL-246. Republic's design team started the development in 1955 and relied heavily on the huge F-105 fighter bomber that had been under development at the time, but the AP-95 was to be a pure interceptor. The basic idea was "to build a relatively small and highly aerodynamic fighter around the same engine that drives the F-100, but focusing on high performance and low cost of maintenance, as well as good field performance."
Actually, the AP-95, called "Thunderdart",was revealed to USAF officials for the first time as a full-sized mock-up in early 1957, and it looked much like a scaled-down F-105. It combined a slender, area-ruled fuselage with highly swept wings and a conventional, low tail.
The nose offered space for a relatively large radar dish. The air intakes were placed in the wing roots, with Ferri-style, forward-swept leading edges that had also been used on the F-105 and other Republic designs like the AP-75 interceptor.
From the F-105 the landing gear concept had been borrowed, too. The long main legs retracted inwards into the wings, leaving only the outer wings free for ordnance loads, but allowed much space in the fuselage for fuel and avionics. The aircraft was to be powered by a Pratt & Whitney J57-P-21 turbojet, with a dry thrust of 10,200 lbf (45 kN) and 16,000 lbf (71 kN) with afterburner.
The basic armament of the AP-95 was an internal 20 mm (.79 in) M61 Vulcan Gatling gun, which had a rate of fire of 6,000 rounds per minute. The cannon, mounted in the lower part of the port fuselage, was fed by a 725-round drum behind the pilot's seat. Additionally, the AP-95 was able to carry up to four AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs under its wings. Total external payload was 6.000 lb (2.727 kg) on five hardpoints, a centerline pylon under the fuselage was "wet" in order to take a single drop tank. Alternatively, iron bombs or napalm tanks could be carried in a secondary ground support role.
The AP-95 was an attractive design but faced a strong competition, if not opposition. Among USAF officials it was not popular, because it was - despite its basically good performance and low development risks - regarded as an inferior aircraft. It did not reach Mach 2 (what the F-104 promised, despite many other weaknesses), and adding a complex radar system (which would have allowed longer range AAMs like the AIM-7 Sparrow) with an additional operator would further reduce performance.
The aircraft shared a "bad image" fate with the later F-5, which became nevertheless very popular in oversea markets due to its simplicity, versatility and efficacy. On the other side, Europe was already in Lockheed's strong grip, as the F-104G had been selected as NATO's standard fighter bomber - under dubious circumstances, though, but it successfully blocked the market.
Anyway, the AP-95 was nevertheless a capable aircraft which was more cost-effective than the thirsty and short-legged F-104, or the larger F-102 and F-106 which formed the air defense backbone at that era. While the US Air Force did not want another type in its arsenal, it was decided to buy and build the aircraft as a state-of-the-art replacement for the ageing ANG Sabres and Thunderstreaks, with the prospect of delivery of the type to NATO partners all over the world, too.
The original design was quickly approved and the AP-95 prototype made its maiden flight on October 10th, 1960, only equipped with a basic AN/ASG-14T ranging radar. After completing trials and further development with two further YF-112 pre-production aircraft, the Thunderdart was officially introduced as F-112A in March 1962 to the USAF. These production aircraft now featured an AN/APQ-83 radar for night and all-weather interceptions. Additionally, one of the YF-112 was modified in late 1962 to carry a second crew member under a lengthened canopy and with reduced internal fuel - it was planned as a F-112B trainer, but did not find interest since the T-38 already offered supersonic performance at much lower cost, and the Thunderdart's range suffered considerably. The F-112B remained a one-off.
In 1964 the F-112A was also introduced to the US ANG forces and attained some interest from other countries, including Spain, Italy, Turkey, Greece, South Korea and Japan. Most of these foreign countries settled for the Starfighter in the 60ies, and the door for the F-112 was closing: As a result of winning the International Fighter Aircraft competition in 1970, a program aimed at providing effective low cost fighters to American allies, Northrop introduced the second-generation F-5E Tiger II in 1972. This upgrade included more powerful engines, higher fuel capacity, greater wing area and improved leading edge extensions for better turn rate, optional air to air refueling, and improved avionics including air-to-air radar. It became a great success and made the F-112 obsolete, which lacked further development potential and was too limited to its interceptor role to be a versatile option for smaller air forces.
From 1962 until 1965, a total of 145 F-112As were built. Compared with the 1.400 Tiger II versions until 1987 only a very small number, and further orders from the USA did not materialize, even though the Thunderdart showed good flight characteristics.
As a final attempt to improve the Thunderdart's potential, 80 F-112A aircraft were modernized from 1969 on, all of them ANG aircraft. These machines received a more powerful J57-P-20 engine, rated at 18.040lbf (8.200kN) thrust at full afterburner – which finally allowed to break the Mach 2 barrier.
On the avionics side, a new AN/APQ-124 radar was fitted – which still did not allow the guidance of medium range missiles, though, the AIM-9 remained the Thunderdart’s primary weapon. Further enhancements included a more modern firing system and an AAS-15 infrared sensor. These updated aircraft received the designation F-112C, and the MLU phase lasted until 1972. Externally these modified aircraft could easily be identified by the bigger radome and the added IR sensor pod under the nose.
No F-112 was ever used in combat, despite the raging Vietnam War. The original F-112As remained with the USAF, but these were only used for training purposes or as instructional airframes on the ground. These F-112As were quickly phased out during the 70ies, the last one in September 1977. The modernized F-112C soldiered on with several ANG forces until 1985, being replaced by F-4 and F-16 as interceptors and multi-role combat aircraft.
F-112A general characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 56 ft 9 ¼ in (17.02 m)
Wingspan: 25 ft 7 in (7.81 m)
Height: 15 ft 9 ¼ in (4.82 m)
Wing area: 277 ft² (25.75 m²)
Empty weight: 14.000 lb (6.350 kg)
Loaded weight: 20.640 lb (9.365 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 29.027 lb (13.170 kg)
Powerplant
1× Pratt & Whitney J57-P-21 turbojet with 10.200 lbf (45 kN) dry thrust and 16.000 lbf (71 kN) with afterburner:
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.86 (1.225 mph, 1.975 km/h) at 36,000 ft (11.000 m)
Combat radius: 450 mi (730 km)
Ferry range: 1.735 mi (2.795 km) with external fuel
Service ceiling: 58.000 ft (17.700 m)
Rate of climb: 31.950 ft/min (162.3 m/s)
Armament
1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61 Vulcan gatling cannon with 725 RPG
5 hardpoints for 6.000 lb of ordnance (2.727 kg); typically 2× or 4× AIM-9 Sidewinder under the wings, plus an optional drop tank under the fuselage.
The kit and its assembly:
This is a totally fictional aircraft with no real paradigm. The initial idea was that I wondered if one could not make something from an early MiG-21F with its small diameter air intake, when this would be replaced by a radome?
That the project eventually evolved into a kind of anti-Starfighter came through the wings: there was the problem of placing the air intakes somewhere. To solve that problem I remembered the Tamiya 1:100 F-105 kit, I built one years ago and it’s still available, even though I had to import a NIB kit from Hong Kong for this occasion. Calculations had indicated that the wing size and span would match a 1:72 MiG-21 well, and so the F-112 was born*. The Thunderchief’s air intakes are SO characteristic that anything else than a Republic design was out of question, the rest was spun around this basic idea.
But back to the model itself: the whole thing is a true Frankenstein job, puzzled together from a lot of bits and pieces. The most important ingredients:
● Fuselage from a 1:72 Academy MiG-21F, incl. canopy
● Radome from a 1:72 Hasegawa F-4E
● Wings, pylons and main landing gear from a 1:100 Tamiya F-105
● Stabilizer fins from a 1:72 Revell F-16, shortened
● Main wheels from a 1:72 Hobby Boss F-86F
● Fin from a 1:100 Il-28(!)
● Horizontal stabilizers from a 1:72 Matchbox A-7E w. reduced span
● Front wheel from an 1:72 Italeri A-4M
● Engine nozzle from a 1:72 Matchbox F-104G
● The afterburner inside is actually a sprocket wheel from an 1:72 ESCI M1A1 Abrams
● Cockpit tub and dashboard come from a 1:72 Heller Alpha Jet
● Seat and pilot from Matchbox (unknown origin)
The MiG-21 lost any characteristic detail (blow-in doors, 30mm cannons, slots for wings and stabilizers, even its fin and spine), and the landing gear wells were covered. The F-105 wings were placed slightly lower on the fuselage side. The fin was simply replaced, the tail a bit shortened and the new/bigger nozzle attached. The new nose had almost the same diameter as the original air intake piece from the Academy MiG-21F. For the Corsair II stabilizers, ‘consoles’ were added on the lower rear fuselage, so that they could also be placed in a lower position.
My plan/wish was to make the thing look as little MiG-21ish as possible, and IMHO I succeeded well. Actually, the Thunderdart reminds a LOT of the much bigger F-105, and there is also a lot of F-101 in it, too, despite its ADC livery? You take at least two looks, since proportions are different from the F-105, yet the thing looks VERY familiar… “Could it have been…?”
External loads were limited to just two AIM-9 training rounds with launch rails under the outer pylons, even though all wing pylons were fitted (the Tamiya kit has large slots to hold them, I was too lazy to fill them).
The cannon bulges, the IR sensor as well as some air scoops and antennae were sculpted from simple pieces of sprue or styrene.
Painting and markings:
As an USAF/ADC interceptor, an overall Aircraft Grey (FS 36473, used ModelMaster 1731) was clear from the start – and it’s actually a fine option, as the F-105 as lookalike benchmark was basically only operated in bare metal or SEA camouflage. An ADC aircraft would be deceiving, too, and provoke third looks.
The cockpit interior was painted medium grey, the landing gear wells in interior green and the air intakes in white with red trim.
Anyway, making an ANG aircraft from this base was more tricky. At first I wanted to create an Oklahoma ANG aircraft (had some nice markings for the fin, but they turned out to me too large since they belong to a modern F-16…), but finally settled on a D.C. Air Guard aircraft since I had such fuselage markings from a F-86H at hand.
Basic tone is an overall FS 16473 ADC Grey (Testors 1731), some panels on the upper side and the flanks were highlighted with a slightly lighter grey (FS 16515). The cockpit front area received a flat black anti-glare panel, to which a black trim was added - F-106 style, and this turned out to be VERY characteristic, if not deceiving! Around the rear fuselage some heat marks – reminiscent of the F-100 – were added through metallizer (Steel and Titanium, partly mixed with Humbrol 113, Rust) and some dry-painting. The kit was then lightly weathered through a thin wash with black ink and very light dry-painting with pale grey.
The colorful fin markings were designed by myself – inspired by a 2008 postal stamp from the ‘Flags of our Nation’series. My fin decoration is purely fictional, though, and incorporates the D.C. flag (two red horizontal bars on a white ground, with three red stars above) as well as some iconic cherry blossoms, as these seem to be a local identity symbol? Additionally the fin features on one side the District of Columbia Sign, on the other side the Eastern Air Defence Sector badge. The fin decoration was created on a PC with Corel Draw and printed on Experts' Choice white decal paper with an inkjet printer at 600dpi - even though the touchy decals suffered under the soaking process... A lot of cosmetic correction had to be done by hand/brush, it's far from perfect, just the result of my first large scale self-.made decal experiment. The rest of the markings were puzzled together from the scrap box.
After painting and decals, the kit received an overall coat of semi-gloss Humbrol varnish, since I wanted a slight shine but not a hi-gloss finish. The anti-glare panel was covered with matt varnish - which did not dry up properly, leaving a milky film. Nevertheless, it looks like sun-bleached black paint, so I kept it. Undesired side effect... The radome was painted with gloss varnish, so that three shades of black meet at the Thunderdart's nose.
A major kitbash. The Thunderdart looks unspectacular, but it is IMHO very deceiving. It combines characteristic elements of various Century fighters in shape and color, and it should keep some folks wondering what's actually wrong about it... Sleek aircraft - behold what's in a simple 1st generation MiG-21!
*As a side note: This what-if kit originally bore the designation “F-109”, which was originally allocated to a Bell VTOL aircraft that never made it beyond a mock-up stage. “F-109”, however, has recently found a common use for a fictional fighter which is more or less a crossbreed of an F-104 with F-100 wings and a low tail, so I switched to “F-112” for my own Thunderdart creation. “F-112” had NEVER been used, even though Douglas had used the F-112 code for an F-101 development, but only for internal purposes. Offially it has AFAIK never been used.
+++ 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:
RWD was a Polish aircraft construction bureau active between 1928 and 1939. It started as a team of three young designers, Stanisław Rogalski, Stanisław Wigura and Jerzy Drzewiecki, whose names formed the RWD acronym.
They started work while studying at Warsaw University of Technology. In December 1925, with some other student constructors, they set up workshops at the Aviation Section of Mechanics Students' Club (Sekcja Lotnicza Koła Mechaników Studentów), where they manufactured their first designs. From 1926 they designed several aircraft alone, in 1928 they joined forces as one team, starting with RWD-1 sportsplane. Apart from building planes, J. Drzewiecki was a test pilot of their designs, while S. Wigura flew as a mechanic in competitions. In 1930 the team was moved to new workshops at Okęcie district in Warsaw, near the Polish Air Force’s Okęcie aerodrome, today's Warsaw International Airport.
At first, the RWD team designed and built light sportsplanes. Early designs were built in small series and used in Polish sports aviation, including their debut at the Challenge 1930 international contest. Their next designs performed particularly well in competitions - the RWD-6 won the Challenge 1932 and RWD-9s won the Challenge 1934 international contest. The sportsplane RWD-5 was the lightest plane to fly across the Atlantic in 1933. Three types saw mass production: the RWD-8, which became the Polish Air Force basic trainer, the RWD-13 touring plane and the RWD-14 Czapla reconnaissance plane. Other important designs were the RWD-10 aerobatic plane (1933), RWD-17 aerobatic-trainer plane (1937) and RWD-21 light sport plane (1939). Their most ambitious design that entered the hardware stage and eventually took to flight was the RWD-24, a fighter aircraft. However, World War II prevented further development and serial production of later RWD designs, and also put an end to the RWD construction bureau and its workshops.
The RWD-24 had been designed in response to a requirement for a fighter issued by the Polish Air Force in 1934. RWD responded and built a prototype of mixed materials, heavily influenced by French designs and resources, since Poland had procured several fighter, bomber and reconnaissance aircraft from France during the mid-twenties.
RWD’s design team quickly projected that only a monoplane design would be capable of delivering the desired level of performance sought; other modern features were to include a fully enclosed cockpit, a variable-pitch propeller, and landing flaps. The resulting RWD-24 was a high-wing monoplane of mixed construction, with fabric-covered wooden tail and rudders. The wings were directly attached to the upper fuselage and braced. They consisted of a two-spar duralumin structure, complete with rivetted ribs to both the spars and skin. The exterior of the wing was covered by finely corrugated duralumin sheet, while the slotted ailerons had a fabric covering.
Power came from a water-cooled Hispano-Suiza Y V12 engine – a novelty among Polish fighter designs, which traditionally relied upon radial engines, e.g. the Bristol Mercury and Jupiter, imported as license builds from Czechoslovakia (Skoda). The Hispano-Suiza engine meant a considerable step forward, though, since it increased the output by almost +50%, with appreciable improvements of overall performance that promised to put the RWD-24 on eye level with other contemporary foreign monoplane fighters.
In order to improve performance further, much effort was put into aerodynamic effectiveness, despite a rather conservative structure with bracing struts for the wings and stabilizers. For instance, the ventral radiator could be retracted manually, adapting the frontal area to the engine’s cooling needs. The RWD-24’s landing gear was fixed but covered with aerodynamic fairings and spats.
Armament consisted of a 20 mm (0.787 in) Hispano-Suiza HS.404 cannon with 60 rounds from a drum magazine, mounted as a “moteur canon” between the cylinder banks and firing through the propeller hub, plus two pairs of 7.92 mm (0.312 in) KM Wz 33 machine guns with 450 RPG in the wings outside of the propeller disc. The prototypes only carried the cannon and a single pair of machine guns, though.
First flown by RWD-founder Jerzy Drzewiecki himself, the first prototype demonstrated the type's favorable flying characteristics from the onset – even though the poor field of view for the pilot ahead and downwards during landing and taxiing was criticized. Another critical point was the retractable radiator; while it allowed a remarkable boost in top speed for short periods, the manual temperature management – esp. during combat situations – turned out to be impractical and an automated solution was requested. The firepower of the 20mm cannon received praise, too, despite its limited ammunition capacity. After 80 hours of test flights, in January 1936, the prototype was delivered with all military equipment fitted to the Polish Air Force at Okęcie aerodrome to participate in service trials, while a second prototype was built in parallel and joined the program in May. It differed from the first RWD-24 through a different tail section, which was covered with a bonded metal/wood material (Plymax) skin fixed to duralumin tubing.
Despite its good handling qualities and impressive performance (the contemporary Polish standard fighter, the PZL P.11, had a top speed of 390 km/h (240 mph, 210 kn), while the RWD-24 surpassed 440 km/h (273 mph, 240 kn) at ideal altitude), both the shape and basic configuration of the RWD-24 were hotly contended, particularly between 'traditional' advocates of biplane aircraft and supporters of 'modern' monoplane with retractable landing gear. The RWD-24 would not satisfy either party, and the high wing layout offered no real development potential, together with the field of view issues. Only a complete redesign of the RWD-24 into a low-wing configuration with a retractable landing gear would have been a viable solution. RWD engineers deemed this task to be feasible, but the Polish Air Force did not want to wait any longer for a new fighter aircraft. In consequence, the RWD-24’s development was officially stopped in early 1938, after only two airframes had been built. In the meantime, RWD had also started work on a dedicated low-wing fighter powered by a 800 hp (597 kW) Gnome-Rhône Mars radial engine, the RWD-25, but until then only a mock-up of this alternative type had been built.
However, the two RWD-24 prototypes remained based at Okęcie and were further tested by both the company and by the Polish Air Force. During these test in 1938, the RWD-24s were, among others, evaluated against a Hawker Hurricane Mk.I and a Dewoitine D.520 that had been delivered to Poland for trials (and eventual sales). In the meantime, driven by rising political tensions and threatened by neighboring Germany, the Polish Air Force had started to follow the idea of importing fully developed monoplane fighters in order to quickly boost the country’s air power and deterrent potential. This eventually led to the procurement of Hawker Hurricanes from Great Britain in 1939. But this decision came too late: the fighters were not delivered before 1 September 1939, when Germany invaded Poland, and the Polish Hurricanes on order were alternatively sent to Turkey instead.
Upon the German invasion the RWD-24 prototypes were, together with most other active Polish combat aircraft, dispersed to secondary airfields and allocated to the so-called Pursuit Brigade, deployed in the Warsaw area, where both served until they became unserviceable after a week, due to their exotic nature. Their fate remains unclear, though, since both machines disappeared. But most likely they were both destroyed within two weeks, like 70% of the Polish Air Force’s aircraft.
General characteristics:
Crew: One
Length: 8.17 m (26 ft 10 in)
Wingspan: 10.72 m (35 ft 2 in)
Height: 3.05 m (10 ft)
Wing area: 21 m² (240 sq ft)
Empty weight: 1,328 kg (2,928 lb)
Gross weight: 1,890 kg (4,167 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 2,000 kg (4,409 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Hispano-Suiza 12Ybrp V-12 liquid-cooled piston engine,
delivering 565 kW (785 hp) for take-off at 2,520 rpm at sea level
and driving a two-position variable pitch three blade metal propeller
Performance:
Maximum speed: 443 km/h (275 mph; 239 kn) at 2,000 m (6,600 ft)
Landing speed: 102 km/h (63 mph; 55 kn)
Range: 1,100 km (680 mi, 590 nmi) at 66% power
Combat range: 720 km (450 mi, 390 nmi)
Endurance: 2 hours 20 minutes 30 seconds (average combat mission)
Service ceiling: 9,400 m (30,800 ft)
Time to altitude: 4,500 m (14,764 ft) in 6 minutes 16 seconds
Take-off run: 100 m (328 ft)
Landing run: 275 m (902 ft)
Armament:
1x 20 mm (0.787 in) Hispano-Suiza HS.404 cannon with 60 rounds, firing through the propeller hub
4x* 7.92 mm (0.312 in) KM Wz 33 machine guns with 450 RPG (*projected for production aircraft,
the prototypes only carried two of these weapons)
The kit and its assembly:
This was a rather spontaneous submission for the “Prototypes” group build at whatifmodelers.com in July 2020, originally spawned by the idea of retrograding a Morane Saulnier MS.406 into a biplane with a fixed landing gear, a kind of French Gloster Gladiator. However, this changed when I found a surplus Mistercraft PZL P.7 kit in the stash, which had been part of a combo deal some time ago. Why not use it for a kitbashing and create a late interwar period Polish fighter prototype from the MS.406…?
The MS.406 fuselage comes from the simple Hobby Boss kit, even though some serious bodywork had to be done in order to make the low wing attachment points and the respective large wing root fairings disappear – on the simple Hobby Boss kit, wings and lower fuselage are one integral part, so that some major cutting and PSR were necessary to create a new, “clean” lower fuselage. For the new wings a piece of the cowling in front of the windscreen had to be cut out, the result looks very natural, though, the P.7 wing literally fell into place. The P.7 wings were taken, together with their respective support struts, wholesale from the Mistercraft kit, I just added flaps and lowered them, and I added fairings under the wings for the machine guns – OOB the kit comes with shallow holes that look a bit strange?
The empennage was taken over from the MS.406, but the stabilizers were replaced with the P.7’s, because they were bigger and their shape matches the fin so well. The fixed landing gear is a donor from an ICM Heinkel He 51 floatplane (surplus parts), it was just shortened by about 2mm in order to avoid an exaggerated nose-up stance due to the high propeller position.
The cockpit was taken OOB, just a pilot figure was added to hide the Hobby Boss kit’s rather basic interior.
Painting and markings:
Prototype liveries tend to be dry affairs, and therefore my RWD-24 received a standard pre-WWII livery for Polish aircraft in a uniform brownish-green khaki (”Light Polish Khaki”) over light blue wing undersides. For the very unique khaki tone I used Modelmaster 1711 (FS 34087, a rather yellowish interpretation of this tone), while the wings’ undersides were painted with Humbrol 65 (Aircraft Blue). The khaki tone was - on Polish high wing aircraft of the time - typically carried on the whole fuselage, including the undersides, so I adopted the tone for the complete landing gear and the wing struts, too. For a little more variety, I gave the engine a cowling in a bare metal finish (Humbrol Polished Aluminum Metallizer) and the airframe parts that are covered with fabric were apinted with Humbrol 155 - FS 34087, too, but a morre greenish and darker interpretation of this tone.
The kit received a black ink washing and some post-shading through dry-brushing of single panels with lighter tones. The cockpit interior was painted in a medium grey, the propeller blades became Revell 99 (Aluminum) with red tips, a black spinner and partly blackened back sides (in order to avoid light reflections that could blind the pilot).
Most markings come from a Polish aircraft aftermarket sheet. The red lightning cheatline on the fuselage and on the wings were borrowed from Indonesian MiG-21Fs (from two Begemot sheets). The contrast to the khaki is not strong, but I thought that some decoration would suit a prototype fighter well. The tactical codes consist of single white and black letters (both TL Modellbau stuff).
After some exhaust and gun soot stains the model was finally sealed with matt acrylic varnish, just the metallic cowling and the spinner received a light shine.
While the outcome looks rather unsuspicious, this kitbashing was a lot of work – esp. the landing gear and the cosmetic surgery to remove the MS.406’s lower wings was more demanding than I had thought at first. But the fictional RWD-24 looks very conclusive, a wild mix between outdated and modern features, so typical for many interwar designs. And the Polish colors and markings suit the model well, 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 Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe or Sturmvogel (English: "Swallow"/ "Storm Bird") was the world's second operational jet-powered fighter aircraft. Design work started before World War II began, but engine problems and top-level interference kept the aircraft from operational status with the Luftwaffe until mid-1944.
The Me 262 was faster, and more heavily-armed than any Allied fighter, including the British jet-powered Gloster Meteor which entered service in the UK a month earlier than the Me 262. One of the most advanced aviation designs in operational use during World War II, the Me 262 was used in a variety of roles, including light bomber, reconnaissance, and even experimental night fighter versions.
The latter was a variant that was direly needed, and the development of a fast night fighter led to several prototypes and an operational interim version. Several two-seat trainer variants of the Me 262, the Me 262 B-1a, had been adapted through the Umrüst-Bausatz 1 factory refit package as night fighters, complete with on-board FuG 218 Neptun high-VHF band radar, using Hirschgeweih ("stag's antlers") antennae with a set of shorter dipole elements than the Lichtenstein SN-2 had used, as the B-1a/U1 version. Serving with 10 Staffel, Nachtjagdgeschwader 11, near Berlin, these few aircraft (alongside several single-seat examples) accounted for most of the 13 Mosquitoes lost over Berlin in the first three months of 1945.
Anyway, the Me 262 B-1a's deficiencies were clear from the start and in parallel Messerschmitt already worked on a dedicated night fighter variant that would offer a better performance (primarily concerning range and speed) than the converted trainer, which was, nevertheless, rushed into service and gathered valuable information.
Initially, the idea of a night-fighter 262 was developed independently by Messerschmitt as the Me 262B-2. It was to have a longer fuselage accommodating the two crew, internal fuel tanks with the capacity comparable to that of a single-seat variant, and a Berlin radar antenna hidden inside the modified nose cone. However, by the end of 1944 the war situation deteriorated so rapidly that it was realized that an interim solution must be found before the B-2 could reach production status.
Instead of the complex B-2 Messerschmitt also proposed a less ambitious approach which would use as many Me 262 fighter components as possible, primarily the aerodynamic surfaces, the engines and the landing gear. This proposal was accepted by the RLM in September 1944 and became the Me 262 G.
This variant received a completely re-designed and aerodynamically refined fuselage. It was, from the start, tailored to carry the heavy radar equipment, a second crew member as radar operator and navigator and a bigger fuselage tank (the trainers that were converted into night fighters had part of their fuel capacity reduced to make place for the 2nd seat). The result was a slender, streamlined aircraft with a considerably smaller cross section than the Me 262 day fighter/bomber.
The crew was separated into two cabins in front and behind the fuselage main tank. This arrangement also offered enough space for a "Schräge Musik" installation (a pair of guns firing upwards, either two 20mm MG 151/20 or two 30mm MK 108), to allow the night fighter to attack RAF bombers from their belly blind spot.
The main armament was a pair of MK 103 30mm cannons - while this was a reduction of firepower compared to the Me 262 B-1a, the MK 103 was much more accurate, had a longer range and a much higher muzzle velocity (860 m/s (2,822 ft/s) versus 540 m/s (1,800 ft/s) with HE/M), so that targets could be engaged at longer distance with less expenditure of ammunition and further outside of the bombers' defensive fire.
The first operational version, the G-1, was ready for service in December 1944 and exclusively delivered to the NJG 6, based in southern Germany after withdrawal from Romania and regrouping.The G-1 still carried the FuG 218 Neptun radar, still coupled with a high drag Hirschgeweih antenna and with a FuG 350 Zc Naxos radar warning receiver/detector, but the G-1 was still faster than the B-1a and had a longer range on internal fuel than the B-1a with two external 300l drop tanks, which further reduced top speed. Later versions (G-2) were supposed to carry the more modern FuG 240 with a parabolic dish antenna under a more treamlined thimble nose radome, and a single seat long range reconnaissance version (G-3) was also planned, which would carry no guns but an camera array in the radar operators's place.
Anyway, only about 20 Me 262 G-1 were delivered to NJG 6 at all, and probably less than a dozen were operational when Germany surrendered. The G-3 recce variant remained on the drawing board, while two prototypes with radomes for the FuG 240 were under construction and underwent wind tunnel tests.
General characteristics:
Crew: 2
Length overall: 11.67 m (38 ft 3 in)
Wingspan: 12.60 m (41 ft 6 in)
Height: 3.50 m (11 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 21.7 m² (234 ft²)
Empty weight: 3,795 kg[101] (8,366 lb)
Loaded weight: 6,473 kg[101] (14,272 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 7,130 kg[101] (15,720 lb)
Powerplant:
Aspect ratio: 7.32
Powerplant:
2× Junkers Jumo 004 B-1 turbojets, 8.8 kN (1,980 lbf) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 900 km/h (559 mph)
Range: 1,050 km (652 mi)
Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,565 ft)
Rate of climb: 1,200 m/min (At max weight of 7,130 kg) (3,900 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 0.28
Armament:
2x 30mm MK 103 cannon in the lower front fuselage with 120 RPG
2x 30mm MK 108 cannon "Schräge Musik" installation with 80 RPG,
angled 70° upwards, between the cockpits
2x hardpoints under the wings, each able to carry up to 250kg (550lb), including bombs, drop tanks or unguided missiles (rarely used)
The kit and its assembly:
Connoisseurs will immediately recognize this kitbash - and the Me 262 G was spawned from the thought that the Japanese Ki-46 was such an elegant aircraft - wouldn't a jet version somehow make sense? So, initially this was supposed to become a Hikoki '46 model, but when I held some Me 262 parts next to the Ki-46's fuselage the idea of a Luftwaffe night fighter was born.
And this actually worked better than expected. This whif is a kitbash of an Airfix Ki-46 fuselage with wings, tail, engines, landing gear and Hirschgeweih from a Revell Me 262 B-1a.
Mating the parts went pretty straightforward, even though I made a mistake when I measured the position of the wing under the fuselage. Somehow it ended up 4-5mm too close to the nose - while the flaw was acceptable I decided to add a 5mm plug behind the pilot cockpit to compensate... And the added length just underlines the elegant Ki-46 lines.
In order to keep the model on its three feet lots of lead beads were hidden in the fuselage, the nose tip and even the front ends of the engine nacelles. Since the Ki-46 fuselage is considerably smaller than the Me 262's I had to fill the wing roots with putty, but that was a rather easy task.
Painting and markings:
I wanted something different from other German night fighters/bombers I had already built, yet a simple livery. Since many German night fighters left the factories in an overall RLM 76 finish I used this as a basis and just added mottles in RLM 75 on the upper surfaces - inspired by a Ta 154 Moskito night fighter prototype.
The cockpits were painted in very dark grey (RLM 66) while the landing gear and the respective wells were painted with RLM 02. Everything very conventional.
The markings were puzzled together - the national markings and stencils come from the Revell Me 262 B-1a sheet while the registration was created from single aftermarket letters, matching a hypothetical aircraft from 4. Staffel, II./NJG 6 in code and colors.
The kit received a light black in wash and some dry-brushing to emphasize panel lines. On the fuselage, however, I painted some panel lines with a pencil, since the Airfix Ki-46 is completely bare of details. Some soot stains around the guns were added with graphite and finally everything sealed under matt acrylic varnish.
A simple kitbashing project, and I am amazed how plausible the Ki-46/Me 262 mix looks, despite the mistake I made with the wing position. I wonder how a Ki-46 III with its streamlined cockpit would look in this case?
+++ 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 ZSU-62 (Zenitnaya Samokhodnaya Ustanovka = anti-aircraft self-propelled mount) was a potential successor for the Soviet ZSU-57-2 SPAAG, developed in parallel with the ZSU-23-4. But unlike its brethren, the ZSU-62 was only produced in limited numbers, but it received limited fame during its late operational second-line career when it was successfully deployed to Afghanistan.
The ZSU’62’s roots were laid down just after WWII with the ZSU-57-2. The first prototype (Objekt 500) was completed in the summer of 1950, production began in 1955. The vehicle was built using a modified chassis of the new T-54 tank and was armed with two S-68 57 mm cannons – at the time the most powerful guns mounted in an anti-aircraft system. The modification of the chassis included reducing the road wheels per side to four and using lighter armor. The ZSU-57-2 was powered by a V-54 12-cylinder diesel engine providing 520 hp. Despite the weight of 28 tons, thanks to the strong engine, the maximum speed was 50 km/h. With a fuel load of 850 liters, the operational range was 420 km.
Each cannon had a (theoretical) rate of fire of 240 rounds per minute with a muzzle velocity of 1,000 m/s. Maximum horizontal range was 12 km (with an effective range against ground targets of up to 4 km / 2.5 miles), maximum vertical range was 8.8 km (with a maximum effective vertical range of 4.5 km / 14,750 ft). The effective range, when used against flying targets, was 6 km. Armor-piercing rounds were able to penetrate 110 mm armor at 500 m or 70 mm armor at 2,000 m (at 90° impact angle).
Rate of fire was 120 RPM, but this was only a theoretical number, because each gun was fed with separate four-shot magazines so that only bursts and no continuous fire was possible. Both fragmentation and armor-piercing ammunition were available. The ZSU-57-2’s total ammunition load was 300 rounds, with 176 rounds being stored inside the turret and the remaining in the hull. To efficiently operate the vehicle, six crew members were needed: commander, gunner, loader, driver, and two sight adjusters.
The ZSU-57-2 had serious firepower that could easily destroy any aerial target but had many issues. The greatest weaknesses were the lack of modern range-finding and radar equipment, the impossibility of engaging targets at night or while on the move, the lack of protection for its crew (being open-topped), and low ammunition count. Nevertheless, more than 2.000 ZSU-57-2s were eventually built. While many would be sold to other Warsaw Pact countries, like East Germany, Romania, and Poland, its service within the Soviet Army was limited, because of its many operational deficiencies.
This led in 1957 to a new SPAAG program for the Soviet Army and initiated the development of the ZSU-23-4 "Shilka", the ZSU-37-2 "Yenisei" and a new ZSU-57-2 “Kama” (all baptized after Russian rivers) with the outlook to replace the original ZSU-57-2 by the mid to late Sixties. These vehicles were intended for AA defense of military facilities, troops, and mechanized columns on the march. “Shilka” was intended for close range defense (esp. against low-flying attack helicopters) while the more powerful guns of "Yenisei" and “Kama” were judged to be effective at covering the inner dead-zone of Soviet surface-to-air missile systems between 1.000 and 6.000 m altitude, with a focus on attack aircraft and more heavily armored targets.
All designs were based on existing tracked chassis’ and featured completely enclosed turrets as well as a proven radar system, the RPK-2 "Tobol" radar (NATO designator: "Gun Dish"). The ZSU-37-2 was soon dropped in favor of the higher firepower and range of the 57mm guns, so that both “Shilka” and “Kama” entered the hardware stage at Omsk Works No. 174.
However, “Kama” lagged behind the “Shilka” development because several technical and conceptual problems had to be solved. For instance, even though the armament still consisted of two proven S-68 cannon, the weapons’ mount had to be developed new to fit into the enclosed cast turret. To save space, both weapons were now mounted directly side-by-side. Their feeding system was furthermore changed from magazines to belts, what considerably improved the SPAAG’s firepower and now allowed continuous fire at a higher rate of fire of 150 RPM per gun. For sufficient flexibility, a belt-switching mechanism allowed to choose between two different ammunition supplies: each gun had supplies of 220 and 35 rounds, normally occupied with HE fragmentation and armor-piercing tracer (AP-T) shells, respectively, against aerial and armored ground targets. Changing between the two feeds just took a couple of seconds.
The twin S-68s were recoil-operated and the whole mount (without feeding mechanism) weighed 4,500 kg. The guns had a recoil of between 325 and 370 mm, and each air-cooled gun barrel, fitted with a muzzle brake, was 4365 mm long (76.6 calibers). The weapons could be elevated or depressed between −5° and +80° at a speed of between 0.3° and 32° per second, while the turret could traverse 360° at a speed of between 0.2° and 52° per second. Drive was from a direct current electric motor and universal hydraulic speed gears.
The “Kama” crew numbered four: driver (in the hull), commander, gunner and radar operator (all in the turret). The heavy guns, their ammunition supply and the radar system had to be housed in a turret, together with decent armor, and this resulted in a considerable volume and weight (a single 57 mm projectile alone already weighed 2.8 kg). Several layouts were tested, but weight and volume of the systems made it impossible to mate the “Kama” turret on the T-54/55 chassis, which was available in ample numbers for conversions. The limiting factor was the T-54/55’s relatively small turret bearing diameter.
To solve this problem, the “Kama” designers chose the more modern T-62 as chassis basis. It was outwardly very similar to the former T-54/55, but it featured a 2245 mm turret ring (250 mm more than the T-54/55’s bearing) that was able to take a much bigger/wider/heavier turret than its predecessor. Furthermore, the T-62 represented the Soviet Army’s “state of the art”. The choice of the T-62 ensured many component and maintenance communalities with the operational MBT and it also meant that the “Kama” SPAAG could operate in the same environment and the same pace as the T-62. In order to save costs and development time, the T-62 chassis was taken “as is”, with the same engine and armor level as the MBT. There were only minor changes in the electric components, e. g. a more powerful generator for the radar system.
In this combination, “Kama” eventually entered tests and state acceptance trials as “Object 503”. During these tests, some final changes to layout and equipment were made; for instance, the RPK-2’s dish-shaped radome received a retractable mount that allowed the antenna to be raised higher above the turret in order to avoid clutter and to protect the antenna when the vehicle was on the move.
The tests lasted until 1963 and were successful, so that an initial batch of 100 serial production tanks was ordered the same year. In order to avoid confusion with the old ZSU-57-2 from 1955, the new tank with the same armament was pragmatically designated ZSU-62.
Alas, while production of the “Kama” turrets ran up to be mated with T-62 hulls at the Uralvagonzavod factory in Nizhny Tagil, the ZSU-62’s future had already been sealed by the fast pace of technical developments: in the meantime MANPADS (Man Portable Air Defense System) had taken the medium-range SPAAG’s place and a foot soldier could now fulfill the same mission as an expensive and bulky 40 ton tank, so that the medium range/altitude gap between the ZSU-23-4 (which had already entered service) and heavier surface-to-air missile systems would not be filled with a dedicated vehicle anymore. The ZSU-62 had become superfluous the moment it had reached the first frontline units, and large-scale production was immediately stopped.
However, the initial production run was nevertheless completed until 1967, and the ZSU-62s were primarily sent to training units, where the vehicles were – due to their turrets’ shape – nicknamed “черепаха“ (turtle).
This could have been the ZSU-62’s fate, but the Soviet Union’s intervention in Afghanistan brought it back into frontline service. Since December 1978, the Afghan government called on Soviet forces, which were introduced in the spring and summer of 1979 to provide security and to assist in the fight against the mujaheddin rebels. After the killing of Soviet technicians in Herat by rioting mobs, the Soviet government sold several Mi-24 helicopters to the Afghan military and increased the number of military advisers in the country to 3,000. In April 1979, the Afghan government requested that the USSR send 15 to 20 helicopters with their crews to Afghanistan, and on June 16, the Soviet government responded and sent a detachment of tanks, BMPs, and crews to guard the government in Kabul and to secure the Bagram and Shindand airfields. In response to this request, an airborne battalion arrived at the Bagram Air Base on July 7, and ground forces were deployed from Turkmenistan territory into northern Afghanistan, securing the supply lines.
Experience in the mountainous Afghan landscape soon made the shortcomings of standard MBTs apparent, namely their lack of gun elevation, esp. when attacking hideouts and posts in high locations. While the ZSU-23-4 “Shilka” was readily available and used against such targets, it lacked range and firepower to take out protected posts at distances more than 2.000 m away. This led to the decision to send roundabout 40 ZSU-62s to the Afghan theatre of operations, where they were primarily used against ground targets – both fortifications as well as armored and unarmored vehicles. The weapons’ precision and range proved to be valuable assets, with devastating effect, and the vehicles remained in active service until 1985 when their role was more and more taken over by helicopters and aircraft like the new Su-25. The ZSU-62 were, nevertheless, still employed for aerial airfield defense and as a deterrent against ground attacks.
With the USSR’s withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1988 and 1989, the last operational ZSU-62s were retired. In the training units, the vehicles had already been replaced by ZSU-23-4s by 1984.
Specifications:
Crew: Four (commander, gunner, radar operator, driver)
Weight: 37 t (41 short tons; 36 long tons)
Length: 6.63 m (21 ft 9 in) hull only
9.22 m (30 ft 3½ in) with barrel in forward position
Width: 3.30 m (10 ft 10 in)
Height: 3.88 m (12 ft 9 in) with search radar fully extended,
2.84 m (9 ft 3¾ in) with search radar stowed
Suspension: Torsion bar
Ground clearance: 425 mm (16.7 in)
Fuel capacity: 960 l
Armor:
20 mm (hull bottom) – 102 mm (hull front)
Performance:
Speed: 50 km/h (31 mph) on roads,
40 km/h (25 mph) cross country)
Range: 450 km (280 mi) on road;
650 km (400 mi) with two 200 l (53 US gal; 44 imp gal) extra fuel tanks;
320 km (200 mi) cross-country
450 km (280 mi) with two 200-liter extra fuel tanks
Climbing ability: 0.7 m (2.3')
Maximum climb gradient: 30°
Trench crossing ability: 2.5 m (8.2')
Fording depth: 1.0 m (3.3')
Operational range: 500 km (310 mi)
Power/weight: 14.5 hp/tonne (10.8 kW/tonne)
Engine:
1x V-55 12-cylinder 4-stroke one-chamber 38.88 liter water-cooled diesel engine
with 581 hp (433 kW) at 2,000 rpm
Transmission:
Hydromechanical
Armament:
2× S-68 57mm (1.5 in) cannon with 255 rounds each
The kit and its assembly:
This fictional tank model came to be as a classic what-if, based on the question “what could have been a successor of the Soviet ZSU-57-2 SPAAG?”. Not an existential question that comes to your mind frequently, but it made me wonder – also because the real-world successor, the ZSU-23-4 “Shilka”, lacked the ZSU-57-2’s range and large-caliber firepower.
From this conceptual basis I decided to retain the 57mm twin guns, add an RPK-2 radar and mount these into a fully enclosed turret. The latter became a leftover M48 turret, which was suitably bulky, and the gun mount was taken from a Modelcollect E-75 SPAAG. However, both were heavily modified: the gun mount lost its boxy armor protection, just the brass barrels and the joint at the base were retained, the rest was scratched from styrene bits and wire. To accept the much taller weapon mount, the turret front had to be re-sculpted with putty, resulting in a boxier shape with steeper side walls – but the whole affair looks very organic. A simpler commander cupola was used and the whole radar dish arrangement on the rear roof was scratched, too.
The hull came from a Trumpeter T-62, just for the reasons explained in the background: the T-54/55 had a relatively small turret ring, and this caused severe development problems, because the MBT could not take a bigger turret and with it a more powerful cannon. Since this SPAAG would have been developed a couple of years later than the T-54/55, its successor, the T-62, appeared logical, and the “marriage” with the M48 turret worked like a charm. Even the turret’s adapter had the same diameter as the hull opening, I just had to modify the notches that hold it in place! The hull itself remained unmodified.
Painting and markings:
I wanted to place this SPAAG into the Afghanistan theatre of operations, and this was historically not very easy since I had to bridge some fifteen years of service to make this idea work. However, I found a story for the background, and the model received an appropriate paint scheme, based on real world vehicles around 1980 (actually from a BMP-1 operated in northern Afghanistan).
The camouflage consists of three tones, a pale/greyish sand, an olive drab tone and some contrasts in a dark, dull brown – it reminds of the US Army’s more complex MERDC scheme. The paints became Humbrol 167 (Hemp), Tamiya XF-62 (Olive Drab) and Humbrol 98 (Chocolate), even though the green appears darker than expected due to the high contrast with the sand tone.
The model received an overall washing with dark brown, highly thinned acrylic paint, and some dry-brushing with cream, faded olive drab and light grey. The few markings/decals were taken from the T-62 kit, and everything was sealed with matt acrylic varnish before the lower areas were finally dusted with a greyish-sand brown mix of artist pigments, simulating dust.
A plausible result, even though a cast turret might not appear to be a natural choice for a SPAAG? But the AMX-30 SPAAG from 1969 had a very similar design and there was a German prototype called “MATADOR” (a Gepard forerunner from 1968) that had a turret of similar shape, too. However, the kitbashed/scratched turret looks really good and convincing, and the T-62 hull is a great match for it in shape, size and timeframe. The ZSU-62 turned out way better than hoped for! :D
The kit and its assembly
This project/model belongs in the Luft '46 category, but it has no strict real world paradigm - even though Luftwaffe projects like the Ju 288, the BMW Schnellbomber designs or Arado's E560/2 and E560/7 had a clear influence. Actually, “my” Hü 324 design looks pretty much like a He 219 on steroids! Anyway, this project was rather inspired by a ‘click’ when two ideas/elements came together and started forming something new and convincing. This is classic kitbashing, and the major ingredients are:
● Fuselage, wings, landing gear and engine nacelles from a Trumpeter Ilyushin Il-28 bomber
● Nose section from an Italeri Ju 188 (donated from a friend, leftover from his Ju 488 project)
● Stabilisers from an Italeri B-25, replacing the Il-28’s swept tail
● Contraprops and fuselage barbettes from a vintage 1:100 scale Tu-20(-95) kit from VEB Plasticart (yes, vintage GDR stuff!)
Most interestingly, someone from the Netherlands had a similar idea for a kitbashing some years ago: www.airwar1946.nl/whif/L46-ju588.htm. I found this after I got my idea for the Hü 324 together, though - but its funny to see how some ideas manifest independently?
Building the thing went pretty straightforward, even though Trumpeter's Il-28 kit has a rather poor fit. Biggest problem turned out to be the integration of the Ju 188 cockpit section: it lacks 4-5mm in width! That does not sound dramatic, but it took a LOT of putty and internal stabilisation to graft the parts onto the Il-28's fuselage.
The cockpit was completely re-equipped with stuff from the scrap box, and the main landing gear received twin wheels.
The chin turret was mounted after the fuselage was complete, the frontal defence had been an issue I had been pondering about for a long while. Originally, some fixed guns (just as the Il-28 or Tu-16) had been considered. But when I found an old Matchbox B-17G turret in my scrap box, I was convinced that this piece could do literally the same job in my model, and it was quickly integrated. As a side effect, this arrangement justifies the bulged cockpit bottom well, and it just looks "more dangerous".
Another task was the lack of a well for the front wheel, after the Il-28 fuselage had been cut and lacked the original interior. This was also added after the new fuselage had been fitted together, and the new well walls were built with thin polystyrene plates. Not 100% exact and clean, but the arrangement fits the bill and takes the twin front wheel.
The bomb bay was left open, since the Trumpeter kit offers a complete interior. I also added four underwing hardpoints for external loads (one pair in- and outboard of the engine nacelles), taken from A-7 Corsair II kits, but left them empty. Visually-guided weapons like the 'Fritz X' bomb or Hs 293 missiles would IMHO hardly make sense during night sorties? I also did not want to overload the kit with more and more distracting details.
Painting
Even though it is a whif I wanted to incorporate some serious/authentic late WWII Luftwaffe looks. Since the Hü 324 would have been an all-weather bomber, I went for a night bomber livery which was actually used on a He 177 from 2./KG 100, based in France: Black (RLM 22, I simply used Humbrol 33) undersides, and upper surfaces in RLM 76 (Base is Humbrol 128, FS36320, plus some added areas with Testors 2086, the authentic tone which is a tad lighter, but very close) with mottles in RLM 75 (Grauviolett, Testors 2085, plus some splotches of Humbrol 27, Medium Sea Grey), and some weathering through black ink, some panel lines with a mix of matte varnish and Panzergrau, plus some dry painting all over the fuselage.
Pretty simple scheme, but it looks VERY cool, esp. on this sleek aircraft. I am very happy with this decision, and I think that this rather simple livery is less distracting from the fantasy plane itself, making the whif less obvious. ;)
All interior surfaces were painted in RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau/Black Grey, Testors 2079), typical for German late WWII aircraft. In the end, the whole thing looks a bit grey-in-grey, but that spooky touch just adds to the menacing look of this beefy aircraft. I think it would not look as good if it had been kept in daytime RLM 74/75/76 or even RLM 82/83/76?
Markings and registration wwre puzzled together from an Authentic Decal aftermarket sheet for a late He 111 and individual letters from TL Modellbau. The "F3" code for the fictional Kampfgruppe (KG) 210 is a random choice, E (red) V marks the individual plane while the red E and the control letter "V" at the end designate a plane from the eleventh squadron. My idea is that the Hü 324 would replace these machines and literally taking their place in the frontline aviaton units. So I tried to keep in line with the German aircraft code, but after all, it's just a whif...
I kitbashed the Power Girl figure using the Jiaou doll instead of using the Tbleague body since the Jiaou seems much more curvey than the Tbleague bodies , especially the lower half of the bodies and she filled her suit a whole lot better .
+++ 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 Bell XP-68A owed its existence to the manufacturer’s rather disappointing outcome of its first jet fighter design, the XP-59A Airacomet. The Airacomet was a twin jet-engined fighter aircraft, designed and built during World War II after Major General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold became aware of the United Kingdom's jet program when he attended a demonstration of the Gloster E.28/39 in April 1941. He requested, and was given, the plans for the aircraft's powerplant, the Power Jets W.1, which he took back to the U.S. He also arranged for an example of the engine, the Whittle W.1X turbojet, to be flown to the U.S., along with drawings for the more powerful W.2B/23 engine and a small team of Power Jets engineers. On 4 September 1941, he offered the U.S. company General Electric a contract to produce an American version of the engine, which subsequently became the General Electric I-A. On the following day, he approached Lawrence Dale Bell, head of Bell Aircraft Corporation, to build a fighter to utilize it. As a disinformation tactic, the USAAF gave the project the designation "P-59A", to suggest it was a development of the unrelated, canceled Bell XP-59 fighter project. The P-59A was the first design fighter to have its turbojet engine and air inlet nacelles integrated within the main fuselage. The jet aircraft’s design was finalized on 9 January 1942 and the first prototype flew in October of the same year.
The following 13 service test YP-59As had a more powerful engine than their predecessor, the General Electric J31, but the improvement in performance was negligible, with top speed increased by only 5 mph and a slight reduction in the time they could be used before an overhaul was needed. One of these aircraft, the third YP-59A, was supplied to the Royal Air Force, in exchange for the first production Gloster Meteor I for evaluation and flight-offs with domestic alternatives.
British pilots found that the YP-59A compared very unfavorably with the jets that they were already flying. The United States Army Air Forces were not impressed by its performance either and cancelled the contract when fewer than half of the originally ordered aircraft had been produced. No P-59s entered combat, but the type paved the way for the next design generation of U.S. turbojet-powered aircraft and helped to develop appropriate maintenance structures and procedures.
In the meantime, a new, more powerful jet engine had been developed in Great Britain, the Halford H-1, which became later better known as the De Havilland Goblin. It was another centrifugal compressor design, but it produced almost twice as much thrust as the XP-59A’s J31 engines. Impressed by the British Gloster Meteor during the USAAF tests at Muroc Dry Lake - performance-wise as well as by the aircraft’s simplicity and ruggedness - Bell reacted promptly and proposed an alternative fighter with wing-mounted engine nacelles, since the XP-59A’s layout had proven to be aerodynamically sub-optimal and unsuited for the installation of H-1 engines. In order to save development time and because the aircraft was rather regarded as a proof-of-concept demonstrator instead of a true fighter prototype, the new aircraft was structurally based on Bell’s current piston-engine P-63 “Kingcobra”. The proposal was accepted and, in order to maintain secrecy, the new jet aircraft inherited once more a designation of a recently cancelled project, this time from the Vultee XP-68 “Tornado” fighter. Similar to the Airacomet two years before, just a simple “A” suffix was added.
Bell’s development contract covered only three XP-68A aircraft. The H-1 units were directly imported from Great Britain in secrecy, suspended in the bomb bays of B-24 Liberator bombers. A pair of these engines was mounted in mid-wing nacelles, very similar to the Gloster Meteor’s arrangement. The tailplane was given a 5° dihedral to move it out of the engine exhaust. In order to bear the new engines and their power, the wing main spars were strengthened and the main landing gear wells were moved towards the aircraft’s centerline, effectively narrowing track width. The landing gear wells now occupied the space of the former radiator ducts for the P-63’s omitted Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled V12 engine. Its former compartment behind the cockpit was used for a new fuel tank and test equipment. Having lost the propeller and its long drive shaft, the nose section was also redesigned: the front fuselage became deeper and the additional space there was used for another fuel tank in front of the cockpit and a bigger weapon bay. Different armament arrangements were envisioned, one of each was to be tested on the three prototypes: one machine would be armed with six 0.5” machine guns, another with four 20mm Hispano M2 cannon, and the third with two 37mm M10 cannon and two 0.5” machine guns. Provisions for a ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb were made, but this was never fitted on any of the prototypes. Additional hardpoints under the outer wings for smaller bombs or unguided missiles followed the same fate.
The three XP-68As were built at Bell’s Atlanta plant in the course of early 1944 and semi-officially christened “Airagator”. After their clandestine transfer to Muroc Dry Lake for flight tests and evaluations, the machines were quickly nicknamed “Barrelcobra” by the test staff – not only because of the characteristic shape of the engine nacelles, but also due to the sheer weight of the machines and their resulting sluggish handling on the ground and in the air. “Cadillac” was another nickname, due to the very soft acceleration through the new jet engines and the lack of vibrations that were typical for piston-engine- and propeller-driven aircraft.
Due to the structural reinforcements and modifications, the XP-68A had become a heavy aircraft with an empty weight of 4 tons and a MTOW of almost 8 tons – the same as the big P-47 Thunderbolt piston fighter, while the P-63 had an MTOW of only 10,700 lb (4,900 kg). The result was, among other flaws, a very long take-off distance, especially in the hot desert climate of the Mojave Desert (which precluded any external ordnance) and an inherent unwillingness to change direction, its turning radius was immense. More than once the brakes overheated during landing, so that extra water cooling for the main landing gear was retrofitted.
Once in the air, the aircraft proved to be quite fast – as long as it was flying in a straight line, though. Only the roll characteristics were acceptable, but flying the XP-68A remained hazardous, esp. after the loss of one of the H-1s engines: This resulted in heavily asymmetrical propulsion, making the XP-68A hard to control at all and prone to spin in level flight.
After trials and direct comparison, the XP-68A turned out not to be as fast and, even worse, much less agile than the Meteor Mk III (the RAF’s then current, operational fighter version), which even had weaker Derwent engines. The operational range was insufficient, too, esp. in regard of the planned Pacific theatre of operations, and the high overall weight precluded any considerable external load like drop tanks.
However, compared with the XP-59A, the XP-68A was a considerable step forward, but it had become quickly clear that the XP-68A and its outfit-a-propeller-design-with jet-engines approach did not bear the potential for any service fighter development: it was already outdated when the prototypes were starting their test program. No further XP-68A was ordered or built, and the three prototypes fulfilled their test and evaluation program until May 1945. During these tests, the first prototype was lost on the ground due to an engine fire. After the program’s completion, the two remaining machines were handed over to the US Navy and used for research at the NATC Patuxent River Test Centre, where they were operated until 1949 and finally scrapped.
General characteristics.
Crew: 1
Length: 33 ft 9 in (10.36 m)
Wingspan: 38 ft 4 in (11.7 m)
Height: 13 ft (3.96 m)
Wing area: 248 sq ft (23 m²)
Empty weight: 8,799 lb (3,995 kg)
Loaded weight: 15,138 lb (6,873 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 17,246 lb (7,830 kg)
Powerplant:
2× Halford H-1 (De Havilland Goblin) turbojets, rated at 3,500 lbf (15.6 kN) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 559 mph (900 km/h)
Range: 500 mi (444 nmi, 805 km)
Service ceiling: 37,565 ft (11,450 m)
Rate of climb: 3.930 ft/min (20 m/s)
Wing loading: 44.9 lb/ft² (218.97 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.45
Time to altitude: 5.0 min to 30,000 ft (9,145 m)
Armament:
4× Hispano M2 20 mm cannon with 150 rounds
One ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb
6× 60 lb (30 kg) rockets or 2× 500 lb (227 kg) bombs under the outer wings
The kit and its assembly:
This whiffy Kingcobra conversion was spawned by a post by fellow user nighthunter in January 2019 at whatifmodelers.com about a potential jet-powered variant. In found the idea charming, since the XP-59 had turned out to be a dud and the Gloster Meteor had been tested by the USAAF. Why not combine both into a fictional, late WWII Bell prototype?
The basic idea was simple: take a P-63 and add a Meteor’s engine nacelles, while keeping the Kingcobra’s original proportions. This sounds pretty easy but was more challenging than the first look at the outcome might suggest.
The donor kits are a vintage Airfix 1:72 Gloster Meteor Mk.III, since it has the proper, small nacelles, and an Eastern Express P-63 Kingcobra. The latter looked promising, since this kit comes with very good surface and cockpit details (even with a clear dashboard) as well as parts for several P-63 variants, including the A, C and even the exotic “pinball” manned target version. However, anything comes at a price, and the kit’s low price point is compensated by soft plastic (which turned out to be hard to sand), some flash and mediocre fit of any of the major components like fuselage halves, the wings or the clear parts. It feels a lot like a typical short-run kit. Nevertheless, I feel inclined to build another one in a more conventional fashion some day.
Work started with the H-1 nacelles, which had to be cut out from the Meteor wings. Since they come OOB only with a well-visible vertical plate and a main wing spar dummy in the air intake, I added some fine mesh to the plate – normally, you can see directly onto the engine behind the wing spar. Another issue was the fact that the Meteor’s wings are much thicker and deeper than the P-63s, so that lots of PSR work was necessary.
Simply cutting the P-63 OOB wings up and inserting the Meteor nacelles was also not possible: the P-63 has a very wide main landing gear, due to the ventral radiators and oil coolers, which were originally buried in the wing roots and under the piston engine. The only solution: move the complete landing gear (including the wells) inward, so that the nacelles could be placed as close as possible to the fuselage in a mid-span position. Furthermore, the - now useless - radiator openings had to disappear, resulting in a major redesign of the wing root sections. All of this became a major surgery task, followed by similarly messy work on the outer wings during the integration of the Meteor nacelles. LOTS of PSR, even though the outcome looks surprisingly plausible and balanced.
Work on the fuselage started in parallel. It was built mainly OOB, using the optional ventral fin for a P-63C. The exhaust stubs as well as the dorsal carburetor intake had to disappear (the latter made easy thanks to suitable optional parts for the manned target version). Since the P-63 had a conventional low stabilizer arrangement (unlike the Meteor with its cruciform tail), I gave them a slight dihedral to move them out of the engine efflux, a trick Sukhoi engineers did on the Su-11 prototype with afterburner engines in 1947, too.
Furthermore, the whole nose ahead of the cockpit was heavily re-designed, because I wanted the “new” aircraft to lose its propeller heritage and the P-63’s round and rather pointed nose. Somewhat inspired by the P-59 and the P-80, I omitted the propeller parts altogether and re-sculpted the nose with 2C putty, creating a deeper shape with a tall, oval diameter, so that the lower fuselage line was horizontally extended forward. In a profile view the aircraft now looks much more massive and P-80esque. The front landing gear was retained, just its side walls were extended downwards with the help of 0.5mm styrene sheet material, so that the original stance could be kept. Lots of lead in the nose ensured that the model would properly stand on its three wheels.
Once the rhinoplasty was done I drilled four holes into the nose and used hollow steel needles as gun barrels, with a look reminiscent of the Douglas A-20G.
Adding the (perfectly) clear parts of the canopy as a final assembly step also turned out to be a major fight against the elements.
Painting and markings:
With an USAAF WWII prototype in mind, there were only two options: either an NMF machine, or a camouflage in Olive Drab and Neutral Grey. I went for the latter and used Tamiya XF-62 for the upper surfaces and Humbrol 156 (Dark Camouflage Grey) underneath. The kit received a light black ink wash and some post shading in order to emphasize panels. A little dry-brushing with silver around the leading edges and the cockpit was done, too.
The cockpit interior became chromate green (I used Humbrol 150, Forest Green) while the landing gear wells were painted with zinc chromate yellow (Humbrol 81). The landing gear itself was painted in aluminum (Humbrol 56).
Markings/decals became minimal, puzzled together from various sources – only some “Stars and Bars” insignia and the serial number.
Somehow this conversion ended up looking a lot like the contemporary Soviet Sukhoi Su-9 and -11 (Samolyet K and LK) jet fighter prototype – unintentionally, though. But I am happy with the outcome – the P-63 ancestry is there, and the Meteor engines are recognizable, too. But everything blends into each other well, the whole affair looks very balanced and believable. This is IMHO furthermore emphasized by the simple paint scheme. A jet-powered Kingcobra? Why not…?
Kitbash figure and manipulated photography, inspired by Capcom's classic Devil May Cry videogames, employing the Hellgun filter from the Vinci app on my cameraphone.
+++ 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 Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe or Sturmvogel (English: "Swallow"/ "Storm Bird") was the world's second operational jet-powered fighter aircraft. Design work started before World War II began, but engine problems and top-level interference kept the aircraft from operational status with the Luftwaffe until mid-1944.
The Me 262 was faster, and more heavily-armed than any Allied fighter, including the British jet-powered Gloster Meteor which entered service in the UK a month earlier than the Me 262. One of the most advanced aviation designs in operational use during World War II, the Me 262 was used in a variety of roles, including light bomber, reconnaissance, and even experimental night fighter versions.
The latter was a variant that was direly needed, and the development of a fast night fighter led to several prototypes and an operational interim version. Several two-seat trainer variants of the Me 262, the Me 262 B-1a, had been adapted through the Umrüst-Bausatz 1 factory refit package as night fighters, complete with on-board FuG 218 Neptun high-VHF band radar, using Hirschgeweih ("stag's antlers") antennae with a set of shorter dipole elements than the Lichtenstein SN-2 had used, as the B-1a/U1 version. Serving with 10 Staffel, Nachtjagdgeschwader 11, near Berlin, these few aircraft (alongside several single-seat examples) accounted for most of the 13 Mosquitoes lost over Berlin in the first three months of 1945.
Anyway, the Me 262 B-1a's deficiencies were clear from the start and in parallel Messerschmitt already worked on a dedicated night fighter variant that would offer a better performance (primarily concerning range and speed) than the converted trainer, which was, nevertheless, rushed into service and gathered valuable information.
Initially, the idea of a night-fighter 262 was developed independently by Messerschmitt as the Me 262B-2. It was to have a longer fuselage accommodating the two crew, internal fuel tanks with the capacity comparable to that of a single-seat variant, and a Berlin radar antenna hidden inside the modified nose cone. However, by the end of 1944 the war situation deteriorated so rapidly that it was realized that an interim solution must be found before the B-2 could reach production status.
Instead of the complex B-2 Messerschmitt also proposed a less ambitious approach which would use as many Me 262 fighter components as possible, primarily the aerodynamic surfaces, the engines and the landing gear. This proposal was accepted by the RLM in September 1944 and became the Me 262 G.
This variant received a completely re-designed and aerodynamically refined fuselage. It was, from the start, tailored to carry the heavy radar equipment, a second crew member as radar operator and navigator and a bigger fuselage tank (the trainers that were converted into night fighters had part of their fuel capacity reduced to make place for the 2nd seat). The result was a slender, streamlined aircraft with a considerably smaller cross section than the Me 262 day fighter/bomber.
The crew was separated into two cabins in front and behind the fuselage main tank. This arrangement also offered enough space for a "Schräge Musik" installation (a pair of guns firing upwards, either two 20mm MG 151/20 or two 30mm MK 108), to allow the night fighter to attack RAF bombers from their belly blind spot.
The main armament was a pair of MK 103 30mm cannons - while this was a reduction of firepower compared to the Me 262 B-1a, the MK 103 was much more accurate, had a longer range and a much higher muzzle velocity (860 m/s (2,822 ft/s) versus 540 m/s (1,800 ft/s) with HE/M), so that targets could be engaged at longer distance with less expenditure of ammunition and further outside of the bombers' defensive fire.
The first operational version, the G-1, was ready for service in December 1944 and exclusively delivered to the NJG 6, based in southern Germany after withdrawal from Romania and regrouping.The G-1 still carried the FuG 218 Neptun radar, still coupled with a high drag Hirschgeweih antenna and with a FuG 350 Zc Naxos radar warning receiver/detector, but the G-1 was still faster than the B-1a and had a longer range on internal fuel than the B-1a with two external 300l drop tanks, which further reduced top speed. Later versions (G-2) were supposed to carry the more modern FuG 240 with a parabolic dish antenna under a more treamlined thimble nose radome, and a single seat long range reconnaissance version (G-3) was also planned, which would carry no guns but an camera array in the radar operators's place.
Anyway, only about 20 Me 262 G-1 were delivered to NJG 6 at all, and probably less than a dozen were operational when Germany surrendered. The G-3 recce variant remained on the drawing board, while two prototypes with radomes for the FuG 240 were under construction and underwent wind tunnel tests.
General characteristics:
Crew: 2
Length overall: 11.67 m (38 ft 3 in)
Wingspan: 12.60 m (41 ft 6 in)
Height: 3.50 m (11 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 21.7 m² (234 ft²)
Empty weight: 3,795 kg[101] (8,366 lb)
Loaded weight: 6,473 kg[101] (14,272 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 7,130 kg[101] (15,720 lb)
Powerplant:
Aspect ratio: 7.32
Powerplant:
2× Junkers Jumo 004 B-1 turbojets, 8.8 kN (1,980 lbf) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 900 km/h (559 mph)
Range: 1,050 km (652 mi)
Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,565 ft)
Rate of climb: 1,200 m/min (At max weight of 7,130 kg) (3,900 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 0.28
Armament:
2x 30mm MK 103 cannon in the lower front fuselage with 120 RPG
2x 30mm MK 108 cannon "Schräge Musik" installation with 80 RPG,
angled 70° upwards, between the cockpits
2x hardpoints under the wings, each able to carry up to 250kg (550lb), including bombs, drop tanks or unguided missiles (rarely used)
The kit and its assembly:
Connoisseurs will immediately recognize this kitbash - and the Me 262 G was spawned from the thought that the Japanese Ki-46 was such an elegant aircraft - wouldn't a jet version somehow make sense? So, initially this was supposed to become a Hikoki '46 model, but when I held some Me 262 parts next to the Ki-46's fuselage the idea of a Luftwaffe night fighter was born.
And this actually worked better than expected. This whif is a kitbash of an Airfix Ki-46 fuselage with wings, tail, engines, landing gear and Hirschgeweih from a Revell Me 262 B-1a.
Mating the parts went pretty straightforward, even though I made a mistake when I measured the position of the wing under the fuselage. Somehow it ended up 4-5mm too close to the nose - while the flaw was acceptable I decided to add a 5mm plug behind the pilot cockpit to compensate... And the added length just underlines the elegant Ki-46 lines.
In order to keep the model on its three feet lots of lead beads were hidden in the fuselage, the nose tip and even the front ends of the engine nacelles. Since the Ki-46 fuselage is considerably smaller than the Me 262's I had to fill the wing roots with putty, but that was a rather easy task.
Painting and markings:
I wanted something different from other German night fighters/bombers I had already built, yet a simple livery. Since many German night fighters left the factories in an overall RLM 76 finish I used this as a basis and just added mottles in RLM 75 on the upper surfaces - inspired by a Ta 154 Moskito night fighter prototype.
The cockpits were painted in very dark grey (RLM 66) while the landing gear and the respective wells were painted with RLM 02. Everything very conventional.
The markings were puzzled together - the national markings and stencils come from the Revell Me 262 B-1a sheet while the registration was created from single aftermarket letters, matching a hypothetical aircraft from 4. Staffel, II./NJG 6 in code and colors.
The kit received a light black in wash and some dry-brushing to emphasize panel lines. On the fuselage, however, I painted some panel lines with a pencil, since the Airfix Ki-46 is completely bare of details. Some soot stains around the guns were added with graphite and finally everything sealed under matt acrylic varnish.
A simple kitbashing project, and I am amazed how plausible the Ki-46/Me 262 mix looks, despite the mistake I made with the wing position. I wonder how a Ki-46 III with its streamlined cockpit would look in this case?