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!
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.
Compared with the earlier designs, 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.
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.
There were also lighter chassis variants, though, including the light E-5 and E-10 for armored, tracked reconnaissance vehicles and the E-25. The E-25 designs, in the 25-50 tonnes weight class, were to be the replacements of all Panzer III and Panzer IV based designs, with Alkett, Argus and Adler, with involvement of Porsche. This family would include medium reconnaissance vehicles, medium Jagdpanzer and heavy Waffenträger, using five Tiger II style road wheels per side, combined with "slack-track" design. Track propulsion was switched to a rear drive sprocket, as a consequence of mating the engine and the gearbox into a tail-mounted, single and very compact power pack that made the voluminous and heavy power train through the hull obsolete. This allowed the gun mount to be directly attached to the hull floor, which lowered the overall silhouette, and the gained space offered more room for the crew’s operations as well as for ammunition storage.
The medium tank hunter received high priority and the project was called Jagdpanzer E-25/88 and ran under the inventory ordnance number "SdKfz. 198"; . It was to replace various Panzer IV tank hunters and the light "Hetzer" from 1945 onwards, which all either suffered from insufficient firepower, lack of mobility, or armor. Another tank the E-25/88 would replace was the excellent but complex and expensive Jagdpanther with its 8.8 cm Pak 43/3 or 43/4 L/71 cannon.
The Jagdpanzer E-25/88 was to eradicate all problems of the Panzer IV tank hunter family and combine the benefits from all former types, including the powerful 8.8cm PaK, which could take down any Allied tank around late 1944 at considerably distances. Even though the E-25 tank hunter was initially to be outfitted with the proven 7.5 cm/L70 gun from the Jagdpanzer IV and the Panther battle tank, it was surmised that this armament would not be enough for the enemy's next generation tanks.
Beyond its heavy armament, the new tank hunter was to offer good protection through armor and hull shape alike, as well as high mobility, while keeping overall weight at around 30 tons (the Jagdpanzer IV weighed roundabout 25 tons, while the much bigger Jagdpanther weighed 45 tons) and overall size smaller than the Jagdpanther.
Heavier tank hunters than the E-25/88, based of the new E-50 and E-75 chassis were under development in parallel, but they were all to carry heavier guns, including the 12.8 cm PaK and newly developed 10.5 cm and 13 cm cannons. An E-100 SPG on the drawing board (called "Krokodil") was to carry a 15 cm or even a 17.5 cm anti tank gun.
In late 1944, with the Allied invasion in the West and rising pressure from the East, anti tank and assault SPGs were direly needed and the rejuvenation of the German tank force was sped up in a hurry. As a consequence the Jagdpanzer E-25/88 was prematurely ushered into production before the medium E-25 chassis development had been fully completed.
As a stopgap solution, initial production tanks were outfitted with a Henschel running gear that dated back to the canceled VK20 and VK30 tank program, and these vehicles were later re-designated SdKfz. 198/1 (while the vehicles with the new/standardized running gear became the SdKfz. 198/2). However, its overlapped and interleaved roadwheel-based suspension system (called “Schachtellaufwerk”) was a considerable improvement against the Panzer IV design, even though it was more complex than the final E-25 system. Around 80 vehicles were produced with the Henschel suspension until production was switched to the simplified Alkett suspension based on the unified wheels of the bigger Einheitspanzer types.
The upper hull remained basically the same throughout production, though, and was based on proven principles. To accommodate the heavy-calibre gun, much as on previous unturreted tank destroyers, the glacis plate and sloped hull sides of the Jagdpanzer E-25/88 were extended up into an integral, turretless fixed casemate as part of the main hull itself, providing a relatively roomy interior. The Jagdpanzer E-25/88 had side armour of up to 60 mm, frontal and gun mantlet armour was 80mm. The E-25's engine was a Maybach HL 101 with 550 PS (539 hp, 341 kW), another recognizable improvement in comparison with its frequently underpowered predecessors. Maximum speed was up to 52 km/h (32 mph) on level ground, and the interleafed running gear allowed a smooth ride and high speed even in rough terrain - even though the complex design meant that the wheels could clog up easily with heavy mud or snow.
The gun was mounted in a central "Saukopf" mantlet, similar to the Jagdpanzer IV, and had a limited traverse of 11° to each side, with an elevation of −8° to +15°. 50 rounds for the main gun could be stowed. A single 7.92 mm MG-34 machine gun for frontal defence and against soft ground targets was carried in a ball mount on the right side of the front glacis plate, operated by the wireless operator. Another MG-34 was mounted in a remotely controlled turret on top of the hull, operated by the commander who sat under a cupola with seven periscopes for a good field of view. This machine gun was, in later production tanks, to be replaced by a 30mm MK 108 (actually a compact, belt-fed aircraft machine gun), but this was never carried out since MK 103 production was completely allocated to the Luftwaffe. The driver sat on the left. The gunner had a visual rangefinder and a periscope telescopic sight. The periscope - linked to the gun mount - was under an armored housing on the roof.
In service the vehicle was, due to its crouched silhouette, unofficially called "Dachs" (Badger), a name that was quickly adopted in official circles, too. The first vehicles reached Western front line units along the Rhine in March 1945. They proved to be very successful and popular with its crews, because the tank was agile, easy to handle and less cramped than most of its predecessors. Total production reached 250 vehicles until the end of hostilities, and many of the E-25/88s design features were later incorporated into the post WWII “Jagdpanzer Kanone” for the German Bundeswehr.
Specifications:
Crew: Five (commander, gunner, loader, radio operator, driver)
Weight: 31 tonnes (34.5 short tons)
Length: 6.98 metres (22 ft 10 in) (hull only)
9.93 metres (32 ft 6 1/2 in) incl. gun
Width: 3.20 metres (10 ft 6 in)
Height 2.48 metres (8 ft 1 1/2 in)
Ground clearance: 495 to 510 mm (1 ft 7.5 in to 1 ft 8.1 in)
Suspension: Torsion bar
Fuel capacity: 450 litres (120 US gal)
Armor:
10–80 mm (0.4 – 3.15 in)
Performance:
Speed
- Maximum, road: 52 km/h (32 mph)
- Sustained, road: 42 km/h (26 mph)
- Cross country: 16 to 25 km/h (9.5 to 15.5 mph)
Operational range: 210 km (130 mi)
Power/weight: 17,74 PS/tonne (16 hp/ton)
Engine:
V-12 Maybach Maybach HL 101 gasoline engine with 550 PS (539 hp, 341 kW)
Transmission:
ZF AK 7-200 with 7 forward 1 reverse gears
Armament:
1× 8.8 cm KwK 43/4 L/71 with 50 rounds
2× 7.92 mm MG 34 machine guns with a total of 5.200 rounds
(one in the casemate front and a remote-controlled gun on the commander's cupola)
The kit and its assembly:
It does not look spectacular, but this compact tank hunter is a major kitbashing, inspired by - but not necessarily an exact model of - the real but unrealized German E-25 Jagdpanzer project.
Things started with a leftover chassis from a Trumpeter "Sturer Emil" SPG with an early interleaf suspension design and a relatively long hull. I wanted to save it and incorporate it into a Heer '46 design, and soon the idea of a Jagdpanzer IV successor was born. Selling it as an E-25 design and incorporating a bigger gun was a logical step.
The build was very pragmatic. The lower hull with the wheel attachments was taken OOB, but it was shortened by 5mm. This was achieved by simply taking away a plug behind the last road wheel and in front of the sprocket wheel, which was moved from the front to the rear end.
While this sounds simple, the attachment points’ different diameters and the need for a sturdy construction (due to the kit’s vinyl tracks) posed quite a challenge. In the wake of this modification, the track’s support wheels were deleted, too, for the E-25’s simplified “slack track” layout. The tracks were shortened accordingly, and mounted/fixed with super glue (as one of the final steps after painting).
The upper hull comes basically from an Armorfast Jagdpanther, after several trials with a Jagdpanzer IV, a Brummbär and even a potentially scratched casemate. The Jagdpanther hull was reduced in height, though, and also slightly shortened, so that the new tank would be more compact than a Jagdpanther and also differ in the silhouette.
In order to change the look even more, the “Saukopf” gun mantlet from a Jagdpanzer IV/70 was implanted (even though with an 8,8cm barrel), as well as the vehicle’s protective shields for the motor deck. Overall hull width was adapted to the Sturer Emil tracks through mudguards.
The machine gun turret was scratched, and some other details changed or added, including some periscopes, a Panzer IV commander cupola and some equipment pieces on the mudguards.
Painting and markings:
This time, I wanted a disruptive scheme for this tank hunter, and adopted a rather simple livery for the E-25/88: a uniform RAL 6003 Olivgrün for the upper hull (appied with a rattle can, plus a hush with RAL 6011 on the upper surfaces), with a dense, irregular pattern of sand/yellow blotches - lighter than the authentic RAL 7028 Dunkelgelb, though (I have used Humbrol 103, Cream).
Wheels and the lower hull flanks (behind the running gear) were painted in RAL 7028 Dunkelgelb (RAL 8000, which comes pretty close, IMHO).
Similar schemes were, for instance, applied to some Ferdinand tank Hunters, operated in Italy and the Eastern Front, but also on Jagdpanthers at the Western front (e. g. in Belgium). The result reminds a bit of a Giraffe, or of the unique British "net" scheme applied to tanks on Malta.
On top of the basic paintwork, 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.
This E-25 tank hunter model looks pretty conclusive, and at first glance it looks very German, because it incorporates many typical design features. But the more you look the more “unique” it looks, e. g. through the low Schachtellaufwerk, the lowered Jagdpanther upper hull and its combination with the Saukopf gun mantlet from the Jagdpanzer IV. It looks very purposeful, and the paint scheme appears to be very effective, too, blurring the outlines and details well.
+++ 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!
+++ 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 ASTA (Aerospace Technologies of Australia, formerly Government Aircraft Factories) Baza development was started in 1995 when the Royal Australian Air Force was searching for a two-seat training aircraft that would allow the transition from initial training on piston-engined aircraft to jets, and could also be used for weapon training and CAS/reconnaissance duties.
ASTA responded with a low-wing two-turboprop-engined all-metal monoplane with retractable landing gear, capable of operating from unprepared strips when operationally required. The aircraft, internally coded “A-31”, was of conventional, all-metal (mainly duralumin) construction. The unswept cantilever wings have 3° of dihedral and are fitted with slotted trailing-edge flaps.
The A-31 had a tandem cockpit arrangement; the crew of two was seated under the upward opening clamshell canopy on Martin-Baker Mk 6AP6A zero/zero ejection seats and were provided with dual controls.
Armor plating was fitted to protect the crew and engines from hostile ground fire. The aircraft was powered by a pair of Garrett TPE 331 engines, driving sets of three-bladed propellers which were also capable of being used as air brakes.
The A-31 was designed for operations from short, rough airstrips.[The retractable tricycle landing gear, with a single nose wheel and twin main wheels retracting into the engine nacelles, is therefore fitted with low pressure tires to suit operations on rough ground, while the undercarriage legs are tall to give good clearance for underslung weapon loads. The undercarriage, flaps and brakes are operated hydraulically, with no pneumatic systems.
Two JATO rockets can be fitted under the fuselage to allow extra-short take-off. Fuel is fed from two fuselage tanks of combined capacity of 800 L (180 imp gal; 210 US gal) and two self-sealing tanks of 460 L (100 imp gal; 120 US gal) in the wings.
Fixed armament of the A-31 consisted of two 30mm Aden cannons mounted under the cockpits with 200 rounds each. A total of nine hardpoints were fitted for the carriage of external stores such as bombs, rockets or external fuel tanks, with one of 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) capacity mounted under the fuselage and the remaining two pairs of 500 kg (1,100 lb) capacity beneath the wing roots and wings inside of the engine nacelles, and two more pairs of hardpoints outside of the engines for another 500 kg and 227 kg, respectively. Total external weapons load was limited to 6,800 lb (3,085 kg) of weapons, though.
Onboard armaments were aimed by a simple reflector sight, since no all weather/night capabilities were called for – even though provisions were made that external sensors could be carried (e. g. a TISEO or a PAVE Spike pod).
Severe competition arose through the BAe Hawk, though: the Royal Australian Air Force ordered 33 Hawk 127 Lead-in Fighters (LIFs) in June 1997, 12 of which were produced in the UK and 21 in Australia – and this procurement severely hampered the A-31’s progress. The initial plan to build 66 aircraft for domestic use, with prospects for export, e. g. to Sri Lanka, Indonesia or Turkey, was cut down to a mere 32 aircraft which were to be used in conjunction with the Australian Army in the FAC role and against mobile ground targets.
This extended role required an upgrade with additional avionics, an optional forward looking infrared (FLIR) sensor and a laser ranger in an extended nose section, which lead to the Mk. II configuration - effectively, only five machines were produced as Mk.I types, and they were updated to Mk. II configuration even before delivery to the RAAF in August 1999.
Since then, the ASTA A-31 has been used in concunction with RAAF's Pilatus PC-9 and BAe Hawk Mk. 127 trainers. Beyond educational duties the type is also employed for Fleet support to Navy operations and for close air support to Army operations.
The 'Baza' (christened by a small sized bird of prey found in the forests of South Asia and Southeast Asia) has even seen serious military duty and already fired in anger: since August 2007, a detachment of No. 114 Mobile Control and Reporting Unit RAAF has been on active service at Kandahar Airfield in southern Afghanistan, and a constant detachment of six A-31's from RAAF 76 Suqadron has been assigned to armed reconnaissance and protection of approximately 75 personnel deployed with the AN/TPS-77 radar, assigned the responsibility to co-ordinate coalition air operations.
General characteristics:
Crew: 2
Length (incl. Pitot): 14.69 m (48 ft 1 ½ in)
Wingspan: 14.97 m (49 ft)
Height: 3, 75 m (12 ft 3 in)
Wing area: 30.30 m2 (326.1 sq ft)
Aspect ratio: 6.9:1
Airfoil: NACA 642A215 at root, NACA641 at tip
Empty weight: 4,020 kg (8,863 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 6,800 kg (14,991 lb)
Internal fuel capacity: 1,280 L (280 imp gal; 340 US gal)
Powerplant:
2 × Garrett TPE 331-11U-601G turboprop engines, 820 kW (1.100 hp) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 515 km/h (311 mph; 270 kn) at 4.570 m (15.000 ft)
Cruising speed: 430 km/h (267 mph; 232 kn) at 2.500 m (8.200 ft)
Stall speed: 143 km/h (89 mph; 77 kn) (flaps and undercarriage down)
Never exceed speed: 750 km/h (466 mph; 405 kn)
Range:1.611 km (1.000 mi; 868 nmi), clean and internal fuel only
Ferry range: 3,710 km (2,305 mi; 2,003 nmi) max internal and external fuel
Service ceiling: 10,000 m (32,808 ft)
g limits: +6/-3 g
Rate of climb: 6.5 m/s (1.276 ft/min)
Armament:
2× 30 mm ADEN cannons in the lower nose
Up to 6,800 lb (3,085 kg) of weapons on nine external hardpoints
The kit and its assembly:
Like many of my whifs, this was spawned by a project at whatifmodelers.com from fellow user silverwindblade that ran under the handle "COIN aircraft from a Hawk" - and in fact, the BAe Hawk's fuselage with its staggered cockpit and good field of view appears as a good basis for a conversion.
I liked the idea VERY much, and while silverwindblade's work would rather develop into a futuristic canard layout aircraft, I decided to keep the COIN aircraft rather conservative - the FMA 58 'Pucara' from Argentina would be a proper benchmark.
The basis here is the Italeri BAe Hawk Mk. 127 kit which comes with the longer nose and modified wings for the RAAF version, as well as with false decals.
Anyway, I'd only use the fuselage, anything else is implanted, partly from unlikely donation kits! Wings incl. engine nacelles and stablizers come from the vintage box scale (1:166?) Revell Convair R3Y-2 Tradewind flying boat(!), the fin from an Academy OV-10 Bronco.
The landing gear was puzzled together, among other from parts of a 1:200 Concorde, the propellers were scratched.
Biggest mod to the fuselage is the dissection of the air intakes (and their blending with the fuselage) as well as a new tail section where the Adour jet engine's exhaust had been.
Painting and markings:
This model was agood excuse to finally apply an SIOP color scheme, which was originally carried by USAF's strategic bombers like B-52 or FB-111. But what actually inspired me were Australian C-130s - it took some time to figure out that their scheme were the USAF's SIOP colors (FS 34201, 34159 and 34079). But that made the Baza's potential user's choice (and fictional origin) easy.
As a COIN role aircraft I settled on a wraparound scheme. I found a pattern scheme on an USN Aggerssor A-4 Skyhawk that had been painted in SIOP colors, too, and adapted it for the model. Basic colors were Humbrol 31, 84 and 116, good approximations - the result looks odd, but suits the Baza well.
Later, panels were emphasized through dry painting with lighter shades and a light black ink wash was applied.
The landing gear became classic white, the cockpit interior medium gray - nothing fancy.
The markings were improvised - the Italeri Hawk Mk. 127 features RAAF 'roos, but these are printed in black - wrong for the OOB kit, but very welcome on my aircraft. The rest was salvaged from the scrap box, the tactical code A-31-06 created with single letters from TL Modellbau.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
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 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.
Painting and markings:
I was uncertain about the livery for a long time – I just had already settled upon an RAF aircraft. But the model would not receive a late low-viz scheme (the Levin, my mono-engine Lightning build already had one), and no NMF, either. I was torn between an RAF Germany all-green over NMF undersides livery, but eventually went for a pretty standard RAF livery in Dark Sea Grey/Dark Green over NMF undersides, with toned-down post-war roundels.
A factor that spoke in favor of this route was a complete set of markings for an RAF 11 Squadron Lightning F.6 in such a guise on an Xtradecal set, which also featured dayglo orange makings on fin, wings and stabilizers – quite unusual, and a nice contrast detail on the otherwise very conservative livery. All stencils were taken from the OOB Revell sheet for the Lightning. Just the tactical code “F” on the tail was procured elsewhere, it comes from a Matchbox BAC Lightning’s sheet.
After basic painting the model received the usual black ink washing, some post-panel-shading and also a light treatment with graphite to create soot strains around the jet exhausts and the gun ports, and to emphasize the raised panel lines on the Hasegawa parts.
Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish and final bits and pieces like the landing gear and the Red Tops (taken OOB) were mounted.
+++ 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.
+++ 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.
Decided to switch out the original shields and give her a lance for a weapon.I might start painting it today?
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 on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some Background:
During the 1950s, Hindustan Aircraft Limited (HAL) had developed and produced several types of trainer aircraft, such as the HAL HT-2. However, elements within the firm were eager to expand into the then-new realm of supersonic fighter aircraft. Around the same time, the Indian government was in the process of formulating a new Air Staff Requirement for a Mach 2-capable combat aircraft to equip the Indian Air Force (IAF). However, as HAL lacked the necessary experience in both developing and manufacturing frontline combat fighters, it was clear that external guidance would be invaluable; this assistance was embodied by Kurt Tank.
In 1956, HAL formally began design work on the supersonic fighter project. The Indian government, led by Jawaharlal Nehru, authorized the development of the aircraft, stating that it would aid in the development of a modern aircraft industry in India. The first phase of the project sought to develop an airframe suitable for travelling at supersonic speeds, and able to effectively perform combat missions as a fighter aircraft, while the second phase sought to domestically design and produce an engine capable of propelling the aircraft. Early on, there was an explicit adherence to satisfying the IAF's requirements for a capable fighter bomber; attributes such as a twin-engine configuration and a speed of Mach 1.4 to 1.5 were quickly emphasized, and this led to the HF-24 Marut.
On 24 June 1961, the first prototype Marut conducted its maiden flight. It was powered by the same Bristol Siddeley Orpheus 703 turbojets that had powered the Folland Gnat, also being manufactured by HAL at that time. On 1 April 1967, the first production Marut was delivered to the IAF. While originally intended only as an interim measure during testing, HAL decided to power production Maruts with a pair of unreheated Orpheus 703s, meaning the aircraft could not attain supersonic speed. Although originally conceived to operate around Mach 2 the Marut in fact was barely capable of reaching Mach 1 due to the lack of suitably powerful engines.
The IAF were reluctant to procure a fighter aircraft only marginally superior to its existing fleet of British-built Hawker Hunters. However, in 1961, the Indian Government decided to procure the Marut, nevertheless, but only 147 aircraft, including 18 two-seat trainers, were completed out of a planned 214. Just after the decision to build the lukewarm Marut, the development of a more advanced aircraft with the desired supersonic performance was initiated.
This enterprise started star-crossed, though: after the Indian Government conducted its first nuclear tests at Pokhran, international pressure prevented the import of better engines of Western origin, or at times, even spares for the Orpheus engines, so that the Marut never realized its full potential due to insufficient power, and it was relatively obsolescent by the time it reached production.
Due to these restrictions India looked for other sources for supersonic aircraft and eventually settled upon the MiG-21 F-13 from the Soviet Union, which entered service in 1964. While fast and agile, the Fishbed was only a short-range daylight interceptor. It lacked proper range for escort missions and air space patrols, and it had no radar that enabled it to conduct all-weather interceptions. To fill this operational gap, the new indigenous HF-26 project was launched around the same time.
For the nascent Indian aircraft industry, HF-26 had a demanding requirements specification: the aircraft was to achieve Mach 2 top speed at high altitude and carry a radar with a guided missile armament that allowed interceptions in any weather, day and night. The powerplant question was left open, but it was clear from the start that a Soviet engine would be needed, since an indigenous development of a suitable powerplant would take much too long and block vital resources, and western alternatives were out of reach. The mission profile and the performance requirements quickly defined the planned aircraft’s layout: To fit a radar, the air intakes with movable ramps to feed the engines were placed on the fuselage flanks. To make sure the aircraft would fulfill its high-performance demands, it was right from the outset powered by two engines, and it was decided to give it delta wings, a popular design among high-speed aircraft of the time – exemplified by the highly successful Dassault Mirage III (which was to be delivered to Pakistan in 1967). With two engines, the HF-26 would be a heavier aircraft than the Mirage III, though, and it was planned to operate the aircraft from semi-prepared airfields, so that it would receive a robust landing gear with low-pressure tires and a brake parachute.
In 1962 India was able to negotiate the delivery of Tumansky RD-9 turbojet engines from the Soviet Union, even though no afterburner was part of the deal – this had to be indigenously developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). However, this meant that the afterburner could be tailored to the HF-26, and this task would provide HAL with valuable engineering experience, too.
Now knowing the powerplant, HAL created a single-seater airframe around it, a rather robust design that superficially reminded of the French Mirage III, but there were fundamental differences. The HF-26 had boxy air intakes with movable ramps to control the airflow to the two engines and a relatively wide fuselage to hold them and most of the fuel in tanks between the air ducts behind the cockpit. The aircraft had a single swept fin and a rather small mid-positioned delta-wing with a 60° sweep. The pilot sat under a tight canopy that offered - similar to the Mirage III - only limited all-round vision.
The HF-26's conical nose radome covered an antenna for a ‘Garud’ interception radar – which was in fact a downgraded Soviet ‘Oryol' (Eagle; NATO reporting name 'Skip Spin') system that guided the HF-26’s main armament, a pair of semi-active radar homing (SARH) ‚Saanp’ missiles.
The Saanp missile was developed specifically for the HF-26 in India but used many components of Soviet origin, too, so that they were compatible with the radar. In performance, the Saanp was comparable with the French Matra R.530 air-to-air missile, even though the aerodynamic layout was reversed, with steering fins at the front end, right behind the SARH seaker head - overall the missile reminded of an enlarged AIM-4 Falcon. The missile weighed 180 kg and had a length of 3.5 m. Power came from a two-stage solid rocket that offered a maximum thrust of 80 kN for 2.7 s during the launch phase plus 6.5 s cruise. Maximum speed was Mach 2.7 and operational range was 1.5 to 20 km (0.9 to 12.5 miles). Two of these missiles could be carried on the main wing hardpoints in front of the landing gear wells. Alternatively, infrared-guided R-3 (AA-2 ‘Atoll’) short-range AAMs could be carried by the HF-26, too, and typically two of these were carried on the outer underwing hardpoints, which were plumbed to accept drop tanks (typically supersonic PTB-490s that were carried by the IAF's MiG-21s, too) . Initially, no internal gun was envisioned, as the HF-26 was supposed to be a pure high-speed/high-altitude interceptor that would not engage in dogfights. Two more hardpoints under the fuselage were plumbed, too, for a total of six external stations.
Due to its wing planform, the HF-26 was soon aptly called “Teer” (= Arrow), and with Soviet help the first prototype was rolled out in early 1964 and presented to the public. The first flight, however, would take place almost a year later in January 1965, due to many technical problems, and these were soon complemented by aerodynamic problems. The original delta-winged HF-26 had poor take-off and landing characteristics, and directional stability was weak, too. While a second prototype was under construction in April 1965 the first aircraft was lost after it had entered a spin from which the pilot could not escape – the aircraft crashed and its pilot was killed during the attempt to eject.
After this loss HAL investigated an enlarged fin and a modified wing design with deeper wingtips with lower sweep, which increased wing area and improved low speed handling, too. Furthermore, the fuselage shape had to be modified, too, to reduce supersonic drag, and a more pronounced area ruling was introduced. The indigenous afterburner for the RD-9 engines was unstable and troublesome, too.
It took until 1968 and three more flying prototypes (plus two static airframes) to refine the Teer for serial production service introduction. In this highly modified form, the aircraft was re-designated HF-26M and the first machines were delivered to IAF No. 3 Squadron in late 1969. However, it would take several months until a fully operational status could be achieved. By that time, it was already clear that the Teer, much like the HF-24 Marut before, could not live up to its expectations and was at the brink of becoming obsolete as it entered service. The RD-9 was not a modern engine anymore, and despite its indigenous afterburner – which turned out not only to be chronically unreliable but also to be very thirsty when engaged – the Teer had a disappointing performance: The fighter only achieved a top speed of Mach 1.6 at full power, and with full external load it hardly broke the wall of sound in level flight. Its main armament, the Saanp AAM, also turned out to be unreliable even under ideal conditions.
However, the HF-26M came just in time to take part in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and was, despite its weaknesses, extensively used – even though not necessarily in its intended role. High-flying slow bombers were not fielded during the conflict, and the Teer remained, despite its on-board radar, heavily dependent on ground control interception (GCI) to vector its pilot onto targets coming in at medium and even low altitude. The HF-26M had no capability against low-flying aircraft either, so that pilots had to engage incoming, low-flying enemy aircraft after visual identification – a task the IAF’s nimble MiG-21s were much better suited for. Escorts and air cover missions for fighter-bombers were flown, too, but the HF-26M’s limited range only made it a suitable companion for the equally short-legged Su-7s. The IAF Canberras were frequently deployed on longer range missions, but the HF-26Ms simply could not follow them all the time; for a sufficient range the Teer had to carry four drop tanks, what increased drag and only left the outer pair of underwing hardpoints (which were not plumbed) free for a pair of AA-2 missiles. With the imminent danger of aerial close range combat, though, During the conflict with Pakistan, most HF-26M's were retrofitted with rear-view mirrors in their canopies to improve the pilot's field of view, and a passive IR sensor was added in a small fairing under the nose to improve the aircraft's all-weather capabilities and avoid active radar emissions that would warn potential prey too early.
The lack of an internal gun turned out to be another great weakness of the Teer, and this was only lightly mended through the use of external gun pods. Two of these cigar-shaped pods that resembled the Soviet UPK-23 pod could be carried on the two ventral pylons, and each contained a 23 mm Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-23L autocannon of Soviet origin with 200 rounds. Technically these pods were very similar to the conformal GP-9 pods carried by the IAF MiG-21FLs. While the gun pods considerably improved the HF-26M’s firepower and versatility, the pods were draggy, blocked valuable hardpoints (from extra fuel) and their recoil tended to damage the pylons as well as the underlying aircraft structure, so that they were only commissioned to be used in an emergency.
However, beyond air-to-air weapons, the HF-26M could also carry ordnance of up to 1.000 kg (2.207 lb) on the ventral and inner wing hardpoints and up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) on the other pair of wing hardpoints, including iron bombs and/or unguided missile pods. However, the limited field of view from the cockpit over the radome as well as the relatively high wing loading did not recommend the aircraft for ground attack missions – even though these frequently happened during the conflict with Pakistan. For these tactical missions, many HF-26Ms lost their original overall natural metal finish and instead received camouflage paint schemes on squadron level, resulting in individual and sometimes even spectacular liveries. Most notable examples were the Teer fighters of No. 1 Squadron (The Tigers), which sported various camouflage adaptations of the unit’s eponym.
Despite its many deficiencies, the HF-26M became heavily involved in the Indo-Pakistan conflict. As the Indian Army tightened its grip in East Pakistan, the Indian Air Force continued with its attacks against Pakistan as the campaign developed into a series of daylight anti-airfield, anti-radar, and close-support attacks by fighter jets, with night attacks against airfields and strategic targets by Canberras and An-12s, while Pakistan responded with similar night attacks with its B-57s and C-130s.
The PAF deployed its F-6s mainly on defensive combat air patrol missions over their own bases, leaving the PAF unable to conduct effective offensive operations. Sporadic raids by the IAF continued against PAF forward air bases in Pakistan until the end of the war, and interdiction and close-support operations were maintained. One of the most successful air raids by India into West Pakistan happened on 8 December 1971, when Indian Hunter aircraft from the Pathankot-based 20 Squadron, attacked the Pakistani base in Murid and destroyed 5 F-86 aircraft on the ground.
The PAF played a more limited role in the operations, even though they were reinforced by Mirages from an unidentified Middle Eastern ally (whose identity remains unknown). The IAF was able to conduct a wide range of missions – troop support; air combat; deep penetration strikes; para-dropping behind enemy lines; feints to draw enemy fighters away from the actual target; bombing and reconnaissance. India flew 1,978 sorties in the East and about 4,000 in Pakistan, while the PAF flew about 30 and 2,840 at the respective fronts. More than 80 percent of IAF sorties were close-support and interdiction and about 45 IAF aircraft were lost, including three HF-26Ms. Pakistan lost 60 to 75 aircraft, not including any F-86s, Mirage IIIs, or the six Jordanian F-104s which failed to return to their donors. The imbalance in air losses was explained by the IAF's considerably higher sortie rate and its emphasis on ground-attack missions. The PAF, which was solely focused on air combat, was reluctant to oppose these massive attacks and rather took refuge at Iranian air bases or in concrete bunkers, refusing to offer fights and respective losses.
After the war, the HF-26M was officially regarded as outdated, and as license production of the improved MiG-21FL (designated HAL Type 77 and nicknamed “Trishul” = Trident) and later of the MiG-21M (HAL Type 88) was organized in India, the aircraft were quickly retired from frontline units. They kept on serving into the Eighties, though, but now restricted to their original interceptor role. Beyond the upgrades from the Indo-Pakistani War, only a few upgrades were made. For instance, the new R-60 AAM was introduced to the HF-26M and around 1978 small (but fixed) canards were retrofitted to the air intakes behind the cockpit that improved the Teer’s poor slow speed control and high landing speed as well as the aircraft’s overall maneuverability.
A radar upgrade, together with the introduction of better air-to-ai missiles with a higher range and look down/shoot down capability was considered but never carried out. Furthermore, the idea of a true HF-26 2nd generation variant, powered by a pair of Tumansky R-11F-300 afterburner jet engines (from the license-built MiG-21FLs), was dropped, too – even though this powerplant eventually promised to fulfill the Teer’s design promise of Mach 2 top speed. A total of only 82 HF-26s (including thirteen two-seat trainers with a lengthened fuselage and reduced fuel capacity, plus eight prototypes) were built. The last aircraft were retired from IAF service in 1988 and replaced with Mirage 2000 fighters procured from France that were armed with the Matra Super 530 AAM.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 14.97 m (49 ft ½ in)
Wingspan: 9.43 m (30 ft 11 in)
Height: 4.03 m (13 ft 2½ in)
Wing area: 30.6 m² (285 sq ft)
Empty weight: 7,000 kg (15,432 lb)
Gross weight: 10,954 kg (24,149 lb) with full internal fuel
Max takeoff weight: 15,700 kg (34,613 lb) with external stores
Powerplant:
2× Tumansky RD-9 afterburning turbojet engines; 29 kN (6,600 lbf) dry thrust each
and 36.78 kN (8,270 lbf) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,700 km/h (1,056 mph; 917 kn; Mach 1.6) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft)
1,350 km/h (840 mph, 730 kn; Mach 1.1) at sea level
Combat range: 725 km (450 mi, 391 nmi) with internal fuel only
Ferry range: 1,700 km (1,100 mi, 920 nmi) with four drop tanks
Service ceiling: 18,100 m (59,400 ft)
g limits: +6.5
Time to altitude: 9,145 m (30,003 ft) in 1 minute 30 seconds
Wing loading: 555 kg/m² (114 lb/sq ft)
Armament
6× hardpoints (four underwing and two under the fuselage) for a total of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb);
Typical interceptor payload:
- two IR-guided R-3 or R-60 air-to-air-missiles or
two PTB-490 drop tanks on the outer underwing stations
- two semi-active radar-guided ‚Saanp’ air-to-air missiles or two more R-3 or R-60 AAMs
on inner underwing stations
- two 500 l drop tanks or two gun pods with a 23 mm GSh-23L autocannon and 200 RPG
each under the fuselage
The kit and its assembly:
This whiffy delta-wing fighter was inspired when I recently sliced up a PM Model Su-15 kit for my side-by-side-engine BAC Lightning build. At an early stage of the conversion, I held the Su-15 fuselage with its molded delta wings in my hand and wondered if a shortened tail section (as well as a shorter overall fuselage to keep proportions balanced) could make a delta-wing jet fighter from the Flagon base? Only a hardware experiment could yield an answer, and since the Su-15’s overall outlines look a bit retro I settled at an early stage on India as potential designer and operator, as “the thing the HF-24 Marut never was”.
True to the initial idea, work started on the tail, and I chopped off the fuselage behind the wings’ trailing edge. Some PSR was necessary to blend the separate exhaust section into the fuselage, which had to be reduced in depth through wedges that I cut out under the wings trailing edge, plus some good amount of glue and sheer force the bend the section a bit upwards. The PM Model's jet exhausts were drilled open, and I added afterburner dummies inside - anything would look better than the bleak vertical walls inside after only 2-3 mm! The original fin was omitted, because it was a bit too large for the new, smaller aircraft and its shape reminded a lot of the Suchoj heavy fighter family. It was replaced with a Mirage III/V fin, left over from a (crappy!) Pioneer 2 IAI Nesher kit.
Once the rear section was complete, I had to adjust the front end - and here the kitbashing started. First, I chopped off the cockpit section in front of the molded air intake - the Su-15’s long radome and the cockpit on top of the fuselage did not work anymore. As a remedy I remembered another Su-15 conversion I did a (long) while ago: I created a model of a planned ground attack derivative, the T-58Sh, and, as a part of the extensive body work, I transplanted the slanted nose from an academy MiG-27 between the air intakes – a stunt that was relatively easy and which appreciably lowered the cockpit position. For the HF-26M I did something similar, I just transplanted a cockpit from a Hasegawa/Academy MiG-23 with its ogival radome that size-wise better matched with the rest of the leftover Su-15 airframe.
The MiG-23 cockpit matched perfectly with the Su-15's front end, just the spinal area behind the cockpit had to be raised/re-sculpted to blend the parts smoothly together. For a different look from the Su-15 ancestry I also transplanted the front sections of the MiG-23 air intakes with their shorter ramps. Some mods had to be made to the Su-15 intake stubs, but the MiG-23 intakes were an almost perfect fit in size and shape and easy to integrate into the modified front hill. The result looks very natural!
However, when the fuselage was complete, I found that the nose appeared to be a bit too long, leaving the whole new hull with the wings somewhat off balance. As a remedy I decided at a rather late stage to shorten the nose and took out a 6 mm section in front of the cockpit - a stunt I had not planned, but sometimes you can judge things only after certain work stages. Some serious PSR was necessary to re-adjust the conical nose shape, which now looked more Mirage III-ish than planned!
The cockpit was taken mostly OOB, I just replaced the ejection seat and gave it a trigger handle made from thin wire. With the basic airframe complete it was time for details. The PM Model Su-15s massive and rather crude main landing gear was replaced with something more delicate from the scrap box, even though I retained the main wheels. The front landing gear was taken wholesale from the MiG-23, but had to be shortened for a proper stance.
A display holder adapter was integrated into the belly for the flight scenes, hidden well between the ventral ordnance.
The hardpoints, including missile launch rails, came from the MiG-23; the pylons had to be adjusted to match the Su-15's wing profile shape, the Anab missiles lost their tail sections to create the fictional Indian 'Saanp' AAMs. The R-3s on the outer stations were left over from a MP MiG-21. The ventral pylons belong to Academy MiG-23/27s, one came from the donor kit, the other was found in the spares box. The PTB-490 drop tanks also came from a KP MiG-21 (or one of its many reincarnations, not certain).
Painting and markings:
The paint scheme for this fictional aircraft was largely inspired by a picture of a whiffy and very attractive Saab 37 Viggen (an 1:72 Airfix kit) in IAF colors, apparently a model from a contest. BTW, India actually considered buying the Viggen for its Air Force!
IAF aircraft were and are known for their exotic and sometimes gawdy paint schemes, and with IAF MiG-21 “C 992” there’s even a very popular (yet obscure) aircraft that sported literal tiger stripes. The IAF Viggen model was surely inspired by this real aircraft, and I adopted something similar for my HF-26M.
IAF 1 Squadron was therefore settled, and for the paint scheme I opted for a "stripish" scheme, but not as "tigeresque" as "C 992". I found a suitable benchmark in a recent Libyian MiG-21, which carried a very disruptive two-tone grey scheme. I adapted this pattern to the HA-26M airframe and replaced its colors, similar to the IAF Viggen model, which became a greenish sand tone (a mix of Humbrol 121 with some 159; I later found out that I could have used Humbrol 83 from the beginning, though...) and a very dark olive drab (Humbrol 66, which looks like a dull dark brown in contrast with the sand tone), with bluish grey (Humbrol 247) undersides. With the large delta wings, this turned out to look very good and even effective!
For that special "Indian touch" I gave the aircraft a high-contrast fin in a design that I had seen on a real camouflaged IAF MiG-21bis: an overall dark green base with a broad, red vertical stripe which was also the shield for the fin flash and the aircraft's tactical code (on the original bare metal). The fin was first painted in green (Humbrol 2), the red stripe was created with orange-red decal sheet material. Similar material was also used to create the bare metal field for the tactical code, the yellow bars on the splitter plates and for the thin white canopy sealing.
After basic painting was done the model received an overall black ink washing, post-panel shading and extensive dry-brushing with aluminum and iron for a rather worn look.
The missiles became classic white, while the drop tanks, as a contrast to the camouflaged belly, were left in bare metal.
Decals/markings came primarily from a Begemot MiG-25 kit, the tactical codes on the fin and under the wings originally belong to an RAF post-WWII Spitfire, just the first serial letter was omitted. Stencils are few and they came from various sources. A compromise is the unit badge on the fin: I needed a tiger motif, and the only suitable option I found was the tiger head emblem on a white disc from RAF No. 74 Squadron, from the Matchbox BAC Lightning F.6&F.2A kit. It fits stylistically well, though. ;-)
Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (except for the black radome, which became a bit glossy) and finally assembled.
A spontaneous build, and the last one that I completed in 2022. However, despite a vague design plan the model evolved as it grew. Bashing the primitive PM Model Su-15 with the Academy MiG-23 parts was easier than expected, though, and the resulting fictional aircraft looks sturdy but quite believable - even though it appears to me like the unexpected child of a Mirage III/F-4 Phantom II intercourse, or like a juvenile CF-105 Arrow, just with mid-wings? Nevertheless, the disruptive paint scheme suits the delta wing fighter well, and the green/red fin is a striking contrast - it's a colorful model, but not garish.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background
The Focke Wulf Ta 338 originated as a response of request by the RLM in mid 1943 for an aircraft capable of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL), optimized for the interceptor and point defense role and without a hazardous liquid rocket engine as means of propulsion. In the course of the year, several German manufacturers responded with a multitude of highly innovative if not unusual design, including Heinkel with the ducted fan project "Lerche", Rheinmetall-Borsig with a jet-powered tailsitter, and Focke Wulf. This company’s engineering teams submitted two designs: the revolutionary "Triebflügel" concept and the more conservative, yet still futuristic "P.03.10338" tail sitter proposal, conceived by Focke Wulf’s leading engineer Kurt Tank and Walter Kappus from BMW, responsible for the engine development.
The P.03.10338 was based on the proven Fw 190 fighter, but the similarities were only superficial. Only the wings and a part of the fuselage structure around the cockpit would be used, but Tank assumed that using existing parts and tools would appreciably reduce development and production time.
A great part of the fuselage structure had to be re-designed to accommodate a powerful BMW 803 engine and its integral gearbox for an eight-bladed contraprop.
The BMW 803 was BMW's attempt to build a high-output aircraft engine, primarily for heavy bombers, by basically "coupling" two BMW 801 engines back-to-back into a single and very compact power unit. The result was a 28-cylinder, four-row radial engine, each comprising a multiple-bank in-line engine with two cylinders in each bank, which, due to cooling concerns, were liquid cooled.
This arrangement was from the start intended to drive independent contra-rotating propellers, in order to avoid stiffness problems with the whole engine driving just a single crankshaft and also to simply convert the raw power of this unit into propulsion. The front half of the engine drove the front propeller directly, while the rear engine drove a number of smaller shafts that passed between the cylinders of the front engine before being geared back together to drive the rear prop. This complex layout resulted in a rather large and heavy gearbox on the front of the engine, and the front engine needing an extended shaft to "clear" that gearbox. The four-row 803 engine weighed 2,950 kg (6,490 lb) dry and 4,130 kg (9,086 lb) fully loaded, and initial versions delivered 3,900 PS (3,847 hp; 2,868 kW).
While the engine was heavy and there were alternatives with a better weight/output ratio (e. g. the Jumo 222), the BMW 803 was favored for this project because it was the most powerful engine available, and it was relatively compact so that it could be fitted into a fighter's airframe. On the P.03.10338 it drove an all-metal, eight-blade contraprop with a diameter of 4,25 m (13 ft 11 in).
In order to accept this massive engine, the P.03.10338’s structure had to be stiffened and the load-bearing structures re-arranged. The aircraft kept the Fw 190's wing structure and surface, but the attachment points at the fuselage had to be moved for the new engine mount, so that they ended up in mid position. The original space for the Fw 190's landing gear was used for a pair of radiator baths in the wings' inner leading edge, the port radiator catering to the front engine half while the radiator on starboard was connected with the rear half. An additional annular oil and sodium cooler for the gearbox and the valve train, respectively, was mounted in the fuselage nose.
The tail section was completely re-designed. Instead of the Fw 190's standard tail with fin and stabilizers the P.03.10338’s tail surfaces were a reflected cruciform v-tail (forming an x) that extended above and below the fuselage. On the four fin tips, aerodynamic bodies carried landing pads while the fuselage end contained an extendable landing damper. The pilot sat in a standard Fw 190 cockpit, and the aircraft was supposed to start and land vertically from a mobile launch pad. In the case of an emergency landing, the lower stabilizers could be jettisoned. Nor internal armament was carried, instead any weaponry was to be mounted under the outer wings or the fuselage, in the form of various “Rüstsätze” packages.
Among the many exotic proposals to the VTOL fighter request, Kurt Tank's design appeared as one of the most simple options, and the type received the official RLM designation Ta 338. In a rush of urgency (and maybe blinded by clever Wunderwaffen marketing from Focke Wulf’s side), a series of pre-production aircraft was ordered instead of a dedicated prototype, which was to equip an Erprobungskommando (test unit, abbreviated “EK”) that would evaluate the type and develop tactics and procedures for the new fighter.
Fueled by a growing number of bomber raids over Germany, the “EK338” was formed as a part of JG300 in August 1944 in Schönwalde near Berlin, but it took until November 1944 that the first Ta 338 A-0 machines were delivered and made operational. These initial eight machines immediately revealed several flaws and operational problems, even though the VTOL concept basically worked and the aircraft flew well – once it was in the air and cruising at speeds exceeding 300 km/h (186 mph).
Beyond the many difficulties concerning the aircraft’s handling (esp. the landing was hazardous), the lack of a landing gear hampered ground mobility and servicing. Output of the BMW 803 was sufficient, even though the aircraft had clear limits concerning the take-off weight, so that ordnance was limited to only 500 kg (1.100 lb). Furthermore, the noise and the dust kicked up by starting or landing aircraft was immense, and servicing the engine or the weapons was more complicated than expected through the high position of many vital and frequently tended parts.
After three Ta 338 A-0 were lost in accidents until December 1944, a modified version was ordered for a second group of the EK 338. This led to the Ta 338 A-1, which now had shorter but more sharply swept tail fins that carried single wheels and an improved suspension under enlarged aerodynamic bodies.
This machine was now driven by an improved BMW 803 A-2 that delivered more power and was, with an MW-50 injection system, able to produce a temporary emergency output of 4.500 hp (3.308 kW).
Vertical start was further assisted by optional RATO units, mounted in racks at the rear fuselage flanks: either four Schmidding SG 34 solid fuel booster rockets, 4.9 kN (1,100 lbf) thrust each, or two larger 9.8 kN (2,203 lbf) solid fuel booster rockets, could be used. These improvements now allowed a wider range of weapons and equipment to be mounted, including underwing pods with unguided rockets against bomber pulks and also a conformal pod with two cameras for tactical reconnaissance.
The hazardous handling and the complicated maintenance remained the Ta 338’s Achilles heel, and the tactical benefit of VTOL operations could not outbalance these flaws. Furthermore, the Ta 338’s range remained very limited, as well as the potential firepower. Four 20mm or two 30mm cannons were deemed unsatisfactory for an interceptor of this class and power. And while bundles of unguided missiles proved to be very effective against large groups of bombers, it was more efficient to bring these weapons with simple and cheap vehicles like the Bachem Ba 349 Natter VTOL rocket fighter into target range, since these were effectively “one-shot” weapons. Once the Ta 338 fired its weapons it had to retreat unarmed.
In mid 1945, in the advent of defeat, further tests of the Ta 338 were stopped. I./EK338 was disbanded in March 1945 and all machines retreated from the Eastern front, while II./EK338 kept defending the Ruhrgebiet industrial complex until the Allied invasion in April 1945. Being circled by Allied forces, it was not possible to evacuate or destroy all remaining Ta 338s, so that at least two more or less intact airframes were captured by the U.S. Army and later brought to the United States for further studies.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length/height on the ground: 10.40 m (34 ft 2 in)
Wingspan: 10.50 m (34 ft 5 in)
Fin span: 4:07 m (13 ft 4 in)
Wing area: 18.30 m² (196.99 ft²)
Empty weight: 11,599 lb (5,261 kg)
Loaded weight: 16,221 lb (7,358 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 16,221 lb (7,358 kg)
Powerplant:
1× BMW 803 A-2 28-cylinder, liquid-cooled four-row radial engine,
rated at 4.100 hp (2.950 kW) and at 4.500 hp (3.308 kW) with emergency boost.
4x Schmidding SG 34 solid fuel booster rockets, 4.9 kN (1,100 lbf) thrust each, or
2x 9.8 kN (2,203 lbf) solid fuel booster rockets
Performance:
Maximum speed: 860 km/h (534 mph)
Cruise speed: 650 km/h (403 mph)
Range: 750 km (465 ml)
Service ceiling: 43,300 ft (13,100 m)
Rate of climb: 10,820 ft/min (3,300 m/min)
Wing loading: 65.9 lb/ft² (322 kg/m²)
Armament:
No internal armament, any weapons were to be mounted on three hardpoints (one under the fuselage for up to 1.000 kg (2.200 lb) and two under the outer wings, 500 kg (1.100 lb) each. Total ordnance was limited to 1.000 kg (2.200 lb).
Various armament and equipment sets (Rüstsätze) were tested:
R1 with 4× 20 mm (.79 in) MG 151/20 cannons
R2 with 2x 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 213C cannons
R3 with 48x 73 mm (2.874 in) Henschel Hs 297 Föhn rocket shells
R4 with 66x 55 mm (2.165 in) R4M rocket shells
R5 with a single 1.000 kg (2.200 lb) bomb under the fuselage
R6 with an underfuselage pod with one Rb 20/20 and one Rb 75/30 topographic camera
The kit and its assembly:
This purely fictional kitbashing is a hardware tribute to a highly inspiring line drawing of a Fw 190 VTOL tailsitter – actually an idea for an operational RC model! I found the idea, that reminded a lot of the Lockheed XFV-1 ‘Salmon’ prototype, just with Fw 190 components and some adaptations, very sexy, and so I decided on short notice to follow the urge and build a 1:72 version of the so far unnamed concept.
What looks simple (“Heh, it’s just a Fw 190 with a different tail, isn’t it?”) turned out to become a major kitbashing. The basis was a simple Hobby Boss Fw 190 D-9, chose because of the longer tail section, and the engine would be changed, anyway. Lots of work followed, though.
The wings were sliced off and moved upwards on the flanks. The original tail was cut off, and the cruciform fins are two pairs of MiG-21F stabilizers (from an Academy and Hasegawa kit), outfitted with reversed Mk. 84 bombs as aerodynamic fairings that carry four small wheels (from an 1:144 T-22M bomber) on scratched struts (made from wire).
The cockpit was taken OOB, only a pilot figure was cramped into the seat in order to conceal the poor interior detail. The engine is a bash from a Ju 188’s BMW 801 cowling and the original Fw 190 D-9’s annular radiator as well as a part of its Jumo 213 cowling. BMW 801 exhaust stubs were inserted, too, and the propeller comes from a 1:100 VEB Plasticart Tu-20/95 bomber.
Since the BMW 803 had liquid cooling, radiators had to go somewhere. The annular radiator would certainly not have been enough, so I used the space in the wings that became available through the deleted Fw 190 landing gear (the wells were closed) for additional radiators in the wings’ leading edges. Again, these were scratched with styrene profiles, putty and some very fine styrene mesh.
As ordnance I settled for a pair of gun pods – in this case these are slipper tanks from a Hobby Boss MiG-15, blended into the wings and outfitted with hollow steel needles as barrels.
Painting and markings:
Several design options were possible: all NMF with some colorful markings or an overall RLM76 finish with added camouflage. But I definitively went for a semi-finished look, inspired by late WWII Fw 190 fighters.
For instance, the wings’ undersides were partly left in bare metal, but the rudders painted in RLM76 while the leading edges became RLM75. This color was also taken on the wings’ upper sides, with RLM82 thinly painted over. The fuselage is standard RLM76, with RLM82 and 83 on the upper side and speckles on the flanks. The engine cowling became NMF, but with a flashy ‘Hartmann Tulpe’ decoration.
Further highlights are the red fuselage band (from JG300 in early 1945) and the propeller spinner, which received a red tip and segments in black and white on both moving propeller parts. Large red “X”s were used as individual aircraft code – an unusual Luftwaffe practice but taken over from some Me 262s.
After a light black ink wash some panel shading and light weathering (e.g. exhaust soot, leaked oil, leading edges) was done, and the kit sealed under matt acrylic varnish.
Building this “thing” on the basis of a line drawing was real fun, even though challenging and more work than expected. I tried to stay close to the drawing, the biggest difference is the tail – the MiG-21 stabilizers were the best option (and what I had at hand as donation parts), maybe four fins from a Hawker Harrier or an LTV A-7 had been “better”, but now the aircraft looks even faster. ;)
Besides, the Ta 338 is so utterly Luft ’46 – I am curious how many people might take this for real or as a Hydra prop from a contemporary Captain America movie…
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some Background:
The Lockheed F-94 Starfire was a first-generation jet aircraft of the United States Air Force. It was developed from the twin-seat Lockheed T-33 Shooting Star in the late 1940s as an all-weather, day/night interceptor.
The aircraft reached operational service in May 1950 with Air Defense Command, replacing the propeller-driven North American F-82 Twin Mustang in the all-weather interceptor role. The F-94 was the first operational USAF fighter equipped with an afterburner and was the first jet-powered all-weather fighter to enter combat during the Korean War in January 1953.
The initial production model was the F-94A, which entered operational service in May 1950. Its armament consisted of four 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M3 Browning machine guns mounted in the fuselage with the muzzles exiting under the radome. Two 165 US Gallon (1,204 litre) drop tanks, as carried by the F-80 and T-33, were carried on the wingtips. Alternatively, these could be replaced by a pair of 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs under the wings, giving the aircraft a secondary fighter bomber capability. 109 were produced.
The subsequent F-94B, which entered service in January 1951, was outwardly virtually identical to the F-94A. The Allison J33 turbojet had a number of modifications made, though, which made it a very reliable engine. The pilot was provided with a more roomy cockpit and the canopy was replaced by a canopy with a bow frame in the center between the two crew members, as well as a new Instrument Landing System (ILS). 356 of these were built.
The following F-94C was extensively modified and initially designated F-97, but it was ultimately decided to treat it as a new version of the F-94. USAF interest was lukewarm, since aircraft technology developed at a fast pace in the Fifties, so Lockheed funded development themselves, converting two F-94B airframes to YF-94C prototypes for evaluation.
To improve performance, a completely new, much thinner wing was fitted, along with a swept tail surface. The J33 engine was replaced with a more powerful Pratt & Whitney J48, a license-built version of the afterburning Rolls-Royce Tay, which produced a dry thrust of 6,350 pounds-force (28.2 kN) and approximately 8,750 pounds-force (38.9 kN) with afterburning.
The fire control system was upgraded to the Hughes E-5 with an AN/APG-40 radar in a modified nose with an enlarged radome. The guns were removed and replaced with an all-rocket armament, which was – at that time – regarded as more effective against high-flying, subsonic bomber formations. The internal armament consisted of four flip-up panels in a ring around the nose, each containing six rockets. External pods on the wings augmented the offensive ordnance to 48 projectiles. Operational service began with six squadrons by May 1954.
According to test pilot Tony LeVier, the F-94C was capable of supersonic flight, but Lockheed felt that the straight wing limited the airframe's potential, esp. with the uprated engine. Besides, the earlier F-94 variants already saw the end of their relatively brief operational life, already being replaced in the mid-1950s by the Northrop F-89 Scorpion and North American F-86D Sabre interceptor aircraft in front-line service and relegated to National Guard service. Therefore, Lockheed launched another update program for the F-94 in 1953, again as a private venture.
The resulting F-94E (the F-94D was a proposed fighter bomber variant which made it to prototype staus) was another, evolutionary modification of the basic concept, which, in the meantime, had almost nothing left in common with its F-80/T-33 ancestry.
It was based on the F-94C, most obvious change was the introduction of swept wings for supersonic capability in level flight. This change also necessitated other aerodynamic adjustments, including a new, deeper fin with increased area and a modified landing gear that would better cope with the increased AUW.
Under the hood, the F-94E was constructed around the new Hughes MG-3 fire control system, similar to the early F-102, but kept the AN/APG-40, even though it was coupled with an enlarged antenna. The respective new radome now covered the complete nose cross section. Furthermore, the F-94 E introduced innovations like a Texas Instruments infrared search/tracking system (IRST), which allowed passive tracking of heat emissions, mounted in a canoe fairing under the nose, passive radar warning receivers, transponders as well as backup artificial horizons.
With this improved equipment the interceptor was now able to deploy semi-active radar homing GAR-1s and/or infrared GAR-2s (later re-designated AIM-4A/B Falcon), operating at day and night as well as under harsh weather conditions.
All missiles were carried externally on underwing pylons. Beside the original main wet hardpoints outside the landing gear (typically a pair of 165 US Gallon (1,204 litre) drop tank, that were carried on the wing tips on the former versions), two additional pairs of lighter pylons were added under the wing roots and the outer wings.
Typically, a pair of SARH- and IR-guided AIM-4s were carried, one per pylon, plus a pair of drop tanks. Alternatively, the F-94E could carry up to 4.000 lb (1,816 kg) of ordnance, including up to six streamlined pods, each holding nineteen 2 ¾” in (70 mm) Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rockets. Any internal armament was deleted.
The F-94E's new wings allowed a top speed of 687mph at sea level and a top speed of 693 mph (1,115 km/h) at height – compared with the F-94C’s 640 mph (556 kn, 1,030 km/h) a rather mild improvement. But the enlarged wing area resulted in a considerably improved rate of climb as well as good maneuverability at height. The F-94E's performance was overall on par with the F-86D, with the benefit of a second crew member, while its weapon capability was comparable with the much bigger (but slower) F-89.
Both of these types were already introduced, so the Air Force's interest was, once more, less than enthusiastic. Eventually the F-94's proven resilience to harsh climate conditions, esp. in the Far North, earned Lockheed in 1955 a production contract for 72 F-94Es for interceptor squadrons based in Alaska, New Foundland, Greenland and Iceland.
These production machines arrived to the Northern theatre of operations in summer 1956 and featured an improved weapon capability: on the wet wing hardpoints, a pair of MB-1 Genie (formerly known as ‘Ding Dong’ missile, later re-coded AIR-2) nuclear unguided rockets could be carried.
For the missile pylons under the wing roots, twin launch rails were introduced so that the F-94E could theoretically carry a total of up to eight AIM-4 missiles, even though the wet pylons were typically occupied with the drop tanks and only two pairs of AIM-4A and B were carried under the wing roots. The J48 engine was slightly uprated, too: the F-94E’s P-9 variant delivered now 6,650 lbf (29.5 kN) dry thrust and 10,640 lbf (47.3 kN) at full afterburner.
Keflavik Airport, Iceland, although controlled by Military Air Transport Service (MATS), was the first base to be equipped with F-94Es as part of the 82d Fighter-Interceptor Squadron in early 1957, where the machines replaced F-94Bs and F-89Cs.
The type was popular among the crews, because it coupled a relatively high agility (compared with the F-89 Scorpion) with the psychological benefit of a two men crew, not to be underestimated during operations in the Far North as well as over open water.
The F-94's career didn't last long, though, the aircraft soon became outdated. The last F-94E was already retired from USAF front-line service in November 1962, only three years after the last F-94C Starfires were phased out of ANG service. Eventually, the fighters were replaced by the F-101, F-102 and the F-106.
General characteristics:
Crew: 2
Length: 44 ft 11 in (13.71 m)
Wingspan: 39 ft 10 in (12.16 m)
Height: 14 ft 6 in (4.43 m)
Wing area: 313.4 sq ft (29.11 m²)
Empty weight: 12,708 lb (5,764 kg)
Loaded weight: 18,300 lb (8,300 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 24,184 lb (10,970 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Pratt & Whitney J48-P-9 turbojet, rated at 6,650 lbf (29.5 kN) dry thrust
and 10,640 lbf (47.3 kN) at full afterburner.
Performance:
Maximum speed: 693 mph (1,115 km/h) at height and in level flight
Range: 805 mi (700 nmi, 1,300 km) in combat configuration with four AAMs and two drop tanks
Ferry range: 1,275 mi (1,100 nmi, 2,050 km)
Service ceiling: 51,400 ft (15,670 m)
Rate of climb: 12,150 ft/min (61.7 m/s)
Wing loading: 78.6 lb/ft² (384 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.48
Armament:
Six underwing pylons for a mix of AIM-4 Falcon AAMs (IR- and SARH-guided),
pods with unguided 19× 2.75” (70 mm) Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rockets,
a pair of 165 gal. drop tanks or a pair of unguided nuclear MB-1 Genie air-to-air missiles
The kit and its assembly:
Another entry for the Cold War GB at whatifmodelers.com. This build was originally inspired by profiles of a P-80/F-86 hybrid, and respective kitbashings from other modelers. An elegant, though fictional, aircraft! Nevertheless, I wanted to build one, too, and take the original idea a step further. So I chose the F-94 as an ingredient for the kit mix – a rather overlooked aircraft, and getting hands on a donation kit took some time, since there are not many options.
I wanted to use the F-94C as starting point, which is already considerably different from the F-80/T-33. Adding swept wings (from a Hobby Boss F-86F, with larger “6-3” wings) changed this look even more. So much that I decided to modify the fin, which did not look appropriate anymore.
The fin and the spine’s rear end was replaced with the fin of a Kangnam/Revell Yak-38. In order to unify shapes and make the donation less obvious, the Yak-38 fin’s characteristic, pointed tip was clipped and replaced by a more conventional design, scratched from a piece of 1.5mm styrene sheet. In the wake of this modification, the round elevator tips were clipped, too.
Using the F-94’s landing gear wells as benchmarks, the F-86 wings (which had to be cut off of the Hobby Boss kit’s integral, lower fuselage part) were sanded into shape and simply glued into a proper position.
This worked so well that a completely new and plausible main landing gear installation was created. As a consequence, I used the F-86’s landing gear struts - they are much better detailed than the Emhar F-94C’s parts. The front wheel strut (it’s a single piece) was transplanted too, even though the suspension was switched 180°.
The Emhar F-94C’s cockpit is pretty good (esp. the seats) and were taken OOB. I just covered some gaps in the cockpit walls and under the windscreen with paper tissue, soaked with white glue.
The nose was replaced by a bigger radome, taken from an Armstrong Whitworth Meteor NF.14 (Matchbox kit). Its diameter and shape fit almost perfectly onto the F-94C’s front end, and the result reminds a lot of the EF-94C photo reconnaissance test aircraft! Under the nose, a shallow fairing for the IR sensor was added, and all four air brakes were mounted in open position.
The underwing pylons come from the scrap box (one pair from an Airfix A-1 Skyraider, another from an ESCI Kamow Ka-34 ‘Hokum’ which also provide the launch rails for the ordnance). The drop tanks come probably from an Italeri F-16 (not certain) while the four AIM-4s come from a Hasegawa USAF air-to-air weapons set.
Painting and markings:
This was supposed to become a classic USAF aircraft of the late Fifties, since the F-94 had never been exported. I was actually tempted to add Red Stars, though, because the overall shape has a certain Soviet look to it - esp. the nose, which reminds a lot of the contemporary Yak-25 interceptor?
But the original USAF idea won, with an all-metal finish. In order to brighten things up I chose a squadron that served with the Northeast or Alaskan Air Command, which added orange-red high-viz markings to wings and fuselage.
The NMF sections were primed with a base coat of Revell’s acrylic Aluminum. On top of that, single panels and details were painted with Alu Plate and Steel Metallizer from Modelmaster.
The International Orange markings were created with Humbrol 132, slightly shaded with orange (Humbrol 18).
Part of the nose section and the spine were painted in ADC Grey (FS 16473, Modelmaster), just for some diversity. Cockpit interior and landing gear wells received a coat of US Cockpit Green (Humbrol 226), while the interior of the air brakes was painted in Zinc Primer (Humbrol 81), according to pictures of operational F-94s.
The landing gear struts and the inside of their covers became Aluminum (Humbrol 56). The anti glare panel in front of the cockpit was done with dark olive drab (Humbrol 66), the radome flat black and weathered with wet-in-wet streaks of sand brown.
Operational F-94s show serious weathering on their di-electric noses, so this detail was taken over to the kit. Other weathering with paint, beyond a basic black ink wash and some shading on the orange areas, was not done.
The drop tanks were painted with Steel Metallizer, for a different metallic shade from the fuselage, and the AIM-4’s received a typical outfit in white and bright red with different seeker heads.
Primary decals come from a Heller F-94B kit, which have the benefit of a silver background – even though this does not match 100% with the paint. Squadron markings come from an Xtradecal F-102 sheet, tailored to the kit. Most stencils come from the Emhar OOB sheet, plus some more from the aforementioned F-102 sheet.
After some soot stains around the exhaust were added with graphite, the kit was sealed under a coat of semi-glossy acrylic varnish. The anti glare panel and the radome were kept matt, though.
A pretty result. Mixing parts from a Shooting Star and a Sabre (a Shooting Sabre, perhaps?) results in a very elegant aircraft. And while the F-94 lost much of its original, elegant appeal, the combo still works with this later interceptor variant of the F-80. Very plausible, IMHO.
+++ 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 Hawker Cyclone was an evolutionary successor to the successful Hawker Typhoon and Tempest fighters and fighter-bombers of the Second World War. The Cyclone's design process was initiated in September 1942 by Sydney Camm, one of Hawker's foremost aircraft designers, to meet the Royal Air Force’s requirement for a lightweight Tempest Mk.II and V replacement.
The project, tentatively designated Tempest Mk. VIII, was formalised in January 1943 when the Air Ministry issued Specification F.2/42 around the "Tempest Light Fighter".This was followed up by Specification F.2/43, issued in May 1943, which required a high rate of climb of not less than 4,500 ft/min (23 m/s) from ground level to 20,000 feet (6,096 m), good fighting manoeu rability and a maximum speed of at least 450 mph (724 km/h) at 22,000 feet (6,705 m). The armament was to be four 20mm Hispano V cannon with a total capacity of 600 rounds, plus the capability of carrying two bombs each up to 1,000 pounds (454 kg). In April 1943, Hawker had also received Specification N.7/43 from the Admiralty, who sought a navalized version of the developing aircraft, what eventually led to the Hawker Sea Fury, which was a completely new aircraft, which only shared the general outlines of the Tempest.
The Royal Air Force was looking for a quicker solution, and Camm started working on a new laminar flow wing, which would further improve the Tempest’s speed. Further refinements were done to other aerodynamic components, too, like the radiator, since the Tempest V’s liquid-cooled Napier Sabre engine was to be used. After some experiments with new arrangements, an annular radiator directly behind the propeller was chosen – certainly inspired by fast German aircraft like the Fw 190D and developed by Napier.
A total of three prototypes were ordered; the first one was powered by a Napier Sabre IIA liquid-cooled H-24 sleeve-valve engine, generating 2,180 hp (1,625 kW), but the second and any following aircraft carried the more powerful Sabre V with 2,340 hp, driving a Rotol four-blade propeller. Later aircraft were even to carry the Napier Sabre VII, which was capable of developing 3,400–4,000 hp (2,535–2,983 kW) and pushing the top speed to 485 mph (780 km/h) and more. The third airframe was just a static test structure. However, since the differences between the Tempest and the new aircraft had become almost as big as to its predecessor, the Typhoon, the new type received its own name Cyclone.
The first Cyclone Mk. I to fly, on 30 August 1944, was NV950, and it became clear soon that the modifications would improve the Cyclone’s top speed vs. the Tempest by almost 30 mph (50 km/h), but the new components would also require a longer testing period than expected. The annular radiator frequently failed and overheated, and the new, slender wings caused directional stability problems so that the complete tail section had to be re-designed. This troubling phase took more than 6 months, so that eventual service aircraft would only be ready in mid-1945 – too late for any serious impact in the conflict.
However, since the Hawker Fury, the land-based variant of the Sea Fury, which had been developed from the Tempest for the Royal Navy in parallel, had been cancelled, the Royal Air Force still ordered 150 Cyclone fighters (F Mk. I), of which one third would also carry cameras and other reconnaissance equipment (as Cyclone FR Mk.II). Due to the end of hostilities in late 1945, this order immediately lost priority. Consequently, the first production Cyclone fighters were delivered in summer 1946 – and in the meantime, jet fighters had rendered the piston-powered fighters obsolete, at least in RAF service. As a consequence, all Cyclones were handed over to friendly Commonwealth nations and their nascent air forces, e. g. India, Thailand or Burma. India received its first Cyclones in late 1947, just when the Kashmir conflict with Pakistan entered a hot phase. The machines became quickly involved in this conflict from early 1948 onwards.
Cyclones played an important role in the strikes against hostiles at Pir Badesar and the dominating Pir Kalewa. The taking of Ramgarh fort and Pt. 6944 on the west flank of Bhimbar Gali was to be a classic close support action with Indian forces carrying out a final bayonet charge against the enemy trenches whilst RIAF Cyclones and Tempests strafed and rocketed the trenches at close quarters. On a chance reconnaissance, enemy airfields were located at Gilgit and 40 NMs south, at Chilas. Cyclones flew several strikes against the landing strips in Oct and Nov 48, cratering & damaging both and destroying several hangars, barracks and radio installations. This attack destroyed Pakistani plans to build an offensive air capability in the North. Already, with Tempests and Cyclones prowling the valleys, Pakistani re-supply by Dakotas had been limited to hazardous night flying through the valleys.
After the end of hostilities in late 1948 and the ensuing independence, the Cyclone squadrons settled into their peace time stations. However, constant engine troubles (particularly the radiator) continued to claim aircraft and lives and the skill required to land the Cyclone because of its high approach speed continued to cause several write offs. The arrival of the jet-engined Vampire were the first signs of the Cyclone’s demise. As the IAF began a rapid expansion to an all jet force, several Tempest and Cyclone squadrons began converting to Vampires, 7 Squadron being the first in Dec 49. By this time it had already been decided that the piston-engine fighters would be relegated to the fighter lead-in role to train pilots for the new jet fighters. A conversion training flight was set up at Ambala in Sep 49 with Spitfire T Mk IXs, XVIIIs and Tempests to provide 16 hrs/six weeks of supervised Tempest training. This unit eventually moved to Hakimpet two years later and operated till the end of 1952. Some Cyclone FR Mk. IIs remained in front line service until 1954, though.
General characteristics:
Crew: One
Length: 35 ft 5 3/4 in (10.83 m)
Wingspan: 42 ft 5 1/2 in (12.96 m)
Height (tail down): 15 ft 6 3/4 in (4.75 m)
Wing area: 302 ft² (28 m²)
Empty weight: 9,250 lb (4,195 kg)
Loaded weight: 11,400 lb (5,176 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 13,640 lb (6,190 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Napier Sabre V liquid-cooled H-24 sleeve-valve engine with 2,340 hp (1,683 kW)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 460 mph (740 km/h) 18,400 ft (5,608 m),
Range: 740 mi (1,190 km)
1,530 mi (2,462 km) with two 90 gal (409 l) drop tanks
Service ceiling: 36,500 ft (11,125 m)
Rate of climb: 4,700 ft/min (23.9 m/s)
Wing loading: 37.75 lb/ft² (184.86 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.21 hp/lb (0.31 kW/kg)
Armament:
4× 20 mm (.79 in) Mark V Hispano cannons, 200 RPG
2× underwing hardpoints for 500 lb (227 kg) or 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs
or 2 × 45 gal (205 l) or 2 × 90 gal (409 l) drop tanks
plus 6× 3” (76.2 mm) RP-3 rockets
The kit and its assembly:
Another episode in the series “Things to make and do with Supermarine Attacker wings”. And what started as a simple switch of wings eventually turned into a major kitbashing, since the model evolved from a modded Tempest into something more complex and conclusive.
The initial spark was the idea of a Hawker alternative to Supermarine’s Spiteful and Seafang developments – especially with their slender laminar flow wings. Wouldn’t a Hawker alternative make sense?
Said and done, I dug out a NOVO Attacker kit and a Matchbox Tempest, and started measuring – and the wing transplantation appeared feasible! I made the cut on the Tempest wing just outside of the oil cooler, and the Attacker wings were then attached to these stubs – after some gaps for the landing gear wells had been cut into the massive lower wing halves. The stunt went more smoothly than expected, the only cosmetic flaw is that the guns went pretty far outboard, but that’s negligible.
But the different wings were not enough. I had recently seen in a book a picture of a Tempest (NV 768) with an experimental annular radiator for the Sabre engine (looking like a streamlined Tempest II), and wondered if this arrangement would have been the aerodynamically more efficient solution than the bulbous chin radiator of the Tempest V and VI? I decided to integrate this feature into my build, too, even though not as a copy of the real-world arrangement. The whole nose section, even though based on the OOB Mk. V nose, was scratched and re-sculpted with lots of putty. The radiator intake comes from a FROG He 219, with the front end opened and a fan from a Matchbox Fw 190 placed inside, as well as a styrene tube for the new propeller. The latter was scratched, too, from a Matchbox He 70 spinner and single blades from an Italeri F4U, plus a metal axis. The exhaust stubs were taken OOB, but their attachment slits had to be re-engraved into the new and almost massive nose section.
Once the wings and the nose became more concrete, I found that the Tempest’s original rounded tail surfaces would not match with the new, square wings. Therefore I replaced the stabilizers with donations from a Heller F-84G and modified the fin with a new, square tip (from an Intech Fw 190D) and got rid of the fin fillet – both just small modifications, but they change the Tempest’s profile thoroughly.
In order to underline the aircraft’s new, sleek lines, I left away any ordnance – but instead I added some camera fairings: one under the rear fuselage or a pair of vertical/oblique cameras, and another camera window portside for a horizontal camera. The openings were drilled, and, after painting, the kit the camera windows were created with Humbrol Clearfix.
Painting and markings:
Somehow I thought that this aircraft had to carry Indian markings – and I had a set of standard Chakra Wheels from the late Forties period in my stash. The camouflage is, typical for early IAF machines of British origin, RAF standard, with Dark Green and Ocean Grey from above and Medium Sea Grey from below. I just used the more brownish pst-war RAF Dark Green tone (Humbrol 163), coupled with the rather light Ocean Grey from Modelmaster (2057). The underside became Humbrol 165. All interior surfaces were painted with RAF Interior Green, nothing fancy. The only colorful addition is the saffron-colored spinner, in an attempt to match the fin flash’s tone.
As a standard measure, the kit received a black ink wash and some panel post-shading with lighter tones – only subtly, since the machine was not to look too weathered and beaten, just used from its Kashmir involvements.
The national markings come from a Printscale Airspeed Oxford sheet, the tactical code with alternating white and black letters, depending on the underground (the sky fuselage band comes from a Matchbox Brewster Buffalo), was puzzled together from single letters from TL Modellbau – both seen on different contemporary RIAF aircraft.
As another, small individual detail I gave the machine a tactical code letter on the fuselage, and the small tiger emblems under the cockpit were home-printed from the official IAF No. 1 Squadron badge.
Despite the massive modifications this one is a relatively subtle result, all the changes become only visible at a second glance. A sleek aircraft, and from certain angley the Cyclone looks like an A-1 Skyraider on a diet?
+++ 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 Gloster Glaive was basically a modernized and re-engined variant of the successful, British-built Gloster Gladiator (or Gloster SS.37), the RAF’s final biplane fighter to enter service. The Gladiator was not only widely used by the RAF at the dawn of WWII and in almost every theatre of operations, but also by many other nations. Operators included Norway, Belgium, Sweden, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania or Nationalist China, and while the RAF already opted for more modern monoplanes, Gloster saw the opportunity to sell an updated Gladiator to countries which were not as progressive.
Originally designated Gladiator Mk. IV, the machine received many aerodynamic refinements and the motor was changed from a draggy radial to a liquid-cooled inline engine. The latter was the new Rolls Royce Peregrine, a development of the Kestrel. It was, in its original form, a 21-litre (1,300 cu in) liquid-cooled V-12 aero engine ), delivering 885-horsepower (660 kW). The engine was housed under a streamlined cowling, driving a three blade metal propeller, and was coupled with a ventral radiator bath, reminiscent of the Hawker Fury biplane’s arrangement.
Structural improvements included an all-metal monocoque fuselage and stabilizers, as well as new wings and streamlined struts with reduced bracing. The upper wing was enlarged and of all-metal construction, too, while the lower wings were reduced in span and area, almost resulting in a sesquiplane layout. The total wing area was only marginally reduced, though.
The fixed landing gear was retained, but the main wheels were now covered with spats. The pilot still sat in a fully enclosed cockpit, the armament consisted of four machine guns, similar to the Gladiator. But for the Glaive, all Browning machine guns were synchronized and mounted in the fuselage: one pair was placed on top of the cowling, in front of the cockpit. Another pair, much like the Gladiator’s arrangement was placed in the fuselage flanks, below the exhaust outlets.
Compared with the Gladiator, the design changes were so fundamental that Gloster eventually decided to allocate a separate designation – also with a view to the type’s foreign marketing, since a new aircraft appeared more attractive than another mark of a pre-war design. For the type’s virgin flight in late 1938 the name “Glaive” was unveiled to the public, and several smaller European air forces immediately showed interest, including Greece, Croatia, Turkey, Portugal and Egypt.
Greece was one of the initial customers, and the first of a total of 24 aircraft for the Hellenic Air Force was delivered in early 1939, with 24 more on order (which were never delivered, though). The initial batch arrived just in time, since tension had been building between Greece and Italy since 7 April 1939, when Italian troops occupied Albania. On 28 October 1940, Italy issued an ultimatum to Greece, which was promptly rejected. A few hours later, Italian troops launched an invasion of Greece, initiating the Greco-Italian War.
The Hellenic Gloster Glaives were split among three Mirae Dioxeos (Fighter Squadrons): the 21st at Trikala, 22nd at Thessaloniki and 23rd at Larissa. When Italy attacked in October 1940, the British fighter was, together with the PZL 24, the Greeks' only modern type in adequate numbers. However, by late 1940, the Gloster Glaive was already no longer a front-runner despite a powerful powerplant and satisfactory armament. It had no speed advantage over the Fiat Cr.42 nor could it outfly the nimble Italian biplane, and it was much slower than the Macchi MC.200 and the Fiat G.50 it was pitted against. Its agility was the only real advantage against the Italian fighters, whose reliance on the slow firing Breda-SAFAT 12.7mm machine guns proved detrimental.
Anyway, on 5 April 1941, German forces invaded Greece and quickly established air superiority. As the Allied troops retreated, British and Hellenic forces covered them, before flying to Crete during the last week of April. There, the refugee aircraft recorded a few claims over twin-engine aircraft before being evacuated to Egypt during the Battle of Crete.
Overall, the Glaives performed gallantly during the early period of the conflict, holding their own against impossible numerical odds and despite the fact that their main target were enemy bombers which forced them to fight at a disadvantage against enemy fighters. Italian claims of easy superiority over the Albanian front were vastly over-rated and their kill claims even exceeded the total number of operational fighters on the Greek side. Total Greek fighter losses in combat came to 24 a/c with the Greek fighter pilots claiming 64 confirmed kills and 24 probables (about two third bombers).
By April 1941, however, lack of spares and attrition had forced the Hellenic Air Force to merge the surviving seven Glaives with five leftover PZL.24s into one understrength squadron supported by five Gloster Gladiators Mk I & II and the two surviving MB.151s. These fought hopelessly against the Luftwaffe onslaught, and most aircraft were eventually lost on the ground. None of the Hellenic Gloster Glaives survived the conflict.
General characteristics:
Crew: two
Length: 8.92m (29 ft 3 in)
Wingspan: 34 ft 0 in (10.36 m)
Height: 11 ft 9 in (3.58 m)
Wing area: 317 ft² (29.4 m²)
Empty weight: 1,295 kg (2,855 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 1,700 kg (3,748 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Rolls Royce Peregrine II liquid-cooled V12 inline engine, rated at 940 hp (700 kw)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 405 km/h (252 mph; 219 kn) at 4,400 m (14,436 ft)
Cruise speed: 345 km/h (214 mph; 186 kn)
Stall speed: 60 mph (52 knots, 96 km/h)
Range: 373 mi (600 km; 324 nmi)
Endurance: 2 hours
Service ceiling: 10,600 m (34,800 ft)
Rate of climb: 2,982 ft/min (15.15 m/s)
Time to altitude: 10.000 ft (3.050 m) in 3 minutes 20 seconds
Armament:
4× 0.303 calibre (7.7 mm) M1919 Browning machine guns in the fuselage
Provisions for 6× 10 kg (22 lb) or 4x 20 kg (44 lb) bombs under the lower wings
The kit and its assembly:
The fictional Gloster Glaive started quite simple with the idea of replacing the Gladiator’s radial with an inline engine. But this soon did not appear enough for an update – the Peregrine hardly delivered much more power than the former Mercury, so I considered some structural updates, too. Most of them comprised the replacement of former fabric-covered structures, and this led conceptually to a kitbash with only some Gladiator fuselage and tail parts left.
The basis is (once more) the very nice Matchbox Gloster Gladiator, but it was heavily modified. As an initial step, fuselage, fin and stabilizers (all OOB parts) lost their rib-and-fabric structure, simply sanded away. A minor detail, but it changes the overall look of the aircraft a lot, making it appear much more modern.
The fuselage was left without the OOB radial, and instead a leftover Merlin front end from an Airfix Hurricane (ca. 1cm long, left over from one of my first whif builds ever, a Hurricane with a radial engine!) was added. The lines match pretty well: the side profile looks sleek, if not elegant, but the Gladiator fuselage turned out to be wider than expected. Some major body work/PSR was necessary to integrate the new nose, but the result looks very good.
The liquid-cooled engine necessitated a radiator somewhere on the airframe…! Since I wanted the nose to remain slim and streamlined I eventually placed the radiator bath under the fuselage, much like the arrangement of the Hawker Fury biplane. The radiator itself comes from a late Spitfire (FROG kit).
The exhaust was taken from the Hurricane kit, too, and matching slits dug into the putty nose to take them. The three blade propeller is a mash-up, too: the spinner belongs, IIRC, to an early Spitfire (left over from an AZ Models kit) while the blades came from a damaged Matchbox Brewster Buffalo.
The Gladiator’s fuselage flank machine guns were kept and their “bullet channels” extrapolated along the new cowling, running under the new exhaust pipes. Another pair of machine guns were placed on top of the engine – for these, openings were carved into the upper hull and small fairings (similar to the Browning guns in the flanks) added. This arrangement appeared plausible to me, since the Gladiator’s oil cooler was not necessary anymore and the new lower wings (see below) were not big enough anymore to take the Gladiator’s underwing guns. Four MGs in the fuselage appears massive – but there were other types with such an arrangement, e.g. the Avia B-534 with four guns in the flanks and an inline engine.
The wings are complete replacements: the upper wing comes from a Heller Curtiss SBC4, while the lower wings as well as the spats (on shortened OOB Gladiator struts) come from an ICM Polikarpov I-153. All struts were scratched. Once the lower wings were in place and the relative position of the upper wing clear, the outer struts were carved from 1mm styrene sheet, using the I-153 design as benchmark. These were glued to the lower wing first, and, once totally dry after 24h, the upper wing was simply glued onto the top and the wing position adjusted. This was left to dry another 24h, and as a final step the four struts above the cowling (using the OOB struts, but as single parts and trimmed for proper fit) were placed. This way, a stable connection is guaranteed – and the result is surprisingly sturdy.
Rigging was done with heated sprue material – my personal favorite for this delicate task, and executed before painting the kit started so that the glue could cure and bond well.
Painting and markings:
The reason why this aircraft ended in Greek service is a color photograph of a crashed Hellenic Bloch M.B. 152 (coded ‘D 177’, to be specific). I guess that the picture was post-colored, though, because the aircraft of French origin sports rather weird colors: the picture shows a two-tone scheme in a deep, rather reddish chestnut brown and a light green that almost looks like teal. Unique, to say the least... Underside colors couldn’t be identified with certainty in the picture, but appeared like a pale but not too light blue grey.
Anyway, I assume that these colors are pure fiction and exaggerated Photoshop work, since the few M.B. 152s delivered to Greece carried AFAIK standard French camouflage (in French Khaki, Chestnut Brown and Blue-Grey on the upper surfaces, and a very light blue-grey from below). I’d assume that the contrast between the grey and green tones was not very obvious in the original photograph, so that the artist, not familiar with WWII paint schemes, replaced both colors with the strange teal tone and massively overmodulated the brown.
As weird as it looked, I liked this design and used it as an inspirational benchmark for my Hellenic Glaive build. After all, it’s a fictional aircraft… Upper basic colors are Humbrol 31 (RAF Slate Grey) and 160 (German Camouflage Red Brown), while the undersides became French Dark Blue Grey (ModelMaster Authentics 2105). The result looks rather odd…
Representing a combat-worn aircraft, I applied a thorough black ink wash and did heavier panel shading and dry-brushing on the leading edges, along with some visible touches of aluminum.
The Hellenic roundels come from a TL Modellbau aftermarket sheet. The tactical code was puzzled together from single letters, and the Greek “D” was created from single decal strips. For better contrast I used white decals – most Hellenic aircraft of the time had black codes, but the contrast is much better, and I found evidence that some machines actually carried white codes. The small fin flash is another free interpretation. Not every Hellenic aircraft carried these markings, and instead of painting the whole rudder in Greek colors I just applied a small fin flash. This was created with white and blue decal strips, closely matching the roundels’ colors.
Finally, after some soot stains around the guns and the exhausts, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
Modified beyond recognition, perhaps…? The fictional Gloster Glaive looks IMHO good and very modern, just like one of those final biplane designs that were about to be outrun by monoplanes at the brink of WWII.
Just a vintage Action Man custom/ kitbash/ photoshop expirement. Turned out kinda cool :) Wanted to make one since I watched a few old series of Sharpe for ol' time sake on the net.
Flight scene over southern Germany, closing in on Manching in the setting summer sun... ^^
+++ 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 Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet is a light attack jet and advanced trainer aircraft co-manufactured by Dornier of Germany and Dassault-Breguet of France. In the early 1960s, European air forces began to consider their requirements for the coming decades. One of the results was the emergence of a new generation of jet trainers. The British and French began a collaboration on development of what was supposed to be a supersonic jet aircraft in two versions: trainer and light attack aircraft. The result of this collaboration, the SEPECAT Jaguar, proved to be an excellent aircraft, but its definition had changed in the interim, and the type emerged as a full-sized, nuclear-capable strike fighter, which two-seat variants were used for operational conversion to the type, not for the general training.
This left the original requirement unfulfilled and so the French began discussions with West Germany for collaboration. A joint specification was produced in 1968. The trainer was now subsonic, supersonic trainers having proven something of a dead end. A joint development and production agreement was signed in July 1969 which indicated that the two nations would buy 200 machines, each assembled in their own country.
The Luftwaffe decided to use the Alpha Jet mainly in the light strike role, preferring to continue flight training in the United States on American trainer types instead of performing training in cloudy and crowded Germany. The first production German Alpha Jet performed its maiden flight on 12 April 1978, with deliveries beginning in March 1979. This version was designated the Alpha Jet A (the "A" standing for Appui Tactique or "Tactical Strike") or Alpha Jet Close Support variant. The Luftwaffe obtained 175 machines up to 1983, with the type replacing the Fiat G91R/3. Manufacture of Alpha Jet subassemblies was divided between France and Germany, with plants in each country performing final assembly and checkout. The different avionics fit made French and German Alpha Jets easy to tell apart, with French machines featuring a rounded-off nose and German machines featuring a sharp, pointed nose.
Even though the Alpha Jet A was suitable in the ground attack role and had even been tested in aerial combat against helicopters in 1979, the German Luftwaffe decided in the mid-80ies that – facing the Cold War threat from the east – a more powerful but still economic plane for the close attack role, esp. against hardened ground targets and attack helicopters like the Mi-24 would be needed. Even though such "Alternate Close Support" versions of the Alpha Jet were available at that time, even though these were modified two-seaters. Such planes were bought by Cameroon and Egypt, but from the German Luftwaffe a specialized, more capable plane with a higher strike and survival potential was requested.
In 1986, Dornier developed a respective specialized version, called the Alpha Jet C (for "combat"). This plane was heavily modified, optimized for the ground attack role. It featured a new, single-seated nose section with an armoured cockpit in a much higher position than on the original two-seater. The Alpha jet C version's prominent, pointed nose quickly gave it among its test pilots the nickname "Nasenbär" (Coati).
The new space was used for avionics and an internal Oerlikon 35mm cannon – a variant of the same cannon used in the Gepard anti aircraft tank, firing armour piercing shells with a muzzle velocity of 1,440 m/s (4,700 ft/s) and a range of 5.500m. Avionics includecd SAGEM ULISS 81 INS, a Thomson-CSF VE-110 HUD, a TMV630 laser rangefinder in a modified nose and a TRT AHV 9 radio altimeter, with all avionics linked through a digital databus.
New wings were developed, with a thicker profile and less sweep, and non-jettisonable wing tip tanks as well as two more weapon hardpoints (for a total of six, plus one under the fuselage) added. The landing gear was reinforced for a higher TOW and operation on improvised runways. Fuselage and tail externally looked much the same as the original Alpha Jet A, but internally most structures were reinforced and technical modules placed in new positions.
The C version was from the start powered by two more powerful Larzac 04-C20 turbofans which would also be used in an update for the Luftwaffe’s Alpha Jet As. The hydraulic system was doubled, so that both engines could run separately, and kevlar and titanium armour plating added to vital areas around the lower hull.
The first prototype 98+52 made its maiden flight at Friedrichshafen on 1st of June 1988. It was officially allocated to the JaboG 43 in Oldenburg, but actually spent almost all the time at the Luftwaffe’s Waffentechnische Dienststelle (Flight test center) WTD 61 in Manching near Munich, where it underwent a thorough testing program. More than once the prototype was transferred to Beja, Portugal, for weapon tests and training, as well as direct comparison with the standard Alpha Jet A and other NATO planes. A second airframe was built in 1987 but only used for static tests, system integration and finally damage resilience tests, after which it was written off and scrapped.
While the Alpha Jet C showed high agility at low level and a high survival potential in a hostile battlefield environment, the prototype remained a one-off. In the end, the German Luftwaffe did not want to add another type to its arsenal, despite its similarity with the standard Alpha Jet. Export chances for such a specialized, yet light aircraft were considered as low, since modified Alpha Jet versions were already available and other planes like the AMX or BAe Hawk offered more versatility, and were simply more up to date.
Hence, further development was stopped in September 1989, also under the influence of political changes and the breakdown of the Eastern Block. Even though 98+52 was kept at Manching as a test aircraft for various tasks, the plane was eventually lost in a crash due to hydraulic failure on 3rd of March 1993 – the pilot escaped safely, but 98+52 totally written off.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 12.60 m (41 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 10.73 m (35 ft 2 1/2 in)
Height: 4.24 m (13 ft 11 in)
Wing area: 213.7 ft² (19.85 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 23015 (modified) at root, NACA 4412 (modified) at tip
Empty weight: 3.680 kg (8.105 lbs)
Loaded weight: 5.900 kg (13.000 lbs)
Max. takeoff weight: 8.200 kg (18.060 lbs)
Powerplant: 2 × SNECMA Turbomeca Larzac 04-C20 turbofans, 14,12 kN (3.176 lbs) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 860 km/h (465 knots, 536 mph)
Stall speed: 167 km/h (90 knots, 104 mph) (flaps and undercarriage down)
Combat radius: 610 km (329 nmi, 379 mi) lo-lo-lo profile, w. underwing weapons incl. two drop tanks
Ferry range: 2,940 km (1,586 nmi, 1,827 mi)
Service ceiling: 14,630 m (48,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 57 m/s (11,220 ft/min)
Armament
1× 35 mm (1.38 in) Oerlikon KDA cannon w/150 rds under the lower forward fuselage, offset to starport side.
Seven hardpoints (one under fuselage, three under each wing) for a total external load of up to 3.085 kg (6.800 lbs), including AGM-65 Maverick, Matra rocket pods with 18× SNEB 68 mm rockets each, a variety of bombs (such as the Hunting BL755 cluster bombs) or Drop tanks for extended range, and AIM-9 Sidewinder or ASRAAM for self-defence
The kit and its assembly
Yes, another whif, and a modern type, too. The idea came when I found a pair of vintage wings from a vintage Matchbox BAC Strikemaster in good shape and thought "Well, where could these fit...?" Being a fan of the Su-25 I considered building something similar from scratch und using these 30 year old parts.
The Alpha Jet has a basically similar layout, and the wings would match in size. Then, the "new" plane should become a dedicated single-seater, not simply a two-seater with a covered rear cockpit. Browsing through the kit stack I found a A-4F from Revell, and its nose section turned out to be an almost perfect fit for the Alpha Jet fuselage (the vintage Heller kit).
Fitting these parts together required some major surgery and putty work, but the result looks quite convincing. Other additions are a Matchbox pilot figure and some cockpit details, a nose cone from a Fiat G.91 R/3 as an integral laser rangefinder housing, the Strikemaster wings, a modified landing gear (main wheels from the Skyhawk, front wheel from an IAI Kfir) and the armament in the form of the gun, seven hardpoints and the mixed ordnance from the German Luftwaffe arsenal - everything collected from the junkyard.
Painting
While German Luftwaffe machines can look rather boring, various camouflage trials have been conducted during the 80ies and 90ies for the F-4F, Alpha Jet and Tornado fleet. Esp. Phantom IIs saw extensive experiments for air superiority and ground attack paint schemes - and these schemes carried inofficial names like "Milchkuh" (Dairy Cow), "Polizeimühle" (Police Jalopy) or "Disco Bomber".
The whiffy Alpha Jet was a nice opportunity to incorporate one of these experimental schemes, and I settled for something which was applied to F-4F '37+07' and inofficially dubbed "Wolkenmaus" (Cloud Mouse). The Alpha Jet is a good subject, since its stepped side structure with engine nacelles and its spine tunnel is similar to the Phantom II, so that the cammo concept could be easily copied.
Anyway, the authentic "Wolkenmaus" colours are supposed to be (and what I used on the kit)...
On the upper sides:
● RAL 6014 Gelboliv (~FS 34087; Olive Drab, Testors 1711)
● RAL 7012 Basaltgrau (~FS 36152; Humbrol 27)
● RAL 9005 Tiefschwarz, even though I rather believe it to be RAL 7021 Schwarzgrau (darker than FS 36081; Humbrol 182)
Flanks::
● Mix of 2/3 RAL 7035 Lichtgrau + 1/3 RAL 7000 Fehgrau (~FS36473; Aircraft Grey, Testors 1731)
Undersides:
● Mix of 5/6 RAL 7035 Lichtgrau + 1/6 RAL 7000 Fehgrau (~RLM 63; Lichtgrau, Testors 2077)
The tones are just approximations, since I did not want to get original tones just for one project. Hey, it's just a model kit!
The landing gear and its wells were painted in aluminum, the respective covers' inside with Humbrol 81 (Olive Yellow) in a primer finish for some contrast. Cockpit interior as well as the air intakes were kept in in Light Gull Grey (FS 36640, Humbrol 129). The complex paint scheme was applied, as per usual, by brush and hand. The kit received a light black ink wash and some dry painting with lighter tones - the model was not supposed to look dirty, only a bit used.
Decals were scrapped together. JaboG 43 emblems and warning signs were taken from the original Heller decal sheet. The national insignia were taken from a Revell PAH-2 kit, the registration '98+52' was puzzled together with single digits from an aftermarket decal sheet from TL Modellbau. AFAIK, '98+52' has not been used yet by the Luftwaffe, which designates its test aircraft in the 98+XX and 99+XX range. A "true" and active Alpha Jet would have received a 40+XX or 41+XX.
Finally, everything was sealed under a water-based/acryllic matte coat - the Testors colours proved to be very touchy to the Humbrol varnish I normally use.
In the end, I achieved what I wanted, even though not truly perfect. But the kit looks like an 'analogue' Su-25, and actually the whiffy Alpha Jet C reminds much of the pre-Su-25 concepts: the SPB and subsequent LSSh/T-8 attack aircraft?
This build had many first. First time, airbrushing, kitbashing (kinda), and 3D printing/modelling (for gunpla), first use of decal solutions too.
I built the MG Dynames exactly a year ago planning to do this, but before starting the main customising, I had a Gunpla break (to focus on studies). I'm glad I did though, as that gave me more time to watch videos and observe how people do things.
Airbrushing was a pain. Found it hard to get a good consistency of paint and it kept coming out weird at times. I bought a cheap brush/compressor off Ebay and used Revel acrylic white for the base and Citadel Sybarite Green and Lahmian Medium for the green. Handpainted a few small details too. Probably will airbush again in the future with better results.
3D modelled some adaptors using Blender, for the thrusters to attach to the GN Drive and for the holster to back skirt attachment. Actually used some fake/3D printed Lego for the joint. First use of plastic cement too.
The Sword I found off Thingyverse and just scaled it up. Was this one: www.thingiverse.com/thing:2828010 if interested.
The decals are some Sazabi Ver.Ka + a few MG Dynames ones I bought of Aliexpress. The microsol.set is a godsend, I used just water on a few kits before hand and the decals are kinda flakey even with a topcoat.
In universe I see this as a close combat variation of the Dynames. The shields now act as bits/funnels. And in the knee are shotgun rounds so he can knee opponents and fire (similar to Kimaris Vidars Drill knees). The Grenades in the front skirt now have some smoke flares too for enemy distraction. Sword is GN powered and takes the best of the Exias real blade and a beam blade. It can be powered without connection, but it better if so. The pistols still the same and the head mounted site is more of a general different wavelength camera. I see this as my current Build Fighter/Diver suit.
Kitbash and manipulated photographic portrait of Major Motoko Kusanagi, inspired by the recent 'Ghost in the Shell' movie trailer released by Paramount.
Some background:
The Leyland “Type D” was one of several armoured vehicle types designed in 1940 on the orders of Lord Beaverbrook and Admiral Sir Edward Evans, as a part of the hasty measures taken by the British Government following the Dunkirk evacuation and the threat of invasion.
The “Type D” was a heavy scout car, intended to replace the Lanchester 6x4 and Rolls-Royce 4x2 armoured cars, which dated back to the WWI era and the early interwar period. While they were reliable vehicles and still in active service, their off-road capabilities, armament and armour left a lot to be desired – esp. in the face of the modern German army and its effective equipment.
Certainly inspired by the German SdKfz. 231/232 family of heavy 8x8 armoured reconnaissance vehicles, Leyland added a fourth axle to better distribute the vehicle’s weight and a drivetrain to the front axle to a modified “Retriever” 3-ton 6x4 lorry chassis, resulting in a 6x8 layout. The rigid axles were mounted on leaf springs front and rear with hydraulic dampers, both front axles were steerable. The engine, a water-cooled 6-litre, 4-cylinder overhead camshaft petrol engine with 73 hp, was, together with the gearbox, relocated to the rear, making room for a fully enclosed crew compartment in the front section with two access doors in the vehicle’s flanks. The crew consisted of four, with the driver seat at the front. The gunner and commander (the commander at the right and gunner at the left) stood behind them into the turret or were sitting on simple leather belts, and behind them was a working station for a radio operator.
The tall, cylindrical turret was welded and electrically traversed, but it lacked a commander cupola. All the armament was mounted in the turret and consisted of a quick-firing two-pounder (40mm) cannon and a coaxial 7.92 mm Besa machine gun. The faceted hull was, like the turret, welded from homogenous steel armour plates, and a straightforward design. Maximum armour thickness was 15 mm at the front, 8 mm on the sides, and 10 mm on the back, with 6 mm and 5 mm of armour on the top and bottom respectively. It had been designed to provide protection from small arms fire and HE fragments, but it was ineffective against heavier weapons. This armour was a compromise, since better protection had resulted in a higher weight and overstrained the Type D’s lorry chassis and engine. The armoured cabin was mounted to the chassis at only four points - front, rear and sides - to give some flexibility but with precautions against excessive movement.
The Type D’s prototype was designed, built, tested and approved just within 3 months. Deliveries of the first production vehicles commenced only 2 months later, just in time to become involved in the North Africa campaign. All early production vehicles were immediately sent to Egypt and took part in Operation Compass and the Western Desert Campaign.
It comes as no surprise that the Type D – developed and produced in a hurry and thrown into battle in an environment it had not been designed for – initially failed, and even when the worst deficits had been rectified the Type D’s performance remained mediocre at best. The biggest problems concerned the engine’s cooling system, its low power output and therefore poor speed, and the vehicle’s poor off-road performance, esp. on soft ground like sand. The vehicle’s suspension was quickly overburdened in heavy terrain and the tall turret placed its center of gravity very high, making the Type D prone to topple over to a side when slope angles were taken too slightly. Poor cabin ventilation was another problem that became even more apparent under the African sun.
Initial losses were high: more than half of the Type Ds lost in North Africa during the early months of 1941 were abandoned vehicles which got stuck or had to be left behind due to mechanical failures. The rest had fallen easy prey to German and Italian attacks – the Type D was not only very vulnerable even to the Panzer II’s 20 mm autocannon, its thin top armour made it in the open desert also very vulnerable to air attacks: German MG 131 machine gun rounds easily punched the vehicle’s shell, and even lighter weapons were a serious threat to the tall Type D.
As soon as the first sobering field reports returned back to Great Britain, Leyland immediately devised major improvements. These were introduced to newly produced Mk. II vehicles and partly retrofitted to the early Mk. I vehicles in field workshops. One of these general improvements were new desert wheels and tires, which were considerably wider than the original lorry wheels and featured a flat pattern that better distributed the vehicle’s weight on soft and unstable ground, what considerably improved the Type D’s performance on sand. A kit with a more effective radiator and a bigger engine cooling system was quickly developed and sent to the units in Africa, too. The kit did not fully solve the overheating problems of the early Mk. I, but improved the situation. From the outside, retrofitted Type Ds could be recognized by a raised engine cover with enlarged air intakes. Due to the limits of the chassis the armour level was not improved, even though the crews and field workshops tried to attach improvised additional protective measures like spare track links from tanks or sandbags – with mixed results, though. The armament was not updated either, except for an optional mount for an additional light anti-aircraft machine gun on the turret and kits for smoke dischargers on the turret’s flanks.
The Type D Mk. II, which gradually replaced the Mk. I on the production lines from March 1941 on, furthermore received a different and much more effective powerplant, a Leyland 7-litre six-cylinder diesel engine with an output of 95 hp (70 kW). It not only provided more power and torque, markedly improving the vehicle’s off-road performance, it also had a better fuel economy than the former lorry petrol engine (extending range by 25%), and the fuel itself was less prone to ignite upon hits or accidents.
During its short career the Leyland Type D was primarily used in the North African Campaign by the 11th Hussars and other units. After the invasion of Italy, a small number was also used in the Southern European theatre by reconnaissance regiments of British and Canadian infantry divisions. A few vehicles were furthermore used for patrol duty along the Iran supply route.
However, the Type D was not popular, quickly replaced by smaller and more agile vehicles like the Humber scout car, and by 1944 outdated and retired. Leyland built a total of 220 Type Ds of both versions until early 1943, whilst an additional 86 Mk. IIs were built by the London, Midland and Scottish Railway's Derby Carriage Works.
Specifications:
Crew: Four (commander, gunner, driver, co-driver/radio operator/loader)
Weight: 8.3 tons
Length: 20 ft 5 in (6,30 m)
Width: 7 ft 5 in (2,27 m)
Height: 9 ft 2¾ in (2,81 m)
Ground clearance: 12 in (30.5 cm)
Turning radius: 39 ft (12 m)
Suspension: Wheel, rigid front and rear axles;
4x8 rear-wheel drive with selectable additional 6x8 front axle drive
Fuel capacity: 31 imp gal (141 litres)
Armour:
5–15 mm (0.2 – 0.6 in)
Performance:
Maximum road speed: 35 mph (56 km/h)
Sustained road speed: 30 mph (48 km/h)
Cross country speed: up to 20 mph (32 km/h)
Operational range: 250 mi (400 km)
Power/weight: 11,44 hp/ton
Engine:
1× Leyland 7-litre six-cylinder diesel engine, 95 hp (70 kW)
Transmission:
4-speed, with a 2-speed auxiliary box
Armament:
1× QF Two-pounder (40 mm/1.57 in) cannon with 94 rounds
1× 7.92 mm Besa machine gun mounted co-axially with 2.425 rounds
2-4× smoke dischargers, mounted on the turret
The kit and its assembly:
This fictional British WWII vehicle might look weird, but it has a real-world inspiration: the Marmon Herrington Mk. VI armoured heavy scout car. This vehicle only existed as a prototype and is AFAIK still preserved in a museum in South Africa – and upon a cursory glance it looks like an SdKfz. 232 with the shrunk turret from a “Crusader” cruiser tank with a short-barreled six pounder gun. It looks like a fake! Another reason for this build was a credible “canvas” for the application of the iconic “Caunter Scheme”, so that I placed the Type D in a suitable historic time frame.
The Type D was not supposed to be a truthful Marmon Herrington Mk. VI copy, so I started with a 1:72 “First to Fight” SdKfz. 232. This is a simple and sturdy tabletop wargaming model, but it is quite accurate, goes together well, is cheap and even comes with a metal gun barrel. It’s good value for the money, even though the plastic is a little thick and soft.
However, from this basis things changed in many ways. I initially wanted to shorten the hull, but the new wheels (see below) made this idea impossible. Nevertheless, the front glacis plate was completely re-modeled with 2C putty in the style of the Humber scout car, and the crew cabin was extended backwards with the same method. New observation slits had to be scratched with styrene profile material. The engine bay received a raised cover, simulating extra air intakes. The turret was replaced with a resin piece for an A13 “Valentine” Mk.III tank (S&S Models), which had a perfect size and even came with a suitable gun.
The suspension was taken OOB, but the wheels were replaced with two aftermarket resin sets (Silesian Models) with special Allied desert wheels/tires from 1941, they originally belong to a Chevrolet truck and are markedly bigger and wider than the SdKfz. 232 wheels. However, they had to be modified to match the rest of the suspension, and their size necessitated a thorough modification of the mudguards. They were not only mounted 1mm higher on the flanks, their sides, normally consisting of closed skirts, were fully opened to make sufficient room for the new wheels to change the vehicle’s look. They were furthermore separated into four two-wheel covers and their front and rear ends were slightly bent upwards. Sufficient space for the side doors had to be made, too. The spare wheels that came with the respective sets were mounted to the front (again Humber-style) and onto the engine bay cover, under a scratched tarpaulin (made from paper tissue drenched with white glue).
To conceal the SdKfz. 232 heritage even more I added more equipment to the vehicle’s flanks. Tool boxed were added to the engine bay’s flanks, some more tools to the fenders, scratched tarpaulin rolls above the side doors and I tried to scratch PSP plates with aluminum foil rubbed against a flight stand diorama floor made from PSP. Not perfect, but all the stuff livens the Type D up. A new exhaust (IIRC from a Panzer IV) was added to the rear and bumpers scratched from wire and mounted low unto the hull.
Painting and markings:
Finally, the British, so-called “Caunter Scheme”, a great source of misinterpretation not only in museums but also by modelers who have painted their British tanks in dubious if not garish colors. I do not claim that my interpretation of the colors is authentic, but I did some legwork and tried to improvise with my resources some tones that appear plausible (at least to me), based on descriptions and contemporary references.
The pattern itself was well defined for each vehicle type, and I adapted a M3 “Stuart” pattern for the model. All three basic colors, “Light Stone”, “Silver Grey” and “Slate”, were guesstimated. “Slate” is a relatively dark and greenish tone, and I chose Tamiya XF-65 (Field Grey). “Light Stone” is rather yellow-ish, light sand tone, and I used Humbrol 103 (Cream). Some sources suggest the use of Humbrol 74 (linen) as basis, but that is IMHO too yellow-ish and lacks red. The most obscure tone is “Silver Grey”, and its depictions range from a pale and dull light olive drab over blue-grey, greenish grey to bright light blue and even turquoise. In fact, this tone must have had a greenish-blue hue, and so I mixed Humbrol 145 (FS 35237) with maybe Humbrol 94 in a 3:1 ratio to achieve an “in between” tone, which is hard to describe - maybe as a greenish sand-grey? A funny effect of the colors in direct contrast is that the XF-65 appeared with an almost bluish hue! Overall, the choice of colors seems to work, though, and the impression is good.
Painting was, as usual, done with brushes and, due to the vehicle’s craggy shape, free-handedly. After basic painting the model received a light washing with a mix of black ink and brown, and some post-shading was done with light grey (Revell 75) and Hemp (Humbrol 168). Decals came from the scrap box, and before an overall protective coat of matt acrylic varnish was applied, the model received an additional treatment with thinned Revell 82 (supposed to be RAF Dark Earth but it is a much paler tone).
A more demanding build than one would expect at first sight. The SdKafz. 232 is unfortunately still visible, but the desert wheels, including the spare wheels, change the look considerably, and the British replacement turret works well, too. Using the tabletop model basis was not a good move, though, because everything is rather solid and somewhat blurry, esp. the many molded surface details, which suffered under the massive body work. On the other side, the Counter Scheme IMHO turned out well, esp. the colors, even though the slender hull made the adaptation of the pattern from a (much shorter) tank not easy. But most of the critical areas were hidden under extra equipment, anyway. 😉
+++ 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:
The Gloster Glaive was basically a modernized and re-engined variant of the successful, British-built Gloster Gladiator (or Gloster SS.37), the RAF’s final biplane fighter to enter service. The Gladiator was not only widely used by the RAF at the dawn of WWII and in almost every theatre of operations, but also by many other nations. Operators included Norway, Belgium, Sweden, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania or Nationalist China, and while the RAF already opted for more modern monoplanes, Gloster saw the opportunity to sell an updated Gladiator to countries which were not as progressive.
Originally designated Gladiator Mk. IV, the machine received many aerodynamic refinements and the motor was changed from a draggy radial to a liquid-cooled inline engine. The latter was the new Rolls Royce Peregrine, a development of the Kestrel. It was, in its original form, a 21-litre (1,300 cu in) liquid-cooled V-12 aero engine ), delivering 885-horsepower (660 kW). The engine was housed under a streamlined cowling, driving a three blade metal propeller, and was coupled with a ventral radiator bath, reminiscent of the Hawker Fury biplane’s arrangement.
Structural improvements included an all-metal monocoque fuselage and stabilizers, as well as new wings and streamlined struts with reduced bracing. The upper wing was enlarged and of all-metal construction, too, while the lower wings were reduced in span and area, almost resulting in a sesquiplane layout. The total wing area was only marginally reduced, though.
The fixed landing gear was retained, but the main wheels were now covered with spats. The pilot still sat in a fully enclosed cockpit, the armament consisted of four machine guns, similar to the Gladiator. But for the Glaive, all Browning machine guns were synchronized and mounted in the fuselage: one pair was placed on top of the cowling, in front of the cockpit. Another pair, much like the Gladiator’s arrangement was placed in the fuselage flanks, below the exhaust outlets.
Compared with the Gladiator, the design changes were so fundamental that Gloster eventually decided to allocate a separate designation – also with a view to the type’s foreign marketing, since a new aircraft appeared more attractive than another mark of a pre-war design. For the type’s virgin flight in late 1938 the name “Glaive” was unveiled to the public, and several smaller European air forces immediately showed interest, including Greece, Croatia, Turkey, Portugal and Egypt.
Greece was one of the initial customers, and the first of a total of 24 aircraft for the Hellenic Air Force was delivered in early 1939, with 24 more on order (which were never delivered, though). The initial batch arrived just in time, since tension had been building between Greece and Italy since 7 April 1939, when Italian troops occupied Albania. On 28 October 1940, Italy issued an ultimatum to Greece, which was promptly rejected. A few hours later, Italian troops launched an invasion of Greece, initiating the Greco-Italian War.
The Hellenic Gloster Glaives were split among three Mirae Dioxeos (Fighter Squadrons): the 21st at Trikala, 22nd at Thessaloniki and 23rd at Larissa. When Italy attacked in October 1940, the British fighter was, together with the PZL 24, the Greeks' only modern type in adequate numbers. However, by late 1940, the Gloster Glaive was already no longer a front-runner despite a powerful powerplant and satisfactory armament. It had no speed advantage over the Fiat Cr.42 nor could it outfly the nimble Italian biplane, and it was much slower than the Macchi MC.200 and the Fiat G.50 it was pitted against. Its agility was the only real advantage against the Italian fighters, whose reliance on the slow firing Breda-SAFAT 12.7mm machine guns proved detrimental.
Anyway, on 5 April 1941, German forces invaded Greece and quickly established air superiority. As the Allied troops retreated, British and Hellenic forces covered them, before flying to Crete during the last week of April. There, the refugee aircraft recorded a few claims over twin-engine aircraft before being evacuated to Egypt during the Battle of Crete.
Overall, the Glaives performed gallantly during the early period of the conflict, holding their own against impossible numerical odds and despite the fact that their main target were enemy bombers which forced them to fight at a disadvantage against enemy fighters. Italian claims of easy superiority over the Albanian front were vastly over-rated and their kill claims even exceeded the total number of operational fighters on the Greek side. Total Greek fighter losses in combat came to 24 a/c with the Greek fighter pilots claiming 64 confirmed kills and 24 probables (about two third bombers).
By April 1941, however, lack of spares and attrition had forced the Hellenic Air Force to merge the surviving seven Glaives with five leftover PZL.24s into one understrength squadron supported by five Gloster Gladiators Mk I & II and the two surviving MB.151s. These fought hopelessly against the Luftwaffe onslaught, and most aircraft were eventually lost on the ground. None of the Hellenic Gloster Glaives survived the conflict.
General characteristics:
Crew: two
Length: 8.92m (29 ft 3 in)
Wingspan: 34 ft 0 in (10.36 m)
Height: 11 ft 9 in (3.58 m)
Wing area: 317 ft² (29.4 m²)
Empty weight: 1,295 kg (2,855 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 1,700 kg (3,748 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Rolls Royce Peregrine II liquid-cooled V12 inline engine, rated at 940 hp (700 kw)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 405 km/h (252 mph; 219 kn) at 4,400 m (14,436 ft)
Cruise speed: 345 km/h (214 mph; 186 kn)
Stall speed: 60 mph (52 knots, 96 km/h)
Range: 373 mi (600 km; 324 nmi)
Endurance: 2 hours
Service ceiling: 10,600 m (34,800 ft)
Rate of climb: 2,982 ft/min (15.15 m/s)
Time to altitude: 10.000 ft (3.050 m) in 3 minutes 20 seconds
Armament:
4× 0.303 calibre (7.7 mm) M1919 Browning machine guns in the fuselage
Provisions for 6× 10 kg (22 lb) or 4x 20 kg (44 lb) bombs under the lower wings
The kit and its assembly:
The fictional Gloster Glaive started quite simple with the idea of replacing the Gladiator’s radial with an inline engine. But this soon did not appear enough for an update – the Peregrine hardly delivered much more power than the former Mercury, so I considered some structural updates, too. Most of them comprised the replacement of former fabric-covered structures, and this led conceptually to a kitbash with only some Gladiator fuselage and tail parts left.
The basis is (once more) the very nice Matchbox Gloster Gladiator, but it was heavily modified. As an initial step, fuselage, fin and stabilizers (all OOB parts) lost their rib-and-fabric structure, simply sanded away. A minor detail, but it changes the overall look of the aircraft a lot, making it appear much more modern.
The fuselage was left without the OOB radial, and instead a leftover Merlin front end from an Airfix Hurricane (ca. 1cm long, left over from one of my first whif builds ever, a Hurricane with a radial engine!) was added. The lines match pretty well: the side profile looks sleek, if not elegant, but the Gladiator fuselage turned out to be wider than expected. Some major body work/PSR was necessary to integrate the new nose, but the result looks very good.
The liquid-cooled engine necessitated a radiator somewhere on the airframe…! Since I wanted the nose to remain slim and streamlined I eventually placed the radiator bath under the fuselage, much like the arrangement of the Hawker Fury biplane. The radiator itself comes from a late Spitfire (FROG kit).
The exhaust was taken from the Hurricane kit, too, and matching slits dug into the putty nose to take them. The three blade propeller is a mash-up, too: the spinner belongs, IIRC, to an early Spitfire (left over from an AZ Models kit) while the blades came from a damaged Matchbox Brewster Buffalo.
The Gladiator’s fuselage flank machine guns were kept and their “bullet channels” extrapolated along the new cowling, running under the new exhaust pipes. Another pair of machine guns were placed on top of the engine – for these, openings were carved into the upper hull and small fairings (similar to the Browning guns in the flanks) added. This arrangement appeared plausible to me, since the Gladiator’s oil cooler was not necessary anymore and the new lower wings (see below) were not big enough anymore to take the Gladiator’s underwing guns. Four MGs in the fuselage appears massive – but there were other types with such an arrangement, e.g. the Avia B-534 with four guns in the flanks and an inline engine.
The wings are complete replacements: the upper wing comes from a Heller Curtiss SBC4, while the lower wings as well as the spats (on shortened OOB Gladiator struts) come from an ICM Polikarpov I-153. All struts were scratched. Once the lower wings were in place and the relative position of the upper wing clear, the outer struts were carved from 1mm styrene sheet, using the I-153 design as benchmark. These were glued to the lower wing first, and, once totally dry after 24h, the upper wing was simply glued onto the top and the wing position adjusted. This was left to dry another 24h, and as a final step the four struts above the cowling (using the OOB struts, but as single parts and trimmed for proper fit) were placed. This way, a stable connection is guaranteed – and the result is surprisingly sturdy.
Rigging was done with heated sprue material – my personal favorite for this delicate task, and executed before painting the kit started so that the glue could cure and bond well.
Painting and markings:
The reason why this aircraft ended in Greek service is a color photograph of a crashed Hellenic Bloch M.B. 152 (coded ‘D 177’, to be specific). I guess that the picture was post-colored, though, because the aircraft of French origin sports rather weird colors: the picture shows a two-tone scheme in a deep, rather reddish chestnut brown and a light green that almost looks like teal. Unique, to say the least... Underside colors couldn’t be identified with certainty in the picture, but appeared like a pale but not too light blue grey.
Anyway, I assume that these colors are pure fiction and exaggerated Photoshop work, since the few M.B. 152s delivered to Greece carried AFAIK standard French camouflage (in French Khaki, Chestnut Brown and Blue-Grey on the upper surfaces, and a very light blue-grey from below). I’d assume that the contrast between the grey and green tones was not very obvious in the original photograph, so that the artist, not familiar with WWII paint schemes, replaced both colors with the strange teal tone and massively overmodulated the brown.
As weird as it looked, I liked this design and used it as an inspirational benchmark for my Hellenic Glaive build. After all, it’s a fictional aircraft… Upper basic colors are Humbrol 31 (RAF Slate Grey) and 160 (German Camouflage Red Brown), while the undersides became French Dark Blue Grey (ModelMaster Authentics 2105). The result looks rather odd…
Representing a combat-worn aircraft, I applied a thorough black ink wash and did heavier panel shading and dry-brushing on the leading edges, along with some visible touches of aluminum.
The Hellenic roundels come from a TL Modellbau aftermarket sheet. The tactical code was puzzled together from single letters, and the Greek “D” was created from single decal strips. For better contrast I used white decals – most Hellenic aircraft of the time had black codes, but the contrast is much better, and I found evidence that some machines actually carried white codes. The small fin flash is another free interpretation. Not every Hellenic aircraft carried these markings, and instead of painting the whole rudder in Greek colors I just applied a small fin flash. This was created with white and blue decal strips, closely matching the roundels’ colors.
Finally, after some soot stains around the guns and the exhausts, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
Modified beyond recognition, perhaps…? The fictional Gloster Glaive looks IMHO good and very modern, just like one of those final biplane designs that were about to be outrun by monoplanes at the brink of WWII.
+++ 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 historical facts. BEWARE!
Development studies at Grumman for jet-powered fighter aircraft began near the end of World War II as the first jet engines emerged. In a competition for a jet-powered night fighter for the United States Navy, on 3 April 1946 the Douglas F3D Skyknight was selected over Grumman's G-75, a two-seater powered by four Westinghouse J30s. The Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) also issued a contract to Grumman for two G-75 prototype aircraft on 11 April 1946, in case the Skyknight ran into problems.
However, Grumman soon realized that the G-75 was a dead end. But the company had been working on a completely different day fighter, the G-79, which offered a higher potential. In order to keep Grumman in the US Navy’s procurement loop, BuAer, in a bureaucratic maneuver, did not cancel the G-75 contract, but changed the wording to include prototypes of the entirely different G-79, too.
The G-79 project comprised a total of four different layouts and engine arrangements for a single seat fighter aircraft. G-79A and B were traditional tail sitters, but both featured mixed propulsion for an enhanced performance: G-79A was powered by an R-2800 radial engine and a Rolls Royce Derwent VI jet booster in the tail, fed by a pair of dorsal air intakes behind the cockpit. The G-79B was a similar aircraft, but its primary engine was a General Electric TG-100 turboprop in a more slender nose section. Even though both designs were big aircraft, initial calculations indicated a performance that would be superior to the Grumman F8F Bearcat, which had been designed as a thoroughbred interceptor.
The other two designs were pure jet fighters, both with a tricycle landing gear. G-79C had a layout reminiscent of the Gloster Meteor and was powered by two Derwent VI engines in bulky wing nacelles, and G-79D was finally an overall smaller and lighter aircraft, similar in its outlines to the early Vought F6U Pirate, and powered by a single Nene in the rear fuselage, fed by air intakes in the wing roots.
Since the operation of jet-powered aircraft from carriers was terra incognita for the US Navy, and early turbojets thirsty and slow to react to throttle input, BuAer decided to develop two of Grumman's G-79 designs into prototypes for real life evaluation: one of the conservative designs, as a kind of safe route, and one of the more modern jets.
From the mixed propulsion designs, the turboprop-powered G-79B was chosen (becoming the XF9F-1 'JetCat'), since it was expected to offer a higher performance and development potential than the radial-powered 'A'. From the pure jet designs the G-79D was chosen, because of its simplicity and compact size, and designated XF9F-2 'Panther'.
The first JetCat prototype made its maiden flight on 26 October 1947, but it was only a short airfield circuit since the TG-100 turpoprop failed to deliver full power and the jet booster had not been installed yet. The prototype Panther, piloted by test pilot Corky Meyer, first flew on 21 November 1947 without major problems.
In the wake of the two aircrafts' test program, several modifications and improvements were made. This included an equal armament of four 20mm guns (mounted in the outer, foldable wings on the JetCat and, respectively, in the Panther’s nose). Furthermore, both aircraft were soon armed with underwing HVAR air-to-ground rockets and bombs, and the JetCat even received an underfuselage pylon for the potential carriage of an airborne torpedo. Since there was insufficient space within the foldable wings and the fuselage in both aircraft for the thirsty jet’s fuel, permanently mounted wingtip fuel tanks were added on both aircraft, which incidentally improved the fighters' rate of roll. Both F9F types were cleared for flight from aircraft carriers in September 1949.
The F9F-1 was soon re-engined with an Allison T38 turboprop, which was much more reliable than the TF-100 (in the meantime re-designated XT31) and delivered a slightly higher power output. Another change was made for the booster: the bulky Derwent VI engine from the prototype stage was replaced by a much more compact Westinghouse J34 turbojet, which not only delivered slightly more thrust, it also used up much less internal space which was used for radio and navigation equipment, a life raft and a relocated oil tank. Due to a resulting CG shift towards the nose, the fuselage fuel cell layout had to be revised. As a consequence, the cockpit was moved 3’ backwards, slightly impairing the pilot’s field of view, but it was still superior to the contemporary Vought F4U.
Despite the engine improvements, though, the F9F-1 attained markedly less top speed than the F9F-2. On the other side, it had a better rate of climb and slow speed handling characteristics, could carry more ordnance and offered a considerably bigger range and extended loiter time. The F9F-2 was more agile, though, and more of the nimble dogfighter the US Navy was originally looking for. Its simplicity with just a single engine was appealing, too.
The Panther was eventually favored as the USN's first operational jet day fighter and put into production, but the F9F-1 showed much potential as a fast fighter bomber. Through pressure from the USMC, who was looking for a replacement for its F7F heavy Tigercat fighters, a production order for 50 JetCats was eventually placed, later augmented to 82 aircraft because the US Navy also recognized the type’s potential as a fast, ship-borne multi-role fighter. Further interest came in 1949 from Australia, when the country’s government was looking for a - possibly locally-built in license - replacement for the outdated Mustang Mk 23 and De Havilland Vampire then operated by the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). Both Grumman designs were potential contenders, rivalling with the domestic CAC CA-23 fighter development.
The Grumman Panther became the most widely used U.S. Navy jet fighter of the Korean War, flying 78,000 sorties and scoring the first air-to-air kill by the U.S. Navy in the war, the downing of a North Korean Yakovlev Yak-9 fighter. Being rugged aircraft, F9F-2s, -3s and -5s were able to sustain operations, even in the face of intense anti-aircraft fire. The pilots also appreciated the Panther’s air conditioned cockpit, which was a welcome change from the humid environment of piston-powered aircraft.
The F9F-1 did fare less glamorous. Compared with the prototypes, the T38 turboprop's power output could be enhanced on service aircraft, but not on a significant level. The aircraft's original, rather sluggish response to throttle input and its low-speed handling were improved through an eight-blade contraprop, which, as a side benefit, countered torque problems during starts and landings on carriers.
The JetCat’s mixed powerplant installation remained capricious, though, and the second engine and its fuel meant a permanent weight penalty. The aircraft's complexity turned out to be a real weak point during the type's deployment to front line airfields in the Korean War, overall readiness was – compared with conservative types like the F4U and also the F9F-2, low. Despite the turboprop improvements, the jet booster remained necessary for carrier starts and vital in order to take on the MiG-15 or post-war piston engine types of Soviet origin like the Lavochkin La-9 and -11 or the Yakowlev Yak-9.
Frequent encounters with these opponents over Korea confirmed that the F9F-1 was not a “naturally born” dogfighter, but rather fell into the escort fighter or attack aircraft class. In order to broaden the type's duty spectrum, a small number of USMC and USN F9F-1s was modified in field workshops with an APS-6 type radar equipment from F4U-4N night fighters. Similar to the Corsair, the radar dish was carried in a streamlined pod under the outer starboard wing. The guns received flame dampers, and these converted machines, re-designated F9F-1N, were used with mild success as night and all-weather fighters.
However, the JetCat remained unpopular among its flight and ground crews and, after its less-than-satisfactory performance against MiGs, quickly retired. After the end of the Korean War in July 1953, all machines were grounded and by 1954 all had been scrapped. However, the turboprop-powered fighter bomber lived on with the USMC, which ordered the Vought A3U SeaScorpion as successor.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 40 ft 5 in (12,31 m)
Wingspan: 43 ft 5 in (13,25 m)
Height: 15 ft 6 3/4 in (4,75 m)
Wing area: 250 ft² (23 m²)
Empty weight: 12,979 lb (5,887 kg)
Gross weight: 24,650 lb (11,181 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Allison T38E turboprop, rated at 2,500 shp (1,863 kW) plus 600 lbf (2.7 kN) residual thrust
1× Westinghouse J34-WE-13 turbojet booster with 3,000 lbf (13.35 kN)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 507 mph (441 kn; 816 km/h) at 30,000 ft (9,100 m)
497 mph (432 kn, 800 km/h) at sea level
Cruise speed: 275 mph (443 km/h; 239 kn) at 30,000 ft (9,100 m)
Stall speed: 74 mph (119 km/h; 64 kn) with flaps
Range: 2,500 mi (2,172 nmi; 4,023 km)
Service ceiling: 47,000 ft (14,000 m)
Rate of climb: 5,300 ft/min (27 m/s)
Wing loading: 71 lb/ft² (350 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.42
Armament:
4× 20 mm (0.79 in) AN/M3 cannon in the outer, foldable wings with 220 RPG
Underwing hardpoints and provisions to carry combinations of up to 6× 5 " (127 mm) HVAR
missiles and/or bombs on underwing hardpoints, for a total ordnance of 3,000 lb (1,362 kg)
The kit and its assembly:
This is another submission to the Cold War GB at whatifmodelers in early 2018, and rather a spontaneous idea. It was actually spawned after I finished my fictional Gudkov Gu-1 mixed propulsion fighter - while building (using the engine front from an F6F Hellcat) I had the impression that it could also have ended up as a post-war USN fighter design.
A couple of days later, while browsing literature for inspiration, I came across Grumman's G-79 series of designs that eventually led to the F9F Panther - and I was amazed that the 'A' design almost looked like my kitbashed Soviet fighter!
So I considered a repeated build of a P-47D/Supermarine Attacker kitbash, just in American colors. But with the F9F relationship, I planned the integration of Panther parts, so that the new creation would look different from the Gu-1, but also show some (more) similarity to the Panther.
The plan appeared feasible. Again, the aircraft's core is an Academy P-47D, with its outer wings cut off. Cockpit and landing gear were retained. However, instead of Supermarine Attacker wings from a Novo kit, I attached F9F-2 wings from a Hasegawa kit. Shape-wise this worked fine, but the Panther wings are much thinner than the Thunderbolt’s, so that I had to integrate spacers inside of the intersections which deepen the Hasegawa parts. Not perfect, but since the type would feature folding wings, the difference and improvisation is not too obvious.
On the fuselage, the Thunderbolt’s air outlets on its flanks were faired over and most of the tail section cut away. In the lower part of the tail, a jet pipe (from a Heller F-84G) was added and blended with PSR into the Thunderbolt fuselage, similar to the Gu-1. A completely new fin was scratched from an outer wing section from a Heinkel He 189, in an attempt to copy the G-79B's shape according to the drawing I used as benchmark for the build. I also used the F9F's stabilizers. With clipped tips they match well in size and shape, and add to the intended Grumman family look. The original tail wheel well was retained, but the tail wheel was placed as far back as possible and replaced by the twin wheel from a Hasegawa F5U. The Panther’s OOB tail hook was integrated under the jet pipe, too.
The front section is completely different and new, and my choice fell on the turboprop-powered G-79B because I did not want to copy the Gu-1 with its radial engine. However, the new turboprop nose was not less complicated to build. Its basis is a 1:100 engine and contraprop from a VEB Plasticart Tu-20/95 bomber, a frequent ingredient in my builds because it works so well in 1:72 scale. This slender core was attached to the Thunderbolt's fuselage, and around this basis a new cowling was built up with 2C putty, once more in an attempt to mimic the original G-79B design as good as possible.
In order to blend the new engine with the fuselage and come close to the G-79B’s vaguely triangular fuselage diameter, the P-47's deep belly was cut away, faired over with styrene sheet, and everything blended into each other with more PSR work. As a final step, two exhaust pipes were mounted to the lower fuselage in front of the wings’ leading edge.
The air intakes for the jet booster are actually segments from a Sopwith Triplane fuselage (Revell) – an unlikely source, but the shape of the parts was just perfect. More PSR was necessary to blend them into the aircraft’s flanks, though.
Painting and markings:
As per usual, I'd rather go with conservative markings on a fictional aircraft. Matching the Korean War era, the aircraft became all-over FS 35042 (Modelmaster). A black ink wash emphasized the partly re-engraved panel lines, and some post shading highlighted panels.
The wings’ leading edges and the turboprop’s intake were painted with aluminum, similar edges on fin and stabilizers were created with silver decal material. The interior of cockpit and landing gear was painted with green chromate primer.
The markings were puzzled together. “Stars and Bars” and VF-53 markings were taken from a Hobby Boss F4U-4 kit. The blue fin tip is the marking for the 3rd squadron, so that the “307” tactical code is plausible, too (the latter comes from a Hobby Boss F9F-2). In order to keep things subtle and more business-like (after all, the aircraft is supposed to be operated during the ongoing Korean War), I did not carry the bright squadron color to any other position like the spinner or the wing tips.
After some final detail work and gun and exhaust soot stains, the kit was sealed with semi-gloss acrylic varnish (Italeri). Matt acrylic varnish was used for weathering effects, so that the aircraft would not look too clean and shiny.
While it is not a prefect recreation of the Grumman G-79B, I am quite happy with the result. The differences between the model and the original design sketch can be explained through serial production adaptations, and overall the whole thing looks pretty conclusive. In fact, the model appears from certain angles like a naval P-51 on steroids, even though the G-79B was a much bigger aircraft than the Mustang.
+++ 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 Indian „Samudree Baaj“ (समुद्री बाज, Sea Hawk) was a highly modified, navalized version of the British BAE Systems Hawk land-based training jet aircraft, which had been manufactured under license by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). The first indigenously built Hawk Mk. 132 trainer was delivered in 2008 to the Indian Air Force, and the type has since then been updated with indigenous avionics into the “Hawk-I” Mk. 132 from 2020 onwards. The aircraft’s Rolls Royce Adour Mk 871 engine was also license-built by HAL, and the company had experience from a wide range of aircraft projects in the past.
The Samudree Baaj project was initiated in 2006 by the Indian Navy, as part of the long historic plan to provide the Indian Navy with a fully capable aircraft carrier. This plan had been initiated in 1989, when India announced a plan to replace its ageing British-built aircraft carriers, INS Vikrant and INS Viraat (ex-HMS Hermes), with two new 28,000-ton Air Defence Ships (ADS) that would operate the BAe Sea Harrier aircraft. The first vessel was to replace Vikrant, which was set to decommission in early 1997. Construction of the ADS was to start at the Cochin Shipyard (CSL) in 1993 after the Indian Naval Design Organisation had translated this design study into a production model. Following the 1991 economic crisis, the plans for construction of the vessels were put on hold indefinitely.
In 1999, then-Defence Minister George Fernandes revived the project and sanctioned the construction of the Project “71 ADS”. By that time, given the ageing Sea Harrier fleet, the letter of intent called for a carrier that would carry more modern jet fighters. In 2001, CSL released a graphic illustration showing a 32,000-ton STOBAR (Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery) design with a pronounced ski jump. The aircraft carrier project finally received formal government approval in January 2003. By then, design updates called for a 37,500-ton carrier to operate the MiG-29K. India opted for a three-carrier fleet consisting of one carrier battle group stationed on each seaboard, and a third carrier held in reserve, in order to continuously protect both its flanks, to protect economic interests and mercantile traffic, and to provide humanitarian platforms in times of disasters, since a carrier can provide a self-generating supply of fresh water, medical assistance or engineering expertise to populations in need for assistance.
In August 2006, then-Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Arun Prakash stated that the designation for the vessel had been changed from Air Defence Ship (ADS) to Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC). The euphemistic ADS had been adopted in planning stages to ward off concerns about a naval build-up. Final revisions to the design increased the displacement of the carrier from 37,500 tons to over 40,000 tons. The length of the ship also increased from 252 metres (827 ft) to 262 metres (860 ft).
It was at this time that, beyond the MiG-29K, primarily a carrier-capable trainer and also a light (and less costly) strike aircraft would be needed. With the running production of the Hawk Mk. 132 for the Indian Air Force and BAE Systems’ connection and experience to the USA and McDonnell/Boeing’s adaptation of the Hawk as the US Navy’s carrier-capable T-45 trainer, HAL was instructed to develop a suitable aircraft family on the Hawk’s basis for the new carriers.
HAL’s Samudree Baaj is a fully carrier-capable version of the British Aerospace Hawk Mk. The Hawk had not originally been designed to perform carrier operations, so that numerous modifications were required, such as the extensive strengthening of the airframe to withstand the excessive forces imposed by the stresses involved in catapult launches and high sink-rate landings, both scenarios being routine in aircraft carrier operations.
The aerodynamic changes of the aircraft, which were mutually developed by HAL and BAE Systems, included improvements to the low-speed handling characteristics and a reduction in the approach speed. Most notable amongst the changes made to the Hawk's design were extended flaps for better low-speed handling, along with the addition of spoilers on the wings to reduce lift and strakes on the fuselage which improved airflow and stabilizer efficiency.
Other, less obvious modifications included a reinforced airframe, the adoption of a more robust and widened landing gear, complete with a catapult tow bar attachment to the oleo strut of the new two-wheel nose gear design, and an arresting hook. The tail fin was extended by 1 foot (12 in, 30.5 cm) to compensate for the loss of the Hawk’s ventral stabilizing strakes. To make room for the arrester hook, the original ventral air brake was split and re-located to the flanks, similar to the USN’s T-45 trainer.
At the time of the Samudree Baaj’s design, the exact catapult arrangement and capacity on board of India’s new carriers was not clear yet – even more so, since the MiG-29K and its powerful engines might have made a catapult obsolete. Therefore, the Samudree Baaj was designed to be operable either with a ski jump ramp (in the style of the Russian Kiev class carriers, of which India had purchased one as INS Vikramaditya) or with only minimal launch support within the projected STOBAR concept, which included a relatively short-stroke steam catapult and a similarly short, undampened arrester gear.
By 2009 the basic airframe had been defined and four prototypes were built for two versions: the Mk. 101 trainer, which was basically a navalized version of the land-based Mk. 132 with almost the same mission equipment, and the Mk. 201, a single-seater. Two airframes of each type were built and the first Samudree Baaj flight took place in early 2011. The Indian government ordered 30 trainers and 15 attack aircraft, to be delivered with the first new Indian carrier, INS Vikrant, in late 2017.
The Samudree Baaj Mk. 201 was developed from the basic navalized Hawk airframe as a light multirole fighter with a small visual signature and high maneuverability, but high combat efficiency and capable of both strike and point defense missions. It differed from the trainer through a completely new forward fuselage whereby the forward cockpit area, which normally housed the trainee, was replaced by an electronics bay for avionics and onboard systems, including a fire control computer, a LINS 300 ring laser gyroscope inertial navigation system and a lightweight (145 kg) multimode, coherent, pulse-Doppler I band airborne radar. This multimode radar was developed from the Ferranti Blue Fox radar and capable of airborne interception and air-to-surface strike roles over water and land, with look-down/shoot-down and look-up modes. It had ten air-to-surface and ten air-to-ground modes for navigation and weapon aiming purposes.
A ventral fairing behind the radome carried a laser rangefinder and a forward-looking infrared (FLIR). Mid-air refueling was also possible, through a detachable (but fixed) probe. GPS navigation or modern night-flight systems were integrated, too.
Like the trainer, the Mk. 201 had a total of seven weapon hardpoints (1 ventral, four underwing and a pair of wing tip launch rails), but the more sophisticated avionics suite allowed a wider range of ordnance to be carried and deployed, which included radar-guided AAMs for BVR strokes and smart weapons and guided missiles – especially the Sea Eagle and AGM-84 “Harpoon” anti-ship missiles in the Indian Navy’s arsenal. For the maritime strike role and as a support for ASW missions, the Samudree Baaj Mk. 201 could even deploy Sting Ray homing torpedoes.
Furthermore, a pair of 30mm (1.18 in) ADEN machine cannon with 150 RPG were housed in a shallow fairing under the cockpit. The self-protection systems include a BAE SkyGuardian 200 RWR and automatic Vinten chaff/flare dispensers located above the engine exhaust.
The Samudree Baaj project was highly ambitious, so that it does not wonder that there were many delays and teething troubles. Beyond the complex avionics integration this included the maritime adaptation of the Adour engine, which eventually led to the uprated Adour Mk. 871-1N, which, as a side benefit, also offered about 10% more power.
However, in parallel, INS Vikrant also ran into delays: In July 2012, The Times of India reported that construction of Vikrant has been delayed by three years, and the ship would be ready for commissioning by 2018. Later, in November 2012, Indian English-language news channel NDTV reported that cost of the aircraft carrier had increased, and the delivery has been delayed by at least five years and is expected to be with the Indian Navy only after 2018 as against the scheduled date of delivery of 2014. Work then commenced for the next stage of construction, which included the installation of the integrated propulsion system, the superstructure, the upper decks, the cabling, sensors and weapons. Vikrant was eventually undocked on 10 June 2015 after the completion of structural work. Cabling, piping, heat and ventilation works were to be completed by 2017; sea trials would begin thereafter. In December 2019, it was reported that the engines on board the ship were switched on and in November 2020, only the basin trials of the aircraft carrier were completed.
By that time, the first Samudree Baaj aircraft had been delivered to Indian Navy 300 squadron, and even though only based at land at Hansa Air Station, flight training and military operations commenced. In the meantime, the start of Vikrant's trials had initially been scheduled to begin on 12 March 2020, but further construction delays caused that to be moved back to April. With the COVID-19 crisis, the navy explained that trials were unlikely to begin before September/October. During the Navy Day press meeting in December 2019, Navy Chief Admiral Karambir Singh said Vikrant would be fully operational before the end of 2022. The COVID-19 pandemic had already pushed that back to 2023 and further delays appeared possible.
In late 2020, the Indian Navy expected to commission Vikrant by the end of 2021. Until then, the Samudree Baaj fleet will remain land-based at INS Hansa near Goa. This not only is the INAS 300 home base, it is also the location of the Indian Navy's Shore Based Test Facility (SBTF), which is a mock-up of the 283-metre (928 ft) INS Vikramaditya (a modified Kiev-class aircraft carrier) deck built to train and certify navy pilots, primarily the the Mikoyan MiG-29K for operating from the aircraft carrier, but now also for the Samudree Baaj and for the developmental trials of the naval HAL Tejas lightweight fighter.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 11.38 m (37 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 9.39 m (30 ft 10 in)
Height: 4.30 m (14 ft 1 in)
Wing area: 17.66 m2 (190.1 sq ft)
Empty weight: 9,394 lb (4,261 kg)
Gross weight: 12,750 lb (5,783 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 9,101 kg (20,064 lb)
Fuel capacity: 1,360 kg (3,000 lb) internal
3,210 kg (7,080 lb) with 3 drop tanks
Powerplant:
1× Rolls-Royce Turbomeca Adour Mk. 871-1N non-afterburning turbofan, 28,89 kN (6,445 lbf) thrust
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,037 km/h (644 mph, 560 kn) at sea level
Maximum speed: Mach 1.2 (never exceed at altitude)
Cruise speed: 796 km/h (495 mph, 430 kn) at 12,500 m (41,000 ft)
Carrier launch speed: 121 kn (139 mph; 224 km/h)
Approach speed: 125 kn (144 mph; 232 km/h)
Never exceed speed: 575 kn (662 mph, 1,065 km/h) / M1.04 design dive limit
Stall speed: 197 km/h (122 mph, 106 kn) flaps down
Range: 892 km (554 mi, 482 nmi) internal fuel only
Combat range: 617 km (383 mi, 333 nmi) with 2x AGM-84 and 2x 592 l (156 US gal; 130 imp gal)
Ferry range: 1,950 km (1,210 mi, 1,050 nmi) with 3 drop tanks
Service ceiling: 15,250 m (50,030 ft)
G-limits: +8/-3
Rate of climb: 58.466 m/s (11,509.1 ft/min)
Takeoff distance with maximum weapon load: 2,134 m (7,001 ft)
Landing distance at maximum landing weight with brake chute: 854 m (2,802 ft)
Landing distance at maximum landing weight without brake chute: 1,250 m (4,100 ft)
Armament:
2× 30 mm (1.181 in) Aden cannon with 150 rounds each
7× hardpoints (4× under-wing, 1× under-fuselage and 2 × wingtip)
for a total ordnance of 3.085 kg (6,800 lb) and a wide range of weapons
The kit and its assembly:
A subtle kitbashing project, inspired by a CG-rendition of a carrier-based (yet un-navalized) BAe Hawk 200 in Indian Navy service by fellow user SPINNERS in January 2021. I found the idea inspiring but thought that the basic concept could be taken further and into hardware form with a model. And I had a Matchbox Hawk 200 in The Stash™, as well as a McDonnell T-45 trainer from Italeri…
The plan sounds simple: take a T-45 and replace the cockpit section with the single-seat cockpit from the Hawk 200. And while the necessary cuts were easy to make, reality rears its ugly head when you try to mate parts from basically the same aircraft but from models by different manufacturers.
The challenges started with the fact that the fuselage shapes of both models differ – the Matchbox kit is more “voluminous”, and the different canopy shape called for a partial spine transplant, which turned out to be of very different shape than the T-45’s respective section! Lots of PSR…
In order to improve the pretty basic Matchbox Hawk cockpit I integrated the cockpit tub from the Italeri T-45, including the ejection seat, dashboard and its top cover.
For the totally different T-45 front wheel I had to enlarge the respective well and added a “ceiling” to it, since the strut had to be attached somewhere. The Hawk 200’s ventral tub for the cannons (which only the first prototype carried, later production aircraft did not feature them) were retained – partly because of their “whiffy“ nature, but also because making it disappear would have involved more major surgeries.
Most of the are behind the cockpit comes from the Italeri T-45, I just added a RHAWS fairing to the fin, extending it by 3mm.
A major problem became the air intakes, because the two kits differ in their construction. I wanted to use the Italeri parts, because they match the fairings on the fuselage flanks well and are better detailed than the Matchbox parts. But the boundary layer spacers between intakes and fuselage are molded into the Italeri parts, while the Matchbox kit has them molded into the fuselage. This called for major surgery and eventually worked out fine, and more PSR blended the rest of the fuselage donors around the cockpit together. A tedious process, though.
The pylons were puzzled together, including a former Matchbox EA-6B wing pylon under the fuselage, cut down and mounted in reverse and upside down! The ordnance comes from the Italeri NATO weapons set (Matra Magic and AGM-84), the ventral drop tank comes IIRC from an Eduard L-39 Albatros. Matra Magics were chosen because India never operated any Sidewinder AAM, just French or Soviet/Russian missiles like the R-60 or R-73 (unlikely on the Hawk, IMHO), and I had preferred a pair of Sea Eagle ASMs (from a Hasegawa Sea Harrier kit), but their span turned out to be too large for the Hawk’s low wings. The alternative, more slender Harpoons are plausible, though, since they are actually part of the Indian Navy’s inventory.
Painting and markings:
The Indian Navy theme was already settled, and I wanted to stay close to SPINNERS’ illustration as well as to real world Indian Navy aircraft. SPINNERS’ Hawk carried the typical Sea Harreir scheme in Extra Dark Sea Grey and White, and I found this livery to look a bit too much retro, because I’d place this what-if aircraft in the early 2020s, when the Sea Harriers had already been phased out. A “realistic” livery might have been an overall mid-grey paint scheme (like the land-based Indian Hawk 132s), but I found this to look too boring. As a compromise, I gave the Samudree Baaj a simple two-tone paint scheme, carried by a few late Indian Sea Harriers. It consists of upper surfaces in Dark Sea Grey (Humbrol 164) and undersides in Medium Sea Grey (Modelmaster 2058), with a low waterline. The Modelmaster MSG has – for my taste – a rather bluish hue and appears almost like PRU Blue, but I left it that way.
The decals were puzzled together from variosu sources. the roundels come from a MiG-21F (Begemot), the unit markings and tactical codes from a Model Alliance Sea Harrier sheet, and the stencils are a mix from the Matchbox Hawk 200 and the Italeri T-45.
The kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish from Italeri.
The fictional HAL „Samudree Baaj“ looks simple, but combining kits of the basically same aircraft from different manufacturers reveals their differences, and they are not to be underestimated! However, I like the result of a navalized Hawk single-seater, and - also with the relatively simple and dull livery - it looks pretty convincing.
Many thanks to SPINNERS for the creative inspiration - even though my build is not a 100% "copy" of the artwork, but rather a step further into the navalisation idea with the T-45 parts.
+++ 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 Indian „Samudree Baaj“ (समुद्री बाज, Sea Hawk) was a highly modified, navalized version of the British BAE Systems Hawk land-based training jet aircraft, which had been manufactured under license by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). The first indigenously built Hawk Mk. 132 trainer was delivered in 2008 to the Indian Air Force, and the type has since then been updated with indigenous avionics into the “Hawk-I” Mk. 132 from 2020 onwards. The aircraft’s Rolls Royce Adour Mk 871 engine was also license-built by HAL, and the company had experience from a wide range of aircraft projects in the past.
The Samudree Baaj project was initiated in 2006 by the Indian Navy, as part of the long historic plan to provide the Indian Navy with a fully capable aircraft carrier. This plan had been initiated in 1989, when India announced a plan to replace its ageing British-built aircraft carriers, INS Vikrant and INS Viraat (ex-HMS Hermes), with two new 28,000-ton Air Defence Ships (ADS) that would operate the BAe Sea Harrier aircraft. The first vessel was to replace Vikrant, which was set to decommission in early 1997. Construction of the ADS was to start at the Cochin Shipyard (CSL) in 1993 after the Indian Naval Design Organisation had translated this design study into a production model. Following the 1991 economic crisis, the plans for construction of the vessels were put on hold indefinitely.
In 1999, then-Defence Minister George Fernandes revived the project and sanctioned the construction of the Project “71 ADS”. By that time, given the ageing Sea Harrier fleet, the letter of intent called for a carrier that would carry more modern jet fighters. In 2001, CSL released a graphic illustration showing a 32,000-ton STOBAR (Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery) design with a pronounced ski jump. The aircraft carrier project finally received formal government approval in January 2003. By then, design updates called for a 37,500-ton carrier to operate the MiG-29K. India opted for a three-carrier fleet consisting of one carrier battle group stationed on each seaboard, and a third carrier held in reserve, in order to continuously protect both its flanks, to protect economic interests and mercantile traffic, and to provide humanitarian platforms in times of disasters, since a carrier can provide a self-generating supply of fresh water, medical assistance or engineering expertise to populations in need for assistance.
In August 2006, then-Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Arun Prakash stated that the designation for the vessel had been changed from Air Defence Ship (ADS) to Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC). The euphemistic ADS had been adopted in planning stages to ward off concerns about a naval build-up. Final revisions to the design increased the displacement of the carrier from 37,500 tons to over 40,000 tons. The length of the ship also increased from 252 metres (827 ft) to 262 metres (860 ft).
It was at this time that, beyond the MiG-29K, primarily a carrier-capable trainer and also a light (and less costly) strike aircraft would be needed. With the running production of the Hawk Mk. 132 for the Indian Air Force and BAE Systems’ connection and experience to the USA and McDonnell/Boeing’s adaptation of the Hawk as the US Navy’s carrier-capable T-45 trainer, HAL was instructed to develop a suitable aircraft family on the Hawk’s basis for the new carriers.
HAL’s Samudree Baaj is a fully carrier-capable version of the British Aerospace Hawk Mk. The Hawk had not originally been designed to perform carrier operations, so that numerous modifications were required, such as the extensive strengthening of the airframe to withstand the excessive forces imposed by the stresses involved in catapult launches and high sink-rate landings, both scenarios being routine in aircraft carrier operations.
The aerodynamic changes of the aircraft, which were mutually developed by HAL and BAE Systems, included improvements to the low-speed handling characteristics and a reduction in the approach speed. Most notable amongst the changes made to the Hawk's design were extended flaps for better low-speed handling, along with the addition of spoilers on the wings to reduce lift and strakes on the fuselage which improved airflow and stabilizer efficiency.
Other, less obvious modifications included a reinforced airframe, the adoption of a more robust and widened landing gear, complete with a catapult tow bar attachment to the oleo strut of the new two-wheel nose gear design, and an arresting hook. The tail fin was extended by 1 foot (12 in, 30.5 cm) to compensate for the loss of the Hawk’s ventral stabilizing strakes. To make room for the arrester hook, the original ventral air brake was split and re-located to the flanks, similar to the USN’s T-45 trainer.
At the time of the Samudree Baaj’s design, the exact catapult arrangement and capacity on board of India’s new carriers was not clear yet – even more so, since the MiG-29K and its powerful engines might have made a catapult obsolete. Therefore, the Samudree Baaj was designed to be operable either with a ski jump ramp (in the style of the Russian Kiev class carriers, of which India had purchased one as INS Vikramaditya) or with only minimal launch support within the projected STOBAR concept, which included a relatively short-stroke steam catapult and a similarly short, undampened arrester gear.
By 2009 the basic airframe had been defined and four prototypes were built for two versions: the Mk. 101 trainer, which was basically a navalized version of the land-based Mk. 132 with almost the same mission equipment, and the Mk. 201, a single-seater. Two airframes of each type were built and the first Samudree Baaj flight took place in early 2011. The Indian government ordered 30 trainers and 15 attack aircraft, to be delivered with the first new Indian carrier, INS Vikrant, in late 2017.
The Samudree Baaj Mk. 201 was developed from the basic navalized Hawk airframe as a light multirole fighter with a small visual signature and high maneuverability, but high combat efficiency and capable of both strike and point defense missions. It differed from the trainer through a completely new forward fuselage whereby the forward cockpit area, which normally housed the trainee, was replaced by an electronics bay for avionics and onboard systems, including a fire control computer, a LINS 300 ring laser gyroscope inertial navigation system and a lightweight (145 kg) multimode, coherent, pulse-Doppler I band airborne radar. This multimode radar was developed from the Ferranti Blue Fox radar and capable of airborne interception and air-to-surface strike roles over water and land, with look-down/shoot-down and look-up modes. It had ten air-to-surface and ten air-to-ground modes for navigation and weapon aiming purposes.
A ventral fairing behind the radome carried a laser rangefinder and a forward-looking infrared (FLIR). Mid-air refueling was also possible, through a detachable (but fixed) probe. GPS navigation or modern night-flight systems were integrated, too.
Like the trainer, the Mk. 201 had a total of seven weapon hardpoints (1 ventral, four underwing and a pair of wing tip launch rails), but the more sophisticated avionics suite allowed a wider range of ordnance to be carried and deployed, which included radar-guided AAMs for BVR strokes and smart weapons and guided missiles – especially the Sea Eagle and AGM-84 “Harpoon” anti-ship missiles in the Indian Navy’s arsenal. For the maritime strike role and as a support for ASW missions, the Samudree Baaj Mk. 201 could even deploy Sting Ray homing torpedoes.
Furthermore, a pair of 30mm (1.18 in) ADEN machine cannon with 150 RPG were housed in a shallow fairing under the cockpit. The self-protection systems include a BAE SkyGuardian 200 RWR and automatic Vinten chaff/flare dispensers located above the engine exhaust.
The Samudree Baaj project was highly ambitious, so that it does not wonder that there were many delays and teething troubles. Beyond the complex avionics integration this included the maritime adaptation of the Adour engine, which eventually led to the uprated Adour Mk. 871-1N, which, as a side benefit, also offered about 10% more power.
However, in parallel, INS Vikrant also ran into delays: In July 2012, The Times of India reported that construction of Vikrant has been delayed by three years, and the ship would be ready for commissioning by 2018. Later, in November 2012, Indian English-language news channel NDTV reported that cost of the aircraft carrier had increased, and the delivery has been delayed by at least five years and is expected to be with the Indian Navy only after 2018 as against the scheduled date of delivery of 2014. Work then commenced for the next stage of construction, which included the installation of the integrated propulsion system, the superstructure, the upper decks, the cabling, sensors and weapons. Vikrant was eventually undocked on 10 June 2015 after the completion of structural work. Cabling, piping, heat and ventilation works were to be completed by 2017; sea trials would begin thereafter. In December 2019, it was reported that the engines on board the ship were switched on and in November 2020, only the basin trials of the aircraft carrier were completed.
By that time, the first Samudree Baaj aircraft had been delivered to Indian Navy 300 squadron, and even though only based at land at Hansa Air Station, flight training and military operations commenced. In the meantime, the start of Vikrant's trials had initially been scheduled to begin on 12 March 2020, but further construction delays caused that to be moved back to April. With the COVID-19 crisis, the navy explained that trials were unlikely to begin before September/October. During the Navy Day press meeting in December 2019, Navy Chief Admiral Karambir Singh said Vikrant would be fully operational before the end of 2022. The COVID-19 pandemic had already pushed that back to 2023 and further delays appeared possible.
In late 2020, the Indian Navy expected to commission Vikrant by the end of 2021. Until then, the Samudree Baaj fleet will remain land-based at INS Hansa near Goa. This not only is the INAS 300 home base, it is also the location of the Indian Navy's Shore Based Test Facility (SBTF), which is a mock-up of the 283-metre (928 ft) INS Vikramaditya (a modified Kiev-class aircraft carrier) deck built to train and certify navy pilots, primarily the the Mikoyan MiG-29K for operating from the aircraft carrier, but now also for the Samudree Baaj and for the developmental trials of the naval HAL Tejas lightweight fighter.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 11.38 m (37 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 9.39 m (30 ft 10 in)
Height: 4.30 m (14 ft 1 in)
Wing area: 17.66 m2 (190.1 sq ft)
Empty weight: 9,394 lb (4,261 kg)
Gross weight: 12,750 lb (5,783 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 9,101 kg (20,064 lb)
Fuel capacity: 1,360 kg (3,000 lb) internal
3,210 kg (7,080 lb) with 3 drop tanks
Powerplant:
1× Rolls-Royce Turbomeca Adour Mk. 871-1N non-afterburning turbofan, 28,89 kN (6,445 lbf) thrust
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,037 km/h (644 mph, 560 kn) at sea level
Maximum speed: Mach 1.2 (never exceed at altitude)
Cruise speed: 796 km/h (495 mph, 430 kn) at 12,500 m (41,000 ft)
Carrier launch speed: 121 kn (139 mph; 224 km/h)
Approach speed: 125 kn (144 mph; 232 km/h)
Never exceed speed: 575 kn (662 mph, 1,065 km/h) / M1.04 design dive limit
Stall speed: 197 km/h (122 mph, 106 kn) flaps down
Range: 892 km (554 mi, 482 nmi) internal fuel only
Combat range: 617 km (383 mi, 333 nmi) with 2x AGM-84 and 2x 592 l (156 US gal; 130 imp gal)
Ferry range: 1,950 km (1,210 mi, 1,050 nmi) with 3 drop tanks
Service ceiling: 15,250 m (50,030 ft)
G-limits: +8/-3
Rate of climb: 58.466 m/s (11,509.1 ft/min)
Takeoff distance with maximum weapon load: 2,134 m (7,001 ft)
Landing distance at maximum landing weight with brake chute: 854 m (2,802 ft)
Landing distance at maximum landing weight without brake chute: 1,250 m (4,100 ft)
Armament:
2× 30 mm (1.181 in) Aden cannon with 150 rounds each
7× hardpoints (4× under-wing, 1× under-fuselage and 2 × wingtip)
for a total ordnance of 3.085 kg (6,800 lb) and a wide range of weapons
The kit and its assembly:
A subtle kitbashing project, inspired by a CG-rendition of a carrier-based (yet un-navalized) BAe Hawk 200 in Indian Navy service by fellow user SPINNERS in January 2021. I found the idea inspiring but thought that the basic concept could be taken further and into hardware form with a model. And I had a Matchbox Hawk 200 in The Stash™, as well as a McDonnell T-45 trainer from Italeri…
The plan sounds simple: take a T-45 and replace the cockpit section with the single-seat cockpit from the Hawk 200. And while the necessary cuts were easy to make, reality rears its ugly head when you try to mate parts from basically the same aircraft but from models by different manufacturers.
The challenges started with the fact that the fuselage shapes of both models differ – the Matchbox kit is more “voluminous”, and the different canopy shape called for a partial spine transplant, which turned out to be of very different shape than the T-45’s respective section! Lots of PSR…
In order to improve the pretty basic Matchbox Hawk cockpit I integrated the cockpit tub from the Italeri T-45, including the ejection seat, dashboard and its top cover.
For the totally different T-45 front wheel I had to enlarge the respective well and added a “ceiling” to it, since the strut had to be attached somewhere. The Hawk 200’s ventral tub for the cannons (which only the first prototype carried, later production aircraft did not feature them) were retained – partly because of their “whiffy“ nature, but also because making it disappear would have involved more major surgeries.
Most of the are behind the cockpit comes from the Italeri T-45, I just added a RHAWS fairing to the fin, extending it by 3mm.
A major problem became the air intakes, because the two kits differ in their construction. I wanted to use the Italeri parts, because they match the fairings on the fuselage flanks well and are better detailed than the Matchbox parts. But the boundary layer spacers between intakes and fuselage are molded into the Italeri parts, while the Matchbox kit has them molded into the fuselage. This called for major surgery and eventually worked out fine, and more PSR blended the rest of the fuselage donors around the cockpit together. A tedious process, though.
The pylons were puzzled together, including a former Matchbox EA-6B wing pylon under the fuselage, cut down and mounted in reverse and upside down! The ordnance comes from the Italeri NATO weapons set (Matra Magic and AGM-84), the ventral drop tank comes IIRC from an Eduard L-39 Albatros. Matra Magics were chosen because India never operated any Sidewinder AAM, just French or Soviet/Russian missiles like the R-60 or R-73 (unlikely on the Hawk, IMHO), and I had preferred a pair of Sea Eagle ASMs (from a Hasegawa Sea Harrier kit), but their span turned out to be too large for the Hawk’s low wings. The alternative, more slender Harpoons are plausible, though, since they are actually part of the Indian Navy’s inventory.
Painting and markings:
The Indian Navy theme was already settled, and I wanted to stay close to SPINNERS’ illustration as well as to real world Indian Navy aircraft. SPINNERS’ Hawk carried the typical Sea Harreir scheme in Extra Dark Sea Grey and White, and I found this livery to look a bit too much retro, because I’d place this what-if aircraft in the early 2020s, when the Sea Harriers had already been phased out. A “realistic” livery might have been an overall mid-grey paint scheme (like the land-based Indian Hawk 132s), but I found this to look too boring. As a compromise, I gave the Samudree Baaj a simple two-tone paint scheme, carried by a few late Indian Sea Harriers. It consists of upper surfaces in Dark Sea Grey (Humbrol 164) and undersides in Medium Sea Grey (Modelmaster 2058), with a low waterline. The Modelmaster MSG has – for my taste – a rather bluish hue and appears almost like PRU Blue, but I left it that way.
The decals were puzzled together from variosu sources. the roundels come from a MiG-21F (Begemot), the unit markings and tactical codes from a Model Alliance Sea Harrier sheet, and the stencils are a mix from the Matchbox Hawk 200 and the Italeri T-45.
The kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish from Italeri.
The fictional HAL „Samudree Baaj“ looks simple, but combining kits of the basically same aircraft from different manufacturers reveals their differences, and they are not to be underestimated! However, I like the result of a navalized Hawk single-seater, and - also with the relatively simple and dull livery - it looks pretty convincing.
Many thanks to SPINNERS for the creative inspiration - even though my build is not a 100% "copy" of the artwork, but rather a step further into the navalisation idea with the T-45 parts.
+++ 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 historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Q-6 program was initiated in the mid-1970s when, during the Battle of the Paracel Islands in 1974, the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) and People's Liberation Army Naval Air Force (PLANAF) proved incapable of ground support missions. Due to the lack of modern avionics and ground infrastructure to support a modern air war, Chinese aircraft suffered navigation and other logistics problems that severely limited their performance. The first Chinese aircraft did not actually reach the islands until several hours after the battle was over.
In addition to the need to upgrade its logistics capability and infrastructure, China also decided that nothing-in-its-then-aircraft-inventory could fill the requirement for support missions in the South China Sea. Fighters such as the J-5, J-6, J-7, and J-8 lacked a ground attack capability and were hampered by short range. The only Chinese ground attack aircraft atr that time, the Nanchang Q-5 (a MiG-19 derivate with a solid nose, an internal weapon bay and lateral air intakes), was also short ranged and had a relatively low payload. China's bombers such as the Harbin H-5 and Xian H-6 were slow and lacked a sufficient self-defense capability. A new aircraft was therefore seen as desperately needed to fulfill a new naval strike mission in support of the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN).
Immediately after the battle, both the PLAAF and PLAN submitted their requirements for a new fighter bomber/ground attack aircraft to the 3rd Ministry of PRC. After extensive research, the 3rd Ministry decided that, based on the Chinese aeronautical industrial capability at the time, it was impossible to develop two separate airplanes at the same time. Instead, a decision was made to develop a single airplane when the prime requirements of the PLAAF and PLAN were similar, even though with different versions tailored to meet the different secondary needs of PLAAF and PLAN.
In June 1976 representatives from various aircraft factories were summoned to Beijing to discuss the project, and were instructed to come up with designs in the shortest possible time. Shenyang Aircraft Factory (later reorganized into Shenyang Aircraft Corporation) was the first to come up with a design, the JH-8 (FB-8), which was essentially a ground attack version of the large, twin-engined J-8II (F-8II) interceptor. Next came the Q-6, a new design from the Nanchang Aircraft Factory. The Xi'an Aircraft Factory (later reorganized into Xi'an Aircraft Industrial Corporation) was the last one to present a design, the Xian JH-7, also a new design.
Initially, the 3rd Ministry favored the JH-8, however because the design of the operational J-8II was still not completed the risk was considered to be too high, so it was eliminated. The projected development of JH-7 was too far out, and so the Q-6 was selected because it was believed to be the one that would be able for service the soonest.
The Q-6's distictive feature was its swing wing arrangement, and the project was China's first venture into this direction. Before the Q-6 program started, however, China had already obtained MiG-23BN and MiG-23MS aircraft from Egypt. A few downed F-111 were also provided to China by North Vietnam. Based on the research effort performed on these aircraft, it was suggested that the variable-sweep wing should be adopted for China's new ground attack aircraft.
The general designer of Nanchang Q-5, and the future academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (elected in 1995), Mr. Lu Xiaopeng, was named as the general designer of Q-6. Lu personally visited PLAAF and PLANAF numerous times to obtain their input, which was the base of the Tactical Technological Requirements of the Q-6 he was in charge of, and by February 1979, the general design of the attack aircraft was finalized, based on the initial requirement of the 3rd Ministry.
The original plan was to base the design of Q-6 on the MiG-23BN, the ground attack version of MiG-23. However, both PLAAF and PLAN required a true dogfight capability for self-defense. Due to the need of dogfight capability, a radar was needed, and the ground attack version of the Soviet fighter had no radar. As a result, the plan was changed to base the design on the MiG-23MS instead. But this was not a true solution: Studies revealed that in order to successfully perform the required missions for PLAAF and PLANAF, ground attack radar, as well as terrain-following radar, were needed, too. And for the intended dogfight capability, the RP-22 Sapfir-21 radar (NATO reporting name Jay Bird) of the MiG-23MS lacked the BVR capability.
Facing this technological lack the decision was made to use avionics reverse-engineered from the F-111 to makeup the MiG-23 shortcomings. But as with other technological features adopted for the Q-6, they were proven to be way too ambitious for the Chinese industrial, scientific and technological capability at the time, which resulted in prolonged development.
Problems did not stop, the airframe itself proved to be troublesome, too. Originally the design was based on the MiG-23MS, and was initially thought to be better than the MiG-23BN, because it provided more room in the nosecone to house the radar.
However, the Chinese microelectronic industry could not provide the solid state electronics needed to miniaturize the intended radar, and as a result, the size of the fuselage had theoretically to be increased from the size of the MiG-23 to that of the Su-24 to fit an appropriate radar dish with the technolgy available at that time. Research furthermore revealed that the side-intakes of the MiG-23 design were not sufficient enough to meet the required dogfight capability, so the side-intakes arrangement was changed into a single chin-intake instead, and the Q-6 is claimed to be the first Chinese aircraft to have a chin-mounted intake.
The engine itself was also a problem, since China did not possess a powerful jet fighter engine that would match the intended performance profile of the Q-6. At first there were plans to use 122.4 kN thrust of a WS-6 engine (which was used in the H-6/Tu-16 bomber!), but these were not suited for a fighter and simply too large. To match the targets of an aircraft weight of 14.500 kg, the biggest load of bombs of 4.500 kilograms and a combat radius of 900 km, the Q-6 was finally outfitted with the Wopen WS-9 afterburning turbofan - a license-built Rolls Royce RB.168 Spey Mk. 202 with 91.3 kN of thrust.
Chinese considered the greatest achievement of the Q-6 in its fly-by-wire (FBW) control of the variable-sweep wings, both were the first of its kind in China. The original goal of reverse-engineering the FBW of the F-111 proved to be way too ambitious and had to be abandoned, so a much simpler version was adopted. The triplex analog FBW of the Q-6 was effectively just slightly more advanced than the most rudimentary FBW in that the mechanical servo valves were replaced with electrical servo valves, operated by electronic controllers. But contrary to the most rudimentary FBW, where hydraulic actuators still existed, the hydraulic actuators are replaced by electrical actuators on the Q-6. Anyway, this system proved to be the major obstacle in the hardware development of the Q-6 and it took nine years to complete (1980–1988), under the personal leadership of Mr. Lu Xiaopeng.
In 1988, three prototypes were built: one for static test, one for avionics tests on the ground, and one for the variable sweep wing research. The serial aircraft for PLAAF and PLANAF would have been separate variants, called Q-6A and Q-6B, which are believed to be offered for export now (see below).
Although hailed as a technological breakthrough for the Chinese aviation and providing superior performance to fixed-wing designs (esp. the outdated Q-5), the Chinese system was more than 12% heavier than the simple mechanical-hydraulic controlled variable-sweep wing of the benchmark MiG-23, and the Q-6 avionics were still far from being up-to-date.
Once identified as an indigenous aircraft (the Q-6 was at first deemed to be a variant or straight copy of the MiG-23/27, and therefore premilinarily coded 'Flogger L'), NATO alloted the Code 'Fruitcase' to it, with suffixes for the various export variants (see below).
It was not before 1990 that the aircraft was completed and (theoretically) ready for service – but at that time, technology and military strategy had already changed, and China had been developing the more capable (but much bigger) twin-engined Xian JH-7 fighter bomber for PLAAF and PLANAF. But it would still take some years until the JH-7A would enter service with the PLANAF: in early 2004, and with the PLAAF by the end of the year.
For China, the most important factor which prevented the Q-6 introduction into PLAAF and PLANAF service, was the 'discovery' of stealth features on the battlefield: variable-sweep wing would enlarge the aircraft's radar cross section multiple times and thus making it impossible to survive on the modern battlefield, because it would be much more likely to be detected and shot down.
Anyway, internal politics did not stop China from offering the now completed airframe on the export market as A-6 'Kong Yun' ("Cloud"), as a more capable successor to the Nanchang A-5 (the export version of the MiG-19-based Q-5). From 1992 onwards, several former A-5 users bought the aircraft as A-6 multi-role fighters. It is assumed that these correspond to the Q-6's development lines for PLAAAF an PLANAF.
Current users are the Bangladeshi Air Force (8× A-6B), Myanmar Air Force (20× A-6C), Sri Lanka (11× A-6B) Korean People's Air Force (probably less than 50x A-6A) and the Sudanese Air Force (A total of about 20, 3–11 of them servicable, probably all A-6A).
A-6A ('Fruitcase A'):
The first version and despite being marketed as a "multi-role combat aircraft" a very simple variant with a small radome, probably containing a Type 226 pulse-Doppler radar (a Chinese copy of the GEC-Marconi Skyranger).
A-6B ('Fruitcase B'):
Similar in apperance to the A-6A with a bigger radome. This variant is equipped with a Chinese KLJ-6E pulse-Doppler radar (A Chinese copy of the Italian Pointer-2500 radar, the same as featured on the Chinese Q-5M Fantan attack aircraft), which gives all weather attack capability. These aircraft are also fitted with a HUD, a GPS receiver/inertial navigation system, a 360° radar warning system, a tactical radio navigation system and chaff/flare dispensers on the rear fuselage.
The Sri Lanka aircraft have been seen carrying an external FLIR pod on one of the underfuselage pylons, while the Bangladeshi Air Force aircraft exclusively feature a small fairing under the nose which is believed to contain a LR/MTS, allowing the deployment of PGM.
A-6C ('Fruitcase C'):
Dedicated ground attack variant with a solid, more slender nose and full PGM capability. The nose features a fairing with windows for an ALR-1 laser rangefinder/marked target seeker (LR/MTS) in a small ball turret, and possibly LLLTV/FLIR. This optical system offers day/night attack capability. Like the A-6B, these aircraft feature HUD, GPS, tactical radio and optional flare dispensers.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 56 ft 1 in (17.10 m)
Wingspan: 47 ft 2 in (14.4m) at 16°, 28 ft 6 in (8,7m) at 72°
Height: 15 ft 9.5 in (4.82 m)
Empty weight: 16.520 lb (7.500 kg)
Loaded weight: 28.370 lb (12.880 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 32.820 lb (14.900 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Xian WS-9 Qin Ling afterburning turbofan (a license-built Rolls Royce RB.168 Spey Mk. 202), rated at 54,6 kN (5.562kp) dry and at 91,3KN (9.305kp) at full afterburner
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.2 at low altitude and in clean configuration, subsonic with external ordnance; 1.055mph (1.700 km/h) at height and in clean configuration
Combat radius: 485 nmi (560 mi, 900 km)
Service ceiling: 49.180 ft (15.000 m)
Armament:
2× Type 23-III twin-barreled 23mm cannons in the wing roots with 200 RPG
7× Hardpoints (three under the fuselage, one under each fixed wing root and the mobile outer wings) for a maximum external ordnance of 10.000 lbs (4.540kg), including guided and unguided bombs, missiles, napalm tanks or 800l drop tanks; the two hardpoints under the outer wings are fixed and can only be used when the wings are kept in the most forward position (they are normally only used for drop tanks in ferry configuration).
The kit and its assembly:
This is a whif, but the Nanchang Q-6 was actually developed until 1989 – even though it never entered any service. It was over-ambitious and a dead end, overtaken by technological advances and the fact that Chinese development used to take decades rather than years.
Anyway, the Q-6 actually looked as if someone had glued the nose and air intake of a F-16 onto a MiG-23/27 fuselage - weird, but cool, so why not try this at home?
Like many kitbashing things, what sounds simple turned out to be a bit tricky in detail, even though the surgery was finally easier than expected. The model basis is pretty simple: I took an Academy MiG-27, sawed off the fuselage in the wing roots area (about 1cm, the cockpit section is an extra fuselage section), and did the same with an Italeri F-16 nose section, right behind the cockpit, where the front wheel well ends. The top insert for the single seater was left a bit longer, so that it would overlap with the MiG-23/27 spine.
When you fit these parts together, height is almost perfect, even the wing root/LERX angles match, but there are gaps left on the flanks where the original MiG-27 air intakes would be. These have to be covered, what creates lines reminiscent of the respective area on a MRCA Tornado. Furthermore, the spine behind the cockpit has to be sculpted, too.
Furthermore, the wing root levels of the MiG-23/27 and the F-16 did not match - they have a difference in height of about 4mm on the model, and this was the biggest challenge.
In order to compensate for this problem on my model, any LERX sign was removed from the F-16 nose. Inside of the F-16 section, a column was added that supports the rear upper half of the front fuselage, since the flanks had to go almost completely.
On the outside, the necessary intersections/extensions sculpted new with 2C putty, extending the MiG-23/27 lines forward. The final surface finish was done with NC putty. This major surgery was less complicated than expected - lots of work, though, but feasible.
The new front section with its blended fuselage/LERX area around the cockpit reminds surprisingly much of the MiG-29? As a side note: when you look at CG simulations of this aircraft, this area is a frequent field of trial and error. You find unconclusive, if not impossible designs.
Other changes include a less modern canopy from a MiG-21 (I think it comes from an Academy MiG-21F kit), which was more tricky to fit onto the original F-16 canopy than the LERX stuff. The F-16 canopy looked just too modern for my taste. An old Airfix pilot figure was added, too.
Another new feature is a new jet pipe, a J-79 nozzle from an Italeri Kfir that fits perfectly into the rear fuselage, and the fin. The latter was taken as a leftover part from my recent CF-151A project and comes from a 1:144 scale Tu-22M bomber (Dragon). It's higher, but less deep, and I thought that a slightly different shape and more area would be suitable for an attack aircraft. For the same reason the single, foldable stabilizer fin under the rear fuselage was replaced by two fixed strakes (from the F-16). Small details, but they change the look and make the aircraft appear more simple.
The landing gear was taken from the MiG-27, the front wheel strut had to be slightly shortened due to the reduced wheelbase on the Q-6.
The ordnance was puzzled together – according to current BAF weapons in use. I went for unguided missiles (taken from the Academy MiG-27 donation kit) and some 100kg iron bombs, leftover from a Trumpeter Il-28 bomber kit. These were arranged under the wing roots on improvised tandem MERs.
I did not even try to engrave new panel lines on the new front section - actually, almost the whole upper surface is featureless since it was made with putty. But bot 2C and NC putty are pretty touchy to drilling or engraving (as the rather fruitless attempt to drill open cavities for the two guns proved...), so I decided to just use paint effects.
Painting and markings:
I had been wanting to build a Bangladeshi Air Force aircraft for quite a long time, and the Q-6 was finally a great opportunity. As a ground attack aircraft, the livery was to reflect that role, and among modern BAF aircraft I found C-130 transporters carrying a wrap-around ‘Lizard’/’European One’ scheme, in the traditional tones of FS34102, FS34097 and FS 36081 (Humbrol 117, 149 and 32). Maybe the BAF C-130s are ex USAF aircraft? It seems to be common BAF practice to keep former users' liveries and even bort numbers! Anyway, I find the Lizard cammo on a swing wing aircraft like this rather disturbing, but overall the whole thing looks pretty cool, probably also because of the exotic roundels.
Another option would have been a two-tone green camouflage (seen on BAF An-32 transports) or a three-tone pattern of pale sand, dark brown and dark green with light blue undersides, seen on BAF A-5 fighters. The garish, blue livery of BAF MiG-29s, as well as the blue and grey patterns on BAF F-7 fighters, were ruled out, since they’d rather suggest an air superiority role.
The camouflage pattern is based on USAF A-10 aircraft, and the aircraft’s upper sides were thoroughly weathered with a black ink wash and dry-brushing in lighter shades of the basic tones. After all, my kit is to represent a Q-6 after more than 15 years of service, so that the grey would become much lighter, the dark green get a greyish-blue hue and the light green tone adapt an almost olive drab look. As a result, the aircraft does not look too dark and murky, and the missile ordnance does not stand out too much.
The roundels were improvised – Bangladeshi aircraft kits/decals are rare. AFAIK, only one 1:72 Fujimi MiG-21 offers a BAF markings option, otherwise I could not find anything else, even among aftermarket offerings. Scratching is more fun, though, so “my” markings are actually Pakistani roundels (from a TL Modellbau aftermarket sheet) with red decal discs covering the original white central disc.
The flag on the fin was cut from generic green decal sheet, the red disc was punched out from red decal sheet, just like the roundel additions. Straightforward – and highly effective! Other markings were puzzled together from the scrap box, since the Q-6 never got beyond prototype stage, anything was possible concerning stencils etc.
The bort numbers are guesstimates - typically, BAF (and also PAF) carry a full registration on the tail fin and only a three-digit code on the nose. Squadron emblems are only small and carried either on the nose or the fin, so the model is rather simple in appearance.
The cockpit interior was painted in "Russian Interior Blue-Green" (Testors 2135, a stuff also in use in China, as far as I can tell), the landing gear and its wells were kept in Aluminum (Humbrol 56). The air intake was painted in light grey from the inside, the radome became black.
+++ 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 Q-6 program was initiated in the mid-1970s when, during the Battle of the Paracel Islands in 1974, the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) and People's Liberation Army Naval Air Force (PLANAF) proved incapable of ground support missions. Due to the lack of modern avionics and ground infrastructure to support a modern air war, Chinese aircraft suffered navigation and other logistics problems that severely limited their performance. The first Chinese aircraft did not actually reach the islands until several hours after the battle was over.
In addition to the need to upgrade its logistics capability and infrastructure, China also decided that nothing-in-its-then-aircraft-inventory could fill the requirement for support missions in the South China Sea. Fighters such as the J-5, J-6, J-7, and J-8 lacked a ground attack capability and were hampered by short range. The only Chinese ground attack aircraft atr that time, the Nanchang Q-5 (a MiG-19 derivate with a solid nose, an internal weapon bay and lateral air intakes), was also short ranged and had a relatively low payload. China's bombers such as the Harbin H-5 and Xian H-6 were slow and lacked a sufficient self-defense capability. A new aircraft was therefore seen as desperately needed to fulfill a new naval strike mission in support of the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN).
Immediately after the battle, both the PLAAF and PLAN submitted their requirements for a new fighter bomber/ground attack aircraft to the 3rd Ministry of PRC. After extensive research, the 3rd Ministry decided that, based on the Chinese aeronautical industrial capability at the time, it was impossible to develop two separate airplanes at the same time. Instead, a decision was made to develop a single airplane when the prime requirements of the PLAAF and PLAN were similar, even though with different versions tailored to meet the different secondary needs of PLAAF and PLAN.
In June 1976 representatives from various aircraft factories were summoned to Beijing to discuss the project, and were instructed to come up with designs in the shortest possible time. Shenyang Aircraft Factory (later reorganized into Shenyang Aircraft Corporation) was the first to come up with a design, the JH-8 (FB-8), which was essentially a ground attack version of the large, twin-engined J-8II (F-8II) interceptor. Next came the Q-6, a new design from the Nanchang Aircraft Factory. The Xi'an Aircraft Factory (later reorganized into Xi'an Aircraft Industrial Corporation) was the last one to present a design, the Xian JH-7, also a new design.
Initially, the 3rd Ministry favored the JH-8, however because the design of the operational J-8II was still not completed the risk was considered to be too high, so it was eliminated. The projected development of JH-7 was too far out, and so the Q-6 was selected because it was believed to be the one that would be able for service the soonest.
The Q-6's distictive feature was its swing wing arrangement, and the project was China's first venture into this direction. Before the Q-6 program started, however, China had already obtained MiG-23BN and MiG-23MS aircraft from Egypt. A few downed F-111 were also provided to China by North Vietnam. Based on the research effort performed on these aircraft, it was suggested that the variable-sweep wing should be adopted for China's new ground attack aircraft.
The general designer of Nanchang Q-5, and the future academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (elected in 1995), Mr. Lu Xiaopeng, was named as the general designer of Q-6. Lu personally visited PLAAF and PLANAF numerous times to obtain their input, which was the base of the Tactical Technological Requirements of the Q-6 he was in charge of, and by February 1979, the general design of the attack aircraft was finalized, based on the initial requirement of the 3rd Ministry.
The original plan was to base the design of Q-6 on the MiG-23BN, the ground attack version of MiG-23. However, both PLAAF and PLAN required a true dogfight capability for self-defense. Due to the need of dogfight capability, a radar was needed, and the ground attack version of the Soviet fighter had no radar. As a result, the plan was changed to base the design on the MiG-23MS instead. But this was not a true solution: Studies revealed that in order to successfully perform the required missions for PLAAF and PLANAF, ground attack radar, as well as terrain-following radar, were needed, too. And for the intended dogfight capability, the RP-22 Sapfir-21 radar (NATO reporting name Jay Bird) of the MiG-23MS lacked the BVR capability.
Facing this technological lack the decision was made to use avionics reverse-engineered from the F-111 to makeup the MiG-23 shortcomings. But as with other technological features adopted for the Q-6, they were proven to be way too ambitious for the Chinese industrial, scientific and technological capability at the time, which resulted in prolonged development.
Problems did not stop, the airframe itself proved to be troublesome, too. Originally the design was based on the MiG-23MS, and was initially thought to be better than the MiG-23BN, because it provided more room in the nosecone to house the radar.
However, the Chinese microelectronic industry could not provide the solid state electronics needed to miniaturize the intended radar, and as a result, the size of the fuselage had theoretically to be increased from the size of the MiG-23 to that of the Su-24 to fit an appropriate radar dish with the technolgy available at that time. Research furthermore revealed that the side-intakes of the MiG-23 design were not sufficient enough to meet the required dogfight capability, so the side-intakes arrangement was changed into a single chin-intake instead, and the Q-6 is claimed to be the first Chinese aircraft to have a chin-mounted intake.
The engine itself was also a problem, since China did not possess a powerful jet fighter engine that would match the intended performance profile of the Q-6. At first there were plans to use 122.4 kN thrust of a WS-6 engine (which was used in the H-6/Tu-16 bomber!), but these were not suited for a fighter and simply too large. To match the targets of an aircraft weight of 14.500 kg, the biggest load of bombs of 4.500 kilograms and a combat radius of 900 km, the Q-6 was finally outfitted with the Wopen WS-9 afterburning turbofan - a license-built Rolls Royce RB.168 Spey Mk. 202 with 91.3 kN of thrust.
Chinese considered the greatest achievement of the Q-6 in its fly-by-wire (FBW) control of the variable-sweep wings, both were the first of its kind in China. The original goal of reverse-engineering the FBW of the F-111 proved to be way too ambitious and had to be abandoned, so a much simpler version was adopted. The triplex analog FBW of the Q-6 was effectively just slightly more advanced than the most rudimentary FBW in that the mechanical servo valves were replaced with electrical servo valves, operated by electronic controllers. But contrary to the most rudimentary FBW, where hydraulic actuators still existed, the hydraulic actuators are replaced by electrical actuators on the Q-6. Anyway, this system proved to be the major obstacle in the hardware development of the Q-6 and it took nine years to complete (1980–1988), under the personal leadership of Mr. Lu Xiaopeng.
In 1988, three prototypes were built: one for static test, one for avionics tests on the ground, and one for the variable sweep wing research. The serial aircraft for PLAAF and PLANAF would have been separate variants, called Q-6A and Q-6B, which are believed to be offered for export now (see below).
Although hailed as a technological breakthrough for the Chinese aviation and providing superior performance to fixed-wing designs (esp. the outdated Q-5), the Chinese system was more than 12% heavier than the simple mechanical-hydraulic controlled variable-sweep wing of the benchmark MiG-23, and the Q-6 avionics were still far from being up-to-date.
Once identified as an indigenous aircraft (the Q-6 was at first deemed to be a variant or straight copy of the MiG-23/27, and therefore premilinarily coded 'Flogger L'), NATO alloted the Code 'Fruitcase' to it, with suffixes for the various export variants (see below).
It was not before 1990 that the aircraft was completed and (theoretically) ready for service – but at that time, technology and military strategy had already changed, and China had been developing the more capable (but much bigger) twin-engined Xian JH-7 fighter bomber for PLAAF and PLANAF. But it would still take some years until the JH-7A would enter service with the PLANAF: in early 2004, and with the PLAAF by the end of the year.
For China, the most important factor which prevented the Q-6 introduction into PLAAF and PLANAF service, was the 'discovery' of stealth features on the battlefield: variable-sweep wing would enlarge the aircraft's radar cross section multiple times and thus making it impossible to survive on the modern battlefield, because it would be much more likely to be detected and shot down.
Anyway, internal politics did not stop China from offering the now completed airframe on the export market as A-6 'Kong Yun' ("Cloud"), as a more capable successor to the Nanchang A-5 (the export version of the MiG-19-based Q-5). From 1992 onwards, several former A-5 users bought the aircraft as A-6 multi-role fighters. It is assumed that these correspond to the Q-6's development lines for PLAAAF an PLANAF.
Current users are the Bangladeshi Air Force (8× A-6B), Myanmar Air Force (20× A-6C), Sri Lanka (11× A-6B) Korean People's Air Force (probably less than 50x A-6A) and the Sudanese Air Force (A total of about 20, 3–11 of them servicable, probably all A-6A).
A-6A ('Fruitcase A'):
The first version and despite being marketed as a "multi-role combat aircraft" a very simple variant with a small radome, probably containing a Type 226 pulse-Doppler radar (a Chinese copy of the GEC-Marconi Skyranger).
A-6B ('Fruitcase B'):
Similar in apperance to the A-6A with a bigger radome. This variant is equipped with a Chinese KLJ-6E pulse-Doppler radar (A Chinese copy of the Italian Pointer-2500 radar, the same as featured on the Chinese Q-5M Fantan attack aircraft), which gives all weather attack capability. These aircraft are also fitted with a HUD, a GPS receiver/inertial navigation system, a 360° radar warning system, a tactical radio navigation system and chaff/flare dispensers on the rear fuselage.
The Sri Lanka aircraft have been seen carrying an external FLIR pod on one of the underfuselage pylons, while the Bangladeshi Air Force aircraft exclusively feature a small fairing under the nose which is believed to contain a LR/MTS, allowing the deployment of PGM.
A-6C ('Fruitcase C'):
Dedicated ground attack variant with a solid, more slender nose and full PGM capability. The nose features a fairing with windows for an ALR-1 laser rangefinder/marked target seeker (LR/MTS) in a small ball turret, and possibly LLLTV/FLIR. This optical system offers day/night attack capability. Like the A-6B, these aircraft feature HUD, GPS, tactical radio and optional flare dispensers.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 56 ft 1 in (17.10 m)
Wingspan: 47 ft 2 in (14.4m) at 16°, 28 ft 6 in (8,7m) at 72°
Height: 15 ft 9.5 in (4.82 m)
Empty weight: 16.520 lb (7.500 kg)
Loaded weight: 28.370 lb (12.880 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 32.820 lb (14.900 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Xian WS-9 Qin Ling afterburning turbofan (a license-built Rolls Royce RB.168 Spey Mk. 202), rated at 54,6 kN (5.562kp) dry and at 91,3KN (9.305kp) at full afterburner
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.2 at low altitude and in clean configuration, subsonic with external ordnance; 1.055mph (1.700 km/h) at height and in clean configuration
Combat radius: 485 nmi (560 mi, 900 km)
Service ceiling: 49.180 ft (15.000 m)
Armament:
2× Type 23-III twin-barreled 23mm cannons in the wing roots with 200 RPG
7× Hardpoints (three under the fuselage, one under each fixed wing root and the mobile outer wings) for a maximum external ordnance of 10.000 lbs (4.540kg), including guided and unguided bombs, missiles, napalm tanks or 800l drop tanks; the two hardpoints under the outer wings are fixed and can only be used when the wings are kept in the most forward position (they are normally only used for drop tanks in ferry configuration).
The kit and its assembly:
This is a whif, but the Nanchang Q-6 was actually developed until 1989 – even though it never entered any service. It was over-ambitious and a dead end, overtaken by technological advances and the fact that Chinese development used to take decades rather than years.
Anyway, the Q-6 actually looked as if someone had glued the nose and air intake of a F-16 onto a MiG-23/27 fuselage - weird, but cool, so why not try this at home?
Like many kitbashing things, what sounds simple turned out to be a bit tricky in detail, even though the surgery was finally easier than expected. The model basis is pretty simple: I took an Academy MiG-27, sawed off the fuselage in the wing roots area (about 1cm, the cockpit section is an extra fuselage section), and did the same with an Italeri F-16 nose section, right behind the cockpit, where the front wheel well ends. The top insert for the single seater was left a bit longer, so that it would overlap with the MiG-23/27 spine.
When you fit these parts together, height is almost perfect, even the wing root/LERX angles match, but there are gaps left on the flanks where the original MiG-27 air intakes would be. These have to be covered, what creates lines reminiscent of the respective area on a MRCA Tornado. Furthermore, the spine behind the cockpit has to be sculpted, too.
Furthermore, the wing root levels of the MiG-23/27 and the F-16 did not match - they have a difference in height of about 4mm on the model, and this was the biggest challenge.
In order to compensate for this problem on my model, any LERX sign was removed from the F-16 nose. Inside of the F-16 section, a column was added that supports the rear upper half of the front fuselage, since the flanks had to go almost completely.
On the outside, the necessary intersections/extensions sculpted new with 2C putty, extending the MiG-23/27 lines forward. The final surface finish was done with NC putty. This major surgery was less complicated than expected - lots of work, though, but feasible.
The new front section with its blended fuselage/LERX area around the cockpit reminds surprisingly much of the MiG-29? As a side note: when you look at CG simulations of this aircraft, this area is a frequent field of trial and error. You find unconclusive, if not impossible designs.
Other changes include a less modern canopy from a MiG-21 (I think it comes from an Academy MiG-21F kit), which was more tricky to fit onto the original F-16 canopy than the LERX stuff. The F-16 canopy looked just too modern for my taste. An old Airfix pilot figure was added, too.
Another new feature is a new jet pipe, a J-79 nozzle from an Italeri Kfir that fits perfectly into the rear fuselage, and the fin. The latter was taken as a leftover part from my recent CF-151A project and comes from a 1:144 scale Tu-22M bomber (Dragon). It's higher, but less deep, and I thought that a slightly different shape and more area would be suitable for an attack aircraft. For the same reason the single, foldable stabilizer fin under the rear fuselage was replaced by two fixed strakes (from the F-16). Small details, but they change the look and make the aircraft appear more simple.
The landing gear was taken from the MiG-27, the front wheel strut had to be slightly shortened due to the reduced wheelbase on the Q-6.
The ordnance was puzzled together – according to current BAF weapons in use. I went for unguided missiles (taken from the Academy MiG-27 donation kit) and some 100kg iron bombs, leftover from a Trumpeter Il-28 bomber kit. These were arranged under the wing roots on improvised tandem MERs.
I did not even try to engrave new panel lines on the new front section - actually, almost the whole upper surface is featureless since it was made with putty. But bot 2C and NC putty are pretty touchy to drilling or engraving (as the rather fruitless attempt to drill open cavities for the two guns proved...), so I decided to just use paint effects.
Painting and markings:
I had been wanting to build a Bangladeshi Air Force aircraft for quite a long time, and the Q-6 was finally a great opportunity. As a ground attack aircraft, the livery was to reflect that role, and among modern BAF aircraft I found C-130 transporters carrying a wrap-around ‘Lizard’/’European One’ scheme, in the traditional tones of FS34102, FS34097 and FS 36081 (Humbrol 117, 149 and 32). Maybe the BAF C-130s are ex USAF aircraft? It seems to be common BAF practice to keep former users' liveries and even bort numbers! Anyway, I find the Lizard cammo on a swing wing aircraft like this rather disturbing, but overall the whole thing looks pretty cool, probably also because of the exotic roundels.
Another option would have been a two-tone green camouflage (seen on BAF An-32 transports) or a three-tone pattern of pale sand, dark brown and dark green with light blue undersides, seen on BAF A-5 fighters. The garish, blue livery of BAF MiG-29s, as well as the blue and grey patterns on BAF F-7 fighters, were ruled out, since they’d rather suggest an air superiority role.
The camouflage pattern is based on USAF A-10 aircraft, and the aircraft’s upper sides were thoroughly weathered with a black ink wash and dry-brushing in lighter shades of the basic tones. After all, my kit is to represent a Q-6 after more than 15 years of service, so that the grey would become much lighter, the dark green get a greyish-blue hue and the light green tone adapt an almost olive drab look. As a result, the aircraft does not look too dark and murky, and the missile ordnance does not stand out too much.
The roundels were improvised – Bangladeshi aircraft kits/decals are rare. AFAIK, only one 1:72 Fujimi MiG-21 offers a BAF markings option, otherwise I could not find anything else, even among aftermarket offerings. Scratching is more fun, though, so “my” markings are actually Pakistani roundels (from a TL Modellbau aftermarket sheet) with red decal discs covering the original white central disc.
The flag on the fin was cut from generic green decal sheet, the red disc was punched out from red decal sheet, just like the roundel additions. Straightforward – and highly effective! Other markings were puzzled together from the scrap box, since the Q-6 never got beyond prototype stage, anything was possible concerning stencils etc.
The bort numbers are guesstimates - typically, BAF (and also PAF) carry a full registration on the tail fin and only a three-digit code on the nose. Squadron emblems are only small and carried either on the nose or the fin, so the model is rather simple in appearance.
The cockpit interior was painted in "Russian Interior Blue-Green" (Testors 2135, a stuff also in use in China, as far as I can tell), the landing gear and its wells were kept in Aluminum (Humbrol 56). The air intake was painted in light grey from the inside, the radome became black.
+++ 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 Q-6 program was initiated in the mid-1970s when, during the Battle of the Paracel Islands in 1974, the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) and People's Liberation Army Naval Air Force (PLANAF) proved incapable of ground support missions. Due to the lack of modern avionics and ground infrastructure to support a modern air war, Chinese aircraft suffered navigation and other logistics problems that severely limited their performance. The first Chinese aircraft did not actually reach the islands until several hours after the battle was over.
In addition to the need to upgrade its logistics capability and infrastructure, China also decided that nothing-in-its-then-aircraft-inventory could fill the requirement for support missions in the South China Sea. Fighters such as the J-5, J-6, J-7, and J-8 lacked a ground attack capability and were hampered by short range. The only Chinese ground attack aircraft atr that time, the Nanchang Q-5 (a MiG-19 derivate with a solid nose, an internal weapon bay and lateral air intakes), was also short ranged and had a relatively low payload. China's bombers such as the Harbin H-5 and Xian H-6 were slow and lacked a sufficient self-defense capability. A new aircraft was therefore seen as desperately needed to fulfill a new naval strike mission in support of the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN).
Immediately after the battle, both the PLAAF and PLAN submitted their requirements for a new fighter bomber/ground attack aircraft to the 3rd Ministry of PRC. After extensive research, the 3rd Ministry decided that, based on the Chinese aeronautical industrial capability at the time, it was impossible to develop two separate airplanes at the same time. Instead, a decision was made to develop a single airplane when the prime requirements of the PLAAF and PLAN were similar, even though with different versions tailored to meet the different secondary needs of PLAAF and PLAN.
In June 1976 representatives from various aircraft factories were summoned to Beijing to discuss the project, and were instructed to come up with designs in the shortest possible time. Shenyang Aircraft Factory (later reorganized into Shenyang Aircraft Corporation) was the first to come up with a design, the JH-8 (FB-8), which was essentially a ground attack version of the large, twin-engined J-8II (F-8II) interceptor. Next came the Q-6, a new design from the Nanchang Aircraft Factory. The Xi'an Aircraft Factory (later reorganized into Xi'an Aircraft Industrial Corporation) was the last one to present a design, the Xian JH-7, also a new design.
Initially, the 3rd Ministry favored the JH-8, however because the design of the operational J-8II was still not completed the risk was considered to be too high, so it was eliminated. The projected development of JH-7 was too far out, and so the Q-6 was selected because it was believed to be the one that would be able for service the soonest.
The Q-6's distictive feature was its swing wing arrangement, and the project was China's first venture into this direction. Before the Q-6 program started, however, China had already obtained MiG-23BN and MiG-23MS aircraft from Egypt. A few downed F-111 were also provided to China by North Vietnam. Based on the research effort performed on these aircraft, it was suggested that the variable-sweep wing should be adopted for China's new ground attack aircraft.
The general designer of Nanchang Q-5, and the future academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (elected in 1995), Mr. Lu Xiaopeng, was named as the general designer of Q-6. Lu personally visited PLAAF and PLANAF numerous times to obtain their input, which was the base of the Tactical Technological Requirements of the Q-6 he was in charge of, and by February 1979, the general design of the attack aircraft was finalized, based on the initial requirement of the 3rd Ministry.
The original plan was to base the design of Q-6 on the MiG-23BN, the ground attack version of MiG-23. However, both PLAAF and PLAN required a true dogfight capability for self-defense. Due to the need of dogfight capability, a radar was needed, and the ground attack version of the Soviet fighter had no radar. As a result, the plan was changed to base the design on the MiG-23MS instead. But this was not a true solution: Studies revealed that in order to successfully perform the required missions for PLAAF and PLANAF, ground attack radar, as well as terrain-following radar, were needed, too. And for the intended dogfight capability, the RP-22 Sapfir-21 radar (NATO reporting name Jay Bird) of the MiG-23MS lacked the BVR capability.
Facing this technological lack the decision was made to use avionics reverse-engineered from the F-111 to makeup the MiG-23 shortcomings. But as with other technological features adopted for the Q-6, they were proven to be way too ambitious for the Chinese industrial, scientific and technological capability at the time, which resulted in prolonged development.
Problems did not stop, the airframe itself proved to be troublesome, too. Originally the design was based on the MiG-23MS, and was initially thought to be better than the MiG-23BN, because it provided more room in the nosecone to house the radar.
However, the Chinese microelectronic industry could not provide the solid state electronics needed to miniaturize the intended radar, and as a result, the size of the fuselage had theoretically to be increased from the size of the MiG-23 to that of the Su-24 to fit an appropriate radar dish with the technolgy available at that time. Research furthermore revealed that the side-intakes of the MiG-23 design were not sufficient enough to meet the required dogfight capability, so the side-intakes arrangement was changed into a single chin-intake instead, and the Q-6 is claimed to be the first Chinese aircraft to have a chin-mounted intake.
The engine itself was also a problem, since China did not possess a powerful jet fighter engine that would match the intended performance profile of the Q-6. At first there were plans to use 122.4 kN thrust of a WS-6 engine (which was used in the H-6/Tu-16 bomber!), but these were not suited for a fighter and simply too large. To match the targets of an aircraft weight of 14.500 kg, the biggest load of bombs of 4.500 kilograms and a combat radius of 900 km, the Q-6 was finally outfitted with the Wopen WS-9 afterburning turbofan - a license-built Rolls Royce RB.168 Spey Mk. 202 with 91.3 kN of thrust.
Chinese considered the greatest achievement of the Q-6 in its fly-by-wire (FBW) control of the variable-sweep wings, both were the first of its kind in China. The original goal of reverse-engineering the FBW of the F-111 proved to be way too ambitious and had to be abandoned, so a much simpler version was adopted. The triplex analog FBW of the Q-6 was effectively just slightly more advanced than the most rudimentary FBW in that the mechanical servo valves were replaced with electrical servo valves, operated by electronic controllers. But contrary to the most rudimentary FBW, where hydraulic actuators still existed, the hydraulic actuators are replaced by electrical actuators on the Q-6. Anyway, this system proved to be the major obstacle in the hardware development of the Q-6 and it took nine years to complete (1980–1988), under the personal leadership of Mr. Lu Xiaopeng.
In 1988, three prototypes were built: one for static test, one for avionics tests on the ground, and one for the variable sweep wing research. The serial aircraft for PLAAF and PLANAF would have been separate variants, called Q-6A and Q-6B, which are believed to be offered for export now (see below).
Although hailed as a technological breakthrough for the Chinese aviation and providing superior performance to fixed-wing designs (esp. the outdated Q-5), the Chinese system was more than 12% heavier than the simple mechanical-hydraulic controlled variable-sweep wing of the benchmark MiG-23, and the Q-6 avionics were still far from being up-to-date.
Once identified as an indigenous aircraft (the Q-6 was at first deemed to be a variant or straight copy of the MiG-23/27, and therefore premilinarily coded 'Flogger L'), NATO alloted the Code 'Fruitcase' to it, with suffixes for the various export variants (see below).
It was not before 1990 that the aircraft was completed and (theoretically) ready for service – but at that time, technology and military strategy had already changed, and China had been developing the more capable (but much bigger) twin-engined Xian JH-7 fighter bomber for PLAAF and PLANAF. But it would still take some years until the JH-7A would enter service with the PLANAF: in early 2004, and with the PLAAF by the end of the year.
For China, the most important factor which prevented the Q-6 introduction into PLAAF and PLANAF service, was the 'discovery' of stealth features on the battlefield: variable-sweep wing would enlarge the aircraft's radar cross section multiple times and thus making it impossible to survive on the modern battlefield, because it would be much more likely to be detected and shot down.
Anyway, internal politics did not stop China from offering the now completed airframe on the export market as A-6 'Kong Yun' ("Cloud"), as a more capable successor to the Nanchang A-5 (the export version of the MiG-19-based Q-5). From 1992 onwards, several former A-5 users bought the aircraft as A-6 multi-role fighters. It is assumed that these correspond to the Q-6's development lines for PLAAAF an PLANAF.
Current users are the Bangladeshi Air Force (8× A-6B), Myanmar Air Force (20× A-6C), Sri Lanka (11× A-6B) Korean People's Air Force (probably less than 50x A-6A) and the Sudanese Air Force (A total of about 20, 3–11 of them servicable, probably all A-6A).
A-6A ('Fruitcase A'):
The first version and despite being marketed as a "multi-role combat aircraft" a very simple variant with a small radome, probably containing a Type 226 pulse-Doppler radar (a Chinese copy of the GEC-Marconi Skyranger).
A-6B ('Fruitcase B'):
Similar in apperance to the A-6A with a bigger radome. This variant is equipped with a Chinese KLJ-6E pulse-Doppler radar (A Chinese copy of the Italian Pointer-2500 radar, the same as featured on the Chinese Q-5M Fantan attack aircraft), which gives all weather attack capability. These aircraft are also fitted with a HUD, a GPS receiver/inertial navigation system, a 360° radar warning system, a tactical radio navigation system and chaff/flare dispensers on the rear fuselage.
The Sri Lanka aircraft have been seen carrying an external FLIR pod on one of the underfuselage pylons, while the Bangladeshi Air Force aircraft exclusively feature a small fairing under the nose which is believed to contain a LR/MTS, allowing the deployment of PGM.
A-6C ('Fruitcase C'):
Dedicated ground attack variant with a solid, more slender nose and full PGM capability. The nose features a fairing with windows for an ALR-1 laser rangefinder/marked target seeker (LR/MTS) in a small ball turret, and possibly LLLTV/FLIR. This optical system offers day/night attack capability. Like the A-6B, these aircraft feature HUD, GPS, tactical radio and optional flare dispensers.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 56 ft 1 in (17.10 m)
Wingspan: 47 ft 2 in (14.4m) at 16°, 28 ft 6 in (8,7m) at 72°
Height: 15 ft 9.5 in (4.82 m)
Empty weight: 16.520 lb (7.500 kg)
Loaded weight: 28.370 lb (12.880 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 32.820 lb (14.900 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Xian WS-9 Qin Ling afterburning turbofan (a license-built Rolls Royce RB.168 Spey Mk. 202), rated at 54,6 kN (5.562kp) dry and at 91,3KN (9.305kp) at full afterburner
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.2 at low altitude and in clean configuration, subsonic with external ordnance; 1.055mph (1.700 km/h) at height and in clean configuration
Combat radius: 485 nmi (560 mi, 900 km)
Service ceiling: 49.180 ft (15.000 m)
Armament:
2× Type 23-III twin-barreled 23mm cannons in the wing roots with 200 RPG
7× Hardpoints (three under the fuselage, one under each fixed wing root and the mobile outer wings) for a maximum external ordnance of 10.000 lbs (4.540kg), including guided and unguided bombs, missiles, napalm tanks or 800l drop tanks; the two hardpoints under the outer wings are fixed and can only be used when the wings are kept in the most forward position (they are normally only used for drop tanks in ferry configuration).
The kit and its assembly:
This is a whif, but the Nanchang Q-6 was actually developed until 1989 – even though it never entered any service. It was over-ambitious and a dead end, overtaken by technological advances and the fact that Chinese development used to take decades rather than years.
Anyway, the Q-6 actually looked as if someone had glued the nose and air intake of a F-16 onto a MiG-23/27 fuselage - weird, but cool, so why not try this at home?
Like many kitbashing things, what sounds simple turned out to be a bit tricky in detail, even though the surgery was finally easier than expected. The model basis is pretty simple: I took an Academy MiG-27, sawed off the fuselage in the wing roots area (about 1cm, the cockpit section is an extra fuselage section), and did the same with an Italeri F-16 nose section, right behind the cockpit, where the front wheel well ends. The top insert for the single seater was left a bit longer, so that it would overlap with the MiG-23/27 spine.
When you fit these parts together, height is almost perfect, even the wing root/LERX angles match, but there are gaps left on the flanks where the original MiG-27 air intakes would be. These have to be covered, what creates lines reminiscent of the respective area on a MRCA Tornado. Furthermore, the spine behind the cockpit has to be sculpted, too.
Furthermore, the wing root levels of the MiG-23/27 and the F-16 did not match - they have a difference in height of about 4mm on the model, and this was the biggest challenge.
In order to compensate for this problem on my model, any LERX sign was removed from the F-16 nose. Inside of the F-16 section, a column was added that supports the rear upper half of the front fuselage, since the flanks had to go almost completely.
On the outside, the necessary intersections/extensions sculpted new with 2C putty, extending the MiG-23/27 lines forward. The final surface finish was done with NC putty. This major surgery was less complicated than expected - lots of work, though, but feasible.
The new front section with its blended fuselage/LERX area around the cockpit reminds surprisingly much of the MiG-29? As a side note: when you look at CG simulations of this aircraft, this area is a frequent field of trial and error. You find unconclusive, if not impossible designs.
Other changes include a less modern canopy from a MiG-21 (I think it comes from an Academy MiG-21F kit), which was more tricky to fit onto the original F-16 canopy than the LERX stuff. The F-16 canopy looked just too modern for my taste. An old Airfix pilot figure was added, too.
Another new feature is a new jet pipe, a J-79 nozzle from an Italeri Kfir that fits perfectly into the rear fuselage, and the fin. The latter was taken as a leftover part from my recent CF-151A project and comes from a 1:144 scale Tu-22M bomber (Dragon). It's higher, but less deep, and I thought that a slightly different shape and more area would be suitable for an attack aircraft. For the same reason the single, foldable stabilizer fin under the rear fuselage was replaced by two fixed strakes (from the F-16). Small details, but they change the look and make the aircraft appear more simple.
The landing gear was taken from the MiG-27, the front wheel strut had to be slightly shortened due to the reduced wheelbase on the Q-6.
The ordnance was puzzled together – according to current BAF weapons in use. I went for unguided missiles (taken from the Academy MiG-27 donation kit) and some 100kg iron bombs, leftover from a Trumpeter Il-28 bomber kit. These were arranged under the wing roots on improvised tandem MERs.
I did not even try to engrave new panel lines on the new front section - actually, almost the whole upper surface is featureless since it was made with putty. But bot 2C and NC putty are pretty touchy to drilling or engraving (as the rather fruitless attempt to drill open cavities for the two guns proved...), so I decided to just use paint effects.
Painting and markings:
I had been wanting to build a Bangladeshi Air Force aircraft for quite a long time, and the Q-6 was finally a great opportunity. As a ground attack aircraft, the livery was to reflect that role, and among modern BAF aircraft I found C-130 transporters carrying a wrap-around ‘Lizard’/’European One’ scheme, in the traditional tones of FS34102, FS34097 and FS 36081 (Humbrol 117, 149 and 32). Maybe the BAF C-130s are ex USAF aircraft? It seems to be common BAF practice to keep former users' liveries and even bort numbers! Anyway, I find the Lizard cammo on a swing wing aircraft like this rather disturbing, but overall the whole thing looks pretty cool, probably also because of the exotic roundels.
Another option would have been a two-tone green camouflage (seen on BAF An-32 transports) or a three-tone pattern of pale sand, dark brown and dark green with light blue undersides, seen on BAF A-5 fighters. The garish, blue livery of BAF MiG-29s, as well as the blue and grey patterns on BAF F-7 fighters, were ruled out, since they’d rather suggest an air superiority role.
The camouflage pattern is based on USAF A-10 aircraft, and the aircraft’s upper sides were thoroughly weathered with a black ink wash and dry-brushing in lighter shades of the basic tones. After all, my kit is to represent a Q-6 after more than 15 years of service, so that the grey would become much lighter, the dark green get a greyish-blue hue and the light green tone adapt an almost olive drab look. As a result, the aircraft does not look too dark and murky, and the missile ordnance does not stand out too much.
The roundels were improvised – Bangladeshi aircraft kits/decals are rare. AFAIK, only one 1:72 Fujimi MiG-21 offers a BAF markings option, otherwise I could not find anything else, even among aftermarket offerings. Scratching is more fun, though, so “my” markings are actually Pakistani roundels (from a TL Modellbau aftermarket sheet) with red decal discs covering the original white central disc.
The flag on the fin was cut from generic green decal sheet, the red disc was punched out from red decal sheet, just like the roundel additions. Straightforward – and highly effective! Other markings were puzzled together from the scrap box, since the Q-6 never got beyond prototype stage, anything was possible concerning stencils etc.
The bort numbers are guesstimates - typically, BAF (and also PAF) carry a full registration on the tail fin and only a three-digit code on the nose. Squadron emblems are only small and carried either on the nose or the fin, so the model is rather simple in appearance.
The cockpit interior was painted in "Russian Interior Blue-Green" (Testors 2135, a stuff also in use in China, as far as I can tell), the landing gear and its wells were kept in Aluminum (Humbrol 56). The air intake was painted in light grey from the inside, the radome became black.
+++ 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:
The Indian „Samudree Baaj“ (समुद्री बाज, Sea Hawk) was a highly modified, navalized version of the British BAE Systems Hawk land-based training jet aircraft, which had been manufactured under license by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). The first indigenously built Hawk Mk. 132 trainer was delivered in 2008 to the Indian Air Force, and the type has since then been updated with indigenous avionics into the “Hawk-I” Mk. 132 from 2020 onwards. The aircraft’s Rolls Royce Adour Mk 871 engine was also license-built by HAL, and the company had experience from a wide range of aircraft projects in the past.
The Samudree Baaj project was initiated in 2006 by the Indian Navy, as part of the long historic plan to provide the Indian Navy with a fully capable aircraft carrier. This plan had been initiated in 1989, when India announced a plan to replace its ageing British-built aircraft carriers, INS Vikrant and INS Viraat (ex-HMS Hermes), with two new 28,000-ton Air Defence Ships (ADS) that would operate the BAe Sea Harrier aircraft. The first vessel was to replace Vikrant, which was set to decommission in early 1997. Construction of the ADS was to start at the Cochin Shipyard (CSL) in 1993 after the Indian Naval Design Organisation had translated this design study into a production model. Following the 1991 economic crisis, the plans for construction of the vessels were put on hold indefinitely.
In 1999, then-Defence Minister George Fernandes revived the project and sanctioned the construction of the Project “71 ADS”. By that time, given the ageing Sea Harrier fleet, the letter of intent called for a carrier that would carry more modern jet fighters. In 2001, CSL released a graphic illustration showing a 32,000-ton STOBAR (Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery) design with a pronounced ski jump. The aircraft carrier project finally received formal government approval in January 2003. By then, design updates called for a 37,500-ton carrier to operate the MiG-29K. India opted for a three-carrier fleet consisting of one carrier battle group stationed on each seaboard, and a third carrier held in reserve, in order to continuously protect both its flanks, to protect economic interests and mercantile traffic, and to provide humanitarian platforms in times of disasters, since a carrier can provide a self-generating supply of fresh water, medical assistance or engineering expertise to populations in need for assistance.
In August 2006, then-Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Arun Prakash stated that the designation for the vessel had been changed from Air Defence Ship (ADS) to Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC). The euphemistic ADS had been adopted in planning stages to ward off concerns about a naval build-up. Final revisions to the design increased the displacement of the carrier from 37,500 tons to over 40,000 tons. The length of the ship also increased from 252 metres (827 ft) to 262 metres (860 ft).
It was at this time that, beyond the MiG-29K, primarily a carrier-capable trainer and also a light (and less costly) strike aircraft would be needed. With the running production of the Hawk Mk. 132 for the Indian Air Force and BAE Systems’ connection and experience to the USA and McDonnell/Boeing’s adaptation of the Hawk as the US Navy’s carrier-capable T-45 trainer, HAL was instructed to develop a suitable aircraft family on the Hawk’s basis for the new carriers.
HAL’s Samudree Baaj is a fully carrier-capable version of the British Aerospace Hawk Mk. The Hawk had not originally been designed to perform carrier operations, so that numerous modifications were required, such as the extensive strengthening of the airframe to withstand the excessive forces imposed by the stresses involved in catapult launches and high sink-rate landings, both scenarios being routine in aircraft carrier operations.
The aerodynamic changes of the aircraft, which were mutually developed by HAL and BAE Systems, included improvements to the low-speed handling characteristics and a reduction in the approach speed. Most notable amongst the changes made to the Hawk's design were extended flaps for better low-speed handling, along with the addition of spoilers on the wings to reduce lift and strakes on the fuselage which improved airflow and stabilizer efficiency.
Other, less obvious modifications included a reinforced airframe, the adoption of a more robust and widened landing gear, complete with a catapult tow bar attachment to the oleo strut of the new two-wheel nose gear design, and an arresting hook. The tail fin was extended by 1 foot (12 in, 30.5 cm) to compensate for the loss of the Hawk’s ventral stabilizing strakes. To make room for the arrester hook, the original ventral air brake was split and re-located to the flanks, similar to the USN’s T-45 trainer.
At the time of the Samudree Baaj’s design, the exact catapult arrangement and capacity on board of India’s new carriers was not clear yet – even more so, since the MiG-29K and its powerful engines might have made a catapult obsolete. Therefore, the Samudree Baaj was designed to be operable either with a ski jump ramp (in the style of the Russian Kiev class carriers, of which India had purchased one as INS Vikramaditya) or with only minimal launch support within the projected STOBAR concept, which included a relatively short-stroke steam catapult and a similarly short, undampened arrester gear.
By 2009 the basic airframe had been defined and four prototypes were built for two versions: the Mk. 101 trainer, which was basically a navalized version of the land-based Mk. 132 with almost the same mission equipment, and the Mk. 201, a single-seater. Two airframes of each type were built and the first Samudree Baaj flight took place in early 2011. The Indian government ordered 30 trainers and 15 attack aircraft, to be delivered with the first new Indian carrier, INS Vikrant, in late 2017.
The Samudree Baaj Mk. 201 was developed from the basic navalized Hawk airframe as a light multirole fighter with a small visual signature and high maneuverability, but high combat efficiency and capable of both strike and point defense missions. It differed from the trainer through a completely new forward fuselage whereby the forward cockpit area, which normally housed the trainee, was replaced by an electronics bay for avionics and onboard systems, including a fire control computer, a LINS 300 ring laser gyroscope inertial navigation system and a lightweight (145 kg) multimode, coherent, pulse-Doppler I band airborne radar. This multimode radar was developed from the Ferranti Blue Fox radar and capable of airborne interception and air-to-surface strike roles over water and land, with look-down/shoot-down and look-up modes. It had ten air-to-surface and ten air-to-ground modes for navigation and weapon aiming purposes.
A ventral fairing behind the radome carried a laser rangefinder and a forward-looking infrared (FLIR). Mid-air refueling was also possible, through a detachable (but fixed) probe. GPS navigation or modern night-flight systems were integrated, too.
Like the trainer, the Mk. 201 had a total of seven weapon hardpoints (1 ventral, four underwing and a pair of wing tip launch rails), but the more sophisticated avionics suite allowed a wider range of ordnance to be carried and deployed, which included radar-guided AAMs for BVR strokes and smart weapons and guided missiles – especially the Sea Eagle and AGM-84 “Harpoon” anti-ship missiles in the Indian Navy’s arsenal. For the maritime strike role and as a support for ASW missions, the Samudree Baaj Mk. 201 could even deploy Sting Ray homing torpedoes.
Furthermore, a pair of 30mm (1.18 in) ADEN machine cannon with 150 RPG were housed in a shallow fairing under the cockpit. The self-protection systems include a BAE SkyGuardian 200 RWR and automatic Vinten chaff/flare dispensers located above the engine exhaust.
The Samudree Baaj project was highly ambitious, so that it does not wonder that there were many delays and teething troubles. Beyond the complex avionics integration this included the maritime adaptation of the Adour engine, which eventually led to the uprated Adour Mk. 871-1N, which, as a side benefit, also offered about 10% more power.
However, in parallel, INS Vikrant also ran into delays: In July 2012, The Times of India reported that construction of Vikrant has been delayed by three years, and the ship would be ready for commissioning by 2018. Later, in November 2012, Indian English-language news channel NDTV reported that cost of the aircraft carrier had increased, and the delivery has been delayed by at least five years and is expected to be with the Indian Navy only after 2018 as against the scheduled date of delivery of 2014. Work then commenced for the next stage of construction, which included the installation of the integrated propulsion system, the superstructure, the upper decks, the cabling, sensors and weapons. Vikrant was eventually undocked on 10 June 2015 after the completion of structural work. Cabling, piping, heat and ventilation works were to be completed by 2017; sea trials would begin thereafter. In December 2019, it was reported that the engines on board the ship were switched on and in November 2020, only the basin trials of the aircraft carrier were completed.
By that time, the first Samudree Baaj aircraft had been delivered to Indian Navy 300 squadron, and even though only based at land at Hansa Air Station, flight training and military operations commenced. In the meantime, the start of Vikrant's trials had initially been scheduled to begin on 12 March 2020, but further construction delays caused that to be moved back to April. With the COVID-19 crisis, the navy explained that trials were unlikely to begin before September/October. During the Navy Day press meeting in December 2019, Navy Chief Admiral Karambir Singh said Vikrant would be fully operational before the end of 2022. The COVID-19 pandemic had already pushed that back to 2023 and further delays appeared possible.
In late 2020, the Indian Navy expected to commission Vikrant by the end of 2021. Until then, the Samudree Baaj fleet will remain land-based at INS Hansa near Goa. This not only is the INAS 300 home base, it is also the location of the Indian Navy's Shore Based Test Facility (SBTF), which is a mock-up of the 283-metre (928 ft) INS Vikramaditya (a modified Kiev-class aircraft carrier) deck built to train and certify navy pilots, primarily the the Mikoyan MiG-29K for operating from the aircraft carrier, but now also for the Samudree Baaj and for the developmental trials of the naval HAL Tejas lightweight fighter.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 11.38 m (37 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 9.39 m (30 ft 10 in)
Height: 4.30 m (14 ft 1 in)
Wing area: 17.66 m2 (190.1 sq ft)
Empty weight: 9,394 lb (4,261 kg)
Gross weight: 12,750 lb (5,783 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 9,101 kg (20,064 lb)
Fuel capacity: 1,360 kg (3,000 lb) internal
3,210 kg (7,080 lb) with 3 drop tanks
Powerplant:
1× Rolls-Royce Turbomeca Adour Mk. 871-1N non-afterburning turbofan, 28,89 kN (6,445 lbf) thrust
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,037 km/h (644 mph, 560 kn) at sea level
Maximum speed: Mach 1.2 (never exceed at altitude)
Cruise speed: 796 km/h (495 mph, 430 kn) at 12,500 m (41,000 ft)
Carrier launch speed: 121 kn (139 mph; 224 km/h)
Approach speed: 125 kn (144 mph; 232 km/h)
Never exceed speed: 575 kn (662 mph, 1,065 km/h) / M1.04 design dive limit
Stall speed: 197 km/h (122 mph, 106 kn) flaps down
Range: 892 km (554 mi, 482 nmi) internal fuel only
Combat range: 617 km (383 mi, 333 nmi) with 2x AGM-84 and 2x 592 l (156 US gal; 130 imp gal)
Ferry range: 1,950 km (1,210 mi, 1,050 nmi) with 3 drop tanks
Service ceiling: 15,250 m (50,030 ft)
G-limits: +8/-3
Rate of climb: 58.466 m/s (11,509.1 ft/min)
Takeoff distance with maximum weapon load: 2,134 m (7,001 ft)
Landing distance at maximum landing weight with brake chute: 854 m (2,802 ft)
Landing distance at maximum landing weight without brake chute: 1,250 m (4,100 ft)
Armament:
2× 30 mm (1.181 in) Aden cannon with 150 rounds each
7× hardpoints (4× under-wing, 1× under-fuselage and 2 × wingtip)
for a total ordnance of 3.085 kg (6,800 lb) and a wide range of weapons
The kit and its assembly:
A subtle kitbashing project, inspired by a CG-rendition of a carrier-based (yet un-navalized) BAe Hawk 200 in Indian Navy service by fellow user SPINNERS in January 2021. I found the idea inspiring but thought that the basic concept could be taken further and into hardware form with a model. And I had a Matchbox Hawk 200 in The Stash™, as well as a McDonnell T-45 trainer from Italeri…
The plan sounds simple: take a T-45 and replace the cockpit section with the single-seat cockpit from the Hawk 200. And while the necessary cuts were easy to make, reality rears its ugly head when you try to mate parts from basically the same aircraft but from models by different manufacturers.
The challenges started with the fact that the fuselage shapes of both models differ – the Matchbox kit is more “voluminous”, and the different canopy shape called for a partial spine transplant, which turned out to be of very different shape than the T-45’s respective section! Lots of PSR…
In order to improve the pretty basic Matchbox Hawk cockpit I integrated the cockpit tub from the Italeri T-45, including the ejection seat, dashboard and its top cover.
For the totally different T-45 front wheel I had to enlarge the respective well and added a “ceiling” to it, since the strut had to be attached somewhere. The Hawk 200’s ventral tub for the cannons (which only the first prototype carried, later production aircraft did not feature them) were retained – partly because of their “whiffy“ nature, but also because making it disappear would have involved more major surgeries.
Most of the are behind the cockpit comes from the Italeri T-45, I just added a RHAWS fairing to the fin, extending it by 3mm.
A major problem became the air intakes, because the two kits differ in their construction. I wanted to use the Italeri parts, because they match the fairings on the fuselage flanks well and are better detailed than the Matchbox parts. But the boundary layer spacers between intakes and fuselage are molded into the Italeri parts, while the Matchbox kit has them molded into the fuselage. This called for major surgery and eventually worked out fine, and more PSR blended the rest of the fuselage donors around the cockpit together. A tedious process, though.
The pylons were puzzled together, including a former Matchbox EA-6B wing pylon under the fuselage, cut down and mounted in reverse and upside down! The ordnance comes from the Italeri NATO weapons set (Matra Magic and AGM-84), the ventral drop tank comes IIRC from an Eduard L-39 Albatros. Matra Magics were chosen because India never operated any Sidewinder AAM, just French or Soviet/Russian missiles like the R-60 or R-73 (unlikely on the Hawk, IMHO), and I had preferred a pair of Sea Eagle ASMs (from a Hasegawa Sea Harrier kit), but their span turned out to be too large for the Hawk’s low wings. The alternative, more slender Harpoons are plausible, though, since they are actually part of the Indian Navy’s inventory.
Painting and markings:
The Indian Navy theme was already settled, and I wanted to stay close to SPINNERS’ illustration as well as to real world Indian Navy aircraft. SPINNERS’ Hawk carried the typical Sea Harreir scheme in Extra Dark Sea Grey and White, and I found this livery to look a bit too much retro, because I’d place this what-if aircraft in the early 2020s, when the Sea Harriers had already been phased out. A “realistic” livery might have been an overall mid-grey paint scheme (like the land-based Indian Hawk 132s), but I found this to look too boring. As a compromise, I gave the Samudree Baaj a simple two-tone paint scheme, carried by a few late Indian Sea Harriers. It consists of upper surfaces in Dark Sea Grey (Humbrol 164) and undersides in Medium Sea Grey (Modelmaster 2058), with a low waterline. The Modelmaster MSG has – for my taste – a rather bluish hue and appears almost like PRU Blue, but I left it that way.
The decals were puzzled together from variosu sources. the roundels come from a MiG-21F (Begemot), the unit markings and tactical codes from a Model Alliance Sea Harrier sheet, and the stencils are a mix from the Matchbox Hawk 200 and the Italeri T-45.
The kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish from Italeri.
The fictional HAL „Samudree Baaj“ looks simple, but combining kits of the basically same aircraft from different manufacturers reveals their differences, and they are not to be underestimated! However, I like the result of a navalized Hawk single-seater, and - also with the relatively simple and dull livery - it looks pretty convincing.
Many thanks to SPINNERS for the creative inspiration - even though my build is not a 100% "copy" of the artwork, but rather a step further into the navalisation idea with the T-45 parts.
+++ 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 Q-6 program was initiated in the mid-1970s when, during the Battle of the Paracel Islands in 1974, the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) and People's Liberation Army Naval Air Force (PLANAF) proved incapable of ground support missions. Due to the lack of modern avionics and ground infrastructure to support a modern air war, Chinese aircraft suffered navigation and other logistics problems that severely limited their performance. The first Chinese aircraft did not actually reach the islands until several hours after the battle was over.
In addition to the need to upgrade its logistics capability and infrastructure, China also decided that nothing-in-its-then-aircraft-inventory could fill the requirement for support missions in the South China Sea. Fighters such as the J-5, J-6, J-7, and J-8 lacked a ground attack capability and were hampered by short range. The only Chinese ground attack aircraft atr that time, the Nanchang Q-5 (a MiG-19 derivate with a solid nose, an internal weapon bay and lateral air intakes), was also short ranged and had a relatively low payload. China's bombers such as the Harbin H-5 and Xian H-6 were slow and lacked a sufficient self-defense capability. A new aircraft was therefore seen as desperately needed to fulfill a new naval strike mission in support of the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN).
Immediately after the battle, both the PLAAF and PLAN submitted their requirements for a new fighter bomber/ground attack aircraft to the 3rd Ministry of PRC. After extensive research, the 3rd Ministry decided that, based on the Chinese aeronautical industrial capability at the time, it was impossible to develop two separate airplanes at the same time. Instead, a decision was made to develop a single airplane when the prime requirements of the PLAAF and PLAN were similar, even though with different versions tailored to meet the different secondary needs of PLAAF and PLAN.
In June 1976 representatives from various aircraft factories were summoned to Beijing to discuss the project, and were instructed to come up with designs in the shortest possible time. Shenyang Aircraft Factory (later reorganized into Shenyang Aircraft Corporation) was the first to come up with a design, the JH-8 (FB-8), which was essentially a ground attack version of the large, twin-engined J-8II (F-8II) interceptor. Next came the Q-6, a new design from the Nanchang Aircraft Factory. The Xi'an Aircraft Factory (later reorganized into Xi'an Aircraft Industrial Corporation) was the last one to present a design, the Xian JH-7, also a new design.
Initially, the 3rd Ministry favored the JH-8, however because the design of the operational J-8II was still not completed the risk was considered to be too high, so it was eliminated. The projected development of JH-7 was too far out, and so the Q-6 was selected because it was believed to be the one that would be able for service the soonest.
The Q-6's distictive feature was its swing wing arrangement, and the project was China's first venture into this direction. Before the Q-6 program started, however, China had already obtained MiG-23BN and MiG-23MS aircraft from Egypt. A few downed F-111 were also provided to China by North Vietnam. Based on the research effort performed on these aircraft, it was suggested that the variable-sweep wing should be adopted for China's new ground attack aircraft.
The general designer of Nanchang Q-5, and the future academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (elected in 1995), Mr. Lu Xiaopeng, was named as the general designer of Q-6. Lu personally visited PLAAF and PLANAF numerous times to obtain their input, which was the base of the Tactical Technological Requirements of the Q-6 he was in charge of, and by February 1979, the general design of the attack aircraft was finalized, based on the initial requirement of the 3rd Ministry.
The original plan was to base the design of Q-6 on the MiG-23BN, the ground attack version of MiG-23. However, both PLAAF and PLAN required a true dogfight capability for self-defense. Due to the need of dogfight capability, a radar was needed, and the ground attack version of the Soviet fighter had no radar. As a result, the plan was changed to base the design on the MiG-23MS instead. But this was not a true solution: Studies revealed that in order to successfully perform the required missions for PLAAF and PLANAF, ground attack radar, as well as terrain-following radar, were needed, too. And for the intended dogfight capability, the RP-22 Sapfir-21 radar (NATO reporting name Jay Bird) of the MiG-23MS lacked the BVR capability.
Facing this technological lack the decision was made to use avionics reverse-engineered from the F-111 to makeup the MiG-23 shortcomings. But as with other technological features adopted for the Q-6, they were proven to be way too ambitious for the Chinese industrial, scientific and technological capability at the time, which resulted in prolonged development.
Problems did not stop, the airframe itself proved to be troublesome, too. Originally the design was based on the MiG-23MS, and was initially thought to be better than the MiG-23BN, because it provided more room in the nosecone to house the radar.
However, the Chinese microelectronic industry could not provide the solid state electronics needed to miniaturize the intended radar, and as a result, the size of the fuselage had theoretically to be increased from the size of the MiG-23 to that of the Su-24 to fit an appropriate radar dish with the technolgy available at that time. Research furthermore revealed that the side-intakes of the MiG-23 design were not sufficient enough to meet the required dogfight capability, so the side-intakes arrangement was changed into a single chin-intake instead, and the Q-6 is claimed to be the first Chinese aircraft to have a chin-mounted intake.
The engine itself was also a problem, since China did not possess a powerful jet fighter engine that would match the intended performance profile of the Q-6. At first there were plans to use 122.4 kN thrust of a WS-6 engine (which was used in the H-6/Tu-16 bomber!), but these were not suited for a fighter and simply too large. To match the targets of an aircraft weight of 14.500 kg, the biggest load of bombs of 4.500 kilograms and a combat radius of 900 km, the Q-6 was finally outfitted with the Wopen WS-9 afterburning turbofan - a license-built Rolls Royce RB.168 Spey Mk. 202 with 91.3 kN of thrust.
Chinese considered the greatest achievement of the Q-6 in its fly-by-wire (FBW) control of the variable-sweep wings, both were the first of its kind in China. The original goal of reverse-engineering the FBW of the F-111 proved to be way too ambitious and had to be abandoned, so a much simpler version was adopted. The triplex analog FBW of the Q-6 was effectively just slightly more advanced than the most rudimentary FBW in that the mechanical servo valves were replaced with electrical servo valves, operated by electronic controllers. But contrary to the most rudimentary FBW, where hydraulic actuators still existed, the hydraulic actuators are replaced by electrical actuators on the Q-6. Anyway, this system proved to be the major obstacle in the hardware development of the Q-6 and it took nine years to complete (1980–1988), under the personal leadership of Mr. Lu Xiaopeng.
In 1988, three prototypes were built: one for static test, one for avionics tests on the ground, and one for the variable sweep wing research. The serial aircraft for PLAAF and PLANAF would have been separate variants, called Q-6A and Q-6B, which are believed to be offered for export now (see below).
Although hailed as a technological breakthrough for the Chinese aviation and providing superior performance to fixed-wing designs (esp. the outdated Q-5), the Chinese system was more than 12% heavier than the simple mechanical-hydraulic controlled variable-sweep wing of the benchmark MiG-23, and the Q-6 avionics were still far from being up-to-date.
Once identified as an indigenous aircraft (the Q-6 was at first deemed to be a variant or straight copy of the MiG-23/27, and therefore premilinarily coded 'Flogger L'), NATO alloted the Code 'Fruitcase' to it, with suffixes for the various export variants (see below).
It was not before 1990 that the aircraft was completed and (theoretically) ready for service – but at that time, technology and military strategy had already changed, and China had been developing the more capable (but much bigger) twin-engined Xian JH-7 fighter bomber for PLAAF and PLANAF. But it would still take some years until the JH-7A would enter service with the PLANAF: in early 2004, and with the PLAAF by the end of the year.
For China, the most important factor which prevented the Q-6 introduction into PLAAF and PLANAF service, was the 'discovery' of stealth features on the battlefield: variable-sweep wing would enlarge the aircraft's radar cross section multiple times and thus making it impossible to survive on the modern battlefield, because it would be much more likely to be detected and shot down.
Anyway, internal politics did not stop China from offering the now completed airframe on the export market as A-6 'Kong Yun' ("Cloud"), as a more capable successor to the Nanchang A-5 (the export version of the MiG-19-based Q-5). From 1992 onwards, several former A-5 users bought the aircraft as A-6 multi-role fighters. It is assumed that these correspond to the Q-6's development lines for PLAAAF an PLANAF.
Current users are the Bangladeshi Air Force (8× A-6B), Myanmar Air Force (20× A-6C), Sri Lanka (11× A-6B) Korean People's Air Force (probably less than 50x A-6A) and the Sudanese Air Force (A total of about 20, 3–11 of them servicable, probably all A-6A).
A-6A ('Fruitcase A'):
The first version and despite being marketed as a "multi-role combat aircraft" a very simple variant with a small radome, probably containing a Type 226 pulse-Doppler radar (a Chinese copy of the GEC-Marconi Skyranger).
A-6B ('Fruitcase B'):
Similar in apperance to the A-6A with a bigger radome. This variant is equipped with a Chinese KLJ-6E pulse-Doppler radar (A Chinese copy of the Italian Pointer-2500 radar, the same as featured on the Chinese Q-5M Fantan attack aircraft), which gives all weather attack capability. These aircraft are also fitted with a HUD, a GPS receiver/inertial navigation system, a 360° radar warning system, a tactical radio navigation system and chaff/flare dispensers on the rear fuselage.
The Sri Lanka aircraft have been seen carrying an external FLIR pod on one of the underfuselage pylons, while the Bangladeshi Air Force aircraft exclusively feature a small fairing under the nose which is believed to contain a LR/MTS, allowing the deployment of PGM.
A-6C ('Fruitcase C'):
Dedicated ground attack variant with a solid, more slender nose and full PGM capability. The nose features a fairing with windows for an ALR-1 laser rangefinder/marked target seeker (LR/MTS) in a small ball turret, and possibly LLLTV/FLIR. This optical system offers day/night attack capability. Like the A-6B, these aircraft feature HUD, GPS, tactical radio and optional flare dispensers.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 56 ft 1 in (17.10 m)
Wingspan: 47 ft 2 in (14.4m) at 16°, 28 ft 6 in (8,7m) at 72°
Height: 15 ft 9.5 in (4.82 m)
Empty weight: 16.520 lb (7.500 kg)
Loaded weight: 28.370 lb (12.880 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 32.820 lb (14.900 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Xian WS-9 Qin Ling afterburning turbofan (a license-built Rolls Royce RB.168 Spey Mk. 202), rated at 54,6 kN (5.562kp) dry and at 91,3KN (9.305kp) at full afterburner
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.2 at low altitude and in clean configuration, subsonic with external ordnance; 1.055mph (1.700 km/h) at height and in clean configuration
Combat radius: 485 nmi (560 mi, 900 km)
Service ceiling: 49.180 ft (15.000 m)
Armament:
2× Type 23-III twin-barreled 23mm cannons in the wing roots with 200 RPG
7× Hardpoints (three under the fuselage, one under each fixed wing root and the mobile outer wings) for a maximum external ordnance of 10.000 lbs (4.540kg), including guided and unguided bombs, missiles, napalm tanks or 800l drop tanks; the two hardpoints under the outer wings are fixed and can only be used when the wings are kept in the most forward position (they are normally only used for drop tanks in ferry configuration).
The kit and its assembly:
This is a whif, but the Nanchang Q-6 was actually developed until 1989 – even though it never entered any service. It was over-ambitious and a dead end, overtaken by technological advances and the fact that Chinese development used to take decades rather than years.
Anyway, the Q-6 actually looked as if someone had glued the nose and air intake of a F-16 onto a MiG-23/27 fuselage - weird, but cool, so why not try this at home?
Like many kitbashing things, what sounds simple turned out to be a bit tricky in detail, even though the surgery was finally easier than expected. The model basis is pretty simple: I took an Academy MiG-27, sawed off the fuselage in the wing roots area (about 1cm, the cockpit section is an extra fuselage section), and did the same with an Italeri F-16 nose section, right behind the cockpit, where the front wheel well ends. The top insert for the single seater was left a bit longer, so that it would overlap with the MiG-23/27 spine.
When you fit these parts together, height is almost perfect, even the wing root/LERX angles match, but there are gaps left on the flanks where the original MiG-27 air intakes would be. These have to be covered, what creates lines reminiscent of the respective area on a MRCA Tornado. Furthermore, the spine behind the cockpit has to be sculpted, too.
Furthermore, the wing root levels of the MiG-23/27 and the F-16 did not match - they have a difference in height of about 4mm on the model, and this was the biggest challenge.
In order to compensate for this problem on my model, any LERX sign was removed from the F-16 nose. Inside of the F-16 section, a column was added that supports the rear upper half of the front fuselage, since the flanks had to go almost completely.
On the outside, the necessary intersections/extensions sculpted new with 2C putty, extending the MiG-23/27 lines forward. The final surface finish was done with NC putty. This major surgery was less complicated than expected - lots of work, though, but feasible.
The new front section with its blended fuselage/LERX area around the cockpit reminds surprisingly much of the MiG-29? As a side note: when you look at CG simulations of this aircraft, this area is a frequent field of trial and error. You find unconclusive, if not impossible designs.
Other changes include a less modern canopy from a MiG-21 (I think it comes from an Academy MiG-21F kit), which was more tricky to fit onto the original F-16 canopy than the LERX stuff. The F-16 canopy looked just too modern for my taste. An old Airfix pilot figure was added, too.
Another new feature is a new jet pipe, a J-79 nozzle from an Italeri Kfir that fits perfectly into the rear fuselage, and the fin. The latter was taken as a leftover part from my recent CF-151A project and comes from a 1:144 scale Tu-22M bomber (Dragon). It's higher, but less deep, and I thought that a slightly different shape and more area would be suitable for an attack aircraft. For the same reason the single, foldable stabilizer fin under the rear fuselage was replaced by two fixed strakes (from the F-16). Small details, but they change the look and make the aircraft appear more simple.
The landing gear was taken from the MiG-27, the front wheel strut had to be slightly shortened due to the reduced wheelbase on the Q-6.
The ordnance was puzzled together – according to current BAF weapons in use. I went for unguided missiles (taken from the Academy MiG-27 donation kit) and some 100kg iron bombs, leftover from a Trumpeter Il-28 bomber kit. These were arranged under the wing roots on improvised tandem MERs.
I did not even try to engrave new panel lines on the new front section - actually, almost the whole upper surface is featureless since it was made with putty. But bot 2C and NC putty are pretty touchy to drilling or engraving (as the rather fruitless attempt to drill open cavities for the two guns proved...), so I decided to just use paint effects.
Painting and markings:
I had been wanting to build a Bangladeshi Air Force aircraft for quite a long time, and the Q-6 was finally a great opportunity. As a ground attack aircraft, the livery was to reflect that role, and among modern BAF aircraft I found C-130 transporters carrying a wrap-around ‘Lizard’/’European One’ scheme, in the traditional tones of FS34102, FS34097 and FS 36081 (Humbrol 117, 149 and 32). Maybe the BAF C-130s are ex USAF aircraft? It seems to be common BAF practice to keep former users' liveries and even bort numbers! Anyway, I find the Lizard cammo on a swing wing aircraft like this rather disturbing, but overall the whole thing looks pretty cool, probably also because of the exotic roundels.
Another option would have been a two-tone green camouflage (seen on BAF An-32 transports) or a three-tone pattern of pale sand, dark brown and dark green with light blue undersides, seen on BAF A-5 fighters. The garish, blue livery of BAF MiG-29s, as well as the blue and grey patterns on BAF F-7 fighters, were ruled out, since they’d rather suggest an air superiority role.
The camouflage pattern is based on USAF A-10 aircraft, and the aircraft’s upper sides were thoroughly weathered with a black ink wash and dry-brushing in lighter shades of the basic tones. After all, my kit is to represent a Q-6 after more than 15 years of service, so that the grey would become much lighter, the dark green get a greyish-blue hue and the light green tone adapt an almost olive drab look. As a result, the aircraft does not look too dark and murky, and the missile ordnance does not stand out too much.
The roundels were improvised – Bangladeshi aircraft kits/decals are rare. AFAIK, only one 1:72 Fujimi MiG-21 offers a BAF markings option, otherwise I could not find anything else, even among aftermarket offerings. Scratching is more fun, though, so “my” markings are actually Pakistani roundels (from a TL Modellbau aftermarket sheet) with red decal discs covering the original white central disc.
The flag on the fin was cut from generic green decal sheet, the red disc was punched out from red decal sheet, just like the roundel additions. Straightforward – and highly effective! Other markings were puzzled together from the scrap box, since the Q-6 never got beyond prototype stage, anything was possible concerning stencils etc.
The bort numbers are guesstimates - typically, BAF (and also PAF) carry a full registration on the tail fin and only a three-digit code on the nose. Squadron emblems are only small and carried either on the nose or the fin, so the model is rather simple in appearance.
The cockpit interior was painted in "Russian Interior Blue-Green" (Testors 2135, a stuff also in use in China, as far as I can tell), the landing gear and its wells were kept in Aluminum (Humbrol 56). The air intake was painted in light grey from the inside, the radome became black.
+++ 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 Indian „Samudree Baaj“ (समुद्री बाज, Sea Hawk) was a highly modified, navalized version of the British BAE Systems Hawk land-based training jet aircraft, which had been manufactured under license by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). The first indigenously built Hawk Mk. 132 trainer was delivered in 2008 to the Indian Air Force, and the type has since then been updated with indigenous avionics into the “Hawk-I” Mk. 132 from 2020 onwards. The aircraft’s Rolls Royce Adour Mk 871 engine was also license-built by HAL, and the company had experience from a wide range of aircraft projects in the past.
The Samudree Baaj project was initiated in 2006 by the Indian Navy, as part of the long historic plan to provide the Indian Navy with a fully capable aircraft carrier. This plan had been initiated in 1989, when India announced a plan to replace its ageing British-built aircraft carriers, INS Vikrant and INS Viraat (ex-HMS Hermes), with two new 28,000-ton Air Defence Ships (ADS) that would operate the BAe Sea Harrier aircraft. The first vessel was to replace Vikrant, which was set to decommission in early 1997. Construction of the ADS was to start at the Cochin Shipyard (CSL) in 1993 after the Indian Naval Design Organisation had translated this design study into a production model. Following the 1991 economic crisis, the plans for construction of the vessels were put on hold indefinitely.
In 1999, then-Defence Minister George Fernandes revived the project and sanctioned the construction of the Project “71 ADS”. By that time, given the ageing Sea Harrier fleet, the letter of intent called for a carrier that would carry more modern jet fighters. In 2001, CSL released a graphic illustration showing a 32,000-ton STOBAR (Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery) design with a pronounced ski jump. The aircraft carrier project finally received formal government approval in January 2003. By then, design updates called for a 37,500-ton carrier to operate the MiG-29K. India opted for a three-carrier fleet consisting of one carrier battle group stationed on each seaboard, and a third carrier held in reserve, in order to continuously protect both its flanks, to protect economic interests and mercantile traffic, and to provide humanitarian platforms in times of disasters, since a carrier can provide a self-generating supply of fresh water, medical assistance or engineering expertise to populations in need for assistance.
In August 2006, then-Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Arun Prakash stated that the designation for the vessel had been changed from Air Defence Ship (ADS) to Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC). The euphemistic ADS had been adopted in planning stages to ward off concerns about a naval build-up. Final revisions to the design increased the displacement of the carrier from 37,500 tons to over 40,000 tons. The length of the ship also increased from 252 metres (827 ft) to 262 metres (860 ft).
It was at this time that, beyond the MiG-29K, primarily a carrier-capable trainer and also a light (and less costly) strike aircraft would be needed. With the running production of the Hawk Mk. 132 for the Indian Air Force and BAE Systems’ connection and experience to the USA and McDonnell/Boeing’s adaptation of the Hawk as the US Navy’s carrier-capable T-45 trainer, HAL was instructed to develop a suitable aircraft family on the Hawk’s basis for the new carriers.
HAL’s Samudree Baaj is a fully carrier-capable version of the British Aerospace Hawk Mk. The Hawk had not originally been designed to perform carrier operations, so that numerous modifications were required, such as the extensive strengthening of the airframe to withstand the excessive forces imposed by the stresses involved in catapult launches and high sink-rate landings, both scenarios being routine in aircraft carrier operations.
The aerodynamic changes of the aircraft, which were mutually developed by HAL and BAE Systems, included improvements to the low-speed handling characteristics and a reduction in the approach speed. Most notable amongst the changes made to the Hawk's design were extended flaps for better low-speed handling, along with the addition of spoilers on the wings to reduce lift and strakes on the fuselage which improved airflow and stabilizer efficiency.
Other, less obvious modifications included a reinforced airframe, the adoption of a more robust and widened landing gear, complete with a catapult tow bar attachment to the oleo strut of the new two-wheel nose gear design, and an arresting hook. The tail fin was extended by 1 foot (12 in, 30.5 cm) to compensate for the loss of the Hawk’s ventral stabilizing strakes. To make room for the arrester hook, the original ventral air brake was split and re-located to the flanks, similar to the USN’s T-45 trainer.
At the time of the Samudree Baaj’s design, the exact catapult arrangement and capacity on board of India’s new carriers was not clear yet – even more so, since the MiG-29K and its powerful engines might have made a catapult obsolete. Therefore, the Samudree Baaj was designed to be operable either with a ski jump ramp (in the style of the Russian Kiev class carriers, of which India had purchased one as INS Vikramaditya) or with only minimal launch support within the projected STOBAR concept, which included a relatively short-stroke steam catapult and a similarly short, undampened arrester gear.
By 2009 the basic airframe had been defined and four prototypes were built for two versions: the Mk. 101 trainer, which was basically a navalized version of the land-based Mk. 132 with almost the same mission equipment, and the Mk. 201, a single-seater. Two airframes of each type were built and the first Samudree Baaj flight took place in early 2011. The Indian government ordered 30 trainers and 15 attack aircraft, to be delivered with the first new Indian carrier, INS Vikrant, in late 2017.
The Samudree Baaj Mk. 201 was developed from the basic navalized Hawk airframe as a light multirole fighter with a small visual signature and high maneuverability, but high combat efficiency and capable of both strike and point defense missions. It differed from the trainer through a completely new forward fuselage whereby the forward cockpit area, which normally housed the trainee, was replaced by an electronics bay for avionics and onboard systems, including a fire control computer, a LINS 300 ring laser gyroscope inertial navigation system and a lightweight (145 kg) multimode, coherent, pulse-Doppler I band airborne radar. This multimode radar was developed from the Ferranti Blue Fox radar and capable of airborne interception and air-to-surface strike roles over water and land, with look-down/shoot-down and look-up modes. It had ten air-to-surface and ten air-to-ground modes for navigation and weapon aiming purposes.
A ventral fairing behind the radome carried a laser rangefinder and a forward-looking infrared (FLIR). Mid-air refueling was also possible, through a detachable (but fixed) probe. GPS navigation or modern night-flight systems were integrated, too.
Like the trainer, the Mk. 201 had a total of seven weapon hardpoints (1 ventral, four underwing and a pair of wing tip launch rails), but the more sophisticated avionics suite allowed a wider range of ordnance to be carried and deployed, which included radar-guided AAMs for BVR strokes and smart weapons and guided missiles – especially the Sea Eagle and AGM-84 “Harpoon” anti-ship missiles in the Indian Navy’s arsenal. For the maritime strike role and as a support for ASW missions, the Samudree Baaj Mk. 201 could even deploy Sting Ray homing torpedoes.
Furthermore, a pair of 30mm (1.18 in) ADEN machine cannon with 150 RPG were housed in a shallow fairing under the cockpit. The self-protection systems include a BAE SkyGuardian 200 RWR and automatic Vinten chaff/flare dispensers located above the engine exhaust.
The Samudree Baaj project was highly ambitious, so that it does not wonder that there were many delays and teething troubles. Beyond the complex avionics integration this included the maritime adaptation of the Adour engine, which eventually led to the uprated Adour Mk. 871-1N, which, as a side benefit, also offered about 10% more power.
However, in parallel, INS Vikrant also ran into delays: In July 2012, The Times of India reported that construction of Vikrant has been delayed by three years, and the ship would be ready for commissioning by 2018. Later, in November 2012, Indian English-language news channel NDTV reported that cost of the aircraft carrier had increased, and the delivery has been delayed by at least five years and is expected to be with the Indian Navy only after 2018 as against the scheduled date of delivery of 2014. Work then commenced for the next stage of construction, which included the installation of the integrated propulsion system, the superstructure, the upper decks, the cabling, sensors and weapons. Vikrant was eventually undocked on 10 June 2015 after the completion of structural work. Cabling, piping, heat and ventilation works were to be completed by 2017; sea trials would begin thereafter. In December 2019, it was reported that the engines on board the ship were switched on and in November 2020, only the basin trials of the aircraft carrier were completed.
By that time, the first Samudree Baaj aircraft had been delivered to Indian Navy 300 squadron, and even though only based at land at Hansa Air Station, flight training and military operations commenced. In the meantime, the start of Vikrant's trials had initially been scheduled to begin on 12 March 2020, but further construction delays caused that to be moved back to April. With the COVID-19 crisis, the navy explained that trials were unlikely to begin before September/October. During the Navy Day press meeting in December 2019, Navy Chief Admiral Karambir Singh said Vikrant would be fully operational before the end of 2022. The COVID-19 pandemic had already pushed that back to 2023 and further delays appeared possible.
In late 2020, the Indian Navy expected to commission Vikrant by the end of 2021. Until then, the Samudree Baaj fleet will remain land-based at INS Hansa near Goa. This not only is the INAS 300 home base, it is also the location of the Indian Navy's Shore Based Test Facility (SBTF), which is a mock-up of the 283-metre (928 ft) INS Vikramaditya (a modified Kiev-class aircraft carrier) deck built to train and certify navy pilots, primarily the the Mikoyan MiG-29K for operating from the aircraft carrier, but now also for the Samudree Baaj and for the developmental trials of the naval HAL Tejas lightweight fighter.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 11.38 m (37 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 9.39 m (30 ft 10 in)
Height: 4.30 m (14 ft 1 in)
Wing area: 17.66 m2 (190.1 sq ft)
Empty weight: 9,394 lb (4,261 kg)
Gross weight: 12,750 lb (5,783 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 9,101 kg (20,064 lb)
Fuel capacity: 1,360 kg (3,000 lb) internal
3,210 kg (7,080 lb) with 3 drop tanks
Powerplant:
1× Rolls-Royce Turbomeca Adour Mk. 871-1N non-afterburning turbofan, 28,89 kN (6,445 lbf) thrust
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,037 km/h (644 mph, 560 kn) at sea level
Maximum speed: Mach 1.2 (never exceed at altitude)
Cruise speed: 796 km/h (495 mph, 430 kn) at 12,500 m (41,000 ft)
Carrier launch speed: 121 kn (139 mph; 224 km/h)
Approach speed: 125 kn (144 mph; 232 km/h)
Never exceed speed: 575 kn (662 mph, 1,065 km/h) / M1.04 design dive limit
Stall speed: 197 km/h (122 mph, 106 kn) flaps down
Range: 892 km (554 mi, 482 nmi) internal fuel only
Combat range: 617 km (383 mi, 333 nmi) with 2x AGM-84 and 2x 592 l (156 US gal; 130 imp gal)
Ferry range: 1,950 km (1,210 mi, 1,050 nmi) with 3 drop tanks
Service ceiling: 15,250 m (50,030 ft)
G-limits: +8/-3
Rate of climb: 58.466 m/s (11,509.1 ft/min)
Takeoff distance with maximum weapon load: 2,134 m (7,001 ft)
Landing distance at maximum landing weight with brake chute: 854 m (2,802 ft)
Landing distance at maximum landing weight without brake chute: 1,250 m (4,100 ft)
Armament:
2× 30 mm (1.181 in) Aden cannon with 150 rounds each
7× hardpoints (4× under-wing, 1× under-fuselage and 2 × wingtip)
for a total ordnance of 3.085 kg (6,800 lb) and a wide range of weapons
The kit and its assembly:
A subtle kitbashing project, inspired by a CG-rendition of a carrier-based (yet un-navalized) BAe Hawk 200 in Indian Navy service by fellow user SPINNERS in January 2021. I found the idea inspiring but thought that the basic concept could be taken further and into hardware form with a model. And I had a Matchbox Hawk 200 in The Stash™, as well as a McDonnell T-45 trainer from Italeri…
The plan sounds simple: take a T-45 and replace the cockpit section with the single-seat cockpit from the Hawk 200. And while the necessary cuts were easy to make, reality rears its ugly head when you try to mate parts from basically the same aircraft but from models by different manufacturers.
The challenges started with the fact that the fuselage shapes of both models differ – the Matchbox kit is more “voluminous”, and the different canopy shape called for a partial spine transplant, which turned out to be of very different shape than the T-45’s respective section! Lots of PSR…
In order to improve the pretty basic Matchbox Hawk cockpit I integrated the cockpit tub from the Italeri T-45, including the ejection seat, dashboard and its top cover.
For the totally different T-45 front wheel I had to enlarge the respective well and added a “ceiling” to it, since the strut had to be attached somewhere. The Hawk 200’s ventral tub for the cannons (which only the first prototype carried, later production aircraft did not feature them) were retained – partly because of their “whiffy“ nature, but also because making it disappear would have involved more major surgeries.
Most of the are behind the cockpit comes from the Italeri T-45, I just added a RHAWS fairing to the fin, extending it by 3mm.
A major problem became the air intakes, because the two kits differ in their construction. I wanted to use the Italeri parts, because they match the fairings on the fuselage flanks well and are better detailed than the Matchbox parts. But the boundary layer spacers between intakes and fuselage are molded into the Italeri parts, while the Matchbox kit has them molded into the fuselage. This called for major surgery and eventually worked out fine, and more PSR blended the rest of the fuselage donors around the cockpit together. A tedious process, though.
The pylons were puzzled together, including a former Matchbox EA-6B wing pylon under the fuselage, cut down and mounted in reverse and upside down! The ordnance comes from the Italeri NATO weapons set (Matra Magic and AGM-84), the ventral drop tank comes IIRC from an Eduard L-39 Albatros. Matra Magics were chosen because India never operated any Sidewinder AAM, just French or Soviet/Russian missiles like the R-60 or R-73 (unlikely on the Hawk, IMHO), and I had preferred a pair of Sea Eagle ASMs (from a Hasegawa Sea Harrier kit), but their span turned out to be too large for the Hawk’s low wings. The alternative, more slender Harpoons are plausible, though, since they are actually part of the Indian Navy’s inventory.
Painting and markings:
The Indian Navy theme was already settled, and I wanted to stay close to SPINNERS’ illustration as well as to real world Indian Navy aircraft. SPINNERS’ Hawk carried the typical Sea Harreir scheme in Extra Dark Sea Grey and White, and I found this livery to look a bit too much retro, because I’d place this what-if aircraft in the early 2020s, when the Sea Harriers had already been phased out. A “realistic” livery might have been an overall mid-grey paint scheme (like the land-based Indian Hawk 132s), but I found this to look too boring. As a compromise, I gave the Samudree Baaj a simple two-tone paint scheme, carried by a few late Indian Sea Harriers. It consists of upper surfaces in Dark Sea Grey (Humbrol 164) and undersides in Medium Sea Grey (Modelmaster 2058), with a low waterline. The Modelmaster MSG has – for my taste – a rather bluish hue and appears almost like PRU Blue, but I left it that way.
The decals were puzzled together from variosu sources. the roundels come from a MiG-21F (Begemot), the unit markings and tactical codes from a Model Alliance Sea Harrier sheet, and the stencils are a mix from the Matchbox Hawk 200 and the Italeri T-45.
The kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish from Italeri.
The fictional HAL „Samudree Baaj“ looks simple, but combining kits of the basically same aircraft from different manufacturers reveals their differences, and they are not to be underestimated! However, I like the result of a navalized Hawk single-seater, and - also with the relatively simple and dull livery - it looks pretty convincing.
Many thanks to SPINNERS for the creative inspiration - even though my build is not a 100% "copy" of the artwork, but rather a step further into the navalisation idea with the T-45 parts.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
The Fiat Macchi C.170 Brezza ("Gust of wind") was a single-seat biplane fighter which served primarily in Italy's Regia Aeronautica before and in the early stages of World War II. The aircraft was produced by the Varese firm, and entered service, in smaller numbers, with the air forces of Italy, Austria and Hungary.
In spite of the biplane configuration, the C.170 was a modern, 'sleek-looking' design based around a strong steel and alloy frame incorporating a NACA cowling housing the radial engine, with fairings for the fixed main landing gear. The C.170's upper wing was slightly larger than its lower wing, carried only by six struts and a few bracing wires. Only the upper wing featured ailerons while the lower wing carried large flaps. Although it looked slightly outdated, the aircraft proved exceptionally agile thanks to its very low wing loading and a powerful, responsive engine.
Power was provided by a 650 kW (870 hp) Fiat A.74 14 cylinder radial engine, which also drove the contemporary Fiat CR.32 fighter. With the "direttiva" (Air Ministry Specific) of 1932, Italian industrial leaders had been instructed to concentrate solely on radial engines for fighters, due to their better reliability. The A.74 was actually a re-design of the American Pratt & Whitney R-1830 SC-4 Twin Wasp made by engineers Tranquillo Zerbi and Antonio Fessia, and in the C.170 it was geared to drive a metal three-blade Fiat-Hamilton Standard 3D.41-1 propeller of 2.9 m (9.5 ft) diameter. This allowed an impressive top speed of 441 km/h (272 mph) at 6.500 m (20.000 ft), and 342 km/h (213 mph) at ground level.
The first C.170 prototype flew on 24 December 1934 in Lonate Pozzolo, Varese, with Macchi Chief Test Pilot Giuseppe Burei at the controls. It was followed by the second prototype early the next year, which flew with an armored headrest and fairing in place (the C.170 lacked any further armor!) and other minor changes that were incorporated for serial production.
Despite Macchi’s proposal for a closed cockpit canopy the cockpit remained open – Italian pilots were rather conservative. Additional protection was introduced through armored side panels, though, which would protect the pilot’s shoulders. Radio equipment was also not included, as in many other Italian fighter aircraft.
During evaluation in early 1935 the C.170 was tested against the Fiat CR.42 and the Caproni Ca.165 biplane fighters, and was judged to be on par with the CR.42, although the Ca.165 was a more modern design which boasted a higher speed at the cost of maneuverability. An initial order of 99 C.170 for Italy's Regia Aeronautica was placed to Macchi factory in summer 1935, followed by foreign interest and order options from Austria, Belgium and Spain.
Anyway, what looked like a prosperous design was soon rendered obsolete: Following the end of Italy's campaigns in East Africa, a program was started to completely re-equip the Regia Aeronautica with a new interceptor aircraft of modern design. The 10 February 1936 specifications called for an aircraft powered by a single radial engine, with a top speed of 500 km/h, climb rate at 6,000 meters of 5 minutes, with a flight endurance of two hours, and armed with a single (later increased to two) 12.7 mm (0.5 in) machine gun. That was more or less the premature end for the C.170, as Macchi and other manufacturers quickly turned to more modern monoplane designs.
Therefore, orders and production of the Macchi Brezza remained limited. Beyond the original 99 aircraft for the Regia Aeronautica only 24 further C.170s were delivered. These aircraft went in spring 1936 to Austria to equip Jagdgeschwader II at Wiener Neustadt. Immediately after their delivery the Brezza fighters were retro-fitted with radio equipment, recognizable through the antenna installation on the headrest fairing. The potential orders from Belgium and Spain were soon cancelled, due to political tensions.
As a side note, the Austrian C.170s fighters were the first aircraft to sport the new national emblem, which had been the result of a competition and won by flight engineer Rosner from the Graz-Thalerhof base. The white, equilateral triangle with the point facing downwards in a red disc was a completely new design and had (other than the flag or coats of arms) no prior basis.
The C.170s' career in Austrian service was short, though: in March 1938 the Austrian units were absorbed into the Luftwaffe, and after a brief period the aircraft were handed over to Hungary where they were used for training purposes.
Although an obsolete design, it proved to be robust, durable and effective especially in severe conditions. In spring 1943, surviving C.170s were rounded up from training schools and delivered to night ground attack units operating on the Eastern Front. The C.170 was used to conduct night harassment sorties on the Eastern Front until September 1944, when the units were disbanded, due to a lack of serviceable airframes and spare parts.
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 8.25 m (27 ft 1 in)
Wingspan: 32 ft 3 in (9.83 m)
Height: 11 ft 9 in (3.58 m)
Wing area: 323 ft² (30.0 m²)
Empty weight: 3,217 lb (1,462 kg)
Loaded weight: 4,594 lb (2,088 kg)
Powerplant
1× Fiat A.74 R.C.38 14-cylinder air-cooled radial engine, 650 kW (870 hp) at 2,520 rpm for take-off
Performance
Maximum speed: 441 km/h (238 kn, 274 mph) at 20,000 ft
Cruise speed: 338 km/h (187 kn, 210 mph)
Range: 780 km (420 nmi, 485 mi)
Service ceiling: 10,210 m (33,500 ft)
Rate of climb: 11.8 m/s (2,340 ft/min)
Climb to 10,000 ft (3,050 m): 4.75 min
Wing loading: 69,6 kg/m² (15,3 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 311 W/kg (0.19 hp/lb)
Armament
2× 12.7 mm (0.5 in) Breda-SAFAT synchronized machine guns above the engine, 370 rpg
Some aircraft were field-modified to carry up to 8× 15 kg (33 lb) or 2× 50 or 100 kg (110/220 lb) bombs under the wings
The kit and its assembly
Inspiration for this little, whiffy biplane came when I posted a pic of an Austrian Ju 86 bomber as a reply/ suggestion to a fellow modeler's (NARSES2) search at whatifmodelers.com for “something” to make from a Gloster Gladiator.
When I looked at the paint scheme a second time I remembered that I still had some Austrian roundels in stock, as well some very old biplane spare parts... hmmm.
Biplanes are tricky to build, even OOB, and kitbashing this kind of whif would not make things easier. Anyway, I love such challenges, and the potential outcome would surely look nice, if not exotic, so I decided to tackle the project.
Basically, the following donation ingredients went into it:
● Fuselage, engine, cockpit/pilot and tail from a Revell Macchi C.200 "Saetta"
● Upper wing from a Matchbox Gloster "Gladiator"
● Lower wings from a Matchbox SBC "Helldiver"
● Wheels from a Matchbox Hs 126 (shortened)
Pretty straightforward, but even though it would be a small aircraft model, it would come with two big challenges: mounting the lower wings and shaping the resulting, gaping belly, and the custom-made struts and wirings for the upper wing.
Work started with the Macchi C.200’s fuselage, which was built OOB - just without the wing, which is a single part, different pilot (the included one is a pygmy!) and with a free spinning metal axis for the propeller.
The wing installation started with the lower wings. I glued the Helldiver wings onto the C.200 fuselage, so that the wings' trailing edge would match the C.200's wing root ends. From that, a floor plate was fitted under the fuselage and any excessive material removed, the gaps filled with lumps of 2C putty. That moved the lower wing's roots backwards, creating space at the lower forward fuselage for the new landing gear.
The latter was taken from a vintage Matchbox Hs 126 reconnaissance aircraft - probably 25, if 30 years old... Size was O.K., but the struts had to shortened by about 5mm, as thge HS 126 is a much bigger/longer aircraft than the C.200. A cut was made just above the wheel spats, material taken out, and the separate parts were glued back together again.
With the lower wings in place I started building strut supports for the upper wing from styrene strips - tricky and needs patience, but effective. I started with the outer supports, carving something SBC-style from styrene. These were glued into place, slightly canted outwards, and their length/height adapted to the upper wing’s position.
When this was settled, the upper Gladiator wing was glued into place. After a thorough drying period the short fuselage supports in front of the cockpit – again, styrene strips – were inserted into the gap. This allowed an individual lengthening, and was easier than expected, with a stable result.
After having the upper wing glued in place I added some wiring, made from heated and pulled-out styrene sprues. This not only enhances the kit's look, it also (just like in real life) improves rigidity of the model. Also a tedious task, but IMHO worth the effort. I tried thin wire, nylon strings and sewing yarn for this job, but finally the styrene solution is what worked best for me.
The exhaust installation had also to be modified: the new Hs 126 struts with spats would have been where the original C.200’s hot exhaust gases would have gone, so I added new exhaust pipes that would go between the new legs.
Other small added details included, among others, a pitot on a wing strut, a visor in front of the cockpit, a radio antenna, a ladder made from wire.
Painting and markings:
I would not call the Austrian 3+1-tone pre-WWII-scheme spectacular, but the colors are unique. My scheme is based on an Austrian Ju 86 bomber from 1938, so it fits into the intended time frame.
The colors were puzzled together from various sources and are subjective guesstimates:
● A pale, yellow-ish beige (Humbrol 74, ‘Linen’, out of production)
● A rather brownish green (Testors 1711, ‘Olive Drab’, FS 34087)
● A dark green with a yellow-ish hue (Humbrol 116, ‘US Dark Green’ FS 34079)
● Light blue for the undersides (Humbrol 65, ‘Aircraft Blue’, RLM 65)
In order to add some details I painted the area behind the engine cowling in aluminum. The respective part under the fuselage, where the exhaust gases would pass, was painted in Steel – both Testors Metallizers.
The interior surfaces were painted in a neutral Grey – but with the engine and the pilot in place you cannot see anything of that at all.
Markings are minimal: the Austrian roundels come from a TL Decals aftermarket sheet, the flag on the rudder was laid out with red paint (a mix of Humbrol 19 and 60), the white bar is a decal. The tactical code is fictional, puzzled together from single digits in various sizes (also from TL Modellbau sheets). The original documents how purely black fuselage codes, but I found these hard to read. So I chose digits with a white rim (actually, these belong to modern German Luftwaffe tactical codes in 1:32), which improve contrast a little.
The kit received a thin black ink wash and some shading/dry-painting with lighter basic tones (Humbrol 103, 155, Model Master 2138,‘Israeli Armor Sand Grey’, and Humbrol 122). After decal application, another turn with overall Hemp and Light Grey was done in order to fade contrast and to emphasize the surface structure. The wires were also painted, but only with thinned black ink and a VERY soft brush.
Finally, everything was sealed under a spray coat of matt acrylic varnish.
Voilà, and done in just about a week!
+++ 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 authentic facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The English Electric Skyspark was a British fighter aircraft that served as an interceptor during the 1960s, the 1970s and into the late 1980s. It remains the only UK-designed-and-built fighter capable of Mach 2. The Skyspark was designed, developed, and manufactured by English Electric, which was later merged into the newly-formed British Aircraft Corporation. Later the type was marketed as the BAC Skyspark.
The specification for the aircraft followed the cancellation of the Air Ministry's 1942 E.24/43 supersonic research aircraft specification which had resulted in the Miles M.52 program. W.E.W. "Teddy" Petter, formerly chief designer at Westland Aircraft, was a keen early proponent of Britain's need to develop a supersonic fighter aircraft. In 1947, Petter approached the Ministry of Supply (MoS) with his proposal, and in response Specification ER.103 was issued for a single research aircraft, which was to be capable of flight at Mach 1.5 (1,593 km/h) and 50,000 ft (15,000 m).
Petter initiated a design proposal with F W "Freddie" Page leading the design and Ray Creasey responsible for the aerodynamics. As it was designed for Mach 1.5, it had a 40° swept wing to keep the leading edge clear of the Mach cone. To mount enough power into the airframe, two engines were installed, in an unusual, stacked layout and with a high tailplane This proposal was submitted in November 1948, and in January 1949 the project was designated P.1 by English Electric. On 29 March 1949 MoS granted approval to start the detailed design, develop wind tunnel models and build a full-size mock-up.
The design that had developed during 1948 evolved further during 1949 to further improve performance. To achieve Mach 2 the wing sweep was increased to 60° with the ailerons moved to the wingtips. In late 1949, low-speed wind tunnel tests showed that a vortex was generated by the wing which caused a large downwash on the initial high tailplane; this issue was solved by lowering the tail below the wing. Following the resignation of Petter, Page took over as design team leader for the P.1. In 1949, the Ministry of Supply had issued Specification F23/49, which expanded upon the scope of ER103 to include fighter-level manoeuvring. On 1 April 1950, English Electric received a contract for two flying airframes, as well as one static airframe, designated P.1.
The Royal Aircraft Establishment disagreed with Petter's choice of sweep angle (60 degrees) and the stacked engine layout, as well as the low tailplane position, was considered to be dangerous, too. To assess the effects of wing sweep and tailplane position on the stability and control of Petter's design Short Brothers were issued a contract, by the Ministry of Supply, to produce the Short SB.5 in mid-1950. This was a low-speed research aircraft that could test sweep angles from 50 to 69 degrees and tailplane positions high or low. Testing with the wings and tail set to the P.1 configuration started in January 1954 and confirmed this combination as the correct one. The proposed 60-degree wing sweep was retained, but the stacked engines had to give way to a more conventional configuration with two engines placed side-by-side in the tail, but still breathing through a mutual nose air intake.
From 1953 onward, the first three prototype aircraft were hand-built at Samlesbury. These aircraft had been assigned the aircraft serials WG760, WG763, and WG765 (the structural test airframe). The prototypes were powered by un-reheated Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojets, as the selected Rolls-Royce Avon engines had fallen behind schedule due to their own development problems. Since there was not much space in the fuselage for fuel, the thin wings became the primary fuel tanks and since they also provided space for the stowed main undercarriage the fuel capacity was relatively small, giving the prototypes an extremely limited endurance. The narrow tires housed in the thin wings rapidly wore out if there was any crosswind component during take-off or landing. Outwardly, the prototypes looked very much like the production series, but they were distinguished by the rounded-triangular air intake with no center-body at the nose, short fin, and lack of operational equipment.
On 9 June 1952, it was decided that there would be a second phase of prototypes built to develop the aircraft toward achieving Mach 2.0 (2,450 km/h); these were designated P.1B while the initial three prototypes were retroactively reclassified as P.1A. P.1B was a significant improvement on P.1A. While it was similar in aerodynamics, structure and control systems, it incorporated extensive alterations to the forward fuselage, reheated Rolls Royce Avon R24R engines, a conical center body inlet cone, variable nozzle reheat and provision for weapons systems integrated with the ADC and AI.23 radar. Three P.1B prototypes were built, assigned serials XA847, XA853 and XA856.
In May 1954, WG760 and its support equipment were moved to RAF Boscombe Down for pre-flight ground taxi trials; on the morning of 4 August 1954, WG760 flew for the first time from Boscombe Down. One week later, WG760 officially achieved supersonic flight for the first time, having exceeded the speed of sound during its third flight. While WG760 had proven the P.1 design to be viable, it was plagued by directional stability problems and a dismal performance: Transonic drag was much higher than expected, and the aircraft was limited to Mach 0.98 (i.e. subsonic), with a ceiling of just 48,000 ft (14,630 m), far below the requirements.
To solve the problem and save the P.1, Petter embarked on a major redesign, incorporating the recently discovered area rule, while at the same time simplifying production and maintenance. The redesign entailed a new, narrower canopy, a revised air intake, a pair of stabilizing fins under the rear fuselage, and a shallow ventral fairing at the wings’ trailing edge that not only reduced the drag coefficient along the wing/fuselage intersection, it also provided space for additional fuel.
On 4 April 1957 the modified P.1B (XA847) made the first flight, immediately exceeding Mach 1. During the early flight trials of the P.1B, speeds in excess of 1,000 mph were achieved daily.
In late October 1958, the plane was officially presented. The event was celebrated in traditional style in a hangar at Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough, with the prototype XA847 having the name ‘Skyspark’ freshly painted on the nose in front of the RAF Roundel, which almost covered it. A bottle of champagne was put beside the nose on a special rig which allowed the bottle to safely be smashed against the side of the aircraft.
On 25 November 1958 the P.1B XA847 reached Mach 2 for the first time. This made it the second Western European aircraft to reach Mach 2, the first one being the French Dassault Mirage III just over a month earlier on 24 October 1958
The first operational Skyspark, designated Skyspark F.1, was designed as a pure interceptor to defend the V Force airfields in conjunction with the "last ditch" Bristol Bloodhound missiles located either at the bomber airfield, e.g. at RAF Marham, or at dedicated missile sites near to the airfield, e.g. at RAF Woodhall Spa near the Vulcan station RAF Coningsby. The bomber airfields, along with the dispersal airfields, would be the highest priority targets in the UK for enemy nuclear weapons. To best perform this intercept mission, emphasis was placed on rate-of-climb, acceleration, and speed, rather than range – originally a radius of operation of only 150 miles (240 km) from the V bomber airfields was specified – and endurance. Armament consisted of a pair of 30 mm ADEN cannon in front of the cockpit, and two pylons for IR-guided de Havilland Firestreak air-to-air missiles were added to the lower fuselage flanks. These hardpoints could, alternatively, carry pods with unguided 55 mm air-to-air rockets. The Ferranti AI.23 onboard radar provided missile guidance and ranging, as well as search and track functions.
The next two Skyspark variants, the Skyspark F.1A and F.2, incorporated relatively minor design changes, but for the next variant, the Skyspark F.3, they were more extensive: The F.3 had higher thrust Rolls-Royce Avon 301R engines, a larger squared-off fin that improved directional stability at high speed further and a strengthened inlet cone allowing a service clearance to Mach 2.0 (2,450 km/h; the F.1, F.1A and F.2 were all limited to Mach 1.7 (2,083 km/h). An upgraded A.I.23B radar and new, radar-guided Red Top missiles offered a forward hemisphere attack capability, even though additional electronics meant that the ADEN guns had to be deleted – but they were not popular in their position in front of the windscreen, because the muzzle flash blinded the pilot upon firing. The new engines and fin made the F.3 the highest performance Skyspark yet, but this came at a steep price: higher fuel consumption, resulting in even shorter range. From this basis, a conversion trainer with a side-by-side cockpit, the T.4, was created.
The next interceptor variant was already in development, but there was a need for an interim solution to partially address the F.3's shortcomings, the F.3A. The F.3A introduced two major improvements: a larger, non-jettisonable, 610-imperial-gallon (2,800 L) ventral fuel tank, resulting in a much deeper and longer belly fairing, and a new, kinked, conically cambered wing leading edge. The conically cambered wing improved manoeuvrability, especially at higher altitudes, and it offered space for a slightly larger leading edge fuel tank, raising the total usable internal fuel by 716 imperial gallons (3,260 L). The enlarged ventral tank not only nearly doubled available fuel, it also provided space at its front end for a re-instated pair of 30 mm ADEN cannon with 120 RPG. Alternatively, a retractable pack with unguided 55 mm air-to-air rockets could be installed, or a set of cameras for reconnaissance missions. The F.3A also introduced an improved A.I.23B radar and the new IR-guided Red Top missile, which was much faster and had greater range and manoeuvrability than the Firestreak. Its improved infrared seeker enabled a wider range of engagement angles and offered a forward hemisphere attack capability that would allow the Skyspark to attack even faster bombers (like the new, supersonic Tupolev T-22 Blinder) through a collision-course approach.
Wings and the new belly tank were also immediately incorporated in a second trainer variant, the T.5.
The ultimate variant, the Skyspark F.6, was nearly identical to the F.3A, with the exception that it could carry two additional 260-imperial-gallon (1,200 L) ferry tanks on pylons over the wings. These tanks were jettisonable in an emergency and gave the F.6 a substantially improved deployment capability, even though their supersonic drag was so high that the extra fuel would only marginally raise the aircraft’s range when flying beyond the sound barrier for extended periods.
Finally, there was the Skyspark F.2A; it was an early production F.2 upgraded with the new cambered wing, the squared fin, and the 610 imperial gallons (2,800 L) ventral tank. However, the F.2A retained the old AI.23 radar, the IR-guided Firestreak missile and the earlier Avon 211R engines. Although the F.2A lacked the thrust of the later Skysparks, it had the longest tactical range of all variants, and was used for low-altitude interception over West Germany.
The first Skysparks to enter service with the RAF, three pre-production P.1Bs, arrived at RAF Coltishall in Norfolk on 23 December 1959, joining the Air Fighting Development Squadron (AFDS) of the Central Fighter Establishment, where they were used to clear the Skyspark for entry into service. The production Skyspark F.1 entered service with the AFDS in May 1960, allowing the unit to take part in the air defence exercise "Yeoman" later that month. The Skyspark F.1 entered frontline squadron service with 74 Squadron at Coltishall from 11 July 1960. This made the Skyspark the second Western European-built combat aircraft with true supersonic capability to enter service and the second fully supersonic aircraft to be deployed in Western Europe (the first one in both categories being the Swedish Saab 35 Draken on 8 March 1960 four months earlier).
The aircraft's radar and missiles proved to be effective, and pilots reported that the Skyspark was easy to fly. However, in the first few months of operation the aircraft's serviceability was extremely poor. This was due to the complexity of the aircraft systems and shortages of spares and ground support equipment. Even when the Skyspark was not grounded by technical faults, the RAF initially struggled to get more than 20 flying hours per aircraft per month compared with the 40 flying hours that English Electric believed could be achieved with proper support. In spite of these concerns, within six months of the Skyspark entering service, 74 Squadron was able to achieve 100 flying hours per aircraft.
Deliveries of the slightly improved Skyspark F.1A, with revised avionics and provision for an air-to-air refueling probe, allowed two more squadrons, 56 and 111 Squadron, both based at RAF Wattisham, to convert to the Skyspark in 1960–1961. The Skyspark F.1 was only ordered in limited numbers and served only for a short time; nonetheless, it was viewed as a significant step forward in Britain's air defence capabilities. Following their replacement from frontline duties by the introduction of successively improved Skyspark variants, the remaining F.1 aircraft were employed by the Skyspark Conversion Squadron.
The improved F.2 entered service with 19 Squadron at the end of 1962 and 92 Squadron in early 1963. Conversion of these two squadrons was aided by the of the two-seat T.4 and T.5 trainers (based on the F.3 and F.3A/F.6 fighters), which entered service with the Skyspark Conversion Squadron (later renamed 226 Operational Conversion Unit) in June 1962. While the OCU was the major user of the two-seater, small numbers were also allocated to the front-line fighter squadrons. More F.2s were produced than there were available squadron slots, so later production aircraft were stored for years before being used operationally; some of these Skyspark F.2s were converted to F.2As.
The F.3, with more powerful engines and the new Red Top missile was expected to be the definitive Skyspark, and at one time it was planned to equip ten squadrons, with the remaining two squadrons retaining the F.2. However, the F.3 also had only a short operational life and was withdrawn from service early due to defence cutbacks and the introduction of the even more capable and longer-range F.6, some of which were converted F.3s.
The introduction of the F.3 and F.6 allowed the RAF to progressively reequip squadrons operating aircraft such as the subsonic Gloster Javelin and retire these types during the mid-1960s. During the 1960s, as strategic awareness increased and a multitude of alternative fighter designs were developed by Warsaw Pact and NATO members, the Skyspark's range and firepower shortcomings became increasingly apparent. The transfer of McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom IIs from Royal Navy service enabled these much longer-ranged aircraft to be added to the RAF's interceptor force, alongside those withdrawn from Germany as they were replaced by SEPECAT Jaguars in the ground attack role.
The Skyspark's direct replacement was the Tornado F.3, an interceptor variant of the Panavia Tornado. The Tornado featured several advantages over the Skyspark, including far larger weapons load and considerably more advanced avionics. Skysparks were slowly phased out of service between 1974 and 1988, even though they lasted longer than expected because the definitive Tornado F.3 went through serious teething troubles and its service introduction was delayed several times. In their final years, the Skysparks’ airframes required considerable maintenance to keep them airworthy due to the sheer number of accumulated flight hours.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 51 ft 2 in (15,62 m) fuselage only
57 ft 3½ in (17,50 m) including pitot
Wingspan: 34 ft 10 in (10.62 m)
Height: 17 ft 6¾ in (5.36 m)
Wing area: 474.5 sq ft (44.08 m²)
Empty weight: 31,068 lb (14,092 kg) with armament and no fuel
Gross weight: 41,076 lb (18,632 kg) with two Red Tops, ammunition, and internal fuel
Max. takeoff weight: 45,750 lb (20,752 kg)
Powerplant:
2× Rolls-Royce Avon 301R afterburning turbojet engines,
12,690 lbf (56.4 kN) thrust each dry, 16,360 lbf (72.8 kN) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: Mach 2.27 (1,500 mph+ at 40,000 ft)
Range: 738 nmi (849 mi, 1,367 km)
Combat range: 135 nmi (155 mi, 250 km) supersonic intercept radius
Range: 800 nmi (920 mi, 1,500 km) with internal fuel
1,100 nmi (1,300 mi; 2,000 km) with external overwing tanks
Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,000 m)
Zoom ceiling: 70,000 ft (21,000 m)
Rate of climb: 20,000 ft/min (100 m/s) sustained to 30,000 ft (9,100 m)
Zoom climb: 50,000 ft/min
Time to altitude: 2.8 min to 36,000 ft (11,000 m)
Wing loading: 76 lb/sq ft (370 kg/m²) with two AIM-9 and 1/2 fuel
Thrust/weight: 0.78 (1.03 empty)
Armament:
2× 30 mm (1.181 in) ADEN cannon with 120 RPG in the lower fuselage
2× forward fuselage hardpoints for a single Firestreak or Red Top AAM each
2× overwing pylon stations for 2.000 lb (907 kg each)
for 260 imp gal (310 US gal; 1,200 l) ferry tanks
The kit and its assembly:
This build was a submission to the “Hunter, Lightning, Canberra” group build at whatifmodellers.com, and one of my personal ultimate challenges – a project that you think about very often, but the you put the thought back into its box when you realize that turning this idea into hardware will be a VERY tedious, complex and work-intensive task. But the thematic group build was the perfect occasion to eventually tackle the idea of a model of a “side-by-side engine BAC Lightning”, a.k.a. “Flatning”, as a rather conservative alternative to the real aircraft’s unique and unusual design with stacked engines in the fuselage, which brought a multitude of other design consequences that led to a really unique aircraft.
And it sound so simple: take a Lightning, just change the tail section. But it’s not that simple, because the whole fuselage shape would be different, resulting in less depth, the wings have to be attached somewhere and somehow, the landing gear might have to be adjusted/shortened, and how the fuselage diameter shape changes along the hull, so that you get a more or less smooth shape, was also totally uncertain!
Initially I considered a MiG Ye-152 as a body donor, but that was rejected due to the sheer price of the only available kit (ModelSvit). A Chinese Shenyang J-8I would also have been ideal – but there’s not 1:72 kit of this aircraft around, just of its successor with side intakes, a 1:72 J-8II from trumpeter.
I eventually decided to keep costs low, and I settled for the shaggy PM Model Su-15 (marketed as Su-21) “Flagon” as main body donor: it’s cheap, the engines have a good size for Avons and the pen nib fairing has a certain retro touch that goes well with the Lightning’s Fifties design.
The rest of this "Flatning" came from a Hasegawa 1:72 BAC Lightning F.6 (Revell re-boxing).
Massive modifications were necessary and lots of PSR. In an initial step the Flagon lost its lower wing halves, which are an integral part of the lower fuselage half. The cockpit section was cut away where the intake ducts begin. The Lightning had its belly tank removed (set aside for a potential later re-installation), and dry-fitting and crude measures suggested that only the cockpit section from the Lightning, its spine and the separate fin would make it onto the new fuselage.
Integrating the parts was tough, though! The problem that caused the biggest headaches: how to create a "smooth" fuselage from the Lightning's rounded front end with a single nose intake that originally develops into a narrow, vertical hull, combined with the boxy and rather wide Flagon fuselage with large Phantom-esque intakes? My solution: taking out deep wedges from all (rather massive) hull parts along the intake ducts, bend the leftover side walls inwards and glue them into place, so that the width becomes equal with the Lightning's cockpit section. VERY crude and massive body work!
However, the Lightning's cockpit section for the following hull with stacked engines is much deeper than the Flagon's side-by-side layout. My initial idea was to place the cockpit section higher, but I would have had to transplant a part of the Lightning's upper fuselage (with the spine on top, too!) onto the "flat" Flagon’s back. But this would have looked VERY weird, and I'd have had to bridge the round ventral shape of the Lightning into the boxy Flagon underside, too. This was no viable option, so that the cockpit section had to be further modified; I cut away the whole ventral cockpit section, at the height of the lower intake lip. Similar to my former Austrian Hasegawa Lightning, I also cut away the vertical bulkhead directly behind the intake opening - even though I did not improve the cockpit with a better tub with side consoles. At the back end, the Flagon's jet exhausts were opened and received afterburner dummies inside as a cosmetic upgrade.
Massive PSR work followed all around the hull. The now-open area under the cockpit was filled with lead beads to keep the front wheel down, and I implanted a landing gear well (IIRC, it's from an Xtrakit Swift). With the fuselage literally taking shape, the wings were glued together and the locator holes for the overwing tanks filled, because they would not be mounted.
To mount the wings to the new hull, crude measurements suggested that wedges had to be cut away from the Lightning's wing roots to match the weird fuselage shape. They were then glued to the shoulders, right behind the cockpit due to the reduced fuselage depth. At this stage, the Lightning’s stabilizer attachment points were transplanted, so that they end up in a similar low position on the rounded Su-15 tail. Again, lots of PSR…
At this stage I contemplated the next essential step: belly tank or not? The “Flatning” would have worked without it, but its profile would look rather un-Lightning-ish and rather “flat”. On the other side, a conformal tank would probably look quite strange on the new wide and flat ventral fuselage...? Only experiments could yield an answer, so I glued together the leftover belly bulge parts from the Hasegawa kit and played around with it. I considered a new, wider belly tank, but I guess that this would have looked too ugly. I eventually settled upon the narrow F.6 tank and also used the section behind it with the arrestor hook. I just reduced its depth by ~2 mm, with a slight slope towards the rear because I felt (righteously) that the higher wing position would lower the model’s stance. More massive PSR followed….
Due to the expected poor ground clearance, the Lightning’s stabilizing ventral fins were mounted directly under the fuselage edges rather than on the belly tank. Missile pylons for Red Tops were mounted to the lower front fuselage, similar to the real arrangement, and cable fairings, scratched from styrene profiles, were added to the lower flanks, stretching the hull optically and giving more structure to the hull.
To my surprise, I did not have to shorten the landing gear’s main legs! The wings ended up a little higher on the fuselage than on the original Lightning, and the front wheel sits a bit further back and deeper inside of its donor well, too, so that the fuselage comes probably 2 mm closer to the ground than an OOB Lightning model. Just like on the real aircraft, ground clearance is marginal, but when the main wheels were finally in place, the model turned out to have a low but proper stance, a little F8U-ish.
Painting and markings:
I was uncertain about the livery for a long time – I just had already settled upon an RAF aircraft. But the model would not receive a late low-viz scheme (the Levin, my mono-engine Lightning build already had one), and no NMF, either. I was torn between an RAF Germany all-green over NMF undersides livery, but eventually went for a pretty standard RAF livery in Dark Sea Grey/Dark Green over NMF undersides, with toned-down post-war roundels.
A factor that spoke in favor of this route was a complete set of markings for an RAF 11 Squadron Lightning F.6 in such a guise on an Xtradecal set, which also featured dayglo orange makings on fin, wings and stabilizers – quite unusual, and a nice contrast detail on the otherwise very conservative livery. All stencils were taken from the OOB Revell sheet for the Lightning. Just the tactical code “F” on the tail was procured elsewhere, it comes from a Matchbox BAC Lightning’s sheet.
After basic painting the model received the usual black ink washing, some post-panel-shading and also a light treatment with graphite to create soot strains around the jet exhausts and the gun ports, and to emphasize the raised panel lines on the Hasegawa parts.
Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish and final bits and pieces like the landing gear and the Red Tops (taken OOB) were mounted.
A major effort, and I have seriously depleted my putty stocks for this build! However, the result looks less spectacular than it actually is: changing a Lightning from its literally original stacked engine layout into a more conservative side-by-side arrangement turned out to be possible, even though the outcome is not really pretty. But it works and is feasible!