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 Nakajima Ki-104 was a further development of the Ki-87; the latter was a Japanese high-altitude fighter-interceptor of World War II, a single seat, exhaust-driven turbo-supercharged engined, low-wing monoplane with a conventional undercarriage.
The Ki-87 was one of several designs of various manufacturers developed in response to American B-29 Superfortress raids on the Home Islands. The Ki-87 followed up on earlier research by Nakajima and the Technical Division of Imperial Army Headquarters into boosting a large radial engine with an exhaust-driven turbo-supercharger, which had begun in 1942, well before the B-29 raids began.
The efforts of the Technical Division of Imperial Army Headquarters eventually culminated into the high-performance, tandem-engine Tachikawa Ki-94-I, while the Ki-87 under the lead of Kunihiro Aoki was developed as a fall-back project, using less stringent requirements.
Nakajima started in July 1943 with the construction of three prototypes, to be completed between November 1944 and January 1945, and seven pre-production aircraft, to be delivered by April 1945.
The Technical Division of Imperial Army Headquarters made itself felt during the development of the Ki-87 prototype when they insisted upon placing the turbo-supercharger in the rear-fuselage, and from the sixth prototype the Nakajima fighter was to have that arrangement. Construction was further delayed due to problems with the electrical undercarriage and the turbo-supercharger itself. As a consequence, the first Ki-87 prototype was not completed until February 1945; it first flew in April, but only five test flights were completed.
A further variant, the Ki-87-II, powered by a 3,000 hp Nakajima Ha217 (Ha-46) engine and with the turbo-supercharger in the same position as the P-47 Thunderbolt. Due to the long development period of the Ki-87, several major structural changes were made, too, that eventually changed the aircraft so much that it received a new, separate kitai number and became the Ki-104.
Kunihiro Aoki's new design was approved by the Koku Hombu, and an order was placed for one static test airframe, three prototypes, and eighteen pre-production aircraft. Only 2 prototypes were built in the event; the first was equipped with a single 1,895 kW (2,541 hp) Nakajima Ha219 [Ha-44] engine, driving a 4-blade, but the second one received the stronger Nakajima Ha217 (Ha-46) and a 6-blade propeller.
The pre-production machines (Ki-104-I or -Tei) were all produced with Ha217 engines, but featured various four-bladed propeller (-a, -b) designs as well as the new 6-blade propeller (-c). Compared to the prototypes, armament was beefed up from a pair of 20mm Ho-5 and a pair of 30mm Ho-155-I cannons in the wings to four of the new, more compact Ho-155-II cannons (originally designed for the unsuccessful Ki-102 assault aircraft and optimized for wing installation).
All pre-production Ki-104-Is were allocated to an independent IJA Headquarter Flight where they were tested alongside established fighters in the defence of the Tokyo region. Based on this 3rd Independent Flight's unit marking, a completely black tail with the unit's emblem, the Ki-104s were inofficially called Ic '黒の尾'/'Kurono-'o, which literally means "Black Tail".
The first operational Ki-104s reached this unit in spring 1945 and saw limited use against the incoming streams of B-29 bombers (2 unconfirmed downings in the Tokyo region). After these initial contacts that left a serious impression the new type received the USAF code name "Cooper", but the hostilities' soon end however stopped any further work and serial production. No Ki-104 survived the war.
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: Tatsuo Hasegawa airfoil
Empty weight: 4,637 kg (10,337 lb)
Loaded weight: 6.450 kg (14.220 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Nakajima Ha219 [Ha-44-12] 18-cylinder air-cooled radial engine, 1,835 kW (2,461 hp)
Performance
Maximum speed: 712 km/h (385 kn, 443 mph)
Cruise speed: 440 km/h (237 kn, 273 mph)
Range: 2,100 km (1,305 mi)
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× 30 mm (1.18 in) Ho-155-II cannons in the wings
Underwing hardpoints and centerline pylon for up to 3× 250 kg (551 lb) bombs
or a single 300l drop tank under the fuselage
The kit and its assembly:
This whif is the result of many ideas and occasions. First of all, I had a leftover six-blade propeller from a Hasegawa J7W Shinden in stock. Then I recently had an eye on kits of late Japanese high altitude fighters with turbosuperchargers, like the Ki-91-II or the Ki-106. These are available from RS Models, but rare and rather costly. And I wondered how a P-47 might look like without its deep belly? All this was finally thrown into a big idea stew, and the Ki-104 is the home-made hardware result!
As a side note: the Ki-104 was a real IJA project, AFAIK based/related to the Tachikawa Ki-94-I twin-boom/push-pull high altitude fighter, a re-worked, more conventional design. Information is sparese and it never reached any hardware stage and remained a paper project as the Rikugun Kogiken Ki-104; I just "revived" the number for my whif, but maybe the real Ki-104 could have looked like it... ;-)
The kit is a bashing of various parts and pieces:
- Fuselage and wing roots from an Academy P-47-25
- Wings from an Ark Model Supermarine Attacker (ex Novo)
- Tail fin is a modified part of a Matchbox Ju 188 stabilizer
- The stabilizers are outer sections from a Matchbox Douglas F3D Skyknight
- Cowling comes from an ART Model Grumman F8F Bearcat, the engine was scratched
- Propeller from a Hasegawa J7W Shinden
- Main wheels from a Matchbox F6F Hellcat
My choice fell onto the Academy Thunderbolt because it has engraved panel lines, offers the bubble canopy as well as good fit and detail. The belly duct had simply been sliced off, and the opening later faired over with styrene sheet and putty.
The Bearcat cowling was chosen because it had very good fitting width in order to match with the P-47 fuselage, and it turned out to be a very good choice - even though I had to add a dorsal connection, a simple styrene wedge, to create a good profile.
Inside, the engine consists of a reversed Hobby Boss F6F engine, with a fan dummy that covers any view on non-existent interior details... A styrene tube was added, into which a metal axis can be inserted. The latter holds the propeller, so that it can spin with little hindrance.
The Attacker wings were chosen because of their "modern" laminar profile - the Novo kit is horrible, but acceptable for donations. And the risen panel lines and rivets should later do great work during the weathering process... 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 where the large wheel fairings for the main landing gear ends.
The intersection with the Attacker wings is almost perfect in depth and width, relatively little putty work was necessary. I just had to cut out new landing gear well parts.
With the new wing shape, the tail surfaces had to be changed accordingly, with parts from a Matchbox Skyknight and a highly modified piece from a Matchbox Ju 188 stabilizer.
The OOB cockpit and landing gear was retained, I just replaced the main wheels with slightly more delicate alternatives from a Matchbox F6F Hellcat.
Once the basic bodywork was done I added the exhaust arrangement under the fuselage; the outlets are oil cooler parts from a Fw 190A, the air scoop once belonged to a Martin Marauder and the long ducts are actually HO scale roof rails. The oil cooler under the engine comes from a Hobby Boss La-7.
Pretty wild mix, but it works surprisingly well!
Painting and markings:
Even though this was supposed to become a late WWII IJA fighter, I did neither want the stereotype NMF look nor the classic green/grey livery or a respective mottled scheme. What I finally settled upon, though, took a long while to manifest, and it looks ...odd.
I wanted a camouflage scheme, but none of the more exotic real world options was fine for me; there had been fighters with black upper surfaces, bright blue ones, or blue mottle on top of NMF. But all this did not convince me, and I eventually created an experimental scheme. And the paint was supposed to look heavily worn, as if the paint had been applied directly onto the bare metal, without primer, so that it chips and flakes off easily.
The tones were supposed to be suitable for high altitudes, but not the classic IJA colors - nothing even close. eventuelly I came up with an all-around turquoise green (ModelMaster Fulcrum Grey Green) plus a pale grey-green (ModelMaster RAF Dark Slate Grey) as contrast for the upper sides. Sick combination, yes, esp. with the Aluminum shining through, which was applied first as a kind of acrylic primer. The camouflage paint was carefully brushed on top of that, with panel-wise strokes from back to front. Tedious, but effective.
The black tail was applied similarly, it is a free interpretation of real IJA markings; for instance, the 244th Sentai arcraft bore all-red tail sections. Black is an uncommon color, but since I wanted to create fictional squadron markings, too, this was a suitable concept. And it looks cool and mysterious...
The cockpit interior was painted with Aodake Iro (Modelmaster), the section behind the pilot's seat and where the sliding canopy moves on the outside, were painted with IJA Dark Green - just an odd idea. In front of the cockpit a black anti glare panel was added. The landing gear and the respective wells were painted with Steel Metallizer (just to set them apart from the lighter Aluminum all around). The propeller was painted in reddish brown tones, the spinner in Humbrol 160 and the blades in 173.
After this basic painting the kit received a black ink wash, and decals were applied. These were taken from various aftermarket sheets, including generic, white and yellow sheet for the Home Defence markings on wings and fuselage, the white fuselage trim or the yellow ID markings on the wings' leading edges.
As next step the complete kit was carefully wet-sanded, primarily from front to back, so that more of the aluminum primer showed through, the decals (esp. the Hinomaru) were worn out and the camouflage paint on top lost some of its hard edges.
The sanding residues had to be cleaned away thoroughly (with a soft toothbrush and lots of water), and then, repairs, e .g. where the bare plastic came through, as well as extra effects with dry-painted, lighter camouflage tones were done. Final cosmetics also include oil and dirt stains with Tamiya"Smoke", also applied by brush.
Once everything was dry and clean (despite the kit's look), everything was sealed under a coat of varnish - a 3:1 mix of matt and gloss Revell Acrylics.
A complex and lengthy painting process, but I think the effort paid out because the procedure mimicks the structure and look of a worn paint job instead of trying to look like it when you paint a cammo scheme and add metal effects "on top". This works for small chips, but not for the flaked look I had been looking for.
The Ki-104 turned out to be a very conclusive kitbashing - I think that the P-47-with-Attacker-wings-and-new-cowling bears more potential, and I might try it again, e. g. for a naval Thunderbolt development?
+++ 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 Yakovlev Yak-38 (Russian: Яковлева Як-38; NATO reporting name: "Forger") was the Soviet Naval Aviation's first and only operational VTOL strike fighter aircraft, in addition to being its first operational carrier-based fixed-wing aircraft. It was developed specifically for and served almost exclusively on the Kiev-class aircraft carriers.
Some specimen of the initial variant were tested during the Soviet Union's intervention in Afghanistan. These trials revealed several weaknesses of the construction in the form of unacceptable hot and high capabilities as well as a low payload. A further development for the Soviet Navy was therefore decided in August 1981, the abilities of which were fixed in October 1982. Already in November 1982 the first flight experiments of the prototype, leading to the Yak-38M, took place. In mid-1983 the manufacturing tests were completed and the production release was granted.
Anyway, the Soviet Air Force also had interest in a VTOL attack aircraft, which could provide CAS duties in immediate front line theatres, complementing the new Suchoj Su-25 Frogfoot and various attack helicopter types - but the Yak-38 was outright rejected. The Frontal Aviation demanded a much better performance, a dedicated avionics suite for ground attack duties and a higher payload of at least 2.500 kg (5.500 lb) in VTOL mode, plus an internal gun, and 3.000 kg (6.600 lb) when operating in C/STOL mode at sea level and from semi-prepared airstrips. For its primary ground attack role, the machine was also to be armored against projectiles of up to 0.5” around the lower hull and against 20mm rounds in the cockpit section. Finally, the machine had to be, compared with the Yak-38, simplified and be more rugged in order to ease frontline service and endure survivability.
OKB Yakovlev accepted the challenge and dusted off studies that had been undertaken during the Yak-38’s design stage. One of these was the Yak-38L (for 'lift/cruise'), a design built around a single, modified the AL-21F turbojet with vectoring nozzles and no lift engines, which were just dead weight in normal flight. This route seemed to be the most promising option for the Frontal Aviation's demands, even though it would mean a severe re-construction of the airframe.
The new aircraft, internally referred to as 'Izdeliye 138', was based on the Yak-38 airframe, but adapted and literally built around a lift/cruise variant of the large Kuznetsov NK-32 low bypass turbofan engine (originally, with an afterburner, powering the late Tu-144 airliners and the Tu-160 bomber). This engine’s initial derivative, NK-32L-1, adapted for operation with four vectoring nozzles, had a dry thrust of roundabout 110 kN (25,000 lbf) – about 10% more than the Yak-38’s engine trio all together. And the massive engine bore potential for at least 10% more power for the service aircraft.
The overall layout differed considerably from the long and sleek Yak-38: in order to create enough space for the large turbofan stage and its bigger, fixed-configuration air intakes, the fuselage had to be widened behind the cockpit section and the wings' main spar was moved upwards, so that the wings were now shoulder-mounted. The overall arrangement was reminiscent of the successful Hawker Harrier, but differed in some details like the landing gear, which was a classic tricycle design.
Cold air from the NK-32L’s initial turbofan stage was ducted into vectoring nozzles at the forward fuselage flanks, just in front of the aircraft's center of gravity, while the hot exhaust gasses passed through a bifurcated jet pipe through another pair of vectoring nozzles behind the CoG, in an arrangement which was also used in the Yak-38.
Slow speed control was ensured through puffer jet nozzles, fed by bleed air from the engine and placed on both wing tips as well as under the nose and in the aircraft’s tail section.
Teething troubles with the new engine, as well as the new, vectored nozzle arrangement, postponed the Izedeliye 138 prototype’s first flight until March 1986. Work was also slowed down because OKB Yakovlev had been working on the supersonic Yak-41 V/STOL fighter for the Soviet Navy, too. The Soviet Air Force's Frontal Aviation kept interested in the project, though, since they wanted a dedicated attack aircraft, and no complex multi-role fighter.
State acceptance trials lasted until mid 1987, and a total of four prototypes were built (including one for static ground tests). The Yak-138 was found to be easier to handle than the Yak-38, and the single engine made operations and also the handling during flight mode transition much easier and safer.
The prototypes were soon followed by a pre-production batch of 21 aircraft for field trials in frontline units. By then, the NK-32L had been much improved and now offered 137 kN (31,000 lbf) of thrust for short periods, which made it possible to meet all the Frontal Aviations requirements (esp. the call for 2.000 kg ordnance in VTOL mode).
Among its test pilots, the Yak-138 was quite popular and called "Balkon" ("Balcony") because of the good frontal view from the armored cockpit (offering a 17° downwards sight angle).
For frontline service, the aircraft was now equipped with sophisticated avionics, including a Sokol-138 navigation suite with a DISS-7 Doppler radar and a digital computer. A comprehensive ECM suite was installed for self-defence, including SPS-141 and SB-1 active jammers, KDS-23 chaff/flare dispensers built into the ventral pylon and an SPO-10 radar himing and warning system.
In accordance with the Yak-138‘s strike and low-level attack requirements, provisions were made to mount missiles and precision-guided munitions, as well as retaining a nuclear capability in line with other Soviet combat aircraft. An S-17VG-1 optical sight was fitted, as well as a laser rangefinder and marked-target seeker behind a flat, sloped window in the lower nose section.In the upper nose, between the aircraft's two characterisitic pitot booms, a Delta-2NG beam-riding missile guidance system antenna was placed in a small bullet fairing.
By 1989, the initial batch of aircraft had been delivered (receiving the NATO ASCC code 'Flitchbeam') and successfully tested. An order for 42 more aircraft had been placed and a dual training facility with the Soviet Navy at Kaspiysk AB in the Dagestan region (where Soviet Navy Yak-38U trainers were used for transitional training) established , when the disruption of the Soviet Union suddenly stopped the program in 1991 before the Yak-138 could enter production and service on a large scale.
Most of the machines in Frontal Aviation service fell to the Ukraine, where most of the machines had been based. This situation sealed the fate of the promising Yak-138 more or less over night: the now independent Ukraine did not want to keep the exotic type in its arsenal (together with some Yak-38s of the former Soviet Navy, too), and Russia did not want (and could simply not afford) to pay anything for the machines, which had been offered for an unknown sum.
Officially, all Ukrainian Yak-138 were scrapped until 1994, even though rumor has it that one or two airframes had been sold behind the scenes to China. In Russia only five specimen had survived, and since the spares situation was doubtful none could be kept in flying condition. One Yak-138 was eventually handed over to the Ulyanovsk Aircraft Museum, while the rest was either mothballed or scrapped, too. Unfortunately, the sole museum exhibit was lost in 1995 in a fire accident.
General characteristics:
Crew: One
Length (incl. pitot): 15.84 m (51 ft 10 1/2 in)
Wingspan: 8,17 m (26 ft 9 in)
Height: 4.19 m (14 ft 3 in)
Wing area: 24.18 m² (260.27 ft²)
Empty weight: 7,385 kg (16,281 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 11,300 kg (28,700 lb)
Powerplant:
1x Kuznetsov NK-32L-2 turbofan engine, rated at 137 kN (31,000 lbf)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,176 km/h (730 mph; 635 knots) at sea level
Combat radius: 230 mi (200 nmi, 370 km) lo-lo-lo with 4,400 lb (2,000 kg) payload
Ferry range: 2,129 mi (1,850 nmi, 3,425 km)
Endurance: 1 hr 30 min (combat air patrol – 115 mi (185 km) from base)
Service ceiling: 51,200 ft (15,600 m)
Time to climb to 40,000 ft (12,200 m): 2 min 23 s
Armament:
1x GSh-23L 23mm machine cannon with 250 RPG under the fuselage
5 hardpoints with a total external capacity of
- 3.000 kg (6,600 lb) for C/STOL operations and
- 2.000 kg (4.400 lb) in VTOL mode
Provisions to carry combinations of various types of unguided rockets (up to 240 mm), anti-ship
or air-to-surface Kh-23 (AS-7 Kerry) missiles (together with a Delta N guidance pod), R-60,
R-60M (AA-8 Aphid) or R-73 (AA-11 Archer) air-to-air missiles; tactical nuclear bombs, general
purpose bombs of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber, or incendiary ZB-500 napalm tanks or up to
three PTB-800 drop tanks under the fuselage and the inner pair of wing pylons
The kit and its assembly:
Sixth contribution to the “Soviet” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2017, on pretty short notice since the GB had been coming to its end. This totally fictional aircraft was inspired CG illustrations that had been roaming the WWW for some time: a hybrid between a Yak-38 (mostly the tail section), mated with an AV-8B Harrier II (cockpit, wings, landing gear). This did not look bad at all, yet a bit weird, with lift engines added in front of the fin. Certainly not conformal with a good CG balance – but I liked the idea of a single-engine Forger. And actually, OKB Yakovlev had been considering this.
So, the basic idea was a Harrier/Yak-38 kitbash. But the more I thought about the concept, the more additional donor parts came into play. One major addition was the nose section from a MiG-27 – with its slanted nose it would offer the pilot an excellent field of view, and the aircraft would, as a front line attack plane like the Harrier, not carry a radar, so the Flogger’s nose shape was perfect.
Therefore, initial ingredients for the Yak-138 were:
- Rear fuselage, wings and tail from a Tsukuda Hobby/Kangnam/Revell Yak-38
- Mid-fuselage with air intakes and front vectoring nozzles from a Matchbox Sea Harrier
- Cockpit from an Academy MiG-27
Work started with the MiG-27 cockpit, which was more or less taken OOB (except for side consoles in the cockpit and different seat), and the Yak-38 the tail section, built in parallel. To my surprise the Forger fuselage was easier to combine with the Harrier than expected, even though the position of the right cuts took multiple measurements until I came up with a proper solution. Since the Harrier is overall shorter than the Yak-38, the latter’s fuselage had to be shortened. I retained the tail cone, the Forger’s vectoring nozzles and the landing gear wells – and a 2cm plug was taken out between them. Instead of the Harrier’s tandem landing gear arrangement with outriggers under the outer wings, this one was to receive a conventional landing gear for optional C/STOL operations with a higher ordnance load, so that the Yak-38 parts were a welcome basis. Once the fuselage’s underside was more or less complete, the upper rest of the Yak-38 fuselage could be cut to size and integrated into the lower half and the Harrier parts.
After the rear end was settled, the MiG-27 cockpit could be mounted to the front end, which was slightly shortened by 2-3mm (since the Flogger’s is markedly longer than the short Harrier nose). In order to change the overall look of the aircraft, I eventually dropped the Harrier intakes and decided to use the Flogger’s boxy air intakes instead. These are considerably smaller than the gaping Harrier holes, and blending the conflicting shapes into each other for a more or less consistent look took several PSR turns. But it worked, better than expected, and it changes the aircraft’s look effectively, so that almost anything Harrier-esque was gone.
Once the fuselage was completed, I realized that I could not use the Yak-38 wings anymore. They are already pretty small, but with the more voluminous Harrier and Flogger parts added to the aircraft, they’d just be too small!
What to do...? I checked the donor bank and – in order to add even more individual flavor – used a pair of double delta wings from a PM Model Su-15! But only the core of them was left after considerable modifications: The inner delta wing sections were cut off, as well as the tip sections and parts of the trailing edge (for a planform similar to the Yak-38’s wings). On the underside, the landing gear openings were filled up and wing tips from the Yak-38, with puffer jet nozzles, transplanted. The inner leading edges had to be re-sculpted, too. The Su-15 wing fences were kept - a welcome, very Soviet design detail.
A lot of work, but I think it paid out because of the individual shape and look of these “new” wings?
As a consequence of the new, bigger wings, the little Yak-38 stabilizers could not be used anymore, either. In order to keep the square wing shape, I used modified stabilizers from an Intech F-16C/D – their trailing edges were clipped, but the bigger span retained. Together with the characteristic OOB Yak-38 fin they work well, and all of the aerodynamic surfaces IMHO blend well into the overall design of the aircraft.
After the hull was complete, work on smaller things could start. Under the fuselage, a GSh-23-2 pod from a MiG-21 was added, as well as pylons from the Tsukuda Yak-38 under the wings and a donor part from the scrap box in ventral position.
The landing gear is a mix, too: the main struts come from the Yak-38, the balloon wheels from the Matchbox Harrier. The front landing gear comes from the Academy MiG-27, including the wheels with mudguards. It was just mounted in a fashion that it now retracts forward.
The Harrier vectoring nozzles were modified, too, the exhaust “grills” replaced by square, simple ducts, scratched from styrene profile and putty. Care was taken that the nozzles would remain moveable in the fuselage flanks – for later hover pictures. The Yak-38’s nozzles were retained, but since they can OOB only be mounted in a single, fixed position, I added a simple pin to each nozzle, together with two holes in the hull, so that positions can now be switched between hover and level flight.
All around the hull, finally some small details like pitots, blade antennae and air scoops were finally added, and the ordnance consists of a pair of unguided 57mm rocket pods and a pair of Kh-23 (AS-7 Kerry) guided missiles – the latter come from the Yak-38 kit, but they are very crude and their tail sections were modified in order to come (slightly) closer to reality.
Painting and markings:
As an aircraft of the Soviet Frontal Aviation in the late Eighties, I settled upon a typical, disruptive four-tone camouflage with blue undersides. Very conventional, but with an exotic VTOL model I thought that a subtle look would be appropriate – and also separate it from the Naval Yak-38 cousin.
Design benchmark is the scheme on a contemporary MiG-21bis from a Soviert Frontal Aviation unit, chosen because of the disruptive pattern. The tones are guesstimates, though, based on various similar aircraft in more or less weathered condition. I settled for:
- Humbrol 195 (Dark Satin Green)
- Humbrol 78 (RAF Interior Green)
- Modelmaster 2005 (Burnt Umber)
- Humbrol 119 (Light Earth)
- Humbrol 115 (Russian Blue) for the undersides
The cockpit was painted in Russian Cockpit Green, opf course. The landing gear and their respective wells in a mix of Aluminum and Khaki Drab (Humbrol 56 & 26), and the wheel discs became bright green (Humbrol 131). Several di-electric panels and antennae were painted in Humbrol 106 (RAF Ocean Grey).
The kit received a thin black ink wash, in order to emphasize the panel lines, and panel post-shading with subtly lighter tones of the basic colors. National markings, codes and emblems come from several aftermarket sheets, mostly from High Decal Line and Begemot.
After some soot stains (grinded graphite) had been added, the kit was sealed with matt acrlyic varnish (Italeri) and the ordnace added.
Messy work, but I am surprised how consistent and normal the resulting aircraft appears? From certain angles, my Yak-138 creation reminds a good deal of the stillborn Hawker P.1154 (no similarity intended, though), the SEPECAT Jaguar or rather exotic Soko J-22 Orao/IAR-93 Vultur fighter bomber. IMHO, there’s also some A-4 Skyhawk style to it, esp. in planview? Anyway, there’s still some good Yak-38 heritage recognizable, and the tactical Frontal Aviation paint scheme suits the aircraft well - looks like a serious mud mover.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
In December 1953, NATO Supreme Command issued specifications for a new light tactical support aircraft. European manufacturers were invited to submit their designs for this requested Light Weight Strike Fighter role. The G.91 was one contender and designed to this specification by the Italian engineer Giuseppe Gabrielli, hence the "G" designation.
The competition was intended to produce an aircraft that was light, small, expendable, equipped with basic weapons and avionics and capable of operating with minimal ground support. These specifications were developed for two reasons: the first was the nuclear threat to large air bases, many cheaper aircraft could be better dispersed, and the other was to counter the trend towards larger and more expensive aircraft.
The technical requirements were:
• 1,100 m (3,610 ft) takeoff distance over a 15 m (49 ft) obstacle
• Capability to operate from grass strips and roads
• Maximum speed of Mach 0.95
• Range of 280 km (170 mi) with 10 minutes over the target
• Armoured protection for the pilot and the fuel tanks
• 4 × 12.7 mm (.5 in) or 2 × 20 mm or 30 mm guns
• A maximum of 2,200 kg (4,850 lb) empty weight and 4,700 kg (10,360 lb) max. weight
The challenge of providing an engine that matched the requirements of lightness and power, reliability and ease of maintenance was solved by using the Bristol Siddeley Orpheus turbojet.
Project selections took 18 months to complete and the final selection of the three remaining competing designs was planned for late 1957. In September 1957, at the Centre d'Essais en Vol at Brétigny-sur-Orge, in France, the three rival aircraft types met for evaluation trials. During the trials the Italian aircraft performed impressively and, in January 1958, the Fiat G.91 was officially declared the winner.
Following a meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in April 1958 it was agreed that the G.91 would be the first NATO lightweight strike fighter. A production meeting was planned for May 1958 to discuss the production of the aircraft with financial support from the United States, the Americans would provide some of the finance for the French, German and Italian aircraft and pay for the Turkish aircraft. Other NATO states were supposed to buy the G.91, too., and the defence ministers reached agreement to order 50 aircraft for each country.
Given the large economic and commercial interests at stake, there was a certain amount of controversy surrounding this decision. After the loss of the G.91 prototype, the French government preferred to pursue development of the locally-designed Étendard. The British government similarly ignored the competition to concentrate on Hawker Hunter production for the same role.
The Italian government ordered the G.91 for the Italian Air Force before the results of the competition were known. An initial pre-production batch of machines would later go on to serve for many years with the Italian aerobatic team, the Frecce Tricolori as the G.91 PAN.
The G.91 was also considered by Austria, Norway, Spain, Greece, Switzerland, and even the United States Army, which briefly evaluated the type as a possible Forward Air Control aircraft before relinquishing all fixed-wing aircraft operations to the Air Force.
Spain bought the intended 50 aircraft (42 single seaters called G.91R/2, outfitting two fighter bomber squadrons, plus 8 trainers with tandem seats, comparable with the Italian G.91T/1 trainers), which were produced in Italy from early 1961 onwards and became operational with the Ejército del Aire in late 1962, replacing the F-86 and HA-220 Super Saetas in the ground attack/CAS role.
The G.91R/2 was a hybrid between the simple Italian G.91R/1 and the later, more sophisticated G.91R/4 for Greece and Turkey. It used the R/1's airframe with the modified nose housing three cameras, but already had four underwing hardpoints, structural reinforcements and improved avionics, including a Doppler radar and a revised instrumentation that was also introduced with the Italian R/1A.
The G.91 in Spanish service was already phased out from the mid 70ies onwards and completely retired in 1986, being replaced by F-5 and Mirage F.1.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 10.3 m (33 ft 9 in)
Wingspan: 8.56 m (28 ft 1 in)
Height: 4.0 m (13 ft 1 in)
Wing area: 16.4 m² (177 ft²)
Empty weight: 3,100 kg (6,830 lb)
Loaded weight: 5,440 kg (11,990 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 5,500 kg (12,100 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Bristol Siddeley Orpheus 803 turbojet, 22.2 kN (5,000 lbf)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,075 km/h (580 kn, 668 mph)
Range: 1,150 km (621 nmi, 715 mi)
Service ceiling: 13,100 m (43,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 30 m/s (6,000 ft/min)
Wing loading: 331 kg/m² (67.8 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.42
Armament:
4× 12.7 mm (0.50 in) M2 Browning machine guns,
4× under-wing pylon stations holding up to 680 kg/1.500 lb of payload
The kit and its assembly:
Second entry for the "1 Week group Build" at whatifmodelers.com, since my first model was finished in just three days... This one struck me recently when I browsed through the F-5 book of the "Planes and Pilots" series, and came across the Spanish machines. What if Spain had bought the G.91...?
The resulting aircraft would surely have looked pretty in the three-tone "Small Asia" paint scheme, so the idea landed on the list and now entered the hardware stage.
...not until I got hands on a G.91 kit. Not easy, at least if you do not want to sink a fortune. I was lucky to find a pair of Airfix G.91s - from Japanese production, the boxes are dated 1981! And the kit is accordingly rather basic, especially anything concerning the interior is primitive, the wheels are a joke and the ordnance better ignored.
However, the fuselage lines are not bad, and since I had some leftover sprues from the more modern Revell G.91 in store I decided to pimp the Airfix kit with some donation parts and build an Ejércite del Aire whif.
It's not a true kitbashing, but a lot of Revell parts went into the vintage Airfix kit:
• The cockpit tub (which includes an upper wall for the air intake) was implanted
• The ejection seat and the dashboard, too
• An improvised jet nozzle was added - the Airfix kit just offers a bare hole(!)
• From the landing gear only the main struts were taken
• Even the landing gear covers were taken from the Revell kit
• The outer pylons are donations, too, while the inner ones were modified
• Ordnance is new, too, all from the spares box
The kit needed some putty work, but fit was surprisingly good.
Painting and markings:
Well, Spain is the theme and so I gave this Gina a "typical" livery, borrowed from export F-5s (e .g. for Spain, Iran, Jordania), the “Small Asia” paint scheme.
As basic colors I used Humbrol 74 (Linen), 29 (RAF Dark Earth) and 116 (FS34079), with pale grey undersides in Humbrol 129 (FS36440). The landing gear, its wells and the air intake were painted in Aluminum (Modelmaster), while the cockpit was kept in Dark Sea Grey (Humbrol 164) with a light blue dashboard - confirmed by real life pics.
As per usual the kit received a light black ink wash, light panel shading (also adding to a sun-bleached look) and some dry painting with light grey. No OOB decal was and could be used - 35 years took their toll!
Anyway, the decals come primarily from a Heller Mirage III, as well as some additional stencils e .g. from a BAC Lightning (Xtradecal sheet) and many red stripes or the camera ports, which were cut from TL Modellbau decal stripes.
Soot/exhaust stains were created with grinded graphite and around the nozzle and the gun ports. Finally, everything was sealed under a coat of matt acrylic varnish.
This Hispanic Gina is not a great piece of work, but the paint scheme changes IMHO the total look of the small aircraft, very different from what you usually see? And it's a second proud addition to whatifmodelers.com's "1 Week Group Build", created in the leftover five day timeframe after the first whif kit.
And does anybody doubt that Spain flew the G.91...?
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some Background:
The Lavochkin OKB was founded in 1937 as OKB-301, a Soviet aircraft design bureau. The head designer was Vladimir P. Gorbunov. On October, 1945 Semyon Lavochkin was promoted for the head designer of the design bureau. The OKB gained distinction for its family of piston-engined fighter aircraft during World War II, and later shifted to missile and jet fighter designs.
The latter comprised several experimental designs that were build in order to test the potential of jet engines and swept wings - a heritage from WWII. One of these designs was the light Aircraft 160, with a pod-and-boom layout and powered by a single RD-10 axial turbojet.
Despite the flight success of Aircraft 160, Lavochkin also followed an alternative route: a heavier aircraft that carried two engines under its wings. Knowing that the standard RD-10 (actually a poor copy of the German Jumo 004B jet engine that had powered, among others, the Me 262) did not supply enough power for a serious single engine fighter aircraft, Aircraft 170.
Like the contemporary Suchoj Su-9 fighter, Aircraft 170 resembled the Me 262 a lot, even though it was no copy. Its most innovative feature were wings with a 40° sweep at 1/4 chord, mounted in a mid-position and with an almost constant chord from root to tip. A pair of Tumansky RD-10 jet engines was carried in sleek nacelles that were directly attached to the wings' undersurfaces. Tail surfaces were swept, too, the elevator placed high, close to the fin's top in order to keep it away from any jet efflux.
Aircraft 170 had a circular cross-section, all-metal stressed skin monocoque fuselage that housed a single, pressurized cockpit. The pilot was protected by armor plates to his front, an armored seat back and a bulletproof windscreen for the bubble canopy. He was provided with an ejection seat, copied from that used in the Heinkel He 162.
The tricycle landing gear was fully retractable; the nose wheel retracted backwards, while the main wheels retracted inwards into the wing roots. Fuel was carried in three main tanks in the fuselage, two auxillary tanks were placed in the wings.
Intended to intercept American bombers like the B-29. To ensure the destruction of such large bombers, the fighter originally carried three cannons in its nose: two 23 mm with 100 rounds per gun and a single 37 mm with 40 rounds.
Construction of a full-scale mockup was completed in June 1947 and two prototypes ordered for flight testing. The first flight was on 24 June 1948 and took place at Khimki airfield, near Moscow. The first prototype was aptly coded "170 Red".
Successful flight trials were quickly followed by public display at the 1948 Aviation Day airshow at Tushino. This flight demonstration was a show because the original RD-10 engines did not provide enough power to lift Aircraft 170 off of the ground at full weight - all cannons had to be removed, and only a limited fuel load for 30 min of flight was carried!
But these flaws remained well hidden and the new type immediately earned the NATO ASCC code "Forkbeard".
Even with these harsh performance limits Aircraft 170 was evaluated in mock air-to-air combat trials with a captured U.S. B-29, as well as the later Soviet B-29 copy, the Tu-4 "Bull". Once up in the air, Aircraft 170 showed the potential of its basic construction and its good handling characteristics, even though the overall lack of power and sluggish as well as unreliable engines kept haunting the tests.
Things were to improve in early 1949 with the installation of indigenous afterburners to the RD-10 engines, especially for take-off and climb. These modified engines were called RD-10 YuF and also tested on board of the single engine Aircraft 160 prototype.
Aircraft 170's engine nacelles were lengthened and widened accordingly, and the modifed 1st prototype was re-designated Aircraft 171, its code being changed into "171 Red". By late 1949, a second prototype had finally been built (coded "172 Red"), directly outfitted with the uprated engine.
Experimentally, a heavy 45mm Nudelman-Suranov NS-45 cannon with 30 rounds was fitted to both aircraft. Combat trials showed that although the NS-45 cannon proved deadly to enemy aircraft, realistically only its first shot could be aimed. A three-round burst, even when fired near the maximum airspeed of Aircraft 171, resulted in a noticeable loss of both airspeed and stability. Vibrations and shock waves were so heavy that sometimes oil lines sprung leaks after the gun was fired! Firing the NS-45 at airspeeds below 350 km/h even shook the pilot back and forth as if in an automobile suddenly decelerating and accelerating!
Trials continued until summer 1951 when "171 Red" broke up in flight, due to wing flutter, during tests to establish the maximum attainable speed. Its sister ship was immediately grounded and the program stopped. At that time the MiG-15 had already entered service successfully, and it offered comparable if not superior performance in almost any respect to the Lavochkin design.
Anyway, the experience gained with Aircraft 171 spurred on Soviet aircraft designers to design swept winged fighters, albeit cautiously. On the other side, the RD-10, even with a (thirsty!) afterburner, proved to be a dead end. Since other engines like the centrifugal flow Klimov VK-1 (a copy of the British Rolls-Royce Nene engine) were hard to integrate into the Aircraft 171's structure. Nevertheless, work with the YuF afterburner helped pave the way to the MiG-15's successor, the MiG-17, powered by the Klimov VK-1F afterburning turbojet, which was accepted into service in mid-1951.
The surviving "172 Red" prototype eventually ended up as an instructional airframe at the Kremenchuk Flight College of the National Aviation University, and it was scrapped in 1965.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 12.78 m (41 ft 10 in)
Wingspan: 11.27 m (36 ft 11 in)
Height: 4.59 m (15 ft 12 in)
Wing area: 21.7 m² (234 ft²)
Empty weight: 4,060 kg (8,951 lb)
Loaded weight: 6,473 kg (14,272 lb)
Fuel capacity: 1.350 kg
Max. takeoff weight: 7,130 kg (15,720 lb)
Powerplant:
2× Tumansky RD-10 YuF axial turbojets, each with 8.83 kN (1,984 lbf)dry thrust
and 11.17 kN (2,510 lbf) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 900 km/h (559 mph)
Range: 1,050 km (652 mi)
Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,565 ft)
Rate of climb: 1,200 m/min (At max weight of 7,130 kg) (3,900 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 0.28
Armament:
2x Nudelman-Richter NR-23 23 mm (0.9") cannon in the lower right fuselage with 100 RPG
1x Nudelman-Suranov NS-45 45 mm (1.8") cannon in the lower left fuselage (30 RPG)
The kit and its assembly:
My fourth entry to the early 2016 Cold War GB at whatifmodelers.com. Again, it's a project from the long ideas list that finally made it to the hardware stage through a GB's occasion.
This one was originally inspired by an illustration in what I deem a 1950s book about aircraft, including Soviet designs. Based on vague pictures and probably lots of speculation, it is funny to see what the enemy's aircraft were supposed to look like.
In this case, my benchmark was a rather fictional "Lavochkin La-16" fighter, which looked like a travesty version of a Republic F-84G with engine pods under its wings. Actually, the painting rather shows the Yak-25 all-weather interceptor, but you can only recognize it if you know hat you were looking for!
Anyway, the idea of a modified Thunderstreak had some charm, and this is what my kitbash for a fictional Soviet fighter is based upon. For a stronger retro feeling I used the straight wing F-84G, a Heller kit which donated its fuselage and landing gear.
The wings come from a PM Model Ta 183, the engine nacelles (from a Matchbox Me 262) were inserted as spacers into the wings. Their wing position was defined by the landing gear starts' length.
The original nose air intake was closed with a radome from an F-94C (Emhar) and the tail shortened - mostly because of the new swept tail surfaces, which come from a KP MiG-15 (a horribly crude kit!).
While this combination sounds harmless the integration of the parts took some serious effort and sculpting with putty!
Painting and markings:
As a classic Soviet prototype of the Fifties, choice of livery was simple: an all-metal finish with some Red Stars plus a code number.
At first, and also in order to control the surface finish after all the PSR work, the kit received a uniform coat with "White Aluminum" acrylic spray paint - this revealed several flaws.
Later, after mending many dents and scratches, several silver and grey shades were used on different panel and rudder areas, including Revell Acrylic Aluminum, Alu Plate, Steel, Magnesium and Titanium Metallizer as well as RAF Barley Grey.
The cockpit interior was painted with PRU Blue while the landing gear wells received a more grey-ish coat with FS 35237. Some red dots mark openings for fuel and oil and slightly brighten things up, as well as a red trim tab on the fin.
Grinded graphite was used for a weathered look and to emphasize the metallic impression. Panel lines were painted manually onto wings and fuselage with a very soft pencil.
After decal application (Red Stars from a Hobby Boss MiG-15, the tactical code was puzzled together from various sources) the kit was sealed under a semi-glossy coat of acrylic varnish.
Not a spectacular masterpiece, but a funny build and in so far interesting as Aircraft 171 rather appears like a pregnant Me 262 than a converted F-84F? Even the similarity with the Yak-25 is only remote, mostly in top view where the wing planform with the nacelles resembles the much bigger Soviet interceptor most? Still, this creation carries some of the Fifties/Cold War retro feeling.
Painting and markings:
I am not certain how ChADI 9 was painted (I assume overall silver), but I wanted for „скорость“ a little more color. Being a child of the Soviet era, red was a settled design element, but I thought that an all-red vehicle might have looked too cheesy. Other colors I considered were orange or white with blue trim, but did not find them to be appropriate for what I was looking. Eventually, I added some Russian Utilitarianism in the form of light grey for the upper hull (Humbrol 166, RAF Light Aircraft Grey), and the red (Humbrol 19) as a dark contrast around the complete air intake as well as the shock cone (somewhat inspired by the Green Monster #15 LSR vehicle), and then extended backwards into a narrowing cheatline along the flanks, which emphasizes the vehicle’s slender hull. For some more contrast between the two basic tones I later added thin white borders between them created with 2mm white decal stripes from TL Modellbau. Around the hull some bright red (Humbrol 238 Red Arrows Red) highlights as warning signs were added.
The vehicle’s afterburner section was painted with Modelmaster Steel Metallizer, the Panther wheels became Aluminum (Revell 99) with a black ink wash. Some black ink was also applied to the jet nozzle, so that the details became more pronounced, and some grinded graphite was used to enhance the burnt metal effect.
Since this would rather be an experimental car built and operated by a high school institute, and also operated in the Soviet Union, flashy sponsor markings would not be appropriate. Therefore I created some fictional marking at home with the help of PC software and printed them by myself. These designs included a fictional logo of the ChADI institute itself (created from a car silhouette drawing) and a logo for the vehicle’s title, “„скорость““. The latter was created from the cyrillic lettering, with some additions like the vehicle’s silhouette.
Unfortunately the production process for the home-made decals did not work properly – when coating the prints with gloss acrylic varnish the printer ink started to dissolve, bleeding magenta, so that the decals would look as if there was a red halo or glow around the otherwise black motifs. Thanks to the use of red in the vehicle’s overall design this flaw is not too apparent, so I stuck with the outcome and applied the decals to the car.
Beyond these basic markings, many stencils were added, including dull red inscriptions from an Italeri MiG-37 “Ferret” kit – finally, I found an expedient use for them! The Soviet flags on the fin came from an 1:144 Tu-144 airliner Braz Decal aftermarket sheet.
Finally, some panel lines were drawn onto the hull with a soft pencil and then the model was sealed with Italeri semi-gloss acrylic varnish. Just the black anti-glare panel in front of the windscreen became matt and the metallic rear section was left in “natural” finish.
Some background:
A vanship is a type of flying machine from the animated series Last Exile. It is often referred to as a "flying boat" in that it does not fly by means of aerodynamics like planes do, but rather by floating on the air and propelling itself through the use of a substance known as "Claudia" (see below).
Vanships in general were couriers prior to the events of Last Exile, traveling long distances to deliver cargoes (usually messages). Some Vanships thus include tools for towing solid objects.
The design of several vanships throughout the series bears great resemblance to various famed 1930s racecars than any aircraft, most notably the Anatoray millitary vanships which bear great resemblance to the 1933 Napier Railton. The resemblance is found in the grill shape of the cowl vents and the shape of the tail cone, as well as the aerodynamic bulges on the car which cover the valve covers and exaust on the car, which are also found on the Anatoray vanships.
Other Vanships bear striking design elements from Junkers aircraft in the pre-WWII era, e. g. from the A 35 monoplane.
"Spirit of Grand Stream" is a courier-type vanship (see below) owned by Claus Valca and Lavie Head, and its design is very similar to that of Hayao Miyazaki's gunship from Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind. The matches are really focused on the two seated open cockpit, and the navigator section which has matching interface panels of small glass cylinders.
Courier vanships, also known as racing vanships, are one of the main types of vanship featured in Last Exile. Courier vanships are small and narrow with a single, high-powered thruster. Like any vanship intended to achieve high speeds, they have stub wings, far too small themselves to provide lift. They simply act as mounts for ailerons to provide better steering, as pivoting the thruster would put undue stress on the assembly at high speeds.
Over the course of Last Exile, Vanships were adapted for combat. The process resembles the evolving roles that aircraft held during WW1; originally developed for scouting and surveillance, but eventually equipped with bombs and machine guns to become potent fightercraft.
Claudia is a fluorescent blue ore mined on the floating world of Prester. It is the foundation of Prester's technology, fueling steam engines and is a key element of the claudia units that allow vanships to fly. Claudia is also the primary currency of Prester. It is well suited for the purpose, as it is constantly generated by Prester and is not possible to counterfeit.
Claudia, when dissolved in water, serves as the primary drive fluid in a claudia unit. When Claudia fluid is heated and compressed, it generates lift. A vanship engine has a distinctive claudia circulation pipe loop, where the supercritical fluid generates both lift and thrust.
Dissolving Claudia in alcohol dramatically increases the energy density of the fuel. This is why steam engines are the predominant technology of Last Exile, instead of the internal combustion engine. Technology design documents from the production of the show indicate that the steam engines of Last Exile have a power to weight ratio exceeding that of a modern gasoline fueled internal combustion engine.
All vanships in the series were rendered as 3D images, a hallmark of Japanese animation studio Gonzo, makers of such series as Vandread and Blue Submarine No. 6.
The kit and its assembly:
I love the Vanships from Last Exile - even though I have never seen the series.
While these vehicles appear as retro stuff, they are very original and unique in look and feel - a modeler's dream if you are into scratchbuilding and kitbashing. There's also a 1:72 Vanship kit available (actually, in two versions) from Hasegawa, but it is IMHO overpriced. And there are so many different Vanships in the series that it is a shame that not more of them have been kitted, scratched, or at least used as a source of modelling inspiration.
The latter's the case here. I had a scratched Vanship on the agenda for a long time and also a basic idea with what I'd start, but it took a SF racing GB at phoxim.de ( a German SF model building forum) to make a move.
I wanted a small and fast single seater, and this evolved through the GB into a Racer with a more prominent engine unit and a rather purposeful livery instead of bright colors. But the basic concept was retained: originally, the plan was to use a 1:72 F4U as fuselage basis, and I had the idea to integrate some parts of a 1:43 Citroen 11CV from Heller, e. g. its grill and bonnet.
The F4U is the SMER kit, and it has the benefit of having separate wings for a folded display. The fin was cut off and the landing gear wells covered.
The cockpit opening was slightly enlarged in order to take a 1:48 Japanese WWII resin pilot and a seat from the 1:43 11CV - pretty cramped, but it worked and looks good. Only the wind screen of the OOB F4U canopy was used, as well as the original dashboard.
Most work was done on the outside, though. The first problem turned up when I realized that the 11CV bonnet could hardly be mated with the F4U. As a plan B I found a cover for the brush head of a Philipps electric toothbrush in my donor bank - a bit too high and narrow, but overall a unique addition and characteristic nose for my creation!
The landing gear comes from an Amodel Ju-87A - together with the drooped F4U inner wings the result looked a bit stalky at first, but the Vanship still needed its engines.
As a racer, I went for double power, and the long pods that carry the propulsion system were scratched from several non-model-kit parts:
- Front comes from a Revell 1:32 AH-64 Apache, its engines
- The intakes come from a Matchbox Gloster Meteor NF.14
- The "ring" consists of wheel parts from the Heller 11CV
- The conic isolators are ball pen grips, cut to size and closed with tank wheels on both ends
- The fins are plastic knives, primarily the blades and parts of the handles
In between these engine pods, which are only held under the wings and stabilized internally through steel wire, a generator pod from a 1:72 Matchbox EA-6B fills the void. It also holds a characteristic "knife" under the front grill - again carved from the handle of the plastic knives.
In order to blend the changes in fuselage shape and diameter and create a kind of Cord-style grill I added three styrene strips which were wrapped around the nose, the upper line reaching back to the cockpit - a kind of 3D rally stripe that also streches the shape.
Some air scoops and surface details were added, made from styrene, and stiff cable was used under the front fuselage to create hoses between the bonnet with the Claudia reactor and the engines.
I was frequently tempted to add more things and details or decoration, but found that a rather clean look would better suit a dedicated racer Vanship - the Stutz Blackhawk land speed record car was a vague benchmark.
Painting and markings:
I wanted to keep things simple and dry. Before this turned into a racer I considered several colors like pale blue, a greyish-green, British Racing Green or Crimson, with ivory trim. Anyway, I rejected this in favir of a pure, bare metal finish. I even did not add colorful stripes - the only "color" comes from the mechanical parts (ivory and dark brown on the engine pods, the idea was to add an isolator impression) and the small sponsor decals.
The kit initially received a basic coat of Revell's acrylic Aluminum, and onto that panels/field with several Metallizer tones (Steel, Magnesium, Titanium, polished Aluminum) were added. On top of that, the whole thing received a rubbing with grinded graphite - intensifying the metal shine and also weathering the vehicle.
The pilot received a rather conservatie outfit, with a brown leather jacket - matching the overall style of the Vanship. Some engine parts (e. g. the blades and the knife under the nose) were painted with a mix of Steel Metallizer and Gold. The cockpit interior was painted in RLM 02.
The markings were puzzled together. The start number '24' in that nice retro type comes from an 1:72 Airfix Il-2, the black disc below is from a slot car aftermarket sheet. The many sponsor stickers come mostly from an 1:72 Su-27 demonstrator aircraft sheet from Begemot - with their cyrillic typo they blend well into the Last Exile look and feel (where Greek/Cyrillic typo pops up).
Finally, the kit received a coat with acrylic gloss varnish, while the anti glare panel in front of the windscreen became matt.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on authentic facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The РТАК-30 attack vintoplan (also known as vintokryl) owed its existence to the Mil Mi-30 plane/helicopter project that originated in 1972. The Mil Mi-30 was conceived as a transport aircraft that could hold up to 19 passengers or two tons of cargo, and its purpose was to replace the Mi-8 and Mi-17 Helicopters in both civil and military roles. With vertical takeoff through a pair of tiltrotor engine pods on the wing tips (similar in layout to the later V-22 Osprey) and the ability to fly like a normal plane, the Mil Mi-30 had a clear advantage over the older models.
Since the vintoplan concept was a completely new field of research and engineering, a dedicated design bureau was installed in the mid-Seventies at the Rostov-na-Donu helicopter factory, where most helicopters from the Mil design bureau were produced, under the title Ростов Тилт Ротор Авиационная Компания (Rostov Tilt Rotor Aircraft Company), or РТАК (RTRA), for short.
The vintoplan project lingered for some time, with basic research being conducted concerning aerodynamics, rotor design and flight control systems. Many findings later found their way into conventional planes and helicopters. At the beginning of the 1980s, the project had progressed far enough that the vintoplan received official backing so that РТАК scientists and Mil helicopter engineers assembled and tested several layouts and components for this complicated aircraft type.
At that time the Mil Mi-30 vintoplan was expected to use a single TV3-117 Turbo Shaft Engine with a four-bladed propeller rotors on each of its two pairs of stub wings of almost equal span. The engine was still installed in the fuselage and the proprotors driven by long shafts.
However, while being a very clean design, this original layout revealed several problems concerning aeroelasticity, dynamics of construction, characteristics for the converter apparatuses, aerodynamics and flight dynamics. In the course of further development stages and attempts to rectify the technical issues, the vintoplan layout went through several revisions. The layout shifted consequently from having 4 smaller engines in rotating pods on two pairs of stub wings through three engines with rotating nacelles on the front wings and a fixed, horizontal rotor over the tail and finally back to only 2 engines (much like the initial concept), but this time mounted in rotating nacelles on the wing tips and a canard stabilizer layout.
In August 1981 the Commission of the Presidium of the USSR Council of Ministers on weapons eventually issued a decree on the development of a flyworthy Mil Mi-30 vintoplan prototype. Shortly afterwards the military approved of the vintoplan, too, but desired bigger, more powerful engines in order to improve performance and weight capacity. In the course of the ensuing project refinement, the weight capacity was raised to 3-5 tons and the passenger limit to 32. In parallel, the modified type was also foreseen for civil operations as a short range feederliner, potentially replacing Yak-40 and An-24 airliners in Aeroflot service.
In 1982, РТАК took the interest from the military and proposed a dedicated attack vintoplan, based on former research and existing components of the original transport variant. This project was accepted by MAP and received the separate designation РТАК-30. However, despite having some close technical relations to the Mi-30 transport (primarily the engine nacelles, their rotation mechanism and the flight control systems), the РТАК-30 was a completely different aircraft. The timing was good, though, and the proposal was met with much interest, since the innovative vintoplan concept was to compete against traditional helicopters: the design work on the dedicated Mi-28 and Ka-50 attack helicopters had just started at that time, too, so that РТАК received green lights for the construction of five prototypes: four flyworthy machines plus one more for static ground tests.
The РТАК-30 was based on one of the early Mi-30 layouts and it combined two pairs of mid-set wings with different wing spans with a tall tail fin that ensured directional stability. Each wing carried a rotating engine nacelle with a so-called proprotor on its tip, each with three high aspect ratio blades. The proprotors were handed (i.e. revolved in opposite directions) in order to minimize torque effects and improve handling, esp. in the hover. The front and back pair of engines were cross-linked among each other on a common driveshaft, eliminating engine-out asymmetric thrust problems during V/STOL operations. In the event of the failure of one engine, it would automatically disconnect through torque spring clutches and both propellers on a pair of wings would be driven by the remaining engine.
Four engines were chosen because, despite the weight and complexity penalty, this extra power was expected to be required in order to achieve a performance that was markedly superior to a conventional helicopter like the Mi-24, the primary Soviet attack helicopter of that era the РТАК-30 was supposed to replace. It was also expected that the rotating nacelles could also be used to improve agility in level flight through a mild form of vectored thrust.
The РТАК-30’s streamlined fuselage provided ample space for avionics, fuel, a fully retractable tricycle landing gear and a two man crew in an armored side-by-side cockpit with ejection seats. The windshield was able to withstand 12.7–14.5 mm caliber bullets, the titanium cockpit tub could take hits from 20 mm cannon. An autonomous power unit (APU) was housed in the fuselage, too, making operations of the aircraft independent from ground support.
While the РТАК-30 was not intended for use as a transport, the fuselage was spacious enough to have a small compartment between the front wings spars, capable of carrying up to three people. The purpose of this was the rescue of downed helicopter crews, as a cargo hold esp. for transfer flights and as additional space for future mission equipment or extra fuel.
In vertical flight, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotor system used controls very similar to a twin or tandem-rotor helicopter. Yaw was controlled by tilting its rotors in opposite directions. Roll was provided through differential power or thrust, supported by ailerons on the rear wings. Pitch was provided through rotor cyclic or nacelle tilt and further aerodynamic surfaces on both pairs of wings. Vertical motion was controlled with conventional rotor blade pitch and a control similar to a fixed-wing engine control called a thrust control lever (TCL). The rotor heads had elastomeric bearings and the proprotor blades were made from composite materials, which could sustain 30 mm shells.
The РТАК-30 featured a helmet-mounted display for the pilot, a very modern development at its time. The pilot designated targets for the navigator/weapons officer, who proceeded to fire the weapons required to fulfill that particular task. The integrated surveillance and fire control system had two optical channels providing wide and narrow fields of view, a narrow-field-of-view optical television channel, and a laser rangefinder. The system could move within 110 degrees in azimuth and from +13 to −40 degrees in elevation and was placed in a spherical dome on top of the fuselage, just behind the cockpit.
The aircraft carried one automatic 2A42 30 mm internal gun, mounted semi-rigidly fixed near the center of the fuselage, movable only slightly in elevation and azimuth. The arrangement was also regarded as being more practical than a classic free-turning turret mount for the aircraft’s considerably higher flight speed than a normal helicopter. As a side effect, the semi-rigid mounting improved the cannon's accuracy, giving the 30 mm a longer practical range and better hit ratio at medium ranges. Ammunition supply was 460 rounds, with separate compartments for high-fragmentation, explosive incendiary, or armor-piercing rounds. The type of ammunition could be selected by the pilot during flight.
The gunner can select one of two rates of full automatic fire, low at 200 to 300 rds/min and high at 550 to 800 rds/min. The effective range when engaging ground targets such as light armored vehicles is 1,500 m, while soft-skinned targets can be engaged out to 4,000 m. Air targets can be engaged flying at low altitudes of up to 2,000 m and up to a slant range of 2,500 m.
A substantial range of weapons could be carried on four hardpoints under the front wings, plus three more under the fuselage, for a total ordnance of up to 2,500 kg (with reduced internal fuel). The РТАК-30‘s main armament comprised up to 24 laser-guided Vikhr missiles with a maximum range of some 8 km. These tube-launched missiles could be used against ground and aerial targets. A search and tracking radar was housed in a thimble radome on the РТАК-30’s nose and their laser guidance system (mounted in a separate turret under the radome) was reported to be virtually jam-proof. The system furthermore featured automatic guidance to the target, enabling evasive action immediately after missile launch. Alternatively, the system was also compatible with Ataka laser-guided anti-tank missiles.
Other weapon options included laser- or TV-guided Kh-25 missiles as well as iron bombs and napalm tanks of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber and several rocket pods, including the S-13 and S-8 rockets. The "dumb" rocket pods could be upgraded to laser guidance with the proposed Ugroza system. Against helicopters and aircraft the РТАК-30 could carry up to four R-60 and/or R-73 IR-guided AAMs. Drop tanks and gun pods could be carried, too.
When the РТАК-30's proprotors were perpendicular to the motion in the high-speed portions of the flight regime, the aircraft demonstrated a relatively high maximum speed: over 300 knots/560 km/h top speed were achieved during state acceptance trials in 1987, as well as sustained cruise speeds of 250 knots/460 km/h, which was almost twice as fast as a conventional helicopter. Furthermore, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotors and stub wings provided the aircraft with a substantially greater cruise altitude capability than conventional helicopters: during the prototypes’ tests the machines easily reached 6,000 m / 20,000 ft or more, whereas helicopters typically do not exceed 3,000 m / 10,000 ft altitude.
Flight tests in general and flight control system refinement in specific lasted until late 1988, and while the vintoplan concept proved to be sound, the technical and practical problems persisted. The aircraft was complex and heavy, and pilots found the machine to be hazardous to land, due to its low ground clearance. Due to structural limits the machine could also never be brought to its expected agility limits
During that time the Soviet Union’s internal tensions rose and more and more hampered the РТАК-30’s development. During this time, two of the prototypes were lost (the 1st and 4th machine) in accidents, and in 1989 only two machines were left in flightworthy condition (the 5th airframe had been set aside for structural ground tests). Nevertheless, the РТАК-30 made its public debut at the Paris Air Show in June 1989 (the 3rd prototype, coded “33 Yellow”), together with the Mi-28A, but was only shown in static display and did not take part in any flight show. After that, the aircraft received the NATO ASCC code "Hemlock" and caused serious concern in Western military headquarters, since the РТАК-30 had the potential to dominate the European battlefield.
And this was just about to happen: Despite the РТАК-30’s development problems, the innovative attack vintoplan was included in the Soviet Union’s 5-year plan for 1989-1995, and the vehicle was eventually expected to enter service in 1996. However, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dwindling economics, neither the РТАК-30 nor its civil Mil Mi-30 sister did soar out in the new age of technology. In 1990 the whole program was stopped and both surviving РТАК-30 prototypes were mothballed – one (the 3rd prototype) was disassembled and its components brought to the Rostov-na-Donu Mil plant, while the other, prototype No. 1, is rumored to be stored at the Central Russian Air Force Museum in Monino, to be restored to a public exhibition piece some day.
General characteristics:
Crew: Two (pilot, copilot/WSO) plus space for up to three passengers or cargo
Length: 45 ft 7 1/2 in (13,93 m)
Rotor diameter: 20 ft 9 in (6,33 m)
Wingspan incl. engine nacelles: 42 ft 8 1/4 in (13,03 m)
Total width with rotors: 58 ft 8 1/2 in (17,93 m)
Height: 17 ft (5,18 m) at top of tailfin
Disc area: 4x 297 ft² (27,65 m²)
Wing area: 342.2 ft² (36,72 m²)
Empty weight: 8,500 kg (18,740 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 12,000 kg (26,500 lb)
Powerplant:
4× Klimov VK-2500PS-03 turboshaft turbines, 2,400 hp (1.765 kW) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 275 knots (509 km/h, 316 mph) at sea level
305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)
Cruise speed: 241 kn (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level
Stall speed: 110 kn (126 mph, 204 km/h) in airplane mode
Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)
Combat radius: 390 nmi (426 mi, 722 km)
Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (2,230 mi, 3,590 km) with auxiliary external fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
Rate of climb: 2,320–4,000 ft/min (11.8 m/s)
Glide ratio: 4.5:1
Disc loading: 20.9 lb/ft² at 47,500 lb GW (102.23 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)
Armament:
1× 30 mm (1.18 in) 2A42 multi-purpose autocannon with 450 rounds
7 external hardpoints for a maximum ordnance of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb)
The kit and its assembly:
This exotic, fictional aircraft-thing is a contribution to the “The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2019. While the propulsion system itself is not that unconventional, I deemed the quadrocopter concept (which had already been on my agenda for a while) to be suitable for a worthy submission.
The Mil Mi-30 tiltrotor aircraft, mentioned in the background above, was a real project – but my alternative combat vintoplan design is purely speculative.
I had already stashed away some donor parts, primarily two sets of tiltrotor backpacks for 1:144 Gundam mecha from Bandai, which had been released recently. While these looked a little toy-like, these parts had the charm of coming with handed propellers and stub wings that would allow the engine nacelles to swivel.
The search for a suitable fuselage turned out to be a more complex safari than expected. My initial choice was the spoofy Italeri Mi-28 kit (I initially wanted a staggered tandem cockpit), but it turned out to be much too big for what I wanted to achieve. Then I tested a “real” Mi-28 (Dragon) and a Ka-50 (Italeri), but both failed for different reasons – the Mi-28 was too slender, while the Ka-50 had the right size – but converting it for my build would have been VERY complicated, because the engine nacelles would have to go and the fuselage shape between the cockpit and the fuselage section around the original engines and stub wings would be hard to adapt. I eventually bought an Italeri Ka-52 two-seater as fuselage donor.
In order to mount the four engines to the fuselage I’d need two pairs of wings of appropriate span – and I found a pair of 1:100 A-10 wings as well as the wings from an 1:72 PZL Iskra (not perfect, but the most suitable donor parts I could find in the junkyard). On the tips of these wings, the swiveling joints for the engine nacelles from the Bandai set were glued. While mounting the rear wings was not too difficult (just the Ka-52’s OOB stabilizers had to go), the front pair of wings was more complex. The reason: the Ka-52’s engines had to go and their attachment points, which are actually shallow recesses on the kit, had to be faired over first. Instead of filling everything with putty I decided to cover the areas with 0.5mm styrene sheet first, and then do cosmetic PSR work. This worked quite well and also included a cover for the Ka-52’s original rotor mast mount. Onto these new flanks the pair of front wings was attached, in a mid position – a conceptual mistake…
The cockpit was taken OOB and the aircraft’s nose received an additional thimble radome, reminiscent of the Mi-28’s arrangement. The radome itself was created from a German 500 kg WWII bomb.
At this stage, the mid-wing mistake reared its ugly head – it had two painful consequences which I had not fully thought through. Problem #1: the engine nacelles turned out to be too long. When rotated into a vertical position, they’d potentially hit the ground! Furthermore, the ground clearance was very low – and I decided to skip the Ka-52’s OOB landing gear in favor of a heavier and esp. longer alternative, a full landing gear set from an Italeri MiG-37 “Ferret E” stealth fighter, which itself resembles a MiG-23/27 landing gear. Due to the expected higher speeds of the vintoplan I gave the landing gear full covers (partly scratched, plus some donor parts from an Academy MiG-27). It took some trials to get the new landing gear into the right position and a suitable stance – but it worked. With this benchmark I was also able to modify the engine nacelles, shortening their rear ends. They were still very (too!) close to the ground, but at least the model would not sit on them!
However, the more complete the model became, the more design flaws turned up. Another mistake is that the front and rear rotors slightly overlap when in vertical position – something that would be unthinkable in real life…
With all major components in place, however, detail work could proceed. This included the completion of the cockpit and the sensor turrets, the Ka-52 cannon and finally the ordnance. Due to the large rotors, any armament had to be concentrated around the fuselage, outside of the propeller discs. For this reason (and in order to prevent the rear engines to ingest exhaust gases from the front engines in level flight), I gave the front wings a slightly larger span, so that four underwing pylons could be fitted, plus a pair of underfuselage hardpoints.
The ordnance was puzzled together from the Italeri Ka-52 and from an ESCI Ka-34 (the fake Ka-50) kit.
Painting and markings:
With such an exotic aircraft, I rather wanted a conservative livery and opted for a typical Soviet tactical four-tone scheme from the Eighties – the idea was to build a prototype aircraft from the state acceptance trials period, not a flashy demonstrator. The scheme and the (guesstimated) colors were transferred from a Soviet air force MiG-21bis of that era, and it consists of a reddish light brown (Humbrol 119, Light Earth), a light, yellowish green (Humbrol 159, Khaki Drab), a bluish dark green (Humbrol 195, Dark Satin Green, a.k.a. RAL 6020 Chromdioxidgrün) and a dark brown (Humbrol 170, Brown Bess). For the undersides’ typical bluish grey I chose Humbrol 145 (FS 35237, Gray Blue), which is slightly lighter and less greenish than the typical Soviet tones. A light black ink wash was applied and some light post-shading was done in order to create panels that are structurally not there, augmented by some pencil lines.
The cockpit became light blue (Humbrol 89), with medium gray dashboard and consoles. The ejection seats received bright yellow seatbelts and bright blue pads – a detail seen on a Mi-28 cockpit picture.
Some dielectric fairings like the fin tip were painted in bright medium green (Humbrol 101), while some other antenna fairings were painted in pale yellow (Humbrol 71).
The landing gear struts and the interior of the wells became Aluminum Metalic (Humbrol 56), the wheels dark green discs (Humbrol 30).
The decals were puzzled together from various sources, including some Begemot sheets. Most of the stencils came from the Ka-52 OOB sheet, and generic decal sheet material was used to mark the walkways or the rotor tips and leading edges.
Only some light weathering was done to the leading edges of the wings, and then the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
A complex kitbashing project, and it revealed some pitfalls in the course of making. However, the result looks menacing and still convincing, esp. in flight – even though the picture editing, with four artificially rotating proprotors, was probably more tedious than building the model itself!
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the model, the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Me 309 project began in mid-1940, just as the Bf 109 was having its first encounters with the Spitfire in the Battle of Britain, the first aircraft to match the 109 in speed and performance. Already, Messerschmitt anticipated the need for an improved design to replace the Bf 109. The Reich Air Ministry, however, did not feel the same urgency, with the project given a low priority, resulting in the design not being finalized until the end of 1941.
The new fighter had many novel features, such as tricycle landing gear (with a nose gear strut that twisted through 90° during retraction, to a "flat" orientation under the engine) and a pressurized cockpit, which would have given it more comfortable and effective high-altitude performance. Each of the new features was first tested on a number of Bf 109F airframes, the V23 having a ventral radiator, the V31 with a radiator and tricycle landing gear, and the V30 having a pressurized cockpit.
Low government interest in the project delayed completion of the first prototype until spring 1942, and trouble with the nose wheel pushed back the 309's first flight to July. When it did fly, the Me 309's performance was satisfactory – about 50 km/h (30 mph) faster than a standard Bf 109G – but not exemplary. In fact, the Bf 109G could out-turn its intended replacement. With the addition of armament, the aircraft's speed decreased to an unacceptable level. In light of its poor performance and the much more promising development of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190D, the Me 309 in its original form was canceled.
However, the design was not dead and eventually found its way into the Me 509 (with a mid-engine layout) and the Me 609 (a heavy fighter which joined two Me 309 fuselages with a new centre wing section). By the time designs were being ironed out in the course of 1943, revolutionary turbojet engines became operational and with them new designs like the Me 262 or the He 162. These promised superior performance concerning speed, but they had only a short range and the new turbojets’ reliability was poor.
In another attempt to keep the Me 309 alive, Franz Hirschleitner, a young engineer who had formerly worked for Blohm & Voss, proposed the addition of a turbojet engine to the piston fighter as a booster. This would combine the range and reliability of the old technology with the new engine’s potential gain of speed. Having worked on the innovative Bv 141 reconnaissance aircraft before, Hirschleitner proposed an unusual solution for the Me 309 update: since as many original parts of the fighter were to be retained (what ruled out a redesign of the fuselage to carry the turbojet engine), he presented an asymmetrical layout which added a new pod with the cockpit, the armament and an underslung BMW 003 turbojet, which was connected to the Me 309 fuselage with a short wing. The Me 309 fuselage itself was virtually identical with the original fighter, just the weapons had been deleted from it (saving weight) and the former cockpit was faired over, the internal space being used for additional fuel tanks. The outer wings were taken from the Me 309, too, except for a reinforced landing gear which now retracted outwards, so that the aircraft’s track width was kept in acceptable limits. The front wheel still retracted into the Me 309 fuselage.
This aircraft, called the Me 309 T (for “Turbine” = jet engine), was envisioned as a heavy single-seat fighter, armed with four 30 mm cannon. Hardpoints under the middle wing section allowed an external ordnance of 1.000 kg (2.202 lb), including two bombs of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber each or two 300l drop tanks. Furthermore, the cockpit pod was large enough to add a second crew member under an extended canopy, so that the type could also be developed into a night fighter with a radar.
Despite initial skepticism at the Messerschmitt design bureau, Hirschleitner’s proposal was accepted and presented to the RLM in late 1943. Not surprisingly, it was rejected at first for being “too innovative”. Nevertheless, growing pressure from the Allied forces made the RLM reconsider the Hirschleitner design, since it was based on existing components and could be quickly realized. Therefore, the Me 309 T was ordered into production as the T-0 version in Spring 1944. From these initial aircraft, 12 were produced until August 1944 and used for field tests and conversion training. The T-0 was powered by a DB 603G and a BMW 003C and armed with four MK 108 machine cannon. These initial frontline tests lasted until December 1945 and the aircraft was ordered into full production as the T-1.
Just as the first production machines left the factories in April 1945, an upgraded variant, the T-2, was introduced. It shared the same airframe as the earlier variants but had an upgraded turbojet engine, a BMW 003D, which offered 10.76 kN (2,420 lbf) of thrust instead of the former 8.81 kN (1,980 lbf), together with improved reliability. The armament was upgraded, too: Two of the MK 108s were replaced by MK 103 30 mm machine cannon, a weapon that offered a much higher range and penetration power, so that the aircraft could fire effectively while keeping outside of the Allied bombers' defensive fire, which now frequently entered German airspace. Furthermore a Rüstsatz (R1) was introduced which put two additional MK 108 behind the cockpit, firing obliquely upwards as "schräge Musik" .
Despite the acceptable performance, which made it superior to pure piston-driven fighters of the time like the Republic P-47 or the North American P-51D, the Me 309 T was not very popular among the pilots. The handling on the ground was difficult, not only because of the offset front wheel, but also due to the fact that the left fuselage blocked almost the complete portside field of view. This flaw also created a significant blind spot during flight. Furthermore, getting the Me 309 T into the air without the support from the jet engine could be a gamble, too, esp. when the machine carried external loads. The BMW 003D, even though its reliability had been improved over time, was prone to failure, and the resulting lack of thrust made it a dead weight that severely hampered the aircraft's performance. All in all, only 123 machines were eventually built, with no two-seat night fighter or a trainer ever produced.
General characteristics:
Crew: one
Length: 9.46 m (31 ft 0 in)
Wingspan: 13.60 m (44 ft 7 in)
Height: 3.9 m (12 ft 10 in)
Wing area: 21.1 m² (226 sq ft)
Empty weight: 3,795 kg (8,367 lb)
Gross weight: 6,473 kg (14,271 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 7,130 kg (15,719 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Daimler-Benz DB 603G inverted V-12 liquid-cooled piston engine, 1,287 kW (1,726 hp)
1× BMW 003D (TL 109-003) turbojet with 10.76 kN (2,420 lbf) / 10,000 rpm / sea level
Performance:
Maximum speed: 840 km/h (522 mph, 464 kn) with both powerplants
695 km/h (431 mph, 383 kn) with the DB 603G only
Cruise speed: 665 km/h (413 mph, 359 kn)
Range: 1,100 km (680 mi, 590 nmi)
Service ceiling: 12,000 m (39,000 ft)
Wing loading: 256 kg/m2 (52 lb/sq ft)
Power/mass: 0.31 kW/kg (0.19 hp/lb)
Armament:
2× 30 mm (.1.181 in) MK 103 cannon
2× 30 mm (.1.181 in) MK 108 cannon
Underwing hardpoints for a total external ordnance of 1.000 kg (2.202 lb)
The kit and its assembly:
This model went through a prolonged development phase. It is based on the question whether an asymmetrical Blohm & Voss design could be made compact enough for a fighter aircraft? Aircraft like the Bv 141 reconnaissance aircraft (which actually flew) or the P-194 attack aircraft (which only existed as a paper project) were considerably bigger than typical single seat fighters.
While doing legwork I also found the relatively compact Blohm & Voss P-197 project in literature, which already came closer to my idea - I initally planned to build something along its lines, based on a Revell P-194 kit, but the latter turned out to be too big for this plan and I shelved the idea again.
However, the projected lingered in the back of my mind and was soon revived through the idea of using a Fw 190D fuselage as an alternative. But, alas, I still did not find the affair to be convincing enough for a build, also because of conceptual problems with the landing gear.
Then I eventually stumbled upon a HUMA Me 609 in the stash and considered a "modernized" asymmetrical layout with a tricycle landing gear. And this became the Me 309T.
It sounds so simple: take an aircraft model and add the cockpit pod, together with a new wing middle section. But turning this plan into hardware caused serious headaches. The biggest issue became the landing gear: the only space to stow the main landing gear would be the outer wings. Bu using the original Me 309 landing gear, which retracted inwards and already had a wide track, was impossible. So I decided to "reverse" the landing gear wells for an outward-retracting arrangement. Easier said than done, because the thin Me 309 wings come as single pieces in the HUMA kit: I had to cut out the complete well section on each wing, switch it around and re-sculpt the wings' profiles and surfaces. A lot of work!
The Me 309 fuselage was built OOB and I used the cockpit cover that comes with the Me 609 kit. The Bv P-194 cockpit pod with the jet engine was built OOB, too, but the wing attachment points had to be heavily re-sculpted because the P-194's wings are much deeper and thicker than the Me 309's. For the same reason I could not use the P-194's mid wing section - I had to scratch one from a leftover section of a VEB Plasticart 1:100 An-12, styrene sheet and putty. Messy affair, but at least it matches the outer Me 309 wings in shape and thickness.
A lot of putty was furthermore needed to finish the Me 309 fuselage and re-build all the wing/fuselage intersections. The HUMA Me 309 is a very basic affair, and fit as well as detail are mediocre, putting it in a polite fashion. The Revell P-194 is a little better, but it has many doubtful details like a pilot seat and canopy for pygmies or a poorly fitting jet exhaust section.
Thanks to the wing surgery, the Me 309's OOB landing gear could be retained - it looks pretty stalky, though, and the front wheel strut comes very close to the propeller disc.
Sice the HUMA Me 609 does not come with separate stabilizers I finally had to improvise again: I initially considered and asymmetrical layout (somewhat compensating for the cockpit pod on the starboard side with and extended span at port side), but when I saw how close the fuselages were, I settled upon an enlarged, convetional layout in the form of stabilizers from a Heller He 112.
Painting and markings:
This caused some headaches, too. I did not want a "conventional" late WWII Luftwaffe scheme, even though I wanted to use standard RLM colors. I eventually found inspiration in Me 262 recce aircraft, which frequently featured a unique paint scheme in the form of an overall RLM 76 livery onto which very fine dots or ondulating, thin lines in one or more darker contrast colors (RLM 81 and/or 83) were painted or sprayed. At first In wanted to adapt this scheme to the whole aircraft, but eventually decided to give the wings' upper surfaces a different, more "planar" scheme.
So, the whole model initially received and overall coat of RLM 76 (Humbrol 247), with the wings' undersides left in bare metal and the rudders painted in a greenish-grey primer. The cover of the DB 603 was kept in bare metal, too.
Contrast areas in RLM 81 and 83 (Braunviolett and Dunkelgrün, both from ModelMaster's Authentic line) were added onto the top of the wings, while I painted the fuselages and the fin with a semi-translucent "snake" pattern in RLM 82 (Humbrol 102).
The decals come from a Sky Models Fw 190A/F sheet, the crosses on the fuselage and under the wings come from a generic TL Modellbau sheet.
The cockpit interior as well as the landing gear wells were painted in very dark grey (Revell 09), while the landing gear struts became RLM 02 (Revell 45). The spinner received a black-and-white spiral, with black green propeller blades.
Well, I am not 100% happy with the result. While the overall model looks quite balanced, I am not happy with the finish - partly due to the massive use of putty and the fact that I had to mount parts in a fashion that the kits' manufacturers never expected to happen, but also due to the paint: The Humbrol enamels that I used turned out to be from the poor batch when the fabrication was moved to Belgium a while ago. With the result of a poor and gooey quality. That could have gone better. :-(
Nevertheless, I like the odd look of the asymmetrical design, esp. with the tricycle landing gear. From certain angles, the model looks really weird! And I am amazed how good the camouflage works - it's really disruptive.
+++ 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 Lavochkin OKB was founded in 1937 as OKB-301, a Soviet aircraft design bureau. The head designer was Vladimir P. Gorbunov. On October, 1945 Semyon Lavochkin was promoted for the head designer of the design bureau. The OKB gained distinction for its family of piston-engined fighter aircraft during World War II, and later shifted to missile and jet fighter designs.
The latter comprised several experimental designs that were build in order to test the potential of jet engines and swept wings - a heritage from WWII. One of these designs was the light Aircraft 160, with a pod-and-boom layout and powered by a single RD-10 axial turbojet.
Despite the flight success of Aircraft 160, Lavochkin also followed an alternative route: a heavier aircraft that carried two engines under its wings. Knowing that the standard RD-10 (actually a poor copy of the German Jumo 004B jet engine that had powered, among others, the Me 262) did not supply enough power for a serious single engine fighter aircraft, Aircraft 170.
Like the contemporary Suchoj Su-9 fighter, Aircraft 170 resembled the Me 262 a lot, even though it was no copy. Its most innovative feature were wings with a 40° sweep at 1/4 chord, mounted in a mid-position and with an almost constant chord from root to tip. A pair of Tumansky RD-10 jet engines was carried in sleek nacelles that were directly attached to the wings' undersurfaces. Tail surfaces were swept, too, the elevator placed high, close to the fin's top in order to keep it away from any jet efflux.
Aircraft 170 had a circular cross-section, all-metal stressed skin monocoque fuselage that housed a single, pressurized cockpit. The pilot was protected by armor plates to his front, an armored seat back and a bulletproof windscreen for the bubble canopy. He was provided with an ejection seat, copied from that used in the Heinkel He 162.
The tricycle landing gear was fully retractable; the nose wheel retracted backwards, while the main wheels retracted inwards into the wing roots. Fuel was carried in three main tanks in the fuselage, two auxillary tanks were placed in the wings.
Intended to intercept American bombers like the B-29. To ensure the destruction of such large bombers, the fighter originally carried three cannons in its nose: two 23 mm with 100 rounds per gun and a single 37 mm with 40 rounds.
Construction of a full-scale mockup was completed in June 1947 and two prototypes ordered for flight testing. The first flight was on 24 June 1948 and took place at Khimki airfield, near Moscow. The first prototype was aptly coded "170 Red".
Successful flight trials were quickly followed by public display at the 1948 Aviation Day airshow at Tushino. This flight demonstration was a show because the original RD-10 engines did not provide enough power to lift Aircraft 170 off of the ground at full weight - all cannons had to be removed, and only a limited fuel load for 30 min of flight was carried!
But these flaws remained well hidden and the new type immediately earned the NATO ASCC code "Forkbeard".
Even with these harsh performance limits Aircraft 170 was evaluated in mock air-to-air combat trials with a captured U.S. B-29, as well as the later Soviet B-29 copy, the Tu-4 "Bull". Once up in the air, Aircraft 170 showed the potential of its basic construction and its good handling characteristics, even though the overall lack of power and sluggish as well as unreliable engines kept haunting the tests.
Things were to improve in early 1949 with the installation of indigenous afterburners to the RD-10 engines, especially for take-off and climb. These modified engines were called RD-10 YuF and also tested on board of the single engine Aircraft 160 prototype.
Aircraft 170's engine nacelles were lengthened and widened accordingly, and the modifed 1st prototype was re-designated Aircraft 171, its code being changed into "171 Red". By late 1949, a second prototype had finally been built (coded "172 Red"), directly outfitted with the uprated engine.
Experimentally, a heavy 45mm Nudelman-Suranov NS-45 cannon with 30 rounds was fitted to both aircraft. Combat trials showed that although the NS-45 cannon proved deadly to enemy aircraft, realistically only its first shot could be aimed. A three-round burst, even when fired near the maximum airspeed of Aircraft 171, resulted in a noticeable loss of both airspeed and stability. Vibrations and shock waves were so heavy that sometimes oil lines sprung leaks after the gun was fired! Firing the NS-45 at airspeeds below 350 km/h even shook the pilot back and forth as if in an automobile suddenly decelerating and accelerating!
Trials continued until summer 1951 when "171 Red" broke up in flight, due to wing flutter, during tests to establish the maximum attainable speed. Its sister ship was immediately grounded and the program stopped. At that time the MiG-15 had already entered service successfully, and it offered comparable if not superior performance in almost any respect to the Lavochkin design.
Anyway, the experience gained with Aircraft 171 spurred on Soviet aircraft designers to design swept winged fighters, albeit cautiously. On the other side, the RD-10, even with a (thirsty!) afterburner, proved to be a dead end. Since other engines like the centrifugal flow Klimov VK-1 (a copy of the British Rolls-Royce Nene engine) were hard to integrate into the Aircraft 171's structure. Nevertheless, work with the YuF afterburner helped pave the way to the MiG-15's successor, the MiG-17, powered by the Klimov VK-1F afterburning turbojet, which was accepted into service in mid-1951.
The surviving "172 Red" prototype eventually ended up as an instructional airframe at the Kremenchuk Flight College of the National Aviation University, and it was scrapped in 1965.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 12.78 m (41 ft 10 in)
Wingspan: 11.27 m (36 ft 11 in)
Height: 4.59 m (15 ft 12 in)
Wing area: 21.7 m² (234 ft²)
Empty weight: 4,060 kg (8,951 lb)
Loaded weight: 6,473 kg (14,272 lb)
Fuel capacity: 1.350 kg
Max. takeoff weight: 7,130 kg (15,720 lb)
Powerplant:
2× Tumansky RD-10 YuF axial turbojets, each with 8.83 kN (1,984 lbf)dry thrust
and 11.17 kN (2,510 lbf) with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: 900 km/h (559 mph)
Range: 1,050 km (652 mi)
Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,565 ft)
Rate of climb: 1,200 m/min (At max weight of 7,130 kg) (3,900 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 0.28
Armament:
2x Nudelman-Richter NR-23 23 mm (0.9") cannon in the lower right fuselage with 100 RPG
1x Nudelman-Suranov NS-45 45 mm (1.8") cannon in the lower left fuselage (30 RPG)
The kit and its assembly:
My fourth entry to the early 2016 Cold War GB at whatifmodelers.com. Again, it's a project from the long ideas list that finally made it to the hardware stage through a GB's occasion.
This one was originally inspired by an illustration in what I deem a 1950s book about aircraft, including Soviet designs. Based on vague pictures and probably lots of speculation, it is funny to see what the enemy's aircraft were supposed to look like.
In this case, my benchmark was a rather fictional "Lavochkin La-16" fighter, which looked like a travesty version of a Republic F-84G with engine pods under its wings. Actually, the painting rather shows the Yak-25 all-weather interceptor, but you can only recognize it if you know hat you were looking for!
Anyway, the idea of a modified Thunderstreak had some charm, and this is what my kitbash for a fictional Soviet fighter is based upon. For a stronger retro feeling I used the straight wing F-84G, a Heller kit which donated its fuselage and landing gear.
The wings come from a PM Model Ta 183, the engine nacelles (from a Matchbox Me 262) were inserted as spacers into the wings. Their wing position was defined by the landing gear starts' length.
The original nose air intake was closed with a radome from an F-94C (Emhar) and the tail shortened - mostly because of the new swept tail surfaces, which come from a KP MiG-15 (a horribly crude kit!).
While this combination sounds harmless the integration of the parts took some serious effort and sculpting with putty!
Painting and markings:
As a classic Soviet prototype of the Fifties, choice of livery was simple: an all-metal finish with some Red Stars plus a code number.
At first, and also in order to control the surface finish after all the PSR work, the kit received a uniform coat with "White Aluminum" acrylic spray paint - this revealed several flaws.
Later, after mending many dents and scratches, several silver and grey shades were used on different panel and rudder areas, including Revell Acrylic Aluminum, Alu Plate, Steel, Magnesium and Titanium Metallizer as well as RAF Barley Grey.
The cockpit interior was painted with PRU Blue while the landing gear wells received a more grey-ish coat with FS 35237. Some red dots mark openings for fuel and oil and slightly brighten things up, as well as a red trim tab on the fin.
Grinded graphite was used for a weathered look and to emphasize the metallic impression. Panel lines were painted manually onto wings and fuselage with a very soft pencil.
After decal application (Red Stars from a Hobby Boss MiG-15, the tactical code was puzzled together from various sources) the kit was sealed under a semi-glossy coat of acrylic varnish.
Not a spectacular masterpiece, but a funny build and in so far interesting as Aircraft 171 rather appears like a pregnant Me 262 than a converted F-84F? Even the similarity with the Yak-25 is only remote, mostly in top view where the wing planform with the nacelles resembles the much bigger Soviet interceptor most? Still, this creation carries some of the Fifties/Cold War retro feeling.
+++ 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 on authentic facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The РТАК-30 attack vintoplan (also known as vintokryl) owed its existence to the Mil Mi-30 plane/helicopter project that originated in 1972. The Mil Mi-30 was conceived as a transport aircraft that could hold up to 19 passengers or two tons of cargo, and its purpose was to replace the Mi-8 and Mi-17 Helicopters in both civil and military roles. With vertical takeoff through a pair of tiltrotor engine pods on the wing tips (similar in layout to the later V-22 Osprey) and the ability to fly like a normal plane, the Mil Mi-30 had a clear advantage over the older models.
Since the vintoplan concept was a completely new field of research and engineering, a dedicated design bureau was installed in the mid-Seventies at the Rostov-na-Donu helicopter factory, where most helicopters from the Mil design bureau were produced, under the title Ростов Тилт Ротор Авиационная Компания (Rostov Tilt Rotor Aircraft Company), or РТАК (RTRA), for short.
The vintoplan project lingered for some time, with basic research being conducted concerning aerodynamics, rotor design and flight control systems. Many findings later found their way into conventional planes and helicopters. At the beginning of the 1980s, the project had progressed far enough that the vintoplan received official backing so that РТАК scientists and Mil helicopter engineers assembled and tested several layouts and components for this complicated aircraft type.
At that time the Mil Mi-30 vintoplan was expected to use a single TV3-117 Turbo Shaft Engine with a four-bladed propeller rotors on each of its two pairs of stub wings of almost equal span. The engine was still installed in the fuselage and the proprotors driven by long shafts.
However, while being a very clean design, this original layout revealed several problems concerning aeroelasticity, dynamics of construction, characteristics for the converter apparatuses, aerodynamics and flight dynamics. In the course of further development stages and attempts to rectify the technical issues, the vintoplan layout went through several revisions. The layout shifted consequently from having 4 smaller engines in rotating pods on two pairs of stub wings through three engines with rotating nacelles on the front wings and a fixed, horizontal rotor over the tail and finally back to only 2 engines (much like the initial concept), but this time mounted in rotating nacelles on the wing tips and a canard stabilizer layout.
In August 1981 the Commission of the Presidium of the USSR Council of Ministers on weapons eventually issued a decree on the development of a flyworthy Mil Mi-30 vintoplan prototype. Shortly afterwards the military approved of the vintoplan, too, but desired bigger, more powerful engines in order to improve performance and weight capacity. In the course of the ensuing project refinement, the weight capacity was raised to 3-5 tons and the passenger limit to 32. In parallel, the modified type was also foreseen for civil operations as a short range feederliner, potentially replacing Yak-40 and An-24 airliners in Aeroflot service.
In 1982, РТАК took the interest from the military and proposed a dedicated attack vintoplan, based on former research and existing components of the original transport variant. This project was accepted by MAP and received the separate designation РТАК-30. However, despite having some close technical relations to the Mi-30 transport (primarily the engine nacelles, their rotation mechanism and the flight control systems), the РТАК-30 was a completely different aircraft. The timing was good, though, and the proposal was met with much interest, since the innovative vintoplan concept was to compete against traditional helicopters: the design work on the dedicated Mi-28 and Ka-50 attack helicopters had just started at that time, too, so that РТАК received green lights for the construction of five prototypes: four flyworthy machines plus one more for static ground tests.
The РТАК-30 was based on one of the early Mi-30 layouts and it combined two pairs of mid-set wings with different wing spans with a tall tail fin that ensured directional stability. Each wing carried a rotating engine nacelle with a so-called proprotor on its tip, each with three high aspect ratio blades. The proprotors were handed (i.e. revolved in opposite directions) in order to minimize torque effects and improve handling, esp. in the hover. The front and back pair of engines were cross-linked among each other on a common driveshaft, eliminating engine-out asymmetric thrust problems during V/STOL operations. In the event of the failure of one engine, it would automatically disconnect through torque spring clutches and both propellers on a pair of wings would be driven by the remaining engine.
Four engines were chosen because, despite the weight and complexity penalty, this extra power was expected to be required in order to achieve a performance that was markedly superior to a conventional helicopter like the Mi-24, the primary Soviet attack helicopter of that era the РТАК-30 was supposed to replace. It was also expected that the rotating nacelles could also be used to improve agility in level flight through a mild form of vectored thrust.
The РТАК-30’s streamlined fuselage provided ample space for avionics, fuel, a fully retractable tricycle landing gear and a two man crew in an armored side-by-side cockpit with ejection seats. The windshield was able to withstand 12.7–14.5 mm caliber bullets, the titanium cockpit tub could take hits from 20 mm cannon. An autonomous power unit (APU) was housed in the fuselage, too, making operations of the aircraft independent from ground support.
While the РТАК-30 was not intended for use as a transport, the fuselage was spacious enough to have a small compartment between the front wings spars, capable of carrying up to three people. The purpose of this was the rescue of downed helicopter crews, as a cargo hold esp. for transfer flights and as additional space for future mission equipment or extra fuel.
In vertical flight, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotor system used controls very similar to a twin or tandem-rotor helicopter. Yaw was controlled by tilting its rotors in opposite directions. Roll was provided through differential power or thrust, supported by ailerons on the rear wings. Pitch was provided through rotor cyclic or nacelle tilt and further aerodynamic surfaces on both pairs of wings. Vertical motion was controlled with conventional rotor blade pitch and a control similar to a fixed-wing engine control called a thrust control lever (TCL). The rotor heads had elastomeric bearings and the proprotor blades were made from composite materials, which could sustain 30 mm shells.
The РТАК-30 featured a helmet-mounted display for the pilot, a very modern development at its time. The pilot designated targets for the navigator/weapons officer, who proceeded to fire the weapons required to fulfill that particular task. The integrated surveillance and fire control system had two optical channels providing wide and narrow fields of view, a narrow-field-of-view optical television channel, and a laser rangefinder. The system could move within 110 degrees in azimuth and from +13 to −40 degrees in elevation and was placed in a spherical dome on top of the fuselage, just behind the cockpit.
The aircraft carried one automatic 2A42 30 mm internal gun, mounted semi-rigidly fixed near the center of the fuselage, movable only slightly in elevation and azimuth. The arrangement was also regarded as being more practical than a classic free-turning turret mount for the aircraft’s considerably higher flight speed than a normal helicopter. As a side effect, the semi-rigid mounting improved the cannon's accuracy, giving the 30 mm a longer practical range and better hit ratio at medium ranges. Ammunition supply was 460 rounds, with separate compartments for high-fragmentation, explosive incendiary, or armor-piercing rounds. The type of ammunition could be selected by the pilot during flight.
The gunner can select one of two rates of full automatic fire, low at 200 to 300 rds/min and high at 550 to 800 rds/min. The effective range when engaging ground targets such as light armored vehicles is 1,500 m, while soft-skinned targets can be engaged out to 4,000 m. Air targets can be engaged flying at low altitudes of up to 2,000 m and up to a slant range of 2,500 m.
A substantial range of weapons could be carried on four hardpoints under the front wings, plus three more under the fuselage, for a total ordnance of up to 2,500 kg (with reduced internal fuel). The РТАК-30‘s main armament comprised up to 24 laser-guided Vikhr missiles with a maximum range of some 8 km. These tube-launched missiles could be used against ground and aerial targets. A search and tracking radar was housed in a thimble radome on the РТАК-30’s nose and their laser guidance system (mounted in a separate turret under the radome) was reported to be virtually jam-proof. The system furthermore featured automatic guidance to the target, enabling evasive action immediately after missile launch. Alternatively, the system was also compatible with Ataka laser-guided anti-tank missiles.
Other weapon options included laser- or TV-guided Kh-25 missiles as well as iron bombs and napalm tanks of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber and several rocket pods, including the S-13 and S-8 rockets. The "dumb" rocket pods could be upgraded to laser guidance with the proposed Ugroza system. Against helicopters and aircraft the РТАК-30 could carry up to four R-60 and/or R-73 IR-guided AAMs. Drop tanks and gun pods could be carried, too.
When the РТАК-30's proprotors were perpendicular to the motion in the high-speed portions of the flight regime, the aircraft demonstrated a relatively high maximum speed: over 300 knots/560 km/h top speed were achieved during state acceptance trials in 1987, as well as sustained cruise speeds of 250 knots/460 km/h, which was almost twice as fast as a conventional helicopter. Furthermore, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotors and stub wings provided the aircraft with a substantially greater cruise altitude capability than conventional helicopters: during the prototypes’ tests the machines easily reached 6,000 m / 20,000 ft or more, whereas helicopters typically do not exceed 3,000 m / 10,000 ft altitude.
Flight tests in general and flight control system refinement in specific lasted until late 1988, and while the vintoplan concept proved to be sound, the technical and practical problems persisted. The aircraft was complex and heavy, and pilots found the machine to be hazardous to land, due to its low ground clearance. Due to structural limits the machine could also never be brought to its expected agility limits
During that time the Soviet Union’s internal tensions rose and more and more hampered the РТАК-30’s development. During this time, two of the prototypes were lost (the 1st and 4th machine) in accidents, and in 1989 only two machines were left in flightworthy condition (the 5th airframe had been set aside for structural ground tests). Nevertheless, the РТАК-30 made its public debut at the Paris Air Show in June 1989 (the 3rd prototype, coded “33 Yellow”), together with the Mi-28A, but was only shown in static display and did not take part in any flight show. After that, the aircraft received the NATO ASCC code "Hemlock" and caused serious concern in Western military headquarters, since the РТАК-30 had the potential to dominate the European battlefield.
And this was just about to happen: Despite the РТАК-30’s development problems, the innovative attack vintoplan was included in the Soviet Union’s 5-year plan for 1989-1995, and the vehicle was eventually expected to enter service in 1996. However, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dwindling economics, neither the РТАК-30 nor its civil Mil Mi-30 sister did soar out in the new age of technology. In 1990 the whole program was stopped and both surviving РТАК-30 prototypes were mothballed – one (the 3rd prototype) was disassembled and its components brought to the Rostov-na-Donu Mil plant, while the other, prototype No. 1, is rumored to be stored at the Central Russian Air Force Museum in Monino, to be restored to a public exhibition piece some day.
General characteristics:
Crew: Two (pilot, copilot/WSO) plus space for up to three passengers or cargo
Length: 45 ft 7 1/2 in (13,93 m)
Rotor diameter: 20 ft 9 in (6,33 m)
Wingspan incl. engine nacelles: 42 ft 8 1/4 in (13,03 m)
Total width with rotors: 58 ft 8 1/2 in (17,93 m)
Height: 17 ft (5,18 m) at top of tailfin
Disc area: 4x 297 ft² (27,65 m²)
Wing area: 342.2 ft² (36,72 m²)
Empty weight: 8,500 kg (18,740 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 12,000 kg (26,500 lb)
Powerplant:
4× Klimov VK-2500PS-03 turboshaft turbines, 2,400 hp (1.765 kW) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 275 knots (509 km/h, 316 mph) at sea level
305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)
Cruise speed: 241 kn (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level
Stall speed: 110 kn (126 mph, 204 km/h) in airplane mode
Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)
Combat radius: 390 nmi (426 mi, 722 km)
Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (2,230 mi, 3,590 km) with auxiliary external fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
Rate of climb: 2,320–4,000 ft/min (11.8 m/s)
Glide ratio: 4.5:1
Disc loading: 20.9 lb/ft² at 47,500 lb GW (102.23 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)
Armament:
1× 30 mm (1.18 in) 2A42 multi-purpose autocannon with 450 rounds
7 external hardpoints for a maximum ordnance of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb)
The kit and its assembly:
This exotic, fictional aircraft-thing is a contribution to the “The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2019. While the propulsion system itself is not that unconventional, I deemed the quadrocopter concept (which had already been on my agenda for a while) to be suitable for a worthy submission.
The Mil Mi-30 tiltrotor aircraft, mentioned in the background above, was a real project – but my alternative combat vintoplan design is purely speculative.
I had already stashed away some donor parts, primarily two sets of tiltrotor backpacks for 1:144 Gundam mecha from Bandai, which had been released recently. While these looked a little toy-like, these parts had the charm of coming with handed propellers and stub wings that would allow the engine nacelles to swivel.
The search for a suitable fuselage turned out to be a more complex safari than expected. My initial choice was the spoofy Italeri Mi-28 kit (I initially wanted a staggered tandem cockpit), but it turned out to be much too big for what I wanted to achieve. Then I tested a “real” Mi-28 (Dragon) and a Ka-50 (Italeri), but both failed for different reasons – the Mi-28 was too slender, while the Ka-50 had the right size – but converting it for my build would have been VERY complicated, because the engine nacelles would have to go and the fuselage shape between the cockpit and the fuselage section around the original engines and stub wings would be hard to adapt. I eventually bought an Italeri Ka-52 two-seater as fuselage donor.
In order to mount the four engines to the fuselage I’d need two pairs of wings of appropriate span – and I found a pair of 1:100 A-10 wings as well as the wings from an 1:72 PZL Iskra (not perfect, but the most suitable donor parts I could find in the junkyard). On the tips of these wings, the swiveling joints for the engine nacelles from the Bandai set were glued. While mounting the rear wings was not too difficult (just the Ka-52’s OOB stabilizers had to go), the front pair of wings was more complex. The reason: the Ka-52’s engines had to go and their attachment points, which are actually shallow recesses on the kit, had to be faired over first. Instead of filling everything with putty I decided to cover the areas with 0.5mm styrene sheet first, and then do cosmetic PSR work. This worked quite well and also included a cover for the Ka-52’s original rotor mast mount. Onto these new flanks the pair of front wings was attached, in a mid position – a conceptual mistake…
The cockpit was taken OOB and the aircraft’s nose received an additional thimble radome, reminiscent of the Mi-28’s arrangement. The radome itself was created from a German 500 kg WWII bomb.
At this stage, the mid-wing mistake reared its ugly head – it had two painful consequences which I had not fully thought through. Problem #1: the engine nacelles turned out to be too long. When rotated into a vertical position, they’d potentially hit the ground! Furthermore, the ground clearance was very low – and I decided to skip the Ka-52’s OOB landing gear in favor of a heavier and esp. longer alternative, a full landing gear set from an Italeri MiG-37 “Ferret E” stealth fighter, which itself resembles a MiG-23/27 landing gear. Due to the expected higher speeds of the vintoplan I gave the landing gear full covers (partly scratched, plus some donor parts from an Academy MiG-27). It took some trials to get the new landing gear into the right position and a suitable stance – but it worked. With this benchmark I was also able to modify the engine nacelles, shortening their rear ends. They were still very (too!) close to the ground, but at least the model would not sit on them!
However, the more complete the model became, the more design flaws turned up. Another mistake is that the front and rear rotors slightly overlap when in vertical position – something that would be unthinkable in real life…
With all major components in place, however, detail work could proceed. This included the completion of the cockpit and the sensor turrets, the Ka-52 cannon and finally the ordnance. Due to the large rotors, any armament had to be concentrated around the fuselage, outside of the propeller discs. For this reason (and in order to prevent the rear engines to ingest exhaust gases from the front engines in level flight), I gave the front wings a slightly larger span, so that four underwing pylons could be fitted, plus a pair of underfuselage hardpoints.
The ordnance was puzzled together from the Italeri Ka-52 and from an ESCI Ka-34 (the fake Ka-50) kit.
Painting and markings:
With such an exotic aircraft, I rather wanted a conservative livery and opted for a typical Soviet tactical four-tone scheme from the Eighties – the idea was to build a prototype aircraft from the state acceptance trials period, not a flashy demonstrator. The scheme and the (guesstimated) colors were transferred from a Soviet air force MiG-21bis of that era, and it consists of a reddish light brown (Humbrol 119, Light Earth), a light, yellowish green (Humbrol 159, Khaki Drab), a bluish dark green (Humbrol 195, Dark Satin Green, a.k.a. RAL 6020 Chromdioxidgrün) and a dark brown (Humbrol 170, Brown Bess). For the undersides’ typical bluish grey I chose Humbrol 145 (FS 35237, Gray Blue), which is slightly lighter and less greenish than the typical Soviet tones. A light black ink wash was applied and some light post-shading was done in order to create panels that are structurally not there, augmented by some pencil lines.
The cockpit became light blue (Humbrol 89), with medium gray dashboard and consoles. The ejection seats received bright yellow seatbelts and bright blue pads – a detail seen on a Mi-28 cockpit picture.
Some dielectric fairings like the fin tip were painted in bright medium green (Humbrol 101), while some other antenna fairings were painted in pale yellow (Humbrol 71).
The landing gear struts and the interior of the wells became Aluminum Metalic (Humbrol 56), the wheels dark green discs (Humbrol 30).
The decals were puzzled together from various sources, including some Begemot sheets. Most of the stencils came from the Ka-52 OOB sheet, and generic decal sheet material was used to mark the walkways or the rotor tips and leading edges.
Only some light weathering was done to the leading edges of the wings, and then the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
A complex kitbashing project, and it revealed some pitfalls in the course of making. However, the result looks menacing and still convincing, esp. in flight – even though the picture editing, with four artificially rotating proprotors, was probably more tedious than building the model itself!
Some background:
A vanship is a type of flying machine from the animated series Last Exile. It is often referred to as a "flying boat" in that it does not fly by means of aerodynamics like planes do, but rather by floating on the air and propelling itself through the use of a substance known as "Claudia" (see below).
Vanships in general were couriers prior to the events of Last Exile, traveling long distances to deliver cargoes (usually messages). Some Vanships thus include tools for towing solid objects.
The design of several vanships throughout the series bears great resemblance to various famed 1930s racecars than any aircraft, most notably the Anatoray millitary vanships which bear great resemblance to the 1933 Napier Railton. The resemblance is found in the grill shape of the cowl vents and the shape of the tail cone, as well as the aerodynamic bulges on the car which cover the valve covers and exaust on the car, which are also found on the Anatoray vanships.
Other Vanships bear striking design elements from Junkers aircraft in the pre-WWII era, e. g. from the A 35 monoplane.
"Spirit of Grand Stream" is a courier-type vanship (see below) owned by Claus Valca and Lavie Head, and its design is very similar to that of Hayao Miyazaki's gunship from Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind. The matches are really focused on the two seated open cockpit, and the navigator section which has matching interface panels of small glass cylinders.
Courier vanships, also known as racing vanships, are one of the main types of vanship featured in Last Exile. Courier vanships are small and narrow with a single, high-powered thruster. Like any vanship intended to achieve high speeds, they have stub wings, far too small themselves to provide lift. They simply act as mounts for ailerons to provide better steering, as pivoting the thruster would put undue stress on the assembly at high speeds.
Over the course of Last Exile, Vanships were adapted for combat. The process resembles the evolving roles that aircraft held during WW1; originally developed for scouting and surveillance, but eventually equipped with bombs and machine guns to become potent fightercraft.
Claudia is a fluorescent blue ore mined on the floating world of Prester. It is the foundation of Prester's technology, fueling steam engines and is a key element of the claudia units that allow vanships to fly. Claudia is also the primary currency of Prester. It is well suited for the purpose, as it is constantly generated by Prester and is not possible to counterfeit.
Claudia, when dissolved in water, serves as the primary drive fluid in a claudia unit. When Claudia fluid is heated and compressed, it generates lift. A vanship engine has a distinctive claudia circulation pipe loop, where the supercritical fluid generates both lift and thrust.
Dissolving Claudia in alcohol dramatically increases the energy density of the fuel. This is why steam engines are the predominant technology of Last Exile, instead of the internal combustion engine. Technology design documents from the production of the show indicate that the steam engines of Last Exile have a power to weight ratio exceeding that of a modern gasoline fueled internal combustion engine.
All vanships in the series were rendered as 3D images, a hallmark of Japanese animation studio Gonzo, makers of such series as Vandread and Blue Submarine No. 6.
The kit and its assembly:
I love the Vanships from Last Exile - even though I have never seen the series.
While these vehicles appear as retro stuff, they are very original and unique in look and feel - a modeler's dream if you are into scratchbuilding and kitbashing. There's also a 1:72 Vanship kit available (actually, in two versions) from Hasegawa, but it is IMHO overpriced. And there are so many different Vanships in the series that it is a shame that not more of them have been kitted, scratched, or at least used as a source of modelling inspiration.
The latter's the case here. I had a scratched Vanship on the agenda for a long time and also a basic idea with what I'd start, but it took a SF racing GB at phoxim.de ( a German SF model building forum) to make a move.
I wanted a small and fast single seater, and this evolved through the GB into a Racer with a more prominent engine unit and a rather purposeful livery instead of bright colors. But the basic concept was retained: originally, the plan was to use a 1:72 F4U as fuselage basis, and I had the idea to integrate some parts of a 1:43 Citroen 11CV from Heller, e. g. its grill and bonnet.
The F4U is the SMER kit, and it has the benefit of having separate wings for a folded display. The fin was cut off and the landing gear wells covered.
The cockpit opening was slightly enlarged in order to take a 1:48 Japanese WWII resin pilot and a seat from the 1:43 11CV - pretty cramped, but it worked and looks good. Only the wind screen of the OOB F4U canopy was used, as well as the original dashboard.
Most work was done on the outside, though. The first problem turned up when I realized that the 11CV bonnet could hardly be mated with the F4U. As a plan B I found a cover for the brush head of a Philipps electric toothbrush in my donor bank - a bit too high and narrow, but overall a unique addition and characteristic nose for my creation!
The landing gear comes from an Amodel Ju-87A - together with the drooped F4U inner wings the result looked a bit stalky at first, but the Vanship still needed its engines.
As a racer, I went for double power, and the long pods that carry the propulsion system were scratched from several non-model-kit parts:
- Front comes from a Revell 1:32 AH-64 Apache, its engines
- The intakes come from a Matchbox Gloster Meteor NF.14
- The "ring" consists of wheel parts from the Heller 11CV
- The conic isolators are ball pen grips, cut to size and closed with tank wheels on both ends
- The fins are plastic knives, primarily the blades and parts of the handles
In between these engine pods, which are only held under the wings and stabilized internally through steel wire, a generator pod from a 1:72 Matchbox EA-6B fills the void. It also holds a characteristic "knife" under the front grill - again carved from the handle of the plastic knives.
In order to blend the changes in fuselage shape and diameter and create a kind of Cord-style grill I added three styrene strips which were wrapped around the nose, the upper line reaching back to the cockpit - a kind of 3D rally stripe that also streches the shape.
Some air scoops and surface details were added, made from styrene, and stiff cable was used under the front fuselage to create hoses between the bonnet with the Claudia reactor and the engines.
I was frequently tempted to add more things and details or decoration, but found that a rather clean look would better suit a dedicated racer Vanship - the Stutz Blackhawk land speed record car was a vague benchmark.
Painting and markings:
I wanted to keep things simple and dry. Before this turned into a racer I considered several colors like pale blue, a greyish-green, British Racing Green or Crimson, with ivory trim. Anyway, I rejected this in favir of a pure, bare metal finish. I even did not add colorful stripes - the only "color" comes from the mechanical parts (ivory and dark brown on the engine pods, the idea was to add an isolator impression) and the small sponsor decals.
The kit initially received a basic coat of Revell's acrylic Aluminum, and onto that panels/field with several Metallizer tones (Steel, Magnesium, Titanium, polished Aluminum) were added. On top of that, the whole thing received a rubbing with grinded graphite - intensifying the metal shine and also weathering the vehicle.
The pilot received a rather conservatie outfit, with a brown leather jacket - matching the overall style of the Vanship. Some engine parts (e. g. the blades and the knife under the nose) were painted with a mix of Steel Metallizer and Gold. The cockpit interior was painted in RLM 02.
The markings were puzzled together. The start number '24' in that nice retro type comes from an 1:72 Airfix Il-2, the black disc below is from a slot car aftermarket sheet. The many sponsor stickers come mostly from an 1:72 Su-27 demonstrator aircraft sheet from Begemot - with their cyrillic typo they blend well into the Last Exile look and feel (where Greek/Cyrillic typo pops up).
Finally, the kit received a coat with acrylic gloss varnish, while the anti glare panel in front of the windscreen became matt.
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:
Finding a suitable and somewhat interesting – but still plausible – paint scheme was not easy. Taking the A-10 as benchmark, an overall light grey livery (with focus on low contrast against the sky as protection against ground fire) would have been a likely choice – and in fact the last operational American OV-10s were painted in this fashion. But in order to provide a different look I used the contemporary USAF V-22Bs and Special Operations MC-130s as benchmark, which typically carry a darker paint scheme consisting of FS 36118 from above, FS 36375 underneath (with a low, wavy waterline), plus low-viz markings. Not spectacular, but plausible – and very similar to the late r/w Colombian OV-10s.
+++ 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 Hütter Hü 324 was the final development stage of BMW's 'Schnellbomber II' project, which had been designed around two mighty BMW 109-028 turboprops.
These innovative engines had been developed since February 1941, but did not receive fullest attention due to the more promising jet engines. Anyway, it soon became clear that no jet engine with the potential to drive a bomber-sized aircraft - considering both performance and fuel consumption - would be available on short notice. Consequently, the BMW 028 received more attention from the RLM from 1943 on.
Biggest pressure came from the fact that several obsolete types like the He 111 or Do 217 had to be replaced, and the ill-fated and complicated He 177 was another candidate with little future potential, since four-engined variants had been rejected. Additionally, the promising and ambitious Ju 288 had been stillborn, and a wide gap for a tactical medium bomber opned in the Luftwaffe arsenal.
In may 1943, new requirements for a medium bomber were concretised. Main objective was to design a fast, twin-engined bomber, primarily intended for horizontal bombing, which would be able to carry a 3.000 kilograms (6.600 lbs) payload at 800 kilometres per hour in a 1.500km (900 ml) radius. The plane had to be fast and to operate at great heights, limiting the threat of interception.
Since many major design bureaus’ resources were bound, Ulrich W. Hütter, an Austro-German engineer and university professor got involved in the RLM project and BMW's design team which had been working on appropriate designs. In July 1943, Hütter moved to the Research Institute of the Graf Zeppelin works (FGZ) convened in Ruit near Stuttgart, and as head of the engineering department he was also involved in the development of manned missiles, underwater towing systems and the Hü 211 high altitude interceptor/reconnaissance plane.
Under Ulrich W. Hütter and his brother, Wolfgang Hütter, BMW's original and highly innovative (if not over-ambitious) Schnellbomber designs gave way to a more conservative layout: the so-called BMW-Hütter Hü 324.
The plane was conventional in layout, with high, unswept laminar profile wings and a high twin tail. The engines were carried in nacelles slung directly under the wings. The nose wheel retracted rearwards, while the main wheels retracted forwards into the engine nacelles, rotating 90°, and laying flat under the engines. The crew of four (pilot, co-pilot/bombardier, navigator/radar operator and gunner/radio operator) were accommodated in a compact, pressurised "glass house" cockpit section – a popular design and morale element in Luftwaffe bomber and reconnaissance aircraft of that era.
Construction of the first prototype started in February 1945, and while the aircraft cell made good progress towards the hardware stage, the development suffered a serious setback in March when BMW admitted that the 109-028 turboprop engine would not be ready in time. It took until August to arrive, and the prototype did not fly until 6 November 1945.
Initial flight test of the four A-0 pre-production samples of the Hü 324 went surprisingly well. Stability and vibration problems with the aircraft were noted, though. One major problem was that the front glas elements were prone to crack at high speeds, and it took a while to trace the troubole source back to the engines and sort these problems out. Among others, contraprops were fitted to counter the vibration problems, the engines' power output had to be reduced by more than 500 WPS and the tail fins had to be re-designed.
Another innovative feature of this bomber was the “Elbegast” ground-looking navigation radar system, which allowed identification of targets on the ground for night and all-weather bombing. It was placed in a shallow radome behind the front wheel. Performance-wise, the system was comparable to the USAAF’s H2X radar, and similarly compact. Overall, the Hü 324 showed much promise and a convincing performance, was easy to build and maintain, and it was immediately taken to service.
Despite the relatively high speed and agility for a plane of its size, the Hü 324 bore massive defensive armament: the original equipment of the A-1 variant comprised two remotely operated FDL 131Z turrets in dorsal (just behind the cockpit) and ventral (behind the bomb bay) position with 2× 13 mm MG 131 machine guns each, plus an additional, unmanned tail barbette with a single 20mm canon. All these guns were aimed by the gunner through a sighting station at the rear of the cockpit, effectively covering the rear hemisphere of the bomber.
After first operational experience, this defence was beefed up with another remotely-controlled barbette with 2× 13 mm MG 131 machine guns under the cockpit, firing forwards. The reason was similar to the introduction of the chin-mounted gun turret in the B-17G: the plane was rather vulnerable to frontal attacks. In a secondary use, the chin guns could be used for strafing ground targets. This update was at first called /R1, but was later incorporated into series production, under the designation A-2.
Effectively, almost 4.500kg ordnance could be carried in- and externally, normally limited to 3.000kg in the bomb bay in order to keep the wings clean and reduce drag, for a high cruising speed. While simple iron bombs and aerial mines were the Hü 324's main payload, provisions were made to carry guided weapons like against small/heavily fortified targets. Several Rüstsätze (accessory packs) were developed, and the aircraft in service received an "/Rx" suffix to their designation, e. g. the R2 Rüstsatz for Fritz X bomb guidance or the R3 set for rocket-propelled Hs 293 bombs.
Trials were even carried out with a semi-recessed Fieseler Fi 103 missile, better known as the V1 flying bomb, hung under the bomber's belly and in an enlarged bomb bay, under deletion of the ventral barbette.
The Hü 324 bomber proved to be an elusive target for the RAF day and night fighters, especially at height. After initial attacks at low level, where fast fighters like the Hawker Tempest or DH Mosquito night fighters were the biggest threat, tactics were quickly changed. Approaching at great height and speed, bombing was conducted from medium altitudes of 10,000 to 15,000 feet (3,000 to 4,600 m).
The Hü 324 proved to be very successful, striking against a variety of targets, including bridges and radar sites along the British coast line, as well as ships on the North Sea.
From medium altitude, the Hü 324 A-2 proved to be a highly accurate bomber – thanks to its "Elbegast" radar system which also allowed the planes to act as pathfinders for older types or fast bombers with less accurate equipment like the Ar 232, Ju 388 or Me 410. Loss rates were far lower than in the early, low-level days, with the Hü 324 stated by the RLM as having the lowest loss rate in the European Theatre of Operations at less than 0.8 %.
BMW-Hütter Ha 324A-2, general characteristics:
Crew: 4
Length: 18.58 m (60 ft 10 in)
Wingspan: 21.45 m (70 ft 4½ in )
Height: 4.82 m (15 ft 9½ in)
Wing area: 60.80 m² (654.5 ft.²)
Empty weight: 12,890 kg (28,417 lb)
Loaded weight: 18,400 kg (40,565 lb)
Max. take-off weight: 21,200 kg (46,738 lb)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 810 km/h (503 mph) at optimum height
Cruising speed: 750 km/h (460 mph) at 10,000 m (32,800 ft)
Range: 3.500 km (2.180 ml)
Service ceiling: 11.400 m (37.500 ft)
Rate of climb: 34.7 m/s (6,820 ft/min)
Powerplant:
Two BMW 109-028 ‘Mimir’ turboprop engines, limited to 5.500 WPS (4.044 WkW) each plus an additional residual thrust of 650kg (1.433 lb), driving four-bladed contraprops.
Armament:
6× 13mm MG 131 in three FDL 131Z turrets
1× 20mm MG 151/20 in unmanned/remote-controlled tail barbette
Up to 4.500 kg (9.800 lbs) in a large enclosed bomb-bay in the fuselage and/or four underwing hardpoints.
Typically, bomb load was limited to 3.000 kg (6.500 lbs) internally.
The kit and its assembly
This project/model belongs in the Luft '46 category, but it has no strict real world paradigm - even though Luftwaffe projects like the Ju 288, the BMW Schnellbomber designs or Arado's E560/2 and E560/7 had a clear influence. Actually, “my” Hü 324 design looks pretty much like a He 219 on steroids! Anyway, this project was rather inspired by a ‘click’ when two ideas/elements came together and started forming something new and convincing. This is classic kitbashing, and the major ingredients are:
● Fuselage, wings, landing gear and engine nacelles from a Trumpeter Ilyushin Il-28 bomber
● Nose section from an Italeri Ju 188 (donated from a friend, leftover from his Ju 488 project)
● Stabilisers from an Italeri B-25, replacing the Il-28’s swept tail
● Contraprops and fuselage barbettes from a vintage 1:100 scale Tu-20(-95) kit from VEB Plasticart (yes, vintage GDR stuff!)
Most interestingly, someone from the Netherlands had a similar idea for a kitbashing some years ago: www.airwar1946.nl/whif/L46-ju588.htm. I found this after I got my idea for the Hü 324 together, though - but its funny to see how some ideas manifest independently?
Building the thing went pretty straightforward, even though Trumpeter's Il-28 kit has a rather poor fit. Biggest problem turned out to be the integration of the Ju 188 cockpit section: it lacks 4-5mm in width! That does not sound dramatic, but it took a LOT of putty and internal stabilisation to graft the parts onto the Il-28's fuselage.
The cockpit was completely re-equipped with stuff from the scrap box, and the main landing gear received twin wheels.
The chin turret was mounted after the fuselage was complete, the frontal defence had been an issue I had been pondering about for a long while. Originally, some fixed guns (just as the Il-28 or Tu-16) had been considered. But when I found an old Matchbox B-17G turret in my scrap box, I was convinced that this piece could do literally the same job in my model, and it was quickly integrated. As a side effect, this arrangement justifies the bulged cockpit bottom well, and it just looks "more dangerous".
Another task was the lack of a well for the front wheel, after the Il-28 fuselage had been cut and lacked the original interior. This was also added after the new fuselage had been fitted together, and the new well walls were built with thin polystyrene plates. Not 100% exact and clean, but the arrangement fits the bill and takes the twin front wheel.
The bomb bay was left open, since the Trumpeter kit offers a complete interior. I also added four underwing hardpoints for external loads (one pair in- and outboard of the engine nacelles), taken from A-7 Corsair II kits, but left them empty. Visually-guided weapons like the 'Fritz X' bomb or Hs 293 missiles would IMHO hardly make sense during night sorties? I also did not want to overload the kit with more and more distracting details.
Painting
Even though it is a whif I wanted to incorporate some serious/authentic late WWII Luftwaffe looks. Since the Hü 324 would have been an all-weather bomber, I went for a night bomber livery which was actually used on a He 177 from 2./KG 100, based in France: Black (RLM 22, I simply used Humbrol 33) undersides, and upper surfaces in RLM 76 (Base is Humbrol 128, FS36320, plus some added areas with Testors 2086, the authentic tone which is a tad lighter, but very close) with mottles in RLM 75 (Grauviolett, Testors 2085, plus some splotches of Humbrol 27, Medium Sea Grey), and some weathering through black ink, some enhanced panel lines (with a mix of matte varnish and Panzergrau), as well as some dry painting all over the fuselage.
All interior surfaces were painted in RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau/Black Grey, Testors 2079), typical for German late WWII aircraft. Propeller spinners were painted RLM 70 (Schwarzgrün) on the front half, the rear half was painted half black and half white.
Pretty simple scheme, but it looks VERY cool, esp. on this sleek aircraft. I am very happy with this decision, and I think that this rather simple livery is less distracting from the fantasy plane itself, making the whif less obvious. In the end, the whole thing looks a bit grey-in-grey, but that spooky touch just adds to the menacing look of this beefy aircraft. I think it would not look as good if it had been kept in daytime RLM 74/75/76 or even RLM 82/83/76?
Markings and squadron code were puzzled together from an Authentic Decal aftermarket sheet for a late He 111 and individual letters from TL Modellbau. The "F3" code for the fictional Kampfgruppe (KG) 210 is a random choice, "EV" marks the individual plane, the red "E" and the control letter "V" at the end designate a plane from the eleventh squadron of KG 210. My idea is that the Hü 324 would replace these machines and literally taking their place in the frontline aviaton units. So I tried to keep in line with the German aircraft code, but after all, it's just a whif...
So, after some more surgical work than expected, the Hü 324 medium bomber is ready to soar!
+++ 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 Hütter Hü 324 was the final development stage of BMW's 'Schnellbomber II' project, which had been designed around two mighty BMW 109-028 turboprops.
These innovative engines had been developed since February 1941, but did not receive fullest attention due to the more promising jet engines. Anyway, it soon became clear that no jet engine with the potential to drive a bomber-sized aircraft - considering both performance and fuel consumption - would be available on short notice. Consequently, the BMW 028 received more attention from the RLM from 1943 on.
Biggest pressure came from the fact that several obsolete types like the He 111 or Do 217 had to be replaced, and the ill-fated and complicated He 177 was another candidate with little future potential, since four-engined variants had been rejected. Additionally, the promising and ambitious Ju 288 had been stillborn, and a wide gap for a tactical medium bomber opned in the Luftwaffe arsenal.
In may 1943, new requirements for a medium bomber were concretised. Main objective was to design a fast, twin-engined bomber, primarily intended for horizontal bombing, which would be able to carry a 3.000 kilograms (6.600 lbs) payload at 800 kilometres per hour in a 1.500km (900 ml) radius. The plane had to be fast and to operate at great heights, limiting the threat of interception.
Since many major design bureaus’ resources were bound, Ulrich W. Hütter, an Austro-German engineer and university professor got involved in the RLM project and BMW's design team which had been working on appropriate designs. In July 1943, Hütter moved to the Research Institute of the Graf Zeppelin works (FGZ) convened in Ruit near Stuttgart, and as head of the engineering department he was also involved in the development of manned missiles, underwater towing systems and the Hü 211 high altitude interceptor/reconnaissance plane.
Under Ulrich W. Hütter and his brother, Wolfgang Hütter, BMW's original and highly innovative (if not over-ambitious) Schnellbomber designs gave way to a more conservative layout: the so-called BMW-Hütter Hü 324.
The plane was conventional in layout, with high, unswept laminar profile wings and a high twin tail. The engines were carried in nacelles slung directly under the wings. The nose wheel retracted rearwards, while the main wheels retracted forwards into the engine nacelles, rotating 90°, and laying flat under the engines. The crew of four (pilot, co-pilot/bombardier, navigator/radar operator and gunner/radio operator) were accommodated in a compact, pressurised "glass house" cockpit section – a popular design and morale element in Luftwaffe bomber and reconnaissance aircraft of that era.
Construction of the first prototype started in February 1945, and while the aircraft cell made good progress towards the hardware stage, the development suffered a serious setback in March when BMW admitted that the 109-028 turboprop engine would not be ready in time. It took until August to arrive, and the prototype did not fly until 6 November 1945.
Initial flight test of the four A-0 pre-production samples of the Hü 324 went surprisingly well. Stability and vibration problems with the aircraft were noted, though. One major problem was that the front glas elements were prone to crack at high speeds, and it took a while to trace the troubole source back to the engines and sort these problems out. Among others, contraprops were fitted to counter the vibration problems, the engines' power output had to be reduced by more than 500 WPS and the tail fins had to be re-designed.
Another innovative feature of this bomber was the “Elbegast” ground-looking navigation radar system, which allowed identification of targets on the ground for night and all-weather bombing. It was placed in a shallow radome behind the front wheel. Performance-wise, the system was comparable to the USAAF’s H2X radar, and similarly compact. Overall, the Hü 324 showed much promise and a convincing performance, was easy to build and maintain, and it was immediately taken to service.
Despite the relatively high speed and agility for a plane of its size, the Hü 324 bore massive defensive armament: the original equipment of the A-1 variant comprised two remotely operated FDL 131Z turrets in dorsal (just behind the cockpit) and ventral (behind the bomb bay) position with 2× 13 mm MG 131 machine guns each, plus an additional, unmanned tail barbette with a single 20mm canon. All these guns were aimed by the gunner through a sighting station at the rear of the cockpit, effectively covering the rear hemisphere of the bomber.
After first operational experience, this defence was beefed up with another remotely-controlled barbette with 2× 13 mm MG 131 machine guns under the cockpit, firing forwards. The reason was similar to the introduction of the chin-mounted gun turret in the B-17G: the plane was rather vulnerable to frontal attacks. In a secondary use, the chin guns could be used for strafing ground targets. This update was at first called /R1, but was later incorporated into series production, under the designation A-2.
Effectively, almost 4.500kg ordnance could be carried in- and externally, normally limited to 3.000kg in the bomb bay in order to keep the wings clean and reduce drag, for a high cruising speed. While simple iron bombs and aerial mines were the Hü 324's main payload, provisions were made to carry guided weapons like against small/heavily fortified targets. Several Rüstsätze (accessory packs) were developed, and the aircraft in service received an "/Rx" suffix to their designation, e. g. the R2 Rüstsatz for Fritz X bomb guidance or the R3 set for rocket-propelled Hs 293 bombs.
Trials were even carried out with a semi-recessed Fieseler Fi 103 missile, better known as the V1 flying bomb, hung under the bomber's belly and in an enlarged bomb bay, under deletion of the ventral barbette.
The Hü 324 bomber proved to be an elusive target for the RAF day and night fighters, especially at height. After initial attacks at low level, where fast fighters like the Hawker Tempest or DH Mosquito night fighters were the biggest threat, tactics were quickly changed. Approaching at great height and speed, bombing was conducted from medium altitudes of 10,000 to 15,000 feet (3,000 to 4,600 m).
The Hü 324 proved to be very successful, striking against a variety of targets, including bridges and radar sites along the British coast line, as well as ships on the North Sea.
From medium altitude, the Hü 324 A-2 proved to be a highly accurate bomber – thanks to its "Elbegast" radar system which also allowed the planes to act as pathfinders for older types or fast bombers with less accurate equipment like the Ar 232, Ju 388 or Me 410. Loss rates were far lower than in the early, low-level days, with the Hü 324 stated by the RLM as having the lowest loss rate in the European Theatre of Operations at less than 0.8 %.
BMW-Hütter Ha 324A-2, general characteristics:
Crew: 4
Length: 18.58 m (60 ft 10 in)
Wingspan: 21.45 m (70 ft 4½ in )
Height: 4.82 m (15 ft 9½ in)
Wing area: 60.80 m² (654.5 ft.²)
Empty weight: 12,890 kg (28,417 lb)
Loaded weight: 18,400 kg (40,565 lb)
Max. take-off weight: 21,200 kg (46,738 lb)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 810 km/h (503 mph) at optimum height
Cruising speed: 750 km/h (460 mph) at 10,000 m (32,800 ft)
Range: 3.500 km (2.180 ml)
Service ceiling: 11.400 m (37.500 ft)
Rate of climb: 34.7 m/s (6,820 ft/min)
Powerplant:
Two BMW 109-028 ‘Mimir’ turboprop engines, limited to 5.500 WPS (4.044 WkW) each plus an additional residual thrust of 650kg (1.433 lb), driving four-bladed contraprops.
Armament:
6× 13mm MG 131 in three FDL 131Z turrets
1× 20mm MG 151/20 in unmanned/remote-controlled tail barbette
Up to 4.500 kg (9.800 lbs) in a large enclosed bomb-bay in the fuselage and/or four underwing hardpoints.
Typically, bomb load was limited to 3.000 kg (6.500 lbs) internally.
The kit and its assembly
This project/model belongs in the Luft '46 category, but it has no strict real world paradigm - even though Luftwaffe projects like the Ju 288, the BMW Schnellbomber designs or Arado's E560/2 and E560/7 had a clear influence. Actually, “my” Hü 324 design looks pretty much like a He 219 on steroids! Anyway, this project was rather inspired by a ‘click’ when two ideas/elements came together and started forming something new and convincing. This is classic kitbashing, and the major ingredients are:
● Fuselage, wings, landing gear and engine nacelles from a Trumpeter Ilyushin Il-28 bomber
● Nose section from an Italeri Ju 188 (donated from a friend, leftover from his Ju 488 project)
● Stabilisers from an Italeri B-25, replacing the Il-28’s swept tail
● Contraprops and fuselage barbettes from a vintage 1:100 scale Tu-20(-95) kit from VEB Plasticart (yes, vintage GDR stuff!)
Most interestingly, someone from the Netherlands had a similar idea for a kitbashing some years ago: www.airwar1946.nl/whif/L46-ju588.htm. I found this after I got my idea for the Hü 324 together, though - but its funny to see how some ideas manifest independently?
Building the thing went pretty straightforward, even though Trumpeter's Il-28 kit has a rather poor fit. Biggest problem turned out to be the integration of the Ju 188 cockpit section: it lacks 4-5mm in width! That does not sound dramatic, but it took a LOT of putty and internal stabilisation to graft the parts onto the Il-28's fuselage.
The cockpit was completely re-equipped with stuff from the scrap box, and the main landing gear received twin wheels.
The chin turret was mounted after the fuselage was complete, the frontal defence had been an issue I had been pondering about for a long while. Originally, some fixed guns (just as the Il-28 or Tu-16) had been considered. But when I found an old Matchbox B-17G turret in my scrap box, I was convinced that this piece could do literally the same job in my model, and it was quickly integrated. As a side effect, this arrangement justifies the bulged cockpit bottom well, and it just looks "more dangerous".
Another task was the lack of a well for the front wheel, after the Il-28 fuselage had been cut and lacked the original interior. This was also added after the new fuselage had been fitted together, and the new well walls were built with thin polystyrene plates. Not 100% exact and clean, but the arrangement fits the bill and takes the twin front wheel.
The bomb bay was left open, since the Trumpeter kit offers a complete interior. I also added four underwing hardpoints for external loads (one pair in- and outboard of the engine nacelles), taken from A-7 Corsair II kits, but left them empty. Visually-guided weapons like the 'Fritz X' bomb or Hs 293 missiles would IMHO hardly make sense during night sorties? I also did not want to overload the kit with more and more distracting details.
Painting
Even though it is a whif I wanted to incorporate some serious/authentic late WWII Luftwaffe looks. Since the Hü 324 would have been an all-weather bomber, I went for a night bomber livery which was actually used on a He 177 from 2./KG 100, based in France: Black (RLM 22, I simply used Humbrol 33) undersides, and upper surfaces in RLM 76 (Base is Humbrol 128, FS36320, plus some added areas with Testors 2086, the authentic tone which is a tad lighter, but very close) with mottles in RLM 75 (Grauviolett, Testors 2085, plus some splotches of Humbrol 27, Medium Sea Grey), and some weathering through black ink, some enhanced panel lines (with a mix of matte varnish and Panzergrau), as well as some dry painting all over the fuselage.
All interior surfaces were painted in RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau/Black Grey, Testors 2079), typical for German late WWII aircraft. Propeller spinners were painted RLM 70 (Schwarzgrün) on the front half, the rear half was painted half black and half white.
Pretty simple scheme, but it looks VERY cool, esp. on this sleek aircraft. I am very happy with this decision, and I think that this rather simple livery is less distracting from the fantasy plane itself, making the whif less obvious. In the end, the whole thing looks a bit grey-in-grey, but that spooky touch just adds to the menacing look of this beefy aircraft. I think it would not look as good if it had been kept in daytime RLM 74/75/76 or even RLM 82/83/76?
Markings and squadron code were puzzled together from an Authentic Decal aftermarket sheet for a late He 111 and individual letters from TL Modellbau. The "F3" code for the fictional Kampfgruppe (KG) 210 is a random choice, "EV" marks the individual plane, the red "E" and the control letter "V" at the end designate a plane from the eleventh squadron of KG 210. My idea is that the Hü 324 would replace these machines and literally taking their place in the frontline aviaton units. So I tried to keep in line with the German aircraft code, but after all, it's just a whif...
So, after some more surgical work than expected, the Hü 324 medium bomber is ready to soar!
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
After the Second World War, France’s armored force consisted, almost entirely, of US-built vehicles, such as the M4 Sherman, M26 Pershing, and M24 Chaffee (among others). France received these vehicles as aid as part of the Marshall Plan and the Mutual Defense Assistance Act (MDAA). These aid pacts also financed the reconstruction of France’s economy and armed forces from 1948 until the late 1950s. In April 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed, and NATO was born, resulting in the United States extending the MDAA. This resulted in France receiving newer vehicles, such as the M47 Patton II tank.
In total, France would operate around 1,250 M24s which were identical to their US counterparts. It was a small tank at 5.45 meters (16 ft 4 in) long, 2.84 meters (9ft 4in) wide, and 2.61 meters (9ft 3in) tall. It weighed 16.6 tonnes (18.37 tons), utilized a torsion bar suspension, and was armed with a 75 mm gun. The tank had a 5-men crew: Commander, Gunner, Loader, Driver, Bow Gunner. The ‘Chaffee’ was named after WWI US Army General, Adna R. Chaffee Jr.
In 1956, the French Army and the Direction des Etudes et Fabrications d’Armements (Directorate of Studies and Manufacture of Armaments, DEFA, an institution within the French Military) were looking into affordable methods of modernizing their fleet of aging M24 Chaffee light tanks, which had been operated since WWII. One method was to somehow combine France’s new domestic light tank, the AMX-13, with the M24.
Initially, this led to the mating of the AMX-13’s FL-10 oscillating turret to the hull of the Chaffee, as the most logical step to improve the M24s. While cheap and feasible, this configuration never went further than trials. This was largely due to a perceived safety issue with the High-Explosive (HE) rounds fired by the CN 75-50 cannon. Inside the FL-10 turret, the CN 75-50 gun was fed via an automatic loading system, which was reloaded externally. If an alternate shell-type needed to be fired, HE, for example, it had to be loaded into the breach manually by the Commander. This was a tricky task in the tight confines of the turret on the standard AMX, made worse by the notoriously sensitive fuze of the HE rounds. This process would be even more dangerous on the smaller hull of the Chaffee. As a result, the inverse of this mounting was decided upon, mounting the Chaffee’s turret on the AMX-13’s hull.
The officially designated AMX-US was a result of this, even though there were many other unofficial names, including ‘AMX-13 Chaffee’ – as it was known by troops – or ‘AMX-13 Avec Tourelle Chaffee (with Chaffee Turret)’. By 1957, work on the inverse of mounting the Chaffee turret to the AMX hull had begun, what was regarded as a safer and easier alternative, and it was also a convenient way of recycling useful Chaffee turrets by separating them from their worn hulls. It also created a vehicle lighter than the regular Chaffee, meaning it was easier to transport.
The M24 turrets went through very little modification for their installation, retaining all the same main features. The only modification necessary was the introduction of an adapter or ‘collar’ to the AMX hull’s turret ring. This was needed as the Chaffee turret had quite a deep basket. The collar granted the basket clearance from the hull floor for uninterrupted, full 360-degree rotation.
The Chaffee turret was a standard design with a typical 3-man crew of the time: Gunner, Loader, and Commander. The Commander sat at the left rear of the turret under a vision-cupola, the gunner sat in front of him. The loader was located at the right-rear of the turret under his own hatch. Armor on the turret was 25 mm (.98 in) thick on all sides, with the gun mantlet being 38 mm (1.49 in) thick.
The AMX-US was operated by a four-man crew, as opposed to the three-man crew of the standard Mle 51, due to the three-man turret of the Chaffee. Armament consisted of the 75 mm Lightweight Tank Gun M6 which had a concentric recoil system (this was a hollow tube around the barrel, a space-saving alternative to traditional recoil cylinders). Variants of this gun were also used on the B-25H Mitchell Bomber, and the T33 Flame Thrower Tank prototype. The shell velocity was 619 m/s (2,031 ft/s) and had a maximum penetration of 109 mm. The elevation range of the gun was around -10 to +13 degrees. Secondary weapons were also retained. This included the coaxial .30 Cal (7.62 mm) Browning M1919 Machine Gun, and the .50 Caliber (12.7 mm) M2 Browning Heavy Machine gun which was mounted on the rear of the turret roof.
Apart from the adaptor or ‘collar’, the AMX hull went through no alterations. It retained the same dimensions, and forward-mounted engine and transmission. The tank was powered by a SOFAM Model 8Gxb 8-cylinder, water-cooled petrol engine developing 250 hp, propelling the tank to a top speed of around 60 km/h (37 mph). The vehicle ran on a torsion bar suspension with five road-wheels, two return rollers, a rear-mounted idler, and a forward-mounted drive-sprocket. The driver was positioned at the front left of the hull, behind the transmission and next to the engine.
Trials with what would be designated the ‘AMX-US’ were undertaken between December 1959 and January 1960. The vehicle was well received, with an order for 150 conversions being placed by the French military in March 1960. Conversion work was carried out at a plant in Gien, North-Central France.
The AMX-US saw brief service in the War in Algeria – otherwise known as the Algerian War of Independence or Algerian Revolution. One known operator was the 9e Régiment de Hussards (9th Hussar Regiment) based in Oran. They served well, but a few were lost in combat, but there is no evidence to suggest they served in any other location with the French military, such as in France or West Germany based regiments.
After the conflict in Algeria, the vehicles were returned to France, but they did not last long in active service after this. Many vehicles were being repurposed into driver trainers. For this, the vehicles were disarmed, with the 75 mm gun and mantlet removed from the turret face and a large plexiglass windscreen was installed in its place.
About fifty surplus AMX-US were sold as scout tanks to Israel, because the AMX-13, which had been procured and operated by the IDF since 1956 in great numbers, was used as a battle tank, so that no IDF reconnaissance unit used the AMX 13. The AMX-US was a perfect and cheap alternative to fill this operational gap, and the vehicles, delivered in 1963, took actively part in the 1967 Six-Day-War.
During these battles, the IDF soon realized that the AMX-13 tank in general was too lightly armored and lacked firepower, and this was even more true for the AMX-US with its vintage WWII gun. Losses were heavy at places like Rafah Junction and Jiradi Pass with many tanks destroyed by heavier Arab-fielded Soviet armor, such as T-55 MBTs and IS-3 heavy tanks. After that, both the AMX-13 and the AMX-US were gradually phased out by the IDF, either sold to other nations (e. g. Thailand), broken up for spares or preserved and stored in depots.
In 1975, a handful of these mothballed AMX-US were, together with other outdated Six-Day-War M50 Sherman veterans, re-activated and handed over to the South Lebanese Army (SLA). The SLA was a Christian militia during the Lebanese Civil War, opposing Muslim militias supported by Syria. The SLA received a total of 15 AMX-US, plus 35 M50s, and all these tanks were painted in a characteristic light blue-grey color. The SLA kept these tanks operational and active for a surprisingly long period, the last confirmed appearance of an SLA AMX-US in battle was in 1988. Even after the retirement of the last operational specimen, the SLA still used the AMX-US for training and security duties.
In 2000, nearly ten years after the end of the civil war, the SLA disbanded, and the surviving former IDF tanks were returned to Israel to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands – spelling the end to the AMX-US long career, of which four were returned and subsequently scrapped.
Specifications:
Crew: Four (Commander, Loader, Gunner, Driver)
Weight: 15 tons
Length: 4.88 m (16 ft) overall
Width: 2.51 m (8 ft 2 in)
Height: 2.30 m (7 ft 5 in)
Suspension: Torsion arms; Tracked chassis, 5 roadwheels, drive sprocket front, idler rear,
3.00 m length, 0.35 width, 2.16 m track
Ground clearance: 0.37 m (1 ft 2½ in)
Fording depth: 2 ft (0.6 m) unprepared, 6.9 ft (2.1 m) with snorkel
Grade: 60%
Side slope: 60%
Trench crossing: 1.6 m (5 ft 3 in)
Vertical wall climb: 0.65 m (2 ft 1½ ft)
Fuel capacity: 480 l (127 gal)
Engine:
1× water-cooled Renault SOFAM Model 8Gxb 8-cylinder gasoline with 250 hp
Transmission:
Hydramatic automatic transmission; 8 speeds forward, 4 reverse
Armor:
Hull: 10 - 40 mm (1.57 in)
Turret: max. 38 mm (1.49 in)
Performance:
Speed: 60 km/h (40 mph) maximum, road
Operational range: 350 km (217 mi) on streets with internal fuel only
Power/weight: 17 hp/t
Armament:
1× 75 mm Lightweight Tank Gun M6 in Mount M64 with 48 rounds
1× co-axial 0.30 Cal. (7.62 mm) Browning M1919 machine gun, 2.200 rounds
1× 0.50 Caliber (12.7 mm) M2 Browning anti-aircraft heavy machine gun, 440 rounds
The kit and its assembly:
This fictional tank model is the result of recycling: After a T-34 conversion, which used an AMX-13 turret, I was left with the chassis of a 1:72 Heller kit. The latter is a rather simple and primitive affair, with many wrong details and a very weak running gear. From another, even older conversion project I also had an almost complete turret from a Hasegawa M24 Chaffee left over. When I stumbled in literature over the French AMX-US hybrid I decided to use these leftover bits to create one!
The AMX-13 chassis was taken OOB, because I did want to invest too much energy into this build, despite its many flaws. Its running gear is rubbish, the vinyl tracks featureless, and overall the detail level is rather soft. From a distance it looks like an AMX-13, but any closer inspection reveals the model's simplicity and toy-likeness. The Chaffee turret was also built with the original parts – but I had to replace the gun barrel and find a replacement for the gunner’s hatch.
Nevertheless, some scratch work had to be done. The biggest challenge was the AMX-US’ characteristic turret adapter ring, which markedly raises the M24 turret above the AMX-13 hull. My solution became a manually bent a piece of soft styrene profile - it’s not perfectly circular, but that’s not obvious when the turret is in place, and it looks the part. Furthermore, some small bits were added to hide flaws and distract. These include vertical bars in the exhaust opening, shallow storage boxes on the fenders (hiding the wacky distance ring) and tarpaulin/cammo net packs (created from paper tissue and nylon stockings drenched with white glue). The commander cupola’s hatch was left open and a figure (an ESCI German WWII tank commander) added, to make the model appear livelier. Since the M24’s AA machine gun had been gone, I had to replace it with one from an ESCI Merkava, its mount was moved in front of the cupola.
Painting and markings:
Initially, I just had the French army as potential operator for the AMX-US but found that rather boring due to the very limited livery options: any French tank from the era would have carried a dark olive-green livery, even those operated in North Africa! Some French M24s had been operated in South-East Asia in a sand/green/brown/green jungle scheme, but the time frame would not match well. So, I checked other AMX-13 operators and took liking in an IDF vehicle. However, while looking for potential liveries I came upon the SLA. The AMX-US, had it been handed over to the IDF, could have been among these donor tanks, and their unique (if not spectacular) light blue livery made them outstanding. I am not certain whether the blue tone was intended as serious camouflage or just as an IFF measure? However, among typical light rocks and mountains of the Lebenon and in dusty/hazy air, the bluish tone actually works quite fine, better than expected.
While a uniform livery is not complex, finding a suitable tone for the model took a while. Real life color pictures (of dubious quality) show a wide range of light blue and/or grey tones, ranging from a bright sky blue over pale grey (like FS 36375) to a medium bluish grey (FS 35237), frequently with severe signs of weathering/sun-bleaching which makes some tanks appear almost white. Some M50s also had olive drab or dark grey patches or patterns added on top as additional camouflage.
After testing several options I chose RLM78 (Modelmaster 2088) as basic tone. Odd choice, but it turned out to be light enough, is a rather blue tone (with a slight hint of green), but still dull enough to look like a military tone. An overall washing with a mix of grey, black and red brown followed, and then the model received a thorough, overall dry brushing treatment with various shades of light blue grey, including Modelmaster RLM76, FS 36320 and Revell 75, for a worn and bleached appearance.
The markings had to be completely improvised, though, and were created with Corel Draw on an ink jet printer and with white and clear decal paper. They include the SLA’s cedar tree emblem and the Arabic tactical codes. The white “X” markings were created with generic decal stripes.
After the model had been sealed with matt acrylic varnish, sand and dust residues were created with watercolors, and some beige mineral pigments were dusted into the running gear and over the upper surfaces.
A quick build and a good use of leftover parts from other projects, melded into a plausible result. The SLA livery adds a weird twist to this model, even though it is – in the end – just a mix of real-world elements: the AMX-US existed, and the SLA operated light blue tanks! Life is sometimes stranger than fiction.
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. a “Flatning”, as a rather conservative alternative to its unique and unusual design with stacked engines in the fuselage, which brought a multitude of other design consequences that led to a really outstanding aircraft in history.
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, though, 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 steps, primarily: belly tank or not? The “Flatning” would have worked without it, but the 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 and answer, so I glued together the leftover belly bulge parts from the Hasegawa kit and played around with it. I also thought about a 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 on which the arrestor hook rests. I just reduced its depth by ~2 mm with a slight slope towards the rear because I felt (righteously) that the higher wings would lower the model’s stance. More massive PSR…. As side benefit, though, the belly bulge could be sold as a kind of retrofitted ventral "Küchemann Carrot" to compensate for the wide waist (inspired by the F-102's pair of "butt-cheeks"). 😉
Due to the assumed poor ground clearance the Lightning’s stabilizing ventral fins were fitted directly under the fuselage edges rather than on the belly tank. Red Top pylons were mounted to the lower front fuselage 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 had a low but proper stance, a little F8U-ish.
+++ 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 Douglas F3D Skyknight (later designated F-10 Skyknight) was a United States twin-engined, mid-wing jet fighter aircraft manufactured by the Douglas Aircraft Company in El Segundo, California. The F3D was designed as a carrier-based all-weather night fighter and saw service with the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps. The mission of the F3D-2 was to search out and destroy enemy aircraft at night.
The F3D was not intended to be a typical sleek and nimble dogfighter, but as a standoff night fighter, packing a powerful radar system and a second crew member. It originated in 1945 with a US Navy requirement for a jet-powered, radar-equipped, carrier-based night fighter. The Douglas team led by Ed Heinemann designed around the bulky air intercept radar systems of the time, with side-by-side seating for the pilot and radar operator. The result was an aircraft with a wide, deep, and roomy fuselage. Instead of ejection seats, an escape tunnel was used.
As a night fighter that was not expected to be as fast as smaller daylight fighters, the expectation was to have a stable platform for its radar system and the four 20 mm cannon mounted in the lower fuselage. The F3D was, however, able to outturn a MiG-15 in an inside circle. The fire control system in the F3D-1 was the Westinghouse AN/APQ-35.
The AN/APQ-35 was advanced for the time, a combination of three different radars, each performing separate functions: an AN/APS-21 search radar, an AN/APG-26 tracking radar, both located in the nose, and an AN/APS-28 tail warning radar. The complexity of this vacuum tube-based radar system, which was produced before the advent of semiconductor electronics, required intensive maintenance to keep it operating properly.
The F3D Skyknight was never produced in great numbers but it did achieve many firsts in its role as a night fighter over Korea. While it never achieved the fame of the North American F-86 Sabre, it did down several Soviet-built MiG-15s as a night fighter over Korea with only one air-to-air loss of its own against a Chinese MiG-15 on the night of 29 May 1953.
In the years after the Korean War, the F3D was gradually replaced by more powerful aircraft with better radar systems. The F3D's career was not over though; its stability and spacious fuselage made it easily adaptable to other roles. The Skyknight played an important role in the development of the radar-guided AIM-7 Sparrow missile in the 1950s which led to further guided air-to-air missile developments.
In 1954, the F3D-2M was the first U.S. Navy jet aircraft to be fitted with an operational air-to-air missile: the Sparrow I,an all weather day/night BVR missile that used beam riding guidance for the aircrew to control the flight of the missile. Only 38 aircraft (12 F3D-1Ms, and 16 F3D-2Ms) were modified to use the missiles, though.
One of the F3D's main flaws, which it shared with many early jet aircraft, was its lack of power and performance. Douglas tried to mend this through a radical redesign: The resulting F3D-3 was the designation assigned to a swept-winged version (36° sweep at quarter chord) of the Skyknight. It was originally to be powered by the J46 turbojet, rated at 4.080 lbf for takeoff, which was under development but suffered serious trouble.
This led to the cancellation of the J46, and calculated performance of the F3D-3 with the substitute J34 was deemed insufficient. As an alternative the aircraft had to be modified to carry two larger and longer J47-GE-2 engines, which also powered the USN's FJ-2 "Fury" fighter.
This engine's thrust of 6.000 pounds-force (27 kN) at 7,950 rpm appeared sufficient for the heavy, swept-wing aircraft, and in 1954 an order for 287 production F3D-3s was issued, right time to upgrade the new type with the Sparrow I.
While the F3D-3's outline resembled that of its straight wing predecessors, a lot of structural changes had to be made to accommodate the shifted main wing spar, and the heavy radar equipment also took its toll: the gross weight climbed by more than 3 tons, and as a result much of the gained performance through the stronger engines and the swept wings was eaten away.
Maximum internal fuel load was 1.350 US gallons, plus a further 300 in underwing drop tanks. Overall wing surface remained the same, but the swept wing surfaces reduced the wing span.
In the end, thrust-to-weight ratio was only marginally improved and in fact, the F3D-3 had a lower rate of climb than the F3D-2, its top speed at height was only marginally higher, and stall speed climbed by more than 30 mph, making carrier landings more complicated.
It's equipment was also the same - the AN/APQ-35 was still fitted, but mainly because the large radar dish offered the largest detection range of any carrier-borne type of that time, and better radars that could match this performance were still under construction. Anyway, the F3D-3 was able to carry Sparrow I from the start, and this would soon be upgraded to Sparrow III (which became the AIM-7), and it showed much better flight characteristics at medium altitude.
Despite the ,many shortcomings the "new" aircraft represented an overall improvement over the F3D-2 and was accepted for service. Production of the F3D-3 started in 1955, but technology advanced quickly and a serious competitor with supersonic capability appeared with the McDonnell F3H Demon and the F4D Skyray - much more potent aircraft that the USN immediately preferred to the slow F3Ds. As a consequence, the production contract was cut down to only 102 aircraft.
But it came even worse: production of the swept wing Skyknight already ceased after 18 months and 71 completed airframes. Ironically, the F3D-3's successor, the F3H and its J40 engine, turned out to be more capricious than expected, which delayed the Demon's service introduction and seriously hampered its performance, so that the F3D-3 kept its all weather/night fighter role until 1960, and was eventually taken out of service in 1964 when the first F-4 Phantom II fighters appeared in USN service.
In 1962 all F3D versions were re-designated into F-10, the swept wing F3D-3 became the F-10C. The straight wing versions were used as trainers and also served as an electronic warfare platform into the Vietnam War as a precursor to the EA-6A Intruder and EA-6B Prowler, while the swept-wing fighters were completely retired as their performance and mission equipment had been outdated. The last F-10C flew in 1965.
General characteristics
Crew: two
Length: 49 ft (14.96 m)
Wingspan: 42 feet 5 inches (12.95 m)
Height: 16 ft 1 in (4.90 m)
Wing area: 400 ft² (37.16 m²)
Empty weight: 19.800 lb (8.989 kg)
Loaded weight: 28,843 lb (13.095 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 34.000 lb (15.436 kg)
Powerplant:
2× General Electric J47-GE-2 turbojets, each rated at 6.000 lbf (26,7 kN) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 630 mph (1.014 km/h) at sea level, 515 mph (829 km/h) t (6,095 m)
Cruise speed: 515 mph (829 km/h) at 40,000 feet
Stall speed: 128 mph (206 km/h)
Range: 890 mi (1.433 km) with internal fuel; 1,374 mi, 2,212 km with 2× 300 gal (1.136 l) tanks
Service ceiling: 43.000 ft (13.025 m)
Rate of climb: 2,640 ft/min (13,3 m/s)
Wing loading: 53.4 lb/ft² (383 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.353
Armament
4× 20 mm Hispano-Suiza M2 cannon, 200 rpg, in the lower nose
Four underwing hardpoints inboard of the wing folding points for up to 4.000 lb (1.816 kg)
ordnance, including AIM-7 Sparrow air-to-air missiles, 11.75 in (29.8cm) Tiny Tim rockets, two
150 or 300 US gal drop tanks or bombs of up to 2.000 lb (900 kg) caliber, plus four hardpoints
under each outer wing for a total of eight 5" HVARs or eight pods with six 2 3/4" FFARs each
The kit and its assembly:
Another project which had been on the list for some years now but finally entered the hardware stage. The F3D itself is already a more or less forgotten aircraft, and there are only a few kits available - there has been a vacu kit, the Matchbox offering and lately kits in 1:72 and 1:48 by Sword.
The swept wing F3D-3 remained on the drawing board, but would have been a very attractive evolution of the tubby Skyknight. In fact, the swept surfaces resemble those of the A3D/B-66 a Iot, and this was the spark that started the attempt to build this aircraft as a model through a kitbash.
This model is basically the Matchbox F3D coupled with wings from an Italeri B-66, even though, being much bigger, these had to be modified.
The whole new tail is based on B-66 material. The fin's chord was shortened, though, and a new leading edge (with its beautiful curvature) had to be sculpted from 2C putty. The vertical stabilizers also come from the B-66, its span was adjusted to the Skyknight's and a new root intersection was created from styrene and putty, so that a cross-shaped tail could be realized.
The tail radar dish was retained, even though sketches show the F3D-3 without it.
The wings were take 1:1 from the B-66 and match well. They just had to be shortened, I set the cut at maybe 5mm outwards of the engine pods' attachment points. They needed some re-engraving for the inner flaps, as these would touch the F3D-3's engines when lowered, but shape, depth and size are very good for the conversion.
On the fuselage, the wings' original "attachment bays" had to be filled, and the new wings needed a new position much further forward, directly behind the cockpit, in order to keep the CoG.
One big issue would be the main landing gear. On the straight wing aircraft it retracts outwards, and I kept this arrangement. No detail of the exact landing gear well position was available to me, so I used the Matchbox parts as stencils and placed the new wells as much aft as possible, cutting out new openings from the B-66 wings.
The OOB landing gear was retained, but I added some structure to the landing gear wells with plastic blister material - not to be realistic, just for the effect. A lot of lead was added in the kit's nose section, making sure it actually stands on the front wheel.
The Matchbox Skyknight basically offers no real problems, even though the air intake design leaves, by tendency some ugly seams and even gaps. I slightly pimped the cockpit with headrests, additional gauges and a gunsight, as well as two (half) pilot figures. I did not plan to present the opened cockpit and the bulbous windows do not allow a clear view onto the inside anyway, so this job was only basically done. In fact, the pilots don't have a lower body at all...
Ordnance comprises of four Sparrow III - the Sparrow I with its pointed nose could have been an option, too, but I think at the time of 1960 the early version was already phased out?
Painting and markings:
This was supposed to become a typical USN service aircraft of the 60ies, so a grey/white livery was predetermined. I had built an EF-10B many years ago from the Matchbox kit, and the grey/white guise suits the Whale well - and here it would look even better, with the new, elegant wings.
For easy painting I used semi matt white from the rattle can on the lower sides (painting the landing gear at the same time!), and then added FS 36440 (Light Gull Grey, Humbrol 129) with a brush to the upper sides. The radar nose became semi matt black (with some weathering), while the RHAWS dish was kept in tan (Humbrol 71).
In order to emphasize the landing gear and the respective wells I added a red rim to the covers.
The cockpit interior was painted in dark grey - another factor which made adding too many details there futile, too...
The aircraft's individual marking were to be authentic, and not flamboyant. In the mid 50ies the USN machines were not as colorful as in the Vietnam War era, that just started towards the 60ies.
The markings I used come primarily from an Emhar F3H Demon, which features no less than four(!) markings, all with different colors. I settled for a machine of VF-61 "Jolly Rogers", which operated from the USS Saratoga primarily in the Mediterranean from 1958 on - and shortly thereafter the unit was disbanded.
I took some of the Demon markings and modified them with very similar but somewhat more discrete markings from VMF-323, which flew FJ-4 at the time - both squadrons marked their aircraft with yellow diamonds on black background, and I had some leftover decals from a respective Xtradecal sheet in the stash.
IMHO a good result with the B-66 donation parts, even though I am not totally happy with the fin - it could have been more slender at the top, and with a longer, more elegant spine fillet, but for that the B-66 fin was just too thick. Anyway, I am not certain if anyone has ever built this aircraft? I would not call the F3D-3 elegant or beautiful, but the swept wings underline the fuselage's almost perfect teardrop shape, and the thing reminds a lot of the later Grumman A-6 Intruder?
+++ 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 Hütter Hü 324 was the final development stage of BMW's 'Schnellbomber II' project, which had been designed around two mighty BMW 109-028 turboprops.
These innovative engines had been developed since February 1941, but did not receive fullest attention due to the more promising jet engines. Anyway, it soon became clear that no jet engine with the potential to drive a bomber-sized aircraft - considering both performance and fuel consumption - would be available on short notice. Consequently, the BMW 028 received more attention from the RLM from 1943 on.
Biggest pressure came from the fact that several obsolete types like the He 111 or Do 217 had to be replaced, and the ill-fated and complicated He 177 was another candidate with little future potential, since four-engined variants had been rejected. Additionally, the promising and ambitious Ju 288 had been stillborn, and a wide gap for a tactical medium bomber opned in the Luftwaffe arsenal.
In may 1943, new requirements for a medium bomber were concretised. Main objective was to design a fast, twin-engined bomber, primarily intended for horizontal bombing, which would be able to carry a 3.000 kilograms (6.600 lbs) payload at 800 kilometres per hour in a 1.500km (900 ml) radius. The plane had to be fast and to operate at great heights, limiting the threat of interception.
Since many major design bureaus’ resources were bound, Ulrich W. Hütter, an Austro-German engineer and university professor got involved in the RLM project and BMW's design team which had been working on appropriate designs. In July 1943, Hütter moved to the Research Institute of the Graf Zeppelin works (FGZ) convened in Ruit near Stuttgart, and as head of the engineering department he was also involved in the development of manned missiles, underwater towing systems and the Hü 211 high altitude interceptor/reconnaissance plane.
Under Ulrich W. Hütter and his brother, Wolfgang Hütter, BMW's original and highly innovative (if not over-ambitious) Schnellbomber designs gave way to a more conservative layout: the so-called BMW-Hütter Hü 324.
The plane was conventional in layout, with high, unswept laminar profile wings and a high twin tail. The engines were carried in nacelles slung directly under the wings. The nose wheel retracted rearwards, while the main wheels retracted forwards into the engine nacelles, rotating 90°, and laying flat under the engines. The crew of four (pilot, co-pilot/bombardier, navigator/radar operator and gunner/radio operator) were accommodated in a compact, pressurised "glass house" cockpit section – a popular design and morale element in Luftwaffe bomber and reconnaissance aircraft of that era.
Construction of the first prototype started in February 1945, and while the aircraft cell made good progress towards the hardware stage, the development suffered a serious setback in March when BMW admitted that the 109-028 turboprop engine would not be ready in time. It took until August to arrive, and the prototype did not fly until 6 November 1945.
Initial flight test of the four A-0 pre-production samples of the Hü 324 went surprisingly well. Stability and vibration problems with the aircraft were noted, though. One major problem was that the front glas elements were prone to crack at high speeds, and it took a while to trace the troubole source back to the engines and sort these problems out. Among others, contraprops were fitted to counter the vibration problems, the engines' power output had to be reduced by more than 500 WPS and the tail fins had to be re-designed.
Another innovative feature of this bomber was the “Elbegast” ground-looking navigation radar system, which allowed identification of targets on the ground for night and all-weather bombing. It was placed in a shallow radome behind the front wheel. Performance-wise, the system was comparable to the USAAF’s H2X radar, and similarly compact. Overall, the Hü 324 showed much promise and a convincing performance, was easy to build and maintain, and it was immediately taken to service.
Despite the relatively high speed and agility for a plane of its size, the Hü 324 bore massive defensive armament: the original equipment of the A-1 variant comprised two remotely operated FDL 131Z turrets in dorsal (just behind the cockpit) and ventral (behind the bomb bay) position with 2× 13 mm MG 131 machine guns each, plus an additional, unmanned tail barbette with a single 20mm canon. All these guns were aimed by the gunner through a sighting station at the rear of the cockpit, effectively covering the rear hemisphere of the bomber.
After first operational experience, this defence was beefed up with another remotely-controlled barbette with 2× 13 mm MG 131 machine guns under the cockpit, firing forwards. The reason was similar to the introduction of the chin-mounted gun turret in the B-17G: the plane was rather vulnerable to frontal attacks. In a secondary use, the chin guns could be used for strafing ground targets. This update was at first called /R1, but was later incorporated into series production, under the designation A-2.
Effectively, almost 4.500kg ordnance could be carried in- and externally, normally limited to 3.000kg in the bomb bay in order to keep the wings clean and reduce drag, for a high cruising speed. While simple iron bombs and aerial mines were the Hü 324's main payload, provisions were made to carry guided weapons like against small/heavily fortified targets. Several Rüstsätze (accessory packs) were developed, and the aircraft in service received an "/Rx" suffix to their designation, e. g. the R2 Rüstsatz for Fritz X bomb guidance or the R3 set for rocket-propelled Hs 293 bombs.
Trials were even carried out with a semi-recessed Fieseler Fi 103 missile, better known as the V1 flying bomb, hung under the bomber's belly and in an enlarged bomb bay, under deletion of the ventral barbette.
The Hü 324 bomber proved to be an elusive target for the RAF day and night fighters, especially at height. After initial attacks at low level, where fast fighters like the Hawker Tempest or DH Mosquito night fighters were the biggest threat, tactics were quickly changed. Approaching at great height and speed, bombing was conducted from medium altitudes of 10,000 to 15,000 feet (3,000 to 4,600 m).
The Hü 324 proved to be very successful, striking against a variety of targets, including bridges and radar sites along the British coast line, as well as ships on the North Sea.
From medium altitude, the Hü 324 A-2 proved to be a highly accurate bomber – thanks to its "Elbegast" radar system which also allowed the planes to act as pathfinders for older types or fast bombers with less accurate equipment like the Ar 232, Ju 388 or Me 410. Loss rates were far lower than in the early, low-level days, with the Hü 324 stated by the RLM as having the lowest loss rate in the European Theatre of Operations at less than 0.8 %.
BMW-Hütter Ha 324A-2, general characteristics:
Crew: 4
Length: 18.58 m (60 ft 10 in)
Wingspan: 21.45 m (70 ft 4½ in )
Height: 4.82 m (15 ft 9½ in)
Wing area: 60.80 m² (654.5 ft.²)
Empty weight: 12,890 kg (28,417 lb)
Loaded weight: 18,400 kg (40,565 lb)
Max. take-off weight: 21,200 kg (46,738 lb)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 810 km/h (503 mph) at optimum height
Cruising speed: 750 km/h (460 mph) at 10,000 m (32,800 ft)
Range: 3.500 km (2.180 ml)
Service ceiling: 11.400 m (37.500 ft)
Rate of climb: 34.7 m/s (6,820 ft/min)
Powerplant:
Two BMW 109-028 ‘Mimir’ turboprop engines, limited to 5.500 WPS (4.044 WkW) each plus an additional residual thrust of 650kg (1.433 lb), driving four-bladed contraprops.
Armament:
6× 13mm MG 131 in three FDL 131Z turrets
1× 20mm MG 151/20 in unmanned/remote-controlled tail barbette
Up to 4.500 kg (9.800 lbs) in a large enclosed bomb-bay in the fuselage and/or four underwing hardpoints.
Typically, bomb load was limited to 3.000 kg (6.500 lbs) internally.
The kit and its assembly
This project/model belongs in the Luft '46 category, but it has no strict real world paradigm - even though Luftwaffe projects like the Ju 288, the BMW Schnellbomber designs or Arado's E560/2 and E560/7 had a clear influence. Actually, “my” Hü 324 design looks pretty much like a He 219 on steroids! Anyway, this project was rather inspired by a ‘click’ when two ideas/elements came together and started forming something new and convincing. This is classic kitbashing, and the major ingredients are:
● Fuselage, wings, landing gear and engine nacelles from a Trumpeter Ilyushin Il-28 bomber
● Nose section from an Italeri Ju 188 (donated from a friend, leftover from his Ju 488 project)
● Stabilisers from an Italeri B-25, replacing the Il-28’s swept tail
● Contraprops and fuselage barbettes from a vintage 1:100 scale Tu-20(-95) kit from VEB Plasticart (yes, vintage GDR stuff!)
Most interestingly, someone from the Netherlands had a similar idea for a kitbashing some years ago: www.airwar1946.nl/whif/L46-ju588.htm. I found this after I got my idea for the Hü 324 together, though - but its funny to see how some ideas manifest independently?
Building the thing went pretty straightforward, even though Trumpeter's Il-28 kit has a rather poor fit. Biggest problem turned out to be the integration of the Ju 188 cockpit section: it lacks 4-5mm in width! That does not sound dramatic, but it took a LOT of putty and internal stabilisation to graft the parts onto the Il-28's fuselage.
The cockpit was completely re-equipped with stuff from the scrap box, and the main landing gear received twin wheels.
The chin turret was mounted after the fuselage was complete, the frontal defence had been an issue I had been pondering about for a long while. Originally, some fixed guns (just as the Il-28 or Tu-16) had been considered. But when I found an old Matchbox B-17G turret in my scrap box, I was convinced that this piece could do literally the same job in my model, and it was quickly integrated. As a side effect, this arrangement justifies the bulged cockpit bottom well, and it just looks "more dangerous".
Another task was the lack of a well for the front wheel, after the Il-28 fuselage had been cut and lacked the original interior. This was also added after the new fuselage had been fitted together, and the new well walls were built with thin polystyrene plates. Not 100% exact and clean, but the arrangement fits the bill and takes the twin front wheel.
The bomb bay was left open, since the Trumpeter kit offers a complete interior. I also added four underwing hardpoints for external loads (one pair in- and outboard of the engine nacelles), taken from A-7 Corsair II kits, but left them empty. Visually-guided weapons like the 'Fritz X' bomb or Hs 293 missiles would IMHO hardly make sense during night sorties? I also did not want to overload the kit with more and more distracting details.
Painting
Even though it is a whif I wanted to incorporate some serious/authentic late WWII Luftwaffe looks. Since the Hü 324 would have been an all-weather bomber, I went for a night bomber livery which was actually used on a He 177 from 2./KG 100, based in France: Black (RLM 22, I simply used Humbrol 33) undersides, and upper surfaces in RLM 76 (Base is Humbrol 128, FS36320, plus some added areas with Testors 2086, the authentic tone which is a tad lighter, but very close) with mottles in RLM 75 (Grauviolett, Testors 2085, plus some splotches of Humbrol 27, Medium Sea Grey), and some weathering through black ink, some enhanced panel lines (with a mix of matte varnish and Panzergrau), as well as some dry painting all over the fuselage.
All interior surfaces were painted in RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau/Black Grey, Testors 2079), typical for German late WWII aircraft. Propeller spinners were painted RLM 70 (Schwarzgrün) on the front half, the rear half was painted half black and half white.
Pretty simple scheme, but it looks VERY cool, esp. on this sleek aircraft. I am very happy with this decision, and I think that this rather simple livery is less distracting from the fantasy plane itself, making the whif less obvious. In the end, the whole thing looks a bit grey-in-grey, but that spooky touch just adds to the menacing look of this beefy aircraft. I think it would not look as good if it had been kept in daytime RLM 74/75/76 or even RLM 82/83/76?
Markings and squadron code were puzzled together from an Authentic Decal aftermarket sheet for a late He 111 and individual letters from TL Modellbau. The "F3" code for the fictional Kampfgruppe (KG) 210 is a random choice, "EV" marks the individual plane, the red "E" and the control letter "V" at the end designate a plane from the eleventh squadron of KG 210. My idea is that the Hü 324 would replace these machines and literally taking their place in the frontline aviaton units. So I tried to keep in line with the German aircraft code, but after all, it's just a whif...
So, after some more surgical work than expected, the Hü 324 medium bomber is ready to soar!
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
After the Second World War, France’s armored force consisted, almost entirely, of US-built vehicles, such as the M4 Sherman, M26 Pershing, and M24 Chaffee (among others). France received these vehicles as aid as part of the Marshall Plan and the Mutual Defense Assistance Act (MDAA). These aid pacts also financed the reconstruction of France’s economy and armed forces from 1948 until the late 1950s. In April 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed, and NATO was born, resulting in the United States extending the MDAA. This resulted in France receiving newer vehicles, such as the M47 Patton II tank.
In total, France would operate around 1,250 M24s which were identical to their US counterparts. It was a small tank at 5.45 meters (16 ft 4 in) long, 2.84 meters (9ft 4in) wide, and 2.61 meters (9ft 3in) tall. It weighed 16.6 tonnes (18.37 tons), utilized a torsion bar suspension, and was armed with a 75 mm gun. The tank had a 5-men crew: Commander, Gunner, Loader, Driver, Bow Gunner. The ‘Chaffee’ was named after WWI US Army General, Adna R. Chaffee Jr.
In 1956, the French Army and the Direction des Etudes et Fabrications d’Armements (Directorate of Studies and Manufacture of Armaments, DEFA, an institution within the French Military) were looking into affordable methods of modernizing their fleet of aging M24 Chaffee light tanks, which had been operated since WWII. One method was to somehow combine France’s new domestic light tank, the AMX-13, with the M24.
Initially, this led to the mating of the AMX-13’s FL-10 oscillating turret to the hull of the Chaffee, as the most logical step to improve the M24s. While cheap and feasible, this configuration never went further than trials. This was largely due to a perceived safety issue with the High-Explosive (HE) rounds fired by the CN 75-50 cannon. Inside the FL-10 turret, the CN 75-50 gun was fed via an automatic loading system, which was reloaded externally. If an alternate shell-type needed to be fired, HE, for example, it had to be loaded into the breach manually by the Commander. This was a tricky task in the tight confines of the turret on the standard AMX, made worse by the notoriously sensitive fuze of the HE rounds. This process would be even more dangerous on the smaller hull of the Chaffee. As a result, the inverse of this mounting was decided upon, mounting the Chaffee’s turret on the AMX-13’s hull.
The officially designated AMX-US was a result of this, even though there were many other unofficial names, including ‘AMX-13 Chaffee’ – as it was known by troops – or ‘AMX-13 Avec Tourelle Chaffee (with Chaffee Turret)’. By 1957, work on the inverse of mounting the Chaffee turret to the AMX hull had begun, what was regarded as a safer and easier alternative, and it was also a convenient way of recycling useful Chaffee turrets by separating them from their worn hulls. It also created a vehicle lighter than the regular Chaffee, meaning it was easier to transport.
The M24 turrets went through very little modification for their installation, retaining all the same main features. The only modification necessary was the introduction of an adapter or ‘collar’ to the AMX hull’s turret ring. This was needed as the Chaffee turret had quite a deep basket. The collar granted the basket clearance from the hull floor for uninterrupted, full 360-degree rotation.
The Chaffee turret was a standard design with a typical 3-man crew of the time: Gunner, Loader, and Commander. The Commander sat at the left rear of the turret under a vision-cupola, the gunner sat in front of him. The loader was located at the right-rear of the turret under his own hatch. Armor on the turret was 25 mm (.98 in) thick on all sides, with the gun mantlet being 38 mm (1.49 in) thick.
The AMX-US was operated by a four-man crew, as opposed to the three-man crew of the standard Mle 51, due to the three-man turret of the Chaffee. Armament consisted of the 75 mm Lightweight Tank Gun M6 which had a concentric recoil system (this was a hollow tube around the barrel, a space-saving alternative to traditional recoil cylinders). Variants of this gun were also used on the B-25H Mitchell Bomber, and the T33 Flame Thrower Tank prototype. The shell velocity was 619 m/s (2,031 ft/s) and had a maximum penetration of 109 mm. The elevation range of the gun was around -10 to +13 degrees. Secondary weapons were also retained. This included the coaxial .30 Cal (7.62 mm) Browning M1919 Machine Gun, and the .50 Caliber (12.7 mm) M2 Browning Heavy Machine gun which was mounted on the rear of the turret roof.
Apart from the adaptor or ‘collar’, the AMX hull went through no alterations. It retained the same dimensions, and forward-mounted engine and transmission. The tank was powered by a SOFAM Model 8Gxb 8-cylinder, water-cooled petrol engine developing 250 hp, propelling the tank to a top speed of around 60 km/h (37 mph). The vehicle ran on a torsion bar suspension with five road-wheels, two return rollers, a rear-mounted idler, and a forward-mounted drive-sprocket. The driver was positioned at the front left of the hull, behind the transmission and next to the engine.
Trials with what would be designated the ‘AMX-US’ were undertaken between December 1959 and January 1960. The vehicle was well received, with an order for 150 conversions being placed by the French military in March 1960. Conversion work was carried out at a plant in Gien, North-Central France.
The AMX-US saw brief service in the War in Algeria – otherwise known as the Algerian War of Independence or Algerian Revolution. One known operator was the 9e Régiment de Hussards (9th Hussar Regiment) based in Oran. They served well, but a few were lost in combat, but there is no evidence to suggest they served in any other location with the French military, such as in France or West Germany based regiments.
After the conflict in Algeria, the vehicles were returned to France, but they did not last long in active service after this. Many vehicles were being repurposed into driver trainers. For this, the vehicles were disarmed, with the 75 mm gun and mantlet removed from the turret face and a large plexiglass windscreen was installed in its place.
About fifty surplus AMX-US were sold as scout tanks to Israel, because the AMX-13, which had been procured and operated by the IDF since 1956 in great numbers, was used as a battle tank, so that no IDF reconnaissance unit used the AMX 13. The AMX-US was a perfect and cheap alternative to fill this operational gap, and the vehicles, delivered in 1963, took actively part in the 1967 Six-Day-War.
During these battles, the IDF soon realized that the AMX-13 tank in general was too lightly armored and lacked firepower, and this was even more true for the AMX-US with its vintage WWII gun. Losses were heavy at places like Rafah Junction and Jiradi Pass with many tanks destroyed by heavier Arab-fielded Soviet armor, such as T-55 MBTs and IS-3 heavy tanks. After that, both the AMX-13 and the AMX-US were gradually phased out by the IDF, either sold to other nations (e. g. Thailand), broken up for spares or preserved and stored in depots.
In 1975, a handful of these mothballed AMX-US were, together with other outdated Six-Day-War M50 Sherman veterans, re-activated and handed over to the South Lebanese Army (SLA). The SLA was a Christian militia during the Lebanese Civil War, opposing Muslim militias supported by Syria. The SLA received a total of 15 AMX-US, plus 35 M50s, and all these tanks were painted in a characteristic light blue-grey color. The SLA kept these tanks operational and active for a surprisingly long period, the last confirmed appearance of an SLA AMX-US in battle was in 1988. Even after the retirement of the last operational specimen, the SLA still used the AMX-US for training and security duties.
In 2000, nearly ten years after the end of the civil war, the SLA disbanded, and the surviving former IDF tanks were returned to Israel to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands – spelling the end to the AMX-US long career, of which four were returned and subsequently scrapped.
Specifications:
Crew: Four (Commander, Loader, Gunner, Driver)
Weight: 15 tons
Length: 4.88 m (16 ft) overall
Width: 2.51 m (8 ft 2 in)
Height: 2.30 m (7 ft 5 in)
Suspension: Torsion arms; Tracked chassis, 5 roadwheels, drive sprocket front, idler rear,
3.00 m length, 0.35 width, 2.16 m track
Ground clearance: 0.37 m (1 ft 2½ in)
Fording depth: 2 ft (0.6 m) unprepared, 6.9 ft (2.1 m) with snorkel
Grade: 60%
Side slope: 60%
Trench crossing: 1.6 m (5 ft 3 in)
Vertical wall climb: 0.65 m (2 ft 1½ ft)
Fuel capacity: 480 l (127 gal)
Engine:
1× water-cooled Renault SOFAM Model 8Gxb 8-cylinder gasoline with 250 hp
Transmission:
Hydramatic automatic transmission; 8 speeds forward, 4 reverse
Armor:
Hull: 10 - 40 mm (1.57 in)
Turret: max. 38 mm (1.49 in)
Performance:
Speed: 60 km/h (40 mph) maximum, road
Operational range: 350 km (217 mi) on streets with internal fuel only
Power/weight: 17 hp/t
Armament:
1× 75 mm Lightweight Tank Gun M6 in Mount M64 with 48 rounds
1× co-axial 0.30 Cal. (7.62 mm) Browning M1919 machine gun, 2.200 rounds
1× 0.50 Caliber (12.7 mm) M2 Browning anti-aircraft heavy machine gun, 440 rounds
The kit and its assembly:
This fictional tank model is the result of recycling: After a T-34 conversion, which used an AMX-13 turret, I was left with the chassis of a 1:72 Heller kit. The latter is a rather simple and primitive affair, with many wrong details and a very weak running gear. From another, even older conversion project I also had an almost complete turret from a Hasegawa M24 Chaffee left over. When I stumbled in literature over the French AMX-US hybrid I decided to use these leftover bits to create one!
The AMX-13 chassis was taken OOB, because I did want to invest too much energy into this build, despite its many flaws. Its running gear is rubbish, the vinyl tracks featureless, and overall the detail level is rather soft. From a distance it looks like an AMX-13, but any closer inspection reveals the model's simplicity and toy-likeness. The Chaffee turret was also built with the original parts – but I had to replace the gun barrel and find a replacement for the gunner’s hatch.
Nevertheless, some scratch work had to be done. The biggest challenge was the AMX-US’ characteristic turret adapter ring, which markedly raises the M24 turret above the AMX-13 hull. My solution became a manually bent a piece of soft styrene profile - it’s not perfectly circular, but that’s not obvious when the turret is in place, and it looks the part. Furthermore, some small bits were added to hide flaws and distract. These include vertical bars in the exhaust opening, shallow storage boxes on the fenders (hiding the wacky distance ring) and tarpaulin/cammo net packs (created from paper tissue and nylon stockings drenched with white glue). The commander cupola’s hatch was left open and a figure (an ESCI German WWII tank commander) added, to make the model appear livelier. Since the M24’s AA machine gun had been gone, I had to replace it with one from an ESCI Merkava, its mount was moved in front of the cupola.
Painting and markings:
Initially, I just had the French army as potential operator for the AMX-US but found that rather boring due to the very limited livery options: any French tank from the era would have carried a dark olive-green livery, even those operated in North Africa! Some French M24s had been operated in South-East Asia in a sand/green/brown/green jungle scheme, but the time frame would not match well. So, I checked other AMX-13 operators and took liking in an IDF vehicle. However, while looking for potential liveries I came upon the SLA. The AMX-US, had it been handed over to the IDF, could have been among these donor tanks, and their unique (if not spectacular) light blue livery made them outstanding. I am not certain whether the blue tone was intended as serious camouflage or just as an IFF measure? However, among typical light rocks and mountains of the Lebenon and in dusty/hazy air, the bluish tone actually works quite fine, better than expected.
While a uniform livery is not complex, finding a suitable tone for the model took a while. Real life color pictures (of dubious quality) show a wide range of light blue and/or grey tones, ranging from a bright sky blue over pale grey (like FS 36375) to a medium bluish grey (FS 35237), frequently with severe signs of weathering/sun-bleaching which makes some tanks appear almost white. Some M50s also had olive drab or dark grey patches or patterns added on top as additional camouflage.
After testing several options I chose RLM78 (Modelmaster 2088) as basic tone. Odd choice, but it turned out to be light enough, is a rather blue tone (with a slight hint of green), but still dull enough to look like a military tone. An overall washing with a mix of grey, black and red brown followed, and then the model received a thorough, overall dry brushing treatment with various shades of light blue grey, including Modelmaster RLM76, FS 36320 and Revell 75, for a worn and bleached appearance.
The markings had to be completely improvised, though, and were created with Corel Draw on an ink jet printer and with white and clear decal paper. They include the SLA’s cedar tree emblem and the Arabic tactical codes. The white “X” markings were created with generic decal stripes.
After the model had been sealed with matt acrylic varnish, sand and dust residues were created with watercolors, and some beige mineral pigments were dusted into the running gear and over the upper surfaces.
A quick build and a good use of leftover parts from other projects, melded into a plausible result. The SLA livery adds a weird twist to this model, even though it is – in the end – just a mix of real-world elements: the AMX-US existed, and the SLA operated light blue tanks! Life is sometimes stranger than fiction.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on authentic facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The РТАК-30 attack vintoplan (also known as vintokryl) owed its existence to the Mil Mi-30 plane/helicopter project that originated in 1972. The Mil Mi-30 was conceived as a transport aircraft that could hold up to 19 passengers or two tons of cargo, and its purpose was to replace the Mi-8 and Mi-17 Helicopters in both civil and military roles. With vertical takeoff through a pair of tiltrotor engine pods on the wing tips (similar in layout to the later V-22 Osprey) and the ability to fly like a normal plane, the Mil Mi-30 had a clear advantage over the older models.
Since the vintoplan concept was a completely new field of research and engineering, a dedicated design bureau was installed in the mid-Seventies at the Rostov-na-Donu helicopter factory, where most helicopters from the Mil design bureau were produced, under the title Ростов Тилт Ротор Авиационная Компания (Rostov Tilt Rotor Aircraft Company), or РТАК (RTRA), for short.
The vintoplan project lingered for some time, with basic research being conducted concerning aerodynamics, rotor design and flight control systems. Many findings later found their way into conventional planes and helicopters. At the beginning of the 1980s, the project had progressed far enough that the vintoplan received official backing so that РТАК scientists and Mil helicopter engineers assembled and tested several layouts and components for this complicated aircraft type.
At that time the Mil Mi-30 vintoplan was expected to use a single TV3-117 Turbo Shaft Engine with a four-bladed propeller rotors on each of its two pairs of stub wings of almost equal span. The engine was still installed in the fuselage and the proprotors driven by long shafts.
However, while being a very clean design, this original layout revealed several problems concerning aeroelasticity, dynamics of construction, characteristics for the converter apparatuses, aerodynamics and flight dynamics. In the course of further development stages and attempts to rectify the technical issues, the vintoplan layout went through several revisions. The layout shifted consequently from having 4 smaller engines in rotating pods on two pairs of stub wings through three engines with rotating nacelles on the front wings and a fixed, horizontal rotor over the tail and finally back to only 2 engines (much like the initial concept), but this time mounted in rotating nacelles on the wing tips and a canard stabilizer layout.
In August 1981 the Commission of the Presidium of the USSR Council of Ministers on weapons eventually issued a decree on the development of a flyworthy Mil Mi-30 vintoplan prototype. Shortly afterwards the military approved of the vintoplan, too, but desired bigger, more powerful engines in order to improve performance and weight capacity. In the course of the ensuing project refinement, the weight capacity was raised to 3-5 tons and the passenger limit to 32. In parallel, the modified type was also foreseen for civil operations as a short range feederliner, potentially replacing Yak-40 and An-24 airliners in Aeroflot service.
In 1982, РТАК took the interest from the military and proposed a dedicated attack vintoplan, based on former research and existing components of the original transport variant. This project was accepted by MAP and received the separate designation РТАК-30. However, despite having some close technical relations to the Mi-30 transport (primarily the engine nacelles, their rotation mechanism and the flight control systems), the РТАК-30 was a completely different aircraft. The timing was good, though, and the proposal was met with much interest, since the innovative vintoplan concept was to compete against traditional helicopters: the design work on the dedicated Mi-28 and Ka-50 attack helicopters had just started at that time, too, so that РТАК received green lights for the construction of five prototypes: four flyworthy machines plus one more for static ground tests.
The РТАК-30 was based on one of the early Mi-30 layouts and it combined two pairs of mid-set wings with different wing spans with a tall tail fin that ensured directional stability. Each wing carried a rotating engine nacelle with a so-called proprotor on its tip, each with three high aspect ratio blades. The proprotors were handed (i.e. revolved in opposite directions) in order to minimize torque effects and improve handling, esp. in the hover. The front and back pair of engines were cross-linked among each other on a common driveshaft, eliminating engine-out asymmetric thrust problems during V/STOL operations. In the event of the failure of one engine, it would automatically disconnect through torque spring clutches and both propellers on a pair of wings would be driven by the remaining engine.
Four engines were chosen because, despite the weight and complexity penalty, this extra power was expected to be required in order to achieve a performance that was markedly superior to a conventional helicopter like the Mi-24, the primary Soviet attack helicopter of that era the РТАК-30 was supposed to replace. It was also expected that the rotating nacelles could also be used to improve agility in level flight through a mild form of vectored thrust.
The РТАК-30’s streamlined fuselage provided ample space for avionics, fuel, a fully retractable tricycle landing gear and a two man crew in an armored side-by-side cockpit with ejection seats. The windshield was able to withstand 12.7–14.5 mm caliber bullets, the titanium cockpit tub could take hits from 20 mm cannon. An autonomous power unit (APU) was housed in the fuselage, too, making operations of the aircraft independent from ground support.
While the РТАК-30 was not intended for use as a transport, the fuselage was spacious enough to have a small compartment between the front wings spars, capable of carrying up to three people. The purpose of this was the rescue of downed helicopter crews, as a cargo hold esp. for transfer flights and as additional space for future mission equipment or extra fuel.
In vertical flight, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotor system used controls very similar to a twin or tandem-rotor helicopter. Yaw was controlled by tilting its rotors in opposite directions. Roll was provided through differential power or thrust, supported by ailerons on the rear wings. Pitch was provided through rotor cyclic or nacelle tilt and further aerodynamic surfaces on both pairs of wings. Vertical motion was controlled with conventional rotor blade pitch and a control similar to a fixed-wing engine control called a thrust control lever (TCL). The rotor heads had elastomeric bearings and the proprotor blades were made from composite materials, which could sustain 30 mm shells.
The РТАК-30 featured a helmet-mounted display for the pilot, a very modern development at its time. The pilot designated targets for the navigator/weapons officer, who proceeded to fire the weapons required to fulfill that particular task. The integrated surveillance and fire control system had two optical channels providing wide and narrow fields of view, a narrow-field-of-view optical television channel, and a laser rangefinder. The system could move within 110 degrees in azimuth and from +13 to −40 degrees in elevation and was placed in a spherical dome on top of the fuselage, just behind the cockpit.
The aircraft carried one automatic 2A42 30 mm internal gun, mounted semi-rigidly fixed near the center of the fuselage, movable only slightly in elevation and azimuth. The arrangement was also regarded as being more practical than a classic free-turning turret mount for the aircraft’s considerably higher flight speed than a normal helicopter. As a side effect, the semi-rigid mounting improved the cannon's accuracy, giving the 30 mm a longer practical range and better hit ratio at medium ranges. Ammunition supply was 460 rounds, with separate compartments for high-fragmentation, explosive incendiary, or armor-piercing rounds. The type of ammunition could be selected by the pilot during flight.
The gunner can select one of two rates of full automatic fire, low at 200 to 300 rds/min and high at 550 to 800 rds/min. The effective range when engaging ground targets such as light armored vehicles is 1,500 m, while soft-skinned targets can be engaged out to 4,000 m. Air targets can be engaged flying at low altitudes of up to 2,000 m and up to a slant range of 2,500 m.
A substantial range of weapons could be carried on four hardpoints under the front wings, plus three more under the fuselage, for a total ordnance of up to 2,500 kg (with reduced internal fuel). The РТАК-30‘s main armament comprised up to 24 laser-guided Vikhr missiles with a maximum range of some 8 km. These tube-launched missiles could be used against ground and aerial targets. A search and tracking radar was housed in a thimble radome on the РТАК-30’s nose and their laser guidance system (mounted in a separate turret under the radome) was reported to be virtually jam-proof. The system furthermore featured automatic guidance to the target, enabling evasive action immediately after missile launch. Alternatively, the system was also compatible with Ataka laser-guided anti-tank missiles.
Other weapon options included laser- or TV-guided Kh-25 missiles as well as iron bombs and napalm tanks of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber and several rocket pods, including the S-13 and S-8 rockets. The "dumb" rocket pods could be upgraded to laser guidance with the proposed Ugroza system. Against helicopters and aircraft the РТАК-30 could carry up to four R-60 and/or R-73 IR-guided AAMs. Drop tanks and gun pods could be carried, too.
When the РТАК-30's proprotors were perpendicular to the motion in the high-speed portions of the flight regime, the aircraft demonstrated a relatively high maximum speed: over 300 knots/560 km/h top speed were achieved during state acceptance trials in 1987, as well as sustained cruise speeds of 250 knots/460 km/h, which was almost twice as fast as a conventional helicopter. Furthermore, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotors and stub wings provided the aircraft with a substantially greater cruise altitude capability than conventional helicopters: during the prototypes’ tests the machines easily reached 6,000 m / 20,000 ft or more, whereas helicopters typically do not exceed 3,000 m / 10,000 ft altitude.
Flight tests in general and flight control system refinement in specific lasted until late 1988, and while the vintoplan concept proved to be sound, the technical and practical problems persisted. The aircraft was complex and heavy, and pilots found the machine to be hazardous to land, due to its low ground clearance. Due to structural limits the machine could also never be brought to its expected agility limits
During that time the Soviet Union’s internal tensions rose and more and more hampered the РТАК-30’s development. During this time, two of the prototypes were lost (the 1st and 4th machine) in accidents, and in 1989 only two machines were left in flightworthy condition (the 5th airframe had been set aside for structural ground tests). Nevertheless, the РТАК-30 made its public debut at the Paris Air Show in June 1989 (the 3rd prototype, coded “33 Yellow”), together with the Mi-28A, but was only shown in static display and did not take part in any flight show. After that, the aircraft received the NATO ASCC code "Hemlock" and caused serious concern in Western military headquarters, since the РТАК-30 had the potential to dominate the European battlefield.
And this was just about to happen: Despite the РТАК-30’s development problems, the innovative attack vintoplan was included in the Soviet Union’s 5-year plan for 1989-1995, and the vehicle was eventually expected to enter service in 1996. However, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dwindling economics, neither the РТАК-30 nor its civil Mil Mi-30 sister did soar out in the new age of technology. In 1990 the whole program was stopped and both surviving РТАК-30 prototypes were mothballed – one (the 3rd prototype) was disassembled and its components brought to the Rostov-na-Donu Mil plant, while the other, prototype No. 1, is rumored to be stored at the Central Russian Air Force Museum in Monino, to be restored to a public exhibition piece some day.
General characteristics:
Crew: Two (pilot, copilot/WSO) plus space for up to three passengers or cargo
Length: 45 ft 7 1/2 in (13,93 m)
Rotor diameter: 20 ft 9 in (6,33 m)
Wingspan incl. engine nacelles: 42 ft 8 1/4 in (13,03 m)
Total width with rotors: 58 ft 8 1/2 in (17,93 m)
Height: 17 ft (5,18 m) at top of tailfin
Disc area: 4x 297 ft² (27,65 m²)
Wing area: 342.2 ft² (36,72 m²)
Empty weight: 8,500 kg (18,740 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 12,000 kg (26,500 lb)
Powerplant:
4× Klimov VK-2500PS-03 turboshaft turbines, 2,400 hp (1.765 kW) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 275 knots (509 km/h, 316 mph) at sea level
305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)
Cruise speed: 241 kn (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level
Stall speed: 110 kn (126 mph, 204 km/h) in airplane mode
Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)
Combat radius: 390 nmi (426 mi, 722 km)
Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (2,230 mi, 3,590 km) with auxiliary external fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m)
Rate of climb: 2,320–4,000 ft/min (11.8 m/s)
Glide ratio: 4.5:1
Disc loading: 20.9 lb/ft² at 47,500 lb GW (102.23 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)
Armament:
1× 30 mm (1.18 in) 2A42 multi-purpose autocannon with 450 rounds
7 external hardpoints for a maximum ordnance of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb)
The kit and its assembly:
This exotic, fictional aircraft-thing is a contribution to the “The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2019. While the propulsion system itself is not that unconventional, I deemed the quadrocopter concept (which had already been on my agenda for a while) to be suitable for a worthy submission.
The Mil Mi-30 tiltrotor aircraft, mentioned in the background above, was a real project – but my alternative combat vintoplan design is purely speculative.
I had already stashed away some donor parts, primarily two sets of tiltrotor backpacks for 1:144 Gundam mecha from Bandai, which had been released recently. While these looked a little toy-like, these parts had the charm of coming with handed propellers and stub wings that would allow the engine nacelles to swivel.
The search for a suitable fuselage turned out to be a more complex safari than expected. My initial choice was the spoofy Italeri Mi-28 kit (I initially wanted a staggered tandem cockpit), but it turned out to be much too big for what I wanted to achieve. Then I tested a “real” Mi-28 (Dragon) and a Ka-50 (Italeri), but both failed for different reasons – the Mi-28 was too slender, while the Ka-50 had the right size – but converting it for my build would have been VERY complicated, because the engine nacelles would have to go and the fuselage shape between the cockpit and the fuselage section around the original engines and stub wings would be hard to adapt. I eventually bought an Italeri Ka-52 two-seater as fuselage donor.
In order to mount the four engines to the fuselage I’d need two pairs of wings of appropriate span – and I found a pair of 1:100 A-10 wings as well as the wings from an 1:72 PZL Iskra (not perfect, but the most suitable donor parts I could find in the junkyard). On the tips of these wings, the swiveling joints for the engine nacelles from the Bandai set were glued. While mounting the rear wings was not too difficult (just the Ka-52’s OOB stabilizers had to go), the front pair of wings was more complex. The reason: the Ka-52’s engines had to go and their attachment points, which are actually shallow recesses on the kit, had to be faired over first. Instead of filling everything with putty I decided to cover the areas with 0.5mm styrene sheet first, and then do cosmetic PSR work. This worked quite well and also included a cover for the Ka-52’s original rotor mast mount. Onto these new flanks the pair of front wings was attached, in a mid position – a conceptual mistake…
The cockpit was taken OOB and the aircraft’s nose received an additional thimble radome, reminiscent of the Mi-28’s arrangement. The radome itself was created from a German 500 kg WWII bomb.
At this stage, the mid-wing mistake reared its ugly head – it had two painful consequences which I had not fully thought through. Problem #1: the engine nacelles turned out to be too long. When rotated into a vertical position, they’d potentially hit the ground! Furthermore, the ground clearance was very low – and I decided to skip the Ka-52’s OOB landing gear in favor of a heavier and esp. longer alternative, a full landing gear set from an Italeri MiG-37 “Ferret E” stealth fighter, which itself resembles a MiG-23/27 landing gear. Due to the expected higher speeds of the vintoplan I gave the landing gear full covers (partly scratched, plus some donor parts from an Academy MiG-27). It took some trials to get the new landing gear into the right position and a suitable stance – but it worked. With this benchmark I was also able to modify the engine nacelles, shortening their rear ends. They were still very (too!) close to the ground, but at least the model would not sit on them!
However, the more complete the model became, the more design flaws turned up. Another mistake is that the front and rear rotors slightly overlap when in vertical position – something that would be unthinkable in real life…
With all major components in place, however, detail work could proceed. This included the completion of the cockpit and the sensor turrets, the Ka-52 cannon and finally the ordnance. Due to the large rotors, any armament had to be concentrated around the fuselage, outside of the propeller discs. For this reason (and in order to prevent the rear engines to ingest exhaust gases from the front engines in level flight), I gave the front wings a slightly larger span, so that four underwing pylons could be fitted, plus a pair of underfuselage hardpoints.
The ordnance was puzzled together from the Italeri Ka-52 and from an ESCI Ka-34 (the fake Ka-50) kit.
Painting and markings:
With such an exotic aircraft, I rather wanted a conservative livery and opted for a typical Soviet tactical four-tone scheme from the Eighties – the idea was to build a prototype aircraft from the state acceptance trials period, not a flashy demonstrator. The scheme and the (guesstimated) colors were transferred from a Soviet air force MiG-21bis of that era, and it consists of a reddish light brown (Humbrol 119, Light Earth), a light, yellowish green (Humbrol 159, Khaki Drab), a bluish dark green (Humbrol 195, Dark Satin Green, a.k.a. RAL 6020 Chromdioxidgrün) and a dark brown (Humbrol 170, Brown Bess). For the undersides’ typical bluish grey I chose Humbrol 145 (FS 35237, Gray Blue), which is slightly lighter and less greenish than the typical Soviet tones. A light black ink wash was applied and some light post-shading was done in order to create panels that are structurally not there, augmented by some pencil lines.
The cockpit became light blue (Humbrol 89), with medium gray dashboard and consoles. The ejection seats received bright yellow seatbelts and bright blue pads – a detail seen on a Mi-28 cockpit picture.
Some dielectric fairings like the fin tip were painted in bright medium green (Humbrol 101), while some other antenna fairings were painted in pale yellow (Humbrol 71).
The landing gear struts and the interior of the wells became Aluminum Metalic (Humbrol 56), the wheels dark green discs (Humbrol 30).
The decals were puzzled together from various sources, including some Begemot sheets. Most of the stencils came from the Ka-52 OOB sheet, and generic decal sheet material was used to mark the walkways or the rotor tips and leading edges.
Only some light weathering was done to the leading edges of the wings, and then the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.
A complex kitbashing project, and it revealed some pitfalls in the course of making. However, the result looks menacing and still convincing, esp. in flight – even though the picture editing, with four artificially rotating proprotors, was probably more tedious than building the model itself!
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The 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 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.
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 Douglas F3D Skyknight (later designated F-10 Skyknight) was a United States twin-engined, mid-wing jet fighter aircraft manufactured by the Douglas Aircraft Company in El Segundo, California. The F3D was designed as a carrier-based all-weather night fighter and saw service with the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps. The mission of the F3D-2 was to search out and destroy enemy aircraft at night.
The F3D was not intended to be a typical sleek and nimble dogfighter, but as a standoff night fighter, packing a powerful radar system and a second crew member. It originated in 1945 with a US Navy requirement for a jet-powered, radar-equipped, carrier-based night fighter. The Douglas team led by Ed Heinemann designed around the bulky air intercept radar systems of the time, with side-by-side seating for the pilot and radar operator. The result was an aircraft with a wide, deep, and roomy fuselage. Instead of ejection seats, an escape tunnel was used.
As a night fighter that was not expected to be as fast as smaller daylight fighters, the expectation was to have a stable platform for its radar system and the four 20 mm cannon mounted in the lower fuselage. The F3D was, however, able to outturn a MiG-15 in an inside circle. The fire control system in the F3D-1 was the Westinghouse AN/APQ-35.
The AN/APQ-35 was advanced for the time, a combination of three different radars, each performing separate functions: an AN/APS-21 search radar, an AN/APG-26 tracking radar, both located in the nose, and an AN/APS-28 tail warning radar. The complexity of this vacuum tube-based radar system, which was produced before the advent of semiconductor electronics, required intensive maintenance to keep it operating properly.
The F3D Skyknight was never produced in great numbers but it did achieve many firsts in its role as a night fighter over Korea. While it never achieved the fame of the North American F-86 Sabre, it did down several Soviet-built MiG-15s as a night fighter over Korea with only one air-to-air loss of its own against a Chinese MiG-15 on the night of 29 May 1953.
In the years after the Korean War, the F3D was gradually replaced by more powerful aircraft with better radar systems. The F3D's career was not over though; its stability and spacious fuselage made it easily adaptable to other roles. The Skyknight played an important role in the development of the radar-guided AIM-7 Sparrow missile in the 1950s which led to further guided air-to-air missile developments.
In 1954, the F3D-2M was the first U.S. Navy jet aircraft to be fitted with an operational air-to-air missile: the Sparrow I,an all weather day/night BVR missile that used beam riding guidance for the aircrew to control the flight of the missile. Only 38 aircraft (12 F3D-1Ms, and 16 F3D-2Ms) were modified to use the missiles, though.
One of the F3D's main flaws, which it shared with many early jet aircraft, was its lack of power and performance. Douglas tried to mend this through a radical redesign: The resulting F3D-3 was the designation assigned to a swept-winged version (36° sweep at quarter chord) of the Skyknight. It was originally to be powered by the J46 turbojet, rated at 4.080 lbf for takeoff, which was under development but suffered serious trouble.
This led to the cancellation of the J46, and calculated performance of the F3D-3 with the substitute J34 was deemed insufficient. As an alternative the aircraft had to be modified to carry two larger and longer J47-GE-2 engines, which also powered the USN's FJ-2 "Fury" fighter.
This engine's thrust of 6.000 pounds-force (27 kN) at 7,950 rpm appeared sufficient for the heavy, swept-wing aircraft, and in 1954 an order for 287 production F3D-3s was issued, right time to upgrade the new type with the Sparrow I.
While the F3D-3's outline resembled that of its straight wing predecessors, a lot of structural changes had to be made to accommodate the shifted main wing spar, and the heavy radar equipment also took its toll: the gross weight climbed by more than 3 tons, and as a result much of the gained performance through the stronger engines and the swept wings was eaten away.
Maximum internal fuel load was 1.350 US gallons, plus a further 300 in underwing drop tanks. Overall wing surface remained the same, but the swept wing surfaces reduced the wing span.
In the end, thrust-to-weight ratio was only marginally improved and in fact, the F3D-3 had a lower rate of climb than the F3D-2, its top speed at height was only marginally higher, and stall speed climbed by more than 30 mph, making carrier landings more complicated.
It's equipment was also the same - the AN/APQ-35 was still fitted, but mainly because the large radar dish offered the largest detection range of any carrier-borne type of that time, and better radars that could match this performance were still under construction. Anyway, the F3D-3 was able to carry Sparrow I from the start, and this would soon be upgraded to Sparrow III (which became the AIM-7), and it showed much better flight characteristics at medium altitude.
Despite the ,many shortcomings the "new" aircraft represented an overall improvement over the F3D-2 and was accepted for service. Production of the F3D-3 started in 1955, but technology advanced quickly and a serious competitor with supersonic capability appeared with the McDonnell F3H Demon and the F4D Skyray - much more potent aircraft that the USN immediately preferred to the slow F3Ds. As a consequence, the production contract was cut down to only 102 aircraft.
But it came even worse: production of the swept wing Skyknight already ceased after 18 months and 71 completed airframes. Ironically, the F3D-3's successor, the F3H and its J40 engine, turned out to be more capricious than expected, which delayed the Demon's service introduction and seriously hampered its performance, so that the F3D-3 kept its all weather/night fighter role until 1960, and was eventually taken out of service in 1964 when the first F-4 Phantom II fighters appeared in USN service.
In 1962 all F3D versions were re-designated into F-10, the swept wing F3D-3 became the F-10C. The straight wing versions were used as trainers and also served as an electronic warfare platform into the Vietnam War as a precursor to the EA-6A Intruder and EA-6B Prowler, while the swept-wing fighters were completely retired as their performance and mission equipment had been outdated. The last F-10C flew in 1965.
General characteristics
Crew: two
Length: 49 ft (14.96 m)
Wingspan: 42 feet 5 inches (12.95 m)
Height: 16 ft 1 in (4.90 m)
Wing area: 400 ft² (37.16 m²)
Empty weight: 19.800 lb (8.989 kg)
Loaded weight: 28,843 lb (13.095 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 34.000 lb (15.436 kg)
Powerplant:
2× General Electric J47-GE-2 turbojets, each rated at 6.000 lbf (26,7 kN) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 630 mph (1.014 km/h) at sea level, 515 mph (829 km/h) t (6,095 m)
Cruise speed: 515 mph (829 km/h) at 40,000 feet
Stall speed: 128 mph (206 km/h)
Range: 890 mi (1.433 km) with internal fuel; 1,374 mi, 2,212 km with 2× 300 gal (1.136 l) tanks
Service ceiling: 43.000 ft (13.025 m)
Rate of climb: 2,640 ft/min (13,3 m/s)
Wing loading: 53.4 lb/ft² (383 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.353
Armament
4× 20 mm Hispano-Suiza M2 cannon, 200 rpg, in the lower nose
Four underwing hardpoints inboard of the wing folding points for up to 4.000 lb (1.816 kg)
ordnance, including AIM-7 Sparrow air-to-air missiles, 11.75 in (29.8cm) Tiny Tim rockets, two
150 or 300 US gal drop tanks or bombs of up to 2.000 lb (900 kg) caliber, plus four hardpoints
under each outer wing for a total of eight 5" HVARs or eight pods with six 2 3/4" FFARs each
The kit and its assembly:
Another project which had been on the list for some years now but finally entered the hardware stage. The F3D itself is already a more or less forgotten aircraft, and there are only a few kits available - there has been a vacu kit, the Matchbox offering and lately kits in 1:72 and 1:48 by Sword.
The swept wing F3D-3 remained on the drawing board, but would have been a very attractive evolution of the tubby Skyknight. In fact, the swept surfaces resemble those of the A3D/B-66 a Iot, and this was the spark that started the attempt to build this aircraft as a model through a kitbash.
This model is basically the Matchbox F3D coupled with wings from an Italeri B-66, even though, being much bigger, these had to be modified.
The whole new tail is based on B-66 material. The fin's chord was shortened, though, and a new leading edge (with its beautiful curvature) had to be sculpted from 2C putty. The vertical stabilizers also come from the B-66, its span was adjusted to the Skyknight's and a new root intersection was created from styrene and putty, so that a cross-shaped tail could be realized.
The tail radar dish was retained, even though sketches show the F3D-3 without it.
The wings were take 1:1 from the B-66 and match well. They just had to be shortened, I set the cut at maybe 5mm outwards of the engine pods' attachment points. They needed some re-engraving for the inner flaps, as these would touch the F3D-3's engines when lowered, but shape, depth and size are very good for the conversion.
On the fuselage, the wings' original "attachment bays" had to be filled, and the new wings needed a new position much further forward, directly behind the cockpit, in order to keep the CoG.
One big issue would be the main landing gear. On the straight wing aircraft it retracts outwards, and I kept this arrangement. No detail of the exact landing gear well position was available to me, so I used the Matchbox parts as stencils and placed the new wells as much aft as possible, cutting out new openings from the B-66 wings.
The OOB landing gear was retained, but I added some structure to the landing gear wells with plastic blister material - not to be realistic, just for the effect. A lot of lead was added in the kit's nose section, making sure it actually stands on the front wheel.
The Matchbox Skyknight basically offers no real problems, even though the air intake design leaves, by tendency some ugly seams and even gaps. I slightly pimped the cockpit with headrests, additional gauges and a gunsight, as well as two (half) pilot figures. I did not plan to present the opened cockpit and the bulbous windows do not allow a clear view onto the inside anyway, so this job was only basically done. In fact, the pilots don't have a lower body at all...
Ordnance comprises of four Sparrow III - the Sparrow I with its pointed nose could have been an option, too, but I think at the time of 1960 the early version was already phased out?
Painting and markings:
This was supposed to become a typical USN service aircraft of the 60ies, so a grey/white livery was predetermined. I had built an EF-10B many years ago from the Matchbox kit, and the grey/white guise suits the Whale well - and here it would look even better, with the new, elegant wings.
For easy painting I used semi matt white from the rattle can on the lower sides (painting the landing gear at the same time!), and then added FS 36440 (Light Gull Grey, Humbrol 129) with a brush to the upper sides. The radar nose became semi matt black (with some weathering), while the RHAWS dish was kept in tan (Humbrol 71).
In order to emphasize the landing gear and the respective wells I added a red rim to the covers.
The cockpit interior was painted in dark grey - another factor which made adding too many details there futile, too...
The aircraft's individual marking were to be authentic, and not flamboyant. In the mid 50ies the USN machines were not as colorful as in the Vietnam War era, that just started towards the 60ies.
The markings I used come primarily from an Emhar F3H Demon, which features no less than four(!) markings, all with different colors. I settled for a machine of VF-61 "Jolly Rogers", which operated from the USS Saratoga primarily in the Mediterranean from 1958 on - and shortly thereafter the unit was disbanded.
I took some of the Demon markings and modified them with very similar but somewhat more discrete markings from VMF-323, which flew FJ-4 at the time - both squadrons marked their aircraft with yellow diamonds on black background, and I had some leftover decals from a respective Xtradecal sheet in the stash.
IMHO a good result with the B-66 donation parts, even though I am not totally happy with the fin - it could have been more slender at the top, and with a longer, more elegant spine fillet, but for that the B-66 fin was just too thick. Anyway, I am not certain if anyone has ever built this aircraft? I would not call the F3D-3 elegant or beautiful, but the swept wings underline the fuselage's almost perfect teardrop shape, and the thing reminds a lot of the later Grumman A-6 Intruder?
The model and its assembly:
My second attempt to create a functional H0 scale what-if locomotive – and after I “only” did a color variant with some cosmetic changes on the basis of a Märklin V160/BR 216 diesel locomotive, I wanted something more special and challenging. However, kitbashing model locomotives with a metal chassis that includes a functional motor, respective drivetrain/gearing and electronics is not as easy as gluing some plastic parts together. And finding “matching” donor parts for such a stunt is also not as easy as it may seem. But what would life be without attempts to widen its boundaries?
This time I wanted an electric locomotive. Inspiration (and occasion) somewhat struck when I stumbled upon a running/functional chassis of a Märklin E 10/BR 110 (#3039), just without light and naturally missing the whole upper hull. Due to its incompleteness, I got it for a reasonable price, though. With this basis I started to watch out for eventual (and affordable) donor parts for a new superstructure, and remembered the collectible, non-powered all-plastic locomotive models from Atlas/IXO.
The good thing about the Märklin 3039 chassis was that it was just a solid and flat piece of metal without integrated outer hull elements, headstock or side skirts, so that a new hull could (theoretically) be simply tailored to fit over this motorized platform. Finding something with the exact length would be impossible, so I settled upon an Atlas H0 scale Nederlands Spoorwegen Series 1200 locomotive model, which is markedly longer than the German BR 110, due to its six axles vs. the E 10/BR 110’s four. Another selling point: the NS 1200’s body is virtually blank in its middle section, ideal for shortening it to match the different chassis. Detail of the Atlas plastic models is also quite good, so there was the potential for something quite convincing.
Work started with the disassembly of the static Atlas NS Class 1200 model. It's all-styrene, just with a metal plate as a chassis. Against my expectations the model's hull was only held on the chassis by two tiny screws under the "noses", so that I did not have to use force to separate it. The body's walls were also relatively thin, good for the upcoming modifications. The model also featured two nice driver's stations, which could be removed easily, too. Unfortunately; they had to go to make enough room for the electronics of the Märklin 3039 all-metal chassis.
Dry-fitting the chassis under the Class 1200 hull revealed that the stunt would basically work - the chassis turned out to be only marginally too wide. I just had to grind a little of the chassis' front edges away to reduce pressure on the styrene body, and I had to bend the end sections of the chassis’ stabilizing side walls.
To make the Class 1200 hull fit over the shorter BR 110 chassis a section of about 3 cm had to be taken out of the body’s middle section. The Class 1200 lent itself to this measure because the body is rather bare and uniform along its mid-section, so that re-combining two shortened halves should not pose too many problems.
To make the hull sit properly on the chassis I added styrene profiles inside of it - easy to glue them into place, thanks to the material. At this time, the original fixed pantographs and some wiring on the roof had gone, brake hoses on the nose were removed to make space for the BR 110 couplers, and the clear windows were removed after a little fight (they were glued into their places, but thankfully each side has three separate parts instead of just one that would easily break). PSR on the seam between the hull halves followed, plus some grey primer to check the surface quality.
Even though the new body now had a proper position on the metal chassis, a solution had to be found to securely hold it in place. My solution: an adapter for a screw in the chassis’ underside, scratched. I found a small area next to the central direction switch where I could place a screw and a respective receiver that could attached to the body’s roof. A 3 mm hole was drilled into the chassis’ floor and a long Spax screw with a small diameter was mated with a hollow square styrene profile, roughly trimmed down in length to almost reach the roof internally. Then a big lump of 2C putty was put into the hull, and the styrene adapter pressed into it, so that it would held well in place. Fiddly, but it worked!
Unfortunately, the pantographs of the Atlas/IXO model were static and not flexible at all. One was displayed raised while the other one was retracted. Due to the raised pantograph’s stiffness the model might lose contact to or even damage the model railroad catenary, even when not pulling power through it – not a satisfactory condition. Since the chassis could be powered either from below or through the pantographs (the Märklin 3039 chassis offers an analogue switch underneath to change between power sources) I decided to pimp my build further and improve looks and functionality. I organized a pair of aftermarket diamond pantographs, made from metal, fully functional and held in place on the model’s roof with (very short and) small screws from the inside.
I was not certain if the screws were conductive, and I had to somehow connect them with the switch in the chassis. I eventually soldered thin wire to the pantographs’ bases, led them through additional small holes in the roof inside and soldered them to the switch input, with an insulating screw joint in-between to allow a later detachment/disassembly without damage to the body. There might have been more elegant solutions, but my limited resources and skills did not allow more. It works, though, and I am happy with it, since the cables won’t be visible from the outside. This layout allows to draw power through them, I just had to create a flexible and detachable connection internally. Some plugs, wire and soldering created a solution – rough (electronics is not my strength!), but it worked! Another investment of money, time and effort into this project, but I think that the new pantographs significantly improve the overall look and the functionality of this model.
Internally, the missing light bulbs were retrofitted with OEM parts. A late external addition were PE brass ladders for the shunting platforms and under the doors for the driver’s cabins. They were rather delicate, but the model would not see much handling or railroading action, anyway, and the improve the overall impression IMHO a lot. On the roof, some details like cooling fans and tailored conduits (from the Atlas Series 1200) were added, they partly obscure the seam all around the body.
Unfortunately, due to the necessary space for the chassis, its motor and the electronics, the driver stations’ interiors could not be re-mounted – but this is not too obvious, despite the clear windows.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Republic P-47 Thunderbolt was one of the largest and heaviest fighter aircraft in history to be powered by a single piston engine. It was heavily armed with eight .50-caliber machine guns, four per wing. When fully loaded, the P-47 weighed up to eight tons, and in the fighter-bomber ground-attack roles could carry five-inch rockets or a significant bomb load of 2,500 pounds; it could carry over half the payload of the B-17 bomber on long-range missions (although the B-17 had a far greater range).
The P-47, originally based on the powerful Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp engine, was to be very effective as a short-to-medium range escort fighter in high-altitude air-to-air combat and, when unleashed as a fighter-bomber, proved especially adept at ground attack in both the World War II European and Pacific Theaters.
The P-47 was one of the main United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) fighters of World War II, and served with other Allied air forces, notably those of France, Britain, and Russia. Mexican and Brazilian squadrons fighting alongside the U.S. were equipped with the P-47.
In 1943, two P-47D-15-RE airframes (serials 42-23297/23298) were selected for testing with the new experimental 2300 hp Chrysler XIV-2220-1 sixteen-cylinder inverted Vee liquid-cooled engine. These aircraft were re-designated XP-47H. The liquid-cooled Chrysler engine with its large under-fuselage radiator radically changed the appearance of the Thunderbolt, and increased overall length to 39 feet 2 inches. With the increased power and improved streamlining, a maximum speed of 490 mph was anticipated.
The two P-47D-15-RE airframes were converted until early 1944 and test flights began on July 26, 1945. During flight trails, one of the XP-47Hs actually attained a speed of 490 mph in level flight, and the new aircraft was primarily intended as a fast interceptor for the European theater, where especially Great Britain was endangered by the fast V1 missiles, and initial reports about German jet fighters and reconnaissance aircraft that were hard to counter with current piston-engine types, stirred the need for this fast aircraft.
Production P-47Hs received several amendments that had already been introduced with the late D types, e. g. the lowered back and a bubble canopy that offered excellent view. The P-47H also received the new wing from the P-47N, recognizable by its characteristic square wing tips which allowed better roll manoeuvers. Not visible at first glance were the integral wing tanks, which enhanced the internal fuel load to 4.792,3 liters, resulting in a range of 3.500 km (2.175 ml), so that the P-47H was also suited for long range bomber escorts. Air brakes were added to the wing's lower surfaces, too, to allow braking after a dive onto its prey.
Furthermore, serial production machines received an uprated, more reliable Chrysler XIV-2220-2 engine, which had an output of 2.450 hp.
The P-47H was put into limited production with 130 built, sufficient for one group. However, the type suffered serious teething problems in the field due to the highly tuned engine. Engines were unable to reach operating temperatures and power settings and frequently failed in early flights from a variety of causes: ignition harnesses cracked at high altitudes, severing electrical connections between the magneto and distributor, and carburetor valve diaphragms also failed. Poor corrosion protection during shipments across the Atlantic also took their toll on the engines and airframes.
By the time the bugs were worked out, the war in Europe was nearly over. However, P-47Hs still destroyed 15 enemy jet aircraft in aerial combat in March-May 1945 when aerial encounters with the Luftwaffe were rare. The type also proved itself to be a valuable V1 missile interceptor over the Channel.
The entire production total of 130 P-47Hs were delivered to the 358th Fighter Group, which was part of the 9th Air Force and operated from Great Britain, France and finally on German ground. From the crews the P-47H received several nicknames like 'torpedo', 'Thunderbullet' or 'Anteater', due to its elongated nose section.
Twelve P-47H were lost in operational crashes with the 358th Group resulting in 11 deaths, two after VE Day, and two (44-21134 on 13 April 1945 and 44-21230 on 16 April 1945) were shot down in combat, both by ground fire.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 39 ft 2 in (11.96 m)
Wingspan: 40 ft 9 in (12.42 m)
Height: 14 ft 8 in (4.47 m)
Wing area: 300 ft² (27.87 m²)
Empty weight: 10,000 lb (4,535 kg)
Loaded weight: 13,300 lb (6,032 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 17,500 lb (7,938 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Chrysler XIV-2220-2 sixteen-cylinder inverted Vee liquid-cooled engine, rated at 2.450 hp.
Performance:
Maximum speed: 503 mph at 30,000 ft (810 km/h at 9,145 m)
Range: 920 mi combat, 2.175 ml ferry (1.480 km / 3.500 km)
Service ceiling: 43,000 ft (13,100 m)
Rate of climb: 3,120 ft/min (15.9 m/s)
Wing loading: 44.33 lb/ft² ()
Power/mass: 0.19 hp/lb (238 W/kg)
Armament:
8× .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns (3.400 rounds)
Up to 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) of bombs, drop tanks and/or 10× 5 in (127 mm) unguided rockets
The kit and its assembly:
I had the (X)P-47H on the agenda for some time, and even the respective MPM kit stashed away. But it took some time to start this project - one reason actually being the, well, crudeness of the MPM offering. Anyway, I wanted to build a service aircraft, and I wondered how this would have looked like, way beyond 1944? That brought me towards the late bubble canopy versions of the P-47D - and suddenly the idea was born to convert the XP-47H into a respective service aircraft which would not only carry the Chrysler XIV-2220-1 V16 engine, but also other improvements of the type. This eventually led to the decision to make this build a kitbash, as a spine implantation would be the easiest way to incorporate the lowered back - or so I thought...
I chose the ancient Heller P-47(N) as donation kit. Not because it was “good”, it just had the right ingredients and was cheap and easy to procure. What sounded like a simple plan turned into a twisted route to vague success. I took the front fuselage and the lower belly from the MPM kit, as well as the horizontal stabilizers and mated it with the upper and rear fuselage of the Heller Thunderbolt. This could have been easy, if both kits would not have had different fuselage diameters - the Heller kit is about 1mm too narrow, even though the length is fine. In order to compensate, I built two new fuselage halves from the salvaged pieces, and once these were stable and more or less sanded even, put together. Inside, the cockpit was taken from the Heller kit, but the seat comes from the MPM kit, and a pilot figure was added. Another problem is the fact that the MPM kit features engraved panel lines, while the Heller kit has old school, raised details and lots of rivets.
The propeller from the MPM kit is a joke, so I built a replacement from scratch - from a drop tank front half from an ancient Revell F4U, and the individual propeller blades were taken from an Italeri F4U. Inside the fuselage, a styrene tube was implanted which holds the new propeller on a metal axis, so it can spin freely.
Other personal mods include lowered flaps and the large cooler intake was opened, with foamed styrene placed inside which mimics some mesh. The same method was also used inside of the intercooler outlets (primarily in order to block any light from shining through). Inside of the landing gear wells I added some structure made from styrene profiles.
Another bigger challenge was the wing attachment - Heller and MPM kit differ considerably in this aspect, so that swapping parts is not easy. The MPM kit has the wing roots molded onto the fuselage halves, while the Heller wings are, more or less, directly attached to the fuselage. As a consequence the Heller wings hold the complete landing gear wells, while the MPM solution has divided sections. I decided to get rid of the MPM wing roots, about 3mm of material, and onto these stubs the Heller wings were attached. The landing gear came from the Heller kit, but the main wheels come from a (new) Revell Me 262 - both MPM and Heller parts are not recommended for serious use... Finally, the many exhausts and cooler flaps were either sanded away and replaced by scratched parts, or added - e. g. the vents behind the cockpit. While the Heller kit features bomb and missile hardpoints under the wings I decided to leave them away - this is supposed to be a fast interceptor, not a train-hunting plough.
Painting and markings:
As this was to be a very late WWII aircraft, NMF was certain, and I wanted to place the service P-47H into the European conflict theatre, where its speed would IMHO be best used against German jet threats. I wanted a colorful aircraft, though, and settled for a machine of the 358th FG. This group actually flew Thunderbolts in the 365-367th Squadrons, and I found several profiles of these gaudy things.
Common to all of them was an orange tail and a dark blue back, while the engine cowling would be decorated with a red front and the air outlets would carry bands in red, white and blue, with lots of tiny stars sprinkled upon. Furthermore, I found specimen with white cowlings behind the red front end, or even yellow cowlings. Pretty cool.
I tried to mimic this look. The model was basically painted with Aluminum Metallizer (Humbrol 27002) overall. The effect is really good, even without rubbing treatment. Some panels were contrasted with Aluminium Plate and Polished Steel Metallizer (Modelmaster), as well as with Aluminum (Humbrol 56, which is rather a metallic grey). The latter was also used on the landing gear. The anti-glare panel in front of the cockpit was painted with Olive Drab (ANA 613 from Modelmaster).
Since there is no air intake opening on the inline engine I decided to paint the spinner in bright red (Humbrol 19), and tried to incorporate the white and blue theme with stars decoration to the rest of the nose. As a convenient coincidence, I found decals from an Italeri B-66 in the stash: it features a version with dark blue jet air intake decorations in the right size, colors and style for what I had been looking for. So, instead of painting everything by hand I decided to incorporate this decal option.
The area behind the spinner was painted white and then the B-66 decals applied to the front flanks. The radiator air intake scoop had to be cut out, but the overall size and shape were a very good match. Even the transition into the blue spine and cockpit area worked well!
The tail was painted with Humbrol 18, later some shading with Humbrol 82 was added. The blue spine was done with a mix of Humbrol 104 and 15 (Oxford Blue and Midnight Blue) - not a perfect match for the B-66 decal colors, but after some dirt and weathering these differences would blur.
Cockpit interior was painted in Humbrol 159 (Khaki Drab) and Zinc Chromate Green from Model Master. The landing gear wells received a chrome yellow primer (Humbrol 225 - actually RAF Mid Stone but a perfect match for the task) finish.
For weathering the kit received a rubbing treatment with grinded graphite, which adds a dark, metallic shine and emphasizes the kit’s raised panel lines. Some dry painting with Aluminum was added, too, simulating chipped paint on the leading edges. I also added some oil stains around the engine, and serious soot stains at the exhaust.
Decals were, beyond the B-66 decoration, puzzled together. The aircraft' code 'CH-F[bar]' is another exotic twist, in two ways. The bar under the letter marks a second use of that code within the squadron, and as a difference from normal code placement (normally exclusively on the fuselage) I placed the aircraft's individual code letter on the fin, a practice on some P-51s and a consequence of the relatively large letter decals.
The nose art is a fictional puzzle, consisting of a Czech MiG-21 pin-up from the Pardubice '89 meeting. The “Ohio Express” tag comes from a Tamiya 1:100 F-105 Thunderchief. A neat combination that even matches the overall colors well!
As a final step, a coat of semi matt acrylic varnish was applied, with the exception of the anti glare panel, which became purely matt.
A better XP-47H? Hard to tell, since this kitbashing was a messy and rather crude work, so the overall finish does not look as good as I hoped for. But the lowered spine and the fin root extension adds to a fast look of this thing, more elegant (if that's possible in this case?) than the Razorback prototypes. I can't help, but the finished article looks like an Evel Knievel stunt vehicle? The red spinner looks a bit odd, but I'll leave it this way.
DISCLAIMER
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based 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 Douglas F3D Skyknight (later designated F-10 Skyknight) was a United States twin-engined, mid-wing jet fighter aircraft manufactured by the Douglas Aircraft Company in El Segundo, California. The F3D was designed as a carrier-based all-weather night fighter and saw service with the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps. The mission of the F3D-2 was to search out and destroy enemy aircraft at night.
The F3D was not intended to be a typical sleek and nimble dogfighter, but as a standoff night fighter, packing a powerful radar system and a second crew member. It originated in 1945 with a US Navy requirement for a jet-powered, radar-equipped, carrier-based night fighter. The Douglas team led by Ed Heinemann designed around the bulky air intercept radar systems of the time, with side-by-side seating for the pilot and radar operator. The result was an aircraft with a wide, deep, and roomy fuselage. Instead of ejection seats, an escape tunnel was used.
As a night fighter that was not expected to be as fast as smaller daylight fighters, the expectation was to have a stable platform for its radar system and the four 20 mm cannon mounted in the lower fuselage. The F3D was, however, able to outturn a MiG-15 in an inside circle. The fire control system in the F3D-1 was the Westinghouse AN/APQ-35.
The AN/APQ-35 was advanced for the time, a combination of three different radars, each performing separate functions: an AN/APS-21 search radar, an AN/APG-26 tracking radar, both located in the nose, and an AN/APS-28 tail warning radar. The complexity of this vacuum tube-based radar system, which was produced before the advent of semiconductor electronics, required intensive maintenance to keep it operating properly.
The F3D Skyknight was never produced in great numbers but it did achieve many firsts in its role as a night fighter over Korea. While it never achieved the fame of the North American F-86 Sabre, it did down several Soviet-built MiG-15s as a night fighter over Korea with only one air-to-air loss of its own against a Chinese MiG-15 on the night of 29 May 1953.
In the years after the Korean War, the F3D was gradually replaced by more powerful aircraft with better radar systems. The F3D's career was not over though; its stability and spacious fuselage made it easily adaptable to other roles. The Skyknight played an important role in the development of the radar-guided AIM-7 Sparrow missile in the 1950s which led to further guided air-to-air missile developments.
In 1954, the F3D-2M was the first U.S. Navy jet aircraft to be fitted with an operational air-to-air missile: the Sparrow I,an all weather day/night BVR missile that used beam riding guidance for the aircrew to control the flight of the missile. Only 38 aircraft (12 F3D-1Ms, and 16 F3D-2Ms) were modified to use the missiles, though.
One of the F3D's main flaws, which it shared with many early jet aircraft, was its lack of power and performance. Douglas tried to mend this through a radical redesign: The resulting F3D-3 was the designation assigned to a swept-winged version (36° sweep at quarter chord) of the Skyknight. It was originally to be powered by the J46 turbojet, rated at 4.080 lbf for takeoff, which was under development but suffered serious trouble.
This led to the cancellation of the J46, and calculated performance of the F3D-3 with the substitute J34 was deemed insufficient. As an alternative the aircraft had to be modified to carry two larger and longer J47-GE-2 engines, which also powered the USN's FJ-2 "Fury" fighter.
This engine's thrust of 6.000 pounds-force (27 kN) at 7,950 rpm appeared sufficient for the heavy, swept-wing aircraft, and in 1954 an order for 287 production F3D-3s was issued, right time to upgrade the new type with the Sparrow I.
While the F3D-3's outline resembled that of its straight wing predecessors, a lot of structural changes had to be made to accommodate the shifted main wing spar, and the heavy radar equipment also took its toll: the gross weight climbed by more than 3 tons, and as a result much of the gained performance through the stronger engines and the swept wings was eaten away.
Maximum internal fuel load was 1.350 US gallons, plus a further 300 in underwing drop tanks. Overall wing surface remained the same, but the swept wing surfaces reduced the wing span.
In the end, thrust-to-weight ratio was only marginally improved and in fact, the F3D-3 had a lower rate of climb than the F3D-2, its top speed at height was only marginally higher, and stall speed climbed by more than 30 mph, making carrier landings more complicated.
It's equipment was also the same - the AN/APQ-35 was still fitted, but mainly because the large radar dish offered the largest detection range of any carrier-borne type of that time, and better radars that could match this performance were still under construction. Anyway, the F3D-3 was able to carry Sparrow I from the start, and this would soon be upgraded to Sparrow III (which became the AIM-7), and it showed much better flight characteristics at medium altitude.
Despite the ,many shortcomings the "new" aircraft represented an overall improvement over the F3D-2 and was accepted for service. Production of the F3D-3 started in 1955, but technology advanced quickly and a serious competitor with supersonic capability appeared with the McDonnell F3H Demon and the F4D Skyray - much more potent aircraft that the USN immediately preferred to the slow F3Ds. As a consequence, the production contract was cut down to only 102 aircraft.
But it came even worse: production of the swept wing Skyknight already ceased after 18 months and 71 completed airframes. Ironically, the F3D-3's successor, the F3H and its J40 engine, turned out to be more capricious than expected, which delayed the Demon's service introduction and seriously hampered its performance, so that the F3D-3 kept its all weather/night fighter role until 1960, and was eventually taken out of service in 1964 when the first F-4 Phantom II fighters appeared in USN service.
In 1962 all F3D versions were re-designated into F-10, the swept wing F3D-3 became the F-10C. The straight wing versions were used as trainers and also served as an electronic warfare platform into the Vietnam War as a precursor to the EA-6A Intruder and EA-6B Prowler, while the swept-wing fighters were completely retired as their performance and mission equipment had been outdated. The last F-10C flew in 1965.
General characteristics
Crew: two
Length: 49 ft (14.96 m)
Wingspan: 42 feet 5 inches (12.95 m)
Height: 16 ft 1 in (4.90 m)
Wing area: 400 ft² (37.16 m²)
Empty weight: 19.800 lb (8.989 kg)
Loaded weight: 28,843 lb (13.095 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 34.000 lb (15.436 kg)
Powerplant:
2× General Electric J47-GE-2 turbojets, each rated at 6.000 lbf (26,7 kN) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 630 mph (1.014 km/h) at sea level, 515 mph (829 km/h) t (6,095 m)
Cruise speed: 515 mph (829 km/h) at 40,000 feet
Stall speed: 128 mph (206 km/h)
Range: 890 mi (1.433 km) with internal fuel; 1,374 mi, 2,212 km with 2× 300 gal (1.136 l) tanks
Service ceiling: 43.000 ft (13.025 m)
Rate of climb: 2,640 ft/min (13,3 m/s)
Wing loading: 53.4 lb/ft² (383 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.353
Armament
4× 20 mm Hispano-Suiza M2 cannon, 200 rpg, in the lower nose
Four underwing hardpoints inboard of the wing folding points for up to 4.000 lb (1.816 kg)
ordnance, including AIM-7 Sparrow air-to-air missiles, 11.75 in (29.8cm) Tiny Tim rockets, two
150 or 300 US gal drop tanks or bombs of up to 2.000 lb (900 kg) caliber, plus four hardpoints
under each outer wing for a total of eight 5" HVARs or eight pods with six 2 3/4" FFARs each
The kit and its assembly:
Another project which had been on the list for some years now but finally entered the hardware stage. The F3D itself is already a more or less forgotten aircraft, and there are only a few kits available - there has been a vacu kit, the Matchbox offering and lately kits in 1:72 and 1:48 by Sword.
The swept wing F3D-3 remained on the drawing board, but would have been a very attractive evolution of the tubby Skyknight. In fact, the swept surfaces resemble those of the A3D/B-66 a Iot, and this was the spark that started the attempt to build this aircraft as a model through a kitbash.
This model is basically the Matchbox F3D coupled with wings from an Italeri B-66, even though, being much bigger, these had to be modified.
The whole new tail is based on B-66 material. The fin's chord was shortened, though, and a new leading edge (with its beautiful curvature) had to be sculpted from 2C putty. The vertical stabilizers also come from the B-66, its span was adjusted to the Skyknight's and a new root intersection was created from styrene and putty, so that a cross-shaped tail could be realized.
The tail radar dish was retained, even though sketches show the F3D-3 without it.
The wings were take 1:1 from the B-66 and match well. They just had to be shortened, I set the cut at maybe 5mm outwards of the engine pods' attachment points. They needed some re-engraving for the inner flaps, as these would touch the F3D-3's engines when lowered, but shape, depth and size are very good for the conversion.
On the fuselage, the wings' original "attachment bays" had to be filled, and the new wings needed a new position much further forward, directly behind the cockpit, in order to keep the CoG.
One big issue would be the main landing gear. On the straight wing aircraft it retracts outwards, and I kept this arrangement. No detail of the exact landing gear well position was available to me, so I used the Matchbox parts as stencils and placed the new wells as much aft as possible, cutting out new openings from the B-66 wings.
The OOB landing gear was retained, but I added some structure to the landing gear wells with plastic blister material - not to be realistic, just for the effect. A lot of lead was added in the kit's nose section, making sure it actually stands on the front wheel.
The Matchbox Skyknight basically offers no real problems, even though the air intake design leaves, by tendency some ugly seams and even gaps. I slightly pimped the cockpit with headrests, additional gauges and a gunsight, as well as two (half) pilot figures. I did not plan to present the opened cockpit and the bulbous windows do not allow a clear view onto the inside anyway, so this job was only basically done. In fact, the pilots don't have a lower body at all...
Ordnance comprises of four Sparrow III - the Sparrow I with its pointed nose could have been an option, too, but I think at the time of 1960 the early version was already phased out?
Painting and markings:
This was supposed to become a typical USN service aircraft of the 60ies, so a grey/white livery was predetermined. I had built an EF-10B many years ago from the Matchbox kit, and the grey/white guise suits the Whale well - and here it would look even better, with the new, elegant wings.
For easy painting I used semi matt white from the rattle can on the lower sides (painting the landing gear at the same time!), and then added FS 36440 (Light Gull Grey, Humbrol 129) with a brush to the upper sides. The radar nose became semi matt black (with some weathering), while the RHAWS dish was kept in tan (Humbrol 71).
In order to emphasize the landing gear and the respective wells I added a red rim to the covers.
The cockpit interior was painted in dark grey - another factor which made adding too many details there futile, too...
The aircraft's individual marking were to be authentic, and not flamboyant. In the mid 50ies the USN machines were not as colorful as in the Vietnam War era, that just started towards the 60ies.
The markings I used come primarily from an Emhar F3H Demon, which features no less than four(!) markings, all with different colors. I settled for a machine of VF-61 "Jolly Rogers", which operated from the USS Saratoga primarily in the Mediterranean from 1958 on - and shortly thereafter the unit was disbanded.
I took some of the Demon markings and modified them with very similar but somewhat more discrete markings from VMF-323, which flew FJ-4 at the time - both squadrons marked their aircraft with yellow diamonds on black background, and I had some leftover decals from a respective Xtradecal sheet in the stash.
IMHO a good result with the B-66 donation parts, even though I am not totally happy with the fin - it could have been more slender at the top, and with a longer, more elegant spine fillet, but for that the B-66 fin was just too thick. Anyway, I am not certain if anyone has ever built this aircraft? I would not call the F3D-3 elegant or beautiful, but the swept wings underline the fuselage's almost perfect teardrop shape, and the thing reminds a lot of the later Grumman A-6 Intruder?
+++ 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 Soviet Laboratory of High-Speed Automobiles (LSA ChADI, today the Chardiv National Automobile and Highway University) was founded in 1953. One of the laboratory’s founders was Vladimir Nikitin, a famous racer not only inside the Soviet Union but also around the world. The main purpose of Vladimir Nikitin’s of was to build the fastest car in the world. This idea of creating race cars became the purpose of the laboratory and has been continued by students of Nikitin throughout the years, with research and prototypes in various fields of car propulsion.
The first car created in LSA by students was ChADI 2 in 1961. The body of the car was made of fiberglass, the first time that this material was used for a car body in the Soviet Union. This technology was improved and later used in mass-produced cars. Another famous LSA car was ChADI 7. To create it, Nikitin and his students used airplane wing elements as car body material and used the engine from a helicopter to power it. The highest speed of ChADI 7 – 400 kilometers per hour – was recorded on an airport runway near Chardiv in 1968, and it was at that time the fastest car in the Soviet Union, setting the national land speed record.
After this successful vehicle, Vladimir Nikitin started a new, even more ambitious project: a speed record car with the jet engine from a high performance airplane! The name of this project was ChADI 9, and it was ambitious. This time Nikitin and his team used a Tumansky RD-9 turbojet engine with a dry thrust of 25.5 kN (5,730 lbf), the same engine that powered the supersonic Mikoyan-Gurewich MiG-19 fighter plane. He expected that this needle-shaped car would be able to break the absolute land speed record, which meant supersonic speed at level zero of almost 1.200 kilometers an hour. The car was finished in 1981, but unfortunately ChADI 9 never participated in any race and no official top speed result was ever recorded. This had initially a very practical reason: in the 1980’s there were simply no tires in the USSR that could be safely used at the expected speeds in excess of 400 km/h, and there was furthermore no track long enough for a serious test drive in the Soviet Union! In consequence, ChADI 9 had to be tested on the runway of a military airport in the proximity of Chardiv, outfitted with wheels and tires from a MiG-19, but these were not ideal for prolonged high speeds. Film footage from these tests later appeared in a 1983 movie called “IgLa”.
The Automotive Federation of the United States even invited ChADI 9 to participate in an official record race in the USA, but this did not happen either, this time for political reasons. Nevertheless, the main contribution of this car was gathering experience with powerful jet engines and their operations in a ground vehicle, as well as experience with car systems that could withstand and operate at the expected high levels of speed, and the vehicle was frequently tested until it was destroyed in high speed tests in 1988 (see below).
ChADI 9 was not the end of Nikitin’s strife for speed (and the prestige associated with it). The know-how that the design team had gathered in the first years of testing ChADI 9 were subsequentially integrated into the LSA’s ultimate proposal not only to break the national, but also the absolute land speed record: with a new vehicle dubbed ChADI 9-II. This car was a completely new design, and its name was deliberately chosen in order to secure project budgets – it was easier to gain support for existing (and so far successful) projects rather than found new ones and convince superior powers of their value and success potential.
ChADI 9-II’s conceptual phase was launched in 1982 and it was basically a scaled-up evolution of ChADI 9, but it featured some significant differences. Instead of the RD-9 turbojet, the new vehicle was powered by a much more potent Tumansky R-25-300 afterburning turbojet with a dry thrust of 40.21 kN (9,040 lbf) and 69.62 kN (15,650 lbf) with full afterburner. This new engine (used and proven in the MiG-21 Mach 2 fighter) had already been thoroughly bench-tested by the Soviet Laboratory of High-Speed Automobiles in 1978, on an unmanned, tracked sled.
However, the development of ChADI 9-II and its details took more than two years of dedicated work by LSA ChADI’s students, and in 1984 the design was finally settled. The new vehicle was much bigger than its predecessor, 44 ft 10 in long, 15 ft 6¾ in wide, and 9 ft 10¾ in high (13.67 m by 4,75 m by 3,02 m), and it weighed around 9,000 lb (4 t). Its construction was based on a steel tube frame with an integrated security cell for the driver and an aluminum skin body, with some fibre glass elements. While ChADI 9’s slender cigar-shaped body with a circular diameter and the tricycle layout were basically retained, the front end of ChADI 9-II and its internal structure were totally different: instead of ChADI 9’s pointed nose, with the cockpit in the front and ahead of the vehicle’s front wheel and a pair of conformal (but not very efficient) side air intakes, ChADI 9-II featured a large, single orifice with a central shock cone. A small raked lower lip was to prevent FOD to the engine and act at the same time as a stabilizing front spoiler. The driver sat under a tight, streamlined canopy, the bifurcated air intake ducts internally flanking the narrow cockpit. Two steerable front wheels with a very narrow track were installed in front of the driver’s compartment. They were mounted side by side on a central steering pylon, which made them look like a single wheel. Behind the cockpit, still flanked by the air ducts, came two fuel tanks and finally, after a chamber where the air ducts met again, the engine compartment. Small horizontal stabilizers under the cockpit, which could be adjusted with the help of an electric actuator, helped keeping the vehicle’s nose section on the ground. Two small air brakes were mounted on the rear fuselage; these not only helped to reduce the vehicle’s speed, they could also be deployed in order to trim the aerodynamic downforce on the rear wheels. The latter ware carried on outriggers for a wide and stable track width and were covered in tight aerodynamic fairings, again made from fibre glass. The outriggers were furthermore swept back far enough so that the engine’s nozzle was placed in front of the rear wheel axis. This, together with a marked “nose-down” stance as well as a single swept fin on the rear above the afterburner nozzle with a brake parachute compartment, was to ensure stability and proper handling at expected speeds far in excess of 600 km/h (372 mph) without the use of the engine’s afterburner, and far more at full power.
Construction of ChADI 9-II lasted for more than another year, and in May 1986 the vehicle was rolled out and ready for initial trials at Chardiv, this time on the Chardiv State Aircraft Manufacturing Company’s runway. These non-public tests were successful and confirmed the soundness of the vehicle’s concept and layout. In the course of thorough tests until July 1987, ChADI 9-II was carefully pushed beyond the 400 km/h barrier and showed certain potential for more. This was the point when the vehicle was presented to the public (it could not be hidden due to the noisy trials within Chardiv’s city limits), and for this occasion (and marketing purposes) ChADI 9-II received a flashy livery in silver with red trim around the air intake and long the flanks and was officially christened with the more catchy title “„скорость“” (Skorost = Velocity).
Meanwhile, a potential area for serious high-speed trials had been identified with Lake Baskunchak, a salt sea near the Caspian Sea with flat banks that resembled the Bonneville Salt Flats in the USA. Lake Baskunchak became the site of further tests in 1988. Initially scheduled for May-July, the tests had to be postponed by six weeks due to heavy rain in the region, so that the sea would not build suitable dry salt banks for any safe driving tests. In late June the situation improved, and „скорость“ could finally take up its high speed tests.
During the following weeks the vehicle was gradually taken to ever higher speeds. During a test run on 8th of September, while travelling at roundabout 640 km/h (400 mph), one of the tail wheel fairings appeared to explode and the ensuing drag differences caused heavy oscillations that ended in a crash at 180 km/h (110 mph) with the vehicle rolling over and ripping the left rear wheel suspension apart.
The driver, LSA student and hobby rally driver Victor Barchenkov, miraculously left the vehicle almost unscathed, and the damage turned out to be only superficial. What had happened was an air pressure congestion inside of the wheel fairing, and the increasing revolutions of the wheels beyond 600 km/h caused small shock waves along the wheels, which eventually blew up the fairing, together with the tire. This accident stopped the 1988 trials, but not the work on the vehicle. Another disaster struck the LSA ChADI team when ChADI 9, which was still operated, crashed in 1988, too, and had to be written off completely.
In mid-1989 and with only a single high speed vehicle left, LSA team appeared again with „скорость“ at the shores of Lake Baskunchak – and this time the weather was more gracious and the track could be used from late June onwards. Analyzing last year’s accident and the gathered data, the vehicle had undergone repairs and some major modifications, including a new, anti-corrosive paintjob in light grey with red and white trim.
The most obvious change, though, was a completely re-shaped nose section: the original raked lower air intake lip had been considerably extended by almost 5 feet (the vehicle now had a total length of 49 ft 1 in/14,98 m) in order to enhance the downforce on the front wheels, and strakes along the lower nose ducted the airflow around the front wheels and towards the stabilizing fins. The central shock cone had been elongated and re-contoured, too, improving the airflow at high speeds.
New tireless all-aluminum wheels had been developed and mounted, because pressurized rubber tires, as formerly used, had turned out to be too unstable and unsafe. The central front wheels had received an additional aerodynamic fairing that prevented air ingestion into the lower fuselage, so that steering at high speeds became safer. The aerodynamic rear wheel fairings had by now been completely deleted and spoilers had been added to the rear suspension in order to keep the rear wheel on the ground at high speeds.
This time the goal was to push „скорость“ and the national land speed record in excess of 800 km/h (500 mph), and step by step the vehicle’s top speed was gradually increased. On August 15, an officially timed record attempt was made, again with Victor Barchenkov at the steering wheel. The first of the two obligatory runs within an hour was recorded at a very promising 846.961 km/h (526.277 mph), but, at the end of the second run, „скорость“ veered off and no time was measured. Even worse, the vehicle lost its parachute brakes and went out of control, skidding away from the dry race track into Lake Baskunchak’s wet salt sludge, where it hit a ground wave at around 200 mph (320 km/h) and was catapulted through the air into a brine pond where it landed on its right side and eventually sank. Again, pilot Victor Barchenkov remained mostly unharmed and was able to leave the car before it sank – but this fatal crash meant the end of the „скорость“ vehicle and the complete KhAGI 9-II project. Furthermore, the break-up of the Soviet Union at the same time prevented and further developments of high speed vehicles. The whereabouts of the „скорость“ wreck remain unclear, too, since no official attempt had been made to save the vehicle’s remains from Lake Baskunchak’s salt swamps.
The kit and its assembly:
This is another contribution to the late 2018 “Racing & Competition Group Build” at whatifmodelers.com. Since I primarily build aircraft in 1:72 scale, building a land speed record (LSR) vehicle from such a basis appeared like a natural choice. A slick streamliner? A rocket-powered prototype with Mach 1 potential? Hmmm… However, I wanted something else than the typical US or British Bonneville Salt Flats contender.
Inspiration struck when I remembered the real world high speed vehicle projects of LSA ChAGI in the former USSR, and especially the ill-fated, jet-powered ChADI 9, which looked a lot like Western, rocket-powered absolute LSR designs like The Blue Flame or Wingfoot Express 2. Another inspiration was a contemporary LSR vehicle called North American Eagle – basically a wingless F-104 Starfighter, put on wheels and sporting a garish, patriotic livery.
With this conceptual basis, the MiG-21 was quickly identified as the potential starting basis – but I wanted more than just a Fishbed sans wings and with some bigger wheels attached to it. I nevertheless wanted to retain the basic shape of the aircraft, but change the rest as good as possible with details that I have learned from reading about historic LSR vehicles (a very good source are the books by German author and LSR enthusiast Ferdinand C. W. Käsmann, which have, AFAIK, even been translated into English).
At the model’s core is a contemporary KP MiG-21MF, but it’s a hideous incarnation of the venerable Kovozávody Prostějov mold. While the wheels and the dashboard of this kit were surprisingly crisp, the fuselage halves did hardly match each other and some other parts like the landing gear covers could only be described as “blurred blobs”. Therefore it was no shame to slice the kit up, and the resulting kitbash with many donor parts and scratching almost became a necessity.
The MiG-21 fuselage and cockpit were more or less retained, the landing gear wells covered and PSR-ed. Fin, spine and the ventral stabilizer were cut away, and the attachment points for the wings and the horizontal stabilizers blended into the rest of the fuselage. Actually, only a few parts from the KP MiG-21 were eventually used.
The original shock cone in the air intake was used, but it was set further back into the nose opening – as an attachment point for a new, more organic shock cone which is actually the rear end of a drop tank from an Airfix 1:72 P-61 Black Widow. This detail was inspired by a real world benchmark: Art Arfons’ home-built “Green Monster” LSR car. This vehicle also inspired the highly modified air intake shape, which was scratched from the tail cone from a Matchbox 1:72 Blackburn Buccaneer – the diameter matched well with the MiG-21’s nose! With the new nose, I was able to retain the original MiG-21 layout, yet the shape and the extension forward changed the overall look enough to make it clear that this was not simply a MiG-21 on wheels.
With the spine gone, I also had to integrate a different, much smaller canopy, which came from an 1:144 Tornado. The cockpit opening had to be narrowed accordingly, and behind the canopy a new spine fairing was integrated – simply a piece from a streamlined 1:72 1.000 lb bomb plus lots of PSR.
Inside of the cockpit, a simpler seat was used, but the original cockpit tub and the dashboard were retained.
The large MiG-21 fin was replaced with a smaller piece, left over from an Amodel Kh-20 missile, with a scratched brake parachute fairing (cut from sprue material) placed under its rear. The exhaust nozzle was replaced, too, because the fit of the KP MiG-21’s rear end was abysmal. So I cut away a short piece and added an afterburner nozzle from a vintage 1:72 F-100, which fits well. Inside, the part’s rear wall was drilled open and extended inwards with a styrene tube.
The wheels of the vehicle come from an 1:72 Hasegawa “Panther with Schmalturm” tank kit – it comes not only with two turrets, but also with a second set of simplified track wheels. These had IMHO the perfect size and shape as massive aluminum wheels for the high speed vehicle.
For the front wheels, I used the thinner outer Panther wheels, and they were put, closely together, onto a central suspension pylon. This received a new “well” in the forward fuselage, with an internal attachment point. In order to streamline the front wheel installation (and also to change the overall look of the vehicle away from the MiG-21 basis), I added a scratched an aerodynamic fairing around it. This was made from tailored styrene strips, which were later filled and blended into the hull with putty.
The rear suspension was also fully scratched: the outriggers were made from styrene profiles while the wheel attachments were once part of an 1:35 tank kit suspension – I needed something to hold the three struts per side together. These parts look a bit large, but the vehicle is, after all, a Soviet design, so a little sturdiness may not be wrong, and I simply did not want to stick the wheels directly onto the outriggers. The rear wheels (in this case, the wider inner Panther track wheels with a central hub cover were used) also received a stabilizing notch around the contact surface, in an attempt to make them look slimmer than they actually are.
Final touches included the chines under the nose as well as spoilers on the rear suspension (both made from styrene profiles), and I added a pitot made from wire to the original MiG-21 angle of attack sensor fairing.
As an addition outside the model itself I also created a display base for the beauty pics, since I did not have anything at hand that would resemble the vastness of a flat and dry salt sea. The base is an 18x12” MDF board, on top of which I added a thin coat of white tile grout (which I normally use as a snow placebo, instead of plaster, which tends to absorb humidity over time and to become yellow). While the stuff was still wet I sprinkled some real salt onto the surface and wetted the whole affair with water sprays – hoping to create a flat yet structured surface with some glitter reflexes. And it actually worked!
Painting and markings:
I am not certain how ChADI 9 was painted (I assume overall silver), but I wanted for „скорость“ a little more color. Being a child of the Soviet era, red was a settled design element, but I thought that an all-red vehicle might have looked too cheesy. Other colors I considered were orange or white with blue trim, but did not find them to be appropriate for what I was looking. Eventually, I added some Russian Utilitarianism in the form of light grey for the upper hull (Humbrol 166, RAF Light Aircraft Grey), and the red (Humbrol 19) as a dark contrast around the complete air intake as well as the shock cone (somewhat inspired by the Green Monster #15 LSR vehicle), and then extended backwards into a narrowing cheatline along the flanks, which emphasizes the vehicle’s slender hull. For some more contrast between the two basic tones I later added thin white borders between them created with 2mm white decal stripes from TL Modellbau. Around the hull some bright red (Humbrol 238 Red Arrows Red) highlights as warning signs were added.
The vehicle’s afterburner section was painted with Modelmaster Steel Metallizer, the Panther wheels became Aluminum (Revell 99) with a black ink wash. Some black ink was also applied to the jet nozzle, so that the details became more pronounced, and some grinded graphite was used to enhance the burnt metal effect.
Since this would rather be an experimental car built and operated by a high school institute, and also operated in the Soviet Union, flashy sponsor markings would not be appropriate. Therefore I created some fictional marking at home with the help of PC software and printed them by myself. These designs included a fictional logo of the ChADI institute itself (created from a car silhouette drawing) and a logo for the vehicle’s title, “„скорость““. The latter was created from the cyrillic lettering, with some additions like the vehicle’s silhouette.
Unfortunately the production process for the home-made decals did not work properly – when coating the prints with gloss acrylic varnish the printer ink started to dissolve, bleeding magenta, so that the decals would look as if there was a red halo or glow around the otherwise black motifs. Thanks to the use of red in the vehicle’s overall design this flaw is not too apparent, so I stuck with the outcome and applied the decals to the car.
Beyond these basic markings, many stencils were added, including dull red inscriptions from an Italeri MiG-37 “Ferret” kit – finally, I found an expedient use for them! The Soviet flags on the fin came from an 1:144 Tu-144 airliner Braz Decal aftermarket sheet.
Finally, some panel lines were drawn onto the hull with a soft pencil and then the model was sealed with Italeri semi-gloss acrylic varnish. Just the black anti-glare panel in front of the windscreen became matt and the metallic rear section was left in “natural” finish.
I am very pleased with the outcome – the „скорость“ looks purposeful and does IMHO blend well into the line of spectacular USA and UK jet/rocket car designs that broke the 800 km/h barrier. I also find that, even though the MiG-21 ancestry is certainly there, the vehicle looks different enough so that the illusion that it was designed along the jet fighter’s lines (and not converted from one, like the real world “North American Eagle” which was built from an F-104 Starfighter) works well. I also think that the vehicle’s livery works well – it looks quite retro for a vehicle from the late Eighties, but that just adds to the “Soviet style”. An interesting project, outside of my normal comfort zone. :D
The model and its assembly:
My second attempt to create a functional H0 scale what-if locomotive – and after I “only” did a color variant with some cosmetic changes on the basis of a Märklin V160/BR 216 diesel locomotive, I wanted something more special and challenging. However, kitbashing model locomotives with a metal chassis that includes a functional motor, respective drivetrain/gearing and electronics is not as easy as gluing some plastic parts together. And finding “matching” donor parts for such a stunt is also not as easy as it may seem. But what would life be without attempts to widen its boundaries?
This time I wanted an electric locomotive. Inspiration (and occasion) somewhat struck when I stumbled upon a running/functional chassis of a Märklin E 10/BR 110 (#3039), just without light and naturally missing the whole upper hull. Due to its incompleteness, I got it for a reasonable price, though. With this basis I started to watch out for eventual (and affordable) donor parts for a new superstructure, and remembered the collectible, non-powered all-plastic locomotive models from Atlas/IXO.
The good thing about the Märklin 3039 chassis was that it was just a solid and flat piece of metal without integrated outer hull elements, headstock or side skirts, so that a new hull could (theoretically) be simply tailored to fit over this motorized platform. Finding something with the exact length would be impossible, so I settled upon an Atlas H0 scale Nederlands Spoorwegen Series 1200 locomotive model, which is markedly longer than the German BR 110, due to its six axles vs. the E 10/BR 110’s four. Another selling point: the NS 1200’s body is virtually blank in its middle section, ideal for shortening it to match the different chassis. Detail of the Atlas plastic models is also quite good, so there was the potential for something quite convincing.
Work started with the disassembly of the static Atlas NS Class 1200 model. It's all-styrene, just with a metal plate as a chassis. Against my expectations the model's hull was only held on the chassis by two tiny screws under the "noses", so that I did not have to use force to separate it. The body's walls were also relatively thin, good for the upcoming modifications. The model also featured two nice driver's stations, which could be removed easily, too. Unfortunately; they had to go to make enough room for the electronics of the Märklin 3039 all-metal chassis.
Dry-fitting the chassis under the Class 1200 hull revealed that the stunt would basically work - the chassis turned out to be only marginally too wide. I just had to grind a little of the chassis' front edges away to reduce pressure on the styrene body, and I had to bend the end sections of the chassis’ stabilizing side walls.
To make the Class 1200 hull fit over the shorter BR 110 chassis a section of about 3 cm had to be taken out of the body’s middle section. The Class 1200 lent itself to this measure because the body is rather bare and uniform along its mid-section, so that re-combining two shortened halves should not pose too many problems.
To make the hull sit properly on the chassis I added styrene profiles inside of it - easy to glue them into place, thanks to the material. At this time, the original fixed pantographs and some wiring on the roof had gone, brake hoses on the nose were removed to make space for the BR 110 couplers, and the clear windows were removed after a little fight (they were glued into their places, but thankfully each side has three separate parts instead of just one that would easily break). PSR on the seam between the hull halves followed, plus some grey primer to check the surface quality.
Even though the new body now had a proper position on the metal chassis, a solution had to be found to securely hold it in place. My solution: an adapter for a screw in the chassis’ underside, scratched. I found a small area next to the central direction switch where I could place a screw and a respective receiver that could attached to the body’s roof. A 3 mm hole was drilled into the chassis’ floor and a long Spax screw with a small diameter was mated with a hollow square styrene profile, roughly trimmed down in length to almost reach the roof internally. Then a big lump of 2C putty was put into the hull, and the styrene adapter pressed into it, so that it would held well in place. Fiddly, but it worked!
Unfortunately, the pantographs of the Atlas/IXO model were static and not flexible at all. One was displayed raised while the other one was retracted. Due to the raised pantograph’s stiffness the model might lose contact to or even damage the model railroad catenary, even when not pulling power through it – not a satisfactory condition. Since the chassis could be powered either from below or through the pantographs (the Märklin 3039 chassis offers an analogue switch underneath to change between power sources) I decided to pimp my build further and improve looks and functionality. I organized a pair of aftermarket diamond pantographs, made from metal, fully functional and held in place on the model’s roof with (very short and) small screws from the inside.
I was not certain if the screws were conductive, and I had to somehow connect them with the switch in the chassis. I eventually soldered thin wire to the pantographs’ bases, led them through additional small holes in the roof inside and soldered them to the switch input, with an insulating screw joint in-between to allow a later detachment/disassembly without damage to the body. There might have been more elegant solutions, but my limited resources and skills did not allow more. It works, though, and I am happy with it, since the cables won’t be visible from the outside. This layout allows to draw power through them, I just had to create a flexible and detachable connection internally. Some plugs, wire and soldering created a solution – rough (electronics is not my strength!), but it worked! Another investment of money, time and effort into this project, but I think that the new pantographs significantly improve the overall look and the functionality of this model.
Internally, the missing light bulbs were retrofitted with OEM parts. A late external addition were PE brass ladders for the shunting platforms and under the doors for the driver’s cabins. They were rather delicate, but the model would not see much handling or railroading action, anyway, and the improve the overall impression IMHO a lot. On the roof, some details like cooling fans and tailored conduits (from the Atlas Series 1200) were added, they partly obscure the seam all around the body.
Unfortunately, due to the necessary space for the chassis, its motor and the electronics, the driver stations’ interiors could not be re-mounted – but this is not too obvious, despite the clear windows.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Bell XP-68A owed its existence to the manufacturer’s rather disappointing outcome of its first jet fighter design, the XP-59A Airacomet. The Airacomet was a twin jet-engined fighter aircraft, designed and built during World War II after Major General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold became aware of the United Kingdom's jet program when he attended a demonstration of the Gloster E.28/39 in April 1941. He requested, and was given, the plans for the aircraft's powerplant, the Power Jets W.1, which he took back to the U.S. He also arranged for an example of the engine, the Whittle W.1X turbojet, to be flown to the U.S., along with drawings for the more powerful W.2B/23 engine and a small team of Power Jets engineers. On 4 September 1941, he offered the U.S. company General Electric a contract to produce an American version of the engine, which subsequently became the General Electric I-A. On the following day, he approached Lawrence Dale Bell, head of Bell Aircraft Corporation, to build a fighter to utilize it. As a disinformation tactic, the USAAF gave the project the designation "P-59A", to suggest it was a development of the unrelated, canceled Bell XP-59 fighter project. The P-59A was the first design fighter to have its turbojet engine and air inlet nacelles integrated within the main fuselage. The jet aircraft’s design was finalized on 9 January 1942 and the first prototype flew in October of the same year.
The following 13 service test YP-59As had a more powerful engine than their predecessor, the General Electric J31, but the improvement in performance was negligible, with top speed increased by only 5 mph and a slight reduction in the time they could be used before an overhaul was needed. One of these aircraft, the third YP-59A, was supplied to the Royal Air Force, in exchange for the first production Gloster Meteor I for evaluation and flight-offs with domestic alternatives.
British pilots found that the YP-59A compared very unfavorably with the jets that they were already flying. The United States Army Air Forces were not impressed by its performance either and cancelled the contract when fewer than half of the originally ordered aircraft had been produced. No P-59s entered combat, but the type paved the way for the next design generation of U.S. turbojet-powered aircraft and helped to develop appropriate maintenance structures and procedures.
In the meantime, a new, more powerful jet engine had been developed in Great Britain, the Halford H-1, which became later better known as the De Havilland Goblin. It was another centrifugal compressor design, but it produced almost twice as much thrust as the XP-59A’s J31 engines. Impressed by the British Gloster Meteor during the USAAF tests at Muroc Dry Lake - performance-wise as well as by the aircraft’s simplicity and ruggedness - Bell reacted promptly and proposed an alternative fighter with wing-mounted engine nacelles, since the XP-59A’s layout had proven to be aerodynamically sub-optimal and unsuited for the installation of H-1 engines. In order to save development time and because the aircraft was rather regarded as a proof-of-concept demonstrator instead of a true fighter prototype, the new aircraft was structurally based on Bell’s current piston-engine P-63 “Kingcobra”. The proposal was accepted and, in order to maintain secrecy, the new jet aircraft inherited once more a designation of a recently cancelled project, this time from the Vultee XP-68 “Tornado” fighter. Similar to the Airacomet two years before, just a simple “A” suffix was added.
Bell’s development contract covered only three XP-68A aircraft. The H-1 units were directly imported from Great Britain in secrecy, suspended in the bomb bays of B-24 Liberator bombers. A pair of these engines was mounted in mid-wing nacelles, very similar to the Gloster Meteor’s arrangement. The tailplane was given a 5° dihedral to move it out of the engine exhaust. In order to bear the new engines and their power, the wing main spars were strengthened and the main landing gear wells were moved towards the aircraft’s centerline, effectively narrowing track width. The landing gear wells now occupied the space of the former radiator ducts for the P-63’s omitted Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled V12 engine. Its former compartment behind the cockpit was used for a new fuel tank and test equipment. Having lost the propeller and its long drive shaft, the nose section was also redesigned: the front fuselage became deeper and the additional space there was used for another fuel tank in front of the cockpit and a bigger weapon bay. Different armament arrangements were envisioned, one of each was to be tested on the three prototypes: one machine would be armed with six 0.5” machine guns, another with four 20mm Hispano M2 cannon, and the third with two 37mm M10 cannon and two 0.5” machine guns. Provisions for a ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb were made, but this was never fitted on any of the prototypes. Additional hardpoints under the outer wings for smaller bombs or unguided missiles followed the same fate.
The three XP-68As were built at Bell’s Atlanta plant in the course of early 1944 and semi-officially christened “Airagator”. After their clandestine transfer to Muroc Dry Lake for flight tests and evaluations, the machines were quickly nicknamed “Barrelcobra” by the test staff – not only because of the characteristic shape of the engine nacelles, but also due to the sheer weight of the machines and their resulting sluggish handling on the ground and in the air. “Cadillac” was another nickname, due to the very soft acceleration through the new jet engines and the lack of vibrations that were typical for piston-engine- and propeller-driven aircraft.
Due to the structural reinforcements and modifications, the XP-68A had become a heavy aircraft with an empty weight of 4 tons and a MTOW of almost 8 tons – the same as the big P-47 Thunderbolt piston fighter, while the P-63 had an MTOW of only 10,700 lb (4,900 kg). The result was, among other flaws, a very long take-off distance, especially in the hot desert climate of the Mojave Desert (which precluded any external ordnance) and an inherent unwillingness to change direction, its turning radius was immense. More than once the brakes overheated during landing, so that extra water cooling for the main landing gear was retrofitted.
Once in the air, the aircraft proved to be quite fast – as long as it was flying in a straight line, though. Only the roll characteristics were acceptable, but flying the XP-68A remained hazardous, esp. after the loss of one of the H-1s engines: This resulted in heavily asymmetrical propulsion, making the XP-68A hard to control at all and prone to spin in level flight.
After trials and direct comparison, the XP-68A turned out not to be as fast and, even worse, much less agile than the Meteor Mk III (the RAF’s then current, operational fighter version), which even had weaker Derwent engines. The operational range was insufficient, too, esp. in regard of the planned Pacific theatre of operations, and the high overall weight precluded any considerable external load like drop tanks.
However, compared with the XP-59A, the XP-68A was a considerable step forward, but it had become quickly clear that the XP-68A and its outfit-a-propeller-design-with jet-engines approach did not bear the potential for any service fighter development: it was already outdated when the prototypes were starting their test program. No further XP-68A was ordered or built, and the three prototypes fulfilled their test and evaluation program until May 1945. During these tests, the first prototype was lost on the ground due to an engine fire. After the program’s completion, the two remaining machines were handed over to the US Navy and used for research at the NATC Patuxent River Test Centre, where they were operated until 1949 and finally scrapped.
General characteristics.
Crew: 1
Length: 33 ft 9 in (10.36 m)
Wingspan: 38 ft 4 in (11.7 m)
Height: 13 ft (3.96 m)
Wing area: 248 sq ft (23 m²)
Empty weight: 8,799 lb (3,995 kg)
Loaded weight: 15,138 lb (6,873 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 17,246 lb (7,830 kg)
Powerplant:
2× Halford H-1 (De Havilland Goblin) turbojets, rated at 3,500 lbf (15.6 kN) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 559 mph (900 km/h)
Range: 500 mi (444 nmi, 805 km)
Service ceiling: 37,565 ft (11,450 m)
Rate of climb: 3.930 ft/min (20 m/s)
Wing loading: 44.9 lb/ft² (218.97 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.45
Time to altitude: 5.0 min to 30,000 ft (9,145 m)
Armament:
4× Hispano M2 20 mm cannon with 150 rounds
One ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb
6× 60 lb (30 kg) rockets or 2× 500 lb (227 kg) bombs under the outer wings
The kit and its assembly:
This whiffy Kingcobra conversion was spawned by a post by fellow user nighthunter in January 2019 at whatifmodelers.com about a potential jet-powered variant. In found the idea charming, since the XP-59 had turned out to be a dud and the Gloster Meteor had been tested by the USAAF. Why not combine both into a fictional, late WWII Bell prototype?
The basic idea was simple: take a P-63 and add a Meteor’s engine nacelles, while keeping the Kingcobra’s original proportions. This sounds pretty easy but was more challenging than the first look at the outcome might suggest.
The donor kits are a vintage Airfix 1:72 Gloster Meteor Mk.III, since it has the proper, small nacelles, and an Eastern Express P-63 Kingcobra. The latter looked promising, since this kit comes with very good surface and cockpit details (even with a clear dashboard) as well as parts for several P-63 variants, including the A, C and even the exotic “pinball” manned target version. However, anything comes at a price, and the kit’s low price point is compensated by soft plastic (which turned out to be hard to sand), some flash and mediocre fit of any of the major components like fuselage halves, the wings or the clear parts. It feels a lot like a typical short-run kit. Nevertheless, I feel inclined to build another one in a more conventional fashion some day.
Work started with the H-1 nacelles, which had to be cut out from the Meteor wings. Since they come OOB only with a well-visible vertical plate and a main wing spar dummy in the air intake, I added some fine mesh to the plate – normally, you can see directly onto the engine behind the wing spar. Another issue was the fact that the Meteor’s wings are much thicker and deeper than the P-63s, so that lots of PSR work was necessary.
Simply cutting the P-63 OOB wings up and inserting the Meteor nacelles was also not possible: the P-63 has a very wide main landing gear, due to the ventral radiators and oil coolers, which were originally buried in the wing roots and under the piston engine. The only solution: move the complete landing gear (including the wells) inward, so that the nacelles could be placed as close as possible to the fuselage in a mid-span position. Furthermore, the - now useless - radiator openings had to disappear, resulting in a major redesign of the wing root sections. All of this became a major surgery task, followed by similarly messy work on the outer wings during the integration of the Meteor nacelles. LOTS of PSR, even though the outcome looks surprisingly plausible and balanced.
Work on the fuselage started in parallel. It was built mainly OOB, using the optional ventral fin for a P-63C. The exhaust stubs as well as the dorsal carburetor intake had to disappear (the latter made easy thanks to suitable optional parts for the manned target version). Since the P-63 had a conventional low stabilizer arrangement (unlike the Meteor with its cruciform tail), I gave them a slight dihedral to move them out of the engine efflux, a trick Sukhoi engineers did on the Su-11 prototype with afterburner engines in 1947, too.
Furthermore, the whole nose ahead of the cockpit was heavily re-designed, because I wanted the “new” aircraft to lose its propeller heritage and the P-63’s round and rather pointed nose. Somewhat inspired by the P-59 and the P-80, I omitted the propeller parts altogether and re-sculpted the nose with 2C putty, creating a deeper shape with a tall, oval diameter, so that the lower fuselage line was horizontally extended forward. In a profile view the aircraft now looks much more massive and P-80esque. The front landing gear was retained, just its side walls were extended downwards with the help of 0.5mm styrene sheet material, so that the original stance could be kept. Lots of lead in the nose ensured that the model would properly stand on its three wheels.
Once the rhinoplasty was done I drilled four holes into the nose and used hollow steel needles as gun barrels, with a look reminiscent of the Douglas A-20G.
Adding the (perfectly) clear parts of the canopy as a final assembly step also turned out to be a major fight against the elements.
Painting and markings:
With an USAAF WWII prototype in mind, there were only two options: either an NMF machine, or a camouflage in Olive Drab and Neutral Grey. I went for the latter and used Tamiya XF-62 for the upper surfaces and Humbrol 156 (Dark Camouflage Grey) underneath. The kit received a light black ink wash and some post shading in order to emphasize panels. A little dry-brushing with silver around the leading edges and the cockpit was done, too.
The cockpit interior became chromate green (I used Humbrol 150, Forest Green) while the landing gear wells were painted with zinc chromate yellow (Humbrol 81). The landing gear itself was painted in aluminum (Humbrol 56).
Markings/decals became minimal, puzzled together from various sources – only some “Stars and Bars” insignia and the serial number.
Somehow this conversion ended up looking a lot like the contemporary Soviet Sukhoi Su-9 and -11 (Samolyet K and LK) jet fighter prototype – unintentionally, though. But I am happy with the outcome – the P-63 ancestry is there, and the Meteor engines are recognizable, too. But everything blends into each other well, the whole affair looks very balanced and believable. This is IMHO furthermore emphasized by the simple paint scheme. A jet-powered Kingcobra? Why not…?