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 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.

 

Phicen kitbash using the blonde Kimi headsculpt .

+++ 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.

 

A Phicen kitbash using the blonde Kimi headsculpt and wearing an outfit by Magic Cube toys .

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!

  

In the period immediately after the Second World War the world found itself with hundreds of thousands of surplus aircraft and just as many surplus aviators. Most aircraft would meet the salvage blade and the smelter’s fiery furnace. Most pilots would return to civilian life, the bulk of them never to fly again.

 

With the plethora of military aircraft languishing in desert lots awaiting a certain fate, some of those disenfranchised aviators and aircraft designers would look to new growing markets for salvation. One of these emerging markets was the new-found requirement for fast and capable business transport aircraft for executives looking to link business interests across the vast distances of the nation. With few purpose-built business aircraft available for executives, medium bombers became the drug of choice for high flying big shots—fast, powerful and, with the right interior appointments, a visual statement of their success and power.

 

In early variants like the Executive, On Mark simply removed military equipment and replaced them with fairings and civil avionics, sealed the bomb bay doors, soundproofed the cabin, and added additional cabin windows. Later models had special wing spars designed to give more interior room, pressurization and equipment from bigger surplus aircraft such as DC-6 brakes and flat glass cockpit windows. It was an elegant mashing together of equipment, but it was not a true business aircraft.

 

In the Sixties, Jet Craft Ltd. of Las Vegas, Nevada, went for a different interpretation of the same topic: The company had purchased a number of former Royal Australian Air Force Vampire trainers and RCAF single-seaters, which were to be converted to a new design for a business aircraft called 'Mystery Jet', offering 4-8-seats.

 

Jet Craft worked with stellar British conversion experts Aviation Traders to do the structural design work. Aviation Traders Limited (ATL) was a war-surplus aircraft and spares trader formed in 1947. In 1949, it began maintaining aircraft used by some of Britain’s contemporary independent airlines on the Berlin Airlift. In the early 1950s, it branched out into aircraft conversions and manufacturing.

 

Aviation Traders worked on the drawings and the structural mock-ups. A full-scale mock-up of the Mystery Jet languished at Southend airport for a decade, trying to lure owners and operators into buying it. And this actually happened: about twenty former Vampire airframes were converted into Mystery Jet business aircraft, tailored to the customers' needs and desires.

 

The Mystery Jet was just what it looked like: a former De Havilland Vampire with a new, roomy nose section grafted onto it. The cabin was pressurized, and was available in two different lengths (130 and 160 inches long, with two or three rows of seats and reflected in the aircraft's title) and several window and door options - the most exotic option being the "Landaulet" cabin which featured a panoramic roof/window installation over the rear pair of seats (or, alternatively, a two-seat bench).

 

The original Goblin engine was retained, CG was retained due to the fact that the new cabin was, despite being considerably longer than the Vampire's nose, the biggest version being more than 8 feet longer. The new front section was much lighter, though, e. g. through the loss of the heavy cannons and their armament, as well as some more military avionics. The loss of fuel capacity through the enlarged cabin was compensated through fixed wing tip tanks, so that range was on par with the former military jet, just top speed and ceiling were slightly inferior.

 

Anyway, prices were steep and from the United States more modern and economical offerings ruled the market. Maintaining a former military jet was also a costly business, so, consequently, after a slight buzz (more of a hum, actually) in the early Seventies, the Mystery Jet and Jet Craft of Las Vegas, also fuelled by some dubious business practices by the company's owner, disappeared. Even further developments of the original concept, e .g. with a wide body for up to 14 passengers and two engines, would not save the Mystery Jet from failure.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1 pilot plus 5-7 passengers

Length (Mystery Jet 160): 38 ft 5 in (11.73 m)

Wingspan incl. tip tanks: 39 ft 7 1/2 in (12.09 m)

Height: 8 ft 10 in (2.69 m)

Wing area: 262 ft² (24.34 m²)

Empty weight: 7,283 lb (3,304 kg)

Max. take-off weight: 12,390 lb (5,620 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× de Havilland Goblin 3 centrifugal turbojet, rated at 3,350 lbf (14.90 kN)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 516 mph (832 km/h)

Cruising speed: 400 mph (644 km/h)

Range: 1,220 mi (1,960 km)

Service ceiling: 37,700 ft (11,500 m)

 

Armament:

None

  

The kit and its assembly:

The first finished work in 2017 is a different kind of whif, one of the few civilian models in my collection. This conversion looks sick, but ,as weird as it may seem, the Business-Jet-From-Vintage-Vampires idea was real. For more information, and the source from where some of the backgound story was gathered, please check:

 

www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/article...

 

Anyway, my build is just a personal interpretation of the original concept, not a true model of the Mystery Jet. In fact, this was limited through the donor parts for this kitbash.

 

The rear end was the smaller problem: Airfix offers a very good Vampire T.11 trainer with excellent detail and fit - the passenger cabin was the bigger challenge. Finding "something" that would fit in shape and especialsl size was not easy - my first choice was a nose section from a vintage 1:100 Antonow An-24 from VEB Plasticart (still much too wide, though), and the best solution came as an accidental find in a local model kit shop where I found a heavily discounted MPM Focke Wulf Fw 189 B-0 trainer.

 

The reason: the kit was complete, but the bag holding the sprues must have been heated immensely during the packaging process: the main sprues were horrible warped - except for some single parts including the canopies and the sprue with the cabin! Height wind width were perfect, only the boxy shape caused some headaches. But I guess I would not find anything better...

 

That said, the transplantation mess started. I never built any of the two donor kits before, so I carefully tried to find the best place where to cut the Vampire's nose - I ended up with a staggered solution right in front of the wing root air intakes.

The Fw 189's cabin was bit more tricky, because I had to get rid of the original wing roots and wanted to use as much space as possible, up to the rear bulkhead and together with the rear cabin window. The idea was to blend the Fw 189's roof line into the Vampire's engine section, while keeping the original air intake ducts, so that the overall arrangement would look plausible.

 

The result became a pretty long nose section - and at that time the tail booms were not fited yet, so I was not certain concerning overall proportions. The cabin's underside had to be improvised, and blending the boxy front end with a flat underside into the tubby, round Vampire fuselage caused some headaches. I also had to re-create the lower flank section with styrene sheet, because I had originally hoped that I could "push" the new cabin between the wing roots - but that space was occupied by the Goblin's inlet ducts.

 

Inside of the cabin, the original floor, bulkheads and dashboard were used, plus five bucket seats that come with the MPM kit. In order to hide the body work from the inside, side panels from 0.5mm styrene sheet were added in the cabin - with the benefit of additional stability, but also costing some space... Since the machine was built with closed cabin, a pilot was added - actually a bash of a WWII Matchbox pilot and a German officer from an ESCI tank kit. Looks pretty good and "professional". ;-)

 

Once the cabin was in place, lots of PSR followed and the tail booms could be fitted. To my relief, the longer nose did not look too unbalanced (and actually, design sketches for the original Mystery Jet suggest just this layout!) - but I decided to add wing tip tanks which would beef up wingspan and shift the visual mass slightly forward. They come from an 1:100 Tamiya Il-28, or better the "R" recce variant.

 

The only other big change concerned the nose wheel. While the OOB wheel and strut were used, the well is now located in front of the wheel and it would retract forwards, giving the nose a more balanced look - and the cabin arrangement made this change more plausible, too.

 

Another addition were three small porthole windows in the solid parts of the cabin flanks - one of them ending up in the middle of the cabin door on starboard, where a solid part of the canopy roof lent itself for a good place just behind the pilots' seats.

  

Painting and markings:

I cannot help it, but the thing looks like a design from a vintage Tintin or Yoko Tsuno comic! This was not planned or expected - and actually the paint scheme evolved step by step. I had no plan or clue what to apply - the real Mystery Jet mock-up in silver with blue trim looked sharp, but somehow I did not want blue. So I started with the interior (out of a necessity, as the fuselage had to be closed before any further work progress at some point) and settled for plushy, British colors: Cream (walls and roof) and Claret-Red (carpet and seats).

 

I tried to find something for the outside that would complement this choice of colors, and eventually settled on Ivory and White (upper and lower fuselage halves, respectively) with some deep red trim, plus pale grey wing surfaces. I even considered some thin golden trim lines, but I think this would have been too much?

 

The trim was created with decals tripes from generic sheet material, the black anti-glare panel was painted, though. As a color contrast I painted some of the upper canopy panels in translucent, light blue, and this looks very good.

 

The wings received a lightb treatment with thinned black ink, in order to emphasize the engravings. No post-shading was done, though, for a rather clean look.

 

Most markings were puzzled together; the registration G-AZRE actually belonged to a Vickers Vanguard (from the 1:144 Airfix kit), the large letters above and under the wings were created with single 45° letters (USAF style). Most stencils come from a Vampire trainer aftermarket sheet from Xtradecal, from the OOB sheet only the "No step" warnings on the wings were used.

 

Finally, the kit was sealed with a semi-matt coat of varnish, except for the anti-glare panel, which recived a matt coat. The three small windows received artificial panes made from Clearfix, after their rims had been painted black.

  

A messy project, and you better do not take a close look. But the overall elegance of this creation surprises me - the real Mystery Jet already looked sleek, and this model, despite a more blunt nose, confirms this impression. The colors work together well, too - and the thing has a dedicated retro feel about it. Tintin might be on board, as well as Elton John, both sharing a cigar on the rear seats... ;)

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

The Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star was the first jet fighter used operationally by the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) during World War II. Designed and built by Lockheed in 1943 and delivered just 143 days from the start of design, production models were flying, and two pre-production models did see very limited service in Italy just before the end of World War II. The XP-80 had a conventional all-metal airframe, with a slim low wing and tricycle landing gear. Like most early jets designed during World War II—and before the Allies captured German research data that confirmed the speed advantages of swept-wings—the XP-80 had straight wings similar to previous propeller-driven fighters, but they were relatively thin to minimize drag at high speed.

 

The Shooting Star began to enter service in late 1944 with 12 pre-production YP-80As. Four were sent to Europe for operational testing (demonstration, familiarization, and possible interception roles), two to England and two to the 1st Fighter Group at Lesina Airfield, Italy. Because of delays in delivery of production aircraft, the Shooting Star saw no actual combat during the conflict. The initial production order was for 344 P-80As after USAAF acceptance in February 1945. A total of 83 P-80s had been delivered by the end of July 1945 and 45 assigned to the 412th Fighter Group (later redesignated the 1st Fighter Group) at Muroc Army Air Field. Production continued after the war, although wartime plans for 5,000 were quickly reduced to 2,000 at a little under $100,000 each. A total of 1,714 single-seat F-80A, F-80B, F-80C, and RF-80s were manufactured by the end of production in 1950, of which 927 were F-80Cs (including 129 operational F-80As upgraded to F-80C-11-LO standards). However, the two-seat TF-80C, first flown on 22 March 1948, became the basis for the T-33 trainer, of which 6,557 were produced.

 

Shooting Stars first saw combat service in the Korean War, and were among the first aircraft to be involved in jet-versus-jet combat. Despite initial claims of success, the speed of the straight-wing F-80s was inferior to the 668 mph (1075 km/h) swept-wing transonic MiG-15. The MiGs incorporated German research showing that swept wings delayed the onset of compressibility problems, and enabled speeds closer to the speed of sound. F-80s were soon replaced in the air superiority role by the North American F-86 Sabre, which had been delayed to also incorporate swept wings into an improved straight-winged naval FJ-1 Fury.

 

This prompted Lockheed to improve the F-80 to keep the design competitive, and the result became the F-80E, which was almost a completely different aircraft, despite similar outlines. Lockheed attempted to change as little of the original airframe as possible while the F-80E incorporated two major technical innovation of its time. The most obvious change was the introduction of swept wings for higher speed. After the engineers obtained German swept-wing research data, Lockheed gave the F-80E a 25° sweep, with automatically locking leading edge slots, interconnected with the flaps for lateral stability during take-off and landing, and the wings’ profile was totally new, too. The limited sweep was a compromise, because a 35° sweep had originally been intended, but the plan to retain the F-80’s fuselage and wing attachment points would have resulted in massive center of gravity and mechanical problems. However, wind tunnel tests quickly revealed that even this compromise would not be enough to ensure stable flight esp. at low speed, and that the modified aircraft would lack directional stability. The swept-wing aircraft’s design had to be modified further.

 

A convenient solution came in the form of the F-80’s trainer version fuselage, the T-33, which had been lengthened by slightly more than 3 feet (1 m) for a second seat, instrumentation, and flight controls, under a longer canopy. Thanks to the extended front fuselage, the T-33’s wing attachment points could accept the new 25° wings without much further modifications, and balance was restored to acceptable limits. For the fighter aircraft, the T-33’s second seat was omitted and replaced with an additional fuel cell. The pressurized front cockpit was retained, together with the F-80’s bubble canopy and out fitted with an ejection seat.

 

The other innovation was the introduction of reheat for the engine. The earlier F-80 fighters were powered by centrifugal compressor turbojets, the F-80C had already incorporated water injection to boost the rather anemic powerplant during the start phase and in combat. The F-80E introduced a modified engine with a very simple afterburner chamber, designated J33-A-39. It was a further advanced variant of the J33-A-33 for the contemporary F-94 interceptor with water-alcohol injection and afterburner. For the F-80E with less gross weight, the water-alcohol injection system was omitted so save weight and simplify the system, and the afterburner was optimized for quicker response. Outwardly, the different engine required a modified, wider tail section, which also slightly extended the F-80’s tail.

 

The F-80E’s armament was changed, too. Experience from the Korean War had shown that the American aircrafts’ traditional 0.5” machine guns were reliable, but they lacked firepower, esp. against bigger targets like bombers, and even fighter aircraft like the MiG-15 had literally to be drenched with rounds to cause significant damage. On the other side, a few 23 mmm rounds or just a single hit with an explosive 37 mm shell from a MiG could take a bomber down. Therefore, the F-80’s six machine guns in the nose were replaced with four belt-fed 20mm M24 cannon. This was a license-built variant of the gas-operated Hispano-Suiza HS.404 with the addition of electrical cocking, allowing the gun to re-cock over a lightly struck round. It offered a rate of fire of 700-750 rounds/min and a muzzle velocity of 840 m/s (2,800 ft/s).In the F-80E each weapon was provided with 190 rounds.

 

Despite the swept wings Lockheed retained the wingtip tanks, similar to Lockheed’s recently developed XF-90 penetration fighter prototype. They had a different, more streamlined shape now, to reduce drag and minimize the risk of torsion problems with the outer wing sections and held 225 US gal (187 imp gal; 850 l) each. Even though the F-80E was conceived as a daytime fighter, hardpoints under the wings allowed the carriage of up to 2.000 lb of external ordnance, so that the aircraft could, like the straight-wing F-80s before, carry out attack missions. A reinforced pair of plumbed main hardpoints, just outside of the landing gear wells, allowed to carry another pair of drop tanks for extra range or single bombs of up to 1.000 lb (454 kg) caliber. A smaller, optional pair of pylons was intended to carry pods with nineteen “Mighty Mouse” 2.75 inches (70 mm) unguided folding-fin air-to-air rockets, and further hardpoints under the outer wings allowed eight 5” HVAR unguided air-to-ground rockets to be carried, too. Total external payload (including the wing tip tanks) was 4,800 lb (roughly 2,200 kg) of payload

 

The first XP-80E prototype flew in December 1953 – too late to take part in the Korean War, but Lockheed kept the aircraft’s development running as the benefits of swept wings were clearly visible. The USAF, however, did not show much interest in the new aircraft since the proven F-86 Sabre was readily available and focus more and more shifted to radar-equipped all-weather interceptors armed with guided missiles. However, military support programs for the newly founded NATO, esp. in Europe, stoked the demand for jet fighters, so that the F-80E was earmarked for export to friendly countries with air forces that had still to develop their capabilities after WWII. One of these was Germany; after World War II, German aviation was severely curtailed, and military aviation was completely forbidden after the Luftwaffe of the Third Reich had been disbanded by August 1946 by the Allied Control Commission. This changed in 1955 when West Germany joined NATO, as the Western Allies believed that Germany was needed to counter the increasing military threat posed by the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies. On 9 January 1956, a new German Air Force called Luftwaffe was founded as a branch of the new Bundeswehr (Federal Defence Force). The first volunteers of the Luftwaffe arrived at the Nörvenich Air Base in January 1956, and the same year, the Luftwaffe was provided with its first jet aircraft, the US-made Republic F-84 Thunderstreak from surplus stock, complemented by newly built Lockheed F-80E day fighters and T-33 trainers.

 

A total of 43 F-80Es were delivered to Germany in the course of 1956 and early 1957 via freight ships as disassembled kits, initially allocated to WaSLw 10 (Waffenschule der Luftwaffe = Weapon Training School of the Luftwaffe) at Nörvenich, one of three such units which focused on fighter training. The unit was quickly re-located to Northern Germany to Oldenburg, an airfield formerly under British/RAF governance, where the F-80Es were joined by Canada-built F-86 Sabre Mk. 5s. Flight operations began there in November 1957. Initially supported by flight instructors from the Royal Canadian Air Force from Zweibrücken, the WaSLw 10’s job was to train future pilots for jet aircraft on the respective operational types. F-80Es of this unit were in the following years furthermore frequently deployed to Decimomannu AB on Sardinia (Italy), as part of multi-national NATO training programs.

 

The F-80Es’ service at Oldenburg with WaSLw 10 did not last long, though. In 1963, basic flight and weapon system training was relocated to the USA, and the so-called Europeanization was shifted to the nearby Jever air base, i. e. the training in the more crowded European airspace and under notoriously less pleasant European weather conditions. The remaining German F-80E fleet was subsequently allocated to the Jagdgeschwader 73 “Steinhoff” at Pferdsfeld Air Base in Rhineland-Palatinate, where the machines were – like the Luftwaffe F-86s – upgraded to carry AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs, a major improvement of their interceptor capabilities. But just one year later, on October 1, 1964, JG 73 was reorganized and renamed Fighter-Bomber Squadron 42, and the unit converted to the new Fiat G.91 attack aircraft. In parallel, the Luftwaffe settled on the F-86 (with more Sabre Mk. 6s from Canada and new F-86K all-weather interceptors from Italian license production) as standard fighter, with the plan to convert to the supersonic new Lockheed F-104 as standard NATO fighter as soon as the type would become available.

For the Luftwaffe the F-80E had become obsolete, and to reduce the number of operational aircraft types, the remaining German aircraft, a total of 34, were in 1965 passed through to the Türk Hava Kuvvetleri (Turkish air force) as part of international NATO military support, where they remained in service until 1974 and were replaced by third generation F-4E Phantom II fighter jets.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 36 ft 9 1/2 in (11.23 m)

Wingspan: 37 ft 6 in (11.44 m) over tip tanks

Height: 13 ft 5 1/4 in (4.10 m)

Wing area: 241.3 sq ft (22,52 m²)

Empty weight: 10,681 lb (4.845 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 18,464 lb (8.375 kg)

Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0134

Frontal area: 32 sq ft (3.0 m²)

 

Powerplant:

1× Allison J33-A-39 centrifugal compressor turbojet with 4,600 lbf (20 kN) dry thrust

and 27.0 kN (6,070 lbf) thrust with afterburning

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,060 km/h (660 mph, 570 kn)

Cruise speed: 439 mph (707 km/h, 381 kn)

Range: 825 mi (1,328 km, 717 nmi)

Ferry range: 1,380 mi (2,220 km, 1,200 nmi)

Service ceiling: 50,900 ft (15,500 m)

Rate of climb: 7,980 ft/min (40.5 m/s)

Time to altitude: 20,000 ft (6,100 m) in 4 minutes 50 seconds

Lift-to-drag: 17.7

Wing loading: 51.3 lb/sq ft (250 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.249 dry

0.328 with afterburner

 

Armament:

4× 0.79 in (20 mm) M24 cannon (190 rpg)

2x wing tip auxiliary tanks with 225 US gal (187 imp gal; 850 l) each

Underwing hardpoints for a total ordnance load of 4,800 lb (2.200 kg), including

2× 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs, up to 4× pods with nineteen unguided Mighty Mouse FFARs each,

and/or up to 8× 5” (127 mm) HVAR unguided air-to-ground rockets

  

The kit and its assembly:

The idea of a swept-wing F-80 had been lingering on my idea list for a while, and I actually tried this stunt before in the form of a heavily modified F-94. The recent “Fifties” group build at whatifmodellers.com and a similar build by fellow forum member mat revived the interest in this topic – and inspired by mat’s creation, based on a T-33 fuselage, I decided to use the opportunity and add my personal interpretation of the idea.

 

Having suitable donor parts at hand was another decisive factor to start this build: I had a Heller T-33 in store, which had already been (ab)used as a donor bank for other projects, and which could now find a good use. I also had an F-80 canopy left over (from an Airfix kit), and my plan was to use Saab J29 wings (from a Matchbox kit) because of their limited sweep angle that would match the post-WWII era well.

 

Work started with the fuselage; it required a completely new cockpit interior because these parts had already gone elsewhere. I found a cockpit tub with its dashboard from an Italeri F4U, and with some trimming it could be mounted into the reduced cockpit opening, above the OOB front landing gear well. The T-33’s rear seat was faired of with styrene sheet and later PSRed away. The standard nose cone from the Heller T-33 was used, but I added gun ports for the new/different cannon armament.

For a different look with an afterburner engine I modified the tail section under the stabilizers, which was retained because of its characteristic shape. A generous section from the tail was cut away and replaced with the leftover jet pipe from an Italeri (R)F-84F, slightly longer and wider and decorated with innards from a Matchbox Mystère IV. This change is rather subtle but changes the F-80 profile and appears like a compromise between the F-80 and F-94 arrangements.

 

The T-33 wings were clipped down to the connection lower fuselage part. This ventral plate with integral main landing gear wells was mounted onto the T-33 hull and then the Saab 29 wings were dry-fitted to check their position along the fuselage and to define the main landing gear wells, which had to be cut into them to match their counterparts from the aircraft’s belly.

Their exact position was eventually fixed when the new swept stabilizers, taken from a Hobby Boss F-86, were mounted to the tail. They match well with the swept wings, and for an odd look I kept their dihedral.

The fin was eventually replaced, too – mat’s build retained the original F-80 fin, but with all other surfaces swept I found that the fin had to reflect this, too. So, I implanted a shortened Italeri (R)F-84F fin onto the original base, blended with some PSR into the rest of the tail.

 

With all aerodynamic surfaces in place it was time for fine-tuning, and to give the aircraft a simpler look I removed the dog teeth from the late Tunnan's outer wings, even though I retained the small LERXs. The wing tips were cut down a little and tip tanks (probably drop tanks from a Hobby Boss F-5E) added – without them the aircraft looked like a juvenile Saab 32!

 

The landing gear was mostly taken over from the Heller T-33, I just added small consoles for the main landing gear struts to ensure a proper stance, because the new wings and the respective attachment points were deeper. I also had to scratch some landing gear covers because the T-33 donor kit was missing them. The canopy was PSRed over the new opening and a new ejection seat tailored to fit into the F4U cockpit.

 

A final addition was a pair of pods with unguided FFARs. AFAIK the Luftwaffe did not use such weapons, but they’d make thematically sense on a Fifties anti-bomber interceptor - and I had a suitable pair left over from a Matchbox Mystère IV kit, complete with small pylons.

  

Painting and markings:

Since the time frame was defined by the Fifties, early Luftwaffe fighters had to carry a bare metal finish, with relatively few decorations. For the F-80E I gave the model an overall base coat with White Aluminum from a Dupli Color rattle can, a very nice and bright silver tone that comes IMHO close to NMF. Panels were post-shaded with Revell 99 (Aluminum) and 91 (Iron Metallic). An anti-glare panel in front of the windscreen was painted in the Luftwaffe tone RAL 6014, Gelboliv (Revell 42).

For some color highlights I gave the tip tanks bright red (Feuerrot, RAL 3000; Revell 330) outer halves, while the inner halves were painted black to avoid reflections that could distract the pilot (seen on a real Luftwaffe T-33 from the late Fifties). For an even more individual touch I added light blue (Tamiya X-14, Sky Blue) highlights on the nose and the fin, reflecting the squadron’s color code which is also carried within the unit emblem – the Tamiya paint came closest to the respective decal (see below).

 

The cockpit interior was painted with zinc chromate green primer (I used Humbrol 80, which is brighter than the tone should be, but it adds contrast to the black dials on the dashboard), the landing gear wells were painted with a mix of Humbrol 80 and 81, for a more yellowish hue. The landing gear struts became grey, dry-brushed with silver, while the inside of the ventral air brakes were painted in Feuerrot, too.

 

Then the model received an overall washing with black ink to emphasize the recessed panel lines, plus additional panel shading with Matt Aluminum Metallizer (Humbrol 27001), plus a light rubbing treatment with grinded graphite that emphasized the (few leftover) raised panel lines and also added a dark metallic shine to the silver base. Some of the lost panel lines were simulated with simple pencil strokes, too.

 

The decals/markings primarily came from an AirDoc aftermarket sheet for late Fifties Luftwaffe F-84Fs. The tactical code (“BB-xxx” was then assigned to the WaSLw 10 as unit code, but this soon changed to a similar but different format that told about the unit’s task as well as the specific unit and squadron within it; this was replaced once more by a simple xx+yy code that was only connected to a specific aircraft with no unit reference anymore, and this format is still in use today) was puzzled together from single letters/digits from the same decal set. Some additional markings like the red band on the fuselage had to be scratched, but most stencils came from an all-bare-metal Luftwaffe F-84F.

 

After some more detail painting the model was sealed with semi-gloss acrylic paint, just the anti-glare panel and the di-electric fairings on the nose and the fin tip became matt.

  

A thorough kitbashing build, but the result looks quite plausible, if not elegant? The slightly swept wings suit the F-80 with its organic fuselage shape well, even though they reveal the designs rather baroque shape. There’s a sense of obsolescence about the F-80E, despite its modern features? The Luftwaffe markings work well on the aircraft, too, and with the red and blue highlights the machine looks more attractive despite its simple NMF livery than expected.

A Phicen kit bash using the Female Shooter headsculpt by Very Cool toys .

New/more pics from an older (and dusty...) model

  

Some background:

The VF-1 was developed by Stonewell/Bellcom/Shinnakasu for the U.N. Spacy by using alien Overtechnology obtained from the SDF-1 Macross alien spaceship. Its production was preceded by an aerodynamic proving version of its airframe, the VF-X. Unlike all later VF vehicles, the VF-X was strictly a jet aircraft, built to demonstrate that a jet fighter with the features necessary to convert to Battroid mode was aerodynamically feasible. After the VF-X's testing was finished, an advanced concept atmospheric-only prototype, the VF-0 Phoenix, was flight-tested from 2005 to 2007 and briefly served as an active-duty fighter from 2007 to the VF-1's rollout in late 2008, while the bugs were being worked out of the full-up VF-1 prototype (VF-X-1).

 

The space-capable VF-1's combat debut was on February 7, 2009, during the Battle of South Ataria Island - the first battle of Space War I - and remained the mainstay fighter of the U.N. Spacy for the entire conflict. Introduced in 2008, the VF-1 would be out of frontline service just five years later, though.

 

The VF-1 proved to be an extremely capable craft, successfully combating a variety of Zentraedi mecha even in most sorties which saw UN Spacy forces significantly outnumbered. The versatility of the Valkyrie design enabled the variable fighter to act as both large-scale infantry and as air/space superiority fighter. The signature skills of U.N. Spacy ace pilot Maximilian Jenius exemplified the effectiveness of the variable systems as he near-constantly transformed the Valkyrie in battle to seize advantages of each mode as combat conditions changed from moment to moment.

 

The basic VF-1 was deployed in four minor variants (designated A, D, J, and S) and its success was increased by continued development of various enhancements including the GBP-1S "Armored" Valkyrie, FAST Pack "Super" Valkyrie and the additional RÖ-X2 heavy cannon pack weapon system for the VF-1S for additional firepower.

The FAST Pack system was designed to enhance the VF-1 Valkyrie variable fighter, and the initial V1.0 came in the form of conformal pallets that could be attached to the fighter’s leg flanks for additional fuel – primarily for Long Range Interdiction tasks in atmospheric environment. Later FAST Packs were designed for space operations.

 

The following FAST Pack 2.0 system featured two 120.000 kg class P&W+EF-2001 booster thrusters (mounted on the dorsal section of the VF-1) and two CTB-04 conformal propellant/coolant tanks (mounted on the leg/engines), since the VF-1's internal tanks could not carry enough propellant to achieve a stable orbit from Earth bases and needed the help of a booster pack to reach Low Earth Orbit. Anyway, the FAST Pack 2.0 wasn't adapted for atmospheric use, due to its impact on a Valkyrie's aerodynamics and its weight; as such, it needed to be discarded before atmospheric entry.

Included in the FAST Pack boosters and conformal tanks were six high-maneuverability vernier thrusters and two low-thrust vernier thrusters beneath multipurpose hook/handles in two dorsal-mounted NP-BP-01, as well as ten more high-maneuverability vernier thrusters and two low-thrust vernier thrusters beneath multipurpose hook/handles in the two leg/engine-mounted NP-FB-01 systems.

Granting the VF-1 a significantly increased weapons payload as well as greater fuel and thrust, Shinnakasu Heavy Industry's FAST Pack system 2.0 was in every way a major success in space combat. The first VF-1 equipped with FAST Packs was deployed in January 2010 for an interception mission.

Following first operational deployment and its effectiveness, the FAST Pack system was embraced enthusiastically by the U.N. Spacy and found wide use. By February 2010, there were already over 300+ so-called "Super Valkyries" stationed onboard the SDF-1 Macross alone.

 

After the end of Space War I, the VF-1 continued to be manufactured both in the Sol system and throughout the UNG space colonies. Although the VF-1 would eventually be replaced as the primary Variable Fighter of the U.N. Spacy by the more capable, but also much bigger, VF-4 Lightning III in 2020, a long service record and continued production after the war proved the lasting worth of the design.

 

The VF-1 was without doubt the most recognizable variable fighter of Space War I and was seen as a vibrant symbol of the U.N. Spacy even into the first year of the New Era 0001 in 2013. At the end of 2015 the final rollout of the VF-1 was celebrated at a special ceremony, commemorating this most famous of variable fighters. The VF-1 Valkryie was built from 2006 to 2013 with a total production of 5,459 VF-1 variable fighters with several variants (VF-1A = 5,093, VF-1D = 85, VF-1J = 49, VF-1S = 30, VF-1G = 12, VE-1 = 122, VT-1 = 68)

 

However, the fighter remained active in many second line units and continued to show its worthiness years later, e. g. through Milia Jenius who would use her old VF-1 fighter in defense of the colonization fleet - 35 years after the type's service introduction.

 

General characteristics:

All-environment variable fighter and tactical combat Battroid,

used by U.N. Spacy, U.N. Navy, U.N. Space Air Force

 

Accommodation:

Pilot only in Marty & Beck Mk-7 zero/zero ejection seat

Dimensions:

Fighter Mode:

Length 14.23 meters

Wingspan 14.78 meters (at 20° minimum sweep)

Height 3.84 meters

 

Battroid Mode:

Height 12.68 meters

Width 7.3 meters

Length 4.0 meters

Empty weight: 13.25 metric tons;

Standard T-O mass: 18.5 metric tons;

MTOW: 37.0 metric tons

 

Power Plant:

2x Shinnakasu Heavy Industry/P&W/Roice FF-2001 thermonuclear reaction turbine engines, output 650 MW each, rated at 11,500 kg in standard or in overboost (225.63 kN x 2)

4 x Shinnakasu Heavy Industry NBS-1 high-thrust vernier thrusters (1 x counter reverse vernier thruster nozzle mounted on the side of each leg nacelle/air intake, 1 x wing thruster roll control system on each wingtip);

18 x P&W LHP04 low-thrust vernier thrusters beneath multipurpose hook/handles

 

The S-FAST Pack added 4x P&W+EF-2001 booster thrusters with 120.000 kg each, plus a total of 28x P&W LHP04 low-thrust vernier thrusters

 

Performance:

Battroid Mode: maximum walking speed 160 km/h

Fighter Mode: at 10,000 m Mach 2.71; at 30,000+ m Mach 3.87

g limit: in space +7

Thrust-to-weight ratio: empty 3.47; standard T-O 2.49; maximum T-O 1.24

 

Design Features:

3-mode variable transformation; variable geometry wing; vertical take-off and landing; control-configurable vehicle; single-axis thrust vectoring; three "magic hand" manipulators for maintenance use; retractable canopy shield for Battroid mode and atmospheric reentry; option of GBP-1S system, atmospheric-escape booster, or FAST Pack system

 

Transformation:

Standard time from Fighter to Battroid (automated): under 5 sec.

Min. time from Fighter to Battroid (manual): 0.9 sec.

 

Armament:

2x internal Mauler RÖV-20 anti-aircraft laser cannon, firing 6,000 pulses per minute

1x Howard GU-11 55 mm three-barrel Gatling gun pod with 200 RPG, fired at 1,200 rds/min

 

4x underwing hard points for a wide variety of ordnance, including

12x AMM-1 hybrid guided multipurpose missiles (3/point), or

12x MK-82 LDGB conventional bombs (3/point), or

6x RMS-1 large anti-ship reaction missiles (2/outboard point, 1/inboard point), or

4x UUM-7 micro-missile pods (1/point) each carrying 15 x Bifors HMM-01 micro-missiles,

or a combination of above load-outs

 

The optional Shinnakasu Heavy Industry S-FAST Pack 2.1 augmentative space weapon system added:

6x micro-missiles in two NP-AR-01 micro-missile launcher pods (mounted rearward under center ventral section in Fighter mode or on lower arm sections in GERWALK/Battroid mode)

4x12 micro missiles in four HMMP-02 micro-missile launchers, one inside each booster pod

  

The model and its assembly:

This is a major kit conversion, or better a kitbashing with major scratch work involved. By the time I built this model, there were no convincing 1:100 kits of the so-called "Super / Strike Valkyries" around. These VF-1s carry rocket boosters for non-atmospherical use, so-called FAST packages ("Fuel And Sensor Trays"). However, parts for these space operation packages are included in some ARII Battroid kits.

 

This is the second of such conversions I did on the basis of a 1:100 Bandai (ex Arii) Gerwalk Valkyrie model, with additional leftover pieces from Super Valkyrie kits in Battroid mode and even from vintage Imai transformable kits.

 

The legs in retracted position were completely built through kitbashing, since the FAST packages would hardly fit under the body. The folded arms between the legs were improvised and heavily tailored to fit into the narrow space between the legs as good as possible. Real arm parts would not fit at all!

 

The "UUM-7" rocket launchers with 5 x 3 HMM-01missiles each were built from scratch. other added details include a pilot figure and better cockpit interior parts, plus some other details like antennae that the simple, original kits lack.

 

Painting and markings:

The color scheme is based on the standard VF-1A livery, even though I used a lighter tan (RAF "Hemp", B.S. 4800/10B21, e .g. used on Nimrod sea patrol aircrafts or VC-10 tankers - Humbrol 168) instead of brown. The lighter contrast areas were painted in ivory (Humbrol 41) instead of pure white, the FAST packs received a grey finish (FS 36081, Humbrol 32).

 

What's a bit special about the colored details of this semi-fictional Valkyrie is that the squadron insignia is original Japanese: The panda with the red lightning is the emblem of the 203rd hikotai, a real world JASDF fighter squadron that used to fly F-86 Sabre and F-104 Starfighters – with some fantasy, you can read the "203" in the lightning's outline! The kit's idea was to show what a machine from such a "real" squadron might look like if it was (still) existent in the Macross universe?

 

Phicen kitbash using the Little Red Riding Hood headsculpt . For the life of me I still can't find a proper Phicen body that matches this particular headsculpt ,this is the pale body and it still doesn't match , so frustrating >:(

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

After the success of the Soviet Union’s first carrier ship, the Moskva Class (Projekt 1123, also called „Кондор“/„Kondor“) cruisers in the mid 1960s, the country became more ambitious. This resulted in Project 1153 Orel (Russian: Орёл, Eagle), a planned 1970s-era Soviet program to give the Soviet Navy a true blue water aviation capability. Project Orel would have resulted in a program very similar to the aircraft carriers available to the U.S. Navy. The ship would have been about 75-80,000 tons displacement, with a nuclear power plant and carried about 70 aircraft launched via steam catapults – the first Soviet aircraft carrier that would be able to deploy fixed-wing aircraft.

Beyond this core capability, the Orel carrier was designed with a large offensive capability with the ship mounts including 24 vertical launch tubes for anti-ship cruise missiles. In the USSR it was actually classified as the "large cruiser with aircraft armament".

 

Anyway, the carrier needed appropriate aircraft, and in order to develop a the aircraft major design bureaus were asked to submit ideas and proposals in 1959. OKB Yakovlev and MiG responded. While Yakovlev concentrated on the Yak-36 VTOL design that could also be deployed aboard of smaller ships without catapult and arrester equipment, Mikoyan-Gurevich looked at navalized variants of existing or projected aircraft.

 

While land-based fighters went through a remarkable performance improvement during the 60ies, OKB MiG considered a robust aircraft with proven systems and – foremost – two engines to be the best start for the Soviet Union’s first naval fighter. “Learning by doing”, the gathered experience would then be used in a dedicated new design that would be ready in the mid 70ies when Project 1153 was ready for service, too.

 

Internally designated “I-SK” or “SK-01” (Samolyot Korabelniy = carrier-borne aircraft), the naval fighter was based on the MiG-19 (NATO: Farmer), which had been in production in the USSR since 1954.

Faster and more modern types like the MiG-21 were rejected for a naval conversion because of their poor take-off performance, uncertain aerodynamics in the naval environment and lack of ruggedness. The MiG-19 also offered the benefit of relatively compact dimensions, as well as a structure that would carry the desired two engines.

 

Several innovations had to be addresses:

- A new wing for improved low speed handling

- Improvement of the landing gear and internal structures for carrier operations

- Development of a wing folding mechanism

- Integration of arrester hook and catapult launch devices into the structure

- Protection of structure, engine and equipment from the aggressive naval environment

- Improvement of the pilot’s field of view for carrier landings

- Improved avionics, esp. for navigation

 

Work on the SK-01 started in 1960, and by 1962 a heavily redesigned MiG-19 was ready as a mock-up for inspection and further approval. The “new” aircraft shared the outlines with the land-based MiG-19, but the nose section was completely new and shared a certain similarity to the experimental “Aircraft SN”, a MiG-17 derivative with side air intakes and a solid nose that carried a. Unlike the latter, the cockpit had been moved forward, which offered, together with an enlarged canopy and a short nose, an excellent field of view for the pilot.

On the SK-01 the air intakes with short splitter plates were re-located to the fuselage flanks underneath the cockpit. In order to avoid gun smoke ingestion problems (and the lack of space in the nose for any equipment except for a small SRD-3 Grad gun ranging radar, coupled with an ASP-5N computing gun-sight), the SK-01’s internal armament, a pair of NR-30 cannon, was placed in the wing roots.

 

The wing itself was another major modification, it featured a reduced sweep of only 33° at ¼ chord angle (compared to the MiG-19’s original 55°). Four wing hardpoints, outside of the landing gear wells, could carry a modest ordnance payload, including rocket and gun pods, unguided missiles, iron bombs and up to four Vympel K-13 AAMs.

Outside of these pylons, the wings featured a folding mechanism that allowed the wing span to be reduced from 10 m to 6.5 m for stowage. The fin remained unchanged, but the stabilizers had a reduced sweep, too.

 

The single ventral fin of the MiG-19 gave way to a fairing for a massive, semi-retractable arrester hook, flanked by a pair of smaller fins. The landing gear was beefed up, too, with a stronger suspension. Catapult launch from deck was to be realized through expandable cables that were attached onto massive hooks under the fuselage.

 

The SK-01 received a “thumbs up” in March 1962 and three prototypes, powered by special Sorokin R3M-28 engines, derivatives of the MiG-19's RB-9 that were adapted to the naval environment, were created and tested until 1965, when the type – now designated MiG-SK – went through State Acceptance Trials, including simulated landing tests on an “unsinkalble carrier” dummy, a modified part of the runway at Air Base at the Western coast of the Caspian Sea. Not only flight tests were conducted at Kaspiysk, but also different layouts for landing cables were tested and optimized as well. Furthermore, on a special platform at the coast, an experimental steam catapult went through trials, even though no aircraft starts were made from it – but weights hauled out into the sea.

 

Anyway, the flight tests and the landing performance on the simulated carrier deck were successful, and while the MiG-SK (the machine differed from the MiG-19 so much that it was not recognized as an official MiG-19 variant) was not an outstanding combat aircraft, rather a technology carrier with field use capabilities.

The MiG-SK’s performance was good enough to earn OKB MiG an initial production run of 20 aircraft, primarily intended for training and development units, since the whole infrastructure and procedures for naval aviation from a carrier had to be developed from scratch. These machines were built at slow pace until 1968 and trials were carried out in the vicinity of the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea.

 

The MiG-SK successfully remained hidden from the public, since the Soviet Navy did not want to give away its plans for a CTOL carrier. Spy flights of balloons and aircraft recognized the MiG-SK, but the type was mistaken as MiG-17 fighters. Consequently, no NATO codename was ever allocated.

 

Alas, the future of the Soviet, carrier-borne fixed wing aircraft was not bright: Laid down in in 1970, the Kiev-class aircraft carriers (also known as Project 1143 or as the Krechyet (Gyrfalcon) class) were the first class of fixed-wing aircraft carriers to be built in the Soviet Union, and they entered service, together with the Yak-38 (Forger) VTOL fighter, in 1973. This weapon system already offered a combat performance similar to the MiG-SK, and the VTOL concept rendered the need for catapult launch and deck landing capability obsolete.

 

OKB MiG still tried to lobby for a CTOL aircraft (in the meantime, the swing-wing MiG-23 was on the drawing board, as well as a projected, navalized multi-purpose derivative, the MiG-23K), but to no avail.

Furthermore, carrier Project 1153 was cancelled in October 1978 as being too expensive, and a program for a smaller ship called Project 11435, more V/STOL-aircraft-oriented, was developed instead; in its initial stage, a version of 65,000 tons and 52 aircraft was proposed, but eventually an even smaller ship was built in the form of the Kuznetsov-class aircraft carriers in 1985, outfitted with a 12-degree ski-jump bow flight deck instead of using complex aircraft catapults. This CTOL carrier was finally equipped with navalized Su-33, MiG-29 and Su-25 aircraft – and the MiG-SK paved the early way to these shipboard fighters, especially the MiG-29K.

 

General characteristics:

Crew: One

Length: 13.28 m (43 ft 6 in)

Wingspan: 10.39 m (34 ft)

Height: 3.9 m (12 ft 10 in)

Wing area: 22.6 m² (242.5 ft²)

Empty weight: 5.172 kg (11,392 lb)

Max. take-off weight: 7,560 kg (16,632 lb)

 

Powerplant:

2× Sorokin R3M-28 turbojets afterburning turbojets, rated at 33.8 kN (7,605 lbf) each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,145 km/h (618 knots, 711 mph) at 3,000 m (10,000 ft)

Range: 2,060 km (1,111 nmi, 1,280 mi) with drop tanks

Service ceiling: 17,500 m (57,400 ft)

Rate of climb: 180 m/s (35,425 ft/min)

Wing loading: 302.4 kg/m² (61.6 lb/ft²)

Thrust/weight: 0.86

 

Armament:

2x 30 mm NR-30 cannons in the wing roots with 75 RPG

4x underwing pylons, with a maximum load of 1.000 kg (2.205 lb)

  

The kit and its assembly:

This kitbash creation was spawned by thoughts concerning the Soviet Naval Aviation and its lack of CTOL aircraft carriers until the 1980ies and kicked-off by a CG rendition of a navalized MiG-17 from fellow member SPINNERS at whatifmodelers.com, posted a couple of months ago. I liked this idea, and at first I wanted to convert a MiG-17 with a solid nose as a dedicated carrier aircraft. But the more I thought about it and did historic research, the less probable this concept appeared to me: the MiG-17 was simply too old to match Soviet plans for a carrier ship, at least with the real world as reference.

 

A plausible alternative was the MiG-19, esp. with its twin-engine layout, even though the highly swept wings and the associated high start and landing speeds would be rather inappropriate for a shipborne fighter. Anyway, a MiG-21 was even less suitable, and I eventually took the Farmer as conversion basis, since it would also fit into the historic time frame between the late 60ies and the mid-70ies.

 

In this case, the basis is a Plastyk MiG-19 kit, one of the many Eastern European re-incarnations of the vintage KP kit. This cheap re-issue became a positive surprise, because any former raised panel and rivet details have disappeared and were replaced with sound, recessed engravings. The kit is still a bit clumsy, the walls are very thick (esp. the canopy – maybe 2mm!), but IMHO it’s a considerable improvement with acceptable fit, even though there are some sink holes and some nasty surprises (in my case, for instance, the stabilizer fins would not match with the rear fuselage at all, and you basically need putty everywhere).

 

Not much from the Plastyk kit was taken over, though: only the fuselage’s rear two-thirds were used, some landing gear parts as well as fin and the horizontal stabilizers. The latter were heavily modified and reduced in sweep in order to match new wings from a Hobby Boss MiG-15 (the parts were cut into three pieces each and then set back together again).

 

Furthermore, the complete front section from a Novo Supermarine Attacker was transplanted, because its short nose and the high cockpit are perfect parts for a carrier aircraft. The Attacker’s front end, including the air intakes, fits almost perfectly onto the round MiG-19 forward fuselage, only little body work was necessary. A complete cockpit tub and a new seat were implanted, as well as a front landing gear well and walls inside of the (otherwise empty) air intakes. The jet exhausts were drilled open, too, and afterburner dummies added. Simple jobs.

 

On the other side, the wings were trickier than expected. The MiG-19 kit comes with voluminous and massive wing root fairings, probably aerodynamic bodies for some area-ruling. I decided to keep them, but this caused some unexpected troubles…

The MiG-15 wings’ position, considerably further back due to the reduced sweep angle, was deduced from the relative MiG-19’s landing gear position. A lot of sculpting and body work followed, and after the wings were finally in place I recognized that the aforementioned, thick wing root fairings had reduced the wing sweep – basically not a bad thing, but with the inconvenient side effect that the original wing MiG-15 fences were not parallel to the fuselage anymore, looking rather awkward! What to do? Grrrr…. I could not leave it that way, so I scraped them away and replaced with them with four scratched substitutes (from styrene profiles), moving the outer pair towards the wing folding mechanism.

 

Under the wings, four new pylons were added (two from an IAI Kfir, two from a Su-22) and the ordnance gathered from the scrap box – bombs and rocket pods formerly belonged to a Kangnam/Revell Yak-38.

The landing gear was raised by ~2mm for a higher stance on the ground. The original, thick central fin was reduced in length, so that it could become a plausible attachment point for an arrester hook (also from the spares box), and a pair of splayed stabilizer fins was added as a compensation. Finally, some of the OOB air scoops were placed all round the hull and some pitots, antennae and a gun camera fairing added.

  

Painting and markings:

This whif was to look naval at first sight, so I referred to the early Yak-38 VTOL aircraft and their rather minimalistic paint scheme in an overall dull blue. The green underside, seen on many service aircraft, was AFAIK a (later) protective coating – an obsolete detail for a CTOL aircraft.

 

Hence, all upper surfaces and the fuselage were painted in a uniform “Field Blue” (Tamiya XF-50). It’s a bit dark, but I have used this unique, petrol blue tone many moons ago on a real world Kangnam Forger where it looks pretty good, and in this case the surface was furthermore shaded with Humbrol 96 and 126 after a black in wash.

For some contrast I painted the undersides of the wings and stabilizers as well as a fuselage section between the wings in a pale grey (Humbrol 167), seen on one of the Yak-38 prototypes. Not very obvious, but at least the aircraft did not end up in a boring, uniform color.

 

The interior was painted in blue-gray (PRU Blue, shaded with Humbrol 87) while the landing gear wells became Aluminum (Humbrol 56). The wheel discs became bright green, just in order to keep in style and as a colorful contrast, and some di-electric panels and covers became very light grey or bright green. For some color contrast, the anti-flutter weight tips on the stabilizers as well as the pylons’ front ends were painted bright red.

 

The markings/decals reflect the early Soviet Navy style, with simple Red Stars, large yellow tactical codes and some high contrast warning stencils, taken from the remains of a Yak-38 sheet (American Revell re-release of the Kangnam kit).

Finally, after some soot stains with graphite around the gun muzzles and the air bleed doors, the kit was sealed with a coat of semi-matt acrylic varnish and some matt accents (anti-glare panel, radomes).

  

A simple idea that turned out to be more complex than expected, due to the wing fence troubles. But I am happy that the Attacker nose could be so easily transplanted, it changes the MiG-19’s look considerably, as well as the wings with (much) less sweep angle.

The aircraft looks familiar, but you only recognize at second glance that it is more than just a MiG-19 with a solid nose. The thing looks pretty retro, reminds me a bit of the Supermarine Scimitar (dunno?), and IMHO it appears more Chinese than Soviet (maybe because the layout reminds a lot of the Q-5 fighter bomber)? It could even, with appropriate markings, be a Luft ’46 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 Ostdeutsche Albatros Werke's Dr.III was a German triplane single seat fighter aircraft designed and manufactured during the final stages of the First World War. The Dr.III Triplane had a long development phase and ecame operational at the Western Front in mid 1918, where it was to complement the better known Fokker Dr.I triplane.

 

However, the path to the Albatros Dr.III was not a straight one. The Albatros Dr. I was the company's first triplane, a direct derivative of the D.V fitted with three pairs of wings instead of two. Identical in most other respects to the D.V, in the summer of 1917 it was flown side by side with the existing biplane in comparison trials. There was no discernible performance advantage and development was halted at the prototype stage.

 

Next came the Albatros Dr.II, a prototype single-seat fighter triplane. The sole example flew in the spring of 1918, and it was similar in many respects to the D.X biplane, employing among other features the same 145 kW (195 hp) Benz Bz.IIIbo engine and twin 7.92 mm (.312 in) machine guns. The three pairs of wings were sharply staggered, braced by broad I-struts, and shared parallel chords. All three pairs were equipped with ailerons, which were linked by hinged struts.

 

Stability problems and lack of agility stopped any further development, but directly led to the Dr.III which actually a private venture of Albatros. The aircraft featured a new, shorter fuselage and three narrow-chord wings to provide the pilot with an improved field of view. Ailerons were fitted to all three wings.

 

The Dr.III was powered by the Albatros D.V's proven Mercedes D.IIIa piston engine with 150 kW (200 hp), driving a 2-bladed wooden propeller. The prototype Dr.III first flew on 18 May 1918, and it showed a very good performance and handling, and the inline engine reduced the induced torque through the alternative rotary engines of the era and made the Dr.III a relatively stable weapon platform.

 

After an official presentation in July 1918 Idflieg placed orders for 250 Dr.III aircraft. Anyway, the D.V still ran in parallel and the Fokker Dr.I received higher priority (also due to its popularity in propaganda), so the Albatros triplane fighter was only built in comparatively small numbers until the end of the First World War: only about 100 aircraft reached the front units from late 1918 on, primarily at the Western Front .

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 22 ft 2 in (6.76 m)

Wingspan: 26 ft 8 in (8,13 m)

Height: 10 ft 6 in (3.26 m)

Wing area: 231 ft² (21.46 m²)

Empty weight: 1,101 lb (500 kg)

Gross weight: 1,541 lb (700 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Mercedes D.IIIa piston engine, 150 kW (200 hp), driving a 2-bladed wooden propeller

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 117 mph (187 km/h) at 5,000 ft (1,830 m)

Endurance: 350 km

Service ceiling: 20,500 ft (6,250 m)

Rate of climb: 4.17 m/s (821 ft/min)

Time to 6,000 ft (1,830 m): 5 min 50 s

Time to 16,400 ft (5,000 m): 26 min 30 s

 

Armament:

Guns: 2 × 7.92 mm (0.312 in) LMG 08/15 machine guns

  

The kit and its assembly:

A different subject - WWI whifs are rather rare, and I was looking for a new challenge. Basic idea had been to build an alternative to the famous Fokker Dr.I triplane, and soon I found the sleek Albatros fighters with their typical inline engine to be a good alternative basis.

Anyway, i was surpised that there had actually been two triplane designs by Albatros, so I eventually ended up with a fictional Dr.III designation...

 

This whif model is a bashing of two Revell kits: the vintage Albatros D.III kit (I built one maybe 30 yerars ago, all red, horrible styrene) and a Sopwith Triplane. I was surprised that material quality was considerably improved since my last encounter with Revell biplane kits, and the moulds aren't bad, either, even though especiacially the D.III kit cannot conceal its age.

 

Things started with some measurements: simply grafting the Sopwith's wings onto the D.III fuselage would not work, or yield something like the rather ugly Albatros Dr.I. So I used the Sopwith's wingspan/fuselage ratio as benchmark and modified the D.III's fuselage accordingly, cutting away ~1cm of the rear fuselage behind the cockpit and sculpting a new transition towards the tail section from putty - I wanted to keep the typical Albatros teardrop shape.

 

From that, the Sopwith Triplane's wings were added from lowest to the top, using the the OOB outer wing struts. Once all wings were in place I placed the Albatros struts between the upper wing and fuselage, which worked pretty well.

 

The landing gear was taken wholesale from the Sopwith Triplane (it's the smaller of both donation aircraft), but I replaced the rather ugly wheels from both kits with a pair of Hawker Fury wheels from a Matchbox kit, found in the spare box.

 

Pilot, engine, machine guns and exhaust were taken OOB from the D.III kit, I just scratched a new cooler for the upper wing with styrene.

Rigging was done before painting, with heated sprues (of black plastic); certainly not the orthodox method, but it works for me and my way of building/painting.

  

Painting and markings:

If you need some color inspiration and destraction from dull RAL and FS tones, I can whole-heartedly recommend a WWI aircraft. German specimen might be extra mind-boggling, e .g. through the complex Lozenge scheme or just the choice of bold colors.

The famous "Red Baron" Dr.I is actually rather dull - there were so many weird and bright machines, some with fantastic personal decorations, it's a wild field for both real world and whif modelers!

 

My Dr.III has no real paradigm, I rather intergrated several inspirations and was surprised how it turned out! One element I wanted to incorporate was the stunning combination of green and purple on the upper wing surfaces - and I even found a benchmark with three tones.

 

I uses a mix of Humbrol 73 and 68 (Wine Red and Purple) for the red tone, plus Humbrol 75 (Bronze Green) and 102 (Army Green) as the complementary greens, on all three wings. The tail was to become blue, and I used Humbrol 221 (Garter Blue) since it resembles Prussian Blue. The white trim was inspired by German Albatris D.V fighters, operated by JaSta 5 (green tails with red trim, similar style, though).

 

The front of the fuselage was kept in Aluminum (Humbrol 56) and bare ply wood under clear varnish. The latter was created with wet-in-wet painting with Humbrol 63 (Sand) and 62 (Leather).

 

As counter-contrasts the spinner and the wheel disks were painted in bright red.

 

The rest was done with decals. The German "Crosses pattée" for the wings had to be taken from an aftermarket sheet (plus the white contrast fields below them), the wing and fin crosses come from the Revell kit. The white and black fuselage stripes are decals, too, as well as the silver flaps alongside the engine.

 

For a more personal touch the Dr.III received red lion markings on the flanks - actually, these are the emblems of Aurigny Airways, but the emblem style can also be found in many German ensigns.

And I found the German name "Paul" in white type with red shadows in the decal box - from a conquered British Mark IV tank (Emhar kit, 1:35) - and it perfectly fitted on the horizontal stabilizer als personal pilot marking.

 

The kit received a very light black ink was as well as some counter-shading and dry-brusing with medium grey in order to emphasize the nice surface structure of the Sopwith Triplane parts.

Finally everything was sealed under matt acrylic varnish, applied from a rattle can.

  

A literally small project, I think this one is one of the tiniest aircraft kits I ever built. It's colorful, and looks surprisingly plausible - and I was amazed to find out that my fictional colors markings (red nose, blue tail) more or less resembled the real markings of JaSta 15 from late 1918 on - so there's unexpected realism added to the otherwise fictional aircraft!

 

Suitable for an April 1st posting! ;)

Finished weathering and adding street details..

Phase 2 completed, still needs people and sidewalk details

 

Tim Hortons and Starbucks office block

 

More to come...

My first side wall glued together.

The kit and its assembly:

A major kitbashing project which I had on my idea list for a long time and its main ingredients/body donors already stashed away – but, as with many rather intimidating builds, it takes some external motivation to finally tackle the idea and bring it into hardware form. This came in August 2020 with the “Prototypes” group build at whatifmodellers.com, even though is still took some time to find the courage and mojo to start.

 

The original inspiration was the idea of a stealthy successor for the A-10, or a kind of more modern A-7 as an alternative to the omnipresent (and rather boring, IMHO) F-35. An early “ingredient” became the fuselage of a Zvezda Ka-58 stealth helicopter kit – I liked the edgy shape, the crocodile-like silhouette and the spacious side-by-side cockpit. Adding wings, however, was more challenging, and I remembered a 1:200 B-2A which I had turned into a light Swedish 1:72 attack stealth aircraft. Why not use another B-2 for the wings and the engines, but this time a bigger 1:144 model that would better match the quite bulbous Ka-58 fuselage? This donor became an Italeri kit.

 

Work started with the fuselage: the Ka-58’s engine and gearbox hump had to go first and a generous, new dorsal section had to be scratched with 1mm styrene sheet and some PSR. The cockpit and its glazing could be retained and were taken OOB. Under the nose, the Ka-58’s gun turret was omitted and a scratched front landing gear well was implanted instead.

 

The wings consist of the B-2 model; the lower “fuselage half” had its front end cut away, then the upper fuselage half of the Ka-58 was used as benchmark to cut the B-2’s upper wing/body part in two outer wing panels. Once these elements had been glued together, the Ka-58’s lower nose and tail section were tailored to match the B-2 parts. The B-2 engine bays were taken OOB and mounted next, so that the A-14’s basic hull was complete and the first major PSR session could start. Blending the parts into each other turned out to be a tedious process, since some 2-3 mm wide gaps had to be filled.

 

Once the basic BWP pack had been finished, I added the fins. These were taken from an 1:72 F-117 kit (IIRC from Italeri), which I had bought in a lot many moons ago. The fins were just adapted at their base to match the tail sting slope, and they were mounted in a 45° angle. This looks very F-117ish but was IMHO the most plausible solution.

 

Now that the overall length of the aircraft was defined, I could work on the final major assembly part: the wing tips. The 1:144 B-2 came with separate wing tip sections, but they proved to be much too long for the Squatina. After some trials I reduced their length by more than half, so that the B-2’s jagged wing trailing edge was kept. The result looks quite natural, even though blending the cut wing tips to the BWB turned out to be a PSR nightmare because their thickness reduces gently towards the tip – since I took out a good part of the inner section, the resulting step had to be sanded away and hidden with more PSR.

 

Detail work started next, including the cockpit glazing, the bomb bay (the B-2 kit comes with one of its bays open, and I kept this detail and modified the interior) and the landing gear, the latter was taken from the F-117 donor bank and fitted surprisingly well.

Some sensors were added, too, including a flat glass panel on the nose tip and a triangular IRST fairing under the nose, next to the landing gear well.

+++ 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 T-34, a Soviet medium tank, had a profound and lasting effect on the field of tank design. At its introduction in 1940, the T-34 possessed an unprecedented combination of firepower, mobility, protection and ruggedness. Its 76.2 mm high-velocity tank gun provided a substantial increase in firepower over any of its contemporaries while its well-sloped armour was difficult to penetrate by most contemporary anti-tank weapons. Although its armour and armament were surpassed later in the war, it has often been credited as the most effective, efficient and influential tank design of the Second World War.

 

The T-34 was the mainstay of Soviet armoured forces throughout the Second World War. Its design allowed it to be continuously refined to meet the constantly evolving needs of the Eastern Front: as the war went on it became more capable, but also quicker and cheaper to produce. Soviet industry would eventually produce over 80,000 T-34s of all variants, allowing steadily greater numbers to be fielded as the war progressed despite the loss of tens of thousands in combat against the German Wehrmacht. Replacing many light and medium tanks in Red Army service, it was the most-produced tank of the war, as well as the second most produced tank of all time (after its successor, the T-54/55 series). T-34 variants were widely exported after World War II, and even as recently as 2010, the tank has seen limited front-line service with several developing countries

 

One of the unusual and rather unknown operators of the T-34 was Austria. 25 tanks (some sources claim 27 or even 37) of the late T-34/85 variant came as a gift from (well, they were actually left behind by) the Soviet Union in 1955 when the Red Army left the country, meaning that the Austrian Bundesheer was re-established. These vehicles became the young army's initial backbone, until more modern equipment (e. g. M41 and M47 tanks procured from the USA and AMX-13/75 tanks from France) replaced them in frontline service. Due to their ruggedness and simplicity, they were kept in service, though - primarily for training, and some vehicles were in the 1970s integrated into hidden bunkers, defending strategically vital "security space zones".

 

A revival of the Austrian T-34/85 fleet came in the late Sixties, though, when the Austrian Army recognized a lack in long range attack capabilities (at 1.000 m range and more) against hardened targets like enemy tanks, paired with high mobility and low costs, similar to the German Jagdpanzer profile from WWII. At that time, Austria operated roundabout 50 Charioteer tanks with 83.4 mm guns in this role, but these British vehicles were outdated and needed a timely replacement.

Another limiting factor were severe budget restrictions. The eventual solution came from the Austrian company Saurer: a relatively simple conversion of the indigenous Saurer APC, armed with a version of the French AMX-13's FL-12 oscillating turret, armed with a powerful 105mm cannon, which had just become available in an export version. However, in order to bridge the new tank hunter's development time and quickly fill the defense gap, the Austrian T-34/85s were checked whether it was possible to modernize them with the new turret, too.

 

The first conversion was carried out by Saurer in 1963 and proved to be successful. Since the light FL-12 turret had a smaller bearing diameter than the old T-34/85 turret, the integration into the hull went straightforward with the help of a simple adapter ring. What made the conversion even simpler was the fact that the FL-12, with its integrated cannon and an automated loading system, was a complete, self-sufficient unit.

The French turret was only lightly armoured, since the tank was not supposed to engage heavily-armed enemies at close range. The turret's front armour protected the crew from 20mm armour-piercing rounds over its frontal arc, while all-round protection was against small arms bullets only. The commander was seated on the left of the turret and the gunner on the right. The commander was provided with seven periscopes and a periscopic sight. The commander's infrared night sight had a magnification of x6. The gunner had two observation periscopes, a telescopic sight and a one-piece lifting and swiveling hatch cover. Due to the design of the oscillating turret, all sights were always linked to the main and secondary armament (a standard NATO machine gun). For engaging targets at night, an infrared periscopic sight was provided for the commander. In order to simplify and lighten the tank, the T-34’s bow machine gun in the hull was deleted and its opening faired over and the crew was reduced to three.

The 105 mm gun could penetrate 360 mm of armour, and the internal magazines of 2x 6 shots allowed a very high rate of fire (up to 12 shots per minute), even though a crew member had to leave the tank in order to fill the magazines up again from the outside. Once the gun had been fired the empty cartridge cases were ejected out of the rear of the turret through a trapdoor hinged on the left. Beyond the 12 rounds in the turret, a further 42 rounds were stored in the tank's hull, primarily in a stowage rack for 30 shots where the former second crew member in the front hull had been placed, and a further twelve rounds in magazines at the turret’s base.

 

The T-34/85’s engine and transmission were not changed, since an update was beyond the conversion budget limit, but lighter “skeleton” wheels from Czech T-34 post-war production were introduced, so that the modified tank weighed roundabout 30 tons, 2 less than the standard T-35/85.

 

After highly successful field tests with the prototype in the course of 1963 and 1964, a further conversion program for 16 tanks was approved and carried out until early 1965. The modified tanks received the official designation T-34/105Ö and allocated to two tank battalions. Most of the time these tanks were only used for training purposes, though, in preparation of the arrival of the "real" tank hunter, the SK-105 "Kürassier" (Cuirassier) with almost identical weapon systems. The SK-105’s first prototype was eventually ready in 1967 and delivery of pre-production vehicles commenced in 1971, but teething troubles and many detail problems delayed the type's quick and widespread introduction. Lighter and much more agile than the vintage T-34s, it became a big success and was produced in more than 700 specimen, almost 300 of them for the Austrian Army and the rest for export (Argentina, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Morocco and Tunisia). In consequence, the small T-34/105Ö fleet was soon retired and by 1976, when the Kürassier was in service and other, heavy tanks had become available, none of the converted tanks was still active anymore. Nevertheless, a few Austrian T-34s that had become part of the hidden bunker installations soldiered secretly on, the last ones were dug out of their positions and scrapped in 2007(!).

  

Specifications:

Crew: Three (commander, gunner, driver)

Weight: 29.7 t combat load

Length: 8.21 m (26 ft 10 ½ in) with turret forward

6.10 m (19 ft 11 ¾ in) hull only

Width: 3.00 m (9 ft 10 in)

Height: 2,74 m (8 ft 11 ½ in)

Suspension: Christie

Ground clearance: 0.4 m (16 in)

Fuel capacity: eight internal tanks, total capacity of 545 l (145 U.S. gal; 118 imp gal),

plus up to four external fuel drums à 90 l each (24 U.S. gal; 19.5 imp gal)

 

Engine:

Model V-2-34M 38.8 l V12 Diesel engine with 520 hp (370 kW) at 1.800 rpm

 

Transmission:

5 forward and 1 reverse gears

 

Armor:

16 - 45 mm steel (plus composite armour in the turret)

 

Performance:

Speed:

- Maximum, road: 58 km/h (36 mph)

- Cross country: up to 40 km/h (28 mph)

Operational range: 250 km (155) on streets with internal fuel only,

up to 330 km (250 mi) with four additional fuel drums

Power/weight: 17.5 hp/t

 

Armament:

1× 105 mm CN 105-57 rifled gun with a total 54 rounds, 12 of them ready in the turret's magazines

1× 7.62mm (0.3") co-axial NATO machine gun with 2.000 rounds

2× 2 smoke grenade dischargers

 

The kit and its assembly:

This weird, fictional combo was originally spawned by an Israeli idea: some vintage M4 Sherman tanks had been outfitted with the AMX-13's swiveling turrets and armed with French CN-75-50 75mm a cannon, creating the so-called "Isherman". I kept this concept in the back of my mind for a long time, with the plan to build one some day.

Then I came a couple of weeks ago across a picture on FlickR that showed a T-34/85 with Austrian markings. At first I thought that it had been a fictional museum piece in fake markings, but upon some legwork I found out that Austria had actually operated the T-34!

 

So, why not combine both ideas into a new and fictional one...? The rest was straightforward kitbashing: the FL-12 turret with a 105 mm cannon came from a Heller AMX-13 (a shaggy thing with dubious fit, but it was cheap) and for the chassis I tried the relatively new Zvezda T-35/85. The latter is actually a very crisp snap-fit kit, just some light flash here and there. Detail and proportions are very good, though, as well as fit. I was only surprised by the construction of the tracks, because it is a different approach from both of the traditional vinyl tracks or IP track segments. Instead, you get complete, rather thin and delicate IP tracks, and Zvezda expects the builder to bend them around the wheels and stick them between the wheels' halves during the construction process. You actually have to mount the “inner” half of the wheels first, then the track is attached to a locator pin on one of the main wheels, bent into shape, and finally the wheels' “outer” halves are added. Sounds complicated, and it actually is, and it also makes painting the whole running gear quite difficult, but it works – even though the result is IMHO not better than the traditional solutions.

 

The AMX-13 turret’s integration was easier than expected. Building the turret was a little complicated, because all side walls are separate and there are no locator pins or other aides for orientation. Some PSR became necessary to fill some minor gaps, but nothing dramatic. Mounting the AMX-13 turret to the T-34 hull was made easy through a very convenient design detail of the Zvezda kit: the T-34 comes with a separate turret ring that could be used as an adapter for the Heller turret. Three ejection/sprue residues inside of the ring could be used as a foundation for the AMX-13 turret, and the turret’s lower half/ring was, after some sanding to reduce the gap between the turret and the hull, was also glued onto the adapter. Worked like a charm, and the resulting combo looks very natural!

In order to improve the turret’s look I added a cloth seal between the lower and the upper, oscillating turret section, simulated with paper tissue drenched in thinned white glue (OOB the turret cannot be moved vertically at all). A similar seal was added at the barrel’s base.

 

Other changes were only minimal: the machine gun port in the front hull was sanded away and faired over, and I omitted the spare track links attached to the front hull. For a modernized look I gave the tank an additional pair of front lights as well as stoplights at the rear, scratched from styrene bits.

  

Painting and markings:

Basically a very simple affair, because there is ONLY one possible livery and color that suits an Austrian Bundesheer vehicle or item from the Seventies: RAL 7013 (Braungrau). This is a very ugly tone, though, "greenish, fresh mud" describes it well: a dull, brownish olive drab, but definitively not a green (like the omnipresent NATO tone Gelboliv RAL 6014, which was used by the German Bundeswehr until the standardized NATO three-tone camouflage was introduced around 1984). I organized a rattle can of this special color, since the tank model would receive a simple, uniform livery.

 

Due to the kit's , err, unique running gear construction, painting became a little complicated. I had to paint the hull and the (still) separate wheel parts in advance, so that the pre-painted elements could be assembled around the tracks (see above). The tracks themselves were painted with a cloudy mix of iron metallic, black and leather brown (Revell 99, 8 and 84). The turret was painted separately.

 

After the kit’s major sections had been assembled they received a light wash with a mix of highly thinned black with some red brown added, and the washing was immediately dabbed off of the surfaces so that most of the pigments ended up in recesses and around details, while the rest received an blurry, light dirt filter.

Once dry, I applied the decals. The tiny Austrian roundels come from a generic TL Modellbau sheet (never expected to find any use for them!), the tactical code comes from another tank kit sheet. In order to add some more highlights I also added some small, white markings on the fenders.

Then I gave the model an overall dry-brushing treatment with olive drab, medium grey and finally some ochre, just emphasizing details and edges.

 

Since the uniform livery appeared a bit dull to me, I decided to add a few camouflage nets to the hull, which also hide some weak points of the Zvezda kit, e.g. the missing rails along the hull. The nets were created from gauze bandages: small pieces (~1”x1”) of the material were dipped into a mix of white glue and olive drab acrylic paint and then carefully placed on hull, turret and barrel. Once dry, they were also dry-brushed.

 

As final steps, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (rattle can again) and I dusted the lower areas with a greyish-brown pigment mix, simulating dust and some mud crusts.

  

What started as a weird idea turned into a very conclusive what-if project – in fact, the T-34 with the French FL-12/44 turret does not look bad at all, and the Austrian colors and markings make this piece of fiction IMHO very convincing. Adding the camouflage nets was also a good move. They hide some of the details (e.g. the omitted bow machine gun station), but they liven up the rather clean and bleak exterior of the tank. I am positively surprised how good the T-34/105Ö looks!

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

The Skorpion was the result of the dire need for powerfully armed medium tanks when it was clear in 1944 that the German army would be faced with increasing numbers of Allied tanks. The favored solution would have been an update of the Panzer IV with the powerful 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70 cannon, but the hull could not carry a turret that was gig enough to house this weapon - it should take several years until an satisfatory update would appear with the Panzer IV K. The alternative were self-propelled weapon carriers and the turret-less Jagdpanzer IV, which could take the long L70 gun, but both were not the tanks the Wehrmacht was looking for.

 

As a stopgap measure and to fill the ranks of the new Panzer V Panther, Krupp proposed a radically different layout: mounting the KwK 42 cannon with the Panther turret on the chassis of the Geschützwagen III/IV, which took elements of both the Panzer III (driving and steering system) and Panzer IV chassis (suspension and engine). This chassis ahd originally been developed for self-propelled artillery project, with the engine moved from the back of the hull to a front position next to the driver, so that the rear offered space for a combat section. The same chassis was already used for the Nashorn tank destroyer (with an 8,8cm PaK) and the Hummel mobile artillery support (with a 15cm howitzer) for the tank force. Both had an open-topped superstructure, built up around the respective large guns to give the crew some protection, and armor was relatively light, too, as these verhicles were not intended for direct confrontation with tanks.

 

However, the Panzer III/IV chassis was proven and already in production, and the Panther turret was available, too. For the SdKfz. 168 the open compartment of the Nashorn and Hummel was replaced by a closed, armored deck, which was large enough to carry a ring bearing for the Panther turret and it's drive. Overall armor, esp. on the new tank's front, was beefed up with extra plating, reaching up to 90mm. The crew was reduced to four, since the engine now took the position of the former Panzer IV radio/MG operator next to the driver.

 

In order to improve the tanks agility and speed, a torsion bar suspension and larger, double-interleaved rubber-rimmed steel roadwheels was proposed, but production started with the spring leaf suspension from the Panzer IV.

 

The rear turret's rear position had already been proposed for some heavy tank designs (e.g. by Porsche for the Tiger I proposals, which eventually evolved into the Ferdinand/Elefant tank hunter) but had never been employed before. Due to the unusual layout of the tank, the SdKfz. 168 was quickly dubbed "Skorpion".

 

One of the benefits were a more even weight distribution and a more compact size of the tank, since the long gun barrel did not protrude much over the hull's front end. Another indirect benefit was additional protection for the turret crew through the engine. Loading of ammuntion was also made easier through a rear hatch in the turret as well as in the lower hull that allowed direct access to the shell bunkers under the turret.

 

Drawbacks were an impaired field of view for the commander, esp. when the vehicle was hidden behind corners, and the field of fire was also limited in such ambush situations. The high silhouette was a tactical weakness, too, but this was regarded as acceptable, as this was a little price to pay for being able to carry the KwK 42/L70.

 

The Rheinmetall-Borsig 7.5 cm KwK 42 (L/70) featured semi-automatic shell ejection and a supply of 72 rounds). It used three different types of ammunition: APCBC-HE (Pzgr. 39/42), HE (Sprgr. 42) and APCR (Pzgr. 40/42), the last of which was usually in short supply.

 

While it was of a calibre common on Allied tanks, the Panther's gun was one of the most powerful of World War II, due to the large propellant charge and the long barrel, which gave it a very high muzzle velocity and excellent armour-piercing qualities. This 75 mm gun had actually more penetrating power than the main gun of the Tiger I heavy tank, the 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56, although the larger 88 mm projectile might inflict more damage if it did penetrate.

Additionally, a MG 34 machine gun was located co-axially with the main gun on the gun mantlet, and another MG 34 was carried on board for close range and anti-aircraf defense.

 

A status report on 15 December 1944 already listed 41 Skorpion tanks assigned to the Western Front, with 36 operational (87 percent). This was one day before the start of the Battle of the Bulge. The Skorpion demonstrated its prowess in open country, where it could hit its targets at long range with near-impunity, but it also showed its vulnerability in the close-in fighting of the small towns of the Ardennes, where they suffered heavy losses. A status report on 15 January 1945 showed only 17 operational SdKfz. 168 left in the units involved in the operation, out of 82 still in their possession at that time.

 

In February 1945, all Skorpion tanks were transferred from the West to the Eastern Front, where they filled gaps in the ranks of the Panther battalions. None of the roundabout 180 built and converted SdKfz. 168 survived the hostitilities.

  

Specifications:

Crew: Four (commander, gunner, loader, driver)

Weight: 25.8 tonnes (28.4 short tons; 25.4 long tons)

Length: 6.48 metres (21 ft 2 3/4 in) (hull only)

7.81 metres (25 ft 7 in) with gun forward

Width: 2.95 m (9 ft 8 in)

Height: 2.84 metres (9 ft 4 in) w/o AA machine gun

Suspension: Leaf spring

Fuel capacity: 470 l (120 US gal)

 

Armor:

20 – 90 mm (0.78 – 3.54 in)

 

Performance:

Maximum road speed: 42 km/h (26.71 mph)

Sustained road speed: 38 km/h (24 mph)

Operational range: 235 km (146 mi)

Power/weight: 12 PS/t

 

Engine:

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

 

Transmission:

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

 

Armament:

1× 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70 with 72 rounds

1× co-axial 7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 34 with 3.000 rounds

Provision for a MG 34 as anti-aircraft gun on the commander's cupola with 2.000 rounds

  

The kit and its assembly:

The "Skorpion" was partly inspired by thoughts about alternative tank designs like the Merkava, and also by available donation parts in the kit pile, where I found a leftover Panther Ausf. D, earmarked for another conversion, esp. with a new turret.

 

The Panther turret is big (like the whole tank itself), and the problem to mount more powerful cannons on the Panzer IV chassis could have led to some unusual, if not improvised designs.

The Panzer III/IV chassis for self-propelled artillery was the perfect basis, so I dedided to combine both for an alternative late WWII tank, conceptionally between a classic battle tank and a self-propelled gun carrier. The Panther turret just fits on the wide back section of the Hummel, even though proportions looks odd and the armor with many vertical surfaces is not very good. But, after all, this is intended to be a second choice concept and not a clean sheet battle tank design.

 

The chassis comes from an ESCI "Hummel", while the Panther turret is from a Hasegawa kit. The Hummel was more or less built OOB, just the open rear section was "clipped" at driver roof level and faired over with styrene sheet. Then, an opening for the Panther turret was cut out, and finally, once the rotation radius was clear, some more details added.

 

Another deviation from the OOB kit is the vinyl track. This ESCI kit came with styrene segment tracks, and IIRC it originally came with a silver, very stiff vinyl track when I built the Hummel for the first time many years ago - not a pleasant experience. Anyway, I decided to go the the Pavla replacement vinyl tracks, because they are very delicate and soft, moulded in a matt dark grey rubber.

 

Painting and markings:

This one looks rather wild - and it's a design experiment. The camouflage is a typical Hinterhalt (Ambush) paint scheme in Dark Yellow, Olive Green and Red Brown, onto which spots in light gray and dark brown have been added, for an even more disruptive effect in urban environment - slightly inspired by the unique British Forces Berlin scheme.

Basic tones are Humbrol 63, 160 and 117, plus extra spots with Humbrol 28 and 173. Then the model was weathered with a light black ink wash and dry-brushing with mid-stone and light gray, some acrylic paint to simulate dust and rust, and finally some dry pigments around the suspension and on the hull that simulate mud.

 

Markings are minimal, just some German crosses on the hull and the tactical code in red on a dedicated beige background - otherwise, it would not have been recognizable at all on the disruptive scheme!

 

The tracks, made from black, soft vinyl, received a paint treatment in order to get rid of that shiny vinyl look: at first, with a mix of black, sienna and silver, which was immediately wiped off again, and later with a second, similar turn with silver and dark brown.

  

An odd concept, and the result looks rather weird - be it the tank concept and the parts used in it, but also the totally fragmented paint scheme which looks gaudy and almost clown-esques, but succesfully breaks up the lines of the boxy vehicle. So, why not?

Took the plunge and decided to have a go at a kitbash figure. Opted for the Phicen M33 body, clothing and trainers all from moviefigures.co.uk. I will be using the Peter Parker head sculpt from Hot Toys as a starting point for my experiment and go from there. I will post pics of the results one it all arrives.

#1:6scale #phicen #kitbashfigure #hottoys

A kitbash using a Phicen body and the blonde headsculpt by Kimi , also wearing a cowgirl outfit by Super Duck .

Phicen kitbash using the blonde Kimi headsculpt .

Playing Resident Evil motivated me to work on getting a RE5 Jill Valentine BSAA figure back together, and while I wait for the parts to arrive from over seas I threw this together to go with it, This is based loosely on his appearance in the RE5 DLC "Lost in Nightmares", I plan to modify it to make it more accurate as time goes on, but for now I like it

1/6 female kitbash using a Phicen body and other various other pieces .

A kitbash using a Phicen body and a Kimi headsculpt .

A Phicen kit bash using the Female Shooter headsculpt by Very Cool toys .

A kitbash using a DS Toys headsculpt which I plan on using for a future Power Girl kitbash .

After I sanded the top of the back walls off so I could glue a reinforced strip of styrene

+++ 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 T-34, a Soviet medium tank, had a profound and lasting effect on the field of tank design. At its introduction in 1940, the T-34 possessed an unprecedented combination of firepower, mobility, protection and ruggedness. Its 76.2 mm high-velocity tank gun provided a substantial increase in firepower over any of its contemporaries while its well-sloped armour was difficult to penetrate by most contemporary anti-tank weapons. Although its armour and armament were surpassed later in the war, it has often been credited as the most effective, efficient and influential tank design of the Second World War.

 

The T-34 was the mainstay of Soviet armoured forces throughout the Second World War. Its design allowed it to be continuously refined to meet the constantly evolving needs of the Eastern Front: as the war went on it became more capable, but also quicker and cheaper to produce. Soviet industry would eventually produce over 80,000 T-34s of all variants, allowing steadily greater numbers to be fielded as the war progressed despite the loss of tens of thousands in combat against the German Wehrmacht. Replacing many light and medium tanks in Red Army service, it was the most-produced tank of the war, as well as the second most produced tank of all time (after its successor, the T-54/55 series). T-34 variants were widely exported after World War II, and even as recently as 2010, the tank has seen limited front-line service with several developing countries

 

One of the unusual and rather unknown operators of the T-34 was Austria. 25 tanks (some sources claim 27 or even 37) of the late T-34/85 variant came as a gift from (well, they were actually left behind by) the Soviet Union in 1955 when the Red Army left the country, meaning that the Austrian Bundesheer was re-established. These vehicles became the young army's initial backbone, until more modern equipment (e. g. M41 and M47 tanks procured from the USA and AMX-13/75 tanks from France) replaced them in frontline service. Due to their ruggedness and simplicity, they were kept in service, though - primarily for training, and some vehicles were in the 1970s integrated into hidden bunkers, defending strategically vital "security space zones".

 

A revival of the Austrian T-34/85 fleet came in the late Sixties, though, when the Austrian Army recognized a lack in long range attack capabilities (at 1.000 m range and more) against hardened targets like enemy tanks, paired with high mobility and low costs, similar to the German Jagdpanzer profile from WWII. At that time, Austria operated roundabout 50 Charioteer tanks with 83.4 mm guns in this role, but these British vehicles were outdated and needed a timely replacement.

Another limiting factor were severe budget restrictions. The eventual solution came from the Austrian company Saurer: a relatively simple conversion of the indigenous Saurer APC, armed with a version of the French AMX-13's FL-12 oscillating turret, armed with a powerful 105mm cannon, which had just become available in an export version. However, in order to bridge the new tank hunter's development time and quickly fill the defense gap, the Austrian T-34/85s were checked whether it was possible to modernize them with the new turret, too.

 

The first conversion was carried out by Saurer in 1963 and proved to be successful. Since the light FL-12 turret had a smaller bearing diameter than the old T-34/85 turret, the integration into the hull went straightforward with the help of a simple adapter ring. What made the conversion even simpler was the fact that the FL-12, with its integrated cannon and an automated loading system, was a complete, self-sufficient unit.

The French turret was only lightly armoured, since the tank was not supposed to engage heavily-armed enemies at close range. The turret's front armour protected the crew from 20mm armour-piercing rounds over its frontal arc, while all-round protection was against small arms bullets only. The commander was seated on the left of the turret and the gunner on the right. The commander was provided with seven periscopes and a periscopic sight. The commander's infrared night sight had a magnification of x6. The gunner had two observation periscopes, a telescopic sight and a one-piece lifting and swiveling hatch cover. Due to the design of the oscillating turret, all sights were always linked to the main and secondary armament (a standard NATO machine gun). For engaging targets at night, an infrared periscopic sight was provided for the commander. In order to simplify and lighten the tank, the T-34’s bow machine gun in the hull was deleted and its opening faired over and the crew was reduced to three.

The 105 mm gun could penetrate 360 mm of armour, and the internal magazines of 2x 6 shots allowed a very high rate of fire (up to 12 shots per minute), even though a crew member had to leave the tank in order to fill the magazines up again from the outside. Once the gun had been fired the empty cartridge cases were ejected out of the rear of the turret through a trapdoor hinged on the left. Beyond the 12 rounds in the turret, a further 42 rounds were stored in the tank's hull, primarily in a stowage rack for 30 shots where the former second crew member in the front hull had been placed, and a further twelve rounds in magazines at the turret’s base.

 

The T-34/85’s engine and transmission were not changed, since an update was beyond the conversion budget limit, but lighter “skeleton” wheels from Czech T-34 post-war production were introduced, so that the modified tank weighed roundabout 30 tons, 2 less than the standard T-35/85.

 

After highly successful field tests with the prototype in the course of 1963 and 1964, a further conversion program for 16 tanks was approved and carried out until early 1965. The modified tanks received the official designation T-34/105Ö and allocated to two tank battalions. Most of the time these tanks were only used for training purposes, though, in preparation of the arrival of the "real" tank hunter, the SK-105 "Kürassier" (Cuirassier) with almost identical weapon systems. The SK-105’s first prototype was eventually ready in 1967 and delivery of pre-production vehicles commenced in 1971, but teething troubles and many detail problems delayed the type's quick and widespread introduction. Lighter and much more agile than the vintage T-34s, it became a big success and was produced in more than 700 specimen, almost 300 of them for the Austrian Army and the rest for export (Argentina, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Morocco and Tunisia). In consequence, the small T-34/105Ö fleet was soon retired and by 1976, when the Kürassier was in service and other, heavy tanks had become available, none of the converted tanks was still active anymore. Nevertheless, a few Austrian T-34s that had become part of the hidden bunker installations soldiered secretly on, the last ones were dug out of their positions and scrapped in 2007(!).

  

Specifications:

Crew: Three (commander, gunner, driver)

Weight: 29.7 t combat load

Length: 8.21 m (26 ft 10 ½ in) with turret forward

6.10 m (19 ft 11 ¾ in) hull only

Width: 3.00 m (9 ft 10 in)

Height: 2,74 m (8 ft 11 ½ in)

Suspension: Christie

Ground clearance: 0.4 m (16 in)

Fuel capacity: eight internal tanks, total capacity of 545 l (145 U.S. gal; 118 imp gal),

plus up to four external fuel drums à 90 l each (24 U.S. gal; 19.5 imp gal)

 

Engine:

Model V-2-34M 38.8 l V12 Diesel engine with 520 hp (370 kW) at 1.800 rpm

 

Transmission:

5 forward and 1 reverse gears

 

Armor:

16 - 45 mm steel (plus composite armour in the turret)

 

Performance:

Speed:

- Maximum, road: 58 km/h (36 mph)

- Cross country: up to 40 km/h (28 mph)

Operational range: 250 km (155) on streets with internal fuel only,

up to 330 km (250 mi) with four additional fuel drums

Power/weight: 17.5 hp/t

 

Armament:

1× 105 mm CN 105-57 rifled gun with a total 54 rounds, 12 of them ready in the turret's magazines

1× 7.62mm (0.3") co-axial NATO machine gun with 2.000 rounds

2× 2 smoke grenade dischargers

 

The kit and its assembly:

This weird, fictional combo was originally spawned by an Israeli idea: some vintage M4 Sherman tanks had been outfitted with the AMX-13's swiveling turrets and armed with French CN-75-50 75mm a cannon, creating the so-called "Isherman". I kept this concept in the back of my mind for a long time, with the plan to build one some day.

Then I came a couple of weeks ago across a picture on FlickR that showed a T-34/85 with Austrian markings. At first I thought that it had been a fictional museum piece in fake markings, but upon some legwork I found out that Austria had actually operated the T-34!

 

So, why not combine both ideas into a new and fictional one...? The rest was straightforward kitbashing: the FL-12 turret with a 105 mm cannon came from a Heller AMX-13 (a shaggy thing with dubious fit, but it was cheap) and for the chassis I tried the relatively new Zvezda T-35/85. The latter is actually a very crisp snap-fit kit, just some light flash here and there. Detail and proportions are very good, though, as well as fit. I was only surprised by the construction of the tracks, because it is a different approach from both of the traditional vinyl tracks or IP track segments. Instead, you get complete, rather thin and delicate IP tracks, and Zvezda expects the builder to bend them around the wheels and stick them between the wheels' halves during the construction process. You actually have to mount the “inner” half of the wheels first, then the track is attached to a locator pin on one of the main wheels, bent into shape, and finally the wheels' “outer” halves are added. Sounds complicated, and it actually is, and it also makes painting the whole running gear quite difficult, but it works – even though the result is IMHO not better than the traditional solutions.

 

The AMX-13 turret’s integration was easier than expected. Building the turret was a little complicated, because all side walls are separate and there are no locator pins or other aides for orientation. Some PSR became necessary to fill some minor gaps, but nothing dramatic. Mounting the AMX-13 turret to the T-34 hull was made easy through a very convenient design detail of the Zvezda kit: the T-34 comes with a separate turret ring that could be used as an adapter for the Heller turret. Three ejection/sprue residues inside of the ring could be used as a foundation for the AMX-13 turret, and the turret’s lower half/ring was, after some sanding to reduce the gap between the turret and the hull, was also glued onto the adapter. Worked like a charm, and the resulting combo looks very natural!

In order to improve the turret’s look I added a cloth seal between the lower and the upper, oscillating turret section, simulated with paper tissue drenched in thinned white glue (OOB the turret cannot be moved vertically at all). A similar seal was added at the barrel’s base.

 

Other changes were only minimal: the machine gun port in the front hull was sanded away and faired over, and I omitted the spare track links attached to the front hull. For a modernized look I gave the tank an additional pair of front lights as well as stoplights at the rear, scratched from styrene bits.

  

Painting and markings:

Basically a very simple affair, because there is ONLY one possible livery and color that suits an Austrian Bundesheer vehicle or item from the Seventies: RAL 7013 (Braungrau). This is a very ugly tone, though, "greenish, fresh mud" describes it well: a dull, brownish olive drab, but definitively not a green (like the omnipresent NATO tone Gelboliv RAL 6014, which was used by the German Bundeswehr until the standardized NATO three-tone camouflage was introduced around 1984). I organized a rattle can of this special color, since the tank model would receive a simple, uniform livery.

 

Due to the kit's , err, unique running gear construction, painting became a little complicated. I had to paint the hull and the (still) separate wheel parts in advance, so that the pre-painted elements could be assembled around the tracks (see above). The tracks themselves were painted with a cloudy mix of iron metallic, black and leather brown (Revell 99, 8 and 84). The turret was painted separately.

 

After the kit’s major sections had been assembled they received a light wash with a mix of highly thinned black with some red brown added, and the washing was immediately dabbed off of the surfaces so that most of the pigments ended up in recesses and around details, while the rest received an blurry, light dirt filter.

Once dry, I applied the decals. The tiny Austrian roundels come from a generic TL Modellbau sheet (never expected to find any use for them!), the tactical code comes from another tank kit sheet. In order to add some more highlights I also added some small, white markings on the fenders.

Then I gave the model an overall dry-brushing treatment with olive drab, medium grey and finally some ochre, just emphasizing details and edges.

 

Since the uniform livery appeared a bit dull to me, I decided to add a few camouflage nets to the hull, which also hide some weak points of the Zvezda kit, e.g. the missing rails along the hull. The nets were created from gauze bandages: small pieces (~1”x1”) of the material were dipped into a mix of white glue and olive drab acrylic paint and then carefully placed on hull, turret and barrel. Once dry, they were also dry-brushed.

 

As final steps, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (rattle can again) and I dusted the lower areas with a greyish-brown pigment mix, simulating dust and some mud crusts.

  

What started as a weird idea turned into a very conclusive what-if project – in fact, the T-34 with the French FL-12/44 turret does not look bad at all, and the Austrian colors and markings make this piece of fiction IMHO very convincing. Adding the camouflage nets was also a good move. They hide some of the details (e.g. the omitted bow machine gun station), but they liven up the rather clean and bleak exterior of the tank. I am positively surprised how good the T-34/105Ö looks!

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!

 

Some background

The Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet is a light attack jet and advanced trainer aircraft co-manufactured by Dornier of Germany and Dassault-Breguet of France. In the early 1960s, European air forces began to consider their requirements for the coming decades. One of the results was the emergence of a new generation of jet trainers. The British and French began a collaboration on development of what was supposed to be a supersonic jet aircraft in two versions: trainer and light attack aircraft. The result of this collaboration, the SEPECAT Jaguar, proved to be an excellent aircraft, but its definition had changed in the interim, and the type emerged as a full-sized, nuclear-capable strike fighter, which two-seat variants were used for operational conversion to the type, not for the general training.

 

This left the original requirement unfulfilled and so the French began discussions with West Germany for collaboration. A joint specification was produced in 1968. The trainer was now subsonic, supersonic trainers having proven something of a dead end. A joint development and production agreement was signed in July 1969 which indicated that the two nations would buy 200 machines, each assembled in their own country.

 

The Luftwaffe decided to use the Alpha Jet mainly in the light strike role, preferring to continue flight training in the United States on American trainer types instead of performing training in cloudy and crowded Germany. The first production German Alpha Jet performed its maiden flight on 12 April 1978, with deliveries beginning in March 1979. This version was designated the Alpha Jet A (the "A" standing for Appui Tactique or "Tactical Strike") or Alpha Jet Close Support variant. The Luftwaffe obtained 175 machines up to 1983, with the type replacing the Fiat G91R/3. Manufacture of Alpha Jet subassemblies was divided between France and Germany, with plants in each country performing final assembly and checkout. The different avionics fit made French and German Alpha Jets easy to tell apart, with French machines featuring a rounded-off nose and German machines featuring a sharp, pointed nose.

 

Even though the Alpha Jet A was suitable in the ground attack role and had even been tested in aerial combat against helicopters in 1979, the German Luftwaffe decided in the mid-80ies that – facing the Cold War threat from the east – a more powerful but still economic plane for the close attack role, esp. against hardened ground targets and attack helicopters like the Mi-24 would be needed. Even though such "Alternate Close Support" versions of the Alpha Jet were available at that time, even though these were modified two-seaters. Such planes were bought by Cameroon and Egypt, but from the German Luftwaffe a specialized, more capable plane with a higher strike and survival potential was requested.

 

In 1986, Dornier developed a respective specialized version, called the Alpha Jet C (for "combat"). This plane was heavily modified, optimized for the ground attack role. It featured a new, single-seated nose section with an armoured cockpit in a much higher position than on the original two-seater. The Alpha jet C version's prominent, pointed nose quickly gave it among its test pilots the nickname "Nasenbär" (Coati).

The new space was used for avionics and an internal Oerlikon 35mm cannon – a variant of the same cannon used in the Gepard anti aircraft tank, firing armour piercing shells with a muzzle velocity of 1,440 m/s (4,700 ft/s) and a range of 5.500m. Avionics includecd SAGEM ULISS 81 INS, a Thomson-CSF VE-110 HUD, a TMV630 laser rangefinder in a modified nose and a TRT AHV 9 radio altimeter, with all avionics linked through a digital databus.

 

New wings were developed, with a thicker profile and less sweep, and non-jettisonable wing tip tanks as well as two more weapon hardpoints (for a total of six, plus one under the fuselage) added. The landing gear was reinforced for a higher TOW and operation on improvised runways. Fuselage and tail externally looked much the same as the original Alpha Jet A, but internally most structures were reinforced and technical modules placed in new positions.

 

The C version was from the start powered by two more powerful Larzac 04-C20 turbofans which would also be used in an update for the Luftwaffe’s Alpha Jet As. The hydraulic system was doubled, so that both engines could run separately, and kevlar and titanium armour plating added to vital areas around the lower hull.

 

The first prototype 98+52 made its maiden flight at Friedrichshafen on 1st of June 1988. It was officially allocated to the JaboG 43 in Oldenburg, but actually spent almost all the time at the Luftwaffe’s Waffentechnische Dienststelle (Flight test center) WTD 61 in Manching near Munich, where it underwent a thorough testing program. More than once the prototype was transferred to Beja, Portugal, for weapon tests and training, as well as direct comparison with the standard Alpha Jet A and other NATO planes. A second airframe was built in 1987 but only used for static tests, system integration and finally damage resilience tests, after which it was written off and scrapped.

 

While the Alpha Jet C showed high agility at low level and a high survival potential in a hostile battlefield environment, the prototype remained a one-off. In the end, the German Luftwaffe did not want to add another type to its arsenal, despite its similarity with the standard Alpha Jet. Export chances for such a specialized, yet light aircraft were considered as low, since modified Alpha Jet versions were already available and other planes like the AMX or BAe Hawk offered more versatility, and were simply more up to date.

Hence, further development was stopped in September 1989, also under the influence of political changes and the breakdown of the Eastern Block. Even though 98+52 was kept at Manching as a test aircraft for various tasks, the plane was eventually lost in a crash due to hydraulic failure on 3rd of March 1993 – the pilot escaped safely, but 98+52 totally written off.

  

General characteristics:

 

Crew: 1

Length: 12.60 m (41 ft 4 in)

Wingspan: 10.73 m (35 ft 2 1/2 in)

Height: 4.24 m (13 ft 11 in)

Wing area: 213.7 ft² (19.85 m²)

Airfoil: NACA 23015 (modified) at root, NACA 4412 (modified) at tip

Empty weight: 3.680 kg (8.105 lbs)

Loaded weight: 5.900 kg (13.000 lbs)

Max. takeoff weight: 8.200 kg (18.060 lbs)

Powerplant: 2 × SNECMA Turbomeca Larzac 04-C20 turbofans, 14,12 kN (3.176 lbs) each

 

Performance

Maximum speed: 860 km/h (465 knots, 536 mph)

Stall speed: 167 km/h (90 knots, 104 mph) (flaps and undercarriage down)

Combat radius: 610 km (329 nmi, 379 mi) lo-lo-lo profile, w. underwing weapons incl. two drop tanks

Ferry range: 2,940 km (1,586 nmi, 1,827 mi)

Service ceiling: 14,630 m (48,000 ft)

Rate of climb: 57 m/s (11,220 ft/min)

 

Armament

1× 35 mm (1.38 in) Oerlikon KDA cannon w/150 rds under the lower forward fuselage, offset to starport side.

Seven hardpoints (one under fuselage, three under each wing) for a total external load of up to 3.085 kg (6.800 lbs), including AGM-65 Maverick, Matra rocket pods with 18× SNEB 68 mm rockets each, a variety of bombs (such as the Hunting BL755 cluster bombs) or Drop tanks for extended range, and AIM-9 Sidewinder or ASRAAM for self-defence

  

The kit and its assembly

Yes, another whif, and a modern type, too. The idea came when I found a pair of vintage wings from a vintage Matchbox BAC Strikemaster in good shape and thought "Well, where could these fit...?" Being a fan of the Su-25 I considered building something similar from scratch und using these 30 year old parts.

The Alpha Jet has a basically similar layout, and the wings would match in size. Then, the "new" plane should become a dedicated single-seater, not simply a two-seater with a covered rear cockpit. Browsing through the kit stack I found a A-4F from Revell, and its nose section turned out to be an almost perfect fit for the Alpha Jet fuselage (the vintage Heller kit).

 

Fitting these parts together required some major surgery and putty work, but the result looks quite convincing. Other additions are a Matchbox pilot figure and some cockpit details, a nose cone from a Fiat G.91 R/3 as an integral laser rangefinder housing, the Strikemaster wings, a modified landing gear (main wheels from the Skyhawk, front wheel from an IAI Kfir) and the armament in the form of the gun, seven hardpoints and the mixed ordnance from the German Luftwaffe arsenal - everything collected from the junkyard.

 

Painting

While German Luftwaffe machines can look rather boring, various camouflage trials have been conducted during the 80ies and 90ies for the F-4F, Alpha Jet and Tornado fleet. Esp. Phantom IIs saw extensive experiments for air superiority and ground attack paint schemes - and these schemes carried inofficial names like "Milchkuh" (Dairy Cow), "Polizeimühle" (Police Jalopy) or "Disco Bomber".

The whiffy Alpha Jet was a nice opportunity to incorporate one of these experimental schemes, and I settled for something which was applied to F-4F '37+07' and inofficially dubbed "Wolkenmaus" (Cloud Mouse). The Alpha Jet is a good subject, since its stepped side structure with engine nacelles and its spine tunnel is similar to the Phantom II, so that the cammo concept could be easily copied.

 

Anyway, the authentic "Wolkenmaus" colours are supposed to be (and what I used on the kit)...

 

On the upper sides:

● RAL 6014 Gelboliv (~FS 34087; Olive Drab, Testors 1711)

● RAL 7012 Basaltgrau (~FS 36152; Humbrol 27)

● RAL 9005 Tiefschwarz, even though I rather believe it to be RAL 7021 Schwarzgrau (darker than FS 36081; Humbrol 182)

 

Flanks::

● Mix of 2/3 RAL 7035 Lichtgrau + 1/3 RAL 7000 Fehgrau (~FS36473; Aircraft Grey, Testors 1731)

 

Undersides:

● Mix of 5/6 RAL 7035 Lichtgrau + 1/6 RAL 7000 Fehgrau (~RLM 63; Lichtgrau, Testors 2077)

 

The tones are just approximations, since I did not want to get original tones just for one project. Hey, it's just a model kit!

 

The landing gear and its wells were painted in aluminum, the respective covers' inside with Humbrol 81 (Olive Yellow) in a primer finish for some contrast. Cockpit interior as well as the air intakes were kept in in Light Gull Grey (FS 36640, Humbrol 129). The complex paint scheme was applied, as per usual, by brush and hand. The kit received a light black ink wash and some dry painting with lighter tones - the model was not supposed to look dirty, only a bit used.

 

Decals were scrapped together. JaboG 43 emblems and warning signs were taken from the original Heller decal sheet. The national insignia were taken from a Revell PAH-2 kit, the registration '98+52' was puzzled together with single digits from an aftermarket decal sheet from TL Modellbau. AFAIK, '98+52' has not been used yet by the Luftwaffe, which designates its test aircraft in the 98+XX and 99+XX range. A "true" and active Alpha Jet would have received a 40+XX or 41+XX.

 

Finally, everything was sealed under a water-based/acryllic matte coat - the Testors colours proved to be very touchy to the Humbrol varnish I normally use.

  

In the end, I achieved what I wanted, even though not truly perfect. But the kit looks like an 'analogue' Su-25, and actually the whiffy Alpha Jet C reminds much of the pre-Su-25 concepts: the SPB and subsequent LSSh/T-8 attack aircraft?

Phicen kitbash using the blonde Kimi headsculpt .

+++ 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!

ben kingsley (?) unofficial headsculpt

fake fur

paint

barbie hat

russian jacket

star trek tea

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on authentic facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

The English Electric Skyspark was a British fighter aircraft that served as an interceptor during the 1960s, the 1970s and into the late 1980s. It remains the only UK-designed-and-built fighter capable of Mach 2. The Skyspark was designed, developed, and manufactured by English Electric, which was later merged into the newly-formed British Aircraft Corporation. Later the type was marketed as the BAC Skyspark.

 

The specification for the aircraft followed the cancellation of the Air Ministry's 1942 E.24/43 supersonic research aircraft specification which had resulted in the Miles M.52 program. W.E.W. "Teddy" Petter, formerly chief designer at Westland Aircraft, was a keen early proponent of Britain's need to develop a supersonic fighter aircraft. In 1947, Petter approached the Ministry of Supply (MoS) with his proposal, and in response Specification ER.103 was issued for a single research aircraft, which was to be capable of flight at Mach 1.5 (1,593 km/h) and 50,000 ft (15,000 m).

 

Petter initiated a design proposal with F W "Freddie" Page leading the design and Ray Creasey responsible for the aerodynamics. As it was designed for Mach 1.5, it had a 40° swept wing to keep the leading edge clear of the Mach cone. To mount enough power into the airframe, two engines were installed, in an unusual, stacked layout and with a high tailplane This proposal was submitted in November 1948, and in January 1949 the project was designated P.1 by English Electric. On 29 March 1949 MoS granted approval to start the detailed design, develop wind tunnel models and build a full-size mock-up.

 

The design that had developed during 1948 evolved further during 1949 to further improve performance. To achieve Mach 2 the wing sweep was increased to 60° with the ailerons moved to the wingtips. In late 1949, low-speed wind tunnel tests showed that a vortex was generated by the wing which caused a large downwash on the initial high tailplane; this issue was solved by lowering the tail below the wing. Following the resignation of Petter, Page took over as design team leader for the P.1. In 1949, the Ministry of Supply had issued Specification F23/49, which expanded upon the scope of ER103 to include fighter-level manoeuvring. On 1 April 1950, English Electric received a contract for two flying airframes, as well as one static airframe, designated P.1.

 

The Royal Aircraft Establishment disagreed with Petter's choice of sweep angle (60 degrees) and the stacked engine layout, as well as the low tailplane position, was considered to be dangerous, too. To assess the effects of wing sweep and tailplane position on the stability and control of Petter's design Short Brothers were issued a contract, by the Ministry of Supply, to produce the Short SB.5 in mid-1950. This was a low-speed research aircraft that could test sweep angles from 50 to 69 degrees and tailplane positions high or low. Testing with the wings and tail set to the P.1 configuration started in January 1954 and confirmed this combination as the correct one. The proposed 60-degree wing sweep was retained, but the stacked engines had to give way to a more conventional configuration with two engines placed side-by-side in the tail, but still breathing through a mutual nose air intake.

 

From 1953 onward, the first three prototype aircraft were hand-built at Samlesbury. These aircraft had been assigned the aircraft serials WG760, WG763, and WG765 (the structural test airframe). The prototypes were powered by un-reheated Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojets, as the selected Rolls-Royce Avon engines had fallen behind schedule due to their own development problems. Since there was not much space in the fuselage for fuel, the thin wings became the primary fuel tanks and since they also provided space for the stowed main undercarriage the fuel capacity was relatively small, giving the prototypes an extremely limited endurance. The narrow tires housed in the thin wings rapidly wore out if there was any crosswind component during take-off or landing. Outwardly, the prototypes looked very much like the production series, but they were distinguished by the rounded-triangular air intake with no center-body at the nose, short fin, and lack of operational equipment.

 

On 9 June 1952, it was decided that there would be a second phase of prototypes built to develop the aircraft toward achieving Mach 2.0 (2,450 km/h); these were designated P.1B while the initial three prototypes were retroactively reclassified as P.1A. P.1B was a significant improvement on P.1A. While it was similar in aerodynamics, structure and control systems, it incorporated extensive alterations to the forward fuselage, reheated Rolls Royce Avon R24R engines, a conical center body inlet cone, variable nozzle reheat and provision for weapons systems integrated with the ADC and AI.23 radar. Three P.1B prototypes were built, assigned serials XA847, XA853 and XA856.

 

In May 1954, WG760 and its support equipment were moved to RAF Boscombe Down for pre-flight ground taxi trials; on the morning of 4 August 1954, WG760 flew for the first time from Boscombe Down. One week later, WG760 officially achieved supersonic flight for the first time, having exceeded the speed of sound during its third flight. While WG760 had proven the P.1 design to be viable, it was plagued by directional stability problems and a dismal performance: Transonic drag was much higher than expected, and the aircraft was limited to Mach 0.98 (i.e. subsonic), with a ceiling of just 48,000 ft (14,630 m), far below the requirements.

 

To solve the problem and save the P.1, Petter embarked on a major redesign, incorporating the recently discovered area rule, while at the same time simplifying production and maintenance. The redesign entailed a new, narrower canopy, a revised air intake, a pair of stabilizing fins under the rear fuselage, and a shallow ventral fairing at the wings’ trailing edge that not only reduced the drag coefficient along the wing/fuselage intersection, it also provided space for additional fuel.

On 4 April 1957 the modified P.1B (XA847) made the first flight, immediately exceeding Mach 1. During the early flight trials of the P.1B, speeds in excess of 1,000 mph were achieved daily.

In late October 1958, the plane was officially presented. The event was celebrated in traditional style in a hangar at Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough, with the prototype XA847 having the name ‘Skyspark’ freshly painted on the nose in front of the RAF Roundel, which almost covered it. A bottle of champagne was put beside the nose on a special rig which allowed the bottle to safely be smashed against the side of the aircraft.

On 25 November 1958 the P.1B XA847 reached Mach 2 for the first time. This made it the second Western European aircraft to reach Mach 2, the first one being the French Dassault Mirage III just over a month earlier on 24 October 1958

 

The first operational Skyspark, designated Skyspark F.1, was designed as a pure interceptor to defend the V Force airfields in conjunction with the "last ditch" Bristol Bloodhound missiles located either at the bomber airfield, e.g. at RAF Marham, or at dedicated missile sites near to the airfield, e.g. at RAF Woodhall Spa near the Vulcan station RAF Coningsby. The bomber airfields, along with the dispersal airfields, would be the highest priority targets in the UK for enemy nuclear weapons. To best perform this intercept mission, emphasis was placed on rate-of-climb, acceleration, and speed, rather than range – originally a radius of operation of only 150 miles (240 km) from the V bomber airfields was specified – and endurance. Armament consisted of a pair of 30 mm ADEN cannon in front of the cockpit, and two pylons for IR-guided de Havilland Firestreak air-to-air missiles were added to the lower fuselage flanks. These hardpoints could, alternatively, carry pods with unguided 55 mm air-to-air rockets. The Ferranti AI.23 onboard radar provided missile guidance and ranging, as well as search and track functions.

 

The next two Skyspark variants, the Skyspark F.1A and F.2, incorporated relatively minor design changes, but for the next variant, the Skyspark F.3, they were more extensive: The F.3 had higher thrust Rolls-Royce Avon 301R engines, a larger squared-off fin that improved directional stability at high speed further and a strengthened inlet cone allowing a service clearance to Mach 2.0 (2,450 km/h; the F.1, F.1A and F.2 were all limited to Mach 1.7 (2,083 km/h). An upgraded A.I.23B radar and new, radar-guided Red Top missiles offered a forward hemisphere attack capability, even though additional electronics meant that the ADEN guns had to be deleted – but they were not popular in their position in front of the windscreen, because the muzzle flash blinded the pilot upon firing. The new engines and fin made the F.3 the highest performance Skyspark yet, but this came at a steep price: higher fuel consumption, resulting in even shorter range. From this basis, a conversion trainer with a side-by-side cockpit, the T.4, was created.

 

The next interceptor variant was already in development, but there was a need for an interim solution to partially address the F.3's shortcomings, the F.3A. The F.3A introduced two major improvements: a larger, non-jettisonable, 610-imperial-gallon (2,800 L) ventral fuel tank, resulting in a much deeper and longer belly fairing, and a new, kinked, conically cambered wing leading edge. The conically cambered wing improved manoeuvrability, especially at higher altitudes, and it offered space for a slightly larger leading edge fuel tank, raising the total usable internal fuel by 716 imperial gallons (3,260 L). The enlarged ventral tank not only nearly doubled available fuel, it also provided space at its front end for a re-instated pair of 30 mm ADEN cannon with 120 RPG. Alternatively, a retractable pack with unguided 55 mm air-to-air rockets could be installed, or a set of cameras for reconnaissance missions. The F.3A also introduced an improved A.I.23B radar and the new IR-guided Red Top missile, which was much faster and had greater range and manoeuvrability than the Firestreak. Its improved infrared seeker enabled a wider range of engagement angles and offered a forward hemisphere attack capability that would allow the Skyspark to attack even faster bombers (like the new, supersonic Tupolev T-22 Blinder) through a collision-course approach.

Wings and the new belly tank were also immediately incorporated in a second trainer variant, the T.5.

 

The ultimate variant, the Skyspark F.6, was nearly identical to the F.3A, with the exception that it could carry two additional 260-imperial-gallon (1,200 L) ferry tanks on pylons over the wings. These tanks were jettisonable in an emergency and gave the F.6 a substantially improved deployment capability, even though their supersonic drag was so high that the extra fuel would only marginally raise the aircraft’s range when flying beyond the sound barrier for extended periods.

 

Finally, there was the Skyspark F.2A; it was an early production F.2 upgraded with the new cambered wing, the squared fin, and the 610 imperial gallons (2,800 L) ventral tank. However, the F.2A retained the old AI.23 radar, the IR-guided Firestreak missile and the earlier Avon 211R engines. Although the F.2A lacked the thrust of the later Skysparks, it had the longest tactical range of all variants, and was used for low-altitude interception over West Germany.

 

The first Skysparks to enter service with the RAF, three pre-production P.1Bs, arrived at RAF Coltishall in Norfolk on 23 December 1959, joining the Air Fighting Development Squadron (AFDS) of the Central Fighter Establishment, where they were used to clear the Skyspark for entry into service. The production Skyspark F.1 entered service with the AFDS in May 1960, allowing the unit to take part in the air defence exercise "Yeoman" later that month. The Skyspark F.1 entered frontline squadron service with 74 Squadron at Coltishall from 11 July 1960. This made the Skyspark the second Western European-built combat aircraft with true supersonic capability to enter service and the second fully supersonic aircraft to be deployed in Western Europe (the first one in both categories being the Swedish Saab 35 Draken on 8 March 1960 four months earlier).

 

The aircraft's radar and missiles proved to be effective, and pilots reported that the Skyspark was easy to fly. However, in the first few months of operation the aircraft's serviceability was extremely poor. This was due to the complexity of the aircraft systems and shortages of spares and ground support equipment. Even when the Skyspark was not grounded by technical faults, the RAF initially struggled to get more than 20 flying hours per aircraft per month compared with the 40 flying hours that English Electric believed could be achieved with proper support. In spite of these concerns, within six months of the Skyspark entering service, 74 Squadron was able to achieve 100 flying hours per aircraft.

 

Deliveries of the slightly improved Skyspark F.1A, with revised avionics and provision for an air-to-air refueling probe, allowed two more squadrons, 56 and 111 Squadron, both based at RAF Wattisham, to convert to the Skyspark in 1960–1961. The Skyspark F.1 was only ordered in limited numbers and served only for a short time; nonetheless, it was viewed as a significant step forward in Britain's air defence capabilities. Following their replacement from frontline duties by the introduction of successively improved Skyspark variants, the remaining F.1 aircraft were employed by the Skyspark Conversion Squadron.

The improved F.2 entered service with 19 Squadron at the end of 1962 and 92 Squadron in early 1963. Conversion of these two squadrons was aided by the of the two-seat T.4 and T.5 trainers (based on the F.3 and F.3A/F.6 fighters), which entered service with the Skyspark Conversion Squadron (later renamed 226 Operational Conversion Unit) in June 1962. While the OCU was the major user of the two-seater, small numbers were also allocated to the front-line fighter squadrons. More F.2s were produced than there were available squadron slots, so later production aircraft were stored for years before being used operationally; some of these Skyspark F.2s were converted to F.2As.

 

The F.3, with more powerful engines and the new Red Top missile was expected to be the definitive Skyspark, and at one time it was planned to equip ten squadrons, with the remaining two squadrons retaining the F.2. However, the F.3 also had only a short operational life and was withdrawn from service early due to defence cutbacks and the introduction of the even more capable and longer-range F.6, some of which were converted F.3s.

 

The introduction of the F.3 and F.6 allowed the RAF to progressively reequip squadrons operating aircraft such as the subsonic Gloster Javelin and retire these types during the mid-1960s. During the 1960s, as strategic awareness increased and a multitude of alternative fighter designs were developed by Warsaw Pact and NATO members, the Skyspark's range and firepower shortcomings became increasingly apparent. The transfer of McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom IIs from Royal Navy service enabled these much longer-ranged aircraft to be added to the RAF's interceptor force, alongside those withdrawn from Germany as they were replaced by SEPECAT Jaguars in the ground attack role.

The Skyspark's direct replacement was the Tornado F.3, an interceptor variant of the Panavia Tornado. The Tornado featured several advantages over the Skyspark, including far larger weapons load and considerably more advanced avionics. Skysparks were slowly phased out of service between 1974 and 1988, even though they lasted longer than expected because the definitive Tornado F.3 went through serious teething troubles and its service introduction was delayed several times. In their final years, the Skysparks’ airframes required considerable maintenance to keep them airworthy due to the sheer number of accumulated flight hours.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 51 ft 2 in (15,62 m) fuselage only

57 ft 3½ in (17,50 m) including pitot

Wingspan: 34 ft 10 in (10.62 m)

Height: 17 ft 6¾ in (5.36 m)

Wing area: 474.5 sq ft (44.08 m²)

Empty weight: 31,068 lb (14,092 kg) with armament and no fuel

Gross weight: 41,076 lb (18,632 kg) with two Red Tops, ammunition, and internal fuel

Max. takeoff weight: 45,750 lb (20,752 kg)

 

Powerplant:

2× Rolls-Royce Avon 301R afterburning turbojet engines,

12,690 lbf (56.4 kN) thrust each dry, 16,360 lbf (72.8 kN) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: Mach 2.27 (1,500 mph+ at 40,000 ft)

Range: 738 nmi (849 mi, 1,367 km)

Combat range: 135 nmi (155 mi, 250 km) supersonic intercept radius

Range: 800 nmi (920 mi, 1,500 km) with internal fuel

1,100 nmi (1,300 mi; 2,000 km) with external overwing tanks

Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,000 m)

Zoom ceiling: 70,000 ft (21,000 m)

Rate of climb: 20,000 ft/min (100 m/s) sustained to 30,000 ft (9,100 m)

Zoom climb: 50,000 ft/min

Time to altitude: 2.8 min to 36,000 ft (11,000 m)

Wing loading: 76 lb/sq ft (370 kg/m²) with two AIM-9 and 1/2 fuel

Thrust/weight: 0.78 (1.03 empty)

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm (1.181 in) ADEN cannon with 120 RPG in the lower fuselage

2× forward fuselage hardpoints for a single Firestreak or Red Top AAM each

2× overwing pylon stations for 2.000 lb (907 kg each)

for 260 imp gal (310 US gal; 1,200 l) ferry tanks

  

The kit and its assembly:

This build was a submission to the “Hunter, Lightning, Canberra” group build at whatifmodellers.com, and one of my personal ultimate challenges – a project that you think about very often, but the you put the thought back into its box when you realize that turning this idea into hardware will be a VERY tedious, complex and work-intensive task. But the thematic group build was the perfect occasion to eventually tackle the idea of a model of a “side-by-side engine BAC Lightning”, a.k.a. “Flatning”, as a rather conservative alternative to the real aircraft’s unique and unusual design with stacked engines in the fuselage, which brought a multitude of other design consequences that led to a really unique aircraft.

 

And it sound so simple: take a Lightning, just change the tail section. But it’s not that simple, because the whole fuselage shape would be different, resulting in less depth, the wings have to be attached somewhere and somehow, the landing gear might have to be adjusted/shortened, and how the fuselage diameter shape changes along the hull, so that you get a more or less smooth shape, was also totally uncertain!

 

Initially I considered a MiG Ye-152 as a body donor, but that was rejected due to the sheer price of the only available kit (ModelSvit). A Chinese Shenyang J-8I would also have been ideal – but there’s not 1:72 kit of this aircraft around, just of its successor with side intakes, a 1:72 J-8II from trumpeter.

I eventually decided to keep costs low, and I settled for the shaggy PM Model Su-15 (marketed as Su-21) “Flagon” as main body donor: it’s cheap, the engines have a good size for Avons and the pen nib fairing has a certain retro touch that goes well with the Lightning’s Fifties design.

The rest of this "Flatning" came from a Hasegawa 1:72 BAC Lightning F.6 (Revell re-boxing).

 

Massive modifications were necessary and lots of PSR. In an initial step the Flagon lost its lower wing halves, which are an integral part of the lower fuselage half. The cockpit section was cut away where the intake ducts begin. The Lightning had its belly tank removed (set aside for a potential later re-installation), and dry-fitting and crude measures suggested that only the cockpit section from the Lightning, its spine and the separate fin would make it onto the new fuselage.

 

Integrating the parts was tough, though! The problem that caused the biggest headaches: how to create a "smooth" fuselage from the Lightning's rounded front end with a single nose intake that originally develops into a narrow, vertical hull, combined with the boxy and rather wide Flagon fuselage with large Phantom-esque intakes? My solution: taking out deep wedges from all (rather massive) hull parts along the intake ducts, bend the leftover side walls inwards and glue them into place, so that the width becomes equal with the Lightning's cockpit section. VERY crude and massive body work!

 

However, the Lightning's cockpit section for the following hull with stacked engines is much deeper than the Flagon's side-by-side layout. My initial idea was to place the cockpit section higher, but I would have had to transplant a part of the Lightning's upper fuselage (with the spine on top, too!) onto the "flat" Flagon’s back. But this would have looked VERY weird, and I'd have had to bridge the round ventral shape of the Lightning into the boxy Flagon underside, too. This was no viable option, so that the cockpit section had to be further modified; I cut away the whole ventral cockpit section, at the height of the lower intake lip. Similar to my former Austrian Hasegawa Lightning, I also cut away the vertical bulkhead directly behind the intake opening - even though I did not improve the cockpit with a better tub with side consoles. At the back end, the Flagon's jet exhausts were opened and received afterburner dummies inside as a cosmetic upgrade.

 

Massive PSR work followed all around the hull. The now-open area under the cockpit was filled with lead beads to keep the front wheel down, and I implanted a landing gear well (IIRC, it's from an Xtrakit Swift). With the fuselage literally taking shape, the wings were glued together and the locator holes for the overwing tanks filled, because they would not be mounted.

 

To mount the wings to the new hull, crude measurements suggested that wedges had to be cut away from the Lightning's wing roots to match the weird fuselage shape. They were then glued to the shoulders, right behind the cockpit due to the reduced fuselage depth. At this stage, the Lightning’s stabilizer attachment points were transplanted, so that they end up in a similar low position on the rounded Su-15 tail. Again, lots of PSR…

 

At this stage I contemplated the next essential step: belly tank or not? The “Flatning” would have worked without it, but its profile would look rather un-Lightning-ish and rather “flat”. On the other side, a conformal tank would probably look quite strange on the new wide and flat ventral fuselage...? Only experiments could yield an answer, so I glued together the leftover belly bulge parts from the Hasegawa kit and played around with it. I considered a new, wider belly tank, but I guess that this would have looked too ugly. I eventually settled upon the narrow F.6 tank and also used the section behind it with the arrestor hook. I just reduced its depth by ~2 mm, with a slight slope towards the rear because I felt (righteously) that the higher wing position would lower the model’s stance. More massive PSR followed….

 

Due to the expected poor ground clearance, the Lightning’s stabilizing ventral fins were mounted directly under the fuselage edges rather than on the belly tank. Missile pylons for Red Tops were mounted to the lower front fuselage, similar to the real arrangement, and cable fairings, scratched from styrene profiles, were added to the lower flanks, stretching the hull optically and giving more structure to the hull.

 

To my surprise, I did not have to shorten the landing gear’s main legs! The wings ended up a little higher on the fuselage than on the original Lightning, and the front wheel sits a bit further back and deeper inside of its donor well, too, so that the fuselage comes probably 2 mm closer to the ground than an OOB Lightning model. Just like on the real aircraft, ground clearance is marginal, but when the main wheels were finally in place, the model turned out to have a low but proper stance, a little F8U-ish.

  

Painting and markings:

I was uncertain about the livery for a long time – I just had already settled upon an RAF aircraft. But the model would not receive a late low-viz scheme (the Levin, my mono-engine Lightning build already had one), and no NMF, either. I was torn between an RAF Germany all-green over NMF undersides livery, but eventually went for a pretty standard RAF livery in Dark Sea Grey/Dark Green over NMF undersides, with toned-down post-war roundels.

A factor that spoke in favor of this route was a complete set of markings for an RAF 11 Squadron Lightning F.6 in such a guise on an Xtradecal set, which also featured dayglo orange makings on fin, wings and stabilizers – quite unusual, and a nice contrast detail on the otherwise very conservative livery. All stencils were taken from the OOB Revell sheet for the Lightning. Just the tactical code “F” on the tail was procured elsewhere, it comes from a Matchbox BAC Lightning’s sheet.

 

After basic painting the model received the usual black ink washing, some post-panel-shading and also a light treatment with graphite to create soot strains around the jet exhausts and the gun ports, and to emphasize the raised panel lines on the Hasegawa parts.

 

Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish and final bits and pieces like the landing gear and the Red Tops (taken OOB) were mounted.

  

A major effort, and I have seriously depleted my putty stocks for this build! However, the result looks less spectacular than it actually is: changing a Lightning from its literally original stacked engine layout into a more conservative side-by-side arrangement turned out to be possible, even though the outcome is not really pretty. But it works and is feasible!

+++ 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 authentic facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

The English Electric Skyspark was a British fighter aircraft that served as an interceptor during the 1960s, the 1970s and into the late 1980s. It remains the only UK-designed-and-built fighter capable of Mach 2. The Skyspark was designed, developed, and manufactured by English Electric, which was later merged into the newly-formed British Aircraft Corporation. Later the type was marketed as the BAC Skyspark.

 

The specification for the aircraft followed the cancellation of the Air Ministry's 1942 E.24/43 supersonic research aircraft specification which had resulted in the Miles M.52 program. W.E.W. "Teddy" Petter, formerly chief designer at Westland Aircraft, was a keen early proponent of Britain's need to develop a supersonic fighter aircraft. In 1947, Petter approached the Ministry of Supply (MoS) with his proposal, and in response Specification ER.103 was issued for a single research aircraft, which was to be capable of flight at Mach 1.5 (1,593 km/h) and 50,000 ft (15,000 m).

 

Petter initiated a design proposal with F W "Freddie" Page leading the design and Ray Creasey responsible for the aerodynamics. As it was designed for Mach 1.5, it had a 40° swept wing to keep the leading edge clear of the Mach cone. To mount enough power into the airframe, two engines were installed, in an unusual, stacked layout and with a high tailplane This proposal was submitted in November 1948, and in January 1949 the project was designated P.1 by English Electric. On 29 March 1949 MoS granted approval to start the detailed design, develop wind tunnel models and build a full-size mock-up.

 

The design that had developed during 1948 evolved further during 1949 to further improve performance. To achieve Mach 2 the wing sweep was increased to 60° with the ailerons moved to the wingtips. In late 1949, low-speed wind tunnel tests showed that a vortex was generated by the wing which caused a large downwash on the initial high tailplane; this issue was solved by lowering the tail below the wing. Following the resignation of Petter, Page took over as design team leader for the P.1. In 1949, the Ministry of Supply had issued Specification F23/49, which expanded upon the scope of ER103 to include fighter-level manoeuvring. On 1 April 1950, English Electric received a contract for two flying airframes, as well as one static airframe, designated P.1.

 

The Royal Aircraft Establishment disagreed with Petter's choice of sweep angle (60 degrees) and the stacked engine layout, as well as the low tailplane position, was considered to be dangerous, too. To assess the effects of wing sweep and tailplane position on the stability and control of Petter's design Short Brothers were issued a contract, by the Ministry of Supply, to produce the Short SB.5 in mid-1950. This was a low-speed research aircraft that could test sweep angles from 50 to 69 degrees and tailplane positions high or low. Testing with the wings and tail set to the P.1 configuration started in January 1954 and confirmed this combination as the correct one. The proposed 60-degree wing sweep was retained, but the stacked engines had to give way to a more conventional configuration with two engines placed side-by-side in the tail, but still breathing through a mutual nose air intake.

 

From 1953 onward, the first three prototype aircraft were hand-built at Samlesbury. These aircraft had been assigned the aircraft serials WG760, WG763, and WG765 (the structural test airframe). The prototypes were powered by un-reheated Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojets, as the selected Rolls-Royce Avon engines had fallen behind schedule due to their own development problems. Since there was not much space in the fuselage for fuel, the thin wings became the primary fuel tanks and since they also provided space for the stowed main undercarriage the fuel capacity was relatively small, giving the prototypes an extremely limited endurance. The narrow tires housed in the thin wings rapidly wore out if there was any crosswind component during take-off or landing. Outwardly, the prototypes looked very much like the production series, but they were distinguished by the rounded-triangular air intake with no center-body at the nose, short fin, and lack of operational equipment.

 

On 9 June 1952, it was decided that there would be a second phase of prototypes built to develop the aircraft toward achieving Mach 2.0 (2,450 km/h); these were designated P.1B while the initial three prototypes were retroactively reclassified as P.1A. P.1B was a significant improvement on P.1A. While it was similar in aerodynamics, structure and control systems, it incorporated extensive alterations to the forward fuselage, reheated Rolls Royce Avon R24R engines, a conical center body inlet cone, variable nozzle reheat and provision for weapons systems integrated with the ADC and AI.23 radar. Three P.1B prototypes were built, assigned serials XA847, XA853 and XA856.

 

In May 1954, WG760 and its support equipment were moved to RAF Boscombe Down for pre-flight ground taxi trials; on the morning of 4 August 1954, WG760 flew for the first time from Boscombe Down. One week later, WG760 officially achieved supersonic flight for the first time, having exceeded the speed of sound during its third flight. While WG760 had proven the P.1 design to be viable, it was plagued by directional stability problems and a dismal performance: Transonic drag was much higher than expected, and the aircraft was limited to Mach 0.98 (i.e. subsonic), with a ceiling of just 48,000 ft (14,630 m), far below the requirements.

 

To solve the problem and save the P.1, Petter embarked on a major redesign, incorporating the recently discovered area rule, while at the same time simplifying production and maintenance. The redesign entailed a new, narrower canopy, a revised air intake, a pair of stabilizing fins under the rear fuselage, and a shallow ventral fairing at the wings’ trailing edge that not only reduced the drag coefficient along the wing/fuselage intersection, it also provided space for additional fuel.

On 4 April 1957 the modified P.1B (XA847) made the first flight, immediately exceeding Mach 1. During the early flight trials of the P.1B, speeds in excess of 1,000 mph were achieved daily.

In late October 1958, the plane was officially presented. The event was celebrated in traditional style in a hangar at Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) Farnborough, with the prototype XA847 having the name ‘Skyspark’ freshly painted on the nose in front of the RAF Roundel, which almost covered it. A bottle of champagne was put beside the nose on a special rig which allowed the bottle to safely be smashed against the side of the aircraft.

On 25 November 1958 the P.1B XA847 reached Mach 2 for the first time. This made it the second Western European aircraft to reach Mach 2, the first one being the French Dassault Mirage III just over a month earlier on 24 October 1958

 

The first operational Skyspark, designated Skyspark F.1, was designed as a pure interceptor to defend the V Force airfields in conjunction with the "last ditch" Bristol Bloodhound missiles located either at the bomber airfield, e.g. at RAF Marham, or at dedicated missile sites near to the airfield, e.g. at RAF Woodhall Spa near the Vulcan station RAF Coningsby. The bomber airfields, along with the dispersal airfields, would be the highest priority targets in the UK for enemy nuclear weapons. To best perform this intercept mission, emphasis was placed on rate-of-climb, acceleration, and speed, rather than range – originally a radius of operation of only 150 miles (240 km) from the V bomber airfields was specified – and endurance. Armament consisted of a pair of 30 mm ADEN cannon in front of the cockpit, and two pylons for IR-guided de Havilland Firestreak air-to-air missiles were added to the lower fuselage flanks. These hardpoints could, alternatively, carry pods with unguided 55 mm air-to-air rockets. The Ferranti AI.23 onboard radar provided missile guidance and ranging, as well as search and track functions.

 

The next two Skyspark variants, the Skyspark F.1A and F.2, incorporated relatively minor design changes, but for the next variant, the Skyspark F.3, they were more extensive: The F.3 had higher thrust Rolls-Royce Avon 301R engines, a larger squared-off fin that improved directional stability at high speed further and a strengthened inlet cone allowing a service clearance to Mach 2.0 (2,450 km/h; the F.1, F.1A and F.2 were all limited to Mach 1.7 (2,083 km/h). An upgraded A.I.23B radar and new, radar-guided Red Top missiles offered a forward hemisphere attack capability, even though additional electronics meant that the ADEN guns had to be deleted – but they were not popular in their position in front of the windscreen, because the muzzle flash blinded the pilot upon firing. The new engines and fin made the F.3 the highest performance Skyspark yet, but this came at a steep price: higher fuel consumption, resulting in even shorter range. From this basis, a conversion trainer with a side-by-side cockpit, the T.4, was created.

 

The next interceptor variant was already in development, but there was a need for an interim solution to partially address the F.3's shortcomings, the F.3A. The F.3A introduced two major improvements: a larger, non-jettisonable, 610-imperial-gallon (2,800 L) ventral fuel tank, resulting in a much deeper and longer belly fairing, and a new, kinked, conically cambered wing leading edge. The conically cambered wing improved manoeuvrability, especially at higher altitudes, and it offered space for a slightly larger leading edge fuel tank, raising the total usable internal fuel by 716 imperial gallons (3,260 L). The enlarged ventral tank not only nearly doubled available fuel, it also provided space at its front end for a re-instated pair of 30 mm ADEN cannon with 120 RPG. Alternatively, a retractable pack with unguided 55 mm air-to-air rockets could be installed, or a set of cameras for reconnaissance missions. The F.3A also introduced an improved A.I.23B radar and the new IR-guided Red Top missile, which was much faster and had greater range and manoeuvrability than the Firestreak. Its improved infrared seeker enabled a wider range of engagement angles and offered a forward hemisphere attack capability that would allow the Skyspark to attack even faster bombers (like the new, supersonic Tupolev T-22 Blinder) through a collision-course approach.

Wings and the new belly tank were also immediately incorporated in a second trainer variant, the T.5.

 

The ultimate variant, the Skyspark F.6, was nearly identical to the F.3A, with the exception that it could carry two additional 260-imperial-gallon (1,200 L) ferry tanks on pylons over the wings. These tanks were jettisonable in an emergency and gave the F.6 a substantially improved deployment capability, even though their supersonic drag was so high that the extra fuel would only marginally raise the aircraft’s range when flying beyond the sound barrier for extended periods.

 

Finally, there was the Skyspark F.2A; it was an early production F.2 upgraded with the new cambered wing, the squared fin, and the 610 imperial gallons (2,800 L) ventral tank. However, the F.2A retained the old AI.23 radar, the IR-guided Firestreak missile and the earlier Avon 211R engines. Although the F.2A lacked the thrust of the later Skysparks, it had the longest tactical range of all variants, and was used for low-altitude interception over West Germany.

 

The first Skysparks to enter service with the RAF, three pre-production P.1Bs, arrived at RAF Coltishall in Norfolk on 23 December 1959, joining the Air Fighting Development Squadron (AFDS) of the Central Fighter Establishment, where they were used to clear the Skyspark for entry into service. The production Skyspark F.1 entered service with the AFDS in May 1960, allowing the unit to take part in the air defence exercise "Yeoman" later that month. The Skyspark F.1 entered frontline squadron service with 74 Squadron at Coltishall from 11 July 1960. This made the Skyspark the second Western European-built combat aircraft with true supersonic capability to enter service and the second fully supersonic aircraft to be deployed in Western Europe (the first one in both categories being the Swedish Saab 35 Draken on 8 March 1960 four months earlier).

 

The aircraft's radar and missiles proved to be effective, and pilots reported that the Skyspark was easy to fly. However, in the first few months of operation the aircraft's serviceability was extremely poor. This was due to the complexity of the aircraft systems and shortages of spares and ground support equipment. Even when the Skyspark was not grounded by technical faults, the RAF initially struggled to get more than 20 flying hours per aircraft per month compared with the 40 flying hours that English Electric believed could be achieved with proper support. In spite of these concerns, within six months of the Skyspark entering service, 74 Squadron was able to achieve 100 flying hours per aircraft.

 

Deliveries of the slightly improved Skyspark F.1A, with revised avionics and provision for an air-to-air refueling probe, allowed two more squadrons, 56 and 111 Squadron, both based at RAF Wattisham, to convert to the Skyspark in 1960–1961. The Skyspark F.1 was only ordered in limited numbers and served only for a short time; nonetheless, it was viewed as a significant step forward in Britain's air defence capabilities. Following their replacement from frontline duties by the introduction of successively improved Skyspark variants, the remaining F.1 aircraft were employed by the Skyspark Conversion Squadron.

The improved F.2 entered service with 19 Squadron at the end of 1962 and 92 Squadron in early 1963. Conversion of these two squadrons was aided by the of the two-seat T.4 and T.5 trainers (based on the F.3 and F.3A/F.6 fighters), which entered service with the Skyspark Conversion Squadron (later renamed 226 Operational Conversion Unit) in June 1962. While the OCU was the major user of the two-seater, small numbers were also allocated to the front-line fighter squadrons. More F.2s were produced than there were available squadron slots, so later production aircraft were stored for years before being used operationally; some of these Skyspark F.2s were converted to F.2As.

 

The F.3, with more powerful engines and the new Red Top missile was expected to be the definitive Skyspark, and at one time it was planned to equip ten squadrons, with the remaining two squadrons retaining the F.2. However, the F.3 also had only a short operational life and was withdrawn from service early due to defence cutbacks and the introduction of the even more capable and longer-range F.6, some of which were converted F.3s.

 

The introduction of the F.3 and F.6 allowed the RAF to progressively reequip squadrons operating aircraft such as the subsonic Gloster Javelin and retire these types during the mid-1960s. During the 1960s, as strategic awareness increased and a multitude of alternative fighter designs were developed by Warsaw Pact and NATO members, the Skyspark's range and firepower shortcomings became increasingly apparent. The transfer of McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom IIs from Royal Navy service enabled these much longer-ranged aircraft to be added to the RAF's interceptor force, alongside those withdrawn from Germany as they were replaced by SEPECAT Jaguars in the ground attack role.

The Skyspark's direct replacement was the Tornado F.3, an interceptor variant of the Panavia Tornado. The Tornado featured several advantages over the Skyspark, including far larger weapons load and considerably more advanced avionics. Skysparks were slowly phased out of service between 1974 and 1988, even though they lasted longer than expected because the definitive Tornado F.3 went through serious teething troubles and its service introduction was delayed several times. In their final years, the Skysparks’ airframes required considerable maintenance to keep them airworthy due to the sheer number of accumulated flight hours.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 51 ft 2 in (15,62 m) fuselage only

57 ft 3½ in (17,50 m) including pitot

Wingspan: 34 ft 10 in (10.62 m)

Height: 17 ft 6¾ in (5.36 m)

Wing area: 474.5 sq ft (44.08 m²)

Empty weight: 31,068 lb (14,092 kg) with armament and no fuel

Gross weight: 41,076 lb (18,632 kg) with two Red Tops, ammunition, and internal fuel

Max. takeoff weight: 45,750 lb (20,752 kg)

 

Powerplant:

2× Rolls-Royce Avon 301R afterburning turbojet engines,

12,690 lbf (56.4 kN) thrust each dry, 16,360 lbf (72.8 kN) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: Mach 2.27 (1,500 mph+ at 40,000 ft)

Range: 738 nmi (849 mi, 1,367 km)

Combat range: 135 nmi (155 mi, 250 km) supersonic intercept radius

Range: 800 nmi (920 mi, 1,500 km) with internal fuel

1,100 nmi (1,300 mi; 2,000 km) with external overwing tanks

Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,000 m)

Zoom ceiling: 70,000 ft (21,000 m)

Rate of climb: 20,000 ft/min (100 m/s) sustained to 30,000 ft (9,100 m)

Zoom climb: 50,000 ft/min

Time to altitude: 2.8 min to 36,000 ft (11,000 m)

Wing loading: 76 lb/sq ft (370 kg/m²) with two AIM-9 and 1/2 fuel

Thrust/weight: 0.78 (1.03 empty)

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm (1.181 in) ADEN cannon with 120 RPG in the lower fuselage

2× forward fuselage hardpoints for a single Firestreak or Red Top AAM each

2× overwing pylon stations for 2.000 lb (907 kg each)

for 260 imp gal (310 US gal; 1,200 l) ferry tanks

  

The kit and its assembly:

This build was a submission to the “Hunter, Lightning, Canberra” group build at whatifmodellers.com, and one of my personal ultimate challenges – a project that you think about very often, but the you put the thought back into its box when you realize that turning this idea into hardware will be a VERY tedious, complex and work-intensive task. But the thematic group build was the perfect occasion to eventually tackle the idea of a model of a “side-by-side engine BAC Lightning”, a.k.a. “Flatning”, as a rather conservative alternative to the real aircraft’s unique and unusual design with stacked engines in the fuselage, which brought a multitude of other design consequences that led to a really unique aircraft.

 

And it sound so simple: take a Lightning, just change the tail section. But it’s not that simple, because the whole fuselage shape would be different, resulting in less depth, the wings have to be attached somewhere and somehow, the landing gear might have to be adjusted/shortened, and how the fuselage diameter shape changes along the hull, so that you get a more or less smooth shape, was also totally uncertain!

 

Initially I considered a MiG Ye-152 as a body donor, but that was rejected due to the sheer price of the only available kit (ModelSvit). A Chinese Shenyang J-8I would also have been ideal – but there’s not 1:72 kit of this aircraft around, just of its successor with side intakes, a 1:72 J-8II from trumpeter.

I eventually decided to keep costs low, and I settled for the shaggy PM Model Su-15 (marketed as Su-21) “Flagon” as main body donor: it’s cheap, the engines have a good size for Avons and the pen nib fairing has a certain retro touch that goes well with the Lightning’s Fifties design.

The rest of this "Flatning" came from a Hasegawa 1:72 BAC Lightning F.6 (Revell re-boxing).

 

Massive modifications were necessary and lots of PSR. In an initial step the Flagon lost its lower wing halves, which are an integral part of the lower fuselage half. The cockpit section was cut away where the intake ducts begin. The Lightning had its belly tank removed (set aside for a potential later re-installation), and dry-fitting and crude measures suggested that only the cockpit section from the Lightning, its spine and the separate fin would make it onto the new fuselage.

 

Integrating the parts was tough, though! The problem that caused the biggest headaches: how to create a "smooth" fuselage from the Lightning's rounded front end with a single nose intake that originally develops into a narrow, vertical hull, combined with the boxy and rather wide Flagon fuselage with large Phantom-esque intakes? My solution: taking out deep wedges from all (rather massive) hull parts along the intake ducts, bend the leftover side walls inwards and glue them into place, so that the width becomes equal with the Lightning's cockpit section. VERY crude and massive body work!

 

However, the Lightning's cockpit section for the following hull with stacked engines is much deeper than the Flagon's side-by-side layout. My initial idea was to place the cockpit section higher, but I would have had to transplant a part of the Lightning's upper fuselage (with the spine on top, too!) onto the "flat" Flagon’s back. But this would have looked VERY weird, and I'd have had to bridge the round ventral shape of the Lightning into the boxy Flagon underside, too. This was no viable option, so that the cockpit section had to be further modified; I cut away the whole ventral cockpit section, at the height of the lower intake lip. Similar to my former Austrian Hasegawa Lightning, I also cut away the vertical bulkhead directly behind the intake opening - even though I did not improve the cockpit with a better tub with side consoles. At the back end, the Flagon's jet exhausts were opened and received afterburner dummies inside as a cosmetic upgrade.

 

Massive PSR work followed all around the hull. The now-open area under the cockpit was filled with lead beads to keep the front wheel down, and I implanted a landing gear well (IIRC, it's from an Xtrakit Swift). With the fuselage literally taking shape, the wings were glued together and the locator holes for the overwing tanks filled, because they would not be mounted.

 

To mount the wings to the new hull, crude measurements suggested that wedges had to be cut away from the Lightning's wing roots to match the weird fuselage shape. They were then glued to the shoulders, right behind the cockpit due to the reduced fuselage depth. At this stage, the Lightning’s stabilizer attachment points were transplanted, so that they end up in a similar low position on the rounded Su-15 tail. Again, lots of PSR…

 

At this stage I contemplated the next essential step: belly tank or not? The “Flatning” would have worked without it, but its profile would look rather un-Lightning-ish and rather “flat”. On the other side, a conformal tank would probably look quite strange on the new wide and flat ventral fuselage...? Only experiments could yield an answer, so I glued together the leftover belly bulge parts from the Hasegawa kit and played around with it. I considered a new, wider belly tank, but I guess that this would have looked too ugly. I eventually settled upon the narrow F.6 tank and also used the section behind it with the arrestor hook. I just reduced its depth by ~2 mm, with a slight slope towards the rear because I felt (righteously) that the higher wing position would lower the model’s stance. More massive PSR followed….

 

Due to the expected poor ground clearance, the Lightning’s stabilizing ventral fins were mounted directly under the fuselage edges rather than on the belly tank. Missile pylons for Red Tops were mounted to the lower front fuselage, similar to the real arrangement, and cable fairings, scratched from styrene profiles, were added to the lower flanks, stretching the hull optically and giving more structure to the hull.

 

To my surprise, I did not have to shorten the landing gear’s main legs! The wings ended up a little higher on the fuselage than on the original Lightning, and the front wheel sits a bit further back and deeper inside of its donor well, too, so that the fuselage comes probably 2 mm closer to the ground than an OOB Lightning model. Just like on the real aircraft, ground clearance is marginal, but when the main wheels were finally in place, the model turned out to have a low but proper stance, a little F8U-ish.

  

Painting and markings:

I was uncertain about the livery for a long time – I just had already settled upon an RAF aircraft. But the model would not receive a late low-viz scheme (the Levin, my mono-engine Lightning build already had one), and no NMF, either. I was torn between an RAF Germany all-green over NMF undersides livery, but eventually went for a pretty standard RAF livery in Dark Sea Grey/Dark Green over NMF undersides, with toned-down post-war roundels.

A factor that spoke in favor of this route was a complete set of markings for an RAF 11 Squadron Lightning F.6 in such a guise on an Xtradecal set, which also featured dayglo orange makings on fin, wings and stabilizers – quite unusual, and a nice contrast detail on the otherwise very conservative livery. All stencils were taken from the OOB Revell sheet for the Lightning. Just the tactical code “F” on the tail was procured elsewhere, it comes from a Matchbox BAC Lightning’s sheet.

 

After basic painting the model received the usual black ink washing, some post-panel-shading and also a light treatment with graphite to create soot strains around the jet exhausts and the gun ports, and to emphasize the raised panel lines on the Hasegawa parts.

 

Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish and final bits and pieces like the landing gear and the Red Tops (taken OOB) were mounted.

  

A major effort, and I have seriously depleted my putty stocks for this build! However, the result looks less spectacular than it actually is: changing a Lightning from its literally original stacked engine layout into a more conservative side-by-side arrangement turned out to be possible, even though the outcome is not really pretty. But it works and is feasible!

+++ 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!

  

In the period immediately after the Second World War the world found itself with hundreds of thousands of surplus aircraft and just as many surplus aviators. Most aircraft would meet the salvage blade and the smelter’s fiery furnace. Most pilots would return to civilian life, the bulk of them never to fly again.

 

With the plethora of military aircraft languishing in desert lots awaiting a certain fate, some of those disenfranchised aviators and aircraft designers would look to new growing markets for salvation. One of these emerging markets was the new-found requirement for fast and capable business transport aircraft for executives looking to link business interests across the vast distances of the nation. With few purpose-built business aircraft available for executives, medium bombers became the drug of choice for high flying big shots—fast, powerful and, with the right interior appointments, a visual statement of their success and power.

 

In early variants like the Executive, On Mark simply removed military equipment and replaced them with fairings and civil avionics, sealed the bomb bay doors, soundproofed the cabin, and added additional cabin windows. Later models had special wing spars designed to give more interior room, pressurization and equipment from bigger surplus aircraft such as DC-6 brakes and flat glass cockpit windows. It was an elegant mashing together of equipment, but it was not a true business aircraft.

 

In the Sixties, Jet Craft Ltd. of Las Vegas, Nevada, went for a different interpretation of the same topic: The company had purchased a number of former Royal Australian Air Force Vampire trainers and RCAF single-seaters, which were to be converted to a new design for a business aircraft called 'Mystery Jet', offering 4-8-seats.

 

Jet Craft worked with stellar British conversion experts Aviation Traders to do the structural design work. Aviation Traders Limited (ATL) was a war-surplus aircraft and spares trader formed in 1947. In 1949, it began maintaining aircraft used by some of Britain’s contemporary independent airlines on the Berlin Airlift. In the early 1950s, it branched out into aircraft conversions and manufacturing.

 

Aviation Traders worked on the drawings and the structural mock-ups. A full-scale mock-up of the Mystery Jet languished at Southend airport for a decade, trying to lure owners and operators into buying it. And this actually happened: about twenty former Vampire airframes were converted into Mystery Jet business aircraft, tailored to the customers' needs and desires.

 

The Mystery Jet was just what it looked like: a former De Havilland Vampire with a new, roomy nose section grafted onto it. The cabin was pressurized, and was available in two different lengths (130 and 160 inches long, with two or three rows of seats and reflected in the aircraft's title) and several window and door options - the most exotic option being the "Landaulet" cabin which featured a panoramic roof/window installation over the rear pair of seats (or, alternatively, a two-seat bench).

 

The original Goblin engine was retained, CG was retained due to the fact that the new cabin was, despite being considerably longer than the Vampire's nose, the biggest version being more than 8 feet longer. The new front section was much lighter, though, e. g. through the loss of the heavy cannons and their armament, as well as some more military avionics. The loss of fuel capacity through the enlarged cabin was compensated through fixed wing tip tanks, so that range was on par with the former military jet, just top speed and ceiling were slightly inferior.

 

Anyway, prices were steep and from the United States more modern and economical offerings ruled the market. Maintaining a former military jet was also a costly business, so, consequently, after a slight buzz (more of a hum, actually) in the early Seventies, the Mystery Jet and Jet Craft of Las Vegas, also fuelled by some dubious business practices by the company's owner, disappeared. Even further developments of the original concept, e .g. with a wide body for up to 14 passengers and two engines, would not save the Mystery Jet from failure.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1 pilot plus 5-7 passengers

Length (Mystery Jet 160): 38 ft 5 in (11.73 m)

Wingspan incl. tip tanks: 39 ft 7 1/2 in (12.09 m)

Height: 8 ft 10 in (2.69 m)

Wing area: 262 ft² (24.34 m²)

Empty weight: 7,283 lb (3,304 kg)

Max. take-off weight: 12,390 lb (5,620 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× de Havilland Goblin 3 centrifugal turbojet, rated at 3,350 lbf (14.90 kN)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 516 mph (832 km/h)

Cruising speed: 400 mph (644 km/h)

Range: 1,220 mi (1,960 km)

Service ceiling: 37,700 ft (11,500 m)

 

Armament:

None

  

The kit and its assembly:

The first finished work in 2017 is a different kind of whif, one of the few civilian models in my collection. This conversion looks sick, but ,as weird as it may seem, the Business-Jet-From-Vintage-Vampires idea was real. For more information, and the source from where some of the backgound story was gathered, please check:

 

www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/article...

 

Anyway, my build is just a personal interpretation of the original concept, not a true model of the Mystery Jet. In fact, this was limited through the donor parts for this kitbash.

 

The rear end was the smaller problem: Airfix offers a very good Vampire T.11 trainer with excellent detail and fit - the passenger cabin was the bigger challenge. Finding "something" that would fit in shape and especialsl size was not easy - my first choice was a nose section from a vintage 1:100 Antonow An-24 from VEB Plasticart (still much too wide, though), and the best solution came as an accidental find in a local model kit shop where I found a heavily discounted MPM Focke Wulf Fw 189 B-0 trainer.

 

The reason: the kit was complete, but the bag holding the sprues must have been heated immensely during the packaging process: the main sprues were horrible warped - except for some single parts including the canopies and the sprue with the cabin! Height wind width were perfect, only the boxy shape caused some headaches. But I guess I would not find anything better...

 

That said, the transplantation mess started. I never built any of the two donor kits before, so I carefully tried to find the best place where to cut the Vampire's nose - I ended up with a staggered solution right in front of the wing root air intakes.

The Fw 189's cabin was bit more tricky, because I had to get rid of the original wing roots and wanted to use as much space as possible, up to the rear bulkhead and together with the rear cabin window. The idea was to blend the Fw 189's roof line into the Vampire's engine section, while keeping the original air intake ducts, so that the overall arrangement would look plausible.

 

The result became a pretty long nose section - and at that time the tail booms were not fited yet, so I was not certain concerning overall proportions. The cabin's underside had to be improvised, and blending the boxy front end with a flat underside into the tubby, round Vampire fuselage caused some headaches. I also had to re-create the lower flank section with styrene sheet, because I had originally hoped that I could "push" the new cabin between the wing roots - but that space was occupied by the Goblin's inlet ducts.

 

Inside of the cabin, the original floor, bulkheads and dashboard were used, plus five bucket seats that come with the MPM kit. In order to hide the body work from the inside, side panels from 0.5mm styrene sheet were added in the cabin - with the benefit of additional stability, but also costing some space... Since the machine was built with closed cabin, a pilot was added - actually a bash of a WWII Matchbox pilot and a German officer from an ESCI tank kit. Looks pretty good and "professional". ;-)

 

Once the cabin was in place, lots of PSR followed and the tail booms could be fitted. To my relief, the longer nose did not look too unbalanced (and actually, design sketches for the original Mystery Jet suggest just this layout!) - but I decided to add wing tip tanks which would beef up wingspan and shift the visual mass slightly forward. They come from an 1:100 Tamiya Il-28, or better the "R" recce variant.

 

The only other big change concerned the nose wheel. While the OOB wheel and strut were used, the well is now located in front of the wheel and it would retract forwards, giving the nose a more balanced look - and the cabin arrangement made this change more plausible, too.

 

Another addition were three small porthole windows in the solid parts of the cabin flanks - one of them ending up in the middle of the cabin door on starboard, where a solid part of the canopy roof lent itself for a good place just behind the pilots' seats.

  

Painting and markings:

I cannot help it, but the thing looks like a design from a vintage Tintin or Yoko Tsuno comic! This was not planned or expected - and actually the paint scheme evolved step by step. I had no plan or clue what to apply - the real Mystery Jet mock-up in silver with blue trim looked sharp, but somehow I did not want blue. So I started with the interior (out of a necessity, as the fuselage had to be closed before any further work progress at some point) and settled for plushy, British colors: Cream (walls and roof) and Claret-Red (carpet and seats).

 

I tried to find something for the outside that would complement this choice of colors, and eventually settled on Ivory and White (upper and lower fuselage halves, respectively) with some deep red trim, plus pale grey wing surfaces. I even considered some thin golden trim lines, but I think this would have been too much?

 

The trim was created with decals tripes from generic sheet material, the black anti-glare panel was painted, though. As a color contrast I painted some of the upper canopy panels in translucent, light blue, and this looks very good.

 

The wings received a lightb treatment with thinned black ink, in order to emphasize the engravings. No post-shading was done, though, for a rather clean look.

 

Most markings were puzzled together; the registration G-AZRE actually belonged to a Vickers Vanguard (from the 1:144 Airfix kit), the large letters above and under the wings were created with single 45° letters (USAF style). Most stencils come from a Vampire trainer aftermarket sheet from Xtradecal, from the OOB sheet only the "No step" warnings on the wings were used.

 

Finally, the kit was sealed with a semi-matt coat of varnish, except for the anti-glare panel, which recived a matt coat. The three small windows received artificial panes made from Clearfix, after their rims had been painted black.

  

A messy project, and you better do not take a close look. But the overall elegance of this creation surprises me - the real Mystery Jet already looked sleek, and this model, despite a more blunt nose, confirms this impression. The colors work together well, too - and the thing has a dedicated retro feel about it. Tintin might be on board, as well as Elton John, both sharing a cigar on the rear seats... ;)

A kitbash using a Phicen body and a Kimi headsculpt .

+++ 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 on historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some Background:

Antanas Gustaitis (March 26, 1898 – October 16, 1941) was an officer in the Lithuanian Armed Forces who modernized the Lithuanian Air Force, which at that time was part of the Lithuanian Army. He was the architect or aeronautical engineer who undertook the task to design and construct several military aircraft before WWII broke out.

 

Gustaitis was born in the village of Obelinė, in Javaravas county, in the Marijampolė district. He attended high school in Yaroslavl, and from there studied at the Institute of Engineering and School of Artillery in Petrograd. After joining the Lithuanian Army in 1919, he graduated from the School of Military Aviation as a Junior Lieutenant in 1920. Later that year, he saw action in the Polish-Lithuanian War. By 1922 he began to train pilots, and later became the head of the training squadron. He also oversaw the construction of aircraft for Lithuania in Italy and Czechoslovakia. Gustaitis was one of the founding members of the Aero Club of Lithuania, and later its Vice-President. He did much to promote aviation among the young people in Lithuania, especially concerning the sport of gliding. He also won the Lithuanian Chess Championship in 1922.

 

Between 1925 and 1928, Gustaitis studied aeronautical engineering in Paris. After his graduation he returned to Lithuania and was promoted to deputy Commander-in-Chief of Military Aviation and made chief of the Aviation Workshop (Karo Aviacijos Tiekimo Skyrius) in Kaunas. During this time, he reorganized the workshop and expanded its capability to repair aircraft as well. The aircraft he designed were named ANBO, an acronym for "Antanas Nori Būti Ore", which literally means “Antanas wants to be in the air” in Lithuanian.

 

Between 1925 and 1939, the ANBO design bureau developed, built and flew several trainers, reconnaissance and even fighter aircraft for the Lithuanian air force. The last projects, the ANBO VIII, a light single-engine reconnaissance bomber, and the ANBO IX, a single-seat fighter, were the most ambitious.

The ANBO IX started in 1935 as a light low-wing design with spatted, fixed landing gear and an open cockpit, powered by a British Bristol Mercury 830 hp (619 kW) 9-cylinder radial engine – a very clean all-metal design, outwardly not unlike the contemporary Japanese Nakajima Ki-27 or the Dutch Fokker D.XXI, but a much more modern construction.

A first prototype had been completed in summer 1936 and it flew for the first time on 1st of August, with good flight characteristics, but Gustaitis was not satisfied with the aircraft anymore. More powerful and aerodynamically more efficient engines had become available, and a retractable landing gear would improve the performance of the ANBO IX even more, so that the aircraft was heavily modified during the rest of the year.

 

The large Mercury was replaced with a Pratt & Whitney R-1535 Twin Wasp Junior, a two-row 14-cylinder radial engine with 825 hp and a much smaller frontal area that allowed the ANBO IX’s cowling to be wrapped much tighter around the engine than the Mercury’s former Townend ring, leading to a very aerodynamic overall shape. The oil cooler, formerly mounted starboard flank in front of the cockpit, was moved into a mutual fairing with the carburetor intake under the fuselage behind the engine.

The wings had to be modified to accommodate a retractable main landing gear: to make space for suitable wells, the inner wing section in front of the main spar was deepened, resulting in a kinked leading edge of the wing. The landing gear retracted inwards and was initially completely covered. The tail remained fixed, though, even though the former simple tailskid was replaced with a pressurized rubber wheel for better handling on paved runways.

 

These measures alone improved the ANBO IX’s top speed by 25 mph (40 km/h), and to improve the pilot’s working conditions the originally open cockpit with just a windscreen and a small headrest fairing was covered with a fully closed clear canopy and an enlarged aerodynamic spinal fairing that ended at the fin’s base. This additional space was used to introduce another contemporary novel feature on board: a radio set.

Together with some other refinements on a second prototype (e. g. a smaller diameter of the front fuselage section, an even more streamlined cowling that now also covered two synchronized machine guns above the engine and a recontoured wing/fuselage intersection), which flew in September 1937, top speed rose by another 6 mph (10 km/h) from 460 km/h (285 mph) of the original aircraft to a competitive 510 km/h (317 mph) that put the ANBO IX on a par with many other contemporary European fighter aircraft.

 

In this form the ANBO IX was cleared for production in early 1938, even though the desired R-1535 Twin Wasp Junior was not cleared for export or license production. With the Manfréd Weiss WM K.14 engine from Hungary, a derivative of the French Gnôme-Rhône 14 K with 900 hp, a similar, even slightly more powerful replacement could be quickly found, even though the adaptation of the airframe to the different powerplant delayed production by four months. Beyond a new engine mount, the machine guns in the fuselage and its synchronization gearbox had to be deleted, but the weapons could be moved into the outer wings, so that a total of four machine guns as main armament was retained. Additionally, a single ventral hardpoint was added that could either carry a single bomb with its respective shackles or – more frequently – a drop tank that extended the fighter’s rather limited range.

 

The Lithuanian air force ordered fifty of these machines, primarily to replace its Fiat CR.20 biplane fighters, and several regional export customers like Finland, Estonia and Bulgaria showed interest in the modern ANBO IX, too. Due to the complex all-metal airframe and limited workshop capacities, however, production started only slowly.

The first batch of six ANBO IXs arrived at Lithuanian frontline units in November 1939, more were in the ANBO workshops in Kaunas at that time in various stages of assembly. In 1940, the Lithuanian Air Force consisted of eight Air Squadrons, including reconnaissance, fighter, bomber and training units. However, only the 5th fighter squadron had by the time enough ANBO IXs and trained pilots to be fully operational with the new type. Air Force bases had been established in the cities and towns of Kaunas/Žagariškės, Šiauliai /Zokniai (Zokniai airfield), Panevėžys /Pajuostis. In the summertime, airports in the cities of Palanga and Rukla were also used. A total of 117 aircraft and 230 pilots and observers were listed in the books at that time, but less than ten of them were modern ANBO IX fighters, and probably only half of them were actually operational.

 

Following the Soviet occupation of Lithuania, however, the Lithuanian Air Force was formally disbanded on October 23, 1940. Part of Lithuanian Air Force (77 senior officers, 72 junior officers, 59 privates, 20 aircraft) was reorganized into Red Army's 29th Territorial Rifle Corps Aviation, also referred to as National Squadron (Tautinė eskadrilė). Other planes and equipment were taken over by Red Army's Air Force Bases No. 13 and 213. About third of Tautinė eskadrilė's personnel latter suffered repressions by Soviet authorities, significant share joined June uprising, after the start of German invasion into Soviet Union several pilots of Tautinė eskadrilė and fewer than six planes withdrew with the Soviet army.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 7.71 m (25 ft 2¾ in)

Wingspan: 10.22 m (33 ft 5¾ in)

Wing area: 16 m2 (170 sq ft)

Height: 2.62 m (8 ft 7 in)

Empty weight: 2,070 kg (4,564 lb)

Gross weight: 2,520 kg (5,556 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Manfred Weiss WM K.14 (Gnome-Rhône 14Kfrs Mistral-Major) 14-cyinder air-cooled radial

piston engine with 647 kW (900 hp), driving a 3-bladed constant-speed metal propeller

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 510 km/h (320 mph, 280 kn)

Minimum control speed: 113 km/h (70 mph, 61 kn)

Range: 730 km (450 mi, 390 nmi) on internal fuel

1.000 km (621 mi, 543 nmi) with 300 l drop tank

Service ceiling: 10.000 m (33,000 ft)

Time to altitude: 4'41" to 5,000 meters

Wing loading: 157,5 kg/m² (32.7 lb/sq ft)

Power/mass: 3.89 kg/kW (6.17 lb/hp)

Take-off run to 8 m (26 ft): 270 m (886 ft)

Landing run from 8 m (26 ft): 340 m (1,115 ft)

 

Armament:

4x 7.7 mm (0.303 in) fixed forward-firing M1919 Browning machine guns with 500 rpg

in the outer wings

1x ventral hardpoint for a single 250 kg (550 lb) bomb or a 300 l (66 imp gal) drop tank

  

The kit and its assembly:

This small aircraft model is the result of a spontaneous kitbashing flash, when I dug through the sprue piles and the spares box. It started with a leftover fuselage from a Mistercraft PZL P-7 fighter, and further searches revealed the wings from a PM Model Fokker D.XXI and the sawn-off wings from a Hobby Boss MS.406. The sprue stash came up with other useful parts like small stabilizers and a landing gear – and it turned out to be the rest of the MS.406, which had originally been butchered to be mated with the P-7 wings to become my fictional Polish RWD-24 fighter prototype. So, as a serious recycling project, I decided to accept the challenge and use the remains of the P-7 and the MS.406 to create a “counterpart” to the RWD-24, and it became the fictional ANBO IX.

 

While the ingredients for a basic airframe were now available, some parts were still missing. Most important: an engine. One option was an early Merlin, left over from a Spitfire, but due to the circular P-7 fuselage I preferred a radial engine. With the cowling from a Japanese Mitsubishi Ha-102 two-row radial (from an Airfix Ki-46 “Dinah”) I found a suitable and very streamlined donor, which received a small three-blade propeller with a scratched spinner on a metal axis inside.

 

The cockpit and the canopy caused more headaches, because the P-7 has an open cockpit with a rather wide opening. For a fighter with a retractable landing gear this would hardly work anymore and finding a solution as well as a suitable donor piece took a while. I initially wanted to use a kind of bubble canopy (with struts, so that it would not look too modern), but eventually rejected this because the proportions would have looked odd – and the overall style would have been too modern.

So I switched to an early Spitfire canopy, which had a good size for the small aircraft, even though it called for a spinal fairing – the latter became the half from a drop tank (IIRC from an Airfix P-61?).

 

Lots of PSR was necessary everywhere to blend the disparate parts together. The cockpit opening had to be partly filled and reshaped, blending both canopy and spine into the hull took several layers.

The area in front of the cockpit (originally holding the P-7’s shoulder-mounted wings) had to be re-sculpted and blended into the Ki-46 cowling.

The ventral area between the wings had also to be fully sculpted with putty, and huge gaps along the wing roots on the wings’ upper surfaces had to be filled and formed, too. No wonder that many surface details disappeared along the way… Nevertheless, the effort was worthwhile, because the resulting airframe, esp. the sleek fuselage, looks very aerodynamic, almost like a Thirties air speed record contender?

  

Painting and markings:

This is where the real trouble came to play. It took a while to find a suitable/authentic paint scheme for a pre-WWII Lithuanian aircraft, and I took inspiration from mid-Thirties Letov S.20 biplane fighters and the real ANBO VIII light bomber prototype. Apparently, a two-tone camouflage in two shades of green were an option, even though the tones appear debatable. The only real-life reference was a b/w picture of an S.20, and it showed a good contrast between the greens, so that my first choice were Humbrol 120 (FS 34227) and 172 (Satin Dark Green). However: 120 turned out to be much too pale, and the 172 had a somewhat grainy consistency. Leaving a horrible finish on the already less-than-perfect PSR mess of the model.

 

With a heavy heart I eventually decided to remove the initial coat of enamel paint with a two-day bath in foamed oven cleaner, which did the job but also worked on the putty. Disaster struck when one wing came loose while cleaning the model, and the canopy came off, too…

Repairs were possible, but did not improve the model’s surface finish – but I eventually pulled a second coat of paint through, this time with slightly different green tones: a mix of Humbrol 80 (Grass Green) and Revell 360 (fern Green), resulting in a rich but rather yellow-ish tone, and Humbrol 245 (RLM 75, Graugrün), as a subdued contrast. The result, though, reminded a lot of Finnish WWII aircraft, so that I gave the aircraft an NMF cowling (again inspired by the ANBO VIII prototype) and a very light grey (Modelmaster 2077, RLM 63) underside with a low waterline. This gave the model a somewhat Italian touch?

 

The national markings came from two different Blue Rider decal sheets for modern Lithuanian aircraft, the tactical code and the knight helmet as squadron emblem came from a French Dewoitine D.520 (PrintScale sheet).

 

After a black ink washing the kit received light panel post-shading to virtually restore some of the missing surface details, some weathering with Tamiya Smoke and silver was done and the model received a final overall coat of matt acrylic varnish.

  

Well, I am not happy with the outcome – mostly because of the painting mishaps and the resulting collateral damage overall. However, the kitbashed aircraft looks pretty conclusive and plays the role of one of the many European pre-WWII monoplane fighters with modern features like a retractable landing gear and a closed canopy well, it’s a very subtle result.

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!

  

In the period immediately after the Second World War the world found itself with hundreds of thousands of surplus aircraft and just as many surplus aviators. Most aircraft would meet the salvage blade and the smelter’s fiery furnace. Most pilots would return to civilian life, the bulk of them never to fly again.

 

With the plethora of military aircraft languishing in desert lots awaiting a certain fate, some of those disenfranchised aviators and aircraft designers would look to new growing markets for salvation. One of these emerging markets was the new-found requirement for fast and capable business transport aircraft for executives looking to link business interests across the vast distances of the nation. With few purpose-built business aircraft available for executives, medium bombers became the drug of choice for high flying big shots—fast, powerful and, with the right interior appointments, a visual statement of their success and power.

 

In early variants like the Executive, On Mark simply removed military equipment and replaced them with fairings and civil avionics, sealed the bomb bay doors, soundproofed the cabin, and added additional cabin windows. Later models had special wing spars designed to give more interior room, pressurization and equipment from bigger surplus aircraft such as DC-6 brakes and flat glass cockpit windows. It was an elegant mashing together of equipment, but it was not a true business aircraft.

 

In the Sixties, Jet Craft Ltd. of Las Vegas, Nevada, went for a different interpretation of the same topic: The company had purchased a number of former Royal Australian Air Force Vampire trainers and RCAF single-seaters, which were to be converted to a new design for a business aircraft called 'Mystery Jet', offering 4-8-seats.

 

Jet Craft worked with stellar British conversion experts Aviation Traders to do the structural design work. Aviation Traders Limited (ATL) was a war-surplus aircraft and spares trader formed in 1947. In 1949, it began maintaining aircraft used by some of Britain’s contemporary independent airlines on the Berlin Airlift. In the early 1950s, it branched out into aircraft conversions and manufacturing.

 

Aviation Traders worked on the drawings and the structural mock-ups. A full-scale mock-up of the Mystery Jet languished at Southend airport for a decade, trying to lure owners and operators into buying it. And this actually happened: about twenty former Vampire airframes were converted into Mystery Jet business aircraft, tailored to the customers' needs and desires.

 

The Mystery Jet was just what it looked like: a former De Havilland Vampire with a new, roomy nose section grafted onto it. The cabin was pressurized, and was available in two different lengths (130 and 160 inches long, with two or three rows of seats and reflected in the aircraft's title) and several window and door options - the most exotic option being the "Landaulet" cabin which featured a panoramic roof/window installation over the rear pair of seats (or, alternatively, a two-seat bench).

 

The original Goblin engine was retained, CG was retained due to the fact that the new cabin was, despite being considerably longer than the Vampire's nose, the biggest version being more than 8 feet longer. The new front section was much lighter, though, e. g. through the loss of the heavy cannons and their armament, as well as some more military avionics. The loss of fuel capacity through the enlarged cabin was compensated through fixed wing tip tanks, so that range was on par with the former military jet, just top speed and ceiling were slightly inferior.

 

Anyway, prices were steep and from the United States more modern and economical offerings ruled the market. Maintaining a former military jet was also a costly business, so, consequently, after a slight buzz (more of a hum, actually) in the early Seventies, the Mystery Jet and Jet Craft of Las Vegas, also fuelled by some dubious business practices by the company's owner, disappeared. Even further developments of the original concept, e .g. with a wide body for up to 14 passengers and two engines, would not save the Mystery Jet from failure.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1 pilot plus 5-7 passengers

Length (Mystery Jet 160): 38 ft 5 in (11.73 m)

Wingspan incl. tip tanks: 39 ft 7 1/2 in (12.09 m)

Height: 8 ft 10 in (2.69 m)

Wing area: 262 ft² (24.34 m²)

Empty weight: 7,283 lb (3,304 kg)

Max. take-off weight: 12,390 lb (5,620 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× de Havilland Goblin 3 centrifugal turbojet, rated at 3,350 lbf (14.90 kN)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 516 mph (832 km/h)

Cruising speed: 400 mph (644 km/h)

Range: 1,220 mi (1,960 km)

Service ceiling: 37,700 ft (11,500 m)

 

Armament:

None

  

The kit and its assembly:

The first finished work in 2017 is a different kind of whif, one of the few civilian models in my collection. This conversion looks sick, but ,as weird as it may seem, the Business-Jet-From-Vintage-Vampires idea was real. For more information, and the source from where some of the backgound story was gathered, please check:

 

www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/article...

 

Anyway, my build is just a personal interpretation of the original concept, not a true model of the Mystery Jet. In fact, this was limited through the donor parts for this kitbash.

 

The rear end was the smaller problem: Airfix offers a very good Vampire T.11 trainer with excellent detail and fit - the passenger cabin was the bigger challenge. Finding "something" that would fit in shape and especialsl size was not easy - my first choice was a nose section from a vintage 1:100 Antonow An-24 from VEB Plasticart (still much too wide, though), and the best solution came as an accidental find in a local model kit shop where I found a heavily discounted MPM Focke Wulf Fw 189 B-0 trainer.

 

The reason: the kit was complete, but the bag holding the sprues must have been heated immensely during the packaging process: the main sprues were horrible warped - except for some single parts including the canopies and the sprue with the cabin! Height wind width were perfect, only the boxy shape caused some headaches. But I guess I would not find anything better...

 

That said, the transplantation mess started. I never built any of the two donor kits before, so I carefully tried to find the best place where to cut the Vampire's nose - I ended up with a staggered solution right in front of the wing root air intakes.

The Fw 189's cabin was bit more tricky, because I had to get rid of the original wing roots and wanted to use as much space as possible, up to the rear bulkhead and together with the rear cabin window. The idea was to blend the Fw 189's roof line into the Vampire's engine section, while keeping the original air intake ducts, so that the overall arrangement would look plausible.

 

The result became a pretty long nose section - and at that time the tail booms were not fited yet, so I was not certain concerning overall proportions. The cabin's underside had to be improvised, and blending the boxy front end with a flat underside into the tubby, round Vampire fuselage caused some headaches. I also had to re-create the lower flank section with styrene sheet, because I had originally hoped that I could "push" the new cabin between the wing roots - but that space was occupied by the Goblin's inlet ducts.

 

Inside of the cabin, the original floor, bulkheads and dashboard were used, plus five bucket seats that come with the MPM kit. In order to hide the body work from the inside, side panels from 0.5mm styrene sheet were added in the cabin - with the benefit of additional stability, but also costing some space... Since the machine was built with closed cabin, a pilot was added - actually a bash of a WWII Matchbox pilot and a German officer from an ESCI tank kit. Looks pretty good and "professional". ;-)

 

Once the cabin was in place, lots of PSR followed and the tail booms could be fitted. To my relief, the longer nose did not look too unbalanced (and actually, design sketches for the original Mystery Jet suggest just this layout!) - but I decided to add wing tip tanks which would beef up wingspan and shift the visual mass slightly forward. They come from an 1:100 Tamiya Il-28, or better the "R" recce variant.

 

The only other big change concerned the nose wheel. While the OOB wheel and strut were used, the well is now located in front of the wheel and it would retract forwards, giving the nose a more balanced look - and the cabin arrangement made this change more plausible, too.

 

Another addition were three small porthole windows in the solid parts of the cabin flanks - one of them ending up in the middle of the cabin door on starboard, where a solid part of the canopy roof lent itself for a good place just behind the pilots' seats.

  

Painting and markings:

I cannot help it, but the thing looks like a design from a vintage Tintin or Yoko Tsuno comic! This was not planned or expected - and actually the paint scheme evolved step by step. I had no plan or clue what to apply - the real Mystery Jet mock-up in silver with blue trim looked sharp, but somehow I did not want blue. So I started with the interior (out of a necessity, as the fuselage had to be closed before any further work progress at some point) and settled for plushy, British colors: Cream (walls and roof) and Claret-Red (carpet and seats).

 

I tried to find something for the outside that would complement this choice of colors, and eventually settled on Ivory and White (upper and lower fuselage halves, respectively) with some deep red trim, plus pale grey wing surfaces. I even considered some thin golden trim lines, but I think this would have been too much?

 

The trim was created with decals tripes from generic sheet material, the black anti-glare panel was painted, though. As a color contrast I painted some of the upper canopy panels in translucent, light blue, and this looks very good.

 

The wings received a lightb treatment with thinned black ink, in order to emphasize the engravings. No post-shading was done, though, for a rather clean look.

 

Most markings were puzzled together; the registration G-AZRE actually belonged to a Vickers Vanguard (from the 1:144 Airfix kit), the large letters above and under the wings were created with single 45° letters (USAF style). Most stencils come from a Vampire trainer aftermarket sheet from Xtradecal, from the OOB sheet only the "No step" warnings on the wings were used.

 

Finally, the kit was sealed with a semi-matt coat of varnish, except for the anti-glare panel, which recived a matt coat. The three small windows received artificial panes made from Clearfix, after their rims had been painted black.

  

A messy project, and you better do not take a close look. But the overall elegance of this creation surprises me - the real Mystery Jet already looked sleek, and this model, despite a more blunt nose, confirms this impression. The colors work together well, too - and the thing has a dedicated retro feel about it. Tintin might be on board, as well as Elton John, both sharing a cigar on the rear seats... ;)

+++ 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.

1 2 ••• 19 20 22 24 25 ••• 79 80