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 Bell XP-68A owed its existence to the manufacturer’s rather disappointing outcome of its first jet fighter design, the XP-59A Airacomet. The Airacomet was a twin jet-engined fighter aircraft, designed and built during World War II after Major General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold became aware of the United Kingdom's jet program when he attended a demonstration of the Gloster E.28/39 in April 1941. He requested, and was given, the plans for the aircraft's powerplant, the Power Jets W.1, which he took back to the U.S. He also arranged for an example of the engine, the Whittle W.1X turbojet, to be flown to the U.S., along with drawings for the more powerful W.2B/23 engine and a small team of Power Jets engineers. On 4 September 1941, he offered the U.S. company General Electric a contract to produce an American version of the engine, which subsequently became the General Electric I-A. On the following day, he approached Lawrence Dale Bell, head of Bell Aircraft Corporation, to build a fighter to utilize it. As a disinformation tactic, the USAAF gave the project the designation "P-59A", to suggest it was a development of the unrelated, canceled Bell XP-59 fighter project. The P-59A was the first design fighter to have its turbojet engine and air inlet nacelles integrated within the main fuselage. The jet aircraft’s design was finalized on 9 January 1942 and the first prototype flew in October of the same year.

 

The following 13 service test YP-59As had a more powerful engine than their predecessor, the General Electric J31, but the improvement in performance was negligible, with top speed increased by only 5 mph and a slight reduction in the time they could be used before an overhaul was needed. One of these aircraft, the third YP-59A, was supplied to the Royal Air Force, in exchange for the first production Gloster Meteor I for evaluation and flight-offs with domestic alternatives.

British pilots found that the YP-59A compared very unfavorably with the jets that they were already flying. The United States Army Air Forces were not impressed by its performance either and cancelled the contract when fewer than half of the originally ordered aircraft had been produced. No P-59s entered combat, but the type paved the way for the next design generation of U.S. turbojet-powered aircraft and helped to develop appropriate maintenance structures and procedures.

 

In the meantime, a new, more powerful jet engine had been developed in Great Britain, the Halford H-1, which became later better known as the De Havilland Goblin. It was another centrifugal compressor design, but it produced almost twice as much thrust as the XP-59A’s J31 engines. Impressed by the British Gloster Meteor during the USAAF tests at Muroc Dry Lake - performance-wise as well as by the aircraft’s simplicity and ruggedness - Bell reacted promptly and proposed an alternative fighter with wing-mounted engine nacelles, since the XP-59A’s layout had proven to be aerodynamically sub-optimal and unsuited for the installation of H-1 engines. In order to save development time and because the aircraft was rather regarded as a proof-of-concept demonstrator instead of a true fighter prototype, the new aircraft was structurally based on Bell’s current piston-engine P-63 “Kingcobra”. The proposal was accepted and, in order to maintain secrecy, the new jet aircraft inherited once more a designation of a recently cancelled project, this time from the Vultee XP-68 “Tornado” fighter. Similar to the Airacomet two years before, just a simple “A” suffix was added.

 

Bell’s development contract covered only three XP-68A aircraft. The H-1 units were directly imported from Great Britain in secrecy, suspended in the bomb bays of B-24 Liberator bombers. A pair of these engines was mounted in mid-wing nacelles, very similar to the Gloster Meteor’s arrangement. The tailplane was given a 5° dihedral to move it out of the engine exhaust. In order to bear the new engines and their power, the wing main spars were strengthened and the main landing gear wells were moved towards the aircraft’s centerline, effectively narrowing track width. The landing gear wells now occupied the space of the former radiator ducts for the P-63’s omitted Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled V12 engine. Its former compartment behind the cockpit was used for a new fuel tank and test equipment. Having lost the propeller and its long drive shaft, the nose section was also redesigned: the front fuselage became deeper and the additional space there was used for another fuel tank in front of the cockpit and a bigger weapon bay. Different armament arrangements were envisioned, one of each was to be tested on the three prototypes: one machine would be armed with six 0.5” machine guns, another with four 20mm Hispano M2 cannon, and the third with two 37mm M10 cannon and two 0.5” machine guns. Provisions for a ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb were made, but this was never fitted on any of the prototypes. Additional hardpoints under the outer wings for smaller bombs or unguided missiles followed the same fate.

 

The three XP-68As were built at Bell’s Atlanta plant in the course of early 1944 and semi-officially christened “Airagator”. After their clandestine transfer to Muroc Dry Lake for flight tests and evaluations, the machines were quickly nicknamed “Barrelcobra” by the test staff – not only because of the characteristic shape of the engine nacelles, but also due to the sheer weight of the machines and their resulting sluggish handling on the ground and in the air. “Cadillac” was another nickname, due to the very soft acceleration through the new jet engines and the lack of vibrations that were typical for piston-engine- and propeller-driven aircraft.

 

Due to the structural reinforcements and modifications, the XP-68A had become a heavy aircraft with an empty weight of 4 tons and a MTOW of almost 8 tons – the same as the big P-47 Thunderbolt piston fighter, while the P-63 had an MTOW of only 10,700 lb (4,900 kg). The result was, among other flaws, a very long take-off distance, especially in the hot desert climate of the Mojave Desert (which precluded any external ordnance) and an inherent unwillingness to change direction, its turning radius was immense. More than once the brakes overheated during landing, so that extra water cooling for the main landing gear was retrofitted.

Once in the air, the aircraft proved to be quite fast – as long as it was flying in a straight line, though. Only the roll characteristics were acceptable, but flying the XP-68A remained hazardous, esp. after the loss of one of the H-1s engines: This resulted in heavily asymmetrical propulsion, making the XP-68A hard to control at all and prone to spin in level flight.

 

After trials and direct comparison, the XP-68A turned out not to be as fast and, even worse, much less agile than the Meteor Mk III (the RAF’s then current, operational fighter version), which even had weaker Derwent engines. The operational range was insufficient, too, esp. in regard of the planned Pacific theatre of operations, and the high overall weight precluded any considerable external load like drop tanks.

However, compared with the XP-59A, the XP-68A was a considerable step forward, but it had become quickly clear that the XP-68A and its outfit-a-propeller-design-with jet-engines approach did not bear the potential for any service fighter development: it was already outdated when the prototypes were starting their test program. No further XP-68A was ordered or built, and the three prototypes fulfilled their test and evaluation program until May 1945. During these tests, the first prototype was lost on the ground due to an engine fire. After the program’s completion, the two remaining machines were handed over to the US Navy and used for research at the NATC Patuxent River Test Centre, where they were operated until 1949 and finally scrapped.

  

General characteristics.

Crew: 1

Length: 33 ft 9 in (10.36 m)

Wingspan: 38 ft 4 in (11.7 m)

Height: 13 ft (3.96 m)

Wing area: 248 sq ft (23 m²)

Empty weight: 8,799 lb (3,995 kg)

Loaded weight: 15,138 lb (6,873 kg)

Max. take-off weight: 17,246 lb (7,830 kg)

 

Powerplant:

2× Halford H-1 (De Havilland Goblin) turbojets, rated at 3,500 lbf (15.6 kN) each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 559 mph (900 km/h)

Range: 500 mi (444 nmi, 805 km)

Service ceiling: 37,565 ft (11,450 m)

Rate of climb: 3.930 ft/min (20 m/s)

Wing loading: 44.9 lb/ft² (218.97 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.45

Time to altitude: 5.0 min to 30,000 ft (9,145 m)

 

Armament:

4× Hispano M2 20 mm cannon with 150 rounds

One ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb

6× 60 lb (30 kg) rockets or 2× 500 lb (227 kg) bombs under the outer wings

  

The kit and its assembly:

This whiffy Kingcobra conversion was spawned by a post by fellow user nighthunter in January 2019 at whatifmodelers.com about a potential jet-powered variant. In found the idea charming, since the XP-59 had turned out to be a dud and the Gloster Meteor had been tested by the USAAF. Why not combine both into a fictional, late WWII Bell prototype?

The basic idea was simple: take a P-63 and add a Meteor’s engine nacelles, while keeping the Kingcobra’s original proportions. This sounds pretty easy but was more challenging than the first look at the outcome might suggest.

 

The donor kits are a vintage Airfix 1:72 Gloster Meteor Mk.III, since it has the proper, small nacelles, and an Eastern Express P-63 Kingcobra. The latter looked promising, since this kit comes with very good surface and cockpit details (even with a clear dashboard) as well as parts for several P-63 variants, including the A, C and even the exotic “pinball” manned target version. However, anything comes at a price, and the kit’s low price point is compensated by soft plastic (which turned out to be hard to sand), some flash and mediocre fit of any of the major components like fuselage halves, the wings or the clear parts. It feels a lot like a typical short-run kit. Nevertheless, I feel inclined to build another one in a more conventional fashion some day.

 

Work started with the H-1 nacelles, which had to be cut out from the Meteor wings. Since they come OOB only with a well-visible vertical plate and a main wing spar dummy in the air intake, I added some fine mesh to the plate – normally, you can see directly onto the engine behind the wing spar. Another issue was the fact that the Meteor’s wings are much thicker and deeper than the P-63s, so that lots of PSR work was necessary.

 

Simply cutting the P-63 OOB wings up and inserting the Meteor nacelles was also not possible: the P-63 has a very wide main landing gear, due to the ventral radiators and oil coolers, which were originally buried in the wing roots and under the piston engine. The only solution: move the complete landing gear (including the wells) inward, so that the nacelles could be placed as close as possible to the fuselage in a mid-span position. Furthermore, the - now useless - radiator openings had to disappear, resulting in a major redesign of the wing root sections. All of this became a major surgery task, followed by similarly messy work on the outer wings during the integration of the Meteor nacelles. LOTS of PSR, even though the outcome looks surprisingly plausible and balanced.

 

Work on the fuselage started in parallel. It was built mainly OOB, using the optional ventral fin for a P-63C. The exhaust stubs as well as the dorsal carburetor intake had to disappear (the latter made easy thanks to suitable optional parts for the manned target version). Since the P-63 had a conventional low stabilizer arrangement (unlike the Meteor with its cruciform tail), I gave them a slight dihedral to move them out of the engine efflux, a trick Sukhoi engineers did on the Su-11 prototype with afterburner engines in 1947, too.

 

Furthermore, the whole nose ahead of the cockpit was heavily re-designed, because I wanted the “new” aircraft to lose its propeller heritage and the P-63’s round and rather pointed nose. Somewhat inspired by the P-59 and the P-80, I omitted the propeller parts altogether and re-sculpted the nose with 2C putty, creating a deeper shape with a tall, oval diameter, so that the lower fuselage line was horizontally extended forward. In a profile view the aircraft now looks much more massive and P-80esque. The front landing gear was retained, just its side walls were extended downwards with the help of 0.5mm styrene sheet material, so that the original stance could be kept. Lots of lead in the nose ensured that the model would properly stand on its three wheels.

 

Once the rhinoplasty was done I drilled four holes into the nose and used hollow steel needles as gun barrels, with a look reminiscent of the Douglas A-20G.

Adding the (perfectly) clear parts of the canopy as a final assembly step also turned out to be a major fight against the elements.

  

Painting and markings:

With an USAAF WWII prototype in mind, there were only two options: either an NMF machine, or a camouflage in Olive Drab and Neutral Grey. I went for the latter and used Tamiya XF-62 for the upper surfaces and Humbrol 156 (Dark Camouflage Grey) underneath. The kit received a light black ink wash and some post shading in order to emphasize panels. A little dry-brushing with silver around the leading edges and the cockpit was done, too.

 

The cockpit interior became chromate green (I used Humbrol 150, Forest Green) while the landing gear wells were painted with zinc chromate yellow (Humbrol 81). The landing gear itself was painted in aluminum (Humbrol 56).

Markings/decals became minimal, puzzled together from various sources – only some “Stars and Bars” insignia and the serial number.

  

Somehow this conversion ended up looking a lot like the contemporary Soviet Sukhoi Su-9 and -11 (Samolyet K and LK) jet fighter prototype – unintentionally, though. But I am happy with the outcome – the P-63 ancestry is there, and the Meteor engines are recognizable, too. But everything blends into each other well, the whole affair looks very balanced and believable. This is IMHO furthermore emphasized by the simple paint scheme. A jet-powered Kingcobra? Why not…?

With Scarlett Johanson as the Bee Girl!

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

At the end of WW2, Sweden was in search of a new fighter offering better performance than the J21 could offer. The latter was an indigenous fighter/attack aircraft from SAAB that first took to the air in 1943 and dated back to a requirement from 1941. The J21 was designed as an unusual twin boom pusher configuration, where the propeller was mounted in the rear of the fuselage, pushing the aircraft forward. The advantages of a pusher design were that the view forward was unobstructed and armament could be concentrated in the nose, while the heavy engine was placed close to the center of gravity for better handling and agility. A major drawback was the difficulty in escaping from the aircraft in an emergency, though, as the pilot could get drawn into the propeller blades. SAAB deliberated between systems that would eject the pilot, or jettison the propeller or even the whole engine, via a system of explosive bolts, and eventually installed an early, explosives-powered ejector seat developed by Bofors for this purpose.

However, the SAAB 21 had its share of trouble (overheating an unreliable DB 605 engine), and in 1944 a new requirement for a more powerful and conventional fighter was issued. Selecting the Rolls Royce Griffon as the powerplant, SAAB initially looked into adapting the engine to the J21. However, this proved impractical, so SAAB started work on a clean-sheet design.

 

The L27, as it was known in the project stage, ended up closely resembling the latest designs to come from Britain like the Supermarine Spitfire or the Martin Baker MB 5, as well as the North American P-51 Mustang. The Griffon engine, chosen for initial development and flight tests, drove a contra-rotating propeller and sat in the nose. Top speed with the Griffon was expected to be around 700 km/h (435 mph). Later production aircraft were to be powered by a domestically developed, new H-24 cylinder motor similar to the British Napier Sabre engine and delivering output in significant excess of 2.200 hp (1.640 kW). With this machine, the aircraft was expected to reach a top speed of 740 km/h (460 mph) or even more.

 

The wings were similar to those used on the Fairey Firefly, complete with Fairey’s characteristic Youngman flaps, but with small wing root extensions and a thicker profile than the late Spitfires’ wings, and with more rounded wing tips. Similar to the P-51, the L27’s landing gear with a wide track retracted inwards into the wings, and the tail wheel could be fully retracted, too.

Armament, consisting of four 20mm Hispano cannons, was to be concentrated in the wings just outside of the propeller arc, and unlike the Spitfire’s arrangement with underwing coolers, the L27’s single radiator was placed in a ventral tunnel position, very similar to the arrangement on the P-51.

 

A total of three prototypes were ordered, and the aircraft was now formally designated J27A; two were to be powered by Rolls-Royce Griffon 83 engines, and one as a test structure and earmarked for the development of the 24 cylinder engine and its integration into the projected J27B.

The first flight of a J27A took place in March 1945, and the promising results kept the project evolving until late 1946, when the aircraft was cleared for service and production in January 1947. 70 aircraft with Griffon engines were ordered.

 

Anyway, in early 1945, SAAB had also launched a project to determine how to provide the J21A with a jet engine to get the experience of jet engines and flying at high speeds. The goal was to catch up with the development of jet aircraft, which were moving ahead fast in England, where, among others, de Havilland already had the de Havilland Vampire in production. The resulting J21R, SAAB's first jet, made its first flight on 10 March 1947 and it marked the death knell for any piston-engine fighter development and use in Sweden. Consequentially the 24 cylinder engine never made it from the drawing board, and after the initial production run of the Griffon-powered J27A was completed until early 1949, further production was stopped and the whole J27 program terminated. Serial production J27As differed only slightly from the prototypes. The most obvious change was a taller vertical stabilizer and a small fin fillet, less obvious was a modified landing gear cover arrangement, because the original design with a single, large cover of the main wheels tended to bulge outward at high speed. A split design mended this problem.

 

While the J27A’s projected top speed of 700km/h was impressive for a piston-engine fighter and frequently confirmed in service, it was inadequate in the oncoming jet age. In the end, SAAB opted to pursuit jet fighter endeavors that soon led to the very modern and innovative SAAB J29 that soon became Sweden’s standard jet fighter.

In frontline service the J27 was, even though it was popular among its pilots and maintenance crews, almost immediately replaced by jets, at first with the J28B Vampire (from 1951 on), which were in turn quickly replaced in 1952 with the indigenous J29 Tunnan.

The last J27A was, after serving with fighter units primarily in southern Sweden, already retired from frontline duties in 1955. Some aircraft, though, were kept in service as target tugs, liaison aircraft for the air staff and for dissimilar air combat training. The last machine was finally decommissioned in summer 1961.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: One

Length: 9.90 m (32 ft 5 in)

Wingspan: 11.84 m (38 ft 9 1/2 in)

Height: 4.19 (13 ft 9 in)

Wing area: 22.2 m² (238.87 ft²)

Empty weight: 3,250 kg (7,165 lb)

Loaded weight: 4,150 kg (9,149 lb)

Max. take-off weight: 4,413 kg (9,730 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× license-built Rolls-Royce Griffon 83 liquid-cooled V-12 engine, 2,340 hp (1,745 kW),

driving a six-bladed contraprop

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 435 mph (700 km/h) at 20,000 ft (6,100 m)

Cruise speed: 495 km/h (265 knots, 308 mph)

Range: 1,100 mi (1,770 km)

Service ceiling: 40,000 ft (12,190 m)

Rate of climb: 3,800 ft/min (19.3 m/s)

 

Armament:

4× 20 mm Bofors cannon (license-built Hispano Mk.II cannon) with 200 rpg in the outer wings

Underwing hardpoints for 8-12 × 3inch "60 lb" rocket projectiles

or 2× 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs

or a pair of 45 gal (205 l) or 90 gal (409 l) drop tanks.

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is a “real” what-if model, or at least the attempt to build a phantom aircraft from single parts! The SAAB 27 is a bit of a mystery, because valid information is sparse, especially concerning details about its shape. You find some drawings or profiles, but IMHO these are based on guesswork and rather vague. The J27 is frequently described as a “Swedish Spitfire with a P-51 radiator” or a “Swedish Super-Spitfire”, but that leaves much to be desired, because the similarity is only superficial. Hence, this model here is rather a free interpretation of what a service J27 could have looked like.

 

For long time I fought with two building options: either convert a Fairey Firefly (Airfix’ Mk. 5 would have been my bet), or use a Spitfire Mk. 22. After long considerations I settled for the latter one, because I feared that the Firefly would result in a rather massive aircraft, and the Airfix kit itself is vintage and worth a building fight on its own.

 

So I used an Airfix Spitfire Mk. 22, but from this (very nice!) kit just a few things were taken, because I wanted a more individual look. Only the fuselage, cockpit interior and landing gear survived, and I even inserted a 2.5mm wide “wedge plug” around the cockpit and wedge-shaped inserts at the fuselage halves’ seams in order to add some beef to the sleek (if not spindly) Spitfire. I think it’s hard to notice, but the overall proportions look good. At the tail and the front end, the original fuselage width was kept, though.

 

Reason behind this was the P-51 radiator’s width (leftover from a Matchbox kit) that was considerably wider than the Spitfire fuselage. Furthermore, the thicker/more massive wings from a P-47 (from an early MPM kit) also called for a more massive body.

For the new wings, some adaptations to the Spitfire wing roots had to be made, though, e.g. a bulged mid-wing section under the fuselage. The Thunderbolt parts also had the benefit of wells for a landing gear that retracts inwards. I also used P-47 landing gear parts, even though the struts were shortened at their bases by 3mm and the covers accordingly. For the sake of a different look (the Spitfire wheels are very characteristic) I used different main wheels from a Revell G.91R. The landing gear cover arrangement differs from J27 sketches (as far as I can tell, it must have been similar to the P-51's), but I stuck with the P-47 parts because they match well with the rest of the aircraft.

 

The contraprop belongs to a late mark Seafire, left over from a Special Hobby kit. The propeller was in so far modified that I added a metal axis and a styrene tube adapter for the fuselage, so that both propeller parts can (theoretically) spin. OOB, the Special Hobby solution is simply to be glued onto the nose, fixed, despite being constructed in two separate parts?

 

Furthermore, the carburetor intake was changed: the Spitfire’s scoop at the wings’ leading edge was replace by a Firefly-style lip intake right behind the propeller.

 

The whole tail section was reconditioned, too. Descriptions of the J27’s tail are corny, but “more square than a Spitfire’s”. Instead of simple cosmetic surgery I thoroughly replaced the OOB fin with a Supermarine Attacker’s (Novo kit) with some mods to the outline, which fits well in size and is …more square!

 

The new tail is a bit taller and has a fin fillet, making it look very P-51-ish, but that’s O.K. for me. At least it’s different from the round Spitfire shape.

I also exchanged the stabilizers, the round Spitfire parts gave way to differently shaped pieces from a Hobby Boss La-7. Their shape is similar to a P-47’s, but they are smaller and match J27 illustrations well.

 

The canopy was also changed. Through the widened fuselage around the cockpit the tight OOB Spitfire hood would hardly match, anyway. The bubble layout remained, and I adapted a bigger Matchbox P-51 canopy to the new fuselage contours, and moved forward as far as possible.

  

Painting and markings:

The Swedish Air Force as operator was settled, as well as early post-WWII markings. But I did not want the standard, uniform olive green/blue grey livery, so I painted the upper surfaces with camouflage scheme made from two green tones: a medium green tone (Humbrol 102, Army Green, ~FS 34096) and a bluish, dark green (Humbrol 91, RLM 70 equivalent), applied in bands – somewhat inspired by a scheme carried by some SAAB 32 Lansen in the early 60ies.

 

The underside was kept in the typical Swedish blue-grey, for which I used Humbrol 87. The waterline was placed very low so that the upper camouflage was also taken to the radiator flanks under the fuselage and wings.

 

The cockpit was painted in very dark grey (Humbrol 32), while the landing gear and the wells were kept in Aluminum (Humbrol 56).

 

As a 2nd squadron machine, the code letter became blue, as well as the two-part spinner, latter’s paint was mixed, based on the squadron code letter decal’s tone on the tail.

The roundels and the 'R' codes come from an RBD Studio aftermarket sheet from Sweden, further decals like the yellow ‘9’ code, the squadron’s ‘Bonzo’ dog mascot emblem as well as most stencils come from a Heller SAAB 21.

  

A complex build, yet the model aircraft looks so innocent… Anyway, the goal was IMHO achieved: this J27 model just looks like a “Swedish Spitfire with a P-51 radiator”, and at first glance you cannot be certain if this is a modified Griffon Spitfire or a P-51D. Both is true, to a certain degree, but also not correct, because the changes are more fundamental and the wings are completely different from either. So, the mission’s been accomplished. ;)

 

And I feel inclined to tackle a J23, too, a Bf109/P-51B design hybrid that was designed as a conservative alternative to the pusher J21.

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Bell XP-68A owed its existence to the manufacturer’s rather disappointing outcome of its first jet fighter design, the XP-59A Airacomet. The Airacomet was a twin jet-engined fighter aircraft, designed and built during World War II after Major General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold became aware of the United Kingdom's jet program when he attended a demonstration of the Gloster E.28/39 in April 1941. He requested, and was given, the plans for the aircraft's powerplant, the Power Jets W.1, which he took back to the U.S. He also arranged for an example of the engine, the Whittle W.1X turbojet, to be flown to the U.S., along with drawings for the more powerful W.2B/23 engine and a small team of Power Jets engineers. On 4 September 1941, he offered the U.S. company General Electric a contract to produce an American version of the engine, which subsequently became the General Electric I-A. On the following day, he approached Lawrence Dale Bell, head of Bell Aircraft Corporation, to build a fighter to utilize it. As a disinformation tactic, the USAAF gave the project the designation "P-59A", to suggest it was a development of the unrelated, canceled Bell XP-59 fighter project. The P-59A was the first design fighter to have its turbojet engine and air inlet nacelles integrated within the main fuselage. The jet aircraft’s design was finalized on 9 January 1942 and the first prototype flew in October of the same year.

 

The following 13 service test YP-59As had a more powerful engine than their predecessor, the General Electric J31, but the improvement in performance was negligible, with top speed increased by only 5 mph and a slight reduction in the time they could be used before an overhaul was needed. One of these aircraft, the third YP-59A, was supplied to the Royal Air Force, in exchange for the first production Gloster Meteor I for evaluation and flight-offs with domestic alternatives.

British pilots found that the YP-59A compared very unfavorably with the jets that they were already flying. The United States Army Air Forces were not impressed by its performance either and cancelled the contract when fewer than half of the originally ordered aircraft had been produced. No P-59s entered combat, but the type paved the way for the next design generation of U.S. turbojet-powered aircraft and helped to develop appropriate maintenance structures and procedures.

 

In the meantime, a new, more powerful jet engine had been developed in Great Britain, the Halford H-1, which became later better known as the De Havilland Goblin. It was another centrifugal compressor design, but it produced almost twice as much thrust as the XP-59A’s J31 engines. Impressed by the British Gloster Meteor during the USAAF tests at Muroc Dry Lake - performance-wise as well as by the aircraft’s simplicity and ruggedness - Bell reacted promptly and proposed an alternative fighter with wing-mounted engine nacelles, since the XP-59A’s layout had proven to be aerodynamically sub-optimal and unsuited for the installation of H-1 engines. In order to save development time and because the aircraft was rather regarded as a proof-of-concept demonstrator instead of a true fighter prototype, the new aircraft was structurally based on Bell’s current piston-engine P-63 “Kingcobra”. The proposal was accepted and, in order to maintain secrecy, the new jet aircraft inherited once more a designation of a recently cancelled project, this time from the Vultee XP-68 “Tornado” fighter. Similar to the Airacomet two years before, just a simple “A” suffix was added.

 

Bell’s development contract covered only three XP-68A aircraft. The H-1 units were directly imported from Great Britain in secrecy, suspended in the bomb bays of B-24 Liberator bombers. A pair of these engines was mounted in mid-wing nacelles, very similar to the Gloster Meteor’s arrangement. The tailplane was given a 5° dihedral to move it out of the engine exhaust. In order to bear the new engines and their power, the wing main spars were strengthened and the main landing gear wells were moved towards the aircraft’s centerline, effectively narrowing track width. The landing gear wells now occupied the space of the former radiator ducts for the P-63’s omitted Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled V12 engine. Its former compartment behind the cockpit was used for a new fuel tank and test equipment. Having lost the propeller and its long drive shaft, the nose section was also redesigned: the front fuselage became deeper and the additional space there was used for another fuel tank in front of the cockpit and a bigger weapon bay. Different armament arrangements were envisioned, one of each was to be tested on the three prototypes: one machine would be armed with six 0.5” machine guns, another with four 20mm Hispano M2 cannon, and the third with two 37mm M10 cannon and two 0.5” machine guns. Provisions for a ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb were made, but this was never fitted on any of the prototypes. Additional hardpoints under the outer wings for smaller bombs or unguided missiles followed the same fate.

 

The three XP-68As were built at Bell’s Atlanta plant in the course of early 1944 and semi-officially christened “Airagator”. After their clandestine transfer to Muroc Dry Lake for flight tests and evaluations, the machines were quickly nicknamed “Barrelcobra” by the test staff – not only because of the characteristic shape of the engine nacelles, but also due to the sheer weight of the machines and their resulting sluggish handling on the ground and in the air. “Cadillac” was another nickname, due to the very soft acceleration through the new jet engines and the lack of vibrations that were typical for piston-engine- and propeller-driven aircraft.

 

Due to the structural reinforcements and modifications, the XP-68A had become a heavy aircraft with an empty weight of 4 tons and a MTOW of almost 8 tons – the same as the big P-47 Thunderbolt piston fighter, while the P-63 had an MTOW of only 10,700 lb (4,900 kg). The result was, among other flaws, a very long take-off distance, especially in the hot desert climate of the Mojave Desert (which precluded any external ordnance) and an inherent unwillingness to change direction, its turning radius was immense. More than once the brakes overheated during landing, so that extra water cooling for the main landing gear was retrofitted.

Once in the air, the aircraft proved to be quite fast – as long as it was flying in a straight line, though. Only the roll characteristics were acceptable, but flying the XP-68A remained hazardous, esp. after the loss of one of the H-1s engines: This resulted in heavily asymmetrical propulsion, making the XP-68A hard to control at all and prone to spin in level flight.

 

After trials and direct comparison, the XP-68A turned out not to be as fast and, even worse, much less agile than the Meteor Mk III (the RAF’s then current, operational fighter version), which even had weaker Derwent engines. The operational range was insufficient, too, esp. in regard of the planned Pacific theatre of operations, and the high overall weight precluded any considerable external load like drop tanks.

However, compared with the XP-59A, the XP-68A was a considerable step forward, but it had become quickly clear that the XP-68A and its outfit-a-propeller-design-with jet-engines approach did not bear the potential for any service fighter development: it was already outdated when the prototypes were starting their test program. No further XP-68A was ordered or built, and the three prototypes fulfilled their test and evaluation program until May 1945. During these tests, the first prototype was lost on the ground due to an engine fire. After the program’s completion, the two remaining machines were handed over to the US Navy and used for research at the NATC Patuxent River Test Centre, where they were operated until 1949 and finally scrapped.

  

General characteristics.

Crew: 1

Length: 33 ft 9 in (10.36 m)

Wingspan: 38 ft 4 in (11.7 m)

Height: 13 ft (3.96 m)

Wing area: 248 sq ft (23 m²)

Empty weight: 8,799 lb (3,995 kg)

Loaded weight: 15,138 lb (6,873 kg)

Max. take-off weight: 17,246 lb (7,830 kg)

 

Powerplant:

2× Halford H-1 (De Havilland Goblin) turbojets, rated at 3,500 lbf (15.6 kN) each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 559 mph (900 km/h)

Range: 500 mi (444 nmi, 805 km)

Service ceiling: 37,565 ft (11,450 m)

Rate of climb: 3.930 ft/min (20 m/s)

Wing loading: 44.9 lb/ft² (218.97 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.45

Time to altitude: 5.0 min to 30,000 ft (9,145 m)

 

Armament:

4× Hispano M2 20 mm cannon with 150 rounds

One ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb

6× 60 lb (30 kg) rockets or 2× 500 lb (227 kg) bombs under the outer wings

  

The kit and its assembly:

This whiffy Kingcobra conversion was spawned by a post by fellow user nighthunter in January 2019 at whatifmodelers.com about a potential jet-powered variant. In found the idea charming, since the XP-59 had turned out to be a dud and the Gloster Meteor had been tested by the USAAF. Why not combine both into a fictional, late WWII Bell prototype?

The basic idea was simple: take a P-63 and add a Meteor’s engine nacelles, while keeping the Kingcobra’s original proportions. This sounds pretty easy but was more challenging than the first look at the outcome might suggest.

 

The donor kits are a vintage Airfix 1:72 Gloster Meteor Mk.III, since it has the proper, small nacelles, and an Eastern Express P-63 Kingcobra. The latter looked promising, since this kit comes with very good surface and cockpit details (even with a clear dashboard) as well as parts for several P-63 variants, including the A, C and even the exotic “pinball” manned target version. However, anything comes at a price, and the kit’s low price point is compensated by soft plastic (which turned out to be hard to sand), some flash and mediocre fit of any of the major components like fuselage halves, the wings or the clear parts. It feels a lot like a typical short-run kit. Nevertheless, I feel inclined to build another one in a more conventional fashion some day.

 

Work started with the H-1 nacelles, which had to be cut out from the Meteor wings. Since they come OOB only with a well-visible vertical plate and a main wing spar dummy in the air intake, I added some fine mesh to the plate – normally, you can see directly onto the engine behind the wing spar. Another issue was the fact that the Meteor’s wings are much thicker and deeper than the P-63s, so that lots of PSR work was necessary.

 

Simply cutting the P-63 OOB wings up and inserting the Meteor nacelles was also not possible: the P-63 has a very wide main landing gear, due to the ventral radiators and oil coolers, which were originally buried in the wing roots and under the piston engine. The only solution: move the complete landing gear (including the wells) inward, so that the nacelles could be placed as close as possible to the fuselage in a mid-span position. Furthermore, the - now useless - radiator openings had to disappear, resulting in a major redesign of the wing root sections. All of this became a major surgery task, followed by similarly messy work on the outer wings during the integration of the Meteor nacelles. LOTS of PSR, even though the outcome looks surprisingly plausible and balanced.

 

Work on the fuselage started in parallel. It was built mainly OOB, using the optional ventral fin for a P-63C. The exhaust stubs as well as the dorsal carburetor intake had to disappear (the latter made easy thanks to suitable optional parts for the manned target version). Since the P-63 had a conventional low stabilizer arrangement (unlike the Meteor with its cruciform tail), I gave them a slight dihedral to move them out of the engine efflux, a trick Sukhoi engineers did on the Su-11 prototype with afterburner engines in 1947, too.

 

Furthermore, the whole nose ahead of the cockpit was heavily re-designed, because I wanted the “new” aircraft to lose its propeller heritage and the P-63’s round and rather pointed nose. Somewhat inspired by the P-59 and the P-80, I omitted the propeller parts altogether and re-sculpted the nose with 2C putty, creating a deeper shape with a tall, oval diameter, so that the lower fuselage line was horizontally extended forward. In a profile view the aircraft now looks much more massive and P-80esque. The front landing gear was retained, just its side walls were extended downwards with the help of 0.5mm styrene sheet material, so that the original stance could be kept. Lots of lead in the nose ensured that the model would properly stand on its three wheels.

 

Once the rhinoplasty was done I drilled four holes into the nose and used hollow steel needles as gun barrels, with a look reminiscent of the Douglas A-20G.

Adding the (perfectly) clear parts of the canopy as a final assembly step also turned out to be a major fight against the elements.

  

Painting and markings:

With an USAAF WWII prototype in mind, there were only two options: either an NMF machine, or a camouflage in Olive Drab and Neutral Grey. I went for the latter and used Tamiya XF-62 for the upper surfaces and Humbrol 156 (Dark Camouflage Grey) underneath. The kit received a light black ink wash and some post shading in order to emphasize panels. A little dry-brushing with silver around the leading edges and the cockpit was done, too.

 

The cockpit interior became chromate green (I used Humbrol 150, Forest Green) while the landing gear wells were painted with zinc chromate yellow (Humbrol 81). The landing gear itself was painted in aluminum (Humbrol 56).

Markings/decals became minimal, puzzled together from various sources – only some “Stars and Bars” insignia and the serial number.

  

Somehow this conversion ended up looking a lot like the contemporary Soviet Sukhoi Su-9 and -11 (Samolyet K and LK) jet fighter prototype – unintentionally, though. But I am happy with the outcome – the P-63 ancestry is there, and the Meteor engines are recognizable, too. But everything blends into each other well, the whole affair looks very balanced and believable. This is IMHO furthermore emphasized by the simple paint scheme. A jet-powered Kingcobra? Why not…?

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Bell XP-68A owed its existence to the manufacturer’s rather disappointing outcome of its first jet fighter design, the XP-59A Airacomet. The Airacomet was a twin jet-engined fighter aircraft, designed and built during World War II after Major General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold became aware of the United Kingdom's jet program when he attended a demonstration of the Gloster E.28/39 in April 1941. He requested, and was given, the plans for the aircraft's powerplant, the Power Jets W.1, which he took back to the U.S. He also arranged for an example of the engine, the Whittle W.1X turbojet, to be flown to the U.S., along with drawings for the more powerful W.2B/23 engine and a small team of Power Jets engineers. On 4 September 1941, he offered the U.S. company General Electric a contract to produce an American version of the engine, which subsequently became the General Electric I-A. On the following day, he approached Lawrence Dale Bell, head of Bell Aircraft Corporation, to build a fighter to utilize it. As a disinformation tactic, the USAAF gave the project the designation "P-59A", to suggest it was a development of the unrelated, canceled Bell XP-59 fighter project. The P-59A was the first design fighter to have its turbojet engine and air inlet nacelles integrated within the main fuselage. The jet aircraft’s design was finalized on 9 January 1942 and the first prototype flew in October of the same year.

 

The following 13 service test YP-59As had a more powerful engine than their predecessor, the General Electric J31, but the improvement in performance was negligible, with top speed increased by only 5 mph and a slight reduction in the time they could be used before an overhaul was needed. One of these aircraft, the third YP-59A, was supplied to the Royal Air Force, in exchange for the first production Gloster Meteor I for evaluation and flight-offs with domestic alternatives.

British pilots found that the YP-59A compared very unfavorably with the jets that they were already flying. The United States Army Air Forces were not impressed by its performance either and cancelled the contract when fewer than half of the originally ordered aircraft had been produced. No P-59s entered combat, but the type paved the way for the next design generation of U.S. turbojet-powered aircraft and helped to develop appropriate maintenance structures and procedures.

 

In the meantime, a new, more powerful jet engine had been developed in Great Britain, the Halford H-1, which became later better known as the De Havilland Goblin. It was another centrifugal compressor design, but it produced almost twice as much thrust as the XP-59A’s J31 engines. Impressed by the British Gloster Meteor during the USAAF tests at Muroc Dry Lake - performance-wise as well as by the aircraft’s simplicity and ruggedness - Bell reacted promptly and proposed an alternative fighter with wing-mounted engine nacelles, since the XP-59A’s layout had proven to be aerodynamically sub-optimal and unsuited for the installation of H-1 engines. In order to save development time and because the aircraft was rather regarded as a proof-of-concept demonstrator instead of a true fighter prototype, the new aircraft was structurally based on Bell’s current piston-engine P-63 “Kingcobra”. The proposal was accepted and, in order to maintain secrecy, the new jet aircraft inherited once more a designation of a recently cancelled project, this time from the Vultee XP-68 “Tornado” fighter. Similar to the Airacomet two years before, just a simple “A” suffix was added.

 

Bell’s development contract covered only three XP-68A aircraft. The H-1 units were directly imported from Great Britain in secrecy, suspended in the bomb bays of B-24 Liberator bombers. A pair of these engines was mounted in mid-wing nacelles, very similar to the Gloster Meteor’s arrangement. The tailplane was given a 5° dihedral to move it out of the engine exhaust. In order to bear the new engines and their power, the wing main spars were strengthened and the main landing gear wells were moved towards the aircraft’s centerline, effectively narrowing track width. The landing gear wells now occupied the space of the former radiator ducts for the P-63’s omitted Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled V12 engine. Its former compartment behind the cockpit was used for a new fuel tank and test equipment. Having lost the propeller and its long drive shaft, the nose section was also redesigned: the front fuselage became deeper and the additional space there was used for another fuel tank in front of the cockpit and a bigger weapon bay. Different armament arrangements were envisioned, one of each was to be tested on the three prototypes: one machine would be armed with six 0.5” machine guns, another with four 20mm Hispano M2 cannon, and the third with two 37mm M10 cannon and two 0.5” machine guns. Provisions for a ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb were made, but this was never fitted on any of the prototypes. Additional hardpoints under the outer wings for smaller bombs or unguided missiles followed the same fate.

 

The three XP-68As were built at Bell’s Atlanta plant in the course of early 1944 and semi-officially christened “Airagator”. After their clandestine transfer to Muroc Dry Lake for flight tests and evaluations, the machines were quickly nicknamed “Barrelcobra” by the test staff – not only because of the characteristic shape of the engine nacelles, but also due to the sheer weight of the machines and their resulting sluggish handling on the ground and in the air. “Cadillac” was another nickname, due to the very soft acceleration through the new jet engines and the lack of vibrations that were typical for piston-engine- and propeller-driven aircraft.

 

Due to the structural reinforcements and modifications, the XP-68A had become a heavy aircraft with an empty weight of 4 tons and a MTOW of almost 8 tons – the same as the big P-47 Thunderbolt piston fighter, while the P-63 had an MTOW of only 10,700 lb (4,900 kg). The result was, among other flaws, a very long take-off distance, especially in the hot desert climate of the Mojave Desert (which precluded any external ordnance) and an inherent unwillingness to change direction, its turning radius was immense. More than once the brakes overheated during landing, so that extra water cooling for the main landing gear was retrofitted.

Once in the air, the aircraft proved to be quite fast – as long as it was flying in a straight line, though. Only the roll characteristics were acceptable, but flying the XP-68A remained hazardous, esp. after the loss of one of the H-1s engines: This resulted in heavily asymmetrical propulsion, making the XP-68A hard to control at all and prone to spin in level flight.

 

After trials and direct comparison, the XP-68A turned out not to be as fast and, even worse, much less agile than the Meteor Mk III (the RAF’s then current, operational fighter version), which even had weaker Derwent engines. The operational range was insufficient, too, esp. in regard of the planned Pacific theatre of operations, and the high overall weight precluded any considerable external load like drop tanks.

However, compared with the XP-59A, the XP-68A was a considerable step forward, but it had become quickly clear that the XP-68A and its outfit-a-propeller-design-with jet-engines approach did not bear the potential for any service fighter development: it was already outdated when the prototypes were starting their test program. No further XP-68A was ordered or built, and the three prototypes fulfilled their test and evaluation program until May 1945. During these tests, the first prototype was lost on the ground due to an engine fire. After the program’s completion, the two remaining machines were handed over to the US Navy and used for research at the NATC Patuxent River Test Centre, where they were operated until 1949 and finally scrapped.

  

General characteristics.

Crew: 1

Length: 33 ft 9 in (10.36 m)

Wingspan: 38 ft 4 in (11.7 m)

Height: 13 ft (3.96 m)

Wing area: 248 sq ft (23 m²)

Empty weight: 8,799 lb (3,995 kg)

Loaded weight: 15,138 lb (6,873 kg)

Max. take-off weight: 17,246 lb (7,830 kg)

 

Powerplant:

2× Halford H-1 (De Havilland Goblin) turbojets, rated at 3,500 lbf (15.6 kN) each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 559 mph (900 km/h)

Range: 500 mi (444 nmi, 805 km)

Service ceiling: 37,565 ft (11,450 m)

Rate of climb: 3.930 ft/min (20 m/s)

Wing loading: 44.9 lb/ft² (218.97 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.45

Time to altitude: 5.0 min to 30,000 ft (9,145 m)

 

Armament:

4× Hispano M2 20 mm cannon with 150 rounds

One ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb

6× 60 lb (30 kg) rockets or 2× 500 lb (227 kg) bombs under the outer wings

  

The kit and its assembly:

This whiffy Kingcobra conversion was spawned by a post by fellow user nighthunter in January 2019 at whatifmodelers.com about a potential jet-powered variant. In found the idea charming, since the XP-59 had turned out to be a dud and the Gloster Meteor had been tested by the USAAF. Why not combine both into a fictional, late WWII Bell prototype?

The basic idea was simple: take a P-63 and add a Meteor’s engine nacelles, while keeping the Kingcobra’s original proportions. This sounds pretty easy but was more challenging than the first look at the outcome might suggest.

 

The donor kits are a vintage Airfix 1:72 Gloster Meteor Mk.III, since it has the proper, small nacelles, and an Eastern Express P-63 Kingcobra. The latter looked promising, since this kit comes with very good surface and cockpit details (even with a clear dashboard) as well as parts for several P-63 variants, including the A, C and even the exotic “pinball” manned target version. However, anything comes at a price, and the kit’s low price point is compensated by soft plastic (which turned out to be hard to sand), some flash and mediocre fit of any of the major components like fuselage halves, the wings or the clear parts. It feels a lot like a typical short-run kit. Nevertheless, I feel inclined to build another one in a more conventional fashion some day.

 

Work started with the H-1 nacelles, which had to be cut out from the Meteor wings. Since they come OOB only with a well-visible vertical plate and a main wing spar dummy in the air intake, I added some fine mesh to the plate – normally, you can see directly onto the engine behind the wing spar. Another issue was the fact that the Meteor’s wings are much thicker and deeper than the P-63s, so that lots of PSR work was necessary.

 

Simply cutting the P-63 OOB wings up and inserting the Meteor nacelles was also not possible: the P-63 has a very wide main landing gear, due to the ventral radiators and oil coolers, which were originally buried in the wing roots and under the piston engine. The only solution: move the complete landing gear (including the wells) inward, so that the nacelles could be placed as close as possible to the fuselage in a mid-span position. Furthermore, the - now useless - radiator openings had to disappear, resulting in a major redesign of the wing root sections. All of this became a major surgery task, followed by similarly messy work on the outer wings during the integration of the Meteor nacelles. LOTS of PSR, even though the outcome looks surprisingly plausible and balanced.

 

Work on the fuselage started in parallel. It was built mainly OOB, using the optional ventral fin for a P-63C. The exhaust stubs as well as the dorsal carburetor intake had to disappear (the latter made easy thanks to suitable optional parts for the manned target version). Since the P-63 had a conventional low stabilizer arrangement (unlike the Meteor with its cruciform tail), I gave them a slight dihedral to move them out of the engine efflux, a trick Sukhoi engineers did on the Su-11 prototype with afterburner engines in 1947, too.

 

Furthermore, the whole nose ahead of the cockpit was heavily re-designed, because I wanted the “new” aircraft to lose its propeller heritage and the P-63’s round and rather pointed nose. Somewhat inspired by the P-59 and the P-80, I omitted the propeller parts altogether and re-sculpted the nose with 2C putty, creating a deeper shape with a tall, oval diameter, so that the lower fuselage line was horizontally extended forward. In a profile view the aircraft now looks much more massive and P-80esque. The front landing gear was retained, just its side walls were extended downwards with the help of 0.5mm styrene sheet material, so that the original stance could be kept. Lots of lead in the nose ensured that the model would properly stand on its three wheels.

 

Once the rhinoplasty was done I drilled four holes into the nose and used hollow steel needles as gun barrels, with a look reminiscent of the Douglas A-20G.

Adding the (perfectly) clear parts of the canopy as a final assembly step also turned out to be a major fight against the elements.

  

Painting and markings:

With an USAAF WWII prototype in mind, there were only two options: either an NMF machine, or a camouflage in Olive Drab and Neutral Grey. I went for the latter and used Tamiya XF-62 for the upper surfaces and Humbrol 156 (Dark Camouflage Grey) underneath. The kit received a light black ink wash and some post shading in order to emphasize panels. A little dry-brushing with silver around the leading edges and the cockpit was done, too.

 

The cockpit interior became chromate green (I used Humbrol 150, Forest Green) while the landing gear wells were painted with zinc chromate yellow (Humbrol 81). The landing gear itself was painted in aluminum (Humbrol 56).

Markings/decals became minimal, puzzled together from various sources – only some “Stars and Bars” insignia and the serial number.

  

Somehow this conversion ended up looking a lot like the contemporary Soviet Sukhoi Su-9 and -11 (Samolyet K and LK) jet fighter prototype – unintentionally, though. But I am happy with the outcome – the P-63 ancestry is there, and the Meteor engines are recognizable, too. But everything blends into each other well, the whole affair looks very balanced and believable. This is IMHO furthermore emphasized by the simple paint scheme. A jet-powered Kingcobra? Why not…?

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Bell XP-68A owed its existence to the manufacturer’s rather disappointing outcome of its first jet fighter design, the XP-59A Airacomet. The Airacomet was a twin jet-engined fighter aircraft, designed and built during World War II after Major General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold became aware of the United Kingdom's jet program when he attended a demonstration of the Gloster E.28/39 in April 1941. He requested, and was given, the plans for the aircraft's powerplant, the Power Jets W.1, which he took back to the U.S. He also arranged for an example of the engine, the Whittle W.1X turbojet, to be flown to the U.S., along with drawings for the more powerful W.2B/23 engine and a small team of Power Jets engineers. On 4 September 1941, he offered the U.S. company General Electric a contract to produce an American version of the engine, which subsequently became the General Electric I-A. On the following day, he approached Lawrence Dale Bell, head of Bell Aircraft Corporation, to build a fighter to utilize it. As a disinformation tactic, the USAAF gave the project the designation "P-59A", to suggest it was a development of the unrelated, canceled Bell XP-59 fighter project. The P-59A was the first design fighter to have its turbojet engine and air inlet nacelles integrated within the main fuselage. The jet aircraft’s design was finalized on 9 January 1942 and the first prototype flew in October of the same year.

 

The following 13 service test YP-59As had a more powerful engine than their predecessor, the General Electric J31, but the improvement in performance was negligible, with top speed increased by only 5 mph and a slight reduction in the time they could be used before an overhaul was needed. One of these aircraft, the third YP-59A, was supplied to the Royal Air Force, in exchange for the first production Gloster Meteor I for evaluation and flight-offs with domestic alternatives.

British pilots found that the YP-59A compared very unfavorably with the jets that they were already flying. The United States Army Air Forces were not impressed by its performance either and cancelled the contract when fewer than half of the originally ordered aircraft had been produced. No P-59s entered combat, but the type paved the way for the next design generation of U.S. turbojet-powered aircraft and helped to develop appropriate maintenance structures and procedures.

 

In the meantime, a new, more powerful jet engine had been developed in Great Britain, the Halford H-1, which became later better known as the De Havilland Goblin. It was another centrifugal compressor design, but it produced almost twice as much thrust as the XP-59A’s J31 engines. Impressed by the British Gloster Meteor during the USAAF tests at Muroc Dry Lake - performance-wise as well as by the aircraft’s simplicity and ruggedness - Bell reacted promptly and proposed an alternative fighter with wing-mounted engine nacelles, since the XP-59A’s layout had proven to be aerodynamically sub-optimal and unsuited for the installation of H-1 engines. In order to save development time and because the aircraft was rather regarded as a proof-of-concept demonstrator instead of a true fighter prototype, the new aircraft was structurally based on Bell’s current piston-engine P-63 “Kingcobra”. The proposal was accepted and, in order to maintain secrecy, the new jet aircraft inherited once more a designation of a recently cancelled project, this time from the Vultee XP-68 “Tornado” fighter. Similar to the Airacomet two years before, just a simple “A” suffix was added.

 

Bell’s development contract covered only three XP-68A aircraft. The H-1 units were directly imported from Great Britain in secrecy, suspended in the bomb bays of B-24 Liberator bombers. A pair of these engines was mounted in mid-wing nacelles, very similar to the Gloster Meteor’s arrangement. The tailplane was given a 5° dihedral to move it out of the engine exhaust. In order to bear the new engines and their power, the wing main spars were strengthened and the main landing gear wells were moved towards the aircraft’s centerline, effectively narrowing track width. The landing gear wells now occupied the space of the former radiator ducts for the P-63’s omitted Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled V12 engine. Its former compartment behind the cockpit was used for a new fuel tank and test equipment. Having lost the propeller and its long drive shaft, the nose section was also redesigned: the front fuselage became deeper and the additional space there was used for another fuel tank in front of the cockpit and a bigger weapon bay. Different armament arrangements were envisioned, one of each was to be tested on the three prototypes: one machine would be armed with six 0.5” machine guns, another with four 20mm Hispano M2 cannon, and the third with two 37mm M10 cannon and two 0.5” machine guns. Provisions for a ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb were made, but this was never fitted on any of the prototypes. Additional hardpoints under the outer wings for smaller bombs or unguided missiles followed the same fate.

 

The three XP-68As were built at Bell’s Atlanta plant in the course of early 1944 and semi-officially christened “Airagator”. After their clandestine transfer to Muroc Dry Lake for flight tests and evaluations, the machines were quickly nicknamed “Barrelcobra” by the test staff – not only because of the characteristic shape of the engine nacelles, but also due to the sheer weight of the machines and their resulting sluggish handling on the ground and in the air. “Cadillac” was another nickname, due to the very soft acceleration through the new jet engines and the lack of vibrations that were typical for piston-engine- and propeller-driven aircraft.

 

Due to the structural reinforcements and modifications, the XP-68A had become a heavy aircraft with an empty weight of 4 tons and a MTOW of almost 8 tons – the same as the big P-47 Thunderbolt piston fighter, while the P-63 had an MTOW of only 10,700 lb (4,900 kg). The result was, among other flaws, a very long take-off distance, especially in the hot desert climate of the Mojave Desert (which precluded any external ordnance) and an inherent unwillingness to change direction, its turning radius was immense. More than once the brakes overheated during landing, so that extra water cooling for the main landing gear was retrofitted.

Once in the air, the aircraft proved to be quite fast – as long as it was flying in a straight line, though. Only the roll characteristics were acceptable, but flying the XP-68A remained hazardous, esp. after the loss of one of the H-1s engines: This resulted in heavily asymmetrical propulsion, making the XP-68A hard to control at all and prone to spin in level flight.

 

After trials and direct comparison, the XP-68A turned out not to be as fast and, even worse, much less agile than the Meteor Mk III (the RAF’s then current, operational fighter version), which even had weaker Derwent engines. The operational range was insufficient, too, esp. in regard of the planned Pacific theatre of operations, and the high overall weight precluded any considerable external load like drop tanks.

However, compared with the XP-59A, the XP-68A was a considerable step forward, but it had become quickly clear that the XP-68A and its outfit-a-propeller-design-with jet-engines approach did not bear the potential for any service fighter development: it was already outdated when the prototypes were starting their test program. No further XP-68A was ordered or built, and the three prototypes fulfilled their test and evaluation program until May 1945. During these tests, the first prototype was lost on the ground due to an engine fire. After the program’s completion, the two remaining machines were handed over to the US Navy and used for research at the NATC Patuxent River Test Centre, where they were operated until 1949 and finally scrapped.

  

General characteristics.

Crew: 1

Length: 33 ft 9 in (10.36 m)

Wingspan: 38 ft 4 in (11.7 m)

Height: 13 ft (3.96 m)

Wing area: 248 sq ft (23 m²)

Empty weight: 8,799 lb (3,995 kg)

Loaded weight: 15,138 lb (6,873 kg)

Max. take-off weight: 17,246 lb (7,830 kg)

 

Powerplant:

2× Halford H-1 (De Havilland Goblin) turbojets, rated at 3,500 lbf (15.6 kN) each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 559 mph (900 km/h)

Range: 500 mi (444 nmi, 805 km)

Service ceiling: 37,565 ft (11,450 m)

Rate of climb: 3.930 ft/min (20 m/s)

Wing loading: 44.9 lb/ft² (218.97 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.45

Time to altitude: 5.0 min to 30,000 ft (9,145 m)

 

Armament:

4× Hispano M2 20 mm cannon with 150 rounds

One ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb

6× 60 lb (30 kg) rockets or 2× 500 lb (227 kg) bombs under the outer wings

  

The kit and its assembly:

This whiffy Kingcobra conversion was spawned by a post by fellow user nighthunter in January 2019 at whatifmodelers.com about a potential jet-powered variant. In found the idea charming, since the XP-59 had turned out to be a dud and the Gloster Meteor had been tested by the USAAF. Why not combine both into a fictional, late WWII Bell prototype?

The basic idea was simple: take a P-63 and add a Meteor’s engine nacelles, while keeping the Kingcobra’s original proportions. This sounds pretty easy but was more challenging than the first look at the outcome might suggest.

 

The donor kits are a vintage Airfix 1:72 Gloster Meteor Mk.III, since it has the proper, small nacelles, and an Eastern Express P-63 Kingcobra. The latter looked promising, since this kit comes with very good surface and cockpit details (even with a clear dashboard) as well as parts for several P-63 variants, including the A, C and even the exotic “pinball” manned target version. However, anything comes at a price, and the kit’s low price point is compensated by soft plastic (which turned out to be hard to sand), some flash and mediocre fit of any of the major components like fuselage halves, the wings or the clear parts. It feels a lot like a typical short-run kit. Nevertheless, I feel inclined to build another one in a more conventional fashion some day.

 

Work started with the H-1 nacelles, which had to be cut out from the Meteor wings. Since they come OOB only with a well-visible vertical plate and a main wing spar dummy in the air intake, I added some fine mesh to the plate – normally, you can see directly onto the engine behind the wing spar. Another issue was the fact that the Meteor’s wings are much thicker and deeper than the P-63s, so that lots of PSR work was necessary.

 

Simply cutting the P-63 OOB wings up and inserting the Meteor nacelles was also not possible: the P-63 has a very wide main landing gear, due to the ventral radiators and oil coolers, which were originally buried in the wing roots and under the piston engine. The only solution: move the complete landing gear (including the wells) inward, so that the nacelles could be placed as close as possible to the fuselage in a mid-span position. Furthermore, the - now useless - radiator openings had to disappear, resulting in a major redesign of the wing root sections. All of this became a major surgery task, followed by similarly messy work on the outer wings during the integration of the Meteor nacelles. LOTS of PSR, even though the outcome looks surprisingly plausible and balanced.

 

Work on the fuselage started in parallel. It was built mainly OOB, using the optional ventral fin for a P-63C. The exhaust stubs as well as the dorsal carburetor intake had to disappear (the latter made easy thanks to suitable optional parts for the manned target version). Since the P-63 had a conventional low stabilizer arrangement (unlike the Meteor with its cruciform tail), I gave them a slight dihedral to move them out of the engine efflux, a trick Sukhoi engineers did on the Su-11 prototype with afterburner engines in 1947, too.

 

Furthermore, the whole nose ahead of the cockpit was heavily re-designed, because I wanted the “new” aircraft to lose its propeller heritage and the P-63’s round and rather pointed nose. Somewhat inspired by the P-59 and the P-80, I omitted the propeller parts altogether and re-sculpted the nose with 2C putty, creating a deeper shape with a tall, oval diameter, so that the lower fuselage line was horizontally extended forward. In a profile view the aircraft now looks much more massive and P-80esque. The front landing gear was retained, just its side walls were extended downwards with the help of 0.5mm styrene sheet material, so that the original stance could be kept. Lots of lead in the nose ensured that the model would properly stand on its three wheels.

 

Once the rhinoplasty was done I drilled four holes into the nose and used hollow steel needles as gun barrels, with a look reminiscent of the Douglas A-20G.

Adding the (perfectly) clear parts of the canopy as a final assembly step also turned out to be a major fight against the elements.

  

Painting and markings:

With an USAAF WWII prototype in mind, there were only two options: either an NMF machine, or a camouflage in Olive Drab and Neutral Grey. I went for the latter and used Tamiya XF-62 for the upper surfaces and Humbrol 156 (Dark Camouflage Grey) underneath. The kit received a light black ink wash and some post shading in order to emphasize panels. A little dry-brushing with silver around the leading edges and the cockpit was done, too.

 

The cockpit interior became chromate green (I used Humbrol 150, Forest Green) while the landing gear wells were painted with zinc chromate yellow (Humbrol 81). The landing gear itself was painted in aluminum (Humbrol 56).

Markings/decals became minimal, puzzled together from various sources – only some “Stars and Bars” insignia and the serial number.

  

Somehow this conversion ended up looking a lot like the contemporary Soviet Sukhoi Su-9 and -11 (Samolyet K and LK) jet fighter prototype – unintentionally, though. But I am happy with the outcome – the P-63 ancestry is there, and the Meteor engines are recognizable, too. But everything blends into each other well, the whole affair looks very balanced and believable. This is IMHO furthermore emphasized by the simple paint scheme. A jet-powered Kingcobra? Why not…?

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

After World War I, the German aircraft industry had several problems. German airlines were forbidden to operate multi engine aircraft and during a period all manufacturing of aircraft in Germany was banned. By 1921, some of the restrictions was lifted, civilian aircraft could be made after approval of an international control commission if they fulfilled certain requirements. To bypass these rules and to be able to make whatever aircraft they wanted several aircraft manufacturers moved abroad. In 1921, Carl Bücker handled the purchase of a reconnaissance aircraft from Caspar-Werke in Travemünde. Because they expected problems due to the rules in the peace treaty regarding the export of German fighter aircraft, Bücker explored the possibility to smuggle the parts out of Germany and assemble the aircraft in Sweden.

 

To make the purchase easier, Ernst Heinkel and Bücker started Svenska Aero in Lidingö in 1921. The contract on the aircraft was transferred from Caspar to Svenska Aero. Heinkel and some German assembly workers temporarily moved to Lidingö to assemble the aircraft. During 1922 to 1923, the company moved into a former shipyard in Skärsätra on Lidingö since the company had received additional orders from the navy's air force. The parts for those aircraft were made in Sweden by Svenska Aero but assembled by TDS. In 1928, the navy ordered four J 4 (Heinkel HD 19) as a fighter with pontoons. That delivery came to be the last licens- built aircraft by Svenska Aero. In the mid-1920s, Svenska Aero created their own design department to be able to make their own aircraft models. Sven Blomberg, earlier employed by Heinkel Flugzeugwerke, was hired as head of design. In 1930, he was joined by Anders Johan Andersson from Messerschmitt. Despite that, Svenska Aero designed and made several different models on their own.

 

One of them was the model SA-16, a direct response to the Swedish Air Force and Navy’s interest in the new dive bomber tactics, which had become popular in Germany since the mid-Thirties and had spawned several specialized aircraft, the Junkers Ju 87 being the best-known type. The Flygvapnet (Swedish Air Force) had already conducted dive bombing trials with Hawker Hart (B 4) biplanes, but only with mixed results. Diving towards the target simplified the bomb's trajectory and allowed the pilot to keep visual contact throughout the bomb run. This allowed attacks on point targets and ships, which were difficult to attack with conventional level bombers, even en masse. While accuracy was increased through bombing runs at almost vertical dive, the aircraft were not suited for this kind of operations – structurally, and through the way the bombs were dropped.

 

Therefore, Svenska Aero was tasked to develop an indigenous dedicated dive bomber, primarily intended to attack ships, and with a secondary role as reconnaissance aircraft – a mission profile quite similar to American ship-based “SB” aircraft of the time. Having learnt from the tests with the Hawker Harts, the SA-16 was a very robust monoplane, resulting in an almost archaic look. It was a single-engine all-metal cantilever monoplane with a fixed undercarriage and carried a two-person crew. The main construction material was duralumin, and the external coverings were made of duralumin sheeting, bolts and parts that were required to take heavy stress were made of steel. The wings were of so-called “double-wing” construction, which gave the SA-16 considerable advantage on take-off; even at a shallow angle, large lift forces were created through the airfoil, reducing take-off and landing runs. Retractable perforated air brakes were mounted under the wings’ leading edges. The fully closed “greenhouse cabin” offered space for a crew of two in tandem, with the pilot in front and a navigator/radio operator/observer/gunner behind. To provide the rear-facing machine gun with an increased field of fire, the stabilizers were of limited span but deeper to compensate for the loss of surface, what resulted in unusual proportions. As a side benefit, the short stabilizers had, compared with a wider standard layout, increased structural integrity. Power came from an air-cooled Bristol Mercury XII nine-cylinder radial engine with 880 hp (660 kW), built by Nohab in Sweden.

 

Internal armament consisted of two fixed forward-firing 8 mm (0.315 in) Flygplanskulspruta Ksp m/22F (M1919 Browning AN/M2) machine guns in the wings outside of the propeller disc. A third machine gun of the same type was available in the rear cockpit on a flexible mount as defensive weapon. A total of 700 kg (1,500 lb) of bombs could be carried externally. On the fuselage centerline, a swing arm could hold bombs of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber and deploy them outside of the propeller arc when released in a, additional racks under the outer wings could hold bombs of up to 250 kg (550 lb) caliber each or clusters of smaller bombs, e. g. four 50 (110 lb) or six 12 kg (26 ½ lb) bombs.

 

Flight testing of the first SA-16 prototype began on 14 August 1936. The aircraft could take off in 250 m (820 ft) and climb to 1,875 m (6,152 ft) in eight minutes with a 250 kg (550 lb) bomb load, and its cruising speed was 250 km/h (160 mph). This was less than expected, and pilots also complained that navigation and powerplant instruments were cluttered and not easy to read, especially in combat. To withstand strong forces during a dive, heavy plating, along with brackets riveted to the frame and longeron, was added to the fuselage. Despite this, pilots praised the aircraft's handling qualities and strong airframe. These problems were quickly resolved, but subsequent testing and progress still fell short of the designers’ hopes. With some refinements the machine's speed was increased to 274 km/h (170 mph) at ground level and 319 km/h 319 km/h (198 mph, 172 kn) at 3,650 m (11,980 ft), while maintaining its good handling ability.

 

Since the Swedish Air Force was in dire need for a dive bomber, the SA-16 was accepted into service as the B 9 – even though it was clear that it was only a stopgap solution on the way to a more capable light bomber with dive attack capabilities. This eventually became the Saab 17, which was initiated in 1938 as a request from the Flygvapnet to replace its fleet of dive bombers of American origin, the B 5 (Northrop A-17), the B 6 (Seversky A8V1) and the obsolete Fokker S 6 (C.Ve) sesquiplane, after the deal with Fokker to procure the two-engine twin-boom G.I as a standardized type failed due to the German invasion of the Netherlands. The B 9 dive bomber would subsequently be replaced by the more modern and capable B 17 in the long run, too, which made its first flight on 18 May 1940 and was introduced to frontline units in March 1942. Until then, 93 SA-16s had been produced between 1937 and 1939. When the B 17 became available, the slow B 9 was quickly retired from the attack role. Plans to upgrade the aircraft with a stronger 14 cylinder engine (a Piaggio P.XIbis R.C.40D with 790 kW/1,060 hp) were not carried out, as it was felt that the design lacked further development potential in an offensive role.

Because the airframes were still young and had a lot of service life ahead of them, most SA-16s were from 1941 on relegated to patrol and reconnaissance missions along the Swedish coastlines, observing ship and aircraft traffic in the Baltic Sea and undertaking rescue missions with droppable life rafts. For long-range missions, the forked ventral swing arm was replaced with a fixed plumbed pylon for an external 682 liters (150 Imp. gal.) auxiliary tank that more than doubled the aircraft’s internal fuel capacity of 582 liters, giving it an endurance of around 8 hours. In many cases, the machine guns on these aircraft were removed to save weight. In this configuration the SA-16 was re-designated S 9 (“S” for Spaning) and the machines served in their naval observation and SAR role well into the Fifties, when the last SA-16s were retired.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: two, pilot and observer

Length: 9,58 m (31 ft 11 in)

Wingspan: 10,67 m (34 ft 11 in)

Height: 3,82 m (12 ft 6 in)

Wing area: 30.2 m² (325 sq ft)

Empty weight: 2,905 kg (6,404 lb)

Gross weight: 4,245 kg (9,359 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 4,853 kg (10,700 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Bristol Mercury XII nine-cylinder radial engine with 880 hp (660 kW),

driving a three-bladed variable pitch metal propeller

 

u>Performance:

Maximum speed: 319 km/h (198 mph, 172 kn) at 3,650 m (11,980 ft)

274 km/h (170 mph; 148 kn) at sea level

299 km/h (186 mph; 161 kn) at 2,000 m (6,600 ft)

308 km/h (191 mph; 166 kn) at 5,000 m (16,000 ft)

Stall speed: 110 km/h (68 mph, 59 kn)

Range: 1,260 km (780 mi, 680 nmi)

Service ceiling: 7,300 m (24,000 ft)

Time to altitude: 2,000 m (6,600 ft) in 4 minutes 45 seconds

4,000 m (13,000 ft) in 15 minutes 10 seconds

 

Armament:

2× fixed 8 mm (0.315 in) Flygplanskulspruta Ksp m/22F (M1919 Browning AN/M2) machine guns

in the wings outside of the propeller disc (with 600 RPG), plus

1× 8 mm (0.315 in) Ksp m/22F machine gun on a flexible mount in the rear cockpit with 800 rounds

Ventral and underwing hardpoints for a total external bomb load of 700 kg (1,500 lb)

  

The kit and its assembly:

This purely fictional Swedish dive bomber was inspired by reading about Flygvapnet‘s pre-WWII trials with dive bombing tactics and the unsuited aircraft fleet for this task. When I found a Hasegawa SOC Seagull floatplane in The Stash™ and looks at the aircraft’s profile, I thought that it could be converted into a two-seat monoplane – what would require massive changes, though.

 

However, I liked the SOC’s boxy and rustic look, esp. the fuselage, and from this starting point other ingredients/donors were integrated. Work started with the tail. Originally, I wanted to retain the SOCs fin and stabilizer, but eventually found them oversized for a land-based airplane. In the scrap box I found a leftover fin from an Academy P-47, and it turned out to be a very good, smaller alternative, with the benefit that it visually lengthened the rear fuselage. The stabilizers were replaced with leftover parts from a NOVO Supermarine Attacker – an unlikely choice, but their size was good, they blended well into the overall lines of the aircraft, and they helped to stabilize the fin donor. Blending these new parts into to SOC’s hull required massive PSR, though.

 

The wings were also not an easy choice, and initially I planned the aircraft with a retractable landing gear. I eventually settled on the outer wings (just outside of the gullwing kink) from an MPM Ju 87 B, because of their shape and the archaic “double wings” that would complement the SOC’s rustic fuselage. However, at this point I refrained from the retractable landing gear and instead went for a fixed spatted alternative, left over from an Airfix Hs 123, which would round up the aircraft’s somewhat vintage look. Because the wheels were missing, I inserted two Matchbox MiG-21 wheels (which were left over in the spares bin from two different kits, though). The tail wheel came from an Academy Fw 190.

 

Cowling and engine inside (thankfully a 9-cylinder radial that could pose as a Mercury) were taken OOB, just the original two-blade propeller was replaced with a more appropriate three-blade alternative, IIRC from a Hobby Boss Grumman F4F. The cockpit was taken OOB, and I also used the two pilot figures from the kit. The rear crew member just had the head re-positioned to look sideways, and had to have the legs chopped off because there’s hardly and space under the desk with the radio set he’s sitting at.

 

The ventral 500 kg bomb came from a Matchbox Ju 87, the bomb arms are Fw 189 landing gear parts. Additional underwing pylons came from an Intech P-51, outfitted with 50 kg bombs of uncertain origin (they look as if coming from an old Hasegawa kit). The protruding machine gun barrel fairings on the wings were scratched from styrene rod material, with small holes drilled into them.

 

A real Frankenstein creation, but it does not look bad or implausible!

  

Painting and markings:

I gave the B 9 a camouflage that was carried by some Flygvapnet aircraft in the late Thirties, primarily by fighters imported from the United States but also some bombers like the B 3 (Ju 86). The IMHO quite attractive scheme consists on the upper surfaces of greenish-yellow zinc chromate primer (Humbrol 81, FS 33481), on top of which a dense net of fine dark green wriggles (supposed to be FS 34079, but I rather used Humbrol 163, RAF Dark Green, because it is more subdued) was manually applied with a thin brush, so that the primer would still shine through, resulting in a mottled camouflage.

 

On the real aircraft, this was sealed with a protective clear lacquer to which 5% of the dark green had been added, and I copied this procedure on the model, too, using semi-gloss acrylic varnish with a bit of Revell 46 added. The camouflage was wrapped around the wings’ leading edges and the spatted landing gear was painted with the upper camouflage, too.

 

The undersides were painted with Humbrol 87 (Steel Grey), to come close to the original blue-grey tone, which is supposed to be FS 35190 on this type of camouflage. The tone is quite dark, almost like RAF PRU Blue.

The interior was painted – using a Saab J 21 cockpit as benchmark – in a dark greenish grey (RAL 7009).

The model received the usual light black ink washing and some post-panel shading on the lower surfaces, because this effect would hardly be recognizable on the highly fragmented upper surface.

 

The markings are reflecting Flygvapnet’s m/37 regulations, from the direct pre-WWII era when the roundels had turned from black on white to yellow on blue but still lacked the yellow edge around the roundel for more contrast. F6 Västgöta flygflottilj was chosen because it was a dive bomber unit in the late Thirties, and the individual aircraft code (consisting of large white two-digit numbers) was added with the fin and the front of the fuselage. “27” would indicate an aircraft of the unit’s 2nd division, which normally had blue as a standardized color code, incorporated through the blue bands on the spats and the small "2nd div." tag on the rudder (from a contemporary F8 Swedish Gladiator).

 

Roundels and codes came from an SBS Models sheet, even though they belong to various aircraft types. Everything was finally sealed with matt acrylic varnish.

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

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

Under the Treaty of Trianon (1920), Hungary was forbidden from owning military aircraft. However, a secret air arm was gradually established under the cover of civilian flying clubs. During 1938, as a result of the Bled agreement, the existence of the Royal Hungarian Air Force (Hungarian: Magyar Királyi Honvéd Légierő (MKHL)), was made known. The army's aviation service was reorganized and expanded.

 

Late 1938 the army aviation was once again reorganized. Admiral Horthy, the head of state, ordered that the army aviation should become an independent service with effect of 01.09.1939. It subsequently participated in clashes with the newly established Slovak Republic and in the border confrontation with the Kingdom of Romania.

 

In 1940, the decision was made to unite the Air Force, the anti-aircraft forces, and the civilian air defense organizations under one central headquarters. In April 1941, operations were conducted in support of the German invasion of Yugoslavia and, on 27 June 1941, Hungary declared war on the Soviet Union.

On 01.06.1941, the Air Defense Corps was established, and Lieutenant General Béla Rákosi became Commander of Army Aviation. In effect the Air Force had once again become part of the Army. In the summer of 1942, an air brigade was attached to the Luftwaffe's VIII. Fliegerkorps at the Eastern Front.

 

At that time, most of the Hungarian Air Force's fighter equipment was of German origin, consisting of types like Bf 109 F and G, Fw 190 A/F, Me 210. But some indigenous designs were under development, too, e. g. at the RMI, Repülo Muszaki Intézet, or Aviation Technical Institute. Its aircraft were primarily (but not exclusively) by László Varga, and as a result, RMI designs were often given the Varga name (in some cases, even when he was not the major designer). But the RMI designation was used in parallel, too.

 

One of the domestic developments was the RMI-11 'Sólyom' (= Falcon) fighter. This single engine aircraft drew heavily upon the Bf 109 design, but featured some changes and improvements like an inward-retracting landing gear or a bubble canopy. It also incorporated elements from the heavy RMI-8 fighter, a push/pull design with twin tail booms, but the RMI-8’s sole prototype was destroyed by Allied air raids before a serious test program could be launched.

 

In contrast to the complex RMI-8 the RMI-11 was a small and light aircraft, a conventional but clean design, based on simple shapes for easy, modular production. Most of its structure was made from wood, saving sparse metal whenever possible. Empty weight was, for instance, about 200 kg less than a contemporary Bf- 109 G.

 

The RMI-11 was driven by a liquid-cooled DB 605 inverted V12 engine, rated at 1.475 hp. Thanks to the low weight of the airframe, the machine achieved a high top speed and an exceptional high rate of climb.

 

Originally designed as a fast and agile interceptor in the early stages of WWII, the RMI was only armed with two 13mm MG 131 with 300 RPG and two 7.92 mm MG 17 in the outer wings. Two underwing hardpoints could carry up to 100 kg each.

 

The RMI-11 prototype made its maiden flight in late 1943 and after a basic but successful test program immediately ordered into production – in a hurry, though, and beginning March 1944, Allied bomber raids began on Hungary and progressively increased in intensity.

 

Production of the RMI-11 gained only slowly momentum, due to material shortages, because the RMI-11was primarily of plywood bonded with a special phenolic resin adhesive that was supplied from German sources. Due to Allied bombing raids on the glue’s original production sites the plywood glue had to be replaced by one that was not as strong, and was later found to react chemically, apparently in a corrosive manner, with the wood in RMI-11’s structure. In November 1944, several RMI-11s crashed with wing and tail failures due to plywood delamination. This same problem also critically affected the German Focke Wulf Ta 154 and Heinkel He 162 programs.

 

Late in 1944 all efforts were redirected towards countering the advancing Red Army. Soon it was clear that the type needed long range cannons with higher caliber in order to encounter heavy Allied bombers, so plans were made to add heavier German armament. This was realized through an extra pair of MG 151/20 20 mm cannons with 150 RPG, which were added in fairings under the wings instead of the original bomb hardpoints (which were hardly ever used in service at all). During the same refit, the rather ineffective MG 17s were deleted, saving weight and leaving more room inside of the wings for the MG 131s’ ammunition supply (now with 400 RPG)

 

At that time only about 60 production aircraft had been completed and modified, and production was halted due to the severe structural problems. These machines were nevertheless thrown into service, with repairs and upgrades done at the Hungarian airfields – but the glue problem was a constant operational danger.

 

Still, all these efforts were to no avail: All fighting in Hungary ended on 16 April 1945, and all RMI-11’s were scrapped after hostilities ended.

  

General characteristics

Crew: 1

Length: 8.82 m (28 ft 10 ½ in)

Wingspan: 10.58 m (34 ft 8 in)

Height: 4.10 m (13 ft 5 in)

Wing area: 16.82 m² (181.00 ft²)

Empty weight: 1,964 kg (4,330 lb)

Loaded weight: 2,200 kg (4,840 lb)

Max. take-off weight: 2,395 kg (5,280 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Daimler-Benz DB 605A-1 liquid-cooled inverted V12, 1,475 PS (1,085 kW)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 640 km/h (398 mph) at 6,300 m (20,669 ft)

Cruise speed: 590 km/h (365 mph) at 6.000 m (19.680 ft)

Range: 850 km (528 mi)

Service ceiling: 12.000 m (39.370 ft)

Rate of climb: 17.0 m/s (3.345 ft/min)

Wing loading: 196 kg/m² (40 lb/ft²)

Power/mass: 344 W/kg (0.21 hp/lb)

 

Armament:

2× 13mm MG 131 (.51 in) machine guns in the wings,400 RPG, plus 2× 20mm MG 151/20 (.51 in) machine cannons, 150 RPG, in external underwing fairings.With the cannons deleted up to 8× 15 kg (33 lb) or 2× 50, 100, or 150 kg (110, 220, or 330 lb) bombs under the wings

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is a serious kitbash and a totally fictional aircraft - and you are IMHO an expert modeler if you recognize what basically went into it!

 

This build was inspired when I recently bought an RS Models Nakajima Kikka jet fighter, the double seater kit. As a bonus it comes with two fuselages: effectively, it is the single seater kit with an extra sprue and a different canopy. Looking at the Kikka's profile I found that it HAD to be converted into a piston engine aircraft, with a liquid-cooled engine. Wings and anything else would come from the scrap box, but it should become a sleek fighter aircraft, a late WWII design.

 

From that, things went straightforward:

● Fuselage from a RS Models Nakajima N9J1 "Kikka", front end cut away

● Wings from an Revell Macchi C.200 Saetta

● Stabilizers from an Art Model MiG I-210 fighter

● Canopy from a late Supermarine Spitfire (Special Hobby, IIRC)

● Nose/engine and radiators from an RS Models Ki-78

● The propeller was scratched from single pieces/blades and the Ki-78 spinner

● The landing gear is a Ki-78/C.200 parts mix.

I settled for the Ki-78's radiator installment on the rear flanks because it is a unique feature and simply does not hamper the sleek side profile. I also thought that this might have been a smart solution for modular production - fuselage and wings could be completed separately.

 

The Ki-78 engine had to be widened considerably to match the Kikka’s trapezoidal fuselage diameter, putty and major sculpting resulted in a relatively smooth and subtle intersection. As per usual, an axis construction for the propeller was added, too, so that it can spin freely. Mating wings and fuselage necessitated a new cockpit floor (which acts at the same time as landing gear well interior), and a 3mm bridge at the wing roots had to filled – but that was easy.

The cockpit interior was outfitted with spares, the Spitfire canopy needed some small styrene wedges under the windshield to make it fit onto the Kikka fuselage.

 

Things went rather smoothly until I fixed the wings to the completed fuselage. However I placed them, it looked odd – too far back, and the nose stood out; too far forward, and the tail was too long. Somehow, proportions did not match – only slightly, but it bugged me. So far that I eventually decided to shorten the fuselage – after having completed it, radiators already in place and everything sanded even. I made a vertical cut behind the cockpit and removed ~7mm of length – and suddenly the aircraft looked good! Needed some extra body work, but the aircraft looks much more balanced now.

 

The underwing fairings for the cannons were late additions, too. I wanted to keep the fuselage clean, with no nose guns, but adding heavier armament turned out to be tricky. The fairing solution was inspired by a real-world Fw 190 Rüstsatz which featured two MG 151/20 apiece. I had appropriate parts from an Academy Fw 190 left over, so I sliced these up and narrowed them for a single cannon each, and this was the right size for the slender aircraft. All gun barrels were created through heated and pulled-out styrene tubes.

  

Painting and markings:

Deciding what this aircraft was to become was tougher than building it! With its clearly German origin it had to be a WWII Axis type, but I did neither want a German nor a Japanese aircraft, even Italy was ruled out – all too obvious. With Hungary and its RMI designs I eventually found a good potential origin, and this also allowed a rather "colorful" livery. With the Hungarian background this kitbash became the RMI-11.

 

The paint scheme was inspired by an experimental Hungarian camouflage in Green, Gray and Brown, seen on a Bf 109G. I could not find color indications, but in the end I settled for three RLM tones for the upper sides, RLM 71, 75 and 79, coupled with RLM 76 for the lower sides. All tones are enamels from Modelmaster's Authentic range, panels and leading edges were slightly emphasized with lighter shades. As a small design twist I added a wavy, medium waterline on the fuselage sides.

 

Interior surfaces were, lacking any reference, kept in RLM 02. In order not to be too fanciful, the spinner became black with a green tip (RLM 62), and the blades were painted with a mix of RLM 70 (Black Green) and Black, for a very dark and dull green tone, Luftwaffe style.

 

The yellow markings correspond to German Luftwaffe markings of the late WWII era, the yellow 45° “V” under the lower left wing was introduced in the Balkan region in 1944, it was also carried by Luftwaffe aircraft in this conflict theatre.

The flashy decoration on all tail surfaces disappeared at that time on real aircraft (only small Hungarian flags were carried on the tail rudder), but I still incorporated the full national insignia because it's unique and a colorful contrast to the rest of the aircraft.

 

Most markings belong to a real Hungarian Bf 109G (from a Print Scale aftermarket sheet), I just scratched the national markings on the fuselage and the yellow markings (all cut from stock decal material) and parts of the Hungarian flag insignia on the tail: the tips were painted with red, the white and green bands were cut to measure from a Frecce Tricolori sheet.

 

A light black ink wash was applied and some dry painting added with gray and black (for soot and exhaust stains), for a lightly weathered effect. As final step, everything was sealed under matt acrylic varnish (Revell).

  

A quickie, done in just a week, but with a very convincing look. One might recognize Bf 109 F/G, Ki-78 and even He 100 features, but none of these aircraft really matches up with the RMI-11 at second glance, there are too many individual differences. If it gets you wondering – mission accomplished! ;)

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Bell XP-68A owed its existence to the manufacturer’s rather disappointing outcome of its first jet fighter design, the XP-59A Airacomet. The Airacomet was a twin jet-engined fighter aircraft, designed and built during World War II after Major General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold became aware of the United Kingdom's jet program when he attended a demonstration of the Gloster E.28/39 in April 1941. He requested, and was given, the plans for the aircraft's powerplant, the Power Jets W.1, which he took back to the U.S. He also arranged for an example of the engine, the Whittle W.1X turbojet, to be flown to the U.S., along with drawings for the more powerful W.2B/23 engine and a small team of Power Jets engineers. On 4 September 1941, he offered the U.S. company General Electric a contract to produce an American version of the engine, which subsequently became the General Electric I-A. On the following day, he approached Lawrence Dale Bell, head of Bell Aircraft Corporation, to build a fighter to utilize it. As a disinformation tactic, the USAAF gave the project the designation "P-59A", to suggest it was a development of the unrelated, canceled Bell XP-59 fighter project. The P-59A was the first design fighter to have its turbojet engine and air inlet nacelles integrated within the main fuselage. The jet aircraft’s design was finalized on 9 January 1942 and the first prototype flew in October of the same year.

 

The following 13 service test YP-59As had a more powerful engine than their predecessor, the General Electric J31, but the improvement in performance was negligible, with top speed increased by only 5 mph and a slight reduction in the time they could be used before an overhaul was needed. One of these aircraft, the third YP-59A, was supplied to the Royal Air Force, in exchange for the first production Gloster Meteor I for evaluation and flight-offs with domestic alternatives.

British pilots found that the YP-59A compared very unfavorably with the jets that they were already flying. The United States Army Air Forces were not impressed by its performance either and cancelled the contract when fewer than half of the originally ordered aircraft had been produced. No P-59s entered combat, but the type paved the way for the next design generation of U.S. turbojet-powered aircraft and helped to develop appropriate maintenance structures and procedures.

 

In the meantime, a new, more powerful jet engine had been developed in Great Britain, the Halford H-1, which became later better known as the De Havilland Goblin. It was another centrifugal compressor design, but it produced almost twice as much thrust as the XP-59A’s J31 engines. Impressed by the British Gloster Meteor during the USAAF tests at Muroc Dry Lake - performance-wise as well as by the aircraft’s simplicity and ruggedness - Bell reacted promptly and proposed an alternative fighter with wing-mounted engine nacelles, since the XP-59A’s layout had proven to be aerodynamically sub-optimal and unsuited for the installation of H-1 engines. In order to save development time and because the aircraft was rather regarded as a proof-of-concept demonstrator instead of a true fighter prototype, the new aircraft was structurally based on Bell’s current piston-engine P-63 “Kingcobra”. The proposal was accepted and, in order to maintain secrecy, the new jet aircraft inherited once more a designation of a recently cancelled project, this time from the Vultee XP-68 “Tornado” fighter. Similar to the Airacomet two years before, just a simple “A” suffix was added.

 

Bell’s development contract covered only three XP-68A aircraft. The H-1 units were directly imported from Great Britain in secrecy, suspended in the bomb bays of B-24 Liberator bombers. A pair of these engines was mounted in mid-wing nacelles, very similar to the Gloster Meteor’s arrangement. The tailplane was given a 5° dihedral to move it out of the engine exhaust. In order to bear the new engines and their power, the wing main spars were strengthened and the main landing gear wells were moved towards the aircraft’s centerline, effectively narrowing track width. The landing gear wells now occupied the space of the former radiator ducts for the P-63’s omitted Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled V12 engine. Its former compartment behind the cockpit was used for a new fuel tank and test equipment. Having lost the propeller and its long drive shaft, the nose section was also redesigned: the front fuselage became deeper and the additional space there was used for another fuel tank in front of the cockpit and a bigger weapon bay. Different armament arrangements were envisioned, one of each was to be tested on the three prototypes: one machine would be armed with six 0.5” machine guns, another with four 20mm Hispano M2 cannon, and the third with two 37mm M10 cannon and two 0.5” machine guns. Provisions for a ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb were made, but this was never fitted on any of the prototypes. Additional hardpoints under the outer wings for smaller bombs or unguided missiles followed the same fate.

 

The three XP-68As were built at Bell’s Atlanta plant in the course of early 1944 and semi-officially christened “Airagator”. After their clandestine transfer to Muroc Dry Lake for flight tests and evaluations, the machines were quickly nicknamed “Barrelcobra” by the test staff – not only because of the characteristic shape of the engine nacelles, but also due to the sheer weight of the machines and their resulting sluggish handling on the ground and in the air. “Cadillac” was another nickname, due to the very soft acceleration through the new jet engines and the lack of vibrations that were typical for piston-engine- and propeller-driven aircraft.

 

Due to the structural reinforcements and modifications, the XP-68A had become a heavy aircraft with an empty weight of 4 tons and a MTOW of almost 8 tons – the same as the big P-47 Thunderbolt piston fighter, while the P-63 had an MTOW of only 10,700 lb (4,900 kg). The result was, among other flaws, a very long take-off distance, especially in the hot desert climate of the Mojave Desert (which precluded any external ordnance) and an inherent unwillingness to change direction, its turning radius was immense. More than once the brakes overheated during landing, so that extra water cooling for the main landing gear was retrofitted.

Once in the air, the aircraft proved to be quite fast – as long as it was flying in a straight line, though. Only the roll characteristics were acceptable, but flying the XP-68A remained hazardous, esp. after the loss of one of the H-1s engines: This resulted in heavily asymmetrical propulsion, making the XP-68A hard to control at all and prone to spin in level flight.

 

After trials and direct comparison, the XP-68A turned out not to be as fast and, even worse, much less agile than the Meteor Mk III (the RAF’s then current, operational fighter version), which even had weaker Derwent engines. The operational range was insufficient, too, esp. in regard of the planned Pacific theatre of operations, and the high overall weight precluded any considerable external load like drop tanks.

However, compared with the XP-59A, the XP-68A was a considerable step forward, but it had become quickly clear that the XP-68A and its outfit-a-propeller-design-with jet-engines approach did not bear the potential for any service fighter development: it was already outdated when the prototypes were starting their test program. No further XP-68A was ordered or built, and the three prototypes fulfilled their test and evaluation program until May 1945. During these tests, the first prototype was lost on the ground due to an engine fire. After the program’s completion, the two remaining machines were handed over to the US Navy and used for research at the NATC Patuxent River Test Centre, where they were operated until 1949 and finally scrapped.

  

General characteristics.

Crew: 1

Length: 33 ft 9 in (10.36 m)

Wingspan: 38 ft 4 in (11.7 m)

Height: 13 ft (3.96 m)

Wing area: 248 sq ft (23 m²)

Empty weight: 8,799 lb (3,995 kg)

Loaded weight: 15,138 lb (6,873 kg)

Max. take-off weight: 17,246 lb (7,830 kg)

 

Powerplant:

2× Halford H-1 (De Havilland Goblin) turbojets, rated at 3,500 lbf (15.6 kN) each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 559 mph (900 km/h)

Range: 500 mi (444 nmi, 805 km)

Service ceiling: 37,565 ft (11,450 m)

Rate of climb: 3.930 ft/min (20 m/s)

Wing loading: 44.9 lb/ft² (218.97 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.45

Time to altitude: 5.0 min to 30,000 ft (9,145 m)

 

Armament:

4× Hispano M2 20 mm cannon with 150 rounds

One ventral hardpoint for a single drop tank or a 1.000 lb (550 kg) bomb

6× 60 lb (30 kg) rockets or 2× 500 lb (227 kg) bombs under the outer wings

  

The kit and its assembly:

This whiffy Kingcobra conversion was spawned by a post by fellow user nighthunter in January 2019 at whatifmodelers.com about a potential jet-powered variant. In found the idea charming, since the XP-59 had turned out to be a dud and the Gloster Meteor had been tested by the USAAF. Why not combine both into a fictional, late WWII Bell prototype?

The basic idea was simple: take a P-63 and add a Meteor’s engine nacelles, while keeping the Kingcobra’s original proportions. This sounds pretty easy but was more challenging than the first look at the outcome might suggest.

 

The donor kits are a vintage Airfix 1:72 Gloster Meteor Mk.III, since it has the proper, small nacelles, and an Eastern Express P-63 Kingcobra. The latter looked promising, since this kit comes with very good surface and cockpit details (even with a clear dashboard) as well as parts for several P-63 variants, including the A, C and even the exotic “pinball” manned target version. However, anything comes at a price, and the kit’s low price point is compensated by soft plastic (which turned out to be hard to sand), some flash and mediocre fit of any of the major components like fuselage halves, the wings or the clear parts. It feels a lot like a typical short-run kit. Nevertheless, I feel inclined to build another one in a more conventional fashion some day.

 

Work started with the H-1 nacelles, which had to be cut out from the Meteor wings. Since they come OOB only with a well-visible vertical plate and a main wing spar dummy in the air intake, I added some fine mesh to the plate – normally, you can see directly onto the engine behind the wing spar. Another issue was the fact that the Meteor’s wings are much thicker and deeper than the P-63s, so that lots of PSR work was necessary.

 

Simply cutting the P-63 OOB wings up and inserting the Meteor nacelles was also not possible: the P-63 has a very wide main landing gear, due to the ventral radiators and oil coolers, which were originally buried in the wing roots and under the piston engine. The only solution: move the complete landing gear (including the wells) inward, so that the nacelles could be placed as close as possible to the fuselage in a mid-span position. Furthermore, the - now useless - radiator openings had to disappear, resulting in a major redesign of the wing root sections. All of this became a major surgery task, followed by similarly messy work on the outer wings during the integration of the Meteor nacelles. LOTS of PSR, even though the outcome looks surprisingly plausible and balanced.

 

Work on the fuselage started in parallel. It was built mainly OOB, using the optional ventral fin for a P-63C. The exhaust stubs as well as the dorsal carburetor intake had to disappear (the latter made easy thanks to suitable optional parts for the manned target version). Since the P-63 had a conventional low stabilizer arrangement (unlike the Meteor with its cruciform tail), I gave them a slight dihedral to move them out of the engine efflux, a trick Sukhoi engineers did on the Su-11 prototype with afterburner engines in 1947, too.

 

Furthermore, the whole nose ahead of the cockpit was heavily re-designed, because I wanted the “new” aircraft to lose its propeller heritage and the P-63’s round and rather pointed nose. Somewhat inspired by the P-59 and the P-80, I omitted the propeller parts altogether and re-sculpted the nose with 2C putty, creating a deeper shape with a tall, oval diameter, so that the lower fuselage line was horizontally extended forward. In a profile view the aircraft now looks much more massive and P-80esque. The front landing gear was retained, just its side walls were extended downwards with the help of 0.5mm styrene sheet material, so that the original stance could be kept. Lots of lead in the nose ensured that the model would properly stand on its three wheels.

 

Once the rhinoplasty was done I drilled four holes into the nose and used hollow steel needles as gun barrels, with a look reminiscent of the Douglas A-20G.

Adding the (perfectly) clear parts of the canopy as a final assembly step also turned out to be a major fight against the elements.

  

Painting and markings:

With an USAAF WWII prototype in mind, there were only two options: either an NMF machine, or a camouflage in Olive Drab and Neutral Grey. I went for the latter and used Tamiya XF-62 for the upper surfaces and Humbrol 156 (Dark Camouflage Grey) underneath. The kit received a light black ink wash and some post shading in order to emphasize panels. A little dry-brushing with silver around the leading edges and the cockpit was done, too.

 

The cockpit interior became chromate green (I used Humbrol 150, Forest Green) while the landing gear wells were painted with zinc chromate yellow (Humbrol 81). The landing gear itself was painted in aluminum (Humbrol 56).

Markings/decals became minimal, puzzled together from various sources – only some “Stars and Bars” insignia and the serial number.

  

Somehow this conversion ended up looking a lot like the contemporary Soviet Sukhoi Su-9 and -11 (Samolyet K and LK) jet fighter prototype – unintentionally, though. But I am happy with the outcome – the P-63 ancestry is there, and the Meteor engines are recognizable, too. But everything blends into each other well, the whole affair looks very balanced and believable. This is IMHO furthermore emphasized by the simple paint scheme. A jet-powered Kingcobra? Why not…?

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

 

Some background:

The Northrop Grumman-IAI F-24 is the latest reincarnation of the USAF "Lightweight Fighter Program" which dates back to the 1950ies and started with the development of Northrop's F-5 "Freedom Fighter".

 

The 1st generation F-5 became very successful in the export market and saw a long line of development, including the much more powerful F-5E "Tiger II" and the F-20 Tigershark (initially called F-5G). Northrop had high hopes for the F-20 in the international market; however, policy changes following Ronald Reagan's election meant the F-20 had to compete for sales against aircraft like the F-16, the USAF's latest fighter design (which was politically favored). The F-20 development program was eventually abandoned in 1986 after three prototypes had been built and a fourth partially completed.

 

But this was not the end for Northrop’s Lightweight Fighter. In the early 1980s, two X-29As experimental aircraft were built by Grumman from two existing Northrop F-5A Freedom Fighter airframes. The Grumman X-29 was a testbed for forward-swept wings, canard control surfaces, and other novel aircraft technologies. The aerodynamic instability of this arrangement increased agility but required the use of computerized fly-by-wire control. Composite materials were used to control the aeroelastic divergent twisting experienced by forward-swept wings, also reducing the weight. The NASA test program continued from 1984 to 1991 and the X-29s flew 242 times, gathering valuable data and breaking ground for new aerodynamic technologies of 4th and 5th generation fighters.

 

Even though no service aircraft directly evolved from the X-29, its innovative FBW system as well as the new material technologies also opened the door for an updated F-20 far beyond the 1990ies. It became clear that ever expensive and complex aircraft could not be the answer to modern, asymmetrical warfare in remote corners of the world, with exploding development costs and just a limited number of aircraft in service that could not generate true economies of scale, esp. when their state-of-the-art design would not permit any export.

Anyway, a global market for simpler fighter aircraft was there, as 1st generation F-16s as well as the worldwide, aging F-5E fleet and types of Soviet/Russian origin like the MiG-29 provided the need for a modern, yet light and economical jet fighter. Contemporary types like the Indian HAL Tejas, the Swedish Saab Gripen, the French Dassault Rafale and the Pakistani/Chinese FC-1/JF-17 ”Thunder” proved this trend among 4th - 4.5th generation fighter aircraft.

 

Northrop Grumman (Northrop bought Grumman in 1994) initiated studies and basic design work on a respective New Lightweight Fighter (NLF) as a private venture in 1995. Work on the NLF started at a slow pace, as the company was busy with re-structuring.

The idea of an updated lightweight fighter was fueled by another source, too: Israel. In 1998 IAI started looking in the USA for a development partner for a new, light fighter that would replace its obsolete Kfir fleet and partly relieve its F-16 and F-15 fleet from interception tasks. The domestic project for that role, the IAI Lavi, had been stillborn, but lots of its avionics and research were still at hand and waited for an airframe for completion.

The new aircraft for the IAF was to be superior to the MiG-29, at least on par with the F-16C/D, but easier to maintain, smaller and overall cheaper. Since the performance profiles appeared to be similar to what Northrop Grumman was developing under the NLF label, the US company eventually teamed up with IAI in 2000 and both started the mutual project "Namer" (=נמר, “Tiger” in Hebrew), which eventually lead to the F-24 I for the IAF which kept its project name for service and to the USAF’s F-24A “Tigershark”.

 

The F-24, as the NLF, was based on the F-20 airframe, but outwardly showed only little family heritage, onle the forward fuselage around the cockpit reminds of the original F-5 design . Many aerodynamic details, e. g. the air intakes and air ducts, were taken over from the X-29, though, as the experimental aircraft and its components had been developed for extreme maneuvers and extra high agility. Nevertheless, the X-29's forward-swept wing was considered to be too exotic and fragile for a true service aircraft, but the F-24 was to feature an Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) system.

 

AAW Technology integrates wing aerodynamics, controls, and structure to harness and control wing aeroelastic twist at high speeds and dynamic pressures. By using multiple leading and trailing edge controls like "aerodynamic tabs", subtle amounts of aeroelastic twist can be controlled to provide large amounts of wing control power, while minimizing maneuver air loads at high wing strain conditions or aerodynamic drag at low wing strain conditions. This system was initially tested on the X-29 and later on the X-53 research aircraft, a modified F-18, until 2006.

 

Both USAF and IAF versions feature this state-of-the-art aerodynamic technology, but it is uncertain if other customers will receive it. While details concerning the F-24's system have not been published yet, it is assumed that its AAW is so effective that canard foreplanes could be omitted without sacrificing lift and maneuverability, and that drag is effectively minimized as the wing profile can be adjusted according to the aircraft’s speed, altitude, payload and mission – much like a VG wing, but without its clumsy and heavy swiveling mechanism which has to bear high g forces. As a result, the F-24 is, compared to the F-20, which could carry an external payload of about 3.5 tons, rumored to be able to carry up to 5 tons of ordnance.

 

The delta wing shape proved to be a perfect choice for the required surface and flap actuators inside of the wings, and it would also offer a very good compromise between lift and drag for a wide range of performance. Anyway, there was one price to pay: in order to keep the wing profile thin and simple, the F-24’s landing gear retracts into the lower fuselage, leaving the aircraft with a relatively narrow track.

 

Another major design factor for the outstanding performance of this rather small aircraft was weight reduction and structural integrity – combined with simplicity, ruggedness and a modular construction which would allow later upgrades. Instead of “going big” and expensive, the new F-24 was to create its performance through dedicated loss of weight, which was in some part also a compensation for the AAW system in the wings and its periphery.

 

Weight was saved wherever possible, e .g. a newly developed, lightweight M199A1 gatling gun. This 20mm cannon is a three-barreled, heavily modified version of the already “stripped” M61A2 gun in the USAF’s current F-18E and F-22. One of the novel features is a pneumatic drive instead of the traditional electric mechanism, what not only saves weight but also improves trigger response. The new gun weighs only a mere 65kg (the six-barreled M61A2 weighs 92kg, the original M61A1 112 kg), but still reaches a burst rate of fire of 1.800 RPM (about 800 RPM under cyclic fire, standard practice is to fire the cannon in 30 to 50-round bursts, though) and a muzzle velocity of 1.050 metres per second (3,450 ft/s) with a PGU-28/B round.

 

While the F-16 was and is still made from 80% aluminum alloys and only from 3% composites, the F-24 makes major use of carbon fiber and other lightweight materials, which make up about 40% of the aircraft’s structure, plus an increased share of Titanium and Magnesium alloys. As a consequence and through many other weight-saving measures like keeping stealth capabilities to a minimum (even though RAM was deliberately used and many details designed to have a natural low radar signature, resulting in modest radar cross-section (RCS) reductions), a single, relatively small engine, a fuel-efficient F404-GE-402 turbofan, is enough to make the F-24 a fast and very agile aircraft, coupled with a good range. The F-24’s thrust/weight ratio is considerably higher than 1, and later versions with a vectored thrust nozzle (see below) will take this level of agility even further – with the pilot becoming the limiting factor for the aircraft’s performance.

 

USAF and IAF F-24s are outfitted with Northrop Grumman's AN/APG-80 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, also used in the F-16 Block 60 aircraft. Other customers might only receive the AN/APG-68, making the F-24 comparable to the F-16C/D.

 

The first prototype, the YF-24, flew on 8th of March 2008, followed by two more aircraft plus a static airframe until summer 2010. In early 2011 the USAF placed an initial order of 101 aircraft (probably also to stir export sales – the earlier lightweight fighters from Northrop suffered from the fact that the manufacturer’s country would not use the aircraft in its own forces). These initial aircraft will replace older F-16 in the interceptor role, or free them for fighter bomber tasks. The USN and USMC also showed interest in the aircraft for their aggressor squadrons, for dissimilar air combat training. A two-seater, called the F-24B, is supposed to follow soon, too, and a later version for 2020 onwards, tentatively designated F-24C, is to feature an even stronger F404 engine and a 3D vectoring nozzle.

 

Israel is going to produce its own version domestically from late 2014 on, which will exclusively be used by the IAF. These aircraft will be outfitted with different avionics, built by Elta in Israel, and cater to national requirements which focus more on multi-purpose service, while the USAF focusses with its F-24A on aerial combat and interception tasks.

 

International interest for the F-24A is already there: in late 2013 Grumman stated that initial talks have been made with various countries, and potential export candidates from 2015 on are Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, Finland, Norway, Australia and Japan.

  

General F-24A characteristics:

Crew: 1 pilot

Length: 47 ft 4 in (14.4 m)

Wingspan: 27 ft 11.9 in / 8.53 m; with wingtip missiles (26 ft 8 in/ 8.13 m; without wingtip missiles)

Height: 13 ft 10 in (4.20 m)

Wing area: 36.55 m² (392 ft²)

Empty weight: 13.150 lb (5.090 kg)

Loaded weight: 15.480 lb (6.830 kg)

Max. take-off weight: 27.530 lb (12.500 kg)

 

Powerplant

1× General Electric F404-GE-402 turbofan with a dry thrust of 11,000 lbf (48.9 kN) and 17,750 lbf (79.2 kN) with afterburner

 

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 2+

Combat radius: 300 nmi (345 mi, 556 km); for hi-lo-hi mission with 2 × 330 US gal (1,250 L) drop tanks

Ferry range: 1,490 nmi (1715 mi, 2759 km); with 3 × 330 US gal (1,250 L) drop tanks

Service ceiling: 55,000 ft (16,800 m)

Rate of climb: 52,800 ft/min (255 m/s)

Wing loading: 70.0 lb/ft² (342 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 1.09 (1.35 with loaded weight & 50% fuel)

 

Armament

1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M199A1 3-barreled Gatling cannon in the lower fuselage with 400 RPG

Eleven external hardpoints (two wingtip tails, six underwing hardpoints, three underfuselage hardpoints) and a total capacity of 11.000 lb (4.994 kg) of missiles (incl. AIM 9 Sidewinder and AIM 120 AMRAAM), bombs, rockets, ECM pods and drop tanks for extended range.

  

The kit and its assembly:

A spontaneous project. This major kitbash was inspired by fellow user nighthunter at whatifmodelers.com, who came up with a profile of a mashed-up US fighter, created “out of boredom”. The original idea was called F-21C, and it was to be a domestic successor to the IAI Kfirs which had been used by the US as aggressor aircraft in USN and USMC service for a few years.

 

As a weird(?) coincidence I had many of the necessary ingredients for this fictional aircraft in store, even though some parts and details were later changed. This model here is an interpretation of the original design. The idea was spun further, and the available parts that finally went into the model also had some influence on design and background.

I thank nighthunter for sharing the early ideas, inviting me to take the design to the hardware stage (sort of…) and adapting my feedback into new design sketches, too, which, in return, inspired the model building process.

 

Well, what went into this thing? To cook up a F-24 à la Dizzyfugu you just need (all in 1:72):

● Fuselage from a Hasegawa X-29, including the cockpit and the landing gear

● Fin and nose cone from an Italeri F-16A

● Inner wings from a (vintage) Hasegawa MiG-21F

● Outer wings from a F-4 (probably a J, Hasegawa or Fujimi)

 

The wing construction deviates from nighthunter’s original idea. The favorite ingredients would have been F-16XL or simple Mirage III wings, but I found the composite wing to be more attractive and “different”. The big F-16XL wings, despite their benefit of a unique shape, might also have created scale/size problems with a F-20 style fuselage? So I built hybrid wings: The MiG-21 landing gear wells were filled with putty and the F-4 outer wings simply glued onto the MiG inner wing sections, which were simply cut down in span. It sounds like an unlikely combo, but these parts fit together almost perfectly! In order to hide the F-4 origins I modified them to carry wingtip launch rails, though, which were also part of nighthunter’s original design.

 

The AAW technology detail mentioned in the background came in handy as it explains the complicated wing shape and the fact that the landing gear retracts into the fuselage, not into the wings, which would have been more plausible… Anyway, there’s still room for a simpler export version, with Mirage III or Kfir C.2/7 wings, and maybe canards?

 

Using the X-29 as basis also made fitting the new wings onto the area-ruled fuselage pretty easy, as I could use the wing root parts from the X-29 to bridge the gap. The original, forward-swept wings were just cut away, and the remains used as consoles for the new hybrid delta wings. Took some SERIOUS putty work, but the result is IMHO fine.

 

The bigger/square X-29 air intakes were taken over, and they change the look of the aircraft, making it look less F-5-ish than a true F-20 fuselage. For the same reason I kept the large fairing at the fin base, combining it with a bigger F-16 tail, though, as a counter-balance to the new, bigger wings. Again, the F-16 fin was/is part of nighthunter’s idea, so the model stays true to the original concept.

 

For the same reason I omitted the original X-29 nose, which is rather pointy, sports vanes and a large sensor boom. The F-16 nose was a plausible choice, as the AN/APG-80 is also carried by late Fighting Falcons, and its shape fits well, too.

 

All around the hull, some small details like radar warning sensors, pitots and air scoops were added. Not really necessary, but such thing add IMHO to the overall impression of such a fictional aircraft beyond the prototype stage.

 

Cockpit and landing gear were taken OOB, I just added a pilot figure and slightly modified the seat.

 

The ordnance was puzzled together from the scrap box, the AIM-9Ls come from the same F-4 kit which donated its outer wings, the AIM-120s come from an Italeri NATO weapons kit. The drop tanks belong to an F-16.

  

Painting and markings:

At first I considered an F-24I in IAF markings, or even a Japanese aircraft, but then reverted to one of nighthunter’s initial, simple ideas: an USAF aircraft in the “Hill II” paint scheme (F-16 style), made up from three shades of gray (FS 36118, 36270 and 36375) with low-viz markings and stencils. Dutch/Turkish NF-5A/Bs in the “Hill II” scheme were used as design benchmarks, too. It’s a simple livery, but on this delta wing aircraft it looks pretty interesting. I used enamels, what I had at hand: Humbrol 127 and 126, and Modelmaster's 1723.

 

A light black ink wash was applied, in order to em,phasize the engraved panel lines, in contrast to that, panels were manually highlighted through dry-brushed, lighter shades of gray (Humbrol 27, 166 and 167).

 

“Hill II” also adds to a generic, realistic touch for this whif. Doing an exotic air force thing is rather easy, but creating a convincing whif for a huge military machinery like the USAF’s takes more subtlety, I think.

 

The cockpit was painted in medium Gray (Dark Gull Grey, FS 36231, Humbrol 140), as well as the radome. The landing gear and the air intakes were painted white. The radome was painted with Revell 47 and dry-brushed with Humbrol 140.

 

Decals were puzzled together from various USAF aircraft, including sheets from an Airfix F-117, an Italeri F-15E and even an Academy OV-10D.

  

Tadah: a hardware tribute to an idea, born from boredom - and the aircraft does not look even bad at all? What I wanted to achieve was to make the F-24 neither look like a F-20, nor a Saab Gripen clone, as the latter comes close in overall shape, size and design.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

Under the Treaty of Trianon (1920), Hungary was forbidden from owning military aircraft. However, a secret air arm was gradually established under the cover of civilian flying clubs. During 1938, as a result of the Bled agreement, the existence of the Royal Hungarian Air Force (Hungarian: Magyar Királyi Honvéd Légierő (MKHL)), was made known. The army's aviation service was reorganized and expanded.

 

Late 1938 the army aviation was once again reorganized. Admiral Horthy, the head of state, ordered that the army aviation should become an independent service with effect of 01.09.1939. It subsequently participated in clashes with the newly established Slovak Republic and in the border confrontation with the Kingdom of Romania.

 

In 1940, the decision was made to unite the Air Force, the anti-aircraft forces, and the civilian air defense organizations under one central headquarters. In April 1941, operations were conducted in support of the German invasion of Yugoslavia and, on 27 June 1941, Hungary declared war on the Soviet Union.

On 01.06.1941, the Air Defense Corps was established, and Lieutenant General Béla Rákosi became Commander of Army Aviation. In effect the Air Force had once again become part of the Army. In the summer of 1942, an air brigade was attached to the Luftwaffe's VIII. Fliegerkorps at the Eastern Front.

 

At that time, most of the Hungarian Air Force's fighter equipment was of German origin, consisting of types like Bf 109 F and G, Fw 190 A/F, Me 210. But some indigenous designs were under development, too, e. g. at the RMI, Repülo Muszaki Intézet, or Aviation Technical Institute. Its aircraft were primarily (but not exclusively) by László Varga, and as a result, RMI designs were often given the Varga name (in some cases, even when he was not the major designer). But the RMI designation was used in parallel, too.

 

One of the domestic developments was the RMI-11 'Sólyom' (= Falcon) fighter. This single engine aircraft drew heavily upon the Bf 109 design, but featured some changes and improvements like an inward-retracting landing gear or a bubble canopy. It also incorporated elements from the heavy RMI-8 fighter, a push/pull design with twin tail booms, but the RMI-8’s sole prototype was destroyed by Allied air raids before a serious test program could be launched.

 

In contrast to the complex RMI-8 the RMI-11 was a small and light aircraft, a conventional but clean design, based on simple shapes for easy, modular production. Most of its structure was made from wood, saving sparse metal whenever possible. Empty weight was, for instance, about 200 kg less than a contemporary Bf- 109 G.

 

The RMI-11 was driven by a liquid-cooled DB 605 inverted V12 engine, rated at 1.475 hp. Thanks to the low weight of the airframe, the machine achieved a high top speed and an exceptional high rate of climb.

 

Originally designed as a fast and agile interceptor in the early stages of WWII, the RMI was only armed with two 13mm MG 131 with 300 RPG and two 7.92 mm MG 17 in the outer wings. Two underwing hardpoints could carry up to 100 kg each.

 

The RMI-11 prototype made its maiden flight in late 1943 and after a basic but successful test program immediately ordered into production – in a hurry, though, and beginning March 1944, Allied bomber raids began on Hungary and progressively increased in intensity.

 

Production of the RMI-11 gained only slowly momentum, due to material shortages, because the RMI-11was primarily of plywood bonded with a special phenolic resin adhesive that was supplied from German sources. Due to Allied bombing raids on the glue’s original production sites the plywood glue had to be replaced by one that was not as strong, and was later found to react chemically, apparently in a corrosive manner, with the wood in RMI-11’s structure. In November 1944, several RMI-11s crashed with wing and tail failures due to plywood delamination. This same problem also critically affected the German Focke Wulf Ta 154 and Heinkel He 162 programs.

 

Late in 1944 all efforts were redirected towards countering the advancing Red Army. Soon it was clear that the type needed long range cannons with higher caliber in order to encounter heavy Allied bombers, so plans were made to add heavier German armament. This was realized through an extra pair of MG 151/20 20 mm cannons with 150 RPG, which were added in fairings under the wings instead of the original bomb hardpoints (which were hardly ever used in service at all). During the same refit, the rather ineffective MG 17s were deleted, saving weight and leaving more room inside of the wings for the MG 131s’ ammunition supply (now with 400 RPG)

 

At that time only about 60 production aircraft had been completed and modified, and production was halted due to the severe structural problems. These machines were nevertheless thrown into service, with repairs and upgrades done at the Hungarian airfields – but the glue problem was a constant operational danger.

 

Still, all these efforts were to no avail: All fighting in Hungary ended on 16 April 1945, and all RMI-11’s were scrapped after hostilities ended.

  

General characteristics

Crew: 1

Length: 8.82 m (28 ft 10 ½ in)

Wingspan: 10.58 m (34 ft 8 in)

Height: 4.10 m (13 ft 5 in)

Wing area: 16.82 m² (181.00 ft²)

Empty weight: 1,964 kg (4,330 lb)

Loaded weight: 2,200 kg (4,840 lb)

Max. take-off weight: 2,395 kg (5,280 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Daimler-Benz DB 605A-1 liquid-cooled inverted V12, 1,475 PS (1,085 kW)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 640 km/h (398 mph) at 6,300 m (20,669 ft)

Cruise speed: 590 km/h (365 mph) at 6.000 m (19.680 ft)

Range: 850 km (528 mi)

Service ceiling: 12.000 m (39.370 ft)

Rate of climb: 17.0 m/s (3.345 ft/min)

Wing loading: 196 kg/m² (40 lb/ft²)

Power/mass: 344 W/kg (0.21 hp/lb)

 

Armament:

2× 13mm MG 131 (.51 in) machine guns in the wings,400 RPG, plus 2× 20mm MG 151/20 (.51 in) machine cannons, 150 RPG, in external underwing fairings.With the cannons deleted up to 8× 15 kg (33 lb) or 2× 50, 100, or 150 kg (110, 220, or 330 lb) bombs under the wings

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is a serious kitbash and a totally fictional aircraft - and you are IMHO an expert modeler if you recognize what basically went into it!

 

This build was inspired when I recently bought an RS Models Nakajima Kikka jet fighter, the double seater kit. As a bonus it comes with two fuselages: effectively, it is the single seater kit with an extra sprue and a different canopy. Looking at the Kikka's profile I found that it HAD to be converted into a piston engine aircraft, with a liquid-cooled engine. Wings and anything else would come from the scrap box, but it should become a sleek fighter aircraft, a late WWII design.

 

From that, things went straightforward:

● Fuselage from a RS Models Nakajima N9J1 "Kikka", front end cut away

● Wings from an Revell Macchi C.200 Saetta

● Stabilizers from an Art Model MiG I-210 fighter

● Canopy from a late Supermarine Spitfire (Special Hobby, IIRC)

● Nose/engine and radiators from an RS Models Ki-78

● The propeller was scratched from single pieces/blades and the Ki-78 spinner

● The landing gear is a Ki-78/C.200 parts mix.

I settled for the Ki-78's radiator installment on the rear flanks because it is a unique feature and simply does not hamper the sleek side profile. I also thought that this might have been a smart solution for modular production - fuselage and wings could be completed separately.

 

The Ki-78 engine had to be widened considerably to match the Kikka’s trapezoidal fuselage diameter, putty and major sculpting resulted in a relatively smooth and subtle intersection. As per usual, an axis construction for the propeller was added, too, so that it can spin freely. Mating wings and fuselage necessitated a new cockpit floor (which acts at the same time as landing gear well interior), and a 3mm bridge at the wing roots had to filled – but that was easy.

The cockpit interior was outfitted with spares, the Spitfire canopy needed some small styrene wedges under the windshield to make it fit onto the Kikka fuselage.

 

Things went rather smoothly until I fixed the wings to the completed fuselage. However I placed them, it looked odd – too far back, and the nose stood out; too far forward, and the tail was too long. Somehow, proportions did not match – only slightly, but it bugged me. So far that I eventually decided to shorten the fuselage – after having completed it, radiators already in place and everything sanded even. I made a vertical cut behind the cockpit and removed ~7mm of length – and suddenly the aircraft looked good! Needed some extra body work, but the aircraft looks much more balanced now.

 

The underwing fairings for the cannons were late additions, too. I wanted to keep the fuselage clean, with no nose guns, but adding heavier armament turned out to be tricky. The fairing solution was inspired by a real-world Fw 190 Rüstsatz which featured two MG 151/20 apiece. I had appropriate parts from an Academy Fw 190 left over, so I sliced these up and narrowed them for a single cannon each, and this was the right size for the slender aircraft. All gun barrels were created through heated and pulled-out styrene tubes.

  

Painting and markings:

Deciding what this aircraft was to become was tougher than building it! With its clearly German origin it had to be a WWII Axis type, but I did neither want a German nor a Japanese aircraft, even Italy was ruled out – all too obvious. With Hungary and its RMI designs I eventually found a good potential origin, and this also allowed a rather "colorful" livery. With the Hungarian background this kitbash became the RMI-11.

 

The paint scheme was inspired by an experimental Hungarian camouflage in Green, Gray and Brown, seen on a Bf 109G. I could not find color indications, but in the end I settled for three RLM tones for the upper sides, RLM 71, 75 and 79, coupled with RLM 76 for the lower sides. All tones are enamels from Modelmaster's Authentic range, panels and leading edges were slightly emphasized with lighter shades. As a small design twist I added a wavy, medium waterline on the fuselage sides.

 

Interior surfaces were, lacking any reference, kept in RLM 02. In order not to be too fanciful, the spinner became black with a green tip (RLM 62), and the blades were painted with a mix of RLM 70 (Black Green) and Black, for a very dark and dull green tone, Luftwaffe style.

 

The yellow markings correspond to German Luftwaffe markings of the late WWII era, the yellow 45° “V” under the lower left wing was introduced in the Balkan region in 1944, it was also carried by Luftwaffe aircraft in this conflict theatre.

The flashy decoration on all tail surfaces disappeared at that time on real aircraft (only small Hungarian flags were carried on the tail rudder), but I still incorporated the full national insignia because it's unique and a colorful contrast to the rest of the aircraft.

 

Most markings belong to a real Hungarian Bf 109G (from a Print Scale aftermarket sheet), I just scratched the national markings on the fuselage and the yellow markings (all cut from stock decal material) and parts of the Hungarian flag insignia on the tail: the tips were painted with red, the white and green bands were cut to measure from a Frecce Tricolori sheet.

 

A light black ink wash was applied and some dry painting added with gray and black (for soot and exhaust stains), for a lightly weathered effect. As final step, everything was sealed under matt acrylic varnish (Revell).

  

A quickie, done in just a week, but with a very convincing look. One might recognize Bf 109 F/G, Ki-78 and even He 100 features, but none of these aircraft really matches up with the RMI-11 at second glance, there are too many individual differences. If it gets you wondering – mission accomplished! ;)

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Douglas F3D Skyknight (later designated F-10 Skyknight) was a United States twin-engined, mid-wing jet fighter aircraft manufactured by the Douglas Aircraft Company in El Segundo, California. The F3D was designed as a carrier-based all-weather night fighter and saw service with the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps. The mission of the F3D-2 was to search out and destroy enemy aircraft at night.

 

The F3D was not intended to be a typical sleek and nimble dogfighter, but as a standoff night fighter, packing a powerful radar system and a second crew member. It originated in 1945 with a US Navy requirement for a jet-powered, radar-equipped, carrier-based night fighter. The Douglas team led by Ed Heinemann designed around the bulky air intercept radar systems of the time, with side-by-side seating for the pilot and radar operator. The result was an aircraft with a wide, deep, and roomy fuselage. Instead of ejection seats, an escape tunnel was used.

 

As a night fighter that was not expected to be as fast as smaller daylight fighters, the expectation was to have a stable platform for its radar system and the four 20 mm cannon mounted in the lower fuselage. The F3D was, however, able to outturn a MiG-15 in an inside circle. The fire control system in the F3D-1 was the Westinghouse AN/APQ-35.

The AN/APQ-35 was advanced for the time, a combination of three different radars, each performing separate functions: an AN/APS-21 search radar, an AN/APG-26 tracking radar, both located in the nose, and an AN/APS-28 tail warning radar. The complexity of this vacuum tube-based radar system, which was produced before the advent of semiconductor electronics, required intensive maintenance to keep it operating properly.

 

The F3D Skyknight was never produced in great numbers but it did achieve many firsts in its role as a night fighter over Korea. While it never achieved the fame of the North American F-86 Sabre, it did down several Soviet-built MiG-15s as a night fighter over Korea with only one air-to-air loss of its own against a Chinese MiG-15 on the night of 29 May 1953.

 

In the years after the Korean War, the F3D was gradually replaced by more powerful aircraft with better radar systems. The F3D's career was not over though; its stability and spacious fuselage made it easily adaptable to other roles. The Skyknight played an important role in the development of the radar-guided AIM-7 Sparrow missile in the 1950s which led to further guided air-to-air missile developments.

In 1954, the F3D-2M was the first U.S. Navy jet aircraft to be fitted with an operational air-to-air missile: the Sparrow I,an all weather day/night BVR missile that used beam riding guidance for the aircrew to control the flight of the missile. Only 38 aircraft (12 F3D-1Ms, and 16 F3D-2Ms) were modified to use the missiles, though.

 

One of the F3D's main flaws, which it shared with many early jet aircraft, was its lack of power and performance. Douglas tried to mend this through a radical redesign: The resulting F3D-3 was the designation assigned to a swept-winged version (36° sweep at quarter chord) of the Skyknight. It was originally to be powered by the J46 turbojet, rated at 4.080 lbf for takeoff, which was under development but suffered serious trouble.

 

This led to the cancellation of the J46, and calculated performance of the F3D-3 with the substitute J34 was deemed insufficient. As an alternative the aircraft had to be modified to carry two larger and longer J47-GE-2 engines, which also powered the USN's FJ-2 "Fury" fighter.

This engine's thrust of 6.000 pounds-force (27 kN) at 7,950 rpm appeared sufficient for the heavy, swept-wing aircraft, and in 1954 an order for 287 production F3D-3s was issued, right time to upgrade the new type with the Sparrow I.

 

While the F3D-3's outline resembled that of its straight wing predecessors, a lot of structural changes had to be made to accommodate the shifted main wing spar, and the heavy radar equipment also took its toll: the gross weight climbed by more than 3 tons, and as a result much of the gained performance through the stronger engines and the swept wings was eaten away.

 

Maximum internal fuel load was 1.350 US gallons, plus a further 300 in underwing drop tanks. Overall wing surface remained the same, but the swept wing surfaces reduced the wing span.

In the end, thrust-to-weight ratio was only marginally improved and in fact, the F3D-3 had a lower rate of climb than the F3D-2, its top speed at height was only marginally higher, and stall speed climbed by more than 30 mph, making carrier landings more complicated.

 

It's equipment was also the same - the AN/APQ-35 was still fitted, but mainly because the large radar dish offered the largest detection range of any carrier-borne type of that time, and better radars that could match this performance were still under construction. Anyway, the F3D-3 was able to carry Sparrow I from the start, and this would soon be upgraded to Sparrow III (which became the AIM-7), and it showed much better flight characteristics at medium altitude.

 

Despite the ,many shortcomings the "new" aircraft represented an overall improvement over the F3D-2 and was accepted for service. Production of the F3D-3 started in 1955, but technology advanced quickly and a serious competitor with supersonic capability appeared with the McDonnell F3H Demon and the F4D Skyray - much more potent aircraft that the USN immediately preferred to the slow F3Ds. As a consequence, the production contract was cut down to only 102 aircraft.

 

But it came even worse: production of the swept wing Skyknight already ceased after 18 months and 71 completed airframes. Ironically, the F3D-3's successor, the F3H and its J40 engine, turned out to be more capricious than expected, which delayed the Demon's service introduction and seriously hampered its performance, so that the F3D-3 kept its all weather/night fighter role until 1960, and was eventually taken out of service in 1964 when the first F-4 Phantom II fighters appeared in USN service.

 

In 1962 all F3D versions were re-designated into F-10, the swept wing F3D-3 became the F-10C. The straight wing versions were used as trainers and also served as an electronic warfare platform into the Vietnam War as a precursor to the EA-6A Intruder and EA-6B Prowler, while the swept-wing fighters were completely retired as their performance and mission equipment had been outdated. The last F-10C flew in 1965.

  

General characteristics

Crew: two

Length: 49 ft (14.96 m)

Wingspan: 42 feet 5 inches (12.95 m)

Height: 16 ft 1 in (4.90 m)

Wing area: 400 ft² (37.16 m²)

Empty weight: 19.800 lb (8.989 kg)

Loaded weight: 28,843 lb (13.095 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 34.000 lb (15.436 kg)

 

Powerplant:

2× General Electric J47-GE-2 turbojets, each rated at 6.000 lbf (26,7 kN) each

 

Performance

Maximum speed: 630 mph (1.014 km/h) at sea level, 515 mph (829 km/h) t (6,095 m)

Cruise speed: 515 mph (829 km/h) at 40,000 feet

Stall speed: 128 mph (206 km/h)

Range: 890 mi (1.433 km) with internal fuel; 1,374 mi, 2,212 km with 2× 300 gal (1.136 l) tanks

Service ceiling: 43.000 ft (13.025 m)

Rate of climb: 2,640 ft/min (13,3 m/s)

Wing loading: 53.4 lb/ft² (383 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.353

 

Armament

4× 20 mm Hispano-Suiza M2 cannon, 200 rpg, in the lower nose

Four underwing hardpoints inboard of the wing folding points for up to 4.000 lb (1.816 kg)

ordnance, including AIM-7 Sparrow air-to-air missiles, 11.75 in (29.8cm) Tiny Tim rockets, two

150 or 300 US gal drop tanks or bombs of up to 2.000 lb (900 kg) caliber, plus four hardpoints

under each outer wing for a total of eight 5" HVARs or eight pods with six 2 3/4" FFARs each

  

The kit and its assembly:

Another project which had been on the list for some years now but finally entered the hardware stage. The F3D itself is already a more or less forgotten aircraft, and there are only a few kits available - there has been a vacu kit, the Matchbox offering and lately kits in 1:72 and 1:48 by Sword.

 

The swept wing F3D-3 remained on the drawing board, but would have been a very attractive evolution of the tubby Skyknight. In fact, the swept surfaces resemble those of the A3D/B-66 a Iot, and this was the spark that started the attempt to build this aircraft as a model through a kitbash.

 

This model is basically the Matchbox F3D coupled with wings from an Italeri B-66, even though, being much bigger, these had to be modified.

 

The whole new tail is based on B-66 material. The fin's chord was shortened, though, and a new leading edge (with its beautiful curvature) had to be sculpted from 2C putty. The vertical stabilizers also come from the B-66, its span was adjusted to the Skyknight's and a new root intersection was created from styrene and putty, so that a cross-shaped tail could be realized.

The tail radar dish was retained, even though sketches show the F3D-3 without it.

 

The wings were take 1:1 from the B-66 and match well. They just had to be shortened, I set the cut at maybe 5mm outwards of the engine pods' attachment points. They needed some re-engraving for the inner flaps, as these would touch the F3D-3's engines when lowered, but shape, depth and size are very good for the conversion.

 

On the fuselage, the wings' original "attachment bays" had to be filled, and the new wings needed a new position much further forward, directly behind the cockpit, in order to keep the CoG.

 

One big issue would be the main landing gear. On the straight wing aircraft it retracts outwards, and I kept this arrangement. No detail of the exact landing gear well position was available to me, so I used the Matchbox parts as stencils and placed the new wells as much aft as possible, cutting out new openings from the B-66 wings.

The OOB landing gear was retained, but I added some structure to the landing gear wells with plastic blister material - not to be realistic, just for the effect. A lot of lead was added in the kit's nose section, making sure it actually stands on the front wheel.

 

The Matchbox Skyknight basically offers no real problems, even though the air intake design leaves, by tendency some ugly seams and even gaps. I slightly pimped the cockpit with headrests, additional gauges and a gunsight, as well as two (half) pilot figures. I did not plan to present the opened cockpit and the bulbous windows do not allow a clear view onto the inside anyway, so this job was only basically done. In fact, the pilots don't have a lower body at all...

 

Ordnance comprises of four Sparrow III - the Sparrow I with its pointed nose could have been an option, too, but I think at the time of 1960 the early version was already phased out?

   

Painting and markings:

This was supposed to become a typical USN service aircraft of the 60ies, so a grey/white livery was predetermined. I had built an EF-10B many years ago from the Matchbox kit, and the grey/white guise suits the Whale well - and here it would look even better, with the new, elegant wings.

 

For easy painting I used semi matt white from the rattle can on the lower sides (painting the landing gear at the same time!), and then added FS 36440 (Light Gull Grey, Humbrol 129) with a brush to the upper sides. The radar nose became semi matt black (with some weathering), while the RHAWS dish was kept in tan (Humbrol 71).

 

In order to emphasize the landing gear and the respective wells I added a red rim to the covers.

The cockpit interior was painted in dark grey - another factor which made adding too many details there futile, too...

 

The aircraft's individual marking were to be authentic, and not flamboyant. In the mid 50ies the USN machines were not as colorful as in the Vietnam War era, that just started towards the 60ies.

 

The markings I used come primarily from an Emhar F3H Demon, which features no less than four(!) markings, all with different colors. I settled for a machine of VF-61 "Jolly Rogers", which operated from the USS Saratoga primarily in the Mediterranean from 1958 on - and shortly thereafter the unit was disbanded.

 

I took some of the Demon markings and modified them with very similar but somewhat more discrete markings from VMF-323, which flew FJ-4 at the time - both squadrons marked their aircraft with yellow diamonds on black background, and I had some leftover decals from a respective Xtradecal sheet in the stash.

  

IMHO a good result with the B-66 donation parts, even though I am not totally happy with the fin - it could have been more slender at the top, and with a longer, more elegant spine fillet, but for that the B-66 fin was just too thick. Anyway, I am not certain if anyone has ever built this aircraft? I would not call the F3D-3 elegant or beautiful, but the swept wings underline the fuselage's almost perfect teardrop shape, and the thing reminds a lot of the later Grumman A-6 Intruder?

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some Background:

The Lavochkin OKB was founded in 1937 as OKB-301, a Soviet aircraft design bureau. The head designer was Vladimir P. Gorbunov. On October, 1945 Semyon Lavochkin was promoted for the head designer of the design bureau. The OKB gained distinction for its family of piston-engined fighter aircraft during World War II, and later shifted to missile and jet fighter designs.

 

The latter comprised several experimental designs that were build in order to test the potential of jet engines and swept wings - a heritage from WWII. One of these designs was the light Aircraft 160, with a pod-and-boom layout and powered by a single RD-10 axial turbojet.

 

Despite the flight success of Aircraft 160, Lavochkin also followed an alternative route: a heavier aircraft that carried two engines under its wings. Knowing that the standard RD-10 (actually a poor copy of the German Jumo 004B jet engine that had powered, among others, the Me 262) did not supply enough power for a serious single engine fighter aircraft, Aircraft 170.

 

Like the contemporary Suchoj Su-9 fighter, Aircraft 170 resembled the Me 262 a lot, even though it was no copy. Its most innovative feature were wings with a 40° sweep at 1/4 chord, mounted in a mid-position and with an almost constant chord from root to tip. A pair of Tumansky RD-10 jet engines was carried in sleek nacelles that were directly attached to the wings' undersurfaces. Tail surfaces were swept, too, the elevator placed high, close to the fin's top in order to keep it away from any jet efflux.

 

Aircraft 170 had a circular cross-section, all-metal stressed skin monocoque fuselage that housed a single, pressurized cockpit. The pilot was protected by armor plates to his front, an armored seat back and a bulletproof windscreen for the bubble canopy. He was provided with an ejection seat, copied from that used in the Heinkel He 162.

The tricycle landing gear was fully retractable; the nose wheel retracted backwards, while the main wheels retracted inwards into the wing roots. Fuel was carried in three main tanks in the fuselage, two auxillary tanks were placed in the wings.

 

Intended to intercept American bombers like the B-29. To ensure the destruction of such large bombers, the fighter originally carried three cannons in its nose: two 23 mm with 100 rounds per gun and a single 37 mm with 40 rounds.

 

Construction of a full-scale mockup was completed in June 1947 and two prototypes ordered for flight testing. The first flight was on 24 June 1948 and took place at Khimki airfield, near Moscow. The first prototype was aptly coded "170 Red".

Successful flight trials were quickly followed by public display at the 1948 Aviation Day airshow at Tushino. This flight demonstration was a show because the original RD-10 engines did not provide enough power to lift Aircraft 170 off of the ground at full weight - all cannons had to be removed, and only a limited fuel load for 30 min of flight was carried!

But these flaws remained well hidden and the new type immediately earned the NATO ASCC code "Forkbeard".

 

Even with these harsh performance limits Aircraft 170 was evaluated in mock air-to-air combat trials with a captured U.S. B-29, as well as the later Soviet B-29 copy, the Tu-4 "Bull". Once up in the air, Aircraft 170 showed the potential of its basic construction and its good handling characteristics, even though the overall lack of power and sluggish as well as unreliable engines kept haunting the tests.

 

Things were to improve in early 1949 with the installation of indigenous afterburners to the RD-10 engines, especially for take-off and climb. These modified engines were called RD-10 YuF and also tested on board of the single engine Aircraft 160 prototype.

 

Aircraft 170's engine nacelles were lengthened and widened accordingly, and the modifed 1st prototype was re-designated Aircraft 171, its code being changed into "171 Red". By late 1949, a second prototype had finally been built (coded "172 Red"), directly outfitted with the uprated engine.

 

Experimentally, a heavy 45mm Nudelman-Suranov NS-45 cannon with 30 rounds was fitted to both aircraft. Combat trials showed that although the NS-45 cannon proved deadly to enemy aircraft, realistically only its first shot could be aimed. A three-round burst, even when fired near the maximum airspeed of Aircraft 171, resulted in a noticeable loss of both airspeed and stability. Vibrations and shock waves were so heavy that sometimes oil lines sprung leaks after the gun was fired! Firing the NS-45 at airspeeds below 350 km/h even shook the pilot back and forth as if in an automobile suddenly decelerating and accelerating!

 

Trials continued until summer 1951 when "171 Red" broke up in flight, due to wing flutter, during tests to establish the maximum attainable speed. Its sister ship was immediately grounded and the program stopped. At that time the MiG-15 had already entered service successfully, and it offered comparable if not superior performance in almost any respect to the Lavochkin design.

 

Anyway, the experience gained with Aircraft 171 spurred on Soviet aircraft designers to design swept winged fighters, albeit cautiously. On the other side, the RD-10, even with a (thirsty!) afterburner, proved to be a dead end. Since other engines like the centrifugal flow Klimov VK-1 (a copy of the British Rolls-Royce Nene engine) were hard to integrate into the Aircraft 171's structure. Nevertheless, work with the YuF afterburner helped pave the way to the MiG-15's successor, the MiG-17, powered by the Klimov VK-1F afterburning turbojet, which was accepted into service in mid-1951.

 

The surviving "172 Red" prototype eventually ended up as an instructional airframe at the Kremenchuk Flight College of the National Aviation University, and it was scrapped in 1965.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 12.78 m (41 ft 10 in)

Wingspan: 11.27 m (36 ft 11 in)

Height: 4.59 m (15 ft 12 in)

Wing area: 21.7 m² (234 ft²)

Empty weight: 4,060 kg (8,951 lb)

Loaded weight: 6,473 kg (14,272 lb)

Fuel capacity: 1.350 kg

Max. takeoff weight: 7,130 kg (15,720 lb)

 

Powerplant:

2× Tumansky RD-10 YuF axial turbojets, each with 8.83 kN (1,984 lbf)dry thrust

and 11.17 kN (2,510 lbf) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 900 km/h (559 mph)

Range: 1,050 km (652 mi)

Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,565 ft)

Rate of climb: 1,200 m/min (At max weight of 7,130 kg) (3,900 ft/min)

Thrust/weight: 0.28

 

Armament:

2x Nudelman-Richter NR-23 23 mm (0.9") cannon in the lower right fuselage with 100 RPG

1x Nudelman-Suranov NS-45 45 mm (1.8") cannon in the lower left fuselage (30 RPG)

  

The kit and its assembly:

My fourth entry to the early 2016 Cold War GB at whatifmodelers.com. Again, it's a project from the long ideas list that finally made it to the hardware stage through a GB's occasion.

This one was originally inspired by an illustration in what I deem a 1950s book about aircraft, including Soviet designs. Based on vague pictures and probably lots of speculation, it is funny to see what the enemy's aircraft were supposed to look like.

 

In this case, my benchmark was a rather fictional "Lavochkin La-16" fighter, which looked like a travesty version of a Republic F-84G with engine pods under its wings. Actually, the painting rather shows the Yak-25 all-weather interceptor, but you can only recognize it if you know hat you were looking for!

 

Anyway, the idea of a modified Thunderstreak had some charm, and this is what my kitbash for a fictional Soviet fighter is based upon. For a stronger retro feeling I used the straight wing F-84G, a Heller kit which donated its fuselage and landing gear.

 

The wings come from a PM Model Ta 183, the engine nacelles (from a Matchbox Me 262) were inserted as spacers into the wings. Their wing position was defined by the landing gear starts' length.

 

The original nose air intake was closed with a radome from an F-94C (Emhar) and the tail shortened - mostly because of the new swept tail surfaces, which come from a KP MiG-15 (a horribly crude kit!).

 

While this combination sounds harmless the integration of the parts took some serious effort and sculpting with putty!

  

Painting and markings:

As a classic Soviet prototype of the Fifties, choice of livery was simple: an all-metal finish with some Red Stars plus a code number.

 

At first, and also in order to control the surface finish after all the PSR work, the kit received a uniform coat with "White Aluminum" acrylic spray paint - this revealed several flaws.

 

Later, after mending many dents and scratches, several silver and grey shades were used on different panel and rudder areas, including Revell Acrylic Aluminum, Alu Plate, Steel, Magnesium and Titanium Metallizer as well as RAF Barley Grey.

The cockpit interior was painted with PRU Blue while the landing gear wells received a more grey-ish coat with FS 35237. Some red dots mark openings for fuel and oil and slightly brighten things up, as well as a red trim tab on the fin.

 

Grinded graphite was used for a weathered look and to emphasize the metallic impression. Panel lines were painted manually onto wings and fuselage with a very soft pencil.

 

After decal application (Red Stars from a Hobby Boss MiG-15, the tactical code was puzzled together from various sources) the kit was sealed under a semi-glossy coat of acrylic varnish.

  

Not a spectacular masterpiece, but a funny build and in so far interesting as Aircraft 171 rather appears like a pregnant Me 262 than a converted F-84F? Even the similarity with the Yak-25 is only remote, mostly in top view where the wing planform with the nacelles resembles the much bigger Soviet interceptor most? Still, this creation carries some of the Fifties/Cold War retro feeling.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

Failure of the shipboard fighter requirement issued by the Service Technique Aeronautique in June 1946 (and which had resulted in Aerocentre NC 1080, Arsenal VG 90 and Nord 2200 prototypes being built) led to consideration being given to adoption by the Aeronavale of the Grumman F9F-5 Panther.

 

In January 1951, however, the Ministère de la Marine announced the decision to adopt the de Havilland Sea Venom Mk 20, which was being developed for the Royal Navy as a side-by-side two-seat shipboard all-weather fighter and had yet to enter flight test. The first of these flew on 31 October 1952, and the name Aquilon (North Wind) being adopted. It was powered by aF iat-built de Havilland Ghost, armament comprising four 20mm cannon.

 

Non-availability of the intended Thomson AI radar restricted the Aquilon 201 two-seaters to diurnal operation, the same restriction being imposed on the next 25 aircraft which, delivered as Aquilon 202s, were entirely manufactured in France and differed in having ejection seats, an aft-sliding rather than aft-hinged cockpit canopy and a strengthened undercarriage. A decision was taken to adopt the Westinghouse APQ 65 AI radar, but, without major redesign of the airframe it was found impossible to fit this equipment in the ejection seat-equipped two-seater.

 

Production therefore continued with the Aquilon 203 single-seater, the last 25 of the 40 production examples of this version being equipped with APQ 65 radar as were the six two-seat Aquilon 204 radar trainers (not fitted with ejection seats) that brought production (a total of 121) to an end. The last of these being flown at the beginning of 1958, but already a couple of years before it was already clear that a more potent aircraft had to be found for the new French Clemenceau Class carriers that were to enter service in the 1960ies.

 

Through the fast aircraft technology development in the mid-fifties the bar was raised: the new carrier-borne fighter was to feature swept wings and be capable of supersonic speed. Therefore, SNCASO proposed in 1953 the S.O. 3200, an aircraft that roughly resembled the Dassault Mystere II (the prototype first flew on 28 September 1952) but which was more advanced and was from the start dedicated to carrier operations.

 

The S.O. 3200 featured a 40-degree swept wing (compared to the 30-degree wing of the Mystère II, plus a thinner profile), swept tail surfaces and with its lateral air intakes the aircraft reminded a lot of the Mystère IIIN prototype, but internally the aircraft had nothing in common. The cockpit was moved forward for an improved field of sight, and the outer wing panels could be folded upwards in order to save space. Four 20mm cannons were placed under the air intakes.

 

The S.O. 3200 also introduced a new generation of armament: the new aircraft was able to deploy the first French air-to-air-missile: up to four AA.20 AAMs could be carried on the four underwing hardpoints. Although the AA.20 was from the outset intended to be a fully effective operational weapon, it was generally regarded as an interim missile pending development of the R.53O series.

 

The AA.20 relied on visual guidance and direct steering thorugh the pilot. The missile received its command signals through a coded radio link (the respcetive equipment was isntalles in the S.O. 3200's nose ), governed by a miniature joystick manipulated by the pilot of the launching aircraft. This meant that the target and missile flare had to be visible to the pilot right up to the point (50ft distance) at which the proximity fuze was triggered. Steering was effected by pitch and yaw demands which bias the interruption of vibrating spoilers in the two nozzles from the missile's sustainer. And even though the AA.20 was intended as an air-to-air weapon, its guidance system meant that it could also be used againts ground targets (similar to the contemporary AGM-12 Bullpup).

 

Alternatively the S.O. 3200 could carry a pair of drop tanks (the two inner pylons were ‘wet’), up to four bombs of 1.000 lb (454 kg) caliber, pods with unguided 68mm SNEB missiles (against air and ground targets alike) or rails for unguided missiles of larger calibers.

 

The new naval aircraft was powered by a Hispano-Suiza Verdon 350 jet engine, a license-built version of the Rolls-Royce Tay. It offered, with 3,500 kgp/7,715 lbf, more thrust than the Mystère II’s Atar 101D turbojet (3,000 kgp/6,615 lbf), albeit this was necessary through the higher structural weight of the airframe and the aircraft’s special equipment for naval duties.

 

The type was accepted as S.O. 3201 and the first batch of 12 production machines became just operational as French carriers were in 1956 deployed to the eastern Mediterranean Sea during the Suez Crisis. On 3 November, F4U Corsairs from Arromanches and Lafayette, under escort of AA.20-armed S.O. 3201 fighters, bombed Egyptian airfields around Cairo.

 

Due to the merger of SNCASO and SNCASE into a new, state-owned aircraft manufacturer in the course of 1957 the aircraft was re-christened Sud Aviation ‘Bourrasque’ (meaning ‘gust of wind’ and also ‘burst of anger’). That year, a further 20 machines were ordered and production ran rather slowly, so that the second series was to be delivered until 1958.

 

Sud Aviation hoped for export sales, but they never materialized. Aircraft technology evolved in giant leaps and in 1962 the Dassault Étendard IV, a supersonic carrier-borne strike fighter aircraft, entered service with the French Navy. It was a much more modern design than the Bourrasque, and showed much more potential for future development. The Étendard was powered by a SNECMA Atar 8B axial-flow turbojet turbojet with 43.16 kN (9,703 lbf), and this engine offered a much better performance than the voluminous and technologically outdated centrifugal compressor Verdon. Additionally, the Aéronavale introduced the Vought F-8E(FN) as ship-borne fighter aircraft - both types rendered the Bourrasque totally obsolete after less than 10 years of service.

 

Hence, production was soon halted and in total only 40 aircraft were produced at all (the last eight were constructed from components and spare parts) and, together with the Aquilon, were already phased out by the Aéronavale during 1964-65.

 

But while the Aquilons had reached the end of their airframes’ life the remaining Bourrassques in good shape were sold to Israel where the naval equipment was removed and the aircraft relegated to ground attack and training roles. These aircraft were finally retired from Israeli service, together with IDF’s Mystères, on 18 March 1971.

 

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 12.89 m (42 ft 31⁄2 in)

Wingspan: 11.12 m (36 ft 53⁄4 in)

Height: 4.60 m (15 ft 1 in)

Wing area: 32.06 m² (345.1 ft²)

Empty weight: 5,860 kg (12,919 lb)

Loaded weight: 8,510 kg (18,100 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 9,500 kg (20,944 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1 × Hispano-Suiza Verdon 350 turbojet, rated at 34.32 kN (7,716 lbf)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,110 km/h (600 knots, 690 mph) at sea level

Range: 915 km (494  nmi, 570 mi) without internal fuel tanks,

2.280 km (1.231 nmi, 1.417 mi) with external tanks

Service ceiling: 15,000  m (49,200 ft)

Rate of climb: 40  m/s (7,874  ft/min)

 

Armament:

4× 20 mm Hispano-Suiza HS.404 cannon with 125 RPG

2.000 kg (4.405 lb) of payload on four external hardpoints,

incl. a variety of bombs, unguided rockets or drop tanks, or four AA.20 guided missiles

  

The kit and its assembly:

This whif has two origins. One was the question what a naval Mystère II or IV would have looked like, the other one was a leftover Supermarine Attacker fuselage from a shabby Novo kit, for which I had the vague idea of giving it a modern tricycle landing gear and different, maybe swept wings, creating something like an attack version of the Swift.

 

When I held a Matchbox Mystére IV in my hands I wondered if this kit could not be combined with the Attacker (both fuselages have very similar lines), and so this French naval aircraft was born. There was also the hope/idea to build more than one of these "combos"!

 

Bashing both kits was more complicated than expected, though. The Novo Attacker is basic, to express it mildly. It has no cockpit at all, the wing/fuselage intersections are in the wrong position for the Mystère's swept wings, and the latter's landing gear is also not easily compatible with the Attacker fuselage.

 

I added a very basic cockpit, using the Matchbox ejection seat and cutting the original helmet/pilot blob away, plus a cockpit floor which also acts as front lang gear well. For this, a new opening had to be cut out.

The air intake interiors are also naked, so I built some walls inside from styrene sheet and added small splitter plates that cover the intakes' edges... These walls also hide the lead that fills much of the room behind the cockpit.

 

The wing attachments had to go, leaving rather wide gaps in the flanks once the new wings were fitted. I tried to solve this through glueing the wings into place and then filling up the gaps with 2C putty, sculpting new intersections. Messy. The original attachments for the Attacker's stabilizers had to be erased and covered, too. The fin is a 100% transplant from the Mystère.

 

Once the wings were in place I found them to have slightly too much span: the Mystère is a tad bigger/voluminous than the Attacker, and with the OOB wings the whole thing did not look balanced. What to do...? :-/

 

I decided to combine this porblem's solution with an additional gimmick: foldable wings! Originally I just wanted to scribe the respective seams onto the wings, but cutting the wing tips in order to reduce the span was out of question - so I carefully cut the wings in halves and reduced the inner sections' span by about 6mm each - not much, but this improved the proportions a lot!

 

In order to present the kit with folded and spread wings, I used a trick that comes e. g. with Matchbox' EA-6B kit: different adapters. These were simply scratched from PET foil, in two layers so that they fit neatly into the openings that were left after the cutting. The PET stuff is very tough and rigid, and I made the inserts long enough that the outer panels do not hang through. Worked better than expected!

A final issue was the ordnance. I wanted a fighter payload, so the four pylons were filled with a pair of slender drop tanks (from a Matchbox F3D Skyraider) and a pair of AAMs - choice fell on the contemporary AA.20, which was also by the Aquilon night fighter. These had to be scratched, though, from sprue pieces and fins cut from styrene.

  

Painting and markings:

This is the classic Aéronavale livery in the post WWII years: all-over dark blue (FS 35042), which is pretty boring, but the Suez Crisis was a good excuse to add some more color. In this case, it's a set of black and yellow ID stripes, which was e. g. also carried by French F4U-7 that flew missions during this conflict, as well as on RAF and RN aircraft that took part, too.

 

Creating these stripes was tricky, though. Yellow is a PITA to apply, and I did also not want to go thorugh the hustle of masking and endless corrections. Hence, I created the stripes in a "mixed media" fashion: first, the stripes width and position were measured and roughly marked (taking into account the pylons, wing fence and the wings' folding sections!).

Then the inner two black stripes were laid out with black paint on the wings and fuselage. Next, the kit received its overall blue livery, and finally the stripes were added. These were cut from an opaque sheet from TL Modellbau, in apporopriate width and with excess length, and then applied on top of the paint. A VERY convenient process with only few corrections and cosmetics, and I am more than happy with the effect and finish.

 

The cockpit interior was painted in very dark grey, the landing gear was kept in Alumnim, according to typical French jets of that era.

The inside of the folded wings and their "mechanisms" were painted in flat black - there's no detail to be seen, so I tried to blend the visible parts with the black ID stripes in that wing area.

 

The kit received some panel shading with petrol blue, as well as a very light dry-brushing with Ocean Grey on the wings' leading edges and on the fuselage in order to emphazise the raised rivets and access hatches on the Attacker's parts.

 

The decals come mostly from an Italeri F4U-7 kit, as well as the scrap box and other generic TL Modellbau sheets, e. g. for the red markers on the wings for the walking zones - these were puzzled together from 1mm strips.

 

Finally, the kit received a coat of semi-gloss Tamiya varnish from the rattle can.

  

This one looks IMHO very convincing, and the Bourrasque has a true 50ies look that I wanted to achieve. I actually had the plan to build two of these (the other one would have been an Israeli machine), but the conversion/bashing became so complex that I just stuck to this single kit - but who knows, maybe... there's another Attacker fuselage in the stash! ;D

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

 

Some background:

The Northrop Grumman-IAI F-24 is the latest reincarnation of the USAF "Lightweight Fighter Program" which dates back to the 1950ies and started with the development of Northrop's F-5 "Freedom Fighter".

 

The 1st generation F-5 became very successful in the export market and saw a long line of development, including the much more powerful F-5E "Tiger II" and the F-20 Tigershark (initially called F-5G). Northrop had high hopes for the F-20 in the international market; however, policy changes following Ronald Reagan's election meant the F-20 had to compete for sales against aircraft like the F-16, the USAF's latest fighter design (which was politically favored). The F-20 development program was eventually abandoned in 1986 after three prototypes had been built and a fourth partially completed.

 

But this was not the end for Northrop’s Lightweight Fighter. In the early 1980s, two X-29As experimental aircraft were built by Grumman from two existing Northrop F-5A Freedom Fighter airframes. The Grumman X-29 was a testbed for forward-swept wings, canard control surfaces, and other novel aircraft technologies. The aerodynamic instability of this arrangement increased agility but required the use of computerized fly-by-wire control. Composite materials were used to control the aeroelastic divergent twisting experienced by forward-swept wings, also reducing the weight. The NASA test program continued from 1984 to 1991 and the X-29s flew 242 times, gathering valuable data and breaking ground for new aerodynamic technologies of 4th and 5th generation fighters.

 

Even though no service aircraft directly evolved from the X-29, its innovative FBW system as well as the new material technologies also opened the door for an updated F-20 far beyond the 1990ies. It became clear that ever expensive and complex aircraft could not be the answer to modern, asymmetrical warfare in remote corners of the world, with exploding development costs and just a limited number of aircraft in service that could not generate true economies of scale, esp. when their state-of-the-art design would not permit any export.

Anyway, a global market for simpler fighter aircraft was there, as 1st generation F-16s as well as the worldwide, aging F-5E fleet and types of Soviet/Russian origin like the MiG-29 provided the need for a modern, yet light and economical jet fighter. Contemporary types like the Indian HAL Tejas, the Swedish Saab Gripen, the French Dassault Rafale and the Pakistani/Chinese FC-1/JF-17 ”Thunder” proved this trend among 4th - 4.5th generation fighter aircraft.

 

Northrop Grumman (Northrop bought Grumman in 1994) initiated studies and basic design work on a respective New Lightweight Fighter (NLF) as a private venture in 1995. Work on the NLF started at a slow pace, as the company was busy with re-structuring.

The idea of an updated lightweight fighter was fueled by another source, too: Israel. In 1998 IAI started looking in the USA for a development partner for a new, light fighter that would replace its obsolete Kfir fleet and partly relieve its F-16 and F-15 fleet from interception tasks. The domestic project for that role, the IAI Lavi, had been stillborn, but lots of its avionics and research were still at hand and waited for an airframe for completion.

The new aircraft for the IAF was to be superior to the MiG-29, at least on par with the F-16C/D, but easier to maintain, smaller and overall cheaper. Since the performance profiles appeared to be similar to what Northrop Grumman was developing under the NLF label, the US company eventually teamed up with IAI in 2000 and both started the mutual project "Namer" (=נמר, “Tiger” in Hebrew), which eventually lead to the F-24 I for the IAF which kept its project name for service and to the USAF’s F-24A “Tigershark”.

 

The F-24, as the NLF, was based on the F-20 airframe, but outwardly showed only little family heritage, onle the forward fuselage around the cockpit reminds of the original F-5 design . Many aerodynamic details, e. g. the air intakes and air ducts, were taken over from the X-29, though, as the experimental aircraft and its components had been developed for extreme maneuvers and extra high agility. Nevertheless, the X-29's forward-swept wing was considered to be too exotic and fragile for a true service aircraft, but the F-24 was to feature an Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) system.

 

AAW Technology integrates wing aerodynamics, controls, and structure to harness and control wing aeroelastic twist at high speeds and dynamic pressures. By using multiple leading and trailing edge controls like "aerodynamic tabs", subtle amounts of aeroelastic twist can be controlled to provide large amounts of wing control power, while minimizing maneuver air loads at high wing strain conditions or aerodynamic drag at low wing strain conditions. This system was initially tested on the X-29 and later on the X-53 research aircraft, a modified F-18, until 2006.

 

Both USAF and IAF versions feature this state-of-the-art aerodynamic technology, but it is uncertain if other customers will receive it. While details concerning the F-24's system have not been published yet, it is assumed that its AAW is so effective that canard foreplanes could be omitted without sacrificing lift and maneuverability, and that drag is effectively minimized as the wing profile can be adjusted according to the aircraft’s speed, altitude, payload and mission – much like a VG wing, but without its clumsy and heavy swiveling mechanism which has to bear high g forces. As a result, the F-24 is, compared to the F-20, which could carry an external payload of about 3.5 tons, rumored to be able to carry up to 5 tons of ordnance.

 

The delta wing shape proved to be a perfect choice for the required surface and flap actuators inside of the wings, and it would also offer a very good compromise between lift and drag for a wide range of performance. Anyway, there was one price to pay: in order to keep the wing profile thin and simple, the F-24’s landing gear retracts into the lower fuselage, leaving the aircraft with a relatively narrow track.

 

Another major design factor for the outstanding performance of this rather small aircraft was weight reduction and structural integrity – combined with simplicity, ruggedness and a modular construction which would allow later upgrades. Instead of “going big” and expensive, the new F-24 was to create its performance through dedicated loss of weight, which was in some part also a compensation for the AAW system in the wings and its periphery.

 

Weight was saved wherever possible, e .g. a newly developed, lightweight M199A1 gatling gun. This 20mm cannon is a three-barreled, heavily modified version of the already “stripped” M61A2 gun in the USAF’s current F-18E and F-22. One of the novel features is a pneumatic drive instead of the traditional electric mechanism, what not only saves weight but also improves trigger response. The new gun weighs only a mere 65kg (the six-barreled M61A2 weighs 92kg, the original M61A1 112 kg), but still reaches a burst rate of fire of 1.800 RPM (about 800 RPM under cyclic fire, standard practice is to fire the cannon in 30 to 50-round bursts, though) and a muzzle velocity of 1.050 metres per second (3,450 ft/s) with a PGU-28/B round.

 

While the F-16 was and is still made from 80% aluminum alloys and only from 3% composites, the F-24 makes major use of carbon fiber and other lightweight materials, which make up about 40% of the aircraft’s structure, plus an increased share of Titanium and Magnesium alloys. As a consequence and through many other weight-saving measures like keeping stealth capabilities to a minimum (even though RAM was deliberately used and many details designed to have a natural low radar signature, resulting in modest radar cross-section (RCS) reductions), a single, relatively small engine, a fuel-efficient F404-GE-402 turbofan, is enough to make the F-24 a fast and very agile aircraft, coupled with a good range. The F-24’s thrust/weight ratio is considerably higher than 1, and later versions with a vectored thrust nozzle (see below) will take this level of agility even further – with the pilot becoming the limiting factor for the aircraft’s performance.

 

USAF and IAF F-24s are outfitted with Northrop Grumman's AN/APG-80 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, also used in the F-16 Block 60 aircraft. Other customers might only receive the AN/APG-68, making the F-24 comparable to the F-16C/D.

 

The first prototype, the YF-24, flew on 8th of March 2008, followed by two more aircraft plus a static airframe until summer 2010. In early 2011 the USAF placed an initial order of 101 aircraft (probably also to stir export sales – the earlier lightweight fighters from Northrop suffered from the fact that the manufacturer’s country would not use the aircraft in its own forces). These initial aircraft will replace older F-16 in the interceptor role, or free them for fighter bomber tasks. The USN and USMC also showed interest in the aircraft for their aggressor squadrons, for dissimilar air combat training. A two-seater, called the F-24B, is supposed to follow soon, too, and a later version for 2020 onwards, tentatively designated F-24C, is to feature an even stronger F404 engine and a 3D vectoring nozzle.

 

Israel is going to produce its own version domestically from late 2014 on, which will exclusively be used by the IAF. These aircraft will be outfitted with different avionics, built by Elta in Israel, and cater to national requirements which focus more on multi-purpose service, while the USAF focusses with its F-24A on aerial combat and interception tasks.

 

International interest for the F-24A is already there: in late 2013 Grumman stated that initial talks have been made with various countries, and potential export candidates from 2015 on are Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, Finland, Norway, Australia and Japan.

  

General F-24A characteristics:

Crew: 1 pilot

Length: 47 ft 4 in (14.4 m)

Wingspan: 27 ft 11.9 in / 8.53 m; with wingtip missiles (26 ft 8 in/ 8.13 m; without wingtip missiles)

Height: 13 ft 10 in (4.20 m)

Wing area: 36.55 m² (392 ft²)

Empty weight: 13.150 lb (5.090 kg)

Loaded weight: 15.480 lb (6.830 kg)

Max. take-off weight: 27.530 lb (12.500 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× General Electric F404-GE-402 turbofan with a dry thrust of 11,000 lbf (48.9 kN) and 17,750 lbf (79.2 kN) with afterburner

 

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 2+

Combat radius: 300 nmi (345 mi, 556 km); for hi-lo-hi mission with 2 × 330 US gal (1,250 L) drop tanks

Ferry range: 1,490 nmi (1715 mi, 2759 km); with 3 × 330 US gal (1,250 L) drop tanks

Service ceiling: 55,000 ft (16,800 m)

Rate of climb: 52,800 ft/min (255 m/s)

Wing loading: 70.0 lb/ft² (342 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 1.09 (1.35 with loaded weight & 50% fuel)

 

Armament

1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M199A1 3-barreled Gatling cannon in the lower fuselage with 400 RPG

Eleven external hardpoints (two wingtip tails, six underwing hardpoints, three underfuselage hardpoints) and a total capacity of 11.000 lb (4.994 kg) of missiles (incl. AIM 9 Sidewinder and AIM 120 AMRAAM), bombs, rockets, ECM pods and drop tanks for extended range.

  

The kit and its assembly:

A spontaneous project. This major kitbash was inspired by fellow user nighthunter at whatifmodelers.com, who came up with a profile of a mashed-up US fighter, created “out of boredom”. The original idea was called F-21C, and it was to be a domestic successor to the IAI Kfirs which had been used by the US as aggressor aircraft in USN and USMC service for a few years.

 

As a weird(?) coincidence I had many of the necessary ingredients for this fictional aircraft in store, even though some parts and details were later changed. This model here is an interpretation of the original design. The idea was spun further, and the available parts that finally went into the model also had some influence on design and background.

I thank nighthunter for sharing the early ideas, inviting me to take the design to the hardware stage (sort of…) and adapting my feedback into new design sketches, too, which, in return, inspired the model building process.

 

Well, what went into this thing? To cook up a F-24 à la Dizzyfugu you just need (all in 1:72):

● Fuselage from a Hasegawa X-29, including the cockpit and the landing gear

● Fin and nose cone from an Italeri F-16A

● Inner wings from a (vintage) Hasegawa MiG-21F

● Outer wings from a F-4 (probably a J, Hasegawa or Fujimi)

 

The wing construction deviates from nighthunter’s original idea. The favorite ingredients would have been F-16XL or simple Mirage III wings, but I found the composite wing to be more attractive and “different”. The big F-16XL wings, despite their benefit of a unique shape, might also have created scale/size problems with a F-20 style fuselage? So I built hybrid wings: The MiG-21 landing gear wells were filled with putty and the F-4 outer wings simply glued onto the MiG inner wing sections, which were simply cut down in span. It sounds like an unlikely combo, but these parts fit together almost perfectly! In order to hide the F-4 origins I modified them to carry wingtip launch rails, though, which were also part of nighthunter’s original design.

 

The AAW technology detail mentioned in the background came in handy as it explains the complicated wing shape and the fact that the landing gear retracts into the fuselage, not into the wings, which would have been more plausible… Anyway, there’s still room for a simpler export version, with Mirage III or Kfir C.2/7 wings, and maybe canards?

 

Using the X-29 as basis also made fitting the new wings onto the area-ruled fuselage pretty easy, as I could use the wing root parts from the X-29 to bridge the gap. The original, forward-swept wings were just cut away, and the remains used as consoles for the new hybrid delta wings. Took some SERIOUS putty work, but the result is IMHO fine.

 

The bigger/square X-29 air intakes were taken over, and they change the look of the aircraft, making it look less F-5-ish than a true F-20 fuselage. For the same reason I kept the large fairing at the fin base, combining it with a bigger F-16 tail, though, as a counter-balance to the new, bigger wings. Again, the F-16 fin was/is part of nighthunter’s idea, so the model stays true to the original concept.

 

For the same reason I omitted the original X-29 nose, which is rather pointy, sports vanes and a large sensor boom. The F-16 nose was a plausible choice, as the AN/APG-80 is also carried by late Fighting Falcons, and its shape fits well, too.

 

All around the hull, some small details like radar warning sensors, pitots and air scoops were added. Not really necessary, but such thing add IMHO to the overall impression of such a fictional aircraft beyond the prototype stage.

 

Cockpit and landing gear were taken OOB, I just added a pilot figure and slightly modified the seat.

 

The ordnance was puzzled together from the scrap box, the AIM-9Ls come from the same F-4 kit which donated its outer wings, the AIM-120s come from an Italeri NATO weapons kit. The drop tanks belong to an F-16.

  

Painting and markings:

At first I considered an F-24I in IAF markings, or even a Japanese aircraft, but then reverted to one of nighthunter’s initial, simple ideas: an USAF aircraft in the “Hill II” paint scheme (F-16 style), made up from three shades of gray (FS 36118, 36270 and 36375) with low-viz markings and stencils. Dutch/Turkish NF-5A/Bs in the “Hill II” scheme were used as design benchmarks, too. It’s a simple livery, but on this delta wing aircraft it looks pretty interesting. I used enamels, what I had at hand: Humbrol 127 and 126, and Modelmaster's 1723.

 

A light black ink wash was applied, in order to em,phasize the engraved panel lines, in contrast to that, panels were manually highlighted through dry-brushed, lighter shades of gray (Humbrol 27, 166 and 167).

 

“Hill II” also adds to a generic, realistic touch for this whif. Doing an exotic air force thing is rather easy, but creating a convincing whif for a huge military machinery like the USAF’s takes more subtlety, I think.

 

The cockpit was painted in medium Gray (Dark Gull Grey, FS 36231, Humbrol 140), as well as the radome. The landing gear and the air intakes were painted white. The radome was painted with Revell 47 and dry-brushed with Humbrol 140.

 

Decals were puzzled together from various USAF aircraft, including sheets from an Airfix F-117, an Italeri F-15E and even an Academy OV-10D.

  

Tadah: a hardware tribute to an idea, born from boredom - and the aircraft does not look even bad at all? What I wanted to achieve was to make the F-24 neither look like a F-20, nor a Saab Gripen clone, as the latter comes close in overall shape, size and design.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

 

Some background:

The Northrop Grumman-IAI F-24 is the latest reincarnation of the USAF "Lightweight Fighter Program" which dates back to the 1950ies and started with the development of Northrop's F-5 "Freedom Fighter".

 

The 1st generation F-5 became very successful in the export market and saw a long line of development, including the much more powerful F-5E "Tiger II" and the F-20 Tigershark (initially called F-5G). Northrop had high hopes for the F-20 in the international market; however, policy changes following Ronald Reagan's election meant the F-20 had to compete for sales against aircraft like the F-16, the USAF's latest fighter design (which was politically favored). The F-20 development program was eventually abandoned in 1986 after three prototypes had been built and a fourth partially completed.

 

But this was not the end for Northrop’s Lightweight Fighter. In the early 1980s, two X-29As experimental aircraft were built by Grumman from two existing Northrop F-5A Freedom Fighter airframes. The Grumman X-29 was a testbed for forward-swept wings, canard control surfaces, and other novel aircraft technologies. The aerodynamic instability of this arrangement increased agility but required the use of computerized fly-by-wire control. Composite materials were used to control the aeroelastic divergent twisting experienced by forward-swept wings, also reducing the weight. The NASA test program continued from 1984 to 1991 and the X-29s flew 242 times, gathering valuable data and breaking ground for new aerodynamic technologies of 4th and 5th generation fighters.

 

Even though no service aircraft directly evolved from the X-29, its innovative FBW system as well as the new material technologies also opened the door for an updated F-20 far beyond the 1990ies. It became clear that ever expensive and complex aircraft could not be the answer to modern, asymmetrical warfare in remote corners of the world, with exploding development costs and just a limited number of aircraft in service that could not generate true economies of scale, esp. when their state-of-the-art design would not permit any export.

Anyway, a global market for simpler fighter aircraft was there, as 1st generation F-16s as well as the worldwide, aging F-5E fleet and types of Soviet/Russian origin like the MiG-29 provided the need for a modern, yet light and economical jet fighter. Contemporary types like the Indian HAL Tejas, the Swedish Saab Gripen, the French Dassault Rafale and the Pakistani/Chinese FC-1/JF-17 ”Thunder” proved this trend among 4th - 4.5th generation fighter aircraft.

 

Northrop Grumman (Northrop bought Grumman in 1994) initiated studies and basic design work on a respective New Lightweight Fighter (NLF) as a private venture in 1995. Work on the NLF started at a slow pace, as the company was busy with re-structuring.

The idea of an updated lightweight fighter was fueled by another source, too: Israel. In 1998 IAI started looking in the USA for a development partner for a new, light fighter that would replace its obsolete Kfir fleet and partly relieve its F-16 and F-15 fleet from interception tasks. The domestic project for that role, the IAI Lavi, had been stillborn, but lots of its avionics and research were still at hand and waited for an airframe for completion.

The new aircraft for the IAF was to be superior to the MiG-29, at least on par with the F-16C/D, but easier to maintain, smaller and overall cheaper. Since the performance profiles appeared to be similar to what Northrop Grumman was developing under the NLF label, the US company eventually teamed up with IAI in 2000 and both started the mutual project "Namer" (=נמר, “Tiger” in Hebrew), which eventually lead to the F-24 I for the IAF which kept its project name for service and to the USAF’s F-24A “Tigershark”.

 

The F-24, as the NLF, was based on the F-20 airframe, but outwardly showed only little family heritage, onle the forward fuselage around the cockpit reminds of the original F-5 design . Many aerodynamic details, e. g. the air intakes and air ducts, were taken over from the X-29, though, as the experimental aircraft and its components had been developed for extreme maneuvers and extra high agility. Nevertheless, the X-29's forward-swept wing was considered to be too exotic and fragile for a true service aircraft, but the F-24 was to feature an Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) system.

 

AAW Technology integrates wing aerodynamics, controls, and structure to harness and control wing aeroelastic twist at high speeds and dynamic pressures. By using multiple leading and trailing edge controls like "aerodynamic tabs", subtle amounts of aeroelastic twist can be controlled to provide large amounts of wing control power, while minimizing maneuver air loads at high wing strain conditions or aerodynamic drag at low wing strain conditions. This system was initially tested on the X-29 and later on the X-53 research aircraft, a modified F-18, until 2006.

 

Both USAF and IAF versions feature this state-of-the-art aerodynamic technology, but it is uncertain if other customers will receive it. While details concerning the F-24's system have not been published yet, it is assumed that its AAW is so effective that canard foreplanes could be omitted without sacrificing lift and maneuverability, and that drag is effectively minimized as the wing profile can be adjusted according to the aircraft’s speed, altitude, payload and mission – much like a VG wing, but without its clumsy and heavy swiveling mechanism which has to bear high g forces. As a result, the F-24 is, compared to the F-20, which could carry an external payload of about 3.5 tons, rumored to be able to carry up to 5 tons of ordnance.

 

The delta wing shape proved to be a perfect choice for the required surface and flap actuators inside of the wings, and it would also offer a very good compromise between lift and drag for a wide range of performance. Anyway, there was one price to pay: in order to keep the wing profile thin and simple, the F-24’s landing gear retracts into the lower fuselage, leaving the aircraft with a relatively narrow track.

 

Another major design factor for the outstanding performance of this rather small aircraft was weight reduction and structural integrity – combined with simplicity, ruggedness and a modular construction which would allow later upgrades. Instead of “going big” and expensive, the new F-24 was to create its performance through dedicated loss of weight, which was in some part also a compensation for the AAW system in the wings and its periphery.

 

Weight was saved wherever possible, e .g. a newly developed, lightweight M199A1 gatling gun. This 20mm cannon is a three-barreled, heavily modified version of the already “stripped” M61A2 gun in the USAF’s current F-18E and F-22. One of the novel features is a pneumatic drive instead of the traditional electric mechanism, what not only saves weight but also improves trigger response. The new gun weighs only a mere 65kg (the six-barreled M61A2 weighs 92kg, the original M61A1 112 kg), but still reaches a burst rate of fire of 1.800 RPM (about 800 RPM under cyclic fire, standard practice is to fire the cannon in 30 to 50-round bursts, though) and a muzzle velocity of 1.050 metres per second (3,450 ft/s) with a PGU-28/B round.

 

While the F-16 was and is still made from 80% aluminum alloys and only from 3% composites, the F-24 makes major use of carbon fiber and other lightweight materials, which make up about 40% of the aircraft’s structure, plus an increased share of Titanium and Magnesium alloys. As a consequence and through many other weight-saving measures like keeping stealth capabilities to a minimum (even though RAM was deliberately used and many details designed to have a natural low radar signature, resulting in modest radar cross-section (RCS) reductions), a single, relatively small engine, a fuel-efficient F404-GE-402 turbofan, is enough to make the F-24 a fast and very agile aircraft, coupled with a good range. The F-24’s thrust/weight ratio is considerably higher than 1, and later versions with a vectored thrust nozzle (see below) will take this level of agility even further – with the pilot becoming the limiting factor for the aircraft’s performance.

 

USAF and IAF F-24s are outfitted with Northrop Grumman's AN/APG-80 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, also used in the F-16 Block 60 aircraft. Other customers might only receive the AN/APG-68, making the F-24 comparable to the F-16C/D.

 

The first prototype, the YF-24, flew on 8th of March 2008, followed by two more aircraft plus a static airframe until summer 2010. In early 2011 the USAF placed an initial order of 101 aircraft (probably also to stir export sales – the earlier lightweight fighters from Northrop suffered from the fact that the manufacturer’s country would not use the aircraft in its own forces). These initial aircraft will replace older F-16 in the interceptor role, or free them for fighter bomber tasks. The USN and USMC also showed interest in the aircraft for their aggressor squadrons, for dissimilar air combat training. A two-seater, called the F-24B, is supposed to follow soon, too, and a later version for 2020 onwards, tentatively designated F-24C, is to feature an even stronger F404 engine and a 3D vectoring nozzle.

 

Israel is going to produce its own version domestically from late 2014 on, which will exclusively be used by the IAF. These aircraft will be outfitted with different avionics, built by Elta in Israel, and cater to national requirements which focus more on multi-purpose service, while the USAF focusses with its F-24A on aerial combat and interception tasks.

 

International interest for the F-24A is already there: in late 2013 Grumman stated that initial talks have been made with various countries, and potential export candidates from 2015 on are Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, Finland, Norway, Australia and Japan.

  

General F-24A characteristics:

Crew: 1 pilot

Length: 47 ft 4 in (14.4 m)

Wingspan: 27 ft 11.9 in / 8.53 m; with wingtip missiles (26 ft 8 in/ 8.13 m; without wingtip missiles)

Height: 13 ft 10 in (4.20 m)

Wing area: 36.55 m² (392 ft²)

Empty weight: 13.150 lb (5.090 kg)

Loaded weight: 15.480 lb (6.830 kg)

Max. take-off weight: 27.530 lb (12.500 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× General Electric F404-GE-402 turbofan with a dry thrust of 11,000 lbf (48.9 kN) and 17,750 lbf (79.2 kN) with afterburner

 

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 2+

Combat radius: 300 nmi (345 mi, 556 km); for hi-lo-hi mission with 2 × 330 US gal (1,250 L) drop tanks

Ferry range: 1,490 nmi (1715 mi, 2759 km); with 3 × 330 US gal (1,250 L) drop tanks

Service ceiling: 55,000 ft (16,800 m)

Rate of climb: 52,800 ft/min (255 m/s)

Wing loading: 70.0 lb/ft² (342 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 1.09 (1.35 with loaded weight & 50% fuel)

 

Armament

1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M199A1 3-barreled Gatling cannon in the lower fuselage with 400 RPG

Eleven external hardpoints (two wingtip tails, six underwing hardpoints, three underfuselage hardpoints) and a total capacity of 11.000 lb (4.994 kg) of missiles (incl. AIM 9 Sidewinder and AIM 120 AMRAAM), bombs, rockets, ECM pods and drop tanks for extended range.

  

The kit and its assembly:

A spontaneous project. This major kitbash was inspired by fellow user nighthunter at whatifmodelers.com, who came up with a profile of a mashed-up US fighter, created “out of boredom”. The original idea was called F-21C, and it was to be a domestic successor to the IAI Kfirs which had been used by the US as aggressor aircraft in USN and USMC service for a few years.

 

As a weird(?) coincidence I had many of the necessary ingredients for this fictional aircraft in store, even though some parts and details were later changed. This model here is an interpretation of the original design. The idea was spun further, and the available parts that finally went into the model also had some influence on design and background.

I thank nighthunter for sharing the early ideas, inviting me to take the design to the hardware stage (sort of…) and adapting my feedback into new design sketches, too, which, in return, inspired the model building process.

 

Well, what went into this thing? To cook up a F-24 à la Dizzyfugu you just need (all in 1:72):

● Fuselage from a Hasegawa X-29, including the cockpit and the landing gear

● Fin and nose cone from an Italeri F-16A

● Inner wings from a (vintage) Hasegawa MiG-21F

● Outer wings from a F-4 (probably a J, Hasegawa or Fujimi)

 

The wing construction deviates from nighthunter’s original idea. The favorite ingredients would have been F-16XL or simple Mirage III wings, but I found the composite wing to be more attractive and “different”. The big F-16XL wings, despite their benefit of a unique shape, might also have created scale/size problems with a F-20 style fuselage? So I built hybrid wings: The MiG-21 landing gear wells were filled with putty and the F-4 outer wings simply glued onto the MiG inner wing sections, which were simply cut down in span. It sounds like an unlikely combo, but these parts fit together almost perfectly! In order to hide the F-4 origins I modified them to carry wingtip launch rails, though, which were also part of nighthunter’s original design.

 

The AAW technology detail mentioned in the background came in handy as it explains the complicated wing shape and the fact that the landing gear retracts into the fuselage, not into the wings, which would have been more plausible… Anyway, there’s still room for a simpler export version, with Mirage III or Kfir C.2/7 wings, and maybe canards?

 

Using the X-29 as basis also made fitting the new wings onto the area-ruled fuselage pretty easy, as I could use the wing root parts from the X-29 to bridge the gap. The original, forward-swept wings were just cut away, and the remains used as consoles for the new hybrid delta wings. Took some SERIOUS putty work, but the result is IMHO fine.

 

The bigger/square X-29 air intakes were taken over, and they change the look of the aircraft, making it look less F-5-ish than a true F-20 fuselage. For the same reason I kept the large fairing at the fin base, combining it with a bigger F-16 tail, though, as a counter-balance to the new, bigger wings. Again, the F-16 fin was/is part of nighthunter’s idea, so the model stays true to the original concept.

 

For the same reason I omitted the original X-29 nose, which is rather pointy, sports vanes and a large sensor boom. The F-16 nose was a plausible choice, as the AN/APG-80 is also carried by late Fighting Falcons, and its shape fits well, too.

 

All around the hull, some small details like radar warning sensors, pitots and air scoops were added. Not really necessary, but such thing add IMHO to the overall impression of such a fictional aircraft beyond the prototype stage.

 

Cockpit and landing gear were taken OOB, I just added a pilot figure and slightly modified the seat.

 

The ordnance was puzzled together from the scrap box, the AIM-9Ls come from the same F-4 kit which donated its outer wings, the AIM-120s come from an Italeri NATO weapons kit. The drop tanks belong to an F-16.

  

Painting and markings:

At first I considered an F-24I in IAF markings, or even a Japanese aircraft, but then reverted to one of nighthunter’s initial, simple ideas: an USAF aircraft in the “Hill II” paint scheme (F-16 style), made up from three shades of gray (FS 36118, 36270 and 36375) with low-viz markings and stencils. Dutch/Turkish NF-5A/Bs in the “Hill II” scheme were used as design benchmarks, too. It’s a simple livery, but on this delta wing aircraft it looks pretty interesting. I used enamels, what I had at hand: Humbrol 127 and 126, and Modelmaster's 1723.

 

A light black ink wash was applied, in order to em,phasize the engraved panel lines, in contrast to that, panels were manually highlighted through dry-brushed, lighter shades of gray (Humbrol 27, 166 and 167).

 

“Hill II” also adds to a generic, realistic touch for this whif. Doing an exotic air force thing is rather easy, but creating a convincing whif for a huge military machinery like the USAF’s takes more subtlety, I think.

 

The cockpit was painted in medium Gray (Dark Gull Grey, FS 36231, Humbrol 140), as well as the radome. The landing gear and the air intakes were painted white. The radome was painted with Revell 47 and dry-brushed with Humbrol 140.

 

Decals were puzzled together from various USAF aircraft, including sheets from an Airfix F-117, an Italeri F-15E and even an Academy OV-10D.

  

Tadah: a hardware tribute to an idea, born from boredom - and the aircraft does not look even bad at all? What I wanted to achieve was to make the F-24 neither look like a F-20, nor a Saab Gripen clone, as the latter comes close in overall shape, size and design.

A Phicen kit bash using a 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 US Marine Corps' lessons learned from the Korean war included the need for a ground attack aircraft with a better performance than the AU-1 Corsair, as well as a higher effectiveness than the jet fighters of the 50ies era.

 

The AU-1 (re-designated from F4U-6) had been a dedicated U.S. Marines attack variant of the Vought F4U fighter with extra armor to protect the pilot and fuel tank, and the oil coolers relocated inboard to reduce vulnerability to ground fire. The fighter's supercharger had been simplified as the design was intended for low-altitude operation. Extra weapon racks were also fitted.

 

Ready for combat the AU-1 weighed 20% more than a fully loaded F4U-4 and was capable of carrying 8,200 lb of bombs, missiles or drop tanks. The AU-1 had a maximum speed of 238 miles per hour at 9,500 ft, when loaded with 4,600 lb of bombs and a 150-gallon drop-tank. When loaded with eight rockets and two 150-gallon drop-tanks, maximum speed was 298 mph at 19,700 ft. When not carrying external loads, maximum speed was 389 mph at 14,000 ft.

 

First produced in 1952, the AU-1 had been a useful addition. But it had become clear, by the end of the Korean War, that the age of the piston engine fighter plane was more or less over. Based on this insight and several studies based on the experience since WWII, Vought offered the USMC an improved ground attack aircraft on a private venture basis under the internal project handle V-381.

The machine was the result of initial attack aircraft studies and roughly based on the F4U's outlines, and a more conservative alternative to the A2U, a proposed attack derivative of the F7U Cutlass, which never came to fruition.

 

The V-381 study incorporated proven elements like the characteristic inverted gull wing, which allowed a short and sturdy landing gear, but it differed considerably in many other details and its internal structure, due to a different engine. The aircraft was to be powered by a T-56 turboprop engine and would fit into a heavier class than the F4U, rather comparable to the US Navy's AD Skyraider but almost as fast as a jet fighter of its time – yet more reliable and rugged for low level operations in direct range of small caliber weapons.

 

The USMC was immediately interested, while the USN declined the proposal (even though much of the V-381’s insights were re-used in the V-406). Compared with the AU-1, the XA3U featured many detail improvements. One of these distinctive modifications was a new cockpit with a bubble canopy. Thanks to the different internal layout of the aircraft the cockpit could be moved forward by about 3', eliminating the abysmal field of view from the F4U's cockpit on the ground and during deck landings. Another significant change was a cruciform tail. This new arrangement had become necessary in order to avoid damage and turbulences from the hot turboprop efflux - the latter's exhaust was bifurcated and placed in the fuselage flanks, slightly deflected downwards and right at the wings' trailing edge, where the residual thrust from the engine helped during liftoff. The characteristic tail arrangement also became the source of the aircraft's official name, the 'Sea Scorpion'.

 

Armament consisted of four 0.79 in (20 mm) M2 cannon with 250 RPG in the wings, plus a total of fifteen hardpoints under fuselage and wings for a wide range of ordnance and a total weight of 8,000 lb (3,600 kg). The landing gear retracted backwards into the wings, rotating 90°, and the tail wheel with an attached arrester hook was fully retractable, too. The T-56 turboprop with 4.050 hp (2.977 kW) replaced the R-2800 radial and its complex compressor installment, driving a four-blade Hamilton propeller on the XA2U.

 

In June 1954 the first XA3U prototype made its maiden flight. Initial flights tests showed a very good performance at low and medium altitude, but directional stability was rather poor and the fin area had to be enlarged, resulting in the X3AU-1. Another new feature became a reversible six blade propeller of smaller diameter, which would improve reaction time to throttle input. In this guise, the A3U-1 entered series production and USMC service in early 1956, just in time to take the place of the AU-1 which was phased out in 1957.

But, by that time, the technical development had already rendered the A3U at least questionable, if not obsolete, so only a single batch of 45 aircraft was ordered and eventually built. Types like the North American FJ-4 Fury or the Douglas A4D Skyhawk offered a better performance as well as a nuclear strike capability that the A3U lacked, even though the turboprop aircraft was popular because of its ruggedness and good low altitude handling.

With its sophisticated design the A3U served well in its intended shipborne CAS role. In 1958 the machines were upgraded to carry AGM-12 Bullpup missiles, becoming subsequently designated A3U-2. Up to four missiles could be carried under the wings, plus a guidance pod that was carried on one of the outermost wing hardpoints.

 

The A3Us were deployed during several occasions, including Cuba from 1959 to 1960 to protect Americans during the Cuban Revolution, Thailand in May-July 1962 to support the government's struggles against Communists as well as Operation Power Pack in 1965 in Haiti to prevent a second Communist nation on America's doorstep.

 

Anyway, no A3U actually fired in anger, their main task had rather been sabre-rattling and representing the USMC with dramatic weapon loads at low altitude. Since ever more potent aircraft entered the USMC, like the F-4 Phantom II, the Sea Scorpion's career ended already in 1968 – and despite its usefulness in the theatre of operations, the A2U was not deployed to Vietnam.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1 pilot

Length: 33 ft 8 in (10.2 m)

Wingspan: 41 ft 0 in (12.5 m)

Wingspan, folded: 17 ft 0.5 in (5.2 m)

Height: 14 ft 9 in (4.50 m)

Empty weight: 11,968 lb (5,429 kg)

Loaded weight: 18,106 lb (8,213 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 25,000 lb (11,340 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Allison T-56-A-6 turboprop engine, rated at 4.050 hp (2.977 kW)

plus approximately 750 lbs of thrust from the exhaust

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 446 mph (717 km/h) at 26.200 ft (using emergency power)

Stall speed: 89 mph (143 km/h) clean

Range: 1,316 mi (1,144 nmi, 2,115 km) on internal fuel

Service ceiling: 41,500ft (12,649 m)

Rate of climb: 3,870ft/min (19.7 m/s) at sea-level

 

Armament:

4 × 0.79 in (20 mm) M2 cannon with 250 RPG in the wings

15 hardpoints for a total of up to 8,000 lb (3,600 kg) of ordnance, including bombs,

torpedoes, mine dispensers, unguided rockets, and gun pods

  

The kit and its assembly:

Well, this Frankenstein creation was actually spawned by the rather simple idea of a turboprop-powered F4U, following a discussion at whatifmodelers.com concerning my “Turbo Fury” conversion and the potential of T-56 engine nacelles from a C-130 on other aircraft. After three Turbo Furies I still had a final T-56 resin nacelle left in the stash (from OzMods), and eventually tackled this project with the idea of an AU-1 replacement for the USMC in the mid Fifties.

 

Anyway, with such a modernized version in mind, new ideas popped up – e.g. square wing tips. When I found a pair of leftover outer wings from a Matchbox A3D Skyknight (and they matched up well in shape and size, even the wing profile!) things unfolded into something … different.

 

The basis for this project was an Italeri F4U-5 from 1994 (a very nice kit!), even though in the later Revell re-boxing. The Skyknight wings replaced the F4U’s outer wings and added about 1” total wingspan to the kit. In order to compensate for this, I thought about moving the tail fin further back, but eventually implanted a completely new and slightly longer tail section from an A.W. Meteor night fighter (also Matchbox), because it perfectly extends the F4U’s fuselage lines! Consequently, the original tail wheel well had to be closed and moved backwards.

 

Another idea was to move the cockpit forward and lower the rear fuselage, for a more up-to-date bubble canopy. The OOB cockpit from the F4U was kept but placed under a new opening – more or less located where the F4U’s main fuselage tank would have been. The ejection seat is new, too, and the canopy comes from a vintage NOVO Supermarine Attacker. The whole spine was cut away and re-sculpted with putty, as well as the fuselage section around the canopy.

 

For the new resin T-56, the front end of the fuselage was cut away and lots of putty and sculpting created a new transition between the narrower Herc engine with its oval diameter and the round F4U fuselage.

The spinner comes from the OzMod engine set, but the propeller blades were scratched: these once belonged to a vintage Airfix D.H. Mosquito kit. The rather massive, single blades were cut off, their originally round tips squared and then glued onto the resin spinner. A metal axis and a styrene adapter inside of the resin engine were added as adapters, allowing a free spin.

 

Once the fuselage and the wings were mated, the horizontal stabilizers had to be added. The F4U parts could not be used because of their round tips, and they had become just too small for the bigger airframe. Implants had to be used once more, and in this case the stabilizers are the outer wing sections from a heavily rivet-infected 1:100 Breguet Alize from Heller. Odd, but they had just the right shape and chord length for the new position.

 

After these had been fitted, the fin turned out to be too small for the new and overall bigger aircraft. Finding a solution was not easy, and I eventually added a new fin tip, a part from a Revell (FROG) P-39 stabilizer, maybe 30 years old!

 

In order to make the intended CAS role believable a LOT of hardpoints were added, all taken from an old Airfix/Heller A-1E Skyraider. The ordnance is an iron bomb mix, IIRC these come from a Monogram A-10 and a Matchbox A-7D.

 

Anyway, building this monstrosity was massive kitbashing work, and the whole thing evolved rather gradually: What started as a simple engine swap and maybe some cosmetic surgery ended up in multiple body transplants and a bigger aircraft than originally envisaged, kind of a ‘Skyraider 2.0’.

  

Painting and markings:

Nothing truly fancy, rather the standard USN high-viz livery with Light Gull Grey (FS 36440, Modelmaster enamel) upper surfaces and white undersides and rudders. Compared to the USN, the USMC machines would be rather timid and less flamboyant concerning marking colors, so I only added a little red trim to the fin and around the cockpit. The landing gear and the respective wells were kept in white, like the undersides, with bright red trim around the edges, and the cockpit is Zinc Chromate Green.

 

The decals were puzzled together from the scrap box. Since almost and surface details was lost due to the massive bodywork on fuselage and wings, I painted some panel lines with a pencil and emphasized them with lighter, dry-brushed panel shadings. The effect, at least from some distance, turned out much better than expected! Additionally, some wear and dirt was simulated through a light black in wash. Soot stains, esp. around the jet exhausts, were created with grinded graphite, and some dry painting with silver was done on the leading edges. Finally, everything was sealed under a coat of matt acrylic varnish.

  

Well, what was to simply become a turboprop-powered F4U turned into something …different. The A3U looks exotic, but not bad or implausible – the thing reminds me of the offspring between a Ju 87 dive bomber and a Westland Whirlwind fighter, and there’s some Fairey Firefly an Il-2 single-seater lineage to it, too? As a positive aspect, this kitbash model reminds IMHO at first glance only remotely of the F4U that it once was, so I think the whiffing work is quite effective. :D

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

  

Some background:

The Gudkov Gu-1 was a Soviet fighter aircraft produced shortly after World War II in small numbers at the start of the jet age, but work on the Gudkov Gu-1 already started in 1944. Towards the end of World War II the Soviet Union saw the need for a strategic bombing capability similar to that of the United States Army Air Forces. The Soviet VVS air arm had the locally designed Petlyakov Pe-8 four-engined heavy bomber in service at the start of the war, but only 93 had been built by the end of the war and the type had become obsolete. By that time the U.S. regularly conducted bombing raids on Japan from distant Pacific forward bases using B-29 Superfortresses, and the Soviet Air Force lacked this capability.

 

Joseph Stalin ordered the development of a comparable bomber, and the U.S. twice refused to supply the Soviet Union with B-29s under Lend Lease. However, on four occasions during 1944, individual B-29s made emergency landings in Soviet territory and one crashed after the crew bailed out. In accordance with the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact, the Soviets were neutral in the Pacific War and the bombers were therefore interned and kept by the Soviets. Despite Soviet neutrality, America demanded the return of the bombers, but the Soviets refused. Three repairable B-29s were flown to Moscow and delivered to the Tupolev OKB. One B-29 was dismantled, the second was used for flight tests and training, and the third one was left as a standard for cross-reference.

Stalin told Tupolev to clone the Superfortress in as short a time as possible. The reverse-engineering effort involved 900 factories and research institutes, who finished the design work during the first year. 105,000 drawings were made, and the American technology had to be adapted to local material and manufacturing standards – and ended in a thorough re-design of the B-29 “under the hood”. By the end of the second year, the Soviet industry was to produce 20 copies of the aircraft ready for State acceptance trials.

 

While work on what would become the Tupolev Tu-4 was on the way, the need for a long range escort fighter arose, too. Soviet officials were keen on the P-51 Mustang, but, again, the USA denied deliveries, so that an indigenous solution had to be developed. With the rising tension of international relationships, this became eventually the preferred solution, too.

 

While the design bureau Lavochkin had already started with work on the La-9 fighter (which entered service after WWII) and the jet age was about to begin, the task of designing a long range escort fighter for the Tu-4 was relegated to Mikhail I. Gudkov who had been designing early WWII fighters like the LaGG-1 and -3 together with Lavochkin. Internally, the new fighter received the project handle "DIS" (Dalnij Istrebitel' Soprovozhdenya ="long-range escort fighter").

 

In order to offer an appropriate range and performance that could engage enemy interceptors in the bombers’ target area it was soon clear that neither a pure jet nor a pure piston-engine fighter was a viable solution – a dilemma the USAAF was trying to solve towards 1945, too. The jet engine alone did not offer sufficient power, and fuel consumption was high, so that the necessary range could never be achieved with an agile fighter. Late war radials had sufficient power and offered good range, but the Soviet designers were certain that the piston engine fighter had no future – especially when fast jet fighters had to be expected over enemy territory.

 

Another problem arose through the fact that the Soviet Union did not have an indigenous jet engine at hand at all in late 1945. War booty from Germany in the form of Junkers Jumo 004 axial jet engines and blueprints of the more powerful HeS 011 were still under evaluation, and these powerplants alone did neither promise enough range nor power for a long range fighter aircraft. Even for short range fighters their performance was rather limited – even though fighters like the Yak-15 and the MiG-9 were designed around them.

 

After many layout experiments and calculation, Gudkov eventually came up with a mixed powerplant solution for the DIS project. But unlike the contemporary, relatively light I-250 (also known as MiG-13) interceptor, which added a mechanical compressor with a primitive afterburner (called VRDK) to a Klimov VK-107R inline piston engine, the DIS fighter was equipped with a powerful radial engine and carried a jet booster – similar to the US Navy’s Ryan FR-1 “Fireball”. Unlike the FR-1, though, the DIS kept a conservative tail-sitter layout and was a much bigger aircraft.

 

The choice for the main powerplant fell on the Shvetsov ASh-82TKF engine, driving a large four blade propeller. This was a boosted version of the same 18 cylinder twin row radial that powered the Tu-4, the ASh-73. The ASh-82TKF for the escort fighter project had a rating of 2,720 hp (2,030 kW) while the Tu-4's ASh-73TK had "only" a temporary 2,400 hp (1,800 kW) output during take-off. The airframe was designed around this massive and powerful engine, and the aircraft’s sheer size was also a result of the large fuel capacity which was necessary to meet the range target of at least 3.000 km (1.860 mi, 1.612 nmi).

The ASh-82TKF alone offered enough power for a decent performance, but in order to take on enemy jet fighters and lighter, more agile propeller-driven fighters, a single RD-20 axial-flow turbojet with 7.8 kN (1,754 lbf) thrust was added in the rear-fuselage. It was to add power for take-off and in combat situations only. Its fixed air intakes were placed on the fuselage flanks, right behind the cockpit, and the jet pipe was placed under the fin and the stabilizers.

 

Outwardly, Gudkov’s DIS resembled the late American P-47D or the A-1 Skyraider a lot, and the beefy aircraft was comparable in size and weight, too. But the Soviet all-metal aircraft was a completely new construction and featured relatively small and slender laminar flow wings. The wide-track landing gear retracted inwards into the inner wings while the tail wheel retracted fully into a shallow compartment under the jet pipe.

The pilot sat in a spacious cockpit under a frameless bubble canopy with very good all-round visibility and enjoyed amenities for long flights such as increased padding in the seat, armrests, and even a urinal. In addition, a full radio navigation suite was installed for the expected long range duties over long stretches of featureless landscape like the open sea.

 

Armament consisted of four 23 mm Nudelman-Suranov NS-23 cannons with 100 RPG in the wings, outside of the propeller arc. The guns were good for a weight of fire of 6kg (13.2 lb)/sec, a very good value. Five wet hardpoints under the fuselage, the wings outside of the landing gear well and under the wing tips could primarily carry auxiliary drop tanks or an external ordnance of up to 1.500 kg (3.300 lb).

Alternatively, iron bombs of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber could be carried on the centerline pylon, and a pair of 250 kg (550 lb) bombs under the wings, but a fighter bomber role was never seriously considered for the highly specialized and complex aircraft.

 

The first DIS prototype, still without the jet booster, flew in May 1947. The second prototype, with both engines installed, had its fuel capacity increased by an additional 275 l (73 US gal) in an additional fuel tank behind the cockpit. The aircraft was also fitted with larger tires to accommodate the increased all-up weight, esp. with all five 300 l drop tanks fitted for maximum range and endurance.

 

Flight testing continued until 1948 and the DIS concept proved to be satisfactory, even though the complicated ASh-82TKF hampered the DIS’ reliability - to the point that fitting the ASh-73TK from the Tu-4 was considered for serial production, even if this would have meant a significant reduction in performance. The RD-20 caused lots of trouble, too. Engine reliability was generally poor, and re-starting the engine in flight did not work satisfactorily – a problem that, despite several changes to the starter and ignition system, could never be fully cured. The jet engine’s placement in the tail, together with the small tail wheel, also caused problems because the pilots had to take care that the tail would not aggressively hit the ground upon landings, because the RD-20 and its attachments were easily damaged.

 

Nevertheless, the DIS basically fulfilled the requested performance specifications and was, despite many shortcomings, eventually cleared for production in mid 1948. It received the official designation Gudkov Gu-1, honoring the engineer behind the aircraft, even though the aircraft was produced by Lavochkin.

 

The first machines were delivered to VVS units in early 1949 - just in time for the Tu-4's service introduction after the Russians had toiled endlessly on solving several technical problems. In the meantime, jet fighter development had quickly progressed, even though a purely jet-powered escort fighter for the Tu-4 was still out of question. Since the Gu-1 was capricious, complex and expensive to produce, only a limited number left the factories and emphasis was put on the much simpler and more economical Lavochkin La-11 escort fighter, a lightweight evolution of the proven La-9. Both types were regarded as an interim solution until a pure jet escort fighter would be ready for service.

 

Operationally the Gu-1s remained closely allocated to the VVS’ bomber squadrons and became an integral part of them. Anyway, since the Tu-4 bomber never faced a serious combat situation, so did the Gu-1, which was to guard it on its missions. For instance, both types were not directly involved in the Korean War, and the Gu-1 was primarily concentrated at the NATO borders to Western Europe, since bomber attacks in this theatre would certainly need the heavy fighter’s protection.

 

The advent of the MiG-15 - especially the improved MiG-15bis with additional fuel capacities and drop tanks, quickly sounded the death knell for the Gu-1 and any other post-WWII piston-engine fighter in Soviet Service. As Tu-4 production ended in the Soviet Union in 1952, so did the Gu-1’s production after only about 150 aircraft. The Tu-4s and their escort fighters were withdrawn in the 1960s, being replaced by more advanced aircraft including the Tupolev Tu-16 jet bomber (starting in 1954) and the Tupolev Tu-95 turboprop bomber (starting in 1956).

 

The Gudkov Gu-1, receiving the NATO ASCC code “Flout”, remained a pure fighter. Even though it was not a success, some proposals for updates were made - but never carried out. These included pods with unguided S-5 air-to-air-rockets, to be carried on the wing hardpoints, bigger, non-droppable wing tip tanks for even more range or, alternatively, the addition of two pulsejet boosters on the wing tips.

There even was a highly modified mixed powerplant version on the drawing boards in 1952, the Gu-1M. Its standard radial powerplant for cruise flight was enhanced with a new, non-afterburning Mikulin AM-5 axial flow jet engine with 2.270 kgf/5,000 lbf/23 kN additional thrust in the rear fuselage. With this temporary booster, a top speed of up to 850 km/h was expected. But to no avail - the pure jet fighter promised a far better performance and effectiveness, and the Gu-1 remained the only aircraft to exclusively carry the Gudkov name.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 12 m (39 ft 4 in)

Wingspan: 14 m (45 ft 11 in)

Height: 4.65 m (15 ft 3 in)

Wing area: 28 m² (301.388 ft²)

Airfoil:

Empty weight: 4,637 kg (10,337 lb)

Loaded weight: 6.450 kg (14.220 lb)

Maximum take-off weight: 7,938 kg (17,500 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Shvetsov ASh-82TKF 18-cylinder air-cooled radial engine, rated at 2,720 hp (2,030 kW)

1x RD-20 axial-flow turbojet with 7.8 kN (1,754 lbf) thrust as temporary booster

 

Performance

Maximum speed: 676 km/h (420 mph) at 29,000 ft (8,839 m) with the radial only,

800 km/h (497 mph/432 kn,) with additional jet booster

Cruise speed: 440 km/h (237 kn, 273 mph)

Combat radius: 820 nmi (945 mi, 1,520 km)

Maximum range: 3.000 km (1.860 mi, 1.612 nmi) with drop tanks

Service ceiling: 14,680 m (48,170 ft)

Wing loading: 230.4 kg/m² (47.2 lb/ft²)

Power/mass: 0.28 kW/kg (0.17 hp/lb)

Climb to 5,000 m (16,400 ft): 5 min 9 sec;

Climb to 10,000 m (32,800 ft): 17 min 38 sec;

Climb to 13,000 m (42,640 ft): 21 min 03 sec

 

Armament

4× 23 mm Nudelman-Suranov NS-23 cannons with 100 RPG in the outer wings

Five hardpoints for an external ordnance of 1.500 kg (3.300 lb)

 

The kit and its assembly:

This whif is the incarnation of a very effective kitbashing combo that already spawned my fictional Japanese Ki-104 fighter, and it is another submission to the 2018 “Cold War” group build at whatifmodelers.com. This purely fictional Soviet escort fighter makes use of my experiences from the first build of this kind, yet with some differences.

 

The kit is a bashing of various parts and pieces:

· Fuselage, wing roots, landing gear and propeller from an Academy P-47D

· Wings from an Ark Model Supermarine Attacker (ex Novo)

· Tail fin comes from a Heller F-84G

· The stabilizers were taken from an Airfix Ki-46

· Cowling from a Matchbox F6F, mounted and blended onto the P-47 front

· Jet exhaust is the intake of a Matchbox Me 262 engine pod

 

My choice fell onto the Academy Thunderbolt because it has engraved panel lines, offers the bubble canopy as well as good fit, detail and solid material. The belly duct had simply been sliced off, and the opening later faired over with styrene sheet and putty, so that the P-47’s deep belly would not disappear.

The F6F cowling was chosen because it looks a lot like the ASh-73TK from the Tu-4. But this came at a price: the P-47 cowling is higher, tighter and has a totally different shape. It took serious body sculpting with putty to blend the parts into each other. Inside of the engine, a styrene tube was added for a metal axis that holds the uncuffed OOB P-47 four blade propeller. The P-47’s OOB cockpit tub was retained, too, just the seat received scratched armrests for a more luxurious look.

 

The Attacker wings were chosen because of their "modern" laminar profile. The Novo kit itself is horrible and primitive, but acceptable for donations. OOB, the Attacker wings had too little span for the big P-47, so I decided to mount the Thunderbolt's OOB wings and cut them at a suitable point: maybe 0.5", just outside of the large main wheel wells. The intersection with the Attacker wings is almost perfect in depth and width, relatively little putty work was necessary in order to blend the parts into each other. I just had to cut out new landing gear wells from the lower halves of the Attacker wings, and with new attachment points the P-47’s complete OOB landing gear could be used.

 

With the new wing shape, the tail surfaces had to be changed accordingly. The trapezoid stabilizers come from an Airfix Mitsubishi Ki-46, and their shape is a good match. The P-47 fin had to go, since I wanted something bigger and a different silhouette. The fuselage below was modified with a jet exhaust, too. I actually found a leftover F-84G (Heller) tail, complete with the jet pipe and the benefit that it has plausible attachment points for the stabilizers far above the jet engine in the Gu-1’s tail.

 

However, the F-84 jet pipe’s diameter turned out to be too large, so I went for a smaller but practical alternative, a Junkers Jumo 004 nacelle from a Me 262 (the ancestor of the Soviet RD-20!). Its intake section was cut off, flipped upside down, the fin was glued on top of it and then the new tail was glued to the P-47 fuselage. Some (more serious) body sculpting was necessary to create a more or less harmonious transition between the parts, but it worked.

 

The plausible placement of the air intakes and their shape was a bit of a challenge. I wanted them to be obvious, but still keep an aerodynamic look. An initial idea had been to keep the P-47’s deep belly and widen the central oil cooler intake under the nose, but I found the idea wacky and a bit pointless, since such a long air duct would not make much sense since it would waste internal space and the long duct’s additional weight would not offer any benefit?

 

Another idea were air intakes in the wing roots, but these were also turned down since the landing gear wells would be in the way, and placing the ducts above or below the wings would also make no sense. A single ventral scoop (looking like a P-51 radiator bath) or two smaller, dorsal intakes (XP-81 style) behind the cockpit were other serious candidates – but these were both rejected because I wanted to keep a clean side profile.

I eventually settled for very simple, fixed side intakes, level with the jet exhaust, somewhat inspired by the Lavochkin La-200B heavy fighter prototype. The air scoops are simply parts from an Italeri Saab 39 Gripen centerline drop tank (which has a flat, oval diameter), and their shape is IMHO a perfect match.

  

Painting and markings:

While the model itself is a wild mix of parts with lots of improvisation involved, I wanted to keep the livery rather simple. The most plausible choice would have been an NMF finish, but I rather wanted some paint – so I used Soviet La-9 and -11 as a benchmark and settled for a simple two-tone livery: uniform light grey upper and light blue lower surfaces.

 

I used RAF Medium Sea Grey (Humbrol 165) and Soviet Underside Blue (Humbrol 114) as basic tones, and, after a black ink wash, these were lightened up through dry-brushed post-shading. The yellow spinner and fin tip are based on typical (subtle) squadron markings of the late 40ies era.

 

The cockpit as well the engine and landing gear interior became blue-grey (Revell 57), similar to the typical La-9/11’s colors. The green wheel discs and the deep blue propeller blades are not 100% in the aircraft's time frame, but I added these details in order to enhance the Soviet touch and some color accents.

 

Tactical markings were kept simple, too. The "38" and the Red Stars come form a Mastercraft MiG-15, the Guards badge from a Begemoth MiG-25 sheet and most of the stencils were taken from a Yak-38 sheet, also from Begemoth.

Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and it received some mild soot stains and chipped paint around the cockpit and on the leading edges. Some oil stains were added around the engine (with Tamiya Smoke), too.

  

A massive aircraft, and this new use of the P-47/Attacker combo results again in a plausible solution. The added jet engine might appear a bit exotic, but the mixed powerplant concept was en vogue after WWII, but only a few aircraft made it beyond the prototype stage.

While painting the model I also wondered if an all dark blue livery and some USN markings could also have made this creation the Grumman JetCat? With the tall fin, the Gu-1 could also be an F8F Bearcat on steroids? Hmmm...

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

Failure of the shipboard fighter requirement issued by the Service Technique Aeronautique in June 1946 (and which had resulted in Aerocentre NC 1080, Arsenal VG 90 and Nord 2200 prototypes being built) led to consideration being given to adoption by the Aeronavale of the Grumman F9F-5 Panther.

 

In January 1951, however, the Ministère de la Marine announced the decision to adopt the de Havilland Sea Venom Mk 20, which was being developed for the Royal Navy as a side-by-side two-seat shipboard all-weather fighter and had yet to enter flight test. The first of these flew on 31 October 1952, and the name Aquilon (North Wind) being adopted. It was powered by aF iat-built de Havilland Ghost, armament comprising four 20mm cannon.

 

Non-availability of the intended Thomson AI radar restricted the Aquilon 201 two-seaters to diurnal operation, the same restriction being imposed on the next 25 aircraft which, delivered as Aquilon 202s, were entirely manufactured in France and differed in having ejection seats, an aft-sliding rather than aft-hinged cockpit canopy and a strengthened undercarriage. A decision was taken to adopt the Westinghouse APQ 65 AI radar, but, without major redesign of the airframe it was found impossible to fit this equipment in the ejection seat-equipped two-seater.

 

Production therefore continued with the Aquilon 203 single-seater, the last 25 of the 40 production examples of this version being equipped with APQ 65 radar as were the six two-seat Aquilon 204 radar trainers (not fitted with ejection seats) that brought production (a total of 121) to an end. The last of these being flown at the beginning of 1958, but already a couple of years before it was already clear that a more potent aircraft had to be found for the new French Clemenceau Class carriers that were to enter service in the 1960ies.

 

Through the fast aircraft technology development in the mid-fifties the bar was raised: the new carrier-borne fighter was to feature swept wings and be capable of supersonic speed. Therefore, SNCASO proposed in 1953 the S.O. 3200, an aircraft that roughly resembled the Dassault Mystere II (the prototype first flew on 28 September 1952) but which was more advanced and was from the start dedicated to carrier operations.

 

The S.O. 3200 featured a 40-degree swept wing (compared to the 30-degree wing of the Mystère II, plus a thinner profile), swept tail surfaces and with its lateral air intakes the aircraft reminded a lot of the Mystère IIIN prototype, but internally the aircraft had nothing in common. The cockpit was moved forward for an improved field of sight, and the outer wing panels could be folded upwards in order to save space. Four 20mm cannons were placed under the air intakes.

 

The S.O. 3200 also introduced a new generation of armament: the new aircraft was able to deploy the first French air-to-air-missile: up to four AA.20 AAMs could be carried on the four underwing hardpoints. Although the AA.20 was from the outset intended to be a fully effective operational weapon, it was generally regarded as an interim missile pending development of the R.53O series.

 

The AA.20 relied on visual guidance and direct steering thorugh the pilot. The missile received its command signals through a coded radio link (the respcetive equipment was isntalles in the S.O. 3200's nose ), governed by a miniature joystick manipulated by the pilot of the launching aircraft. This meant that the target and missile flare had to be visible to the pilot right up to the point (50ft distance) at which the proximity fuze was triggered. Steering was effected by pitch and yaw demands which bias the interruption of vibrating spoilers in the two nozzles from the missile's sustainer. And even though the AA.20 was intended as an air-to-air weapon, its guidance system meant that it could also be used againts ground targets (similar to the contemporary AGM-12 Bullpup).

 

Alternatively the S.O. 3200 could carry a pair of drop tanks (the two inner pylons were ‘wet’), up to four bombs of 1.000 lb (454 kg) caliber, pods with unguided 68mm SNEB missiles (against air and ground targets alike) or rails for unguided missiles of larger calibers.

 

The new naval aircraft was powered by a Hispano-Suiza Verdon 350 jet engine, a license-built version of the Rolls-Royce Tay. It offered, with 3,500 kgp/7,715 lbf, more thrust than the Mystère II’s Atar 101D turbojet (3,000 kgp/6,615 lbf), albeit this was necessary through the higher structural weight of the airframe and the aircraft’s special equipment for naval duties.

 

The type was accepted as S.O. 3201 and the first batch of 12 production machines became just operational as French carriers were in 1956 deployed to the eastern Mediterranean Sea during the Suez Crisis. On 3 November, F4U Corsairs from Arromanches and Lafayette, under escort of AA.20-armed S.O. 3201 fighters, bombed Egyptian airfields around Cairo.

 

Due to the merger of SNCASO and SNCASE into a new, state-owned aircraft manufacturer in the course of 1957 the aircraft was re-christened Sud Aviation ‘Bourrasque’ (meaning ‘gust of wind’ and also ‘burst of anger’). That year, a further 20 machines were ordered and production ran rather slowly, so that the second series was to be delivered until 1958.

 

Sud Aviation hoped for export sales, but they never materialized. Aircraft technology evolved in giant leaps and in 1962 the Dassault Étendard IV, a supersonic carrier-borne strike fighter aircraft, entered service with the French Navy. It was a much more modern design than the Bourrasque, and showed much more potential for future development. The Étendard was powered by a SNECMA Atar 8B axial-flow turbojet turbojet with 43.16 kN (9,703 lbf), and this engine offered a much better performance than the voluminous and technologically outdated centrifugal compressor Verdon. Additionally, the Aéronavale introduced the Vought F-8E(FN) as ship-borne fighter aircraft - both types rendered the Bourrasque totally obsolete after less than 10 years of service.

 

Hence, production was soon halted and in total only 40 aircraft were produced at all (the last eight were constructed from components and spare parts) and, together with the Aquilon, were already phased out by the Aéronavale during 1964-65.

 

But while the Aquilons had reached the end of their airframes’ life the remaining Bourrassques in good shape were sold to Israel where the naval equipment was removed and the aircraft relegated to ground attack and training roles. These aircraft were finally retired from Israeli service, together with IDF’s Mystères, on 18 March 1971.

 

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 12.89 m (42 ft 31⁄2 in)

Wingspan: 11.12 m (36 ft 53⁄4 in)

Height: 4.60 m (15 ft 1 in)

Wing area: 32.06 m² (345.1 ft²)

Empty weight: 5,860 kg (12,919 lb)

Loaded weight: 8,510 kg (18,100 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 9,500 kg (20,944 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1 × Hispano-Suiza Verdon 350 turbojet, rated at 34.32 kN (7,716 lbf)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,110 km/h (600 knots, 690 mph) at sea level

Range: 915 km (494  nmi, 570 mi) without internal fuel tanks,

2.280 km (1.231 nmi, 1.417 mi) with external tanks

Service ceiling: 15,000  m (49,200 ft)

Rate of climb: 40  m/s (7,874  ft/min)

 

Armament:

4× 20 mm Hispano-Suiza HS.404 cannon with 125 RPG

2.000 kg (4.405 lb) of payload on four external hardpoints,

incl. a variety of bombs, unguided rockets or drop tanks, or four AA.20 guided missiles

  

The kit and its assembly:

This whif has two origins. One was the question what a naval Mystère II or IV would have looked like, the other one was a leftover Supermarine Attacker fuselage from a shabby Novo kit, for which I had the vague idea of giving it a modern tricycle landing gear and different, maybe swept wings, creating something like an attack version of the Swift.

 

When I held a Matchbox Mystére IV in my hands I wondered if this kit could not be combined with the Attacker (both fuselages have very similar lines), and so this French naval aircraft was born. There was also the hope/idea to build more than one of these "combos"!

 

Bashing both kits was more complicated than expected, though. The Novo Attacker is basic, to express it mildly. It has no cockpit at all, the wing/fuselage intersections are in the wrong position for the Mystère's swept wings, and the latter's landing gear is also not easily compatible with the Attacker fuselage.

 

I added a very basic cockpit, using the Matchbox ejection seat and cutting the original helmet/pilot blob away, plus a cockpit floor which also acts as front lang gear well. For this, a new opening had to be cut out.

The air intake interiors are also naked, so I built some walls inside from styrene sheet and added small splitter plates that cover the intakes' edges... These walls also hide the lead that fills much of the room behind the cockpit.

 

The wing attachments had to go, leaving rather wide gaps in the flanks once the new wings were fitted. I tried to solve this through glueing the wings into place and then filling up the gaps with 2C putty, sculpting new intersections. Messy. The original attachments for the Attacker's stabilizers had to be erased and covered, too. The fin is a 100% transplant from the Mystère.

 

Once the wings were in place I found them to have slightly too much span: the Mystère is a tad bigger/voluminous than the Attacker, and with the OOB wings the whole thing did not look balanced. What to do...? :-/

 

I decided to combine this porblem's solution with an additional gimmick: foldable wings! Originally I just wanted to scribe the respective seams onto the wings, but cutting the wing tips in order to reduce the span was out of question - so I carefully cut the wings in halves and reduced the inner sections' span by about 6mm each - not much, but this improved the proportions a lot!

 

In order to present the kit with folded and spread wings, I used a trick that comes e. g. with Matchbox' EA-6B kit: different adapters. These were simply scratched from PET foil, in two layers so that they fit neatly into the openings that were left after the cutting. The PET stuff is very tough and rigid, and I made the inserts long enough that the outer panels do not hang through. Worked better than expected!

A final issue was the ordnance. I wanted a fighter payload, so the four pylons were filled with a pair of slender drop tanks (from a Matchbox F3D Skyraider) and a pair of AAMs - choice fell on the contemporary AA.20, which was also by the Aquilon night fighter. These had to be scratched, though, from sprue pieces and fins cut from styrene.

  

Painting and markings:

This is the classic Aéronavale livery in the post WWII years: all-over dark blue (FS 35042), which is pretty boring, but the Suez Crisis was a good excuse to add some more color. In this case, it's a set of black and yellow ID stripes, which was e. g. also carried by French F4U-7 that flew missions during this conflict, as well as on RAF and RN aircraft that took part, too.

 

Creating these stripes was tricky, though. Yellow is a PITA to apply, and I did also not want to go thorugh the hustle of masking and endless corrections. Hence, I created the stripes in a "mixed media" fashion: first, the stripes width and position were measured and roughly marked (taking into account the pylons, wing fence and the wings' folding sections!).

Then the inner two black stripes were laid out with black paint on the wings and fuselage. Next, the kit received its overall blue livery, and finally the stripes were added. These were cut from an opaque sheet from TL Modellbau, in apporopriate width and with excess length, and then applied on top of the paint. A VERY convenient process with only few corrections and cosmetics, and I am more than happy with the effect and finish.

 

The cockpit interior was painted in very dark grey, the landing gear was kept in Alumnim, according to typical French jets of that era.

The inside of the folded wings and their "mechanisms" were painted in flat black - there's no detail to be seen, so I tried to blend the visible parts with the black ID stripes in that wing area.

 

The kit received some panel shading with petrol blue, as well as a very light dry-brushing with Ocean Grey on the wings' leading edges and on the fuselage in order to emphazise the raised rivets and access hatches on the Attacker's parts.

 

The decals come mostly from an Italeri F4U-7 kit, as well as the scrap box and other generic TL Modellbau sheets, e. g. for the red markers on the wings for the walking zones - these were puzzled together from 1mm strips.

 

Finally, the kit received a coat of semi-gloss Tamiya varnish from the rattle can.

  

This one looks IMHO very convincing, and the Bourrasque has a true 50ies look that I wanted to achieve. I actually had the plan to build two of these (the other one would have been an Israeli machine), but the conversion/bashing became so complex that I just stuck to this single kit - but who knows, maybe... there's another Attacker fuselage in the stash! ;D

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Douglas F3D Skyknight (later designated F-10 Skyknight) was a United States twin-engined, mid-wing jet fighter aircraft manufactured by the Douglas Aircraft Company in El Segundo, California. The F3D was designed as a carrier-based all-weather night fighter and saw service with the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps. The mission of the F3D-2 was to search out and destroy enemy aircraft at night.

 

The F3D was not intended to be a typical sleek and nimble dogfighter, but as a standoff night fighter, packing a powerful radar system and a second crew member. It originated in 1945 with a US Navy requirement for a jet-powered, radar-equipped, carrier-based night fighter. The Douglas team led by Ed Heinemann designed around the bulky air intercept radar systems of the time, with side-by-side seating for the pilot and radar operator. The result was an aircraft with a wide, deep, and roomy fuselage. Instead of ejection seats, an escape tunnel was used.

 

As a night fighter that was not expected to be as fast as smaller daylight fighters, the expectation was to have a stable platform for its radar system and the four 20 mm cannon mounted in the lower fuselage. The F3D was, however, able to outturn a MiG-15 in an inside circle. The fire control system in the F3D-1 was the Westinghouse AN/APQ-35.

The AN/APQ-35 was advanced for the time, a combination of three different radars, each performing separate functions: an AN/APS-21 search radar, an AN/APG-26 tracking radar, both located in the nose, and an AN/APS-28 tail warning radar. The complexity of this vacuum tube-based radar system, which was produced before the advent of semiconductor electronics, required intensive maintenance to keep it operating properly.

 

The F3D Skyknight was never produced in great numbers but it did achieve many firsts in its role as a night fighter over Korea. While it never achieved the fame of the North American F-86 Sabre, it did down several Soviet-built MiG-15s as a night fighter over Korea with only one air-to-air loss of its own against a Chinese MiG-15 on the night of 29 May 1953.

 

In the years after the Korean War, the F3D was gradually replaced by more powerful aircraft with better radar systems. The F3D's career was not over though; its stability and spacious fuselage made it easily adaptable to other roles. The Skyknight played an important role in the development of the radar-guided AIM-7 Sparrow missile in the 1950s which led to further guided air-to-air missile developments.

In 1954, the F3D-2M was the first U.S. Navy jet aircraft to be fitted with an operational air-to-air missile: the Sparrow I,an all weather day/night BVR missile that used beam riding guidance for the aircrew to control the flight of the missile. Only 38 aircraft (12 F3D-1Ms, and 16 F3D-2Ms) were modified to use the missiles, though.

 

One of the F3D's main flaws, which it shared with many early jet aircraft, was its lack of power and performance. Douglas tried to mend this through a radical redesign: The resulting F3D-3 was the designation assigned to a swept-winged version (36° sweep at quarter chord) of the Skyknight. It was originally to be powered by the J46 turbojet, rated at 4.080 lbf for takeoff, which was under development but suffered serious trouble.

 

This led to the cancellation of the J46, and calculated performance of the F3D-3 with the substitute J34 was deemed insufficient. As an alternative the aircraft had to be modified to carry two larger and longer J47-GE-2 engines, which also powered the USN's FJ-2 "Fury" fighter.

This engine's thrust of 6.000 pounds-force (27 kN) at 7,950 rpm appeared sufficient for the heavy, swept-wing aircraft, and in 1954 an order for 287 production F3D-3s was issued, right time to upgrade the new type with the Sparrow I.

 

While the F3D-3's outline resembled that of its straight wing predecessors, a lot of structural changes had to be made to accommodate the shifted main wing spar, and the heavy radar equipment also took its toll: the gross weight climbed by more than 3 tons, and as a result much of the gained performance through the stronger engines and the swept wings was eaten away.

 

Maximum internal fuel load was 1.350 US gallons, plus a further 300 in underwing drop tanks. Overall wing surface remained the same, but the swept wing surfaces reduced the wing span.

In the end, thrust-to-weight ratio was only marginally improved and in fact, the F3D-3 had a lower rate of climb than the F3D-2, its top speed at height was only marginally higher, and stall speed climbed by more than 30 mph, making carrier landings more complicated.

 

It's equipment was also the same - the AN/APQ-35 was still fitted, but mainly because the large radar dish offered the largest detection range of any carrier-borne type of that time, and better radars that could match this performance were still under construction. Anyway, the F3D-3 was able to carry Sparrow I from the start, and this would soon be upgraded to Sparrow III (which became the AIM-7), and it showed much better flight characteristics at medium altitude.

 

Despite the ,many shortcomings the "new" aircraft represented an overall improvement over the F3D-2 and was accepted for service. Production of the F3D-3 started in 1955, but technology advanced quickly and a serious competitor with supersonic capability appeared with the McDonnell F3H Demon and the F4D Skyray - much more potent aircraft that the USN immediately preferred to the slow F3Ds. As a consequence, the production contract was cut down to only 102 aircraft.

 

But it came even worse: production of the swept wing Skyknight already ceased after 18 months and 71 completed airframes. Ironically, the F3D-3's successor, the F3H and its J40 engine, turned out to be more capricious than expected, which delayed the Demon's service introduction and seriously hampered its performance, so that the F3D-3 kept its all weather/night fighter role until 1960, and was eventually taken out of service in 1964 when the first F-4 Phantom II fighters appeared in USN service.

 

In 1962 all F3D versions were re-designated into F-10, the swept wing F3D-3 became the F-10C. The straight wing versions were used as trainers and also served as an electronic warfare platform into the Vietnam War as a precursor to the EA-6A Intruder and EA-6B Prowler, while the swept-wing fighters were completely retired as their performance and mission equipment had been outdated. The last F-10C flew in 1965.

  

General characteristics

Crew: two

Length: 49 ft (14.96 m)

Wingspan: 42 feet 5 inches (12.95 m)

Height: 16 ft 1 in (4.90 m)

Wing area: 400 ft² (37.16 m²)

Empty weight: 19.800 lb (8.989 kg)

Loaded weight: 28,843 lb (13.095 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 34.000 lb (15.436 kg)

 

Powerplant:

2× General Electric J47-GE-2 turbojets, each rated at 6.000 lbf (26,7 kN) each

 

Performance

Maximum speed: 630 mph (1.014 km/h) at sea level, 515 mph (829 km/h) t (6,095 m)

Cruise speed: 515 mph (829 km/h) at 40,000 feet

Stall speed: 128 mph (206 km/h)

Range: 890 mi (1.433 km) with internal fuel; 1,374 mi, 2,212 km with 2× 300 gal (1.136 l) tanks

Service ceiling: 43.000 ft (13.025 m)

Rate of climb: 2,640 ft/min (13,3 m/s)

Wing loading: 53.4 lb/ft² (383 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.353

 

Armament

4× 20 mm Hispano-Suiza M2 cannon, 200 rpg, in the lower nose

Four underwing hardpoints inboard of the wing folding points for up to 4.000 lb (1.816 kg)

ordnance, including AIM-7 Sparrow air-to-air missiles, 11.75 in (29.8cm) Tiny Tim rockets, two

150 or 300 US gal drop tanks or bombs of up to 2.000 lb (900 kg) caliber, plus four hardpoints

under each outer wing for a total of eight 5" HVARs or eight pods with six 2 3/4" FFARs each

  

The kit and its assembly:

Another project which had been on the list for some years now but finally entered the hardware stage. The F3D itself is already a more or less forgotten aircraft, and there are only a few kits available - there has been a vacu kit, the Matchbox offering and lately kits in 1:72 and 1:48 by Sword.

 

The swept wing F3D-3 remained on the drawing board, but would have been a very attractive evolution of the tubby Skyknight. In fact, the swept surfaces resemble those of the A3D/B-66 a Iot, and this was the spark that started the attempt to build this aircraft as a model through a kitbash.

 

This model is basically the Matchbox F3D coupled with wings from an Italeri B-66, even though, being much bigger, these had to be modified.

 

The whole new tail is based on B-66 material. The fin's chord was shortened, though, and a new leading edge (with its beautiful curvature) had to be sculpted from 2C putty. The vertical stabilizers also come from the B-66, its span was adjusted to the Skyknight's and a new root intersection was created from styrene and putty, so that a cross-shaped tail could be realized.

The tail radar dish was retained, even though sketches show the F3D-3 without it.

 

The wings were take 1:1 from the B-66 and match well. They just had to be shortened, I set the cut at maybe 5mm outwards of the engine pods' attachment points. They needed some re-engraving for the inner flaps, as these would touch the F3D-3's engines when lowered, but shape, depth and size are very good for the conversion.

 

On the fuselage, the wings' original "attachment bays" had to be filled, and the new wings needed a new position much further forward, directly behind the cockpit, in order to keep the CoG.

 

One big issue would be the main landing gear. On the straight wing aircraft it retracts outwards, and I kept this arrangement. No detail of the exact landing gear well position was available to me, so I used the Matchbox parts as stencils and placed the new wells as much aft as possible, cutting out new openings from the B-66 wings.

The OOB landing gear was retained, but I added some structure to the landing gear wells with plastic blister material - not to be realistic, just for the effect. A lot of lead was added in the kit's nose section, making sure it actually stands on the front wheel.

 

The Matchbox Skyknight basically offers no real problems, even though the air intake design leaves, by tendency some ugly seams and even gaps. I slightly pimped the cockpit with headrests, additional gauges and a gunsight, as well as two (half) pilot figures. I did not plan to present the opened cockpit and the bulbous windows do not allow a clear view onto the inside anyway, so this job was only basically done. In fact, the pilots don't have a lower body at all...

 

Ordnance comprises of four Sparrow III - the Sparrow I with its pointed nose could have been an option, too, but I think at the time of 1960 the early version was already phased out?

   

Painting and markings:

This was supposed to become a typical USN service aircraft of the 60ies, so a grey/white livery was predetermined. I had built an EF-10B many years ago from the Matchbox kit, and the grey/white guise suits the Whale well - and here it would look even better, with the new, elegant wings.

 

For easy painting I used semi matt white from the rattle can on the lower sides (painting the landing gear at the same time!), and then added FS 36440 (Light Gull Grey, Humbrol 129) with a brush to the upper sides. The radar nose became semi matt black (with some weathering), while the RHAWS dish was kept in tan (Humbrol 71).

 

In order to emphasize the landing gear and the respective wells I added a red rim to the covers.

The cockpit interior was painted in dark grey - another factor which made adding too many details there futile, too...

 

The aircraft's individual marking were to be authentic, and not flamboyant. In the mid 50ies the USN machines were not as colorful as in the Vietnam War era, that just started towards the 60ies.

 

The markings I used come primarily from an Emhar F3H Demon, which features no less than four(!) markings, all with different colors. I settled for a machine of VF-61 "Jolly Rogers", which operated from the USS Saratoga primarily in the Mediterranean from 1958 on - and shortly thereafter the unit was disbanded.

 

I took some of the Demon markings and modified them with very similar but somewhat more discrete markings from VMF-323, which flew FJ-4 at the time - both squadrons marked their aircraft with yellow diamonds on black background, and I had some leftover decals from a respective Xtradecal sheet in the stash.

  

IMHO a good result with the B-66 donation parts, even though I am not totally happy with the fin - it could have been more slender at the top, and with a longer, more elegant spine fillet, but for that the B-66 fin was just too thick. Anyway, I am not certain if anyone has ever built this aircraft? I would not call the F3D-3 elegant or beautiful, but the swept wings underline the fuselage's almost perfect teardrop shape, and the thing reminds a lot of the later Grumman A-6 Intruder?

How it came to be:

This model was initially inspired by a "what if" illustration of a Westland Wyvern in Russian markings (which looked disturbingly realistic...). I have always been fascinated by this brutal construction on the thin line between the prop and jet age, and building one had been a vague plan for a long time. But instead trying to get my hands on a Trumpeter Wyvern in 1:72 I thought: well, if I was going "what if", then I could also build the plane from scratch.

 

While browsing sources and older Hobby Japan issues, I came across the Sanka and Skyly fighters from Bandai - and things fell together. Why not build a fighter in the post-WWII look of "The Sky Crawlers"?

  

The construction:

The kit was constructed as a kitbashing, with some scratch elements added. Design benchmark was the Westland Wyvern, but the Skyly J2 also had some influence, as well as various turboprop prototype of the US Navy, esp. the Ryan "Darkshark".

 

What went into this model:

North American F-86 Sabre (1:72, Hobby Boss):

- Fuselage

- Cockpit interior

- Canopy

Vought F4U-5 Corsair (1:72; Revell):

- Wings

- Landing gear & wheels

- Antennae

Mitsubishi A6M Zero (1:72 , Hasegawa)

- Engine cowl

Gloster Meteor NF.11 (1:72, Xtrakit/Matchbox):

- Vertical fin & horizontal stabilizers

 

Other smaller donations:(

- McDonnell Douglas F-18A Hornet (1:72, Italieri):

Turboprop spinners (= drop tank halves)

- Martin B-26 Marauder (1x Matchbox, 1x Airfix): Propeller blades

- McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom (1:72, Matchbox):

RAF reconnaissance pod

- Grumman F9 Panther: underwing hardpoints

- Kamov Ka-34 "Hokum" (1:72, ESCI): jet exhaust bulges

- WWII pilot figure from an unknown Airfix kit

 

Building the thing went pretty straightforward. F-86 hull and the Mitsubishi Zero engine cowl were glued together and four coats of NC putty melted the into one. Only a small slit between fuselage and propeller was left open as an air intake for the turboprop engine.

The Corsair wings were taken right out fo the box and could be merged with only minor modifications. On the upper side of the wing/body intersection, bulges for the jet exhaust pipes were added on the fuselage flanks (they were intended to end behind the wings' trailing edge), they consist of parts of the engine pods of a Kamov Ka-34 "Hokum" kit from ESCI. Later, the fuselage was drilled open at their ends and sunk exhaust funnels added - simple polystyrene pipes of 6mm diameter.

A similar pipe was vertically fitted into the fuselage at the plane's CG, for in-flight display (photography purposes).

 

The cruciform tail comes from an Xtrakit Gloster Meteor NF.11. Originally I planned just to replace the Sabre tail with the complete Meteor tail cone, but the latter turned out to be too slim! As an emergency remedy, I only used the the Meteor's fin and cut away the original jet exhaust of the Sabre - replacing it with a new, fatter tail cone which was built with parts from an RAF F-4 reconnaissance pod from a Matchbox kit (and lots of putty, though). The result is a rather massive tail which reminds of a Mitsubishi Zero's shape, but overall the lines blend well.

 

The contraprops were built from scratch, and for photography purposes I built tweo specimen: one with propeller blades for static display, and the other one with two clear plastic discs, as if the propellers were running full speed. The base for both is a drop tank from an Italieri F-18 Hornet kit. For the static contraprop, this base was even cut in two and an axis fitted - the propeller is actually fully functional! Its propeller blades come from B-26 Marauder kits and were fitted with reversed pitches, so that the contra-rotating construction would be realistic. Inside of the fuselage, a plastic pipe was used as an adapter for both propellers, making the easily interchangeable.

 

Even though weapon hardpoints were added, the remained empty - even though my construction looks rather like an attack plane, I wanted to keep a clean air-to-air look and leave a clear view onto the very good Corsair landing gear. The latter was taken 1.1 from the donation kit, just the rear wheel was modified (w/o arresting hook) and a respective compartment cut out of the tail cone.

  

Livery and markings:

Another subject which was rather difficult. With "whif" planes, you easily end up with prominent markings and camouflage schemes - many such kits bear a Luft'46 look. While this would have been a nice option, I also considered Russian markings (on a pure Aluminum livery or a simple green/light blue cammo scheme). Even painting the whole thing dark blue and adding some white stars would have been a plausible option.

 

But for a special twist, I wanted to "catch" the retro but subtly colourful spirit of The Sky Crawlers, avoiding a retro-Luftwaffe look. First idea was something that would have looked like an USAF Mustang in late WWII: lower side bare metal, upper sides olive drab and some flashy colours on the spinner, wings and tail. But then I remembered "something different".

 

The final paint scheme was heavily derived from a rather weird livery which the P-47M "Thunderbolts" from the 63rd fighter squadron, 56th fighter group, 8th Air Force, based in the UK in the final WWII months. Those machines wore a bluish-grey two-tone camouflage on the upper sides, with bare metal undersides. The wings leading edges would be bare metal, too, the engine adorned with a red band and the vertical rudder would be blue. Pretty unique - and AFAIK there's even an airworthy P-47 in this guise around in the USA, flown/kept up by the Confederate Air Force historic flight. This specific machine was actually the benchmark for my paint scheme, because its colours are rather bright.

 

I more or less sticked to the P-47 paint scheme, just raised the bare metal undersides on the flanks and used brighter colors. These are:

- Testors #1562 "Flat Light Blue"

- Testors #2074 "RLM24 Dunkelblau"

- Testors #1401 "Aluminum Plate" Metallizer

 

All interior surfaces were painted with RLM02 from Testors, the spinner is plain Testors #1103 "Red". The white stripes were cut from a plain white decal sheet from TL Modellbau, the red insignia are actually French WWII squadron markings in 1:48 scale - also aftermarket pieces from Peddinghaus Decals. Stencelling and bort numbers come from the scrap box.

With the overall exotic shape and cammo scheme, I decided to leave other markings simple and rather neutral – no shark mouth or nose art, even though there would have been plenty of space for such a detail. But I think it would distract too much, and AFAIK no plane in The Sky Crawlers bears such flashy decoration.

 

The kit was lightly weathered with thinned black paint and some dry painting with shades of grey, plus gun smoke and exhaust fumes with dry-painted black. Everything was sealed under a thin coat of semi-matte varnish.

  

Final words:

This thing looks disturbingly realistic and plausible, even in its bright livery! While the finish is not perfect (hey, it is scratchbuilt!), the Fafnir (named after a German mythical dragon) really looks like a project from the late 40ies, one of the final high end fighters with a propeller. I am rather surprised how good the result became, and it is exciting to see how such a project evolves step by step, only with a vague idea as a basis. Won't be the last kitbashing!

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

 

Some background:

The Nakajima Ki-104 was a further development of the Ki-87; the latter was a Japanese high-altitude fighter-interceptor of World War II, a single seat, exhaust-driven turbo-supercharged engined, low-wing monoplane with a conventional undercarriage.

 

The Ki-87 was one of several designs of various manufacturers developed in response to American B-29 Superfortress raids on the Home Islands. The Ki-87 followed up on earlier research by Nakajima and the Technical Division of Imperial Army Headquarters into boosting a large radial engine with an exhaust-driven turbo-supercharger, which had begun in 1942, well before the B-29 raids began.

 

The efforts of the Technical Division of Imperial Army Headquarters eventually culminated into the high-performance, tandem-engine Tachikawa Ki-94-I, while the Ki-87 under the lead of Kunihiro Aoki was developed as a fall-back project, using less stringent requirements.

Nakajima started in July 1943 with the construction of three prototypes, to be completed between November 1944 and January 1945, and seven pre-production aircraft, to be delivered by April 1945.

 

The Technical Division of Imperial Army Headquarters made itself felt during the development of the Ki-87 prototype when they insisted upon placing the turbo-supercharger in the rear-fuselage, and from the sixth prototype the Nakajima fighter was to have that arrangement. Construction was further delayed due to problems with the electrical undercarriage and the turbo-supercharger itself. As a consequence, the first Ki-87 prototype was not completed until February 1945; it first flew in April, but only five test flights were completed.

 

A further variant, the Ki-87-II, powered by a 3,000 hp Nakajima Ha217 (Ha-46) engine and with the turbo-supercharger in the same position as the P-47 Thunderbolt. Due to the long development period of the Ki-87, several major structural changes were made, too, that eventually changed the aircraft so much that it received a new, separate kitai number and became the Ki-104.

 

Kunihiro Aoki's new design was approved by the Koku Hombu, and an order was placed for one static test airframe, three prototypes, and eighteen pre-production aircraft. Only 2 prototypes were built in the event; the first was equipped with a single 1,895 kW (2,541 hp) Nakajima Ha219 [Ha-44] engine, driving a 4-blade, but the second one received the stronger Nakajima Ha217 (Ha-46) and a 6-blade propeller.

 

The pre-production machines (Ki-104-I or -Tei) were all produced with Ha217 engines, but featured various four-bladed propeller (-a, -b) designs as well as the new 6-blade propeller (-c). Compared to the prototypes, armament was beefed up from a pair of 20mm Ho-5 and a pair of 30mm Ho-155-I cannons in the wings to four of the new, more compact Ho-155-II cannons (originally designed for the unsuccessful Ki-102 assault aircraft and optimized for wing installation).

 

All pre-production Ki-104-Is were allocated to an independent IJA Headquarter Flight where they were tested alongside established fighters in the defence of the Tokyo region. Based on this 3rd Independent Flight's unit marking, a completely black tail with the unit's emblem, the Ki-104s were inofficially called Ic '黒の尾'/'Kurono-'o, which literally means "Black Tail".

 

The first operational Ki-104s reached this unit in spring 1945 and saw limited use against the incoming streams of B-29 bombers (2 unconfirmed downings in the Tokyo region). After these initial contacts that left a serious impression the new type received the USAF code name "Cooper", but the hostilities' soon end however stopped any further work and serial production. No Ki-104 survived the war.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 12 m (39 ft 4 in)

Wingspan: 14 m (45 ft 11 in)

Height: 4.65 m (15 ft 3 in)

Wing area: 28 m² (301.388 ft²)

Airfoil: Tatsuo Hasegawa airfoil

Empty weight: 4,637 kg (10,337 lb)

Loaded weight: 6.450 kg (14.220 lb)

Powerplant:

1× Nakajima Ha219 [Ha-44-12] 18-cylinder air-cooled radial engine, 1,835 kW (2,461 hp)

 

Performance

Maximum speed: 712 km/h (385 kn, 443 mph)

Cruise speed: 440 km/h (237 kn, 273 mph)

Range: 2,100 km (1,305 mi)

Service ceiling: 14,680 m (48,170 ft)

Wing loading: 230.4 kg/m² (47.2 lb/ft²)

Power/mass: 0.28 kW/kg (0.17 hp/lb)

Climb to 5,000 m (16,400 ft): 5 min 9 sec;

Climb to 10,000 m (32,800 ft): 17 min 38 sec;

Climb to 13,000 m (42,640 ft): 21 min 03 sec

 

Armament

4× 30 mm (1.18 in) Ho-155-II cannons in the wings

Underwing hardpoints and centerline pylon for up to 3× 250 kg (551 lb) bombs

or a single 300l drop tank under the fuselage

  

The kit and its assembly:

This whif is the result of many ideas and occasions. First of all, I had a leftover six-blade propeller from a Hasegawa J7W Shinden in stock. Then I recently had an eye on kits of late Japanese high altitude fighters with turbosuperchargers, like the Ki-91-II or the Ki-106. These are available from RS Models, but rare and rather costly. And I wondered how a P-47 might look like without its deep belly? All this was finally thrown into a big idea stew, and the Ki-104 is the home-made hardware result!

 

As a side note: the Ki-104 was a real IJA project, AFAIK based/related to the Tachikawa Ki-94-I twin-boom/push-pull high altitude fighter, a re-worked, more conventional design. Information is sparese and it never reached any hardware stage and remained a paper project as the Rikugun Kogiken Ki-104; I just "revived" the number for my whif, but maybe the real Ki-104 could have looked like it... ;-)

 

The kit is a bashing of various parts and pieces:

- Fuselage and wing roots from an Academy P-47-25

- Wings from an Ark Model Supermarine Attacker (ex Novo)

- Tail fin is a modified part of a Matchbox Ju 188 stabilizer

- The stabilizers are outer sections from a Matchbox Douglas F3D Skyknight

- Cowling comes from an ART Model Grumman F8F Bearcat, the engine was scratched

- Propeller from a Hasegawa J7W Shinden

- Main wheels from a Matchbox F6F Hellcat

 

My choice fell onto the Academy Thunderbolt because it has engraved panel lines, offers the bubble canopy as well as good fit and detail. The belly duct had simply been sliced off, and the opening later faired over with styrene sheet and putty.

The Bearcat cowling was chosen because it had very good fitting width in order to match with the P-47 fuselage, and it turned out to be a very good choice - even though I had to add a dorsal connection, a simple styrene wedge, to create a good profile.

Inside, the engine consists of a reversed Hobby Boss F6F engine, with a fan dummy that covers any view on non-existent interior details... A styrene tube was added, into which a metal axis can be inserted. The latter holds the propeller, so that it can spin with little hindrance.

 

The Attacker wings were chosen because of their "modern" laminar profile - the Novo kit is horrible, but acceptable for donations. And the risen panel lines and rivets should later do great work during the weathering process... OOB, the Attacker wings had too little span for the big P-47, so I decided to mount the Thunderbolt's OOB wings and cut them at a suitable point: maybe 0.5", just where the large wheel fairings for the main landing gear ends.

The intersection with the Attacker wings is almost perfect in depth and width, relatively little putty work was necessary. I just had to cut out new landing gear well parts.

 

With the new wing shape, the tail surfaces had to be changed accordingly, with parts from a Matchbox Skyknight and a highly modified piece from a Matchbox Ju 188 stabilizer.

 

The OOB cockpit and landing gear was retained, I just replaced the main wheels with slightly more delicate alternatives from a Matchbox F6F Hellcat.

 

Once the basic bodywork was done I added the exhaust arrangement under the fuselage; the outlets are oil cooler parts from a Fw 190A, the air scoop once belonged to a Martin Marauder and the long ducts are actually HO scale roof rails. The oil cooler under the engine comes from a Hobby Boss La-7.

 

Pretty wild mix, but it works surprisingly well!

  

Painting and markings:

Even though this was supposed to become a late WWII IJA fighter, I did neither want the stereotype NMF look nor the classic green/grey livery or a respective mottled scheme. What I finally settled upon, though, took a long while to manifest, and it looks ...odd.

 

I wanted a camouflage scheme, but none of the more exotic real world options was fine for me; there had been fighters with black upper surfaces, bright blue ones, or blue mottle on top of NMF. But all this did not convince me, and I eventually created an experimental scheme. And the paint was supposed to look heavily worn, as if the paint had been applied directly onto the bare metal, without primer, so that it chips and flakes off easily.

 

The tones were supposed to be suitable for high altitudes, but not the classic IJA colors - nothing even close. eventuelly I came up with an all-around turquoise green (ModelMaster Fulcrum Grey Green) plus a pale grey-green (ModelMaster RAF Dark Slate Grey) as contrast for the upper sides. Sick combination, yes, esp. with the Aluminum shining through, which was applied first as a kind of acrylic primer. The camouflage paint was carefully brushed on top of that, with panel-wise strokes from back to front. Tedious, but effective.

 

The black tail was applied similarly, it is a free interpretation of real IJA markings; for instance, the 244th Sentai arcraft bore all-red tail sections. Black is an uncommon color, but since I wanted to create fictional squadron markings, too, this was a suitable concept. And it looks cool and mysterious...

 

The cockpit interior was painted with Aodake Iro (Modelmaster), the section behind the pilot's seat and where the sliding canopy moves on the outside, were painted with IJA Dark Green - just an odd idea. In front of the cockpit a black anti glare panel was added. The landing gear and the respective wells were painted with Steel Metallizer (just to set them apart from the lighter Aluminum all around). The propeller was painted in reddish brown tones, the spinner in Humbrol 160 and the blades in 173.

 

After this basic painting the kit received a black ink wash, and decals were applied. These were taken from various aftermarket sheets, including generic, white and yellow sheet for the Home Defence markings on wings and fuselage, the white fuselage trim or the yellow ID markings on the wings' leading edges.

 

As next step the complete kit was carefully wet-sanded, primarily from front to back, so that more of the aluminum primer showed through, the decals (esp. the Hinomaru) were worn out and the camouflage paint on top lost some of its hard edges.

The sanding residues had to be cleaned away thoroughly (with a soft toothbrush and lots of water), and then, repairs, e .g. where the bare plastic came through, as well as extra effects with dry-painted, lighter camouflage tones were done. Final cosmetics also include oil and dirt stains with Tamiya"Smoke", also applied by brush.

 

Once everything was dry and clean (despite the kit's look), everything was sealed under a coat of varnish - a 3:1 mix of matt and gloss Revell Acrylics.

 

A complex and lengthy painting process, but I think the effort paid out because the procedure mimicks the structure and look of a worn paint job instead of trying to look like it when you paint a cammo scheme and add metal effects "on top". This works for small chips, but not for the flaked look I had been looking for.

 

The Ki-104 turned out to be a very conclusive kitbashing - I think that the P-47-with-Attacker-wings-and-new-cowling bears more potential, and I might try it again, e. g. for a naval Thunderbolt development?

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Fouga CM.170 Magister was a 1950s French two-seat jet trainer aircraft, developed and manufactured by aircraft company Fouga. Due to industrial mergers, the aircraft has been variously known as the Fouga CM.170 Magister, Potez (Fouga) CM.170 Magister, Sud Aviation (Fouga) CM.170 Magister and Aérospatiale (Fouga) CM.170 Magister, depending on where and when they were built.

 

In 1948, development commenced at Fouga on a new primary trainer aircraft design that harnessed newly developed jet propulsion technology. The initial design was evaluated by the French Air Force and, in response to its determination that the aircraft lacked sufficient power for its requirements, was enlarged and adopted a pair of Turbomeca Marboré turbojet engines. First flying on 23 July 1952, the first production order for the type was received on 13 January 1954. Export orders for the Magister were received, which included arrangements to produce the type under license in Germany, Finland, and Israel. In addition, the related CM.175 Zéphyr was a carrier-capable version developed and produced for the French Navy.

 

While primarily operated as a trainer aircraft, the Magister was also frequently used in combat as a close air support platform by various operators. In the latter capacity, it saw action during the Six-Day War, the Salvadoran Civil War, the Western Sahara War, and the Congo Crisis. In French service, the Magister was eventually replaced by the Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet, and a navalized variant (the CM.175 “Zéphyr”) was procured and operated from 1959 onwards by the Aéronavale.

 

Beyond that, the basic 1950 design was considered for several upgrades or specialized variants – including a high altitude trainer or a dedicated single-seat attack aircraft. In 1957 even a supersonic variant was proposed: the CM.174, which featured swept wings and tail surfaces. However, this initial aircraft never made it to the hardware stage because wind tunnel tests revealed serious compressibility issues at speeds beyond Mach 0.65, and that the potential gain in performance through the new wings could not be tapped.

 

However, this was not the end of the Magister’s potential; in 1957 Fouga presented a model of the CM 194 at the Paris Air Show – a much updated aircraft, powered by a pair of stronger Gabizo engines and capable of supersonic speed, even though only in a dive. French officials and some potential foreign customers (e.g. Israel) were interested enough to convince Fouga to build a demonstrator, even though as a private venture. The first prototype left the Toulouse factory in May 1958, the first type to bear the Potez designation after Fouga had just been purchased by the firm.

 

The CM.194 differed in some details from the model that had been presented – primarily in order to save development time and costs. The basic fuselage structure from the original CM.170 was retained, but the CM.194 introduced completely new wings and tail surfaces, a modified landing gear, a pointed nose and an elongated spine fairing that helped improve the aircraft’s aerodynamics for the flight in the Mach 1 region. Power came from a pair of Turbomeca Gabizo, but in order to improve the aircraft’s performance and make it suitable for the advanced jet fighter trainer role, the relatively small engines even received afterburners (an arrangement originally developed for the stillborn Breguet Br 1001 “Taon” tactical fighter). With this extra power, the CM.194 was now able to break the sound barrier in level flight and attain a top speed of Mach 1.18, and the type could carry a considerably higher payload than the original CM.170.

 

Flight tests started in late 1958 and revealed good handling characteristics, even though longitudinal stability near Mach 1 was considered as unsatisfactory, and the air intakes had to be modified because of airflow problems and engine surges at supersonic. It took until mid 1959 until an enlarged butterfly tail with crescent shape, together with an extended spine fairing, eventually solved the stability problem. The engine surge problem was solved through the introduction of movable shock cones in the air intakes, similar to the “souris” (mice) arrangement on Dassault’s Mirage III and IV.

Two more prototypes had been built at that time, being marketed as the “Magister Supersonique”, or “Magister SS” for short, and a demonstration tour around the globe in many countries of Magister operators was conducted from October 1959 until April 1960.

However, the CM.194 did not meet much interest. Even though many air forces, also smaller ones, were about to enter the supersonic age and were looking for advanced trainers, the market had been conquered by politically endorsed alternatives in the meantime, namely the Northrop T-38/F-5B and the MiG-21U, and these contenders were much more capable than the relatively light CM.194.

 

Nevertheless, the French air force procured 42 CM.194 trainers, the first operational aircraft being delivered in early 1963, and some other countries ordered the type, too, including Austria, Belgium, Lebanon and Morocco. Israel even secured license production rights of the aircraft as the IAI T-270 “Drowr” (Swallow). A total of 132 aircraft were built until 1974, and the last CM.194 was retired by El Salvador in 1995.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: Two

Length: 10.36 m (34 ft 0 in)

Wingspan: 8.92 m (29 ft 3 in)

Height: 2.45 m (8 ft)

Wing area: 16.4 m² (177 ft²)

Empty weight: 3,100 kg (6,830 lb)

Loaded weight: 5,440 kg (11,990 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 5,500 kg (12,100 lb)

 

Powerplant:

2× Turbomeca Gabizo axial flow turbojets, with 11.87 kN (2,668 lbf) dry thrust each

and 14.71 kN (3,307 lbf) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,194 km/h (742 mph; 645 kn) at 9,000 m (30,000 ft)

Range: 1,150 km (621 nmi, 715 mi)

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

Rate of climb: 30 m/s (6,000 ft/min)

Wing loading: 331 kg/m² (67.8 lb/ft²)

Thrust/weight: 0.42

 

Armament:

Normally no internal gun, but provision for a ventral, conformal gun pod with a single 0.5” (12.7 mm)

machine gun and 180 RPG

4x underwing hardpoints for up to 1.000kg of ordnance, incl. drop tanks, bombs of up to 250kg caliber,

unguided missiles or gun pods

  

The kit and its assembly:

This little what-if model is actually based on a real world design – the potentially supersonic Fouga CM 194 was actually presented in model form in 1957, but it never made it to the hardware stage. I found this aircraft in a book about French aircraft projects and had this build on my long project list for a while. When a fellow modeler at whatifmodelers.com (Weaver) presented a very nice swept wing Magister (an Airfix CM 170 with G.91 wings and F-86 stabilizers), I took it as a motivation and prepared a build of my own.

 

My build differs from Weaver’s approach, though, even though the G.91 wings are a very natural option for the slender Magister. In my case, the fuselage was taken from a Heller CM 170, including the cockpit except for the bucket seats, which were replaced by more appropriate ejection seats. I also used G.91 wings for my build, but these came from the Revell kit. And even though I had a pair of F-86 stabilizers at hand (which are a very good addition to the G.91 wings), I did not use them because I found them to be too small for a butterfly tail on a Magister. After all, two aerodynamic surfaces have to do the job of three on a conservative tail, so that the sum of the surfaces’ areas have to be similar. The best alternative I could find in my donor bank was a pair of stabilizers from a Matchbox Harrier; while their shape looks a little odd, their sweep angle is fine and their size works well.

 

Beyond these obvious changes, some other modifications ensued. The nose tip was changed into a pointed shape, and the area behind the cockpit (the canopy is OOB, just cut into pieces for open display) was raised through the integration of a drop tank half and some serious PSR – inspired by the look of Fouga’s first attempt to make the Magister supersonic, the CM 174. Since the G.91 wings came with different landing gear wells, I decided to change the landing gear itself and use the G.91’s main struts and covers, while the Magister’s OOB main wheels were kept. The front leg was changed in so far that I attached it to the rear end of its well, and I used a slightly bigger wheel (IIRC from an 1:144 B-1B). All in all the aircraft’s stance was raised, it looks much more mature now. And in order to keep its lines clean I did not add any external weapons or even pylons. After all, it’s a flight trainer.

 

Another modification concerns the engines – for a supersonic aircraft I added small shock cones in the air intakes (scratched from styrene profile) and I changed the exhaust section, so that bigger/stronger engines would be plausible. I implanted a pair of modified lift engines from a Kangnam Yak-38 kit – I thought they’d be small enough, but on the compact Magister they still appear big! Luckily I found the Br 1001 “Taon” and its afterburner Gabizo engines in literature, so that the arrangement on the model can at least be explained through historical facts. ;-)

  

Painting and markings:

I was tempted to finish the model in Israeli markings, like Weaver’s, but then rather opted for a different route: I wanted to present the CM 194 in very normal operational colors, nothing exotic. After considering several options (Morocco, El Salvador, France) I eventually settled upon Belgium, and I went for the tactical three-tone scheme that was carried by the F-104 or Mirage V fighter bombers.

 

The pattern was adapted from an Alpha Jet export scheme and the colors were approximated from photo benchmarks. Many sources claim that the colors are the standard US SEA scheme, consisting of FS 34079, 34102 and 30219. However, the Dark Green is simply wrong (it’s a tone called FS 34064, and it’s a very dark olive drab), and the other colors come out much brighter than on typical US aircraft.

 

Consequently, FS 34102 was replaced by RAL 6003 (later even post-shaded with Humbrol 80, Grass Green!), while the tan tone is a mix of FS 30219 with Humbrol 94 (Desert Yellow). FS 34064 was created with a 1:1 mix of Humbrol 108 and 91 (later post-shaded with 75). The undersides were painted in FS 36495.

 

The cockpit interior became dark grey (Revell 77), while the landing struts and the wells were painted in aluminum; the covers’ inside received a finish in Chromate Yellow (Humbrol 81).

 

The dayglow markings on the tips of wings and the butterfly tail were created with decals sheet material, on top of which some paint (Humbrol 209) was added for a slight shading effect.

Generic decals in silver were also used to create the wing leading edges. National markings and warning stencils come from the scrap box.

Finally, the kit received a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).

  

Well, basically a simple conversion stunt, but it’s actually a complete kitbashing with – in my case – some considerable PSR work. However, the result is a very plausible, if not pretty, aircraft. From certain angles, the swept-wing Magister reminds me of the Alpha Jet (esp. the nose section, probably due to the pointed nose?), and the whole thing appears somehow bigger as it actually is. And I like the paint scheme: even though it’s camouflage, the dayglow markings and the bright insignia and stencils create a lively look.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

 

Some background:

The Northrop Grumman-IAI F-24 is the latest reincarnation of the USAF "Lightweight Fighter Program" which dates back to the 1950ies and started with the development of Northrop's F-5 "Freedom Fighter".

 

The 1st generation F-5 became very successful in the export market and saw a long line of development, including the much more powerful F-5E "Tiger II" and the F-20 Tigershark (initially called F-5G). Northrop had high hopes for the F-20 in the international market; however, policy changes following Ronald Reagan's election meant the F-20 had to compete for sales against aircraft like the F-16, the USAF's latest fighter design (which was politically favored). The F-20 development program was eventually abandoned in 1986 after three prototypes had been built and a fourth partially completed.

 

But this was not the end for Northrop’s Lightweight Fighter. In the early 1980s, two X-29As experimental aircraft were built by Grumman from two existing Northrop F-5A Freedom Fighter airframes. The Grumman X-29 was a testbed for forward-swept wings, canard control surfaces, and other novel aircraft technologies. The aerodynamic instability of this arrangement increased agility but required the use of computerized fly-by-wire control. Composite materials were used to control the aeroelastic divergent twisting experienced by forward-swept wings, also reducing the weight. The NASA test program continued from 1984 to 1991 and the X-29s flew 242 times, gathering valuable data and breaking ground for new aerodynamic technologies of 4th and 5th generation fighters.

 

Even though no service aircraft directly evolved from the X-29, its innovative FBW system as well as the new material technologies also opened the door for an updated F-20 far beyond the 1990ies. It became clear that ever expensive and complex aircraft could not be the answer to modern, asymmetrical warfare in remote corners of the world, with exploding development costs and just a limited number of aircraft in service that could not generate true economies of scale, esp. when their state-of-the-art design would not permit any export.

Anyway, a global market for simpler fighter aircraft was there, as 1st generation F-16s as well as the worldwide, aging F-5E fleet and types of Soviet/Russian origin like the MiG-29 provided the need for a modern, yet light and economical jet fighter. Contemporary types like the Indian HAL Tejas, the Swedish Saab Gripen, the French Dassault Rafale and the Pakistani/Chinese FC-1/JF-17 ”Thunder” proved this trend among 4th - 4.5th generation fighter aircraft.

 

Northrop Grumman (Northrop bought Grumman in 1994) initiated studies and basic design work on a respective New Lightweight Fighter (NLF) as a private venture in 1995. Work on the NLF started at a slow pace, as the company was busy with re-structuring.

The idea of an updated lightweight fighter was fueled by another source, too: Israel. In 1998 IAI started looking in the USA for a development partner for a new, light fighter that would replace its obsolete Kfir fleet and partly relieve its F-16 and F-15 fleet from interception tasks. The domestic project for that role, the IAI Lavi, had been stillborn, but lots of its avionics and research were still at hand and waited for an airframe for completion.

The new aircraft for the IAF was to be superior to the MiG-29, at least on par with the F-16C/D, but easier to maintain, smaller and overall cheaper. Since the performance profiles appeared to be similar to what Northrop Grumman was developing under the NLF label, the US company eventually teamed up with IAI in 2000 and both started the mutual project "Namer" (=נמר, “Tiger” in Hebrew), which eventually lead to the F-24 I for the IAF which kept its project name for service and to the USAF’s F-24A “Tigershark”.

 

The F-24, as the NLF, was based on the F-20 airframe, but outwardly showed only little family heritage, onle the forward fuselage around the cockpit reminds of the original F-5 design . Many aerodynamic details, e. g. the air intakes and air ducts, were taken over from the X-29, though, as the experimental aircraft and its components had been developed for extreme maneuvers and extra high agility. Nevertheless, the X-29's forward-swept wing was considered to be too exotic and fragile for a true service aircraft, but the F-24 was to feature an Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) system.

 

AAW Technology integrates wing aerodynamics, controls, and structure to harness and control wing aeroelastic twist at high speeds and dynamic pressures. By using multiple leading and trailing edge controls like "aerodynamic tabs", subtle amounts of aeroelastic twist can be controlled to provide large amounts of wing control power, while minimizing maneuver air loads at high wing strain conditions or aerodynamic drag at low wing strain conditions. This system was initially tested on the X-29 and later on the X-53 research aircraft, a modified F-18, until 2006.

 

Both USAF and IAF versions feature this state-of-the-art aerodynamic technology, but it is uncertain if other customers will receive it. While details concerning the F-24's system have not been published yet, it is assumed that its AAW is so effective that canard foreplanes could be omitted without sacrificing lift and maneuverability, and that drag is effectively minimized as the wing profile can be adjusted according to the aircraft’s speed, altitude, payload and mission – much like a VG wing, but without its clumsy and heavy swiveling mechanism which has to bear high g forces. As a result, the F-24 is, compared to the F-20, which could carry an external payload of about 3.5 tons, rumored to be able to carry up to 5 tons of ordnance.

 

The delta wing shape proved to be a perfect choice for the required surface and flap actuators inside of the wings, and it would also offer a very good compromise between lift and drag for a wide range of performance. Anyway, there was one price to pay: in order to keep the wing profile thin and simple, the F-24’s landing gear retracts into the lower fuselage, leaving the aircraft with a relatively narrow track.

 

Another major design factor for the outstanding performance of this rather small aircraft was weight reduction and structural integrity – combined with simplicity, ruggedness and a modular construction which would allow later upgrades. Instead of “going big” and expensive, the new F-24 was to create its performance through dedicated loss of weight, which was in some part also a compensation for the AAW system in the wings and its periphery.

 

Weight was saved wherever possible, e .g. a newly developed, lightweight M199A1 gatling gun. This 20mm cannon is a three-barreled, heavily modified version of the already “stripped” M61A2 gun in the USAF’s current F-18E and F-22. One of the novel features is a pneumatic drive instead of the traditional electric mechanism, what not only saves weight but also improves trigger response. The new gun weighs only a mere 65kg (the six-barreled M61A2 weighs 92kg, the original M61A1 112 kg), but still reaches a burst rate of fire of 1.800 RPM (about 800 RPM under cyclic fire, standard practice is to fire the cannon in 30 to 50-round bursts, though) and a muzzle velocity of 1.050 metres per second (3,450 ft/s) with a PGU-28/B round.

 

While the F-16 was and is still made from 80% aluminum alloys and only from 3% composites, the F-24 makes major use of carbon fiber and other lightweight materials, which make up about 40% of the aircraft’s structure, plus an increased share of Titanium and Magnesium alloys. As a consequence and through many other weight-saving measures like keeping stealth capabilities to a minimum (even though RAM was deliberately used and many details designed to have a natural low radar signature, resulting in modest radar cross-section (RCS) reductions), a single, relatively small engine, a fuel-efficient F404-GE-402 turbofan, is enough to make the F-24 a fast and very agile aircraft, coupled with a good range. The F-24’s thrust/weight ratio is considerably higher than 1, and later versions with a vectored thrust nozzle (see below) will take this level of agility even further – with the pilot becoming the limiting factor for the aircraft’s performance.

 

USAF and IAF F-24s are outfitted with Northrop Grumman's AN/APG-80 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, also used in the F-16 Block 60 aircraft. Other customers might only receive the AN/APG-68, making the F-24 comparable to the F-16C/D.

 

The first prototype, the YF-24, flew on 8th of March 2008, followed by two more aircraft plus a static airframe until summer 2010. In early 2011 the USAF placed an initial order of 101 aircraft (probably also to stir export sales – the earlier lightweight fighters from Northrop suffered from the fact that the manufacturer’s country would not use the aircraft in its own forces). These initial aircraft will replace older F-16 in the interceptor role, or free them for fighter bomber tasks. The USN and USMC also showed interest in the aircraft for their aggressor squadrons, for dissimilar air combat training. A two-seater, called the F-24B, is supposed to follow soon, too, and a later version for 2020 onwards, tentatively designated F-24C, is to feature an even stronger F404 engine and a 3D vectoring nozzle.

 

Israel is going to produce its own version domestically from late 2014 on, which will exclusively be used by the IAF. These aircraft will be outfitted with different avionics, built by Elta in Israel, and cater to national requirements which focus more on multi-purpose service, while the USAF focusses with its F-24A on aerial combat and interception tasks.

 

International interest for the F-24A is already there: in late 2013 Grumman stated that initial talks have been made with various countries, and potential export candidates from 2015 on are Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, Finland, Norway, Australia and Japan.

  

General F-24A characteristics:

Crew: 1 pilot

Length: 47 ft 4 in (14.4 m)

Wingspan: 27 ft 11.9 in / 8.53 m; with wingtip missiles (26 ft 8 in/ 8.13 m; without wingtip missiles)

Height: 13 ft 10 in (4.20 m)

Wing area: 36.55 m² (392 ft²)

Empty weight: 13.150 lb (5.090 kg)

Loaded weight: 15.480 lb (6.830 kg)

Max. take-off weight: 27.530 lb (12.500 kg)

 

Powerplant

1× General Electric F404-GE-402 turbofan with a dry thrust of 11,000 lbf (48.9 kN) and 17,750 lbf (79.2 kN) with afterburner

 

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 2+

Combat radius: 300 nmi (345 mi, 556 km); for hi-lo-hi mission with 2 × 330 US gal (1,250 L) drop tanks

Ferry range: 1,490 nmi (1715 mi, 2759 km); with 3 × 330 US gal (1,250 L) drop tanks

Service ceiling: 55,000 ft (16,800 m)

Rate of climb: 52,800 ft/min (255 m/s)

Wing loading: 70.0 lb/ft² (342 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 1.09 (1.35 with loaded weight & 50% fuel)

 

Armament

1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M199A1 3-barreled Gatling cannon in the lower fuselage with 400 RPG

Eleven external hardpoints (two wingtip tails, six underwing hardpoints, three underfuselage hardpoints) and a total capacity of 11.000 lb (4.994 kg) of missiles (incl. AIM 9 Sidewinder and AIM 120 AMRAAM), bombs, rockets, ECM pods and drop tanks for extended range.

  

The kit and its assembly:

A spontaneous project. This major kitbash was inspired by fellow user nighthunter at whatifmodelers.com, who came up with a profile of a mashed-up US fighter, created “out of boredom”. The original idea was called F-21C, and it was to be a domestic successor to the IAI Kfirs which had been used by the US as aggressor aircraft in USN and USMC service for a few years.

 

As a weird(?) coincidence I had many of the necessary ingredients for this fictional aircraft in store, even though some parts and details were later changed. This model here is an interpretation of the original design. The idea was spun further, and the available parts that finally went into the model also had some influence on design and background.

I thank nighthunter for sharing the early ideas, inviting me to take the design to the hardware stage (sort of…) and adapting my feedback into new design sketches, too, which, in return, inspired the model building process.

 

Well, what went into this thing? To cook up a F-24 à la Dizzyfugu you just need (all in 1:72):

● Fuselage from a Hasegawa X-29, including the cockpit and the landing gear

● Fin and nose cone from an Italeri F-16A

● Inner wings from a (vintage) Hasegawa MiG-21F

● Outer wings from a F-4 (probably a J, Hasegawa or Fujimi)

 

The wing construction deviates from nighthunter’s original idea. The favorite ingredients would have been F-16XL or simple Mirage III wings, but I found the composite wing to be more attractive and “different”. The big F-16XL wings, despite their benefit of a unique shape, might also have created scale/size problems with a F-20 style fuselage? So I built hybrid wings: The MiG-21 landing gear wells were filled with putty and the F-4 outer wings simply glued onto the MiG inner wing sections, which were simply cut down in span. It sounds like an unlikely combo, but these parts fit together almost perfectly! In order to hide the F-4 origins I modified them to carry wingtip launch rails, though, which were also part of nighthunter’s original design.

 

The AAW technology detail mentioned in the background came in handy as it explains the complicated wing shape and the fact that the landing gear retracts into the fuselage, not into the wings, which would have been more plausible… Anyway, there’s still room for a simpler export version, with Mirage III or Kfir C.2/7 wings, and maybe canards?

 

Using the X-29 as basis also made fitting the new wings onto the area-ruled fuselage pretty easy, as I could use the wing root parts from the X-29 to bridge the gap. The original, forward-swept wings were just cut away, and the remains used as consoles for the new hybrid delta wings. Took some SERIOUS putty work, but the result is IMHO fine.

 

The bigger/square X-29 air intakes were taken over, and they change the look of the aircraft, making it look less F-5-ish than a true F-20 fuselage. For the same reason I kept the large fairing at the fin base, combining it with a bigger F-16 tail, though, as a counter-balance to the new, bigger wings. Again, the F-16 fin was/is part of nighthunter’s idea, so the model stays true to the original concept.

 

For the same reason I omitted the original X-29 nose, which is rather pointy, sports vanes and a large sensor boom. The F-16 nose was a plausible choice, as the AN/APG-80 is also carried by late Fighting Falcons, and its shape fits well, too.

 

All around the hull, some small details like radar warning sensors, pitots and air scoops were added. Not really necessary, but such thing add IMHO to the overall impression of such a fictional aircraft beyond the prototype stage.

 

Cockpit and landing gear were taken OOB, I just added a pilot figure and slightly modified the seat.

 

The ordnance was puzzled together from the scrap box, the AIM-9Ls come from the same F-4 kit which donated its outer wings, the AIM-120s come from an Italeri NATO weapons kit. The drop tanks belong to an F-16.

  

Painting and markings:

At first I considered an F-24I in IAF markings, or even a Japanese aircraft, but then reverted to one of nighthunter’s initial, simple ideas: an USAF aircraft in the “Hill II” paint scheme (F-16 style), made up from three shades of gray (FS 36118, 36270 and 36375) with low-viz markings and stencils. Dutch/Turkish NF-5A/Bs in the “Hill II” scheme were used as design benchmarks, too. It’s a simple livery, but on this delta wing aircraft it looks pretty interesting. I used enamels, what I had at hand: Humbrol 127 and 126, and Modelmaster's 1723.

 

A light black ink wash was applied, in order to em,phasize the engraved panel lines, in contrast to that, panels were manually highlighted through dry-brushed, lighter shades of gray (Humbrol 27, 166 and 167).

 

“Hill II” also adds to a generic, realistic touch for this whif. Doing an exotic air force thing is rather easy, but creating a convincing whif for a huge military machinery like the USAF’s takes more subtlety, I think.

 

The cockpit was painted in medium Gray (Dark Gull Grey, FS 36231, Humbrol 140), as well as the radome. The landing gear and the air intakes were painted white. The radome was painted with Revell 47 and dry-brushed with Humbrol 140.

 

Decals were puzzled together from various USAF aircraft, including sheets from an Airfix F-117, an Italeri F-15E and even an Academy OV-10D.

  

Tadah: a hardware tribute to an idea, born from boredom - and the aircraft does not look even bad at all? What I wanted to achieve was to make the F-24 neither look like a F-20, nor a Saab Gripen clone, as the latter comes close in overall shape, size and design.

A kitbash using a DS Toys headsculpt which I plan on using for a future Power Girl 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 Sondergerät SG104 "Münchhausen" was a German airborne recoillless 355.6 mm (14-inch) caliber gun, intended to engage even the roughest enemy battleships, primarily those of the Royal Navy. The design of this unusual and massive weapon began in 1939. The rationale behind it was that a battleship’s most vulnerable part was the deck – a flat surface, with relatively thin armor (as typical hits were expected on the flanks) and ideally with vital targets underneath, so that a single, good hit would cripple of even destroy a ship. The purpose of such a high angle of attack was likely to allow the projectile to penetrate the target ship's deck, where the ship's armor, if there was any, would have been much thinner than the armor on its sidesHowever, hitting the deck properly with another ship’s main gun was not easy, since it could only be affected through indirect hits and the typical angle of the attack from aballistic shot would not necessarily be ideal for deep penetration, esp. at long range.

The solution to this problem: ensure that the heavy projectile would hit its target directly from above, ideally at a very steep angle. To achieve this, the gun with battleship caliber was “relocated” from a carrier ship or a coastal battery onto an aircraft – specifically to a type that was capable of dive-bombing, a feature that almost any German bomber model of the time offered.

 

Firing such a heavy weapon caused a lot fo problems, which were severe even if the gun was mounted on a ship or on land. To compensate for such a large-caliber gun’s recoil and to make firing a 14 in shell (which alone weighed around almost 700 kg/1.550 lb, plus the charge) from a relatively light airframe feasible, the respective gun had to be as light as possible and avoid any recoil, which would easily tear an aircraft – even a bomber – apart upon firing. Therefore, the Gerät 104 was designed as a recoilless cannon. Its firing system involved venting the same amount of the weapon's propellant gas for its round to the rear of the launch tube (which was open at both ends), in the same fashion as a rocket launcher. This created a forward directed momentum which was nearly equal to the rearward momentum (recoil) imparted to the system by accelerating the projectile itself. The balance thus created did not leave much net momentum to be imparted to the weapon's mounting or the carrying airframe in the form of felt recoil. A further share of the recoil induced by the moving round itself could be compensated by a muzzle brake which re-directed a part of the firing gases backwards. Since recoil had been mostly negated, a heavy and complex recoil damping mechanism was not necessary – even though the weapon itself was huge and heavy.

 

Work on the "Münchhausen" device (a secret project handle after a fictional German nobleman created by the German writer Rudolf Erich Raspe in the late 18th century who reputedly had ridden on a cannonball between enemy frontlines), was done by Rheinmetall-Borsig and lasted until 1941. The first test of a prototype weapon was conducted on 9th of September 1940 in Unterlüss with a satisfactory result, even though the weapon was only mounted onto an open rack and not integrated into an airframe yet. At that time, potential carriers were the Ju 88, the Dornier Do 217 and the new Junkers Ju 288. Even though the system’s efficacy was doubted, the prospect of delivering a single, fatal blow to an important , armored arget superseded any doubts at the RLM, and the project was greenlit in early 1942 for the next stage: the integration of the Sondergerät 104 into an existing airframe. The Ju 88 and its successor, the Ju 188, turned out to be too light and lacked carrying capacity for the complete, loaded weapon, and the favored Ju 288 was never produced, so that only the Dornier Do 217 or the bigger He 177 remained as a suitable carriers. The Do 217 was eventually chosen because it had the biggest payload and the airframe was proven and readily available.

 

After calculations had verified that the designed 14 in rifle would have effectively no recoil, preliminary tests with dumm airframes were carried out. After ground trials with a Do 217 E day bomber to check recoil and blast effects on the airframe, the development and production of a limited Nullserie (pre-production series) of the dedicated Do 217 F variant for field tests and eventual operational use against British sea and land targets was ordered in April 1942.

 

The resulting Do 217 F-0 was based on the late “E” bomber variant and powered by a pair of BMW 801 radial engines. It was, however, heavily modified for its unique weapon and the highly specialized mission profile: upon arriving at the zone of operation at high altitude, the aircraft would initiate a dive with an angle of attack between 50° and 80° from the horizontal, firing the SG 104 at an altitude between 6,000 and 2,000 meters. The flight time of the projectile could range from 16.0 seconds for a shot from an altitude of 6,000 meters at a 50° angle to just 4.4 seconds for a shot from 2.000 meters at an almost vertical 80° angle. Muzzle velocity of the SG 104 was only 300 m/s, but, prior to impact, the effective velocity of the projectile was projected to range between 449 and 468 m/s (1,616 to 1,674 km/h). Together with the round's weight of roughly 700 kg (1.550 lb) and a hardened tip, this would still ensure a high penetration potential.

 

The operational Sondergerät 104 had an empty mass of 2.780 kg (6,123 lb) and its complete 14 inch double cartridge weighed around 1.600 kg (3,525 lb). The loaded mass of the weapon was 4,237 kg, stretching the limits of the Do 217’s load capacity to the maximum, so that some armor and less vital pieces of equipment were deleted. Crew and defensive armament were reduced to a minimum.

Even though there had been plans to integrate the wepaon into the airframe (on the Ju 288), the Gerät 104 was on the Do 217 F-0 mounted externally and occupied the whole space under the aircraft, precluding any use of the bomb bay. The latter was occupied by the Gerät 104’s complex mount, which extended to the outside under a streamlined fairing and held the weapon at a distance from the airframe. Between the mount’s struts inside of the fuselage, an additional fuel tank for balance reasons was added, too.

The gun’s center, where the heavy round was carried, was positioned under the aircraft’s center of gravity, so that the gun barrel markedly protruded from under the aircraft’s nose. To make enough space, the Do 217 Es bomb aimer’s ventral gondola and his rearward-facing defensive position under the cockpit were omitted and faired over. The nose section was also totally different: the original extensive glazing (the so-called “Kampfkopf”) was replaced by a smaller, conventional canopy, similar to the later Do 217 J and N night fighter versions, together with a solid nose - the original glass panels would have easily shattered upon firing the gun, esp. in a steep high-speed dive. A "Lotfernrohr" bomb aiming device was still installed in a streamlined and protected fairing, though, so that the navigator could guide the pilot during the approach to the target and during the attack run.

To stabilize the heavy aircraft during its attack and to time- and safely pull out of the dive, a massive mechanical dive brake was mounted at the extended tail tip, which unfolded with four "petals". A charecteristic stabilizing dorsal strake was added between the twin fins, too.

 

The ventral area behind the gun’s rear-facing muzzle received additional metal plating and blast guiding vanes, after trials in late 1940 had revealed that firing the SG 104 could easily damage the Do 217’s tail structure, esp. all of the tail surfaces’ rudders and the fins’ lower ends in particular. Due to all this extra weight, the Do 217 F-0’s defensive armament consisted only of a single 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in a manually operated dorsal position behind the cockpit cabin, which offered space for a crew of three. A fixed 15 mm MG 151 autocannon was mounted in the nose, too, a weapon with a long barrel for extended range and accuracy. It was not an offensive weapon, though, rather intended as an aiming aid for the SG 104 because it was loaded with tracer bullets: during the final phase of the attack dive, the pilot kept firing the MG 151, and the bullet trail showed if he was on target to fire the SG 104 when the right altitude/range had been reached.

 

The first Do 217 F-0 was flown and tested in late 1943, and after some detail changes the type was cleared for a limited production run of ten aircraft in January 1944. The first operational machine was delivered to a dedicated testing commando, the Erprobungskommando 104 “Münchhausen”, also known as “Sonderkommando Münchhausen” or simply “E-Staffel 104”. The unit was based at Bordeaux/Merignac and directly attached to the KG 40's as a staff flight. At that time, KG 40 operated Do 217 and He 177 bombers and frequently flew reconnaissance and anti-shipping missions over the Atlantic west of France, up to the British west and southern coast, equipped with experimental Henschel Hs 293 glide bombs.

 

Initial flights confirmed that the Do 217 airframe was burdened with the SG 104 to its limits, the already rather sluggish aircraft (the Do 217 had generally a high wing loading and was not easy to fly) lost anything that was left of what could be called agility. It needed an experienced pilot to handle it safely, esp. during start and landing. It is no wonder that two Do 217 F-0s suffered ground accidents during the first two weeks of operations, but the machines could be repaired, resume the test program and carry out attack missions.

However, during one of the first test shots with the weapon, one Do 217 F-0 lost its complete tail section though the gun blast, and the aircraft crashed into the Bay of Biscay, killing the complete crew.

 

On 4th or April 1944 the first "hot" attack against an enemy ship was executed in the Celtic Sea off of Brest, against a convoy of 20 ships homeward bound from Gibraltar. The attack was not successful, though, the shot missing its target, and the German bomber was attacked and heavily damaged by British Bristol Beaufighters that had been deployed to protect the ships. The Do 217F-0 eventually crashed and sank into the Atlantic before it could reach land again.

 

A couple of days later, on 10th of April, the first attempt to attack and destroy a land target was undertaken: two Do 217 F-0s took off to attack Bouldnor Battery, an armored British artillery position located on the Isle of Wight. One machine had to abort the attack due to oil leakages, the second Do 217 F-0 eventually reached its target and made a shallow attack run, but heavy fog obscured the location and the otherwise successful shot missed the fortification. Upon return to its home base the aircraft was intercepted by RAF fighters over the Channel and heavily damaged, even though German fighters deployed from France came to the rescue, fought the British attackers off and escorted the limping Do 217 F-0 back to its home base.

 

These events revealed that the overall SG 104 concept was generally feasible, but also showed that the Do 217 F-0 was very vulnerable without air superiority or a suitable escort, so that new tactics had to be developed. One consequence was that further Do 217 F-0 deployments were now supported by V/KG 40, the Luftwaffe's only long range maritime fighter unit. These escorts consisted of Junkers Ju 88C-6s, which were capable of keeping up with the Do 217 F-0 and fend of intercepting RAF Coastal Command’s Beaufighters and later also Mosquitos.

 

In the meantime, tests with the SG 104 progressed and several modifications were tested on different EKdo 104's Do 217 F-0s. One major upgrade was a further strengthening of the tail section, which added another 200 kg (440 lb) to the aircraft's dry weight. Furthermore, at least three aircraft were outfitted with additional dive brakes under the outer wings, so that the dive could be better controlled and intercepted. these aircraft, however, lost their plumbed underwing hardpoints, but these were only ever used for drop tanks during transfer flights - a loaded SG 104 precluded any other ordnance. On two other aircraft the SG 104 was modified to test different muzzle brakes and deflectors for the rear-facing opening, so that the gun blast was more effectively guided away from the airframe to prevent instability and structural damage. For instance, one machine was equipped with a bifurcated blast deflector that directed the rearward gasses partly sideways, away from the fuselage.

 

These tests did not last long, though. During the Allied Normandy landings in June 1944 E-Staffel 104 was hastily thrown into action and made several poorly-prepared attack runs against Allied support ships. The biggest success was a full hit and the resulting sinking of the Norwegian destroyer HNoMS Svenner (G03) by "1A+BA" at dawn on 6th of June, off Sword, one of the Allied landing zones. Other targets were engaged, too, but only with little effect. This involvement, however, led to the loss of three Do 217 F-0s within just two days and four more heavily damaged aircraft – leaving only two of EKdo 104's Do 217 F-0s operational.

 

With the Allied invasion of France and a worsening war condition, the SG 104 program was stopped in August 1944 and the idea of an airborne anti-ship gun axed in favor of more flexible guided weapons like the Hs 293 missile and the Fritz-X glide bomb. Plans for a further developed weapon with a three-round drum magazine were immediately stopped, also because there was no carrier aircraft in sight that could carry and deploy this complex 6.5 tons weapon. However, work on the SG 104 and the experience gained from EKdo 104's field tests were not in vain. The knowledge gathered from the Münchhausen program was directly used for the design of a wide range of other, smaller recoilless aircraft weapons, including the magnetically-triggered SG 113 "Förstersonde" anti-tank weapon or the lightweight SG 118 "Rohrblock" unguided air-to-air missile battery for the Heinkel He 162 "Volksjäger".

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 3 (pilot, navigator, radio operator/gunner)

Length: 20,73 m (67 ft 11 in) overall

18,93 m (62 ft 3/4 in) hull only

Wingspan: 19 m (62 ft 4 in)

Height: 4.97 m (16 ft 4 in)

Wing area: 57 m² (610 sq ft)

Empty weight: 9,065 kg (19,985 lb)

Empty equipped weight:10,950 kg (24,140 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 16,700 kg (36,817 lb)

Fuel capacity: 2,960 l (780 US gal; 650 imp gal) in fuselage tank and four wing tanks

 

Powerplant:

2× BMW 801D-2 14-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engines, delivering

1,300 kW (1,700 hp) each for take-off and 1,070 kW (1,440 hp) at 5,700 m (18,700 ft),

driving 3-bladed VDM constant-speed propellers

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 475 km/h (295 mph, 256 kn) at sea level

560 km/h (350 mph; 300 kn) at 5,700 m (18,700 ft)

Cruise speed: 400 km/h (250 mph, 220 kn) with loaded Gerät 104 at optimum altitude

Range: 2,180 km (1,350 mi, 1,180 nmi) with maximum internal fuel

Ferry range: 2,500 km (1,600 mi, 1,300 nmi); unarmed, with auxiliary fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 7,370 m (24,180 ft) with loaded Gerät 104,

9,500 m (31,200 ft) after firing

Rate of climb: 3.5 m/s (690 ft/min)

Time to altitude: 1,000 m (3,300 ft) in 4 minutes 10 seconds

2,000 m (6,600 ft) in 8 minutes 20 seconds

6,100 m (20,000 ft) in 24 minutes 40 seconds

 

Armament:

1x 355.6 mm (14-inch) Sondergerät 104 recoilless gun with a single round in ventral position

1x 15 mm (0.787 in) MG 151 machine cannon with 200 rounds, fixed in the nose

1x 13 mm (0.512 in) MG 131 machine gun with 500 rounds, movable in dorsal position

Two underwing hardpoints for a 900 l drop tank each, but only used during unarmed ferry flights

  

The kit and its assembly:

This was another submission to the "Gunships" group build at whatifmodellers.com in late 2021, and inspiration struck when I realized that I had two Italeri Do 217 in The Stash - a bomber and a night fighter - that could be combined into a suitable (fictional) carrier for a Sondergerät 104. This mighty weapon actually existed and even reached the hardware/test stage - but it was never integrated into an airframe and tested in flight. But that's what this model is supposed to depict.

 

On the Do 217, the Sg 104 would have been carried externally under the fuselage, even though there had been plans to integrate this recoilless rifle into airframes, esp. into the Ju 288. Since the latter never made it into production, the Do 217 would have been the most logical alternative, also because it had the highest payload of all German bombers during WWII and probably the only aircraft capable of carrying and deploying the Münchhausen device, as the SG 104 was also known.

 

The fictional Do 217 F-0 is a kitbashing, using a Do 217 N fuselage, combined with the wings from a Do 217 K bomber, plus some modifications. What initially sounded like a simple plan soon turned into a improvisation mess: it took some time to realize that I had already donated the Do 217 K's BMW 801 engines to another project, an upgraded He 115... I did not want to use the nightfighter's more powerful DB 603s, and I was lucky to have an Italeri Ju 188 kit at hand which comes with optional BMW 801s and Jumo 211s. Transplanting these engines onto the Do 217's wings took some tailoring of the adapter plates, but was feasible. However, the BMW 801s from the Ju 188 kit have a flaw: they lack the engine's characteristic cooling fans... Another lucky find: I found two such parts in the scrap box, even though from different kits - one left over from another Italeri Do 217 K, the other one from what I assume is/was an Italeri 1:72 Fw 190 A/F. To make matters worse, one propeller from the Ju 188 kit was missing, so that I had to find a(nother) replacement. :-/

I eventually used something that looked like an 1:72 F6F Hellcat propeller, but I an not certain about this because I have never built this model...? With some trimming on the blades' trailing edges and other mods, the donor's overall look could be adapted to the Ju 188 benchmark. Both propellers were mounted on metal axis' so that they could also carry the cooling fans. Lots of work, but the result looks quite good.

 

The Do 217 N's hull lost the lower rear gunner position and its ventral gondola, which was faired over with a piece of styrene sheet. The pilot was taken OOB, the gunner in the rear position was replaced by a more blob-like crew member from the scrap box. The plan to add a navigator in the seat to the lower right of the pilot did not work out due to space shortage, but this figure would probably have been invisble, anyway.

All gun openings in the nose were filled and PSRed away, and a fairing for a bomb aiming device and a single gun (the barrel is a hollow steel needle) were added.

 

The SG 104 was scratched. Starting point was a white metal replacement barrel for an 1:35 ISU-152 SPG with a brass muzzle brake. However, after dry-fitting the barrel under the hull the barrel turned out to be much too wide, so that only the muzzal brake survived and the rest of the weapon was created from a buddy refueling pod (from an Italeri 1:72 Luftwaffe Tornado, because of its two conical ends) and protective plastic caps from medical canulas. To attach this creation to the hull I abused a conformal belly tank from a Matchbox Gloster Meteor night fighter and tailored it into a streamlined fairing. While this quite a Frankenstein creation, the overall dimensions match the real SG 104 prototype and its look well.

 

Other cosmetic modifications include a pair of underwing dive brakes, translanted from an Italeri 1:72 Ju 88 A-4 kit, an extended (scratched) tail "stinger" which resembles the real dive brake arrangement that was installed on some Do 217 E bombers, and I added blast deflector vanes and a dorsal stabilizer fin.

In order to provide the aircraft with enough ground clearance, the tail wheel was slightly extended. Thanks to the long tail stinger, this is not blatantly obvious.

  

Painting and markings:

This was not an easy choice, but as a kind of prototype I decided that the paint scheme should be rather conservative. However, German aircraft operating over the Atlantic tended to carry rather pale schemes, so that the standard pattern of RLM 70/71/65 (Dunkelgrün, Schwarzgrün and Hellblau) with a low waterline - typical for experimental types - would hardly be appropriate.

I eventually found a compromise on a He 177 bomber (coded 6N+BN) from 1944 that was operated by KG 100: this particular aircraft had a lightened upper camouflage - still a standard splinter scheme but consisting of RLM 71 and 02 (Dunkelgrün and Grau; I used Modelmaster 2081 and Humbrol 240), a combination that had been used on German fighters during the Battle of Britain when the standard colors turned out to be too dark for operations over the Channel. The aircraft also carried standard RLM 65 (or maybe the new RLM76) underneath (Humbrol 65) and on the fin, but with a very high and slightly wavy waterline. As a rather unusual feature, no typical camouflage mottles were carried on the flanks or the fin, giving the aircraft a very bleak and simple look.

 

Despite my fears that this might look rather boring I adapted this scheme for the Do 217 F-0, and once basic painting was completed I was rather pleased by the aircraft's look! As an aircraft operated at the Western front, no additional markings like fuselage bands were carried.

To set the SG 104 apart from the airframe, I painted the weapon's visible parts in RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau, Humbrol 67), because this tone was frequently used for machinery (including the interior surfaces of aircraft towards 1945).

RLM 02 was also used for the interior surfaces and the landing gear, even though I used a slightly different, lighter shade in form of Revell 45 (Helloliv).

 

A light black ink washing was applied and post-shading to emphasize panel lines. Most markings/decals came from a Begemot 1:72 He 11 sheet, including the unusual green tactical code - it belongs to a staff unit, a suitable marking for such an experimental aircraft. The green (Humbrol 2) was carried over to the tips of the propeller spinners. The unit's code "1A" is fictional, AFAIK this combination had never been used by the Luftwaffe.

The small unit badge was alucky find: it actually depicts the fictional Baron von Münchhausen riding on a cannonball, and it comes from an Academy 1:72 Me 163 kit and its respective sheet. The mission markings underneath, depicting two anti-ship missions plus a successful sinking, came from a TL Modellbau 1:72 scale sheet with generic German WWII victory markings.

 

After some soot stains around the engine exhaust and weapon muzzles had been added with graphite, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish and final details like position lights and wire antennae (from heated black plastic sprue material) were added.

  

Well, what started as a combination of two kits of the same kind with a simple huge pipe underneath turned out to be more demanding than expected. The (incomplete) replacement engines were quite a challenge, and body work on the hull (tail stinger, fairing for the SG 104 as well as the weapon itself) turned out to be more complex and extensive than initially thought of. The result looks quite convincing, also supported by the rather simple paint scheme which IMHO just "looks right" and very convincing. And the whole thing is probably the most direct representation of the inspiring "Gunship" theme!

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

After World War I, the German aircraft industry had several problems. German airlines were forbidden to operate multi engine aircraft and during a period all manufacturing of aircraft in Germany was banned. By 1921, some of the restrictions was lifted, civilian aircraft could be made after approval of an international control commission if they fulfilled certain requirements. To bypass these rules and to be able to make whatever aircraft they wanted several aircraft manufacturers moved abroad. In 1921, Carl Bücker handled the purchase of a reconnaissance aircraft from Caspar-Werke in Travemünde. Because they expected problems due to the rules in the peace treaty regarding the export of German fighter aircraft, Bücker explored the possibility to smuggle the parts out of Germany and assemble the aircraft in Sweden.

 

To make the purchase easier, Ernst Heinkel and Bücker started Svenska Aero in Lidingö in 1921. The contract on the aircraft was transferred from Caspar to Svenska Aero. Heinkel and some German assembly workers temporarily moved to Lidingö to assemble the aircraft. During 1922 to 1923, the company moved into a former shipyard in Skärsätra on Lidingö since the company had received additional orders from the navy's air force. The parts for those aircraft were made in Sweden by Svenska Aero but assembled by TDS. In 1928, the navy ordered four J 4 (Heinkel HD 19) as a fighter with pontoons. That delivery came to be the last licens- built aircraft by Svenska Aero. In the mid-1920s, Svenska Aero created their own design department to be able to make their own aircraft models. Sven Blomberg, earlier employed by Heinkel Flugzeugwerke, was hired as head of design. In 1930, he was joined by Anders Johan Andersson from Messerschmitt. Despite that, Svenska Aero designed and made several different models on their own.

 

One of them was the model SA-16, a direct response to the Swedish Air Force and Navy’s interest in the new dive bomber tactics, which had become popular in Germany since the mid-Thirties and had spawned several specialized aircraft, the Junkers Ju 87 being the best-known type. The Flygvapnet (Swedish Air Force) had already conducted dive bombing trials with Hawker Hart (B 4) biplanes, but only with mixed results. Diving towards the target simplified the bomb's trajectory and allowed the pilot to keep visual contact throughout the bomb run. This allowed attacks on point targets and ships, which were difficult to attack with conventional level bombers, even en masse. While accuracy was increased through bombing runs at almost vertical dive, the aircraft were not suited for this kind of operations – structurally, and through the way the bombs were dropped.

 

Therefore, Svenska Aero was tasked to develop an indigenous dedicated dive bomber, primarily intended to attack ships, and with a secondary role as reconnaissance aircraft – a mission profile quite similar to American ship-based “SB” aircraft of the time. Having learnt from the tests with the Hawker Harts, the SA-16 was a very robust monoplane, resulting in an almost archaic look. It was a single-engine all-metal cantilever monoplane with a fixed undercarriage and carried a two-person crew. The main construction material was duralumin, and the external coverings were made of duralumin sheeting, bolts and parts that were required to take heavy stress were made of steel. The wings were of so-called “double-wing” construction, which gave the SA-16 considerable advantage on take-off; even at a shallow angle, large lift forces were created through the airfoil, reducing take-off and landing runs. Retractable perforated air brakes were mounted under the wings’ leading edges. The fully closed “greenhouse cabin” offered space for a crew of two in tandem, with the pilot in front and a navigator/radio operator/observer/gunner behind. To provide the rear-facing machine gun with an increased field of fire, the stabilizers were of limited span but deeper to compensate for the loss of surface, what resulted in unusual proportions. As a side benefit, the short stabilizers had, compared with a wider standard layout, increased structural integrity. Power came from an air-cooled Bristol Mercury XII nine-cylinder radial engine with 880 hp (660 kW), built by Nohab in Sweden.

 

Internal armament consisted of two fixed forward-firing 8 mm (0.315 in) Flygplanskulspruta Ksp m/22F (M1919 Browning AN/M2) machine guns in the wings outside of the propeller disc. A third machine gun of the same type was available in the rear cockpit on a flexible mount as defensive weapon. A total of 700 kg (1,500 lb) of bombs could be carried externally. On the fuselage centerline, a swing arm could hold bombs of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber and deploy them outside of the propeller arc when released in a, additional racks under the outer wings could hold bombs of up to 250 kg (550 lb) caliber each or clusters of smaller bombs, e. g. four 50 (110 lb) or six 12 kg (26 ½ lb) bombs.

 

Flight testing of the first SA-16 prototype began on 14 August 1936. The aircraft could take off in 250 m (820 ft) and climb to 1,875 m (6,152 ft) in eight minutes with a 250 kg (550 lb) bomb load, and its cruising speed was 250 km/h (160 mph). This was less than expected, and pilots also complained that navigation and powerplant instruments were cluttered and not easy to read, especially in combat. To withstand strong forces during a dive, heavy plating, along with brackets riveted to the frame and longeron, was added to the fuselage. Despite this, pilots praised the aircraft's handling qualities and strong airframe. These problems were quickly resolved, but subsequent testing and progress still fell short of the designers’ hopes. With some refinements the machine's speed was increased to 274 km/h (170 mph) at ground level and 319 km/h 319 km/h (198 mph, 172 kn) at 3,650 m (11,980 ft), while maintaining its good handling ability.

 

Since the Swedish Air Force was in dire need for a dive bomber, the SA-16 was accepted into service as the B 9 – even though it was clear that it was only a stopgap solution on the way to a more capable light bomber with dive attack capabilities. This eventually became the Saab 17, which was initiated in 1938 as a request from the Flygvapnet to replace its fleet of dive bombers of American origin, the B 5 (Northrop A-17), the B 6 (Seversky A8V1) and the obsolete Fokker S 6 (C.Ve) sesquiplane, after the deal with Fokker to procure the two-engine twin-boom G.I as a standardized type failed due to the German invasion of the Netherlands. The B 9 dive bomber would subsequently be replaced by the more modern and capable B 17 in the long run, too, which made its first flight on 18 May 1940 and was introduced to frontline units in March 1942. Until then, 93 SA-16s had been produced between 1937 and 1939. When the B 17 became available, the slow B 9 was quickly retired from the attack role. Plans to upgrade the aircraft with a stronger 14 cylinder engine (a Piaggio P.XIbis R.C.40D with 790 kW/1,060 hp) were not carried out, as it was felt that the design lacked further development potential in an offensive role.

Because the airframes were still young and had a lot of service life ahead of them, most SA-16s were from 1941 on relegated to patrol and reconnaissance missions along the Swedish coastlines, observing ship and aircraft traffic in the Baltic Sea and undertaking rescue missions with droppable life rafts. For long-range missions, the forked ventral swing arm was replaced with a fixed plumbed pylon for an external 682 liters (150 Imp. gal.) auxiliary tank that more than doubled the aircraft’s internal fuel capacity of 582 liters, giving it an endurance of around 8 hours. In many cases, the machine guns on these aircraft were removed to save weight. In this configuration the SA-16 was re-designated S 9 (“S” for Spaning) and the machines served in their naval observation and SAR role well into the Fifties, when the last SA-16s were retired.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: two, pilot and observer

Length: 9,58 m (31 ft 11 in)

Wingspan: 10,67 m (34 ft 11 in)

Height: 3,82 m (12 ft 6 in)

Wing area: 30.2 m² (325 sq ft)

Empty weight: 2,905 kg (6,404 lb)

Gross weight: 4,245 kg (9,359 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 4,853 kg (10,700 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Bristol Mercury XII nine-cylinder radial engine with 880 hp (660 kW),

driving a three-bladed variable pitch metal propeller

 

u>Performance:

Maximum speed: 319 km/h (198 mph, 172 kn) at 3,650 m (11,980 ft)

274 km/h (170 mph; 148 kn) at sea level

299 km/h (186 mph; 161 kn) at 2,000 m (6,600 ft)

308 km/h (191 mph; 166 kn) at 5,000 m (16,000 ft)

Stall speed: 110 km/h (68 mph, 59 kn)

Range: 1,260 km (780 mi, 680 nmi)

Service ceiling: 7,300 m (24,000 ft)

Time to altitude: 2,000 m (6,600 ft) in 4 minutes 45 seconds

4,000 m (13,000 ft) in 15 minutes 10 seconds

 

Armament:

2× fixed 8 mm (0.315 in) Flygplanskulspruta Ksp m/22F (M1919 Browning AN/M2) machine guns

in the wings outside of the propeller disc (with 600 RPG), plus

1× 8 mm (0.315 in) Ksp m/22F machine gun on a flexible mount in the rear cockpit with 800 rounds

Ventral and underwing hardpoints for a total external bomb load of 700 kg (1,500 lb)

  

The kit and its assembly:

This purely fictional Swedish dive bomber was inspired by reading about Flygvapnet‘s pre-WWII trials with dive bombing tactics and the unsuited aircraft fleet for this task. When I found a Hasegawa SOC Seagull floatplane in The Stash™ and looks at the aircraft’s profile, I thought that it could be converted into a two-seat monoplane – what would require massive changes, though.

 

However, I liked the SOC’s boxy and rustic look, esp. the fuselage, and from this starting point other ingredients/donors were integrated. Work started with the tail. Originally, I wanted to retain the SOCs fin and stabilizer, but eventually found them oversized for a land-based airplane. In the scrap box I found a leftover fin from an Academy P-47, and it turned out to be a very good, smaller alternative, with the benefit that it visually lengthened the rear fuselage. The stabilizers were replaced with leftover parts from a NOVO Supermarine Attacker – an unlikely choice, but their size was good, they blended well into the overall lines of the aircraft, and they helped to stabilize the fin donor. Blending these new parts into to SOC’s hull required massive PSR, though.

 

The wings were also not an easy choice, and initially I planned the aircraft with a retractable landing gear. I eventually settled on the outer wings (just outside of the gullwing kink) from an MPM Ju 87 B, because of their shape and the archaic “double wings” that would complement the SOC’s rustic fuselage. However, at this point I refrained from the retractable landing gear and instead went for a fixed spatted alternative, left over from an Airfix Hs 123, which would round up the aircraft’s somewhat vintage look. Because the wheels were missing, I inserted two Matchbox MiG-21 wheels (which were left over in the spares bin from two different kits, though). The tail wheel came from an Academy Fw 190.

 

Cowling and engine inside (thankfully a 9-cylinder radial that could pose as a Mercury) were taken OOB, just the original two-blade propeller was replaced with a more appropriate three-blade alternative, IIRC from a Hobby Boss Grumman F4F. The cockpit was taken OOB, and I also used the two pilot figures from the kit. The rear crew member just had the head re-positioned to look sideways, and had to have the legs chopped off because there’s hardly and space under the desk with the radio set he’s sitting at.

 

The ventral 500 kg bomb came from a Matchbox Ju 87, the bomb arms are Fw 189 landing gear parts. Additional underwing pylons came from an Intech P-51, outfitted with 50 kg bombs of uncertain origin (they look as if coming from an old Hasegawa kit). The protruding machine gun barrel fairings on the wings were scratched from styrene rod material, with small holes drilled into them.

 

A real Frankenstein creation, but it does not look bad or implausible!

  

Painting and markings:

I gave the B 9 a camouflage that was carried by some Flygvapnet aircraft in the late Thirties, primarily by fighters imported from the United States but also some bombers like the B 3 (Ju 86). The IMHO quite attractive scheme consists on the upper surfaces of greenish-yellow zinc chromate primer (Humbrol 81, FS 33481), on top of which a dense net of fine dark green wriggles (supposed to be FS 34079, but I rather used Humbrol 163, RAF Dark Green, because it is more subdued) was manually applied with a thin brush, so that the primer would still shine through, resulting in a mottled camouflage.

 

On the real aircraft, this was sealed with a protective clear lacquer to which 5% of the dark green had been added, and I copied this procedure on the model, too, using semi-gloss acrylic varnish with a bit of Revell 46 added. The camouflage was wrapped around the wings’ leading edges and the spatted landing gear was painted with the upper camouflage, too.

 

The undersides were painted with Humbrol 87 (Steel Grey), to come close to the original blue-grey tone, which is supposed to be FS 35190 on this type of camouflage. The tone is quite dark, almost like RAF PRU Blue.

The interior was painted – using a Saab J 21 cockpit as benchmark – in a dark greenish grey (RAL 7009).

The model received the usual light black ink washing and some post-panel shading on the lower surfaces, because this effect would hardly be recognizable on the highly fragmented upper surface.

 

The markings are reflecting Flygvapnet’s m/37 regulations, from the direct pre-WWII era when the roundels had turned from black on white to yellow on blue but still lacked the yellow edge around the roundel for more contrast. F6 Västgöta flygflottilj was chosen because it was a dive bomber unit in the late Thirties, and the individual aircraft code (consisting of large white two-digit numbers) was added with the fin and the front of the fuselage. “27” would indicate an aircraft of the unit’s 2nd division, which normally had blue as a standardized color code, incorporated through the blue bands on the spats and the small "2nd div." tag on the rudder (from a contemporary F8 Swedish Gladiator).

 

Roundels and codes came from an SBS Models sheet, even though they belong to various aircraft types. Everything was finally sealed with matt acrylic varnish.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

Under the Treaty of Trianon (1920), Hungary was forbidden from owning military aircraft. However, a secret air arm was gradually established under the cover of civilian flying clubs. During 1938, as a result of the Bled agreement, the existence of the Royal Hungarian Air Force (Hungarian: Magyar Királyi Honvéd Légierő (MKHL)), was made known. The army's aviation service was reorganized and expanded.

 

Late 1938 the army aviation was once again reorganized. Admiral Horthy, the head of state, ordered that the army aviation should become an independent service with effect of 01.09.1939. It subsequently participated in clashes with the newly established Slovak Republic and in the border confrontation with the Kingdom of Romania.

 

In 1940, the decision was made to unite the Air Force, the anti-aircraft forces, and the civilian air defense organizations under one central headquarters. In April 1941, operations were conducted in support of the German invasion of Yugoslavia and, on 27 June 1941, Hungary declared war on the Soviet Union.

On 01.06.1941, the Air Defense Corps was established, and Lieutenant General Béla Rákosi became Commander of Army Aviation. In effect the Air Force had once again become part of the Army. In the summer of 1942, an air brigade was attached to the Luftwaffe's VIII. Fliegerkorps at the Eastern Front.

 

At that time, most of the Hungarian Air Force's fighter equipment was of German origin, consisting of types like Bf 109 F and G, Fw 190 A/F, Me 210. But some indigenous designs were under development, too, e. g. at the RMI, Repülo Muszaki Intézet, or Aviation Technical Institute. Its aircraft were primarily (but not exclusively) by László Varga, and as a result, RMI designs were often given the Varga name (in some cases, even when he was not the major designer). But the RMI designation was used in parallel, too.

 

One of the domestic developments was the RMI-11 'Sólyom' (= Falcon) fighter. This single engine aircraft drew heavily upon the Bf 109 design, but featured some changes and improvements like an inward-retracting landing gear or a bubble canopy. It also incorporated elements from the heavy RMI-8 fighter, a push/pull design with twin tail booms, but the RMI-8’s sole prototype was destroyed by Allied air raids before a serious test program could be launched.

 

In contrast to the complex RMI-8 the RMI-11 was a small and light aircraft, a conventional but clean design, based on simple shapes for easy, modular production. Most of its structure was made from wood, saving sparse metal whenever possible. Empty weight was, for instance, about 200 kg less than a contemporary Bf- 109 G.

 

The RMI-11 was driven by a liquid-cooled DB 605 inverted V12 engine, rated at 1.475 hp. Thanks to the low weight of the airframe, the machine achieved a high top speed and an exceptional high rate of climb.

 

Originally designed as a fast and agile interceptor in the early stages of WWII, the RMI was only armed with two 13mm MG 131 with 300 RPG and two 7.92 mm MG 17 in the outer wings. Two underwing hardpoints could carry up to 100 kg each.

 

The RMI-11 prototype made its maiden flight in late 1943 and after a basic but successful test program immediately ordered into production – in a hurry, though, and beginning March 1944, Allied bomber raids began on Hungary and progressively increased in intensity.

 

Production of the RMI-11 gained only slowly momentum, due to material shortages, because the RMI-11was primarily of plywood bonded with a special phenolic resin adhesive that was supplied from German sources. Due to Allied bombing raids on the glue’s original production sites the plywood glue had to be replaced by one that was not as strong, and was later found to react chemically, apparently in a corrosive manner, with the wood in RMI-11’s structure. In November 1944, several RMI-11s crashed with wing and tail failures due to plywood delamination. This same problem also critically affected the German Focke Wulf Ta 154 and Heinkel He 162 programs.

 

Late in 1944 all efforts were redirected towards countering the advancing Red Army. Soon it was clear that the type needed long range cannons with higher caliber in order to encounter heavy Allied bombers, so plans were made to add heavier German armament. This was realized through an extra pair of MG 151/20 20 mm cannons with 150 RPG, which were added in fairings under the wings instead of the original bomb hardpoints (which were hardly ever used in service at all). During the same refit, the rather ineffective MG 17s were deleted, saving weight and leaving more room inside of the wings for the MG 131s’ ammunition supply (now with 400 RPG)

 

At that time only about 60 production aircraft had been completed and modified, and production was halted due to the severe structural problems. These machines were nevertheless thrown into service, with repairs and upgrades done at the Hungarian airfields – but the glue problem was a constant operational danger.

 

Still, all these efforts were to no avail: All fighting in Hungary ended on 16 April 1945, and all RMI-11’s were scrapped after hostilities ended.

  

General characteristics

Crew: 1

Length: 8.82 m (28 ft 10 ½ in)

Wingspan: 10.58 m (34 ft 8 in)

Height: 4.10 m (13 ft 5 in)

Wing area: 16.82 m² (181.00 ft²)

Empty weight: 1,964 kg (4,330 lb)

Loaded weight: 2,200 kg (4,840 lb)

Max. take-off weight: 2,395 kg (5,280 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Daimler-Benz DB 605A-1 liquid-cooled inverted V12, 1,475 PS (1,085 kW)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 640 km/h (398 mph) at 6,300 m (20,669 ft)

Cruise speed: 590 km/h (365 mph) at 6.000 m (19.680 ft)

Range: 850 km (528 mi)

Service ceiling: 12.000 m (39.370 ft)

Rate of climb: 17.0 m/s (3.345 ft/min)

Wing loading: 196 kg/m² (40 lb/ft²)

Power/mass: 344 W/kg (0.21 hp/lb)

 

Armament:

2× 13mm MG 131 (.51 in) machine guns in the wings,400 RPG, plus 2× 20mm MG 151/20 (.51 in) machine cannons, 150 RPG, in external underwing fairings.With the cannons deleted up to 8× 15 kg (33 lb) or 2× 50, 100, or 150 kg (110, 220, or 330 lb) bombs under the wings

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is a serious kitbash and a totally fictional aircraft - and you are IMHO an expert modeler if you recognize what basically went into it!

 

This build was inspired when I recently bought an RS Models Nakajima Kikka jet fighter, the double seater kit. As a bonus it comes with two fuselages: effectively, it is the single seater kit with an extra sprue and a different canopy. Looking at the Kikka's profile I found that it HAD to be converted into a piston engine aircraft, with a liquid-cooled engine. Wings and anything else would come from the scrap box, but it should become a sleek fighter aircraft, a late WWII design.

 

From that, things went straightforward:

● Fuselage from a RS Models Nakajima N9J1 "Kikka", front end cut away

● Wings from an Revell Macchi C.200 Saetta

● Stabilizers from an Art Model MiG I-210 fighter

● Canopy from a late Supermarine Spitfire (Special Hobby, IIRC)

● Nose/engine and radiators from an RS Models Ki-78

● The propeller was scratched from single pieces/blades and the Ki-78 spinner

● The landing gear is a Ki-78/C.200 parts mix.

I settled for the Ki-78's radiator installment on the rear flanks because it is a unique feature and simply does not hamper the sleek side profile. I also thought that this might have been a smart solution for modular production - fuselage and wings could be completed separately.

 

The Ki-78 engine had to be widened considerably to match the Kikka’s trapezoidal fuselage diameter, putty and major sculpting resulted in a relatively smooth and subtle intersection. As per usual, an axis construction for the propeller was added, too, so that it can spin freely. Mating wings and fuselage necessitated a new cockpit floor (which acts at the same time as landing gear well interior), and a 3mm bridge at the wing roots had to filled – but that was easy.

The cockpit interior was outfitted with spares, the Spitfire canopy needed some small styrene wedges under the windshield to make it fit onto the Kikka fuselage.

 

Things went rather smoothly until I fixed the wings to the completed fuselage. However I placed them, it looked odd – too far back, and the nose stood out; too far forward, and the tail was too long. Somehow, proportions did not match – only slightly, but it bugged me. So far that I eventually decided to shorten the fuselage – after having completed it, radiators already in place and everything sanded even. I made a vertical cut behind the cockpit and removed ~7mm of length – and suddenly the aircraft looked good! Needed some extra body work, but the aircraft looks much more balanced now.

 

The underwing fairings for the cannons were late additions, too. I wanted to keep the fuselage clean, with no nose guns, but adding heavier armament turned out to be tricky. The fairing solution was inspired by a real-world Fw 190 Rüstsatz which featured two MG 151/20 apiece. I had appropriate parts from an Academy Fw 190 left over, so I sliced these up and narrowed them for a single cannon each, and this was the right size for the slender aircraft. All gun barrels were created through heated and pulled-out styrene tubes.

  

Painting and markings:

Deciding what this aircraft was to become was tougher than building it! With its clearly German origin it had to be a WWII Axis type, but I did neither want a German nor a Japanese aircraft, even Italy was ruled out – all too obvious. With Hungary and its RMI designs I eventually found a good potential origin, and this also allowed a rather "colorful" livery. With the Hungarian background this kitbash became the RMI-11.

 

The paint scheme was inspired by an experimental Hungarian camouflage in Green, Gray and Brown, seen on a Bf 109G. I could not find color indications, but in the end I settled for three RLM tones for the upper sides, RLM 71, 75 and 79, coupled with RLM 76 for the lower sides. All tones are enamels from Modelmaster's Authentic range, panels and leading edges were slightly emphasized with lighter shades. As a small design twist I added a wavy, medium waterline on the fuselage sides.

 

Interior surfaces were, lacking any reference, kept in RLM 02. In order not to be too fanciful, the spinner became black with a green tip (RLM 62), and the blades were painted with a mix of RLM 70 (Black Green) and Black, for a very dark and dull green tone, Luftwaffe style.

 

The yellow markings correspond to German Luftwaffe markings of the late WWII era, the yellow 45° “V” under the lower left wing was introduced in the Balkan region in 1944, it was also carried by Luftwaffe aircraft in this conflict theatre.

The flashy decoration on all tail surfaces disappeared at that time on real aircraft (only small Hungarian flags were carried on the tail rudder), but I still incorporated the full national insignia because it's unique and a colorful contrast to the rest of the aircraft.

 

Most markings belong to a real Hungarian Bf 109G (from a Print Scale aftermarket sheet), I just scratched the national markings on the fuselage and the yellow markings (all cut from stock decal material) and parts of the Hungarian flag insignia on the tail: the tips were painted with red, the white and green bands were cut to measure from a Frecce Tricolori sheet.

 

A light black ink wash was applied and some dry painting added with gray and black (for soot and exhaust stains), for a lightly weathered effect. As final step, everything was sealed under matt acrylic varnish (Revell).

  

A quickie, done in just a week, but with a very convincing look. One might recognize Bf 109 F/G, Ki-78 and even He 100 features, but none of these aircraft really matches up with the RMI-11 at second glance, there are too many individual differences. If it gets you wondering – mission accomplished! ;)

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The OV-10 Bronco was initially conceived in the early 1960s through an informal collaboration between W. H. Beckett and Colonel K. P. Rice, U.S. Marine Corps, who met at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California, and who also happened to live near each other. The original concept was for a rugged, simple, close air support aircraft integrated with forward ground operations. At the time, the U.S. Army was still experimenting with armed helicopters, and the U.S. Air Force was not interested in close air support.

The concept aircraft was to operate from expedient forward air bases using roads as runways. Speed was to be from very slow to medium subsonic, with much longer loiter times than a pure jet. Efficient turboprop engines would give better performance than piston engines. Weapons were to be mounted on the centerline to get efficient aiming. The inventors favored strafing weapons such as self-loading recoilless rifles, which could deliver aimed explosive shells with less recoil than cannons, and a lower per-round weight than rockets. The airframe was to be designed to avoid the back blast.

 

Beckett and Rice developed a basic platform meeting these requirements, then attempted to build a fiberglass prototype in a garage. The effort produced enthusiastic supporters and an informal pamphlet describing the concept. W. H. Beckett, who had retired from the Marine Corps, went to work at North American Aviation to sell the aircraft.

The aircraft's design supported effective operations from forward bases. The OV-10 had a central nacelle containing a crew of two in tandem and space for cargo, and twin booms containing twin turboprop engines. The visually distinctive feature of the aircraft is the combination of the twin booms, with the horizontal stabilizer that connected them at the fin tips. The OV-10 could perform short takeoffs and landings, including on aircraft carriers and large-deck amphibious assault ships without using catapults or arresting wires. Further, the OV-10 was designed to take off and land on unimproved sites. Repairs could be made with ordinary tools. No ground equipment was required to start the engines. And, if necessary, the engines would operate on high-octane automobile fuel with only a slight loss of power.

 

The aircraft had responsive handling and could fly for up to 5½ hours with external fuel tanks. The cockpit had extremely good visibility for both pilot and co-pilot, provided by a wrap-around "greenhouse" that was wider than the fuselage. North American Rockwell custom ejection seats were standard, with many successful ejections during service. With the second seat removed, the OV-10 could carry 3,200 pounds (1,500 kg) of cargo, five paratroopers, or two litter patients and an attendant. Empty weight was 6,969 pounds (3,161 kg). Normal operating fueled weight with two crew was 9,908 pounds (4,494 kg). Maximum takeoff weight was 14,446 pounds (6,553 kg).

The bottom of the fuselage bore sponsons or "stub wings" that improved flight performance by decreasing aerodynamic drag underneath the fuselage. Normally, four 7.62 mm (.308 in) M60C machine guns were carried on the sponsons, accessed through large forward-opening hatches. The sponsons also had four racks to carry bombs, pods, or fuel. The wings outboard of the engines contained two additional hardpoints, one per side. Racked armament in the Vietnam War was usually seven-shot 2.75 in (70 mm) rocket pods with white phosphorus marker rounds or high-explosive rockets, or 5" (127 mm) four-shot Zuni rocket pods. Bombs, ADSIDS air-delivered/para-dropped unattended seismic sensors, Mk-6 battlefield illumination flares, and other stores were also carried.

Operational experience showed some weaknesses in the OV-10's design. It was significantly underpowered, which contributed to crashes in Vietnam in sloping terrain because the pilots could not climb fast enough. While specifications stated that the aircraft could reach 26,000 feet (7,900 m), in Vietnam the aircraft could reach only 18,000 feet (5,500 m). Also, no OV-10 pilot survived ditching the aircraft.

 

The OV-10 served in the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corps, and U.S. Navy, as well as in the service of a number of other countries. In U.S. military service, the Bronco was operated until the early Nineties, and obsoleted USAF OV-10s were passed on to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms for anti-drug operations. A number of OV-10As furthermore ended up in the hands of the California Department of Forestry (CDF) and were used for spotting fires and directing fire bombers onto hot spots.

 

This was not the end of the OV-10 in American military service, though: In 2012, the type gained new attention because of its unique qualities. A $20 million budget was allocated to activate an experimental USAF unit of two airworthy OV-10Gs, acquired from NASA and the State Department. These machines were retrofitted with military equipment and were, starting in May 2015, deployed overseas to support Operation “Inherent Resolve”, flying more than 120 combat sorties over 82 days over Iraq and Syria. Their concrete missions remained unclear, and it is speculated they provided close air support for Special Forces missions, esp. in confined urban environments where the Broncos’ loitering time and high agility at low speed and altitude made them highly effective and less vulnerable than helicopters.

Furthermore, these Broncos reputedly performed strikes with the experimental AGR-20A “Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System (APKWS)”, a Hydra 70-millimeter rocket with a laser-seeking head as guidance - developed for precision strikes against small urban targets with little collateral damage. The experiment ended satisfactorily, but the machines were retired again, and the small unit was dissolved.

 

However, the machines had shown their worth in asymmetric warfare, and the U.S. Air Force decided to invest in reactivating the OV-10 on a regular basis, despite the overhead cost of operating an additional aircraft type in relatively small numbers – but development and production of a similar new type would have caused much higher costs, with an uncertain time until an operational aircraft would be ready for service. Re-activating a proven design and updating an existing airframe appeared more efficient.

The result became the MV-10H, suitably christened “Super Bronco” but also known as “Black Pony”, after the program's internal name. This aircraft was derived from the official OV-10X proposal by Boeing from 2009 for the USAF's Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance requirement. Initially, Boeing proposed to re-start OV-10 manufacture, but this was deemed uneconomical, due to the expected small production number of new serial aircraft, so the “Black Pony” program became a modernization project. In consequence, all airframes for the "new" MV-10Hs were recovered OV-10s of various types from the "boneyard" at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona.

 

While the revamped aircraft would maintain much of its 1960s-vintage rugged external design, modernizations included a completely new, armored central fuselage with a highly modified cockpit section, ejection seats and a computerized glass cockpit. The “Black Pony” OV-10 had full dual controls, so that either crewmen could steer the aircraft while the other operated sensors and/or weapons. This feature would also improve survivability in case of incapacitation of a crew member as the result from a hit.

The cockpit armor protected the crew and many vital systems from 23mm shells and shrapnel (e. g. from MANPADS). The crew still sat in tandem under a common, generously glazed canopy with flat, bulletproof panels for reduced sun reflections, with the pilot in the front seat and an observer/WSO behind. The Bronco’s original cargo capacity and the rear door were retained, even though the extra armor and defensive measures like chaff/flare dispensers as well as an additional fuel cell in the central fuselage limited the capacity. However, it was still possible to carry and deploy personnel, e. g. small special ops teams of up to four when the aircraft flew in clean configuration.

Additional updates for the MV-10H included structural reinforcements for a higher AUW and higher g load maneuvers, similar to OV-10D+ standards. The landing gear was also reinforced, and the aircraft kept its ability to operate from short, improvised airstrips. A fixed refueling probe was added to improve range and loiter time.

 

Intelligence sensors and smart weapon capabilities included a FLIR sensor and a laser range finder/target designator, both mounted in a small turret on the aircraft’s nose. The MV-10H was also outfitted with a data link and the ability to carry an integrated targeting pod such as the Northrop Grumman LITENING or the Lockheed Martin Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod (ATP). Also included was the Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receiver (ROVER) to provide live sensor data and video recordings to personnel on the ground.

 

To improve overall performance and to better cope with the higher empty weight of the modified aircraft as well as with operations under hot-and-high conditions, the engines were beefed up. The new General Electric CT7-9D turboprop engines improved the Bronco's performance considerably: top speed increased by 100 mph (160 km/h), the climb rate was tripled (a weak point of early OV-10s despite the type’s good STOL capability) and both take-off as well as landing run were almost halved. The new engines called for longer nacelles, and their circular diameter markedly differed from the former Garrett T76-G-420/421 turboprop engines. To better exploit the additional power and reduce the aircraft’s audio signature, reversible contraprops, each with eight fiberglass blades, were fitted. These allowed a reduced number of revolutions per minute, resulting in less noise from the blades and their tips, while the engine responsiveness was greatly improved. The CT7-9Ds’ exhausts were fitted with muzzlers/air mixers to further reduce the aircraft's noise and heat signature.

Another novel and striking feature was the addition of so-called “tip sails” to the wings: each wingtip was elongated with a small, cigar-shaped fairing, each carrying three staggered, small “feather blade” winglets. Reputedly, this installation contributed ~10% to the higher climb rate and improved lift/drag ratio by ~6%, improving range and loiter time, too.

Drawing from the Iraq experience as well as from the USMC’s NOGS test program with a converted OV-10D as a night/all-weather gunship/reconnaissance platform, the MV-10H received a heavier gun armament: the original four light machine guns that were only good for strafing unarmored targets were deleted and their space in the sponsons replaced by avionics. Instead, the aircraft was outfitted with a lightweight M197 three-barrel 20mm gatling gun in a chin turret. This could be fixed in a forward position at high speed or when carrying forward-firing ordnance under the stub wings, or it could be deployed to cover a wide field of fire under the aircraft when it was flying slower, being either slaved to the FLIR or to a helmet sighting auto targeting system.

The original seven hardpoints were retained (1x ventral, 2x under each sponson, and another pair under the outer wings), but the total ordnance load was slightly increased and an additional pair of launch rails for AIM-9 Sidewinders or other light AAMs under the wing tips were added – not only as a defensive measure, but also with an anti-helicopter role in mind; four more Sidewinders could be carried on twin launchers under the outer wings against aerial targets. Other guided weapons cleared for the MV-10H were the light laser-guided AGR-20A and AGM-119 Hellfire missiles, the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System upgrade to the light Hydra 70 rockets, the new Laser Guided Zuni Rocket which had been cleared for service in 2010, TV-/IR-/laser-guided AGM-65 Maverick AGMs and AGM-122 Sidearm anti-radar missiles, plus a wide range of gun and missile pods, iron and cluster bombs, as well as ECM and flare/chaff pods, which were not only carried defensively, but also in order to disrupt enemy ground communication.

 

In this configuration, a contract for the conversion of twelve mothballed American Broncos to the new MV-10H standard was signed with Boeing in 2016, and the first MV-10H was handed over to the USAF in early 2018, with further deliveries lasting into early 2020. All machines were allocated to the newly founded 919th Special Operations Support Squadron at Duke Field (Florida). This unit was part of the 919th Special Operations Wing, an Air Reserve Component (ARC) of the United States Air Force. It was assigned to the Tenth Air Force of Air Force Reserve Command and an associate unit of the 1st Special Operations Wing, Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC). If mobilized the wing was gained by AFSOC (Air Force Special Operations Command) to support Special Tactics, the U.S. Air Force's special operations ground force. Similar in ability and employment to Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC), U.S. Army Special Forces and U.S. Navy SEALs, Air Force Special Tactics personnel were typically the first to enter combat and often found themselves deep behind enemy lines in demanding, austere conditions, usually with little or no support.

 

The MV-10Hs are expected to provide support for these ground units in the form of all-weather reconnaissance and observation, close air support and also forward air control duties for supporting ground units. Precision ground strikes and protection from enemy helicopters and low-flying aircraft were other, secondary missions for the modernized Broncos, which are expected to serve well into the 2040s. Exports or conversions of foreign OV-10s to the Black Pony standard are not planned, though.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2

Length: 42 ft 2½ in (12,88 m) incl. pitot

Wingspan: 45 ft 10½ in(14 m) incl. tip sails

Height: 15 ft 2 in (4.62 m)

Wing area: 290.95 sq ft (27.03 m²)

Airfoil: NACA 64A315

Empty weight: 9,090 lb (4,127 kg)

Gross weight: 13,068 lb (5,931 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 17,318 lb (7,862 kg)

 

Powerplant:

2× General Electric CT7-9D turboprop engines, 1,305 kW (1,750 hp) each,

driving 8-bladed Hamilton Standard 8 ft 6 in (2.59 m) diameter constant-speed,

fully feathering, reversible contra-rotating propellers with metal hub and composite blades

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 390 mph (340 kn, 625 km/h)

Combat range: 198 nmi (228 mi, 367 km)

Ferry range: 1,200 nmi (1,400 mi, 2,200 km) with auxiliary fuel

Maximum loiter time: 5.5 h with auxiliary fuel

Service ceiling: 32.750 ft (10,000 m)

13,500 ft (4.210 m) on one engine

Rate of climb: 17.400 ft/min (48 m/s) at sea level

Take-off run: 480 ft (150 m)

740 ft (227 m) to 50 ft (15 m)

1,870 ft (570 m) to 50 ft (15 m) at MTOW

Landing run: 490 ft (150 m)

785 ft (240 m) at MTOW

1,015 ft (310 m) from 50 ft (15 m)

 

Armament:

1x M197 3-barreled 20 mm Gatling cannon in a chin turret with 750 rounds ammo capacity

7x hardpoints for a total load of 5.000 lb (2,270 kg)

2x wingtip launch rails for AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs

  

The kit and its assembly:

This fictional Bronco update/conversion was simply spawned by the idea: could it be possible to replace the original cockpit section with one from an AH-1 Cobra, for a kind of gunship version?

 

The basis is the Academy OV-10D kit, mated with the cockpit section from a Fujimi AH-1S TOW Cobra (Revell re-boxing, though), chosen because of its “boxy” cockpit section with flat glass panels – I think that it conveys the idea of an armored cockpit section best. Combining these parts was not easy, though, even though the plan sound simple. Initially, the Bronco’s twin booms, wings and stabilizer were built separately, because this made PSR on these sections easier than trying the same on a completed airframe. One of the initial challenges: the different engines. I wanted something uprated, and a different look, and I had a pair of (excellent!) 1:144 resin engines from the Russian company Kompakt Zip for a Tu-95 bomber at hand, which come together with movable(!) eight-blade contraprops that were an almost perfect size match for the original three-blade props. Biggest problem: the Tu-95 nacelles have a perfectly circular diameter, while the OV-10’s booms are square and rectangular. Combining these parts and shapes was already a messy PST affair, but it worked out quite well – even though the result rather reminds of some Chinese upgrade measure (anyone know the Tu-4 copies with turboprops? This here looks similar!). But while not pretty, I think that the beafier look works well and adds to the idea of a “revived” aircraft. And you can hardly beat the menacing look of contraprops on anything...

The exotic, so-called “tip sails” on the wings, mounted on short booms, are a detail borrowed from the Shijiazhuang Y-5B-100, an updated Chinese variant/copy of the Antonov An-2 biplane transporter. The booms are simple pieces of sprue from the Bronco kit, the winglets were cut from 0.5mm styrene sheet.

 

For the cockpit donor, the AH-1’s front section was roughly built, including the engine section (which is a separate module, so that the basic kit can be sold with different engine sections), and then the helicopter hull was cut and trimmed down to match the original Bronco pod and to fit under the wing. This became more complicated than expected, because a) the AH-1 cockpit and the nose are considerably shorter than the OV-10s, b) the AH-1 fuselage is markedly taller than the Bronco’s and c) the engine section, which would end up in the area of the wing, features major recesses, making the surface very uneven – calling for massive PSR to even this out. PSR was also necessary to hide the openings for the Fujimi AH-1’s stub wings. Other issues: the front landing gear (and its well) had to be added, as well as the OV-10 wing stubs. Furthermore, the new cockpit pod’s rear section needed an aerodynamical end/fairing, but I found a leftover Academy OV-10 section from a build/kitbashing many moons ago. Perfect match!

All these challenges could be tackled, even though the AH-1 cockpit looks surprisingly stout and massive on the Bronco’s airframe - the result looks stockier than expected, but it works well for the "Gunship" theme. Lots of PSR went into the new central fuselage section, though, even before it was mated with the OV-10 wing and the rest of the model.

Once cockpit and wing were finally mated, the seams had to disappear under even more PSR and a spinal extension of the canopy had to be sculpted across the upper wing surface, which would meld with the pod’s tail in a (more or less) harmonious shape. Not an easy task, and the fairing was eventually sculpted with 2C putty, plus even more PSR… Looks quite homogenous, though.

 

After this massive body work, other hardware challenges appeared like small distractions. The landing gear was another major issue because the deeper AH-1 section lowered the ground clearance, also because of the chin turret. To counter this, I raised the OV-10’s main landing gear by ~2mm – not much, but it was enough to create a credible stance, together with the front landing gear transplant under the cockpit, which received an internal console to match the main landing gear’s length. Due to the chin turret and the shorter nose, the front wheel retracts backwards now. But this looks quite plausible, thanks to the additional space under the cockpit tub, which also made a belt feed for the gun’s ammunition supply believable.

To enhance the menacing look I gave the model a fixed refueling boom, made from 1mm steel wire and a receptor adapter sculpted with white glue. The latter stuff was also used add some antenna fairings around the hull. Some antennae, chaff dispensers and an IR decoy were taken from the Academy kit.

 

The ordnance came from various sources. The Sidewinders under the wing tips were taken from an Italeri F-16C/D kit, they look better than the missiles from the Academy Bronco kit. Their launch rails came from an Italeri Bae Hawk 200. The quadruple Hellfire launchers on the underwing hardpoints were left over from an Italeri AH-1W, and they are a perfect load for this aircraft and its role. The LAU-10 and -19 missile pods on the stub wings were taken from the OV-10 kit.

  

Painting and markings:

Finding a suitable and somewhat interesting – but still plausible – paint scheme was not easy. Taking the A-10 as benchmark, an overall light grey livery (with focus on low contrast against the sky as protection against ground fire) would have been a likely choice – and in fact the last operational American OV-10s were painted in this fashion. But in order to provide a different look I used the contemporary USAF V-22Bs and Special Operations MC-130s as benchmark, which typically carry a darker paint scheme consisting of FS 36118 (suitably “Gunship Gray” :D) from above, FS 36375 underneath, with a low, wavy waterline, plus low-viz markings. Not spectacular, but plausible – and very similar to the late r/w Colombian OV-10s.

The cockpit tub became Dark Gull Grey (FS 36231, Humbrol 140) and the landing gear white (Revell 301).

 

The model received an overall black ink washing and some post-panel-shading, to liven up the dull all-grey livery. The decals were gathered from various sources, and I settled for black USAF low-viz markings. The “stars and bars” come from a late USAF F-4, the “IP” tail code was tailored from F-16 markings and the shark mouth was taken from an Academy AH-64. Most stencils came from another Academy OV-10 sheet and some other sources.

Decals were also used to create the trim on the propeller blades and markings on the ordnance.

 

Finally, the model was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and some exhaust soot stains were added with graphite along the tail boom flanks.

  

A successful transplantation – but is this still a modified Bronco or already a kitbashing? The result looks quite plausible and menacing, even though the TOW Cobra front section appears relatively massive. But thanks to the bigger engines and extended wing tips the proportions still work. The large low-pressure tires look a bit goofy under the aircraft, but they are original. The grey livery works IMHO well, too – a more colorful or garish scheme would certainly have distracted from the modified technical basis.

Jiaou Doll wheat skin big bust figure .

Jiaou Doll wheat skin big bust figure .

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

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Development studies at Grumman for jet-powered fighter aircraft began near the end of World War II as the first jet engines emerged. In a competition for a jet-powered night fighter for the United States Navy, on 3 April 1946 the Douglas F3D Skyknight was selected over Grumman's G-75, a two-seater powered by four Westinghouse J30s. The Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) also issued a contract to Grumman for two G-75 prototype aircraft on 11 April 1946, in case the Skyknight ran into problems.

However, Grumman soon realized that the G-75 was a dead end. But the company had been working on a completely different day fighter, the G-79, which offered a higher potential. In order to keep Grumman in the US Navy’s procurement loop, BuAer, in a bureaucratic maneuver, did not cancel the G-75 contract, but changed the wording to include prototypes of the entirely different G-79, too.

 

The G-79 project comprised a total of four different layouts and engine arrangements for a single seat fighter aircraft. G-79A and B were traditional tail sitters, but both featured mixed propulsion for an enhanced performance: G-79A was powered by an R-2800 radial engine and a Rolls Royce Derwent VI jet booster in the tail, fed by a pair of dorsal air intakes behind the cockpit. The G-79B was a similar aircraft, but its primary engine was a General Electric TG-100 turboprop in a more slender nose section. Even though both designs were big aircraft, initial calculations indicated a performance that would be superior to the Grumman F8F Bearcat, which had been designed as a thoroughbred interceptor.

 

The other two designs were pure jet fighters, both with a tricycle landing gear. G-79C had a layout reminiscent of the Gloster Meteor and was powered by two Derwent VI engines in bulky wing nacelles, and G-79D was finally an overall smaller and lighter aircraft, similar in its outlines to the early Vought F6U Pirate, and powered by a single Nene in the rear fuselage, fed by air intakes in the wing roots.

 

Since the operation of jet-powered aircraft from carriers was terra incognita for the US Navy, and early turbojets thirsty and slow to react to throttle input, BuAer decided to develop two of Grumman's G-79 designs into prototypes for real life evaluation: one of the conservative designs, as a kind of safe route, and one of the more modern jets.

From the mixed propulsion designs, the turboprop-powered G-79B was chosen (becoming the XF9F-1 'JetCat'), since it was expected to offer a higher performance and development potential than the radial-powered 'A'. From the pure jet designs the G-79D was chosen, because of its simplicity and compact size, and designated XF9F-2 'Panther'.

 

The first JetCat prototype made its maiden flight on 26 October 1947, but it was only a short airfield circuit since the TG-100 turpoprop failed to deliver full power and the jet booster had not been installed yet. The prototype Panther, piloted by test pilot Corky Meyer, first flew on 21 November 1947 without major problems.

 

In the wake of the two aircrafts' test program, several modifications and improvements were made. This included an equal armament of four 20mm guns (mounted in the outer, foldable wings on the JetCat and, respectively, in the Panther’s nose). Furthermore, both aircraft were soon armed with underwing HVAR air-to-ground rockets and bombs, and the JetCat even received an underfuselage pylon for the potential carriage of an airborne torpedo. Since there was insufficient space within the foldable wings and the fuselage in both aircraft for the thirsty jet’s fuel, permanently mounted wingtip fuel tanks were added on both aircraft, which incidentally improved the fighters' rate of roll. Both F9F types were cleared for flight from aircraft carriers in September 1949.

 

The F9F-1 was soon re-engined with an Allison T38 turboprop, which was much more reliable than the TF-100 (in the meantime re-designated XT31) and delivered a slightly higher power output. Another change was made for the booster: the bulky Derwent VI engine from the prototype stage was replaced by a much more compact Westinghouse J34 turbojet, which not only delivered slightly more thrust, it also used up much less internal space which was used for radio and navigation equipment, a life raft and a relocated oil tank. Due to a resulting CG shift towards the nose, the fuselage fuel cell layout had to be revised. As a consequence, the cockpit was moved 3’ backwards, slightly impairing the pilot’s field of view, but it was still superior to the contemporary Vought F4U.

 

Despite the engine improvements, though, the F9F-1 attained markedly less top speed than the F9F-2. On the other side, it had a better rate of climb and slow speed handling characteristics, could carry more ordnance and offered a considerably bigger range and extended loiter time. The F9F-2 was more agile, though, and more of the nimble dogfighter the US Navy was originally looking for. Its simplicity with just a single engine was appealing, too.

 

The Panther was eventually favored as the USN's first operational jet day fighter and put into production, but the F9F-1 showed much potential as a fast fighter bomber. Through pressure from the USMC, who was looking for a replacement for its F7F heavy Tigercat fighters, a production order for 50 JetCats was eventually placed, later augmented to 82 aircraft because the US Navy also recognized the type’s potential as a fast, ship-borne multi-role fighter. Further interest came in 1949 from Australia, when the country’s government was looking for a - possibly locally-built in license - replacement for the outdated Mustang Mk 23 and De Havilland Vampire then operated by the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). Both Grumman designs were potential contenders, rivalling with the domestic CAC CA-23 fighter development.

 

The Grumman Panther became the most widely used U.S. Navy jet fighter of the Korean War, flying 78,000 sorties and scoring the first air-to-air kill by the U.S. Navy in the war, the downing of a North Korean Yakovlev Yak-9 fighter. Being rugged aircraft, F9F-2s, -3s and -5s were able to sustain operations, even in the face of intense anti-aircraft fire. The pilots also appreciated the Panther’s air conditioned cockpit, which was a welcome change from the humid environment of piston-powered aircraft.

 

The F9F-1 did fare less glamorous. Compared with the prototypes, the T38 turboprop's power output could be enhanced on service aircraft, but not on a significant level. The aircraft's original, rather sluggish response to throttle input and its low-speed handling were improved through an eight-blade contraprop, which, as a side benefit, countered torque problems during starts and landings on carriers.

The JetCat’s mixed powerplant installation remained capricious, though, and the second engine and its fuel meant a permanent weight penalty. The aircraft's complexity turned out to be a real weak point during the type's deployment to front line airfields in the Korean War, overall readiness was – compared with conservative types like the F4U and also the F9F-2, low. Despite the turboprop improvements, the jet booster remained necessary for carrier starts and vital in order to take on the MiG-15 or post-war piston engine types of Soviet origin like the Lavochkin La-9 and -11 or the Yakowlev Yak-9.

 

Frequent encounters with these opponents over Korea confirmed that the F9F-1 was not a “naturally born” dogfighter, but rather fell into the escort fighter or attack aircraft class. In order to broaden the type's duty spectrum, a small number of USMC and USN F9F-1s was modified in field workshops with an APS-6 type radar equipment from F4U-4N night fighters. Similar to the Corsair, the radar dish was carried in a streamlined pod under the outer starboard wing. The guns received flame dampers, and these converted machines, re-designated F9F-1N, were used with mild success as night and all-weather fighters.

 

However, the JetCat remained unpopular among its flight and ground crews and, after its less-than-satisfactory performance against MiGs, quickly retired. After the end of the Korean War in July 1953, all machines were grounded and by 1954 all had been scrapped. However, the turboprop-powered fighter bomber lived on with the USMC, which ordered the Vought A3U SeaScorpion as successor.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 40 ft 5 in (12,31 m)

Wingspan: 43 ft 5 in (13,25 m)

Height: 15 ft 6 3/4 in (4,75 m)

Wing area: 250 ft² (23 m²)

Empty weight: 12,979 lb (5,887 kg)

Gross weight: 24,650 lb (11,181 kg)

Powerplant:

1× Allison T38E turboprop, rated at 2,500 shp (1,863 kW) plus 600 lbf (2.7 kN) residual thrust

1× Westinghouse J34-WE-13 turbojet booster with 3,000 lbf (13.35 kN)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 507 mph (441 kn; 816 km/h) at 30,000 ft (9,100 m)

497 mph (432 kn, 800 km/h) at sea level

Cruise speed: 275 mph (443 km/h; 239 kn) at 30,000 ft (9,100 m)

Stall speed: 74 mph (119 km/h; 64 kn) with flaps

Range: 2,500 mi (2,172 nmi; 4,023 km)

Service ceiling: 47,000 ft (14,000 m)

Rate of climb: 5,300 ft/min (27 m/s)

Wing loading: 71 lb/ft² (350 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.42

Armament:

4× 20 mm (0.79 in) AN/M3 cannon in the outer, foldable wings with 220 RPG

Underwing hardpoints and provisions to carry combinations of up to 6× 5 " (127 mm) HVAR

missiles and/or bombs on underwing hardpoints, for a total ordnance of 3,000 lb (1,362 kg)

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is another submission to the Cold War GB at whatifmodelers in early 2018, and rather a spontaneous idea. It was actually spawned after I finished my fictional Gudkov Gu-1 mixed propulsion fighter - while building (using the engine front from an F6F Hellcat) I had the impression that it could also have ended up as a post-war USN fighter design.

 

A couple of days later, while browsing literature for inspiration, I came across Grumman's G-79 series of designs that eventually led to the F9F Panther - and I was amazed that the 'A' design almost looked like my kitbashed Soviet fighter!

 

So I considered a repeated build of a P-47D/Supermarine Attacker kitbash, just in American colors. But with the F9F relationship, I planned the integration of Panther parts, so that the new creation would look different from the Gu-1, but also show some (more) similarity to the Panther.

 

The plan appeared feasible. Again, the aircraft's core is an Academy P-47D, with its outer wings cut off. Cockpit and landing gear were retained. However, instead of Supermarine Attacker wings from a Novo kit, I attached F9F-2 wings from a Hasegawa kit. Shape-wise this worked fine, but the Panther wings are much thinner than the Thunderbolt’s, so that I had to integrate spacers inside of the intersections which deepen the Hasegawa parts. Not perfect, but since the type would feature folding wings, the difference and improvisation is not too obvious.

 

On the fuselage, the Thunderbolt’s air outlets on its flanks were faired over and most of the tail section cut away. In the lower part of the tail, a jet pipe (from a Heller F-84G) was added and blended with PSR into the Thunderbolt fuselage, similar to the Gu-1. A completely new fin was scratched from an outer wing section from a Heinkel He 189, in an attempt to copy the G-79B's shape according to the drawing I used as benchmark for the build. I also used the F9F's stabilizers. With clipped tips they match well in size and shape, and add to the intended Grumman family look. The original tail wheel well was retained, but the tail wheel was placed as far back as possible and replaced by the twin wheel from a Hasegawa F5U. The Panther’s OOB tail hook was integrated under the jet pipe, too.

 

The front section is completely different and new, and my choice fell on the turboprop-powered G-79B because I did not want to copy the Gu-1 with its radial engine. However, the new turboprop nose was not less complicated to build. Its basis is a 1:100 engine and contraprop from a VEB Plasticart Tu-20/95 bomber, a frequent ingredient in my builds because it works so well in 1:72 scale. This slender core was attached to the Thunderbolt's fuselage, and around this basis a new cowling was built up with 2C putty, once more in an attempt to mimic the original G-79B design as good as possible.

 

In order to blend the new engine with the fuselage and come close to the G-79B’s vaguely triangular fuselage diameter, the P-47's deep belly was cut away, faired over with styrene sheet, and everything blended into each other with more PSR work. As a final step, two exhaust pipes were mounted to the lower fuselage in front of the wings’ leading edge.

 

The air intakes for the jet booster are actually segments from a Sopwith Triplane fuselage (Revell) – an unlikely source, but the shape of the parts was just perfect. More PSR was necessary to blend them into the aircraft’s flanks, though.

  

Painting and markings:

As per usual, I'd rather go with conservative markings on a fictional aircraft. Matching the Korean War era, the aircraft became all-over FS 35042 (Modelmaster). A black ink wash emphasized the partly re-engraved panel lines, and some post shading highlighted panels.

 

The wings’ leading edges and the turboprop’s intake were painted with aluminum, similar edges on fin and stabilizers were created with silver decal material. The interior of cockpit and landing gear was painted with green chromate primer.

 

The markings were puzzled together. “Stars and Bars” and VF-53 markings were taken from a Hobby Boss F4U-4 kit. The blue fin tip is the marking for the 3rd squadron, so that the “307” tactical code is plausible, too (the latter comes from a Hobby Boss F9F-2). In order to keep things subtle and more business-like (after all, the aircraft is supposed to be operated during the ongoing Korean War), I did not carry the bright squadron color to any other position like the spinner or the wing tips.

 

After some final detail work and gun and exhaust soot stains, the kit was sealed with semi-gloss acrylic varnish (Italeri). Matt acrylic varnish was used for weathering effects, so that the aircraft would not look too clean and shiny.

  

While it is not a prefect recreation of the Grumman G-79B, I am quite happy with the result. The differences between the model and the original design sketch can be explained through serial production adaptations, and overall the whole thing looks pretty conclusive. In fact, the model appears from certain angles like a naval P-51 on steroids, even though the G-79B was a much bigger aircraft than the Mustang.

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

  

Some background:

The Gudkov Gu-1 was a Soviet fighter aircraft produced shortly after World War II in small numbers at the start of the jet age, but work on the Gudkov Gu-1 already started in 1944. Towards the end of World War II the Soviet Union saw the need for a strategic bombing capability similar to that of the United States Army Air Forces. The Soviet VVS air arm had the locally designed Petlyakov Pe-8 four-engined heavy bomber in service at the start of the war, but only 93 had been built by the end of the war and the type had become obsolete. By that time the U.S. regularly conducted bombing raids on Japan from distant Pacific forward bases using B-29 Superfortresses, and the Soviet Air Force lacked this capability.

 

Joseph Stalin ordered the development of a comparable bomber, and the U.S. twice refused to supply the Soviet Union with B-29s under Lend Lease. However, on four occasions during 1944, individual B-29s made emergency landings in Soviet territory and one crashed after the crew bailed out. In accordance with the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact, the Soviets were neutral in the Pacific War and the bombers were therefore interned and kept by the Soviets. Despite Soviet neutrality, America demanded the return of the bombers, but the Soviets refused. Three repairable B-29s were flown to Moscow and delivered to the Tupolev OKB. One B-29 was dismantled, the second was used for flight tests and training, and the third one was left as a standard for cross-reference.

Stalin told Tupolev to clone the Superfortress in as short a time as possible. The reverse-engineering effort involved 900 factories and research institutes, who finished the design work during the first year. 105,000 drawings were made, and the American technology had to be adapted to local material and manufacturing standards – and ended in a thorough re-design of the B-29 “under the hood”. By the end of the second year, the Soviet industry was to produce 20 copies of the aircraft ready for State acceptance trials.

 

While work on what would become the Tupolev Tu-4 was on the way, the need for a long range escort fighter arose, too. Soviet officials were keen on the P-51 Mustang, but, again, the USA denied deliveries, so that an indigenous solution had to be developed. With the rising tension of international relationships, this became eventually the preferred solution, too.

 

While the design bureau Lavochkin had already started with work on the La-9 fighter (which entered service after WWII) and the jet age was about to begin, the task of designing a long range escort fighter for the Tu-4 was relegated to Mikhail I. Gudkov who had been designing early WWII fighters like the LaGG-1 and -3 together with Lavochkin. Internally, the new fighter received the project handle "DIS" (Dalnij Istrebitel' Soprovozhdenya ="long-range escort fighter").

 

In order to offer an appropriate range and performance that could engage enemy interceptors in the bombers’ target area it was soon clear that neither a pure jet nor a pure piston-engine fighter was a viable solution – a dilemma the USAAF was trying to solve towards 1945, too. The jet engine alone did not offer sufficient power, and fuel consumption was high, so that the necessary range could never be achieved with an agile fighter. Late war radials had sufficient power and offered good range, but the Soviet designers were certain that the piston engine fighter had no future – especially when fast jet fighters had to be expected over enemy territory.

 

Another problem arose through the fact that the Soviet Union did not have an indigenous jet engine at hand at all in late 1945. War booty from Germany in the form of Junkers Jumo 004 axial jet engines and blueprints of the more powerful HeS 011 were still under evaluation, and these powerplants alone did neither promise enough range nor power for a long range fighter aircraft. Even for short range fighters their performance was rather limited – even though fighters like the Yak-15 and the MiG-9 were designed around them.

 

After many layout experiments and calculation, Gudkov eventually came up with a mixed powerplant solution for the DIS project. But unlike the contemporary, relatively light I-250 (also known as MiG-13) interceptor, which added a mechanical compressor with a primitive afterburner (called VRDK) to a Klimov VK-107R inline piston engine, the DIS fighter was equipped with a powerful radial engine and carried a jet booster – similar to the US Navy’s Ryan FR-1 “Fireball”. Unlike the FR-1, though, the DIS kept a conservative tail-sitter layout and was a much bigger aircraft.

 

The choice for the main powerplant fell on the Shvetsov ASh-82TKF engine, driving a large four blade propeller. This was a boosted version of the same 18 cylinder twin row radial that powered the Tu-4, the ASh-73. The ASh-82TKF for the escort fighter project had a rating of 2,720 hp (2,030 kW) while the Tu-4's ASh-73TK had "only" a temporary 2,400 hp (1,800 kW) output during take-off. The airframe was designed around this massive and powerful engine, and the aircraft’s sheer size was also a result of the large fuel capacity which was necessary to meet the range target of at least 3.000 km (1.860 mi, 1.612 nmi).

The ASh-82TKF alone offered enough power for a decent performance, but in order to take on enemy jet fighters and lighter, more agile propeller-driven fighters, a single RD-20 axial-flow turbojet with 7.8 kN (1,754 lbf) thrust was added in the rear-fuselage. It was to add power for take-off and in combat situations only. Its fixed air intakes were placed on the fuselage flanks, right behind the cockpit, and the jet pipe was placed under the fin and the stabilizers.

 

Outwardly, Gudkov’s DIS resembled the late American P-47D or the A-1 Skyraider a lot, and the beefy aircraft was comparable in size and weight, too. But the Soviet all-metal aircraft was a completely new construction and featured relatively small and slender laminar flow wings. The wide-track landing gear retracted inwards into the inner wings while the tail wheel retracted fully into a shallow compartment under the jet pipe.

The pilot sat in a spacious cockpit under a frameless bubble canopy with very good all-round visibility and enjoyed amenities for long flights such as increased padding in the seat, armrests, and even a urinal. In addition, a full radio navigation suite was installed for the expected long range duties over long stretches of featureless landscape like the open sea.

 

Armament consisted of four 23 mm Nudelman-Suranov NS-23 cannons with 100 RPG in the wings, outside of the propeller arc. The guns were good for a weight of fire of 6kg (13.2 lb)/sec, a very good value. Five wet hardpoints under the fuselage, the wings outside of the landing gear well and under the wing tips could primarily carry auxiliary drop tanks or an external ordnance of up to 1.500 kg (3.300 lb).

Alternatively, iron bombs of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber could be carried on the centerline pylon, and a pair of 250 kg (550 lb) bombs under the wings, but a fighter bomber role was never seriously considered for the highly specialized and complex aircraft.

 

The first DIS prototype, still without the jet booster, flew in May 1947. The second prototype, with both engines installed, had its fuel capacity increased by an additional 275 l (73 US gal) in an additional fuel tank behind the cockpit. The aircraft was also fitted with larger tires to accommodate the increased all-up weight, esp. with all five 300 l drop tanks fitted for maximum range and endurance.

 

Flight testing continued until 1948 and the DIS concept proved to be satisfactory, even though the complicated ASh-82TKF hampered the DIS’ reliability - to the point that fitting the ASh-73TK from the Tu-4 was considered for serial production, even if this would have meant a significant reduction in performance. The RD-20 caused lots of trouble, too. Engine reliability was generally poor, and re-starting the engine in flight did not work satisfactorily – a problem that, despite several changes to the starter and ignition system, could never be fully cured. The jet engine’s placement in the tail, together with the small tail wheel, also caused problems because the pilots had to take care that the tail would not aggressively hit the ground upon landings, because the RD-20 and its attachments were easily damaged.

 

Nevertheless, the DIS basically fulfilled the requested performance specifications and was, despite many shortcomings, eventually cleared for production in mid 1948. It received the official designation Gudkov Gu-1, honoring the engineer behind the aircraft, even though the aircraft was produced by Lavochkin.

 

The first machines were delivered to VVS units in early 1949 - just in time for the Tu-4's service introduction after the Russians had toiled endlessly on solving several technical problems. In the meantime, jet fighter development had quickly progressed, even though a purely jet-powered escort fighter for the Tu-4 was still out of question. Since the Gu-1 was capricious, complex and expensive to produce, only a limited number left the factories and emphasis was put on the much simpler and more economical Lavochkin La-11 escort fighter, a lightweight evolution of the proven La-9. Both types were regarded as an interim solution until a pure jet escort fighter would be ready for service.

 

Operationally the Gu-1s remained closely allocated to the VVS’ bomber squadrons and became an integral part of them. Anyway, since the Tu-4 bomber never faced a serious combat situation, so did the Gu-1, which was to guard it on its missions. For instance, both types were not directly involved in the Korean War, and the Gu-1 was primarily concentrated at the NATO borders to Western Europe, since bomber attacks in this theatre would certainly need the heavy fighter’s protection.

 

The advent of the MiG-15 - especially the improved MiG-15bis with additional fuel capacities and drop tanks, quickly sounded the death knell for the Gu-1 and any other post-WWII piston-engine fighter in Soviet Service. As Tu-4 production ended in the Soviet Union in 1952, so did the Gu-1’s production after only about 150 aircraft. The Tu-4s and their escort fighters were withdrawn in the 1960s, being replaced by more advanced aircraft including the Tupolev Tu-16 jet bomber (starting in 1954) and the Tupolev Tu-95 turboprop bomber (starting in 1956).

 

The Gudkov Gu-1, receiving the NATO ASCC code “Flout”, remained a pure fighter. Even though it was not a success, some proposals for updates were made - but never carried out. These included pods with unguided S-5 air-to-air-rockets, to be carried on the wing hardpoints, bigger, non-droppable wing tip tanks for even more range or, alternatively, the addition of two pulsejet boosters on the wing tips.

There even was a highly modified mixed powerplant version on the drawing boards in 1952, the Gu-1M. Its standard radial powerplant for cruise flight was enhanced with a new, non-afterburning Mikulin AM-5 axial flow jet engine with 2.270 kgf/5,000 lbf/23 kN additional thrust in the rear fuselage. With this temporary booster, a top speed of up to 850 km/h was expected. But to no avail - the pure jet fighter promised a far better performance and effectiveness, and the Gu-1 remained the only aircraft to exclusively carry the Gudkov name.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 12 m (39 ft 4 in)

Wingspan: 14 m (45 ft 11 in)

Height: 4.65 m (15 ft 3 in)

Wing area: 28 m² (301.388 ft²)

Airfoil:

Empty weight: 4,637 kg (10,337 lb)

Loaded weight: 6.450 kg (14.220 lb)

Maximum take-off weight: 7,938 kg (17,500 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Shvetsov ASh-82TKF 18-cylinder air-cooled radial engine, rated at 2,720 hp (2,030 kW)

1x RD-20 axial-flow turbojet with 7.8 kN (1,754 lbf) thrust as temporary booster

 

Performance

Maximum speed: 676 km/h (420 mph) at 29,000 ft (8,839 m) with the radial only,

800 km/h (497 mph/432 kn,) with additional jet booster

Cruise speed: 440 km/h (237 kn, 273 mph)

Combat radius: 820 nmi (945 mi, 1,520 km)

Maximum range: 3.000 km (1.860 mi, 1.612 nmi) with drop tanks

Service ceiling: 14,680 m (48,170 ft)

Wing loading: 230.4 kg/m² (47.2 lb/ft²)

Power/mass: 0.28 kW/kg (0.17 hp/lb)

Climb to 5,000 m (16,400 ft): 5 min 9 sec;

Climb to 10,000 m (32,800 ft): 17 min 38 sec;

Climb to 13,000 m (42,640 ft): 21 min 03 sec

 

Armament

4× 23 mm Nudelman-Suranov NS-23 cannons with 100 RPG in the outer wings

Five hardpoints for an external ordnance of 1.500 kg (3.300 lb)

 

The kit and its assembly:

This whif is the incarnation of a very effective kitbashing combo that already spawned my fictional Japanese Ki-104 fighter, and it is another submission to the 2018 “Cold War” group build at whatifmodelers.com. This purely fictional Soviet escort fighter makes use of my experiences from the first build of this kind, yet with some differences.

 

The kit is a bashing of various parts and pieces:

· Fuselage, wing roots, landing gear and propeller from an Academy P-47D

· Wings from an Ark Model Supermarine Attacker (ex Novo)

· Tail fin comes from a Heller F-84G

· The stabilizers were taken from an Airfix Ki-46

· Cowling from a Matchbox F6F, mounted and blended onto the P-47 front

· Jet exhaust is the intake of a Matchbox Me 262 engine pod

 

My choice fell onto the Academy Thunderbolt because it has engraved panel lines, offers the bubble canopy as well as good fit, detail and solid material. The belly duct had simply been sliced off, and the opening later faired over with styrene sheet and putty, so that the P-47’s deep belly would not disappear.

The F6F cowling was chosen because it looks a lot like the ASh-73TK from the Tu-4. But this came at a price: the P-47 cowling is higher, tighter and has a totally different shape. It took serious body sculpting with putty to blend the parts into each other. Inside of the engine, a styrene tube was added for a metal axis that holds the uncuffed OOB P-47 four blade propeller. The P-47’s OOB cockpit tub was retained, too, just the seat received scratched armrests for a more luxurious look.

 

The Attacker wings were chosen because of their "modern" laminar profile. The Novo kit itself is horrible and primitive, but acceptable for donations. OOB, the Attacker wings had too little span for the big P-47, so I decided to mount the Thunderbolt's OOB wings and cut them at a suitable point: maybe 0.5", just outside of the large main wheel wells. The intersection with the Attacker wings is almost perfect in depth and width, relatively little putty work was necessary in order to blend the parts into each other. I just had to cut out new landing gear wells from the lower halves of the Attacker wings, and with new attachment points the P-47’s complete OOB landing gear could be used.

 

With the new wing shape, the tail surfaces had to be changed accordingly. The trapezoid stabilizers come from an Airfix Mitsubishi Ki-46, and their shape is a good match. The P-47 fin had to go, since I wanted something bigger and a different silhouette. The fuselage below was modified with a jet exhaust, too. I actually found a leftover F-84G (Heller) tail, complete with the jet pipe and the benefit that it has plausible attachment points for the stabilizers far above the jet engine in the Gu-1’s tail.

 

However, the F-84 jet pipe’s diameter turned out to be too large, so I went for a smaller but practical alternative, a Junkers Jumo 004 nacelle from a Me 262 (the ancestor of the Soviet RD-20!). Its intake section was cut off, flipped upside down, the fin was glued on top of it and then the new tail was glued to the P-47 fuselage. Some (more serious) body sculpting was necessary to create a more or less harmonious transition between the parts, but it worked.

 

The plausible placement of the air intakes and their shape was a bit of a challenge. I wanted them to be obvious, but still keep an aerodynamic look. An initial idea had been to keep the P-47’s deep belly and widen the central oil cooler intake under the nose, but I found the idea wacky and a bit pointless, since such a long air duct would not make much sense since it would waste internal space and the long duct’s additional weight would not offer any benefit?

 

Another idea were air intakes in the wing roots, but these were also turned down since the landing gear wells would be in the way, and placing the ducts above or below the wings would also make no sense. A single ventral scoop (looking like a P-51 radiator bath) or two smaller, dorsal intakes (XP-81 style) behind the cockpit were other serious candidates – but these were both rejected because I wanted to keep a clean side profile.

I eventually settled for very simple, fixed side intakes, level with the jet exhaust, somewhat inspired by the Lavochkin La-200B heavy fighter prototype. The air scoops are simply parts from an Italeri Saab 39 Gripen centerline drop tank (which has a flat, oval diameter), and their shape is IMHO a perfect match.

  

Painting and markings:

While the model itself is a wild mix of parts with lots of improvisation involved, I wanted to keep the livery rather simple. The most plausible choice would have been an NMF finish, but I rather wanted some paint – so I used Soviet La-9 and -11 as a benchmark and settled for a simple two-tone livery: uniform light grey upper and light blue lower surfaces.

 

I used RAF Medium Sea Grey (Humbrol 165) and Soviet Underside Blue (Humbrol 114) as basic tones, and, after a black ink wash, these were lightened up through dry-brushed post-shading. The yellow spinner and fin tip are based on typical (subtle) squadron markings of the late 40ies era.

 

The cockpit as well the engine and landing gear interior became blue-grey (Revell 57), similar to the typical La-9/11’s colors. The green wheel discs and the deep blue propeller blades are not 100% in the aircraft's time frame, but I added these details in order to enhance the Soviet touch and some color accents.

 

Tactical markings were kept simple, too. The "38" and the Red Stars come form a Mastercraft MiG-15, the Guards badge from a Begemoth MiG-25 sheet and most of the stencils were taken from a Yak-38 sheet, also from Begemoth.

Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and it received some mild soot stains and chipped paint around the cockpit and on the leading edges. Some oil stains were added around the engine (with Tamiya Smoke), too.

  

A massive aircraft, and this new use of the P-47/Attacker combo results again in a plausible solution. The added jet engine might appear a bit exotic, but the mixed powerplant concept was en vogue after WWII, but only a few aircraft made it beyond the prototype stage.

While painting the model I also wondered if an all dark blue livery and some USN markings could also have made this creation the Grumman JetCat? With the tall fin, the Gu-1 could also be an F8F Bearcat on steroids? Hmmm...

Jiaou Doll wheat skin big bust figure .

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

 

Some background:

The Northrop Grumman-IAI F-24 is the latest reincarnation of the USAF "Lightweight Fighter Program" which dates back to the 1950ies and started with the development of Northrop's F-5 "Freedom Fighter".

 

The 1st generation F-5 became very successful in the export market and saw a long line of development, including the much more powerful F-5E "Tiger II" and the F-20 Tigershark (initially called F-5G). Northrop had high hopes for the F-20 in the international market; however, policy changes following Ronald Reagan's election meant the F-20 had to compete for sales against aircraft like the F-16, the USAF's latest fighter design (which was politically favored). The F-20 development program was eventually abandoned in 1986 after three prototypes had been built and a fourth partially completed.

 

But this was not the end for Northrop’s Lightweight Fighter. In the early 1980s, two X-29As experimental aircraft were built by Grumman from two existing Northrop F-5A Freedom Fighter airframes. The Grumman X-29 was a testbed for forward-swept wings, canard control surfaces, and other novel aircraft technologies. The aerodynamic instability of this arrangement increased agility but required the use of computerized fly-by-wire control. Composite materials were used to control the aeroelastic divergent twisting experienced by forward-swept wings, also reducing the weight. The NASA test program continued from 1984 to 1991 and the X-29s flew 242 times, gathering valuable data and breaking ground for new aerodynamic technologies of 4th and 5th generation fighters.

 

Even though no service aircraft directly evolved from the X-29, its innovative FBW system as well as the new material technologies also opened the door for an updated F-20 far beyond the 1990ies. It became clear that ever expensive and complex aircraft could not be the answer to modern, asymmetrical warfare in remote corners of the world, with exploding development costs and just a limited number of aircraft in service that could not generate true economies of scale, esp. when their state-of-the-art design would not permit any export.

Anyway, a global market for simpler fighter aircraft was there, as 1st generation F-16s as well as the worldwide, aging F-5E fleet and types of Soviet/Russian origin like the MiG-29 provided the need for a modern, yet light and economical jet fighter. Contemporary types like the Indian HAL Tejas, the Swedish Saab Gripen, the French Dassault Rafale and the Pakistani/Chinese FC-1/JF-17 ”Thunder” proved this trend among 4th - 4.5th generation fighter aircraft.

 

Northrop Grumman (Northrop bought Grumman in 1994) initiated studies and basic design work on a respective New Lightweight Fighter (NLF) as a private venture in 1995. Work on the NLF started at a slow pace, as the company was busy with re-structuring.

The idea of an updated lightweight fighter was fueled by another source, too: Israel. In 1998 IAI started looking in the USA for a development partner for a new, light fighter that would replace its obsolete Kfir fleet and partly relieve its F-16 and F-15 fleet from interception tasks. The domestic project for that role, the IAI Lavi, had been stillborn, but lots of its avionics and research were still at hand and waited for an airframe for completion.

The new aircraft for the IAF was to be superior to the MiG-29, at least on par with the F-16C/D, but easier to maintain, smaller and overall cheaper. Since the performance profiles appeared to be similar to what Northrop Grumman was developing under the NLF label, the US company eventually teamed up with IAI in 2000 and both started the mutual project "Namer" (=נמר, “Tiger” in Hebrew), which eventually lead to the F-24 I for the IAF which kept its project name for service and to the USAF’s F-24A “Tigershark”.

 

The F-24, as the NLF, was based on the F-20 airframe, but outwardly showed only little family heritage, onle the forward fuselage around the cockpit reminds of the original F-5 design . Many aerodynamic details, e. g. the air intakes and air ducts, were taken over from the X-29, though, as the experimental aircraft and its components had been developed for extreme maneuvers and extra high agility. Nevertheless, the X-29's forward-swept wing was considered to be too exotic and fragile for a true service aircraft, but the F-24 was to feature an Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) system.

 

AAW Technology integrates wing aerodynamics, controls, and structure to harness and control wing aeroelastic twist at high speeds and dynamic pressures. By using multiple leading and trailing edge controls like "aerodynamic tabs", subtle amounts of aeroelastic twist can be controlled to provide large amounts of wing control power, while minimizing maneuver air loads at high wing strain conditions or aerodynamic drag at low wing strain conditions. This system was initially tested on the X-29 and later on the X-53 research aircraft, a modified F-18, until 2006.

 

Both USAF and IAF versions feature this state-of-the-art aerodynamic technology, but it is uncertain if other customers will receive it. While details concerning the F-24's system have not been published yet, it is assumed that its AAW is so effective that canard foreplanes could be omitted without sacrificing lift and maneuverability, and that drag is effectively minimized as the wing profile can be adjusted according to the aircraft’s speed, altitude, payload and mission – much like a VG wing, but without its clumsy and heavy swiveling mechanism which has to bear high g forces. As a result, the F-24 is, compared to the F-20, which could carry an external payload of about 3.5 tons, rumored to be able to carry up to 5 tons of ordnance.

 

The delta wing shape proved to be a perfect choice for the required surface and flap actuators inside of the wings, and it would also offer a very good compromise between lift and drag for a wide range of performance. Anyway, there was one price to pay: in order to keep the wing profile thin and simple, the F-24’s landing gear retracts into the lower fuselage, leaving the aircraft with a relatively narrow track.

 

Another major design factor for the outstanding performance of this rather small aircraft was weight reduction and structural integrity – combined with simplicity, ruggedness and a modular construction which would allow later upgrades. Instead of “going big” and expensive, the new F-24 was to create its performance through dedicated loss of weight, which was in some part also a compensation for the AAW system in the wings and its periphery.

 

Weight was saved wherever possible, e .g. a newly developed, lightweight M199A1 gatling gun. This 20mm cannon is a three-barreled, heavily modified version of the already “stripped” M61A2 gun in the USAF’s current F-18E and F-22. One of the novel features is a pneumatic drive instead of the traditional electric mechanism, what not only saves weight but also improves trigger response. The new gun weighs only a mere 65kg (the six-barreled M61A2 weighs 92kg, the original M61A1 112 kg), but still reaches a burst rate of fire of 1.800 RPM (about 800 RPM under cyclic fire, standard practice is to fire the cannon in 30 to 50-round bursts, though) and a muzzle velocity of 1.050 metres per second (3,450 ft/s) with a PGU-28/B round.

 

While the F-16 was and is still made from 80% aluminum alloys and only from 3% composites, the F-24 makes major use of carbon fiber and other lightweight materials, which make up about 40% of the aircraft’s structure, plus an increased share of Titanium and Magnesium alloys. As a consequence and through many other weight-saving measures like keeping stealth capabilities to a minimum (even though RAM was deliberately used and many details designed to have a natural low radar signature, resulting in modest radar cross-section (RCS) reductions), a single, relatively small engine, a fuel-efficient F404-GE-402 turbofan, is enough to make the F-24 a fast and very agile aircraft, coupled with a good range. The F-24’s thrust/weight ratio is considerably higher than 1, and later versions with a vectored thrust nozzle (see below) will take this level of agility even further – with the pilot becoming the limiting factor for the aircraft’s performance.

 

USAF and IAF F-24s are outfitted with Northrop Grumman's AN/APG-80 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, also used in the F-16 Block 60 aircraft. Other customers might only receive the AN/APG-68, making the F-24 comparable to the F-16C/D.

 

The first prototype, the YF-24, flew on 8th of March 2008, followed by two more aircraft plus a static airframe until summer 2010. In early 2011 the USAF placed an initial order of 101 aircraft (probably also to stir export sales – the earlier lightweight fighters from Northrop suffered from the fact that the manufacturer’s country would not use the aircraft in its own forces). These initial aircraft will replace older F-16 in the interceptor role, or free them for fighter bomber tasks. The USN and USMC also showed interest in the aircraft for their aggressor squadrons, for dissimilar air combat training. A two-seater, called the F-24B, is supposed to follow soon, too, and a later version for 2020 onwards, tentatively designated F-24C, is to feature an even stronger F404 engine and a 3D vectoring nozzle.

 

Israel is going to produce its own version domestically from late 2014 on, which will exclusively be used by the IAF. These aircraft will be outfitted with different avionics, built by Elta in Israel, and cater to national requirements which focus more on multi-purpose service, while the USAF focusses with its F-24A on aerial combat and interception tasks.

 

International interest for the F-24A is already there: in late 2013 Grumman stated that initial talks have been made with various countries, and potential export candidates from 2015 on are Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, Finland, Norway, Australia and Japan.

  

General F-24A characteristics:

Crew: 1 pilot

Length: 47 ft 4 in (14.4 m)

Wingspan: 27 ft 11.9 in / 8.53 m; with wingtip missiles (26 ft 8 in/ 8.13 m; without wingtip missiles)

Height: 13 ft 10 in (4.20 m)

Wing area: 36.55 m² (392 ft²)

Empty weight: 13.150 lb (5.090 kg)

Loaded weight: 15.480 lb (6.830 kg)

Max. take-off weight: 27.530 lb (12.500 kg)

 

Powerplant

1× General Electric F404-GE-402 turbofan with a dry thrust of 11,000 lbf (48.9 kN) and 17,750 lbf (79.2 kN) with afterburner

 

Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 2+

Combat radius: 300 nmi (345 mi, 556 km); for hi-lo-hi mission with 2 × 330 US gal (1,250 L) drop tanks

Ferry range: 1,490 nmi (1715 mi, 2759 km); with 3 × 330 US gal (1,250 L) drop tanks

Service ceiling: 55,000 ft (16,800 m)

Rate of climb: 52,800 ft/min (255 m/s)

Wing loading: 70.0 lb/ft² (342 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 1.09 (1.35 with loaded weight & 50% fuel)

 

Armament

1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M199A1 3-barreled Gatling cannon in the lower fuselage with 400 RPG

Eleven external hardpoints (two wingtip tails, six underwing hardpoints, three underfuselage hardpoints) and a total capacity of 11.000 lb (4.994 kg) of missiles (incl. AIM 9 Sidewinder and AIM 120 AMRAAM), bombs, rockets, ECM pods and drop tanks for extended range.

  

The kit and its assembly:

A spontaneous project. This major kitbash was inspired by fellow user nighthunter at whatifmodelers.com, who came up with a profile of a mashed-up US fighter, created “out of boredom”. The original idea was called F-21C, and it was to be a domestic successor to the IAI Kfirs which had been used by the US as aggressor aircraft in USN and USMC service for a few years.

 

As a weird(?) coincidence I had many of the necessary ingredients for this fictional aircraft in store, even though some parts and details were later changed. This model here is an interpretation of the original design. The idea was spun further, and the available parts that finally went into the model also had some influence on design and background.

I thank nighthunter for sharing the early ideas, inviting me to take the design to the hardware stage (sort of…) and adapting my feedback into new design sketches, too, which, in return, inspired the model building process.

 

Well, what went into this thing? To cook up a F-24 à la Dizzyfugu you just need (all in 1:72):

● Fuselage from a Hasegawa X-29, including the cockpit and the landing gear

● Fin and nose cone from an Italeri F-16A

● Inner wings from a (vintage) Hasegawa MiG-21F

● Outer wings from a F-4 (probably a J, Hasegawa or Fujimi)

 

The wing construction deviates from nighthunter’s original idea. The favorite ingredients would have been F-16XL or simple Mirage III wings, but I found the composite wing to be more attractive and “different”. The big F-16XL wings, despite their benefit of a unique shape, might also have created scale/size problems with a F-20 style fuselage? So I built hybrid wings: The MiG-21 landing gear wells were filled with putty and the F-4 outer wings simply glued onto the MiG inner wing sections, which were simply cut down in span. It sounds like an unlikely combo, but these parts fit together almost perfectly! In order to hide the F-4 origins I modified them to carry wingtip launch rails, though, which were also part of nighthunter’s original design.

 

The AAW technology detail mentioned in the background came in handy as it explains the complicated wing shape and the fact that the landing gear retracts into the fuselage, not into the wings, which would have been more plausible… Anyway, there’s still room for a simpler export version, with Mirage III or Kfir C.2/7 wings, and maybe canards?

 

Using the X-29 as basis also made fitting the new wings onto the area-ruled fuselage pretty easy, as I could use the wing root parts from the X-29 to bridge the gap. The original, forward-swept wings were just cut away, and the remains used as consoles for the new hybrid delta wings. Took some SERIOUS putty work, but the result is IMHO fine.

 

The bigger/square X-29 air intakes were taken over, and they change the look of the aircraft, making it look less F-5-ish than a true F-20 fuselage. For the same reason I kept the large fairing at the fin base, combining it with a bigger F-16 tail, though, as a counter-balance to the new, bigger wings. Again, the F-16 fin was/is part of nighthunter’s idea, so the model stays true to the original concept.

 

For the same reason I omitted the original X-29 nose, which is rather pointy, sports vanes and a large sensor boom. The F-16 nose was a plausible choice, as the AN/APG-80 is also carried by late Fighting Falcons, and its shape fits well, too.

 

All around the hull, some small details like radar warning sensors, pitots and air scoops were added. Not really necessary, but such thing add IMHO to the overall impression of such a fictional aircraft beyond the prototype stage.

 

Cockpit and landing gear were taken OOB, I just added a pilot figure and slightly modified the seat.

 

The ordnance was puzzled together from the scrap box, the AIM-9Ls come from the same F-4 kit which donated its outer wings, the AIM-120s come from an Italeri NATO weapons kit. The drop tanks belong to an F-16.

  

Painting and markings:

At first I considered an F-24I in IAF markings, or even a Japanese aircraft, but then reverted to one of nighthunter’s initial, simple ideas: an USAF aircraft in the “Hill II” paint scheme (F-16 style), made up from three shades of gray (FS 36118, 36270 and 36375) with low-viz markings and stencils. Dutch/Turkish NF-5A/Bs in the “Hill II” scheme were used as design benchmarks, too. It’s a simple livery, but on this delta wing aircraft it looks pretty interesting. I used enamels, what I had at hand: Humbrol 127 and 126, and Modelmaster's 1723.

 

A light black ink wash was applied, in order to em,phasize the engraved panel lines, in contrast to that, panels were manually highlighted through dry-brushed, lighter shades of gray (Humbrol 27, 166 and 167).

 

“Hill II” also adds to a generic, realistic touch for this whif. Doing an exotic air force thing is rather easy, but creating a convincing whif for a huge military machinery like the USAF’s takes more subtlety, I think.

 

The cockpit was painted in medium Gray (Dark Gull Grey, FS 36231, Humbrol 140), as well as the radome. The landing gear and the air intakes were painted white. The radome was painted with Revell 47 and dry-brushed with Humbrol 140.

 

Decals were puzzled together from various USAF aircraft, including sheets from an Airfix F-117, an Italeri F-15E and even an Academy OV-10D.

  

Tadah: a hardware tribute to an idea, born from boredom - and the aircraft does not look even bad at all? What I wanted to achieve was to make the F-24 neither look like a F-20, nor a Saab Gripen clone, as the latter comes close in overall shape, size and design.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

Failure of the shipboard fighter requirement issued by the Service Technique Aeronautique in June 1946 (and which had resulted in Aerocentre NC 1080, Arsenal VG 90 and Nord 2200 prototypes being built) led to consideration being given to adoption by the Aeronavale of the Grumman F9F-5 Panther.

 

In January 1951, however, the Ministère de la Marine announced the decision to adopt the de Havilland Sea Venom Mk 20, which was being developed for the Royal Navy as a side-by-side two-seat shipboard all-weather fighter and had yet to enter flight test. The first of these flew on 31 October 1952, and the name Aquilon (North Wind) being adopted. It was powered by aF iat-built de Havilland Ghost, armament comprising four 20mm cannon.

 

Non-availability of the intended Thomson AI radar restricted the Aquilon 201 two-seaters to diurnal operation, the same restriction being imposed on the next 25 aircraft which, delivered as Aquilon 202s, were entirely manufactured in France and differed in having ejection seats, an aft-sliding rather than aft-hinged cockpit canopy and a strengthened undercarriage. A decision was taken to adopt the Westinghouse APQ 65 AI radar, but, without major redesign of the airframe it was found impossible to fit this equipment in the ejection seat-equipped two-seater.

 

Production therefore continued with the Aquilon 203 single-seater, the last 25 of the 40 production examples of this version being equipped with APQ 65 radar as were the six two-seat Aquilon 204 radar trainers (not fitted with ejection seats) that brought production (a total of 121) to an end. The last of these being flown at the beginning of 1958, but already a couple of years before it was already clear that a more potent aircraft had to be found for the new French Clemenceau Class carriers that were to enter service in the 1960ies.

 

Through the fast aircraft technology development in the mid-fifties the bar was raised: the new carrier-borne fighter was to feature swept wings and be capable of supersonic speed. Therefore, SNCASO proposed in 1953 the S.O. 3200, an aircraft that roughly resembled the Dassault Mystere II (the prototype first flew on 28 September 1952) but which was more advanced and was from the start dedicated to carrier operations.

 

The S.O. 3200 featured a 40-degree swept wing (compared to the 30-degree wing of the Mystère II, plus a thinner profile), swept tail surfaces and with its lateral air intakes the aircraft reminded a lot of the Mystère IIIN prototype, but internally the aircraft had nothing in common. The cockpit was moved forward for an improved field of sight, and the outer wing panels could be folded upwards in order to save space. Four 20mm cannons were placed under the air intakes.

 

The S.O. 3200 also introduced a new generation of armament: the new aircraft was able to deploy the first French air-to-air-missile: up to four AA.20 AAMs could be carried on the four underwing hardpoints. Although the AA.20 was from the outset intended to be a fully effective operational weapon, it was generally regarded as an interim missile pending development of the R.53O series.

 

The AA.20 relied on visual guidance and direct steering thorugh the pilot. The missile received its command signals through a coded radio link (the respcetive equipment was isntalles in the S.O. 3200's nose ), governed by a miniature joystick manipulated by the pilot of the launching aircraft. This meant that the target and missile flare had to be visible to the pilot right up to the point (50ft distance) at which the proximity fuze was triggered. Steering was effected by pitch and yaw demands which bias the interruption of vibrating spoilers in the two nozzles from the missile's sustainer. And even though the AA.20 was intended as an air-to-air weapon, its guidance system meant that it could also be used againts ground targets (similar to the contemporary AGM-12 Bullpup).

 

Alternatively the S.O. 3200 could carry a pair of drop tanks (the two inner pylons were ‘wet’), up to four bombs of 1.000 lb (454 kg) caliber, pods with unguided 68mm SNEB missiles (against air and ground targets alike) or rails for unguided missiles of larger calibers.

 

The new naval aircraft was powered by a Hispano-Suiza Verdon 350 jet engine, a license-built version of the Rolls-Royce Tay. It offered, with 3,500 kgp/7,715 lbf, more thrust than the Mystère II’s Atar 101D turbojet (3,000 kgp/6,615 lbf), albeit this was necessary through the higher structural weight of the airframe and the aircraft’s special equipment for naval duties.

 

The type was accepted as S.O. 3201 and the first batch of 12 production machines became just operational as French carriers were in 1956 deployed to the eastern Mediterranean Sea during the Suez Crisis. On 3 November, F4U Corsairs from Arromanches and Lafayette, under escort of AA.20-armed S.O. 3201 fighters, bombed Egyptian airfields around Cairo.

 

Due to the merger of SNCASO and SNCASE into a new, state-owned aircraft manufacturer in the course of 1957 the aircraft was re-christened Sud Aviation ‘Bourrasque’ (meaning ‘gust of wind’ and also ‘burst of anger’). That year, a further 20 machines were ordered and production ran rather slowly, so that the second series was to be delivered until 1958.

 

Sud Aviation hoped for export sales, but they never materialized. Aircraft technology evolved in giant leaps and in 1962 the Dassault Étendard IV, a supersonic carrier-borne strike fighter aircraft, entered service with the French Navy. It was a much more modern design than the Bourrasque, and showed much more potential for future development. The Étendard was powered by a SNECMA Atar 8B axial-flow turbojet turbojet with 43.16 kN (9,703 lbf), and this engine offered a much better performance than the voluminous and technologically outdated centrifugal compressor Verdon. Additionally, the Aéronavale introduced the Vought F-8E(FN) as ship-borne fighter aircraft - both types rendered the Bourrasque totally obsolete after less than 10 years of service.

 

Hence, production was soon halted and in total only 40 aircraft were produced at all (the last eight were constructed from components and spare parts) and, together with the Aquilon, were already phased out by the Aéronavale during 1964-65.

 

But while the Aquilons had reached the end of their airframes’ life the remaining Bourrassques in good shape were sold to Israel where the naval equipment was removed and the aircraft relegated to ground attack and training roles. These aircraft were finally retired from Israeli service, together with IDF’s Mystères, on 18 March 1971.

 

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 12.89 m (42 ft 31⁄2 in)

Wingspan: 11.12 m (36 ft 53⁄4 in)

Height: 4.60 m (15 ft 1 in)

Wing area: 32.06 m² (345.1 ft²)

Empty weight: 5,860 kg (12,919 lb)

Loaded weight: 8,510 kg (18,100 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 9,500 kg (20,944 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1 × Hispano-Suiza Verdon 350 turbojet, rated at 34.32 kN (7,716 lbf)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,110 km/h (600 knots, 690 mph) at sea level

Range: 915 km (494  nmi, 570 mi) without internal fuel tanks,

2.280 km (1.231 nmi, 1.417 mi) with external tanks

Service ceiling: 15,000  m (49,200 ft)

Rate of climb: 40  m/s (7,874  ft/min)

 

Armament:

4× 20 mm Hispano-Suiza HS.404 cannon with 125 RPG

2.000 kg (4.405 lb) of payload on four external hardpoints,

incl. a variety of bombs, unguided rockets or drop tanks, or four AA.20 guided missiles

  

The kit and its assembly:

This whif has two origins. One was the question what a naval Mystère II or IV would have looked like, the other one was a leftover Supermarine Attacker fuselage from a shabby Novo kit, for which I had the vague idea of giving it a modern tricycle landing gear and different, maybe swept wings, creating something like an attack version of the Swift.

 

When I held a Matchbox Mystére IV in my hands I wondered if this kit could not be combined with the Attacker (both fuselages have very similar lines), and so this French naval aircraft was born. There was also the hope/idea to build more than one of these "combos"!

 

Bashing both kits was more complicated than expected, though. The Novo Attacker is basic, to express it mildly. It has no cockpit at all, the wing/fuselage intersections are in the wrong position for the Mystère's swept wings, and the latter's landing gear is also not easily compatible with the Attacker fuselage.

 

I added a very basic cockpit, using the Matchbox ejection seat and cutting the original helmet/pilot blob away, plus a cockpit floor which also acts as front lang gear well. For this, a new opening had to be cut out.

The air intake interiors are also naked, so I built some walls inside from styrene sheet and added small splitter plates that cover the intakes' edges... These walls also hide the lead that fills much of the room behind the cockpit.

 

The wing attachments had to go, leaving rather wide gaps in the flanks once the new wings were fitted. I tried to solve this through glueing the wings into place and then filling up the gaps with 2C putty, sculpting new intersections. Messy. The original attachments for the Attacker's stabilizers had to be erased and covered, too. The fin is a 100% transplant from the Mystère.

 

Once the wings were in place I found them to have slightly too much span: the Mystère is a tad bigger/voluminous than the Attacker, and with the OOB wings the whole thing did not look balanced. What to do...? :-/

 

I decided to combine this porblem's solution with an additional gimmick: foldable wings! Originally I just wanted to scribe the respective seams onto the wings, but cutting the wing tips in order to reduce the span was out of question - so I carefully cut the wings in halves and reduced the inner sections' span by about 6mm each - not much, but this improved the proportions a lot!

 

In order to present the kit with folded and spread wings, I used a trick that comes e. g. with Matchbox' EA-6B kit: different adapters. These were simply scratched from PET foil, in two layers so that they fit neatly into the openings that were left after the cutting. The PET stuff is very tough and rigid, and I made the inserts long enough that the outer panels do not hang through. Worked better than expected!

A final issue was the ordnance. I wanted a fighter payload, so the four pylons were filled with a pair of slender drop tanks (from a Matchbox F3D Skyraider) and a pair of AAMs - choice fell on the contemporary AA.20, which was also by the Aquilon night fighter. These had to be scratched, though, from sprue pieces and fins cut from styrene.

  

Painting and markings:

This is the classic Aéronavale livery in the post WWII years: all-over dark blue (FS 35042), which is pretty boring, but the Suez Crisis was a good excuse to add some more color. In this case, it's a set of black and yellow ID stripes, which was e. g. also carried by French F4U-7 that flew missions during this conflict, as well as on RAF and RN aircraft that took part, too.

 

Creating these stripes was tricky, though. Yellow is a PITA to apply, and I did also not want to go thorugh the hustle of masking and endless corrections. Hence, I created the stripes in a "mixed media" fashion: first, the stripes width and position were measured and roughly marked (taking into account the pylons, wing fence and the wings' folding sections!).

Then the inner two black stripes were laid out with black paint on the wings and fuselage. Next, the kit received its overall blue livery, and finally the stripes were added. These were cut from an opaque sheet from TL Modellbau, in apporopriate width and with excess length, and then applied on top of the paint. A VERY convenient process with only few corrections and cosmetics, and I am more than happy with the effect and finish.

 

The cockpit interior was painted in very dark grey, the landing gear was kept in Alumnim, according to typical French jets of that era.

The inside of the folded wings and their "mechanisms" were painted in flat black - there's no detail to be seen, so I tried to blend the visible parts with the black ID stripes in that wing area.

 

The kit received some panel shading with petrol blue, as well as a very light dry-brushing with Ocean Grey on the wings' leading edges and on the fuselage in order to emphazise the raised rivets and access hatches on the Attacker's parts.

 

The decals come mostly from an Italeri F4U-7 kit, as well as the scrap box and other generic TL Modellbau sheets, e. g. for the red markers on the wings for the walking zones - these were puzzled together from 1mm strips.

 

Finally, the kit received a coat of semi-gloss Tamiya varnish from the rattle can.

  

This one looks IMHO very convincing, and the Bourrasque has a true 50ies look that I wanted to achieve. I actually had the plan to build two of these (the other one would have been an Israeli machine), but the conversion/bashing became so complex that I just stuck to this single kit - but who knows, maybe... there's another Attacker fuselage in the stash! ;D

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Republic P-47 Thunderbolt was one of the largest and heaviest fighter aircraft in history to be powered by a single piston engine. It was heavily armed with eight .50-caliber machine guns, four per wing. When fully loaded, the P-47 weighed up to eight tons, and in the fighter-bomber ground-attack roles could carry five-inch rockets or a significant bomb load of 2,500 pounds; it could carry over half the payload of the B-17 bomber on long-range missions (although the B-17 had a far greater range).

 

The P-47, originally based on the powerful Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp engine, was to be very effective as a short-to-medium range escort fighter in high-altitude air-to-air combat and, when unleashed as a fighter-bomber, proved especially adept at ground attack in both the World War II European and Pacific Theaters.

The P-47 was one of the main United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) fighters of World War II, and served with other Allied air forces, notably those of France, Britain, and Russia. Mexican and Brazilian squadrons fighting alongside the U.S. were equipped with the P-47.

 

In 1943, two P-47D-15-RE airframes (serials 42-23297/23298) were selected for testing with the new experimental 2300 hp Chrysler XIV-2220-1 sixteen-cylinder inverted Vee liquid-cooled engine. These aircraft were re-designated XP-47H. The liquid-cooled Chrysler engine with its large under-fuselage radiator radically changed the appearance of the Thunderbolt, and increased overall length to 39 feet 2 inches. With the increased power and improved streamlining, a maximum speed of 490 mph was anticipated.

 

The two P-47D-15-RE airframes were converted until early 1944 and test flights began on July 26, 1945. During flight trails, one of the XP-47Hs actually attained a speed of 490 mph in level flight, and the new aircraft was primarily intended as a fast interceptor for the European theater, where especially Great Britain was endangered by the fast V1 missiles, and initial reports about German jet fighters and reconnaissance aircraft that were hard to counter with current piston-engine types, stirred the need for this fast aircraft.

 

Production P-47Hs received several amendments that had already been introduced with the late D types, e. g. the lowered back and a bubble canopy that offered excellent view. The P-47H also received the new wing from the P-47N, recognizable by its characteristic square wing tips which allowed better roll manoeuvers. Not visible at first glance were the integral wing tanks, which enhanced the internal fuel load to 4.792,3 liters, resulting in a range of 3.500 km (2.175 ml), so that the P-47H was also suited for long range bomber escorts. Air brakes were added to the wing's lower surfaces, too, to allow braking after a dive onto its prey.

Furthermore, serial production machines received an uprated, more reliable Chrysler XIV-2220-2 engine, which had an output of 2.450 hp.

 

The P-47H was put into limited production with 130 built, sufficient for one group. However, the type suffered serious teething problems in the field due to the highly tuned engine. Engines were unable to reach operating temperatures and power settings and frequently failed in early flights from a variety of causes: ignition harnesses cracked at high altitudes, severing electrical connections between the magneto and distributor, and carburetor valve diaphragms also failed. Poor corrosion protection during shipments across the Atlantic also took their toll on the engines and airframes.

 

By the time the bugs were worked out, the war in Europe was nearly over. However, P-47Hs still destroyed 15 enemy jet aircraft in aerial combat in March-May 1945 when aerial encounters with the Luftwaffe were rare. The type also proved itself to be a valuable V1 missile interceptor over the Channel.

 

The entire production total of 130 P-47Hs were delivered to the 358th Fighter Group, which was part of the 9th Air Force and operated from Great Britain, France and finally on German ground. From the crews the P-47H received several nicknames like 'torpedo', 'Thunderbullet' or 'Anteater', due to its elongated nose section.

 

Twelve P-47H were lost in operational crashes with the 358th Group resulting in 11 deaths, two after VE Day, and two (44-21134 on 13 April 1945 and 44-21230 on 16 April 1945) were shot down in combat, both by ground fire.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 39 ft 2 in (11.96 m)

Wingspan: 40 ft 9 in (12.42 m)

Height: 14 ft 8 in (4.47 m)

Wing area: 300 ft² (27.87 m²)

Empty weight: 10,000 lb (4,535 kg)

Loaded weight: 13,300 lb (6,032 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 17,500 lb (7,938 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Chrysler XIV-2220-2 sixteen-cylinder inverted Vee liquid-cooled engine, rated at 2.450 hp.

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 503 mph at 30,000 ft (810 km/h at 9,145 m)

Range: 920 mi combat, 2.175 ml ferry (1.480 km / 3.500 km)

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

Rate of climb: 3,120 ft/min (15.9 m/s)

Wing loading: 44.33 lb/ft² ()

Power/mass: 0.19 hp/lb (238 W/kg)

 

Armament:

8× .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns (3.400 rounds)

Up to 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) of bombs, drop tanks and/or 10× 5 in (127 mm) unguided rockets

  

The kit and its assembly:

I had the (X)P-47H on the agenda for some time, and even the respective MPM kit stashed away. But it took some time to start this project - one reason actually being the, well, crudeness of the MPM offering. Anyway, I wanted to build a service aircraft, and I wondered how this would have looked like, way beyond 1944? That brought me towards the late bubble canopy versions of the P-47D - and suddenly the idea was born to convert the XP-47H into a respective service aircraft which would not only carry the Chrysler XIV-2220-1 V16 engine, but also other improvements of the type. This eventually led to the decision to make this build a kitbash, as a spine implantation would be the easiest way to incorporate the lowered back - or so I thought...

 

I chose the ancient Heller P-47(N) as donation kit. Not because it was “good”, it just had the right ingredients and was cheap and easy to procure. What sounded like a simple plan turned into a twisted route to vague success. I took the front fuselage and the lower belly from the MPM kit, as well as the horizontal stabilizers and mated it with the upper and rear fuselage of the Heller Thunderbolt. This could have been easy, if both kits would not have had different fuselage diameters - the Heller kit is about 1mm too narrow, even though the length is fine. In order to compensate, I built two new fuselage halves from the salvaged pieces, and once these were stable and more or less sanded even, put together. Inside, the cockpit was taken from the Heller kit, but the seat comes from the MPM kit, and a pilot figure was added. Another problem is the fact that the MPM kit features engraved panel lines, while the Heller kit has old school, raised details and lots of rivets.

The propeller from the MPM kit is a joke, so I built a replacement from scratch - from a drop tank front half from an ancient Revell F4U, and the individual propeller blades were taken from an Italeri F4U. Inside the fuselage, a styrene tube was implanted which holds the new propeller on a metal axis, so it can spin freely.

 

Other personal mods include lowered flaps and the large cooler intake was opened, with foamed styrene placed inside which mimics some mesh. The same method was also used inside of the intercooler outlets (primarily in order to block any light from shining through). Inside of the landing gear wells I added some structure made from styrene profiles.

 

Another bigger challenge was the wing attachment - Heller and MPM kit differ considerably in this aspect, so that swapping parts is not easy. The MPM kit has the wing roots molded onto the fuselage halves, while the Heller wings are, more or less, directly attached to the fuselage. As a consequence the Heller wings hold the complete landing gear wells, while the MPM solution has divided sections. I decided to get rid of the MPM wing roots, about 3mm of material, and onto these stubs the Heller wings were attached. The landing gear came from the Heller kit, but the main wheels come from a (new) Revell Me 262 - both MPM and Heller parts are not recommended for serious use... Finally, the many exhausts and cooler flaps were either sanded away and replaced by scratched parts, or added - e. g. the vents behind the cockpit. While the Heller kit features bomb and missile hardpoints under the wings I decided to leave them away - this is supposed to be a fast interceptor, not a train-hunting plough.

  

Painting and markings:

As this was to be a very late WWII aircraft, NMF was certain, and I wanted to place the service P-47H into the European conflict theatre, where its speed would IMHO be best used against German jet threats. I wanted a colorful aircraft, though, and settled for a machine of the 358th FG. This group actually flew Thunderbolts in the 365-367th Squadrons, and I found several profiles of these gaudy things.

Common to all of them was an orange tail and a dark blue back, while the engine cowling would be decorated with a red front and the air outlets would carry bands in red, white and blue, with lots of tiny stars sprinkled upon. Furthermore, I found specimen with white cowlings behind the red front end, or even yellow cowlings. Pretty cool.

 

I tried to mimic this look. The model was basically painted with Aluminum Metallizer (Humbrol 27002) overall. The effect is really good, even without rubbing treatment. Some panels were contrasted with Aluminium Plate and Polished Steel Metallizer (Modelmaster), as well as with Aluminum (Humbrol 56, which is rather a metallic grey). The latter was also used on the landing gear. The anti-glare panel in front of the cockpit was painted with Olive Drab (ANA 613 from Modelmaster).

 

Since there is no air intake opening on the inline engine I decided to paint the spinner in bright red (Humbrol 19), and tried to incorporate the white and blue theme with stars decoration to the rest of the nose. As a convenient coincidence, I found decals from an Italeri B-66 in the stash: it features a version with dark blue jet air intake decorations in the right size, colors and style for what I had been looking for. So, instead of painting everything by hand I decided to incorporate this decal option.

The area behind the spinner was painted white and then the B-66 decals applied to the front flanks. The radiator air intake scoop had to be cut out, but the overall size and shape were a very good match. Even the transition into the blue spine and cockpit area worked well!

The tail was painted with Humbrol 18, later some shading with Humbrol 82 was added. The blue spine was done with a mix of Humbrol 104 and 15 (Oxford Blue and Midnight Blue) - not a perfect match for the B-66 decal colors, but after some dirt and weathering these differences would blur.

 

Cockpit interior was painted in Humbrol 159 (Khaki Drab) and Zinc Chromate Green from Model Master. The landing gear wells received a chrome yellow primer (Humbrol 225 - actually RAF Mid Stone but a perfect match for the task) finish.

 

For weathering the kit received a rubbing treatment with grinded graphite, which adds a dark, metallic shine and emphasizes the kit’s raised panel lines. Some dry painting with Aluminum was added, too, simulating chipped paint on the leading edges. I also added some oil stains around the engine, and serious soot stains at the exhaust.

 

Decals were, beyond the B-66 decoration, puzzled together. The aircraft' code 'CH-F[bar]' is another exotic twist, in two ways. The bar under the letter marks a second use of that code within the squadron, and as a difference from normal code placement (normally exclusively on the fuselage) I placed the aircraft's individual code letter on the fin, a practice on some P-51s and a consequence of the relatively large letter decals.

 

The nose art is a fictional puzzle, consisting of a Czech MiG-21 pin-up from the Pardubice '89 meeting. The “Ohio Express” tag comes from a Tamiya 1:100 F-105 Thunderchief. A neat combination that even matches the overall colors well!

 

As a final step, a coat of semi matt acrylic varnish was applied, with the exception of the anti glare panel, which became purely matt.

  

A better XP-47H? Hard to tell, since this kitbashing was a messy and rather crude work, so the overall finish does not look as good as I hoped for. But the lowered spine and the fin root extension adds to a fast look of this thing, more elegant (if that's possible in this case?) than the Razorback prototypes. I can't help, but the finished article looks like an Evel Knievel stunt vehicle? The red spinner looks a bit odd, but I'll leave it this way.

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Republic P-47 Thunderbolt was one of the largest and heaviest fighter aircraft in history to be powered by a single piston engine. It was heavily armed with eight .50-caliber machine guns, four per wing. When fully loaded, the P-47 weighed up to eight tons, and in the fighter-bomber ground-attack roles could carry five-inch rockets or a significant bomb load of 2,500 pounds; it could carry over half the payload of the B-17 bomber on long-range missions (although the B-17 had a far greater range).

 

The P-47, originally based on the powerful Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp engine, was to be very effective as a short-to-medium range escort fighter in high-altitude air-to-air combat and, when unleashed as a fighter-bomber, proved especially adept at ground attack in both the World War II European and Pacific Theaters.

The P-47 was one of the main United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) fighters of World War II, and served with other Allied air forces, notably those of France, Britain, and Russia. Mexican and Brazilian squadrons fighting alongside the U.S. were equipped with the P-47.

 

In 1943, two P-47D-15-RE airframes (serials 42-23297/23298) were selected for testing with the new experimental 2300 hp Chrysler XIV-2220-1 sixteen-cylinder inverted Vee liquid-cooled engine. These aircraft were re-designated XP-47H. The liquid-cooled Chrysler engine with its large under-fuselage radiator radically changed the appearance of the Thunderbolt, and increased overall length to 39 feet 2 inches. With the increased power and improved streamlining, a maximum speed of 490 mph was anticipated.

 

The two P-47D-15-RE airframes were converted until early 1944 and test flights began on July 26, 1945. During flight trails, one of the XP-47Hs actually attained a speed of 490 mph in level flight, and the new aircraft was primarily intended as a fast interceptor for the European theater, where especially Great Britain was endangered by the fast V1 missiles, and initial reports about German jet fighters and reconnaissance aircraft that were hard to counter with current piston-engine types, stirred the need for this fast aircraft.

 

Production P-47Hs received several amendments that had already been introduced with the late D types, e. g. the lowered back and a bubble canopy that offered excellent view. The P-47H also received the new wing from the P-47N, recognizable by its characteristic square wing tips which allowed better roll manoeuvers. Not visible at first glance were the integral wing tanks, which enhanced the internal fuel load to 4.792,3 liters, resulting in a range of 3.500 km (2.175 ml), so that the P-47H was also suited for long range bomber escorts. Air brakes were added to the wing's lower surfaces, too, to allow braking after a dive onto its prey.

Furthermore, serial production machines received an uprated, more reliable Chrysler XIV-2220-2 engine, which had an output of 2.450 hp.

 

The P-47H was put into limited production with 130 built, sufficient for one group. However, the type suffered serious teething problems in the field due to the highly tuned engine. Engines were unable to reach operating temperatures and power settings and frequently failed in early flights from a variety of causes: ignition harnesses cracked at high altitudes, severing electrical connections between the magneto and distributor, and carburetor valve diaphragms also failed. Poor corrosion protection during shipments across the Atlantic also took their toll on the engines and airframes.

 

By the time the bugs were worked out, the war in Europe was nearly over. However, P-47Hs still destroyed 15 enemy jet aircraft in aerial combat in March-May 1945 when aerial encounters with the Luftwaffe were rare. The type also proved itself to be a valuable V1 missile interceptor over the Channel.

 

The entire production total of 130 P-47Hs were delivered to the 358th Fighter Group, which was part of the 9th Air Force and operated from Great Britain, France and finally on German ground. From the crews the P-47H received several nicknames like 'torpedo', 'Thunderbullet' or 'Anteater', due to its elongated nose section.

 

Twelve P-47H were lost in operational crashes with the 358th Group resulting in 11 deaths, two after VE Day, and two (44-21134 on 13 April 1945 and 44-21230 on 16 April 1945) were shot down in combat, both by ground fire.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 39 ft 2 in (11.96 m)

Wingspan: 40 ft 9 in (12.42 m)

Height: 14 ft 8 in (4.47 m)

Wing area: 300 ft² (27.87 m²)

Empty weight: 10,000 lb (4,535 kg)

Loaded weight: 13,300 lb (6,032 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 17,500 lb (7,938 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Chrysler XIV-2220-2 sixteen-cylinder inverted Vee liquid-cooled engine, rated at 2.450 hp.

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 503 mph at 30,000 ft (810 km/h at 9,145 m)

Range: 920 mi combat, 2.175 ml ferry (1.480 km / 3.500 km)

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

Rate of climb: 3,120 ft/min (15.9 m/s)

Wing loading: 44.33 lb/ft² ()

Power/mass: 0.19 hp/lb (238 W/kg)

 

Armament:

8× .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns (3.400 rounds)

Up to 2,500 lb (1,134 kg) of bombs, drop tanks and/or 10× 5 in (127 mm) unguided rockets

  

The kit and its assembly:

I had the (X)P-47H on the agenda for some time, and even the respective MPM kit stashed away. But it took some time to start this project - one reason actually being the, well, crudeness of the MPM offering. Anyway, I wanted to build a service aircraft, and I wondered how this would have looked like, way beyond 1944? That brought me towards the late bubble canopy versions of the P-47D - and suddenly the idea was born to convert the XP-47H into a respective service aircraft which would not only carry the Chrysler XIV-2220-1 V16 engine, but also other improvements of the type. This eventually led to the decision to make this build a kitbash, as a spine implantation would be the easiest way to incorporate the lowered back - or so I thought...

 

I chose the ancient Heller P-47(N) as donation kit. Not because it was “good”, it just had the right ingredients and was cheap and easy to procure. What sounded like a simple plan turned into a twisted route to vague success. I took the front fuselage and the lower belly from the MPM kit, as well as the horizontal stabilizers and mated it with the upper and rear fuselage of the Heller Thunderbolt. This could have been easy, if both kits would not have had different fuselage diameters - the Heller kit is about 1mm too narrow, even though the length is fine. In order to compensate, I built two new fuselage halves from the salvaged pieces, and once these were stable and more or less sanded even, put together. Inside, the cockpit was taken from the Heller kit, but the seat comes from the MPM kit, and a pilot figure was added. Another problem is the fact that the MPM kit features engraved panel lines, while the Heller kit has old school, raised details and lots of rivets.

The propeller from the MPM kit is a joke, so I built a replacement from scratch - from a drop tank front half from an ancient Revell F4U, and the individual propeller blades were taken from an Italeri F4U. Inside the fuselage, a styrene tube was implanted which holds the new propeller on a metal axis, so it can spin freely.

 

Other personal mods include lowered flaps and the large cooler intake was opened, with foamed styrene placed inside which mimics some mesh. The same method was also used inside of the intercooler outlets (primarily in order to block any light from shining through). Inside of the landing gear wells I added some structure made from styrene profiles.

 

Another bigger challenge was the wing attachment - Heller and MPM kit differ considerably in this aspect, so that swapping parts is not easy. The MPM kit has the wing roots molded onto the fuselage halves, while the Heller wings are, more or less, directly attached to the fuselage. As a consequence the Heller wings hold the complete landing gear wells, while the MPM solution has divided sections. I decided to get rid of the MPM wing roots, about 3mm of material, and onto these stubs the Heller wings were attached. The landing gear came from the Heller kit, but the main wheels come from a (new) Revell Me 262 - both MPM and Heller parts are not recommended for serious use... Finally, the many exhausts and cooler flaps were either sanded away and replaced by scratched parts, or added - e. g. the vents behind the cockpit. While the Heller kit features bomb and missile hardpoints under the wings I decided to leave them away - this is supposed to be a fast interceptor, not a train-hunting plough.

  

Painting and markings:

As this was to be a very late WWII aircraft, NMF was certain, and I wanted to place the service P-47H into the European conflict theatre, where its speed would IMHO be best used against German jet threats. I wanted a colorful aircraft, though, and settled for a machine of the 358th FG. This group actually flew Thunderbolts in the 365-367th Squadrons, and I found several profiles of these gaudy things.

Common to all of them was an orange tail and a dark blue back, while the engine cowling would be decorated with a red front and the air outlets would carry bands in red, white and blue, with lots of tiny stars sprinkled upon. Furthermore, I found specimen with white cowlings behind the red front end, or even yellow cowlings. Pretty cool.

 

I tried to mimic this look. The model was basically painted with Aluminum Metallizer (Humbrol 27002) overall. The effect is really good, even without rubbing treatment. Some panels were contrasted with Aluminium Plate and Polished Steel Metallizer (Modelmaster), as well as with Aluminum (Humbrol 56, which is rather a metallic grey). The latter was also used on the landing gear. The anti-glare panel in front of the cockpit was painted with Olive Drab (ANA 613 from Modelmaster).

 

Since there is no air intake opening on the inline engine I decided to paint the spinner in bright red (Humbrol 19), and tried to incorporate the white and blue theme with stars decoration to the rest of the nose. As a convenient coincidence, I found decals from an Italeri B-66 in the stash: it features a version with dark blue jet air intake decorations in the right size, colors and style for what I had been looking for. So, instead of painting everything by hand I decided to incorporate this decal option.

The area behind the spinner was painted white and then the B-66 decals applied to the front flanks. The radiator air intake scoop had to be cut out, but the overall size and shape were a very good match. Even the transition into the blue spine and cockpit area worked well!

The tail was painted with Humbrol 18, later some shading with Humbrol 82 was added. The blue spine was done with a mix of Humbrol 104 and 15 (Oxford Blue and Midnight Blue) - not a perfect match for the B-66 decal colors, but after some dirt and weathering these differences would blur.

 

Cockpit interior was painted in Humbrol 159 (Khaki Drab) and Zinc Chromate Green from Model Master. The landing gear wells received a chrome yellow primer (Humbrol 225 - actually RAF Mid Stone but a perfect match for the task) finish.

 

For weathering the kit received a rubbing treatment with grinded graphite, which adds a dark, metallic shine and emphasizes the kit’s raised panel lines. Some dry painting with Aluminum was added, too, simulating chipped paint on the leading edges. I also added some oil stains around the engine, and serious soot stains at the exhaust.

 

Decals were, beyond the B-66 decoration, puzzled together. The aircraft' code 'CH-F[bar]' is another exotic twist, in two ways. The bar under the letter marks a second use of that code within the squadron, and as a difference from normal code placement (normally exclusively on the fuselage) I placed the aircraft's individual code letter on the fin, a practice on some P-51s and a consequence of the relatively large letter decals.

 

The nose art is a fictional puzzle, consisting of a Czech MiG-21 pin-up from the Pardubice '89 meeting. The “Ohio Express” tag comes from a Tamiya 1:100 F-105 Thunderchief. A neat combination that even matches the overall colors well!

 

As a final step, a coat of semi matt acrylic varnish was applied, with the exception of the anti glare panel, which became purely matt.

  

A better XP-47H? Hard to tell, since this kitbashing was a messy and rather crude work, so the overall finish does not look as good as I hoped for. But the lowered spine and the fin root extension adds to a fast look of this thing, more elegant (if that's possible in this case?) than the Razorback prototypes. I can't help, but the finished article looks like an Evel Knievel stunt vehicle? The red spinner looks a bit odd, but I'll leave it this way.

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Sondergerät SG104 "Münchhausen" was a German airborne recoillless 355.6 mm (14-inch) caliber gun, intended to engage even the roughest enemy battleships, primarily those of the Royal Navy. The design of this unusual and massive weapon began in 1939. The rationale behind it was that a battleship’s most vulnerable part was the deck – a flat surface, with relatively thin armor (as typical hits were expected on the flanks) and ideally with vital targets underneath, so that a single, good hit would cripple of even destroy a ship. The purpose of such a high angle of attack was likely to allow the projectile to penetrate the target ship's deck, where the ship's armor, if there was any, would have been much thinner than the armor on its sidesHowever, hitting the deck properly with another ship’s main gun was not easy, since it could only be affected through indirect hits and the typical angle of the attack from aballistic shot would not necessarily be ideal for deep penetration, esp. at long range.

The solution to this problem: ensure that the heavy projectile would hit its target directly from above, ideally at a very steep angle. To achieve this, the gun with battleship caliber was “relocated” from a carrier ship or a coastal battery onto an aircraft – specifically to a type that was capable of dive-bombing, a feature that almost any German bomber model of the time offered.

 

Firing such a heavy weapon caused a lot fo problems, which were severe even if the gun was mounted on a ship or on land. To compensate for such a large-caliber gun’s recoil and to make firing a 14 in shell (which alone weighed around almost 700 kg/1.550 lb, plus the charge) from a relatively light airframe feasible, the respective gun had to be as light as possible and avoid any recoil, which would easily tear an aircraft – even a bomber – apart upon firing. Therefore, the Gerät 104 was designed as a recoilless cannon. Its firing system involved venting the same amount of the weapon's propellant gas for its round to the rear of the launch tube (which was open at both ends), in the same fashion as a rocket launcher. This created a forward directed momentum which was nearly equal to the rearward momentum (recoil) imparted to the system by accelerating the projectile itself. The balance thus created did not leave much net momentum to be imparted to the weapon's mounting or the carrying airframe in the form of felt recoil. A further share of the recoil induced by the moving round itself could be compensated by a muzzle brake which re-directed a part of the firing gases backwards. Since recoil had been mostly negated, a heavy and complex recoil damping mechanism was not necessary – even though the weapon itself was huge and heavy.

 

Work on the "Münchhausen" device (a secret project handle after a fictional German nobleman created by the German writer Rudolf Erich Raspe in the late 18th century who reputedly had ridden on a cannonball between enemy frontlines), was done by Rheinmetall-Borsig and lasted until 1941. The first test of a prototype weapon was conducted on 9th of September 1940 in Unterlüss with a satisfactory result, even though the weapon was only mounted onto an open rack and not integrated into an airframe yet. At that time, potential carriers were the Ju 88, the Dornier Do 217 and the new Junkers Ju 288. Even though the system’s efficacy was doubted, the prospect of delivering a single, fatal blow to an important , armored arget superseded any doubts at the RLM, and the project was greenlit in early 1942 for the next stage: the integration of the Sondergerät 104 into an existing airframe. The Ju 88 and its successor, the Ju 188, turned out to be too light and lacked carrying capacity for the complete, loaded weapon, and the favored Ju 288 was never produced, so that only the Dornier Do 217 or the bigger He 177 remained as a suitable carriers. The Do 217 was eventually chosen because it had the biggest payload and the airframe was proven and readily available.

 

After calculations had verified that the designed 14 in rifle would have effectively no recoil, preliminary tests with dumm airframes were carried out. After ground trials with a Do 217 E day bomber to check recoil and blast effects on the airframe, the development and production of a limited Nullserie (pre-production series) of the dedicated Do 217 F variant for field tests and eventual operational use against British sea and land targets was ordered in April 1942.

 

The resulting Do 217 F-0 was based on the late “E” bomber variant and powered by a pair of BMW 801 radial engines. It was, however, heavily modified for its unique weapon and the highly specialized mission profile: upon arriving at the zone of operation at high altitude, the aircraft would initiate a dive with an angle of attack between 50° and 80° from the horizontal, firing the SG 104 at an altitude between 6,000 and 2,000 meters. The flight time of the projectile could range from 16.0 seconds for a shot from an altitude of 6,000 meters at a 50° angle to just 4.4 seconds for a shot from 2.000 meters at an almost vertical 80° angle. Muzzle velocity of the SG 104 was only 300 m/s, but, prior to impact, the effective velocity of the projectile was projected to range between 449 and 468 m/s (1,616 to 1,674 km/h). Together with the round's weight of roughly 700 kg (1.550 lb) and a hardened tip, this would still ensure a high penetration potential.

 

The operational Sondergerät 104 had an empty mass of 2.780 kg (6,123 lb) and its complete 14 inch double cartridge weighed around 1.600 kg (3,525 lb). The loaded mass of the weapon was 4,237 kg, stretching the limits of the Do 217’s load capacity to the maximum, so that some armor and less vital pieces of equipment were deleted. Crew and defensive armament were reduced to a minimum.

Even though there had been plans to integrate the wepaon into the airframe (on the Ju 288), the Gerät 104 was on the Do 217 F-0 mounted externally and occupied the whole space under the aircraft, precluding any use of the bomb bay. The latter was occupied by the Gerät 104’s complex mount, which extended to the outside under a streamlined fairing and held the weapon at a distance from the airframe. Between the mount’s struts inside of the fuselage, an additional fuel tank for balance reasons was added, too.

The gun’s center, where the heavy round was carried, was positioned under the aircraft’s center of gravity, so that the gun barrel markedly protruded from under the aircraft’s nose. To make enough space, the Do 217 Es bomb aimer’s ventral gondola and his rearward-facing defensive position under the cockpit were omitted and faired over. The nose section was also totally different: the original extensive glazing (the so-called “Kampfkopf”) was replaced by a smaller, conventional canopy, similar to the later Do 217 J and N night fighter versions, together with a solid nose - the original glass panels would have easily shattered upon firing the gun, esp. in a steep high-speed dive. A "Lotfernrohr" bomb aiming device was still installed in a streamlined and protected fairing, though, so that the navigator could guide the pilot during the approach to the target and during the attack run.

To stabilize the heavy aircraft during its attack and to time- and safely pull out of the dive, a massive mechanical dive brake was mounted at the extended tail tip, which unfolded with four "petals". A charecteristic stabilizing dorsal strake was added between the twin fins, too.

 

The ventral area behind the gun’s rear-facing muzzle received additional metal plating and blast guiding vanes, after trials in late 1940 had revealed that firing the SG 104 could easily damage the Do 217’s tail structure, esp. all of the tail surfaces’ rudders and the fins’ lower ends in particular. Due to all this extra weight, the Do 217 F-0’s defensive armament consisted only of a single 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in a manually operated dorsal position behind the cockpit cabin, which offered space for a crew of three. A fixed 15 mm MG 151 autocannon was mounted in the nose, too, a weapon with a long barrel for extended range and accuracy. It was not an offensive weapon, though, rather intended as an aiming aid for the SG 104 because it was loaded with tracer bullets: during the final phase of the attack dive, the pilot kept firing the MG 151, and the bullet trail showed if he was on target to fire the SG 104 when the right altitude/range had been reached.

 

The first Do 217 F-0 was flown and tested in late 1943, and after some detail changes the type was cleared for a limited production run of ten aircraft in January 1944. The first operational machine was delivered to a dedicated testing commando, the Erprobungskommando 104 “Münchhausen”, also known as “Sonderkommando Münchhausen” or simply “E-Staffel 104”. The unit was based at Bordeaux/Merignac and directly attached to the KG 40's as a staff flight. At that time, KG 40 operated Do 217 and He 177 bombers and frequently flew reconnaissance and anti-shipping missions over the Atlantic west of France, up to the British west and southern coast, equipped with experimental Henschel Hs 293 glide bombs.

 

Initial flights confirmed that the Do 217 airframe was burdened with the SG 104 to its limits, the already rather sluggish aircraft (the Do 217 had generally a high wing loading and was not easy to fly) lost anything that was left of what could be called agility. It needed an experienced pilot to handle it safely, esp. during start and landing. It is no wonder that two Do 217 F-0s suffered ground accidents during the first two weeks of operations, but the machines could be repaired, resume the test program and carry out attack missions.

However, during one of the first test shots with the weapon, one Do 217 F-0 lost its complete tail section though the gun blast, and the aircraft crashed into the Bay of Biscay, killing the complete crew.

 

On 4th or April 1944 the first "hot" attack against an enemy ship was executed in the Celtic Sea off of Brest, against a convoy of 20 ships homeward bound from Gibraltar. The attack was not successful, though, the shot missing its target, and the German bomber was attacked and heavily damaged by British Bristol Beaufighters that had been deployed to protect the ships. The Do 217F-0 eventually crashed and sank into the Atlantic before it could reach land again.

 

A couple of days later, on 10th of April, the first attempt to attack and destroy a land target was undertaken: two Do 217 F-0s took off to attack Bouldnor Battery, an armored British artillery position located on the Isle of Wight. One machine had to abort the attack due to oil leakages, the second Do 217 F-0 eventually reached its target and made a shallow attack run, but heavy fog obscured the location and the otherwise successful shot missed the fortification. Upon return to its home base the aircraft was intercepted by RAF fighters over the Channel and heavily damaged, even though German fighters deployed from France came to the rescue, fought the British attackers off and escorted the limping Do 217 F-0 back to its home base.

 

These events revealed that the overall SG 104 concept was generally feasible, but also showed that the Do 217 F-0 was very vulnerable without air superiority or a suitable escort, so that new tactics had to be developed. One consequence was that further Do 217 F-0 deployments were now supported by V/KG 40, the Luftwaffe's only long range maritime fighter unit. These escorts consisted of Junkers Ju 88C-6s, which were capable of keeping up with the Do 217 F-0 and fend of intercepting RAF Coastal Command’s Beaufighters and later also Mosquitos.

 

In the meantime, tests with the SG 104 progressed and several modifications were tested on different EKdo 104's Do 217 F-0s. One major upgrade was a further strengthening of the tail section, which added another 200 kg (440 lb) to the aircraft's dry weight. Furthermore, at least three aircraft were outfitted with additional dive brakes under the outer wings, so that the dive could be better controlled and intercepted. these aircraft, however, lost their plumbed underwing hardpoints, but these were only ever used for drop tanks during transfer flights - a loaded SG 104 precluded any other ordnance. On two other aircraft the SG 104 was modified to test different muzzle brakes and deflectors for the rear-facing opening, so that the gun blast was more effectively guided away from the airframe to prevent instability and structural damage. For instance, one machine was equipped with a bifurcated blast deflector that directed the rearward gasses partly sideways, away from the fuselage.

 

These tests did not last long, though. During the Allied Normandy landings in June 1944 E-Staffel 104 was hastily thrown into action and made several poorly-prepared attack runs against Allied support ships. The biggest success was a full hit and the resulting sinking of the Norwegian destroyer HNoMS Svenner (G03) by "1A+BA" at dawn on 6th of June, off Sword, one of the Allied landing zones. Other targets were engaged, too, but only with little effect. This involvement, however, led to the loss of three Do 217 F-0s within just two days and four more heavily damaged aircraft – leaving only two of EKdo 104's Do 217 F-0s operational.

 

With the Allied invasion of France and a worsening war condition, the SG 104 program was stopped in August 1944 and the idea of an airborne anti-ship gun axed in favor of more flexible guided weapons like the Hs 293 missile and the Fritz-X glide bomb. Plans for a further developed weapon with a three-round drum magazine were immediately stopped, also because there was no carrier aircraft in sight that could carry and deploy this complex 6.5 tons weapon. However, work on the SG 104 and the experience gained from EKdo 104's field tests were not in vain. The knowledge gathered from the Münchhausen program was directly used for the design of a wide range of other, smaller recoilless aircraft weapons, including the magnetically-triggered SG 113 "Förstersonde" anti-tank weapon or the lightweight SG 118 "Rohrblock" unguided air-to-air missile battery for the Heinkel He 162 "Volksjäger".

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 3 (pilot, navigator, radio operator/gunner)

Length: 20,73 m (67 ft 11 in) overall

18,93 m (62 ft 3/4 in) hull only

Wingspan: 19 m (62 ft 4 in)

Height: 4.97 m (16 ft 4 in)

Wing area: 57 m² (610 sq ft)

Empty weight: 9,065 kg (19,985 lb)

Empty equipped weight:10,950 kg (24,140 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 16,700 kg (36,817 lb)

Fuel capacity: 2,960 l (780 US gal; 650 imp gal) in fuselage tank and four wing tanks

 

Powerplant:

2× BMW 801D-2 14-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engines, delivering

1,300 kW (1,700 hp) each for take-off and 1,070 kW (1,440 hp) at 5,700 m (18,700 ft),

driving 3-bladed VDM constant-speed propellers

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 475 km/h (295 mph, 256 kn) at sea level

560 km/h (350 mph; 300 kn) at 5,700 m (18,700 ft)

Cruise speed: 400 km/h (250 mph, 220 kn) with loaded Gerät 104 at optimum altitude

Range: 2,180 km (1,350 mi, 1,180 nmi) with maximum internal fuel

Ferry range: 2,500 km (1,600 mi, 1,300 nmi); unarmed, with auxiliary fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 7,370 m (24,180 ft) with loaded Gerät 104,

9,500 m (31,200 ft) after firing

Rate of climb: 3.5 m/s (690 ft/min)

Time to altitude: 1,000 m (3,300 ft) in 4 minutes 10 seconds

2,000 m (6,600 ft) in 8 minutes 20 seconds

6,100 m (20,000 ft) in 24 minutes 40 seconds

 

Armament:

1x 355.6 mm (14-inch) Sondergerät 104 recoilless gun with a single round in ventral position

1x 15 mm (0.787 in) MG 151 machine cannon with 200 rounds, fixed in the nose

1x 13 mm (0.512 in) MG 131 machine gun with 500 rounds, movable in dorsal position

Two underwing hardpoints for a 900 l drop tank each, but only used during unarmed ferry flights

  

The kit and its assembly:

This was another submission to the "Gunships" group build at whatifmodellers.com in late 2021, and inspiration struck when I realized that I had two Italeri Do 217 in The Stash - a bomber and a night fighter - that could be combined into a suitable (fictional) carrier for a Sondergerät 104. This mighty weapon actually existed and even reached the hardware/test stage - but it was never integrated into an airframe and tested in flight. But that's what this model is supposed to depict.

 

On the Do 217, the Sg 104 would have been carried externally under the fuselage, even though there had been plans to integrate this recoilless rifle into airframes, esp. into the Ju 288. Since the latter never made it into production, the Do 217 would have been the most logical alternative, also because it had the highest payload of all German bombers during WWII and probably the only aircraft capable of carrying and deploying the Münchhausen device, as the SG 104 was also known.

 

The fictional Do 217 F-0 is a kitbashing, using a Do 217 N fuselage, combined with the wings from a Do 217 K bomber, plus some modifications. What initially sounded like a simple plan soon turned into a improvisation mess: it took some time to realize that I had already donated the Do 217 K's BMW 801 engines to another project, an upgraded He 115... I did not want to use the nightfighter's more powerful DB 603s, and I was lucky to have an Italeri Ju 188 kit at hand which comes with optional BMW 801s and Jumo 211s. Transplanting these engines onto the Do 217's wings took some tailoring of the adapter plates, but was feasible. However, the BMW 801s from the Ju 188 kit have a flaw: they lack the engine's characteristic cooling fans... Another lucky find: I found two such parts in the scrap box, even though from different kits - one left over from another Italeri Do 217 K, the other one from what I assume is/was an Italeri 1:72 Fw 190 A/F. To make matters worse, one propeller from the Ju 188 kit was missing, so that I had to find a(nother) replacement. :-/

I eventually used something that looked like an 1:72 F6F Hellcat propeller, but I an not certain about this because I have never built this model...? With some trimming on the blades' trailing edges and other mods, the donor's overall look could be adapted to the Ju 188 benchmark. Both propellers were mounted on metal axis' so that they could also carry the cooling fans. Lots of work, but the result looks quite good.

 

The Do 217 N's hull lost the lower rear gunner position and its ventral gondola, which was faired over with a piece of styrene sheet. The pilot was taken OOB, the gunner in the rear position was replaced by a more blob-like crew member from the scrap box. The plan to add a navigator in the seat to the lower right of the pilot did not work out due to space shortage, but this figure would probably have been invisble, anyway.

All gun openings in the nose were filled and PSRed away, and a fairing for a bomb aiming device and a single gun (the barrel is a hollow steel needle) were added.

 

The SG 104 was scratched. Starting point was a white metal replacement barrel for an 1:35 ISU-152 SPG with a brass muzzle brake. However, after dry-fitting the barrel under the hull the barrel turned out to be much too wide, so that only the muzzal brake survived and the rest of the weapon was created from a buddy refueling pod (from an Italeri 1:72 Luftwaffe Tornado, because of its two conical ends) and protective plastic caps from medical canulas. To attach this creation to the hull I abused a conformal belly tank from a Matchbox Gloster Meteor night fighter and tailored it into a streamlined fairing. While this quite a Frankenstein creation, the overall dimensions match the real SG 104 prototype and its look well.

 

Other cosmetic modifications include a pair of underwing dive brakes, translanted from an Italeri 1:72 Ju 88 A-4 kit, an extended (scratched) tail "stinger" which resembles the real dive brake arrangement that was installed on some Do 217 E bombers, and I added blast deflector vanes and a dorsal stabilizer fin.

In order to provide the aircraft with enough ground clearance, the tail wheel was slightly extended. Thanks to the long tail stinger, this is not blatantly obvious.

  

Painting and markings:

This was not an easy choice, but as a kind of prototype I decided that the paint scheme should be rather conservative. However, German aircraft operating over the Atlantic tended to carry rather pale schemes, so that the standard pattern of RLM 70/71/65 (Dunkelgrün, Schwarzgrün and Hellblau) with a low waterline - typical for experimental types - would hardly be appropriate.

I eventually found a compromise on a He 177 bomber (coded 6N+BN) from 1944 that was operated by KG 100: this particular aircraft had a lightened upper camouflage - still a standard splinter scheme but consisting of RLM 71 and 02 (Dunkelgrün and Grau; I used Modelmaster 2081 and Humbrol 240), a combination that had been used on German fighters during the Battle of Britain when the standard colors turned out to be too dark for operations over the Channel. The aircraft also carried standard RLM 65 (or maybe the new RLM76) underneath (Humbrol 65) and on the fin, but with a very high and slightly wavy waterline. As a rather unusual feature, no typical camouflage mottles were carried on the flanks or the fin, giving the aircraft a very bleak and simple look.

 

Despite my fears that this might look rather boring I adapted this scheme for the Do 217 F-0, and once basic painting was completed I was rather pleased by the aircraft's look! As an aircraft operated at the Western front, no additional markings like fuselage bands were carried.

To set the SG 104 apart from the airframe, I painted the weapon's visible parts in RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau, Humbrol 67), because this tone was frequently used for machinery (including the interior surfaces of aircraft towards 1945).

RLM 02 was also used for the interior surfaces and the landing gear, even though I used a slightly different, lighter shade in form of Revell 45 (Helloliv).

 

A light black ink washing was applied and post-shading to emphasize panel lines. Most markings/decals came from a Begemot 1:72 He 11 sheet, including the unusual green tactical code - it belongs to a staff unit, a suitable marking for such an experimental aircraft. The green (Humbrol 2) was carried over to the tips of the propeller spinners. The unit's code "1A" is fictional, AFAIK this combination had never been used by the Luftwaffe.

The small unit badge was alucky find: it actually depicts the fictional Baron von Münchhausen riding on a cannonball, and it comes from an Academy 1:72 Me 163 kit and its respective sheet. The mission markings underneath, depicting two anti-ship missions plus a successful sinking, came from a TL Modellbau 1:72 scale sheet with generic German WWII victory markings.

 

After some soot stains around the engine exhaust and weapon muzzles had been added with graphite, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish and final details like position lights and wire antennae (from heated black plastic sprue material) were added.

  

Well, what started as a combination of two kits of the same kind with a simple huge pipe underneath turned out to be more demanding than expected. The (incomplete) replacement engines were quite a challenge, and body work on the hull (tail stinger, fairing for the SG 104 as well as the weapon itself) turned out to be more complex and extensive than initially thought of. The result looks quite convincing, also supported by the rather simple paint scheme which IMHO just "looks right" and very convincing. And the whole thing is probably the most direct representation of the inspiring "Gunship" theme!

 

+++ 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 Sondergerät SG104 "Münchhausen" was a German airborne recoillless 355.6 mm (14-inch) caliber gun, intended to engage even the roughest enemy battleships, primarily those of the Royal Navy. The design of this unusual and massive weapon began in 1939. The rationale behind it was that a battleship’s most vulnerable part was the deck – a flat surface, with relatively thin armor (as typical hits were expected on the flanks) and ideally with vital targets underneath, so that a single, good hit would cripple of even destroy a ship. The purpose of such a high angle of attack was likely to allow the projectile to penetrate the target ship's deck, where the ship's armor, if there was any, would have been much thinner than the armor on its sidesHowever, hitting the deck properly with another ship’s main gun was not easy, since it could only be affected through indirect hits and the typical angle of the attack from aballistic shot would not necessarily be ideal for deep penetration, esp. at long range.

The solution to this problem: ensure that the heavy projectile would hit its target directly from above, ideally at a very steep angle. To achieve this, the gun with battleship caliber was “relocated” from a carrier ship or a coastal battery onto an aircraft – specifically to a type that was capable of dive-bombing, a feature that almost any German bomber model of the time offered.

 

Firing such a heavy weapon caused a lot fo problems, which were severe even if the gun was mounted on a ship or on land. To compensate for such a large-caliber gun’s recoil and to make firing a 14 in shell (which alone weighed around almost 700 kg/1.550 lb, plus the charge) from a relatively light airframe feasible, the respective gun had to be as light as possible and avoid any recoil, which would easily tear an aircraft – even a bomber – apart upon firing. Therefore, the Gerät 104 was designed as a recoilless cannon. Its firing system involved venting the same amount of the weapon's propellant gas for its round to the rear of the launch tube (which was open at both ends), in the same fashion as a rocket launcher. This created a forward directed momentum which was nearly equal to the rearward momentum (recoil) imparted to the system by accelerating the projectile itself. The balance thus created did not leave much net momentum to be imparted to the weapon's mounting or the carrying airframe in the form of felt recoil. A further share of the recoil induced by the moving round itself could be compensated by a muzzle brake which re-directed a part of the firing gases backwards. Since recoil had been mostly negated, a heavy and complex recoil damping mechanism was not necessary – even though the weapon itself was huge and heavy.

 

Work on the "Münchhausen" device (a secret project handle after a fictional German nobleman created by the German writer Rudolf Erich Raspe in the late 18th century who reputedly had ridden on a cannonball between enemy frontlines), was done by Rheinmetall-Borsig and lasted until 1941. The first test of a prototype weapon was conducted on 9th of September 1940 in Unterlüss with a satisfactory result, even though the weapon was only mounted onto an open rack and not integrated into an airframe yet. At that time, potential carriers were the Ju 88, the Dornier Do 217 and the new Junkers Ju 288. Even though the system’s efficacy was doubted, the prospect of delivering a single, fatal blow to an important , armored arget superseded any doubts at the RLM, and the project was greenlit in early 1942 for the next stage: the integration of the Sondergerät 104 into an existing airframe. The Ju 88 and its successor, the Ju 188, turned out to be too light and lacked carrying capacity for the complete, loaded weapon, and the favored Ju 288 was never produced, so that only the Dornier Do 217 or the bigger He 177 remained as a suitable carriers. The Do 217 was eventually chosen because it had the biggest payload and the airframe was proven and readily available.

 

After calculations had verified that the designed 14 in rifle would have effectively no recoil, preliminary tests with dumm airframes were carried out. After ground trials with a Do 217 E day bomber to check recoil and blast effects on the airframe, the development and production of a limited Nullserie (pre-production series) of the dedicated Do 217 F variant for field tests and eventual operational use against British sea and land targets was ordered in April 1942.

 

The resulting Do 217 F-0 was based on the late “E” bomber variant and powered by a pair of BMW 801 radial engines. It was, however, heavily modified for its unique weapon and the highly specialized mission profile: upon arriving at the zone of operation at high altitude, the aircraft would initiate a dive with an angle of attack between 50° and 80° from the horizontal, firing the SG 104 at an altitude between 6,000 and 2,000 meters. The flight time of the projectile could range from 16.0 seconds for a shot from an altitude of 6,000 meters at a 50° angle to just 4.4 seconds for a shot from 2.000 meters at an almost vertical 80° angle. Muzzle velocity of the SG 104 was only 300 m/s, but, prior to impact, the effective velocity of the projectile was projected to range between 449 and 468 m/s (1,616 to 1,674 km/h). Together with the round's weight of roughly 700 kg (1.550 lb) and a hardened tip, this would still ensure a high penetration potential.

 

The operational Sondergerät 104 had an empty mass of 2.780 kg (6,123 lb) and its complete 14 inch double cartridge weighed around 1.600 kg (3,525 lb). The loaded mass of the weapon was 4,237 kg, stretching the limits of the Do 217’s load capacity to the maximum, so that some armor and less vital pieces of equipment were deleted. Crew and defensive armament were reduced to a minimum.

Even though there had been plans to integrate the wepaon into the airframe (on the Ju 288), the Gerät 104 was on the Do 217 F-0 mounted externally and occupied the whole space under the aircraft, precluding any use of the bomb bay. The latter was occupied by the Gerät 104’s complex mount, which extended to the outside under a streamlined fairing and held the weapon at a distance from the airframe. Between the mount’s struts inside of the fuselage, an additional fuel tank for balance reasons was added, too.

The gun’s center, where the heavy round was carried, was positioned under the aircraft’s center of gravity, so that the gun barrel markedly protruded from under the aircraft’s nose. To make enough space, the Do 217 Es bomb aimer’s ventral gondola and his rearward-facing defensive position under the cockpit were omitted and faired over. The nose section was also totally different: the original extensive glazing (the so-called “Kampfkopf”) was replaced by a smaller, conventional canopy, similar to the later Do 217 J and N night fighter versions, together with a solid nose - the original glass panels would have easily shattered upon firing the gun, esp. in a steep high-speed dive. A "Lotfernrohr" bomb aiming device was still installed in a streamlined and protected fairing, though, so that the navigator could guide the pilot during the approach to the target and during the attack run.

To stabilize the heavy aircraft during its attack and to time- and safely pull out of the dive, a massive mechanical dive brake was mounted at the extended tail tip, which unfolded with four "petals". A charecteristic stabilizing dorsal strake was added between the twin fins, too.

 

The ventral area behind the gun’s rear-facing muzzle received additional metal plating and blast guiding vanes, after trials in late 1940 had revealed that firing the SG 104 could easily damage the Do 217’s tail structure, esp. all of the tail surfaces’ rudders and the fins’ lower ends in particular. Due to all this extra weight, the Do 217 F-0’s defensive armament consisted only of a single 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in a manually operated dorsal position behind the cockpit cabin, which offered space for a crew of three. A fixed 15 mm MG 151 autocannon was mounted in the nose, too, a weapon with a long barrel for extended range and accuracy. It was not an offensive weapon, though, rather intended as an aiming aid for the SG 104 because it was loaded with tracer bullets: during the final phase of the attack dive, the pilot kept firing the MG 151, and the bullet trail showed if he was on target to fire the SG 104 when the right altitude/range had been reached.

 

The first Do 217 F-0 was flown and tested in late 1943, and after some detail changes the type was cleared for a limited production run of ten aircraft in January 1944. The first operational machine was delivered to a dedicated testing commando, the Erprobungskommando 104 “Münchhausen”, also known as “Sonderkommando Münchhausen” or simply “E-Staffel 104”. The unit was based at Bordeaux/Merignac and directly attached to the KG 40's as a staff flight. At that time, KG 40 operated Do 217 and He 177 bombers and frequently flew reconnaissance and anti-shipping missions over the Atlantic west of France, up to the British west and southern coast, equipped with experimental Henschel Hs 293 glide bombs.

 

Initial flights confirmed that the Do 217 airframe was burdened with the SG 104 to its limits, the already rather sluggish aircraft (the Do 217 had generally a high wing loading and was not easy to fly) lost anything that was left of what could be called agility. It needed an experienced pilot to handle it safely, esp. during start and landing. It is no wonder that two Do 217 F-0s suffered ground accidents during the first two weeks of operations, but the machines could be repaired, resume the test program and carry out attack missions.

However, during one of the first test shots with the weapon, one Do 217 F-0 lost its complete tail section though the gun blast, and the aircraft crashed into the Bay of Biscay, killing the complete crew.

 

On 4th or April 1944 the first "hot" attack against an enemy ship was executed in the Celtic Sea off of Brest, against a convoy of 20 ships homeward bound from Gibraltar. The attack was not successful, though, the shot missing its target, and the German bomber was attacked and heavily damaged by British Bristol Beaufighters that had been deployed to protect the ships. The Do 217F-0 eventually crashed and sank into the Atlantic before it could reach land again.

 

A couple of days later, on 10th of April, the first attempt to attack and destroy a land target was undertaken: two Do 217 F-0s took off to attack Bouldnor Battery, an armored British artillery position located on the Isle of Wight. One machine had to abort the attack due to oil leakages, the second Do 217 F-0 eventually reached its target and made a shallow attack run, but heavy fog obscured the location and the otherwise successful shot missed the fortification. Upon return to its home base the aircraft was intercepted by RAF fighters over the Channel and heavily damaged, even though German fighters deployed from France came to the rescue, fought the British attackers off and escorted the limping Do 217 F-0 back to its home base.

 

These events revealed that the overall SG 104 concept was generally feasible, but also showed that the Do 217 F-0 was very vulnerable without air superiority or a suitable escort, so that new tactics had to be developed. One consequence was that further Do 217 F-0 deployments were now supported by V/KG 40, the Luftwaffe's only long range maritime fighter unit. These escorts consisted of Junkers Ju 88C-6s, which were capable of keeping up with the Do 217 F-0 and fend of intercepting RAF Coastal Command’s Beaufighters and later also Mosquitos.

 

In the meantime, tests with the SG 104 progressed and several modifications were tested on different EKdo 104's Do 217 F-0s. One major upgrade was a further strengthening of the tail section, which added another 200 kg (440 lb) to the aircraft's dry weight. Furthermore, at least three aircraft were outfitted with additional dive brakes under the outer wings, so that the dive could be better controlled and intercepted. these aircraft, however, lost their plumbed underwing hardpoints, but these were only ever used for drop tanks during transfer flights - a loaded SG 104 precluded any other ordnance. On two other aircraft the SG 104 was modified to test different muzzle brakes and deflectors for the rear-facing opening, so that the gun blast was more effectively guided away from the airframe to prevent instability and structural damage. For instance, one machine was equipped with a bifurcated blast deflector that directed the rearward gasses partly sideways, away from the fuselage.

 

These tests did not last long, though. During the Allied Normandy landings in June 1944 E-Staffel 104 was hastily thrown into action and made several poorly-prepared attack runs against Allied support ships. The biggest success was a full hit and the resulting sinking of the Norwegian destroyer HNoMS Svenner (G03) by "1A+BA" at dawn on 6th of June, off Sword, one of the Allied landing zones. Other targets were engaged, too, but only with little effect. This involvement, however, led to the loss of three Do 217 F-0s within just two days and four more heavily damaged aircraft – leaving only two of EKdo 104's Do 217 F-0s operational.

 

With the Allied invasion of France and a worsening war condition, the SG 104 program was stopped in August 1944 and the idea of an airborne anti-ship gun axed in favor of more flexible guided weapons like the Hs 293 missile and the Fritz-X glide bomb. Plans for a further developed weapon with a three-round drum magazine were immediately stopped, also because there was no carrier aircraft in sight that could carry and deploy this complex 6.5 tons weapon. However, work on the SG 104 and the experience gained from EKdo 104's field tests were not in vain. The knowledge gathered from the Münchhausen program was directly used for the design of a wide range of other, smaller recoilless aircraft weapons, including the magnetically-triggered SG 113 "Förstersonde" anti-tank weapon or the lightweight SG 118 "Rohrblock" unguided air-to-air missile battery for the Heinkel He 162 "Volksjäger".

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 3 (pilot, navigator, radio operator/gunner)

Length: 20,73 m (67 ft 11 in) overall

18,93 m (62 ft 3/4 in) hull only

Wingspan: 19 m (62 ft 4 in)

Height: 4.97 m (16 ft 4 in)

Wing area: 57 m² (610 sq ft)

Empty weight: 9,065 kg (19,985 lb)

Empty equipped weight:10,950 kg (24,140 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 16,700 kg (36,817 lb)

Fuel capacity: 2,960 l (780 US gal; 650 imp gal) in fuselage tank and four wing tanks

 

Powerplant:

2× BMW 801D-2 14-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engines, delivering

1,300 kW (1,700 hp) each for take-off and 1,070 kW (1,440 hp) at 5,700 m (18,700 ft),

driving 3-bladed VDM constant-speed propellers

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 475 km/h (295 mph, 256 kn) at sea level

560 km/h (350 mph; 300 kn) at 5,700 m (18,700 ft)

Cruise speed: 400 km/h (250 mph, 220 kn) with loaded Gerät 104 at optimum altitude

Range: 2,180 km (1,350 mi, 1,180 nmi) with maximum internal fuel

Ferry range: 2,500 km (1,600 mi, 1,300 nmi); unarmed, with auxiliary fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 7,370 m (24,180 ft) with loaded Gerät 104,

9,500 m (31,200 ft) after firing

Rate of climb: 3.5 m/s (690 ft/min)

Time to altitude: 1,000 m (3,300 ft) in 4 minutes 10 seconds

2,000 m (6,600 ft) in 8 minutes 20 seconds

6,100 m (20,000 ft) in 24 minutes 40 seconds

 

Armament:

1x 355.6 mm (14-inch) Sondergerät 104 recoilless gun with a single round in ventral position

1x 15 mm (0.787 in) MG 151 machine cannon with 200 rounds, fixed in the nose

1x 13 mm (0.512 in) MG 131 machine gun with 500 rounds, movable in dorsal position

Two underwing hardpoints for a 900 l drop tank each, but only used during unarmed ferry flights

  

The kit and its assembly:

This was another submission to the "Gunships" group build at whatifmodellers.com in late 2021, and inspiration struck when I realized that I had two Italeri Do 217 in The Stash - a bomber and a night fighter - that could be combined into a suitable (fictional) carrier for a Sondergerät 104. This mighty weapon actually existed and even reached the hardware/test stage - but it was never integrated into an airframe and tested in flight. But that's what this model is supposed to depict.

 

On the Do 217, the Sg 104 would have been carried externally under the fuselage, even though there had been plans to integrate this recoilless rifle into airframes, esp. into the Ju 288. Since the latter never made it into production, the Do 217 would have been the most logical alternative, also because it had the highest payload of all German bombers during WWII and probably the only aircraft capable of carrying and deploying the Münchhausen device, as the SG 104 was also known.

 

The fictional Do 217 F-0 is a kitbashing, using a Do 217 N fuselage, combined with the wings from a Do 217 K bomber, plus some modifications. What initially sounded like a simple plan soon turned into a improvisation mess: it took some time to realize that I had already donated the Do 217 K's BMW 801 engines to another project, an upgraded He 115... I did not want to use the nightfighter's more powerful DB 603s, and I was lucky to have an Italeri Ju 188 kit at hand which comes with optional BMW 801s and Jumo 211s. Transplanting these engines onto the Do 217's wings took some tailoring of the adapter plates, but was feasible. However, the BMW 801s from the Ju 188 kit have a flaw: they lack the engine's characteristic cooling fans... Another lucky find: I found two such parts in the scrap box, even though from different kits - one left over from another Italeri Do 217 K, the other one from what I assume is/was an Italeri 1:72 Fw 190 A/F. To make matters worse, one propeller from the Ju 188 kit was missing, so that I had to find a(nother) replacement. :-/

I eventually used something that looked like an 1:72 F6F Hellcat propeller, but I an not certain about this because I have never built this model...? With some trimming on the blades' trailing edges and other mods, the donor's overall look could be adapted to the Ju 188 benchmark. Both propellers were mounted on metal axis' so that they could also carry the cooling fans. Lots of work, but the result looks quite good.

 

The Do 217 N's hull lost the lower rear gunner position and its ventral gondola, which was faired over with a piece of styrene sheet. The pilot was taken OOB, the gunner in the rear position was replaced by a more blob-like crew member from the scrap box. The plan to add a navigator in the seat to the lower right of the pilot did not work out due to space shortage, but this figure would probably have been invisble, anyway.

All gun openings in the nose were filled and PSRed away, and a fairing for a bomb aiming device and a single gun (the barrel is a hollow steel needle) were added.

 

The SG 104 was scratched. Starting point was a white metal replacement barrel for an 1:35 ISU-152 SPG with a brass muzzle brake. However, after dry-fitting the barrel under the hull the barrel turned out to be much too wide, so that only the muzzal brake survived and the rest of the weapon was created from a buddy refueling pod (from an Italeri 1:72 Luftwaffe Tornado, because of its two conical ends) and protective plastic caps from medical canulas. To attach this creation to the hull I abused a conformal belly tank from a Matchbox Gloster Meteor night fighter and tailored it into a streamlined fairing. While this quite a Frankenstein creation, the overall dimensions match the real SG 104 prototype and its look well.

 

Other cosmetic modifications include a pair of underwing dive brakes, translanted from an Italeri 1:72 Ju 88 A-4 kit, an extended (scratched) tail "stinger" which resembles the real dive brake arrangement that was installed on some Do 217 E bombers, and I added blast deflector vanes and a dorsal stabilizer fin.

In order to provide the aircraft with enough ground clearance, the tail wheel was slightly extended. Thanks to the long tail stinger, this is not blatantly obvious.

  

Painting and markings:

This was not an easy choice, but as a kind of prototype I decided that the paint scheme should be rather conservative. However, German aircraft operating over the Atlantic tended to carry rather pale schemes, so that the standard pattern of RLM 70/71/65 (Dunkelgrün, Schwarzgrün and Hellblau) with a low waterline - typical for experimental types - would hardly be appropriate.

I eventually found a compromise on a He 177 bomber (coded 6N+BN) from 1944 that was operated by KG 100: this particular aircraft had a lightened upper camouflage - still a standard splinter scheme but consisting of RLM 71 and 02 (Dunkelgrün and Grau; I used Modelmaster 2081 and Humbrol 240), a combination that had been used on German fighters during the Battle of Britain when the standard colors turned out to be too dark for operations over the Channel. The aircraft also carried standard RLM 65 (or maybe the new RLM76) underneath (Humbrol 65) and on the fin, but with a very high and slightly wavy waterline. As a rather unusual feature, no typical camouflage mottles were carried on the flanks or the fin, giving the aircraft a very bleak and simple look.

 

Despite my fears that this might look rather boring I adapted this scheme for the Do 217 F-0, and once basic painting was completed I was rather pleased by the aircraft's look! As an aircraft operated at the Western front, no additional markings like fuselage bands were carried.

To set the SG 104 apart from the airframe, I painted the weapon's visible parts in RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau, Humbrol 67), because this tone was frequently used for machinery (including the interior surfaces of aircraft towards 1945).

RLM 02 was also used for the interior surfaces and the landing gear, even though I used a slightly different, lighter shade in form of Revell 45 (Helloliv).

 

A light black ink washing was applied and post-shading to emphasize panel lines. Most markings/decals came from a Begemot 1:72 He 11 sheet, including the unusual green tactical code - it belongs to a staff unit, a suitable marking for such an experimental aircraft. The green (Humbrol 2) was carried over to the tips of the propeller spinners. The unit's code "1A" is fictional, AFAIK this combination had never been used by the Luftwaffe.

The small unit badge was alucky find: it actually depicts the fictional Baron von Münchhausen riding on a cannonball, and it comes from an Academy 1:72 Me 163 kit and its respective sheet. The mission markings underneath, depicting two anti-ship missions plus a successful sinking, came from a TL Modellbau 1:72 scale sheet with generic German WWII victory markings.

 

After some soot stains around the engine exhaust and weapon muzzles had been added with graphite, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish and final details like position lights and wire antennae (from heated black plastic sprue material) were added.

  

Well, what started as a combination of two kits of the same kind with a simple huge pipe underneath turned out to be more demanding than expected. The (incomplete) replacement engines were quite a challenge, and body work on the hull (tail stinger, fairing for the SG 104 as well as the weapon itself) turned out to be more complex and extensive than initially thought of. The result looks quite convincing, also supported by the rather simple paint scheme which IMHO just "looks right" and very convincing. And the whole thing is probably the most direct representation of the inspiring "Gunship" theme!

 

+++ 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 Sondergerät SG104 "Münchhausen" was a German airborne recoillless 355.6 mm (14-inch) caliber gun, intended to engage even the roughest enemy battleships, primarily those of the Royal Navy. The design of this unusual and massive weapon began in 1939. The rationale behind it was that a battleship’s most vulnerable part was the deck – a flat surface, with relatively thin armor (as typical hits were expected on the flanks) and ideally with vital targets underneath, so that a single, good hit would cripple of even destroy a ship. The purpose of such a high angle of attack was likely to allow the projectile to penetrate the target ship's deck, where the ship's armor, if there was any, would have been much thinner than the armor on its sidesHowever, hitting the deck properly with another ship’s main gun was not easy, since it could only be affected through indirect hits and the typical angle of the attack from aballistic shot would not necessarily be ideal for deep penetration, esp. at long range.

The solution to this problem: ensure that the heavy projectile would hit its target directly from above, ideally at a very steep angle. To achieve this, the gun with battleship caliber was “relocated” from a carrier ship or a coastal battery onto an aircraft – specifically to a type that was capable of dive-bombing, a feature that almost any German bomber model of the time offered.

 

Firing such a heavy weapon caused a lot fo problems, which were severe even if the gun was mounted on a ship or on land. To compensate for such a large-caliber gun’s recoil and to make firing a 14 in shell (which alone weighed around almost 700 kg/1.550 lb, plus the charge) from a relatively light airframe feasible, the respective gun had to be as light as possible and avoid any recoil, which would easily tear an aircraft – even a bomber – apart upon firing. Therefore, the Gerät 104 was designed as a recoilless cannon. Its firing system involved venting the same amount of the weapon's propellant gas for its round to the rear of the launch tube (which was open at both ends), in the same fashion as a rocket launcher. This created a forward directed momentum which was nearly equal to the rearward momentum (recoil) imparted to the system by accelerating the projectile itself. The balance thus created did not leave much net momentum to be imparted to the weapon's mounting or the carrying airframe in the form of felt recoil. A further share of the recoil induced by the moving round itself could be compensated by a muzzle brake which re-directed a part of the firing gases backwards. Since recoil had been mostly negated, a heavy and complex recoil damping mechanism was not necessary – even though the weapon itself was huge and heavy.

 

Work on the "Münchhausen" device (a secret project handle after a fictional German nobleman created by the German writer Rudolf Erich Raspe in the late 18th century who reputedly had ridden on a cannonball between enemy frontlines), was done by Rheinmetall-Borsig and lasted until 1941. The first test of a prototype weapon was conducted on 9th of September 1940 in Unterlüss with a satisfactory result, even though the weapon was only mounted onto an open rack and not integrated into an airframe yet. At that time, potential carriers were the Ju 88, the Dornier Do 217 and the new Junkers Ju 288. Even though the system’s efficacy was doubted, the prospect of delivering a single, fatal blow to an important , armored arget superseded any doubts at the RLM, and the project was greenlit in early 1942 for the next stage: the integration of the Sondergerät 104 into an existing airframe. The Ju 88 and its successor, the Ju 188, turned out to be too light and lacked carrying capacity for the complete, loaded weapon, and the favored Ju 288 was never produced, so that only the Dornier Do 217 or the bigger He 177 remained as a suitable carriers. The Do 217 was eventually chosen because it had the biggest payload and the airframe was proven and readily available.

 

After calculations had verified that the designed 14 in rifle would have effectively no recoil, preliminary tests with dumm airframes were carried out. After ground trials with a Do 217 E day bomber to check recoil and blast effects on the airframe, the development and production of a limited Nullserie (pre-production series) of the dedicated Do 217 F variant for field tests and eventual operational use against British sea and land targets was ordered in April 1942.

 

The resulting Do 217 F-0 was based on the late “E” bomber variant and powered by a pair of BMW 801 radial engines. It was, however, heavily modified for its unique weapon and the highly specialized mission profile: upon arriving at the zone of operation at high altitude, the aircraft would initiate a dive with an angle of attack between 50° and 80° from the horizontal, firing the SG 104 at an altitude between 6,000 and 2,000 meters. The flight time of the projectile could range from 16.0 seconds for a shot from an altitude of 6,000 meters at a 50° angle to just 4.4 seconds for a shot from 2.000 meters at an almost vertical 80° angle. Muzzle velocity of the SG 104 was only 300 m/s, but, prior to impact, the effective velocity of the projectile was projected to range between 449 and 468 m/s (1,616 to 1,674 km/h). Together with the round's weight of roughly 700 kg (1.550 lb) and a hardened tip, this would still ensure a high penetration potential.

 

The operational Sondergerät 104 had an empty mass of 2.780 kg (6,123 lb) and its complete 14 inch double cartridge weighed around 1.600 kg (3,525 lb). The loaded mass of the weapon was 4,237 kg, stretching the limits of the Do 217’s load capacity to the maximum, so that some armor and less vital pieces of equipment were deleted. Crew and defensive armament were reduced to a minimum.

Even though there had been plans to integrate the wepaon into the airframe (on the Ju 288), the Gerät 104 was on the Do 217 F-0 mounted externally and occupied the whole space under the aircraft, precluding any use of the bomb bay. The latter was occupied by the Gerät 104’s complex mount, which extended to the outside under a streamlined fairing and held the weapon at a distance from the airframe. Between the mount’s struts inside of the fuselage, an additional fuel tank for balance reasons was added, too.

The gun’s center, where the heavy round was carried, was positioned under the aircraft’s center of gravity, so that the gun barrel markedly protruded from under the aircraft’s nose. To make enough space, the Do 217 Es bomb aimer’s ventral gondola and his rearward-facing defensive position under the cockpit were omitted and faired over. The nose section was also totally different: the original extensive glazing (the so-called “Kampfkopf”) was replaced by a smaller, conventional canopy, similar to the later Do 217 J and N night fighter versions, together with a solid nose - the original glass panels would have easily shattered upon firing the gun, esp. in a steep high-speed dive. A "Lotfernrohr" bomb aiming device was still installed in a streamlined and protected fairing, though, so that the navigator could guide the pilot during the approach to the target and during the attack run.

To stabilize the heavy aircraft during its attack and to time- and safely pull out of the dive, a massive mechanical dive brake was mounted at the extended tail tip, which unfolded with four "petals". A charecteristic stabilizing dorsal strake was added between the twin fins, too.

 

The ventral area behind the gun’s rear-facing muzzle received additional metal plating and blast guiding vanes, after trials in late 1940 had revealed that firing the SG 104 could easily damage the Do 217’s tail structure, esp. all of the tail surfaces’ rudders and the fins’ lower ends in particular. Due to all this extra weight, the Do 217 F-0’s defensive armament consisted only of a single 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in a manually operated dorsal position behind the cockpit cabin, which offered space for a crew of three. A fixed 15 mm MG 151 autocannon was mounted in the nose, too, a weapon with a long barrel for extended range and accuracy. It was not an offensive weapon, though, rather intended as an aiming aid for the SG 104 because it was loaded with tracer bullets: during the final phase of the attack dive, the pilot kept firing the MG 151, and the bullet trail showed if he was on target to fire the SG 104 when the right altitude/range had been reached.

 

The first Do 217 F-0 was flown and tested in late 1943, and after some detail changes the type was cleared for a limited production run of ten aircraft in January 1944. The first operational machine was delivered to a dedicated testing commando, the Erprobungskommando 104 “Münchhausen”, also known as “Sonderkommando Münchhausen” or simply “E-Staffel 104”. The unit was based at Bordeaux/Merignac and directly attached to the KG 40's as a staff flight. At that time, KG 40 operated Do 217 and He 177 bombers and frequently flew reconnaissance and anti-shipping missions over the Atlantic west of France, up to the British west and southern coast, equipped with experimental Henschel Hs 293 glide bombs.

 

Initial flights confirmed that the Do 217 airframe was burdened with the SG 104 to its limits, the already rather sluggish aircraft (the Do 217 had generally a high wing loading and was not easy to fly) lost anything that was left of what could be called agility. It needed an experienced pilot to handle it safely, esp. during start and landing. It is no wonder that two Do 217 F-0s suffered ground accidents during the first two weeks of operations, but the machines could be repaired, resume the test program and carry out attack missions.

However, during one of the first test shots with the weapon, one Do 217 F-0 lost its complete tail section though the gun blast, and the aircraft crashed into the Bay of Biscay, killing the complete crew.

 

On 4th or April 1944 the first "hot" attack against an enemy ship was executed in the Celtic Sea off of Brest, against a convoy of 20 ships homeward bound from Gibraltar. The attack was not successful, though, the shot missing its target, and the German bomber was attacked and heavily damaged by British Bristol Beaufighters that had been deployed to protect the ships. The Do 217F-0 eventually crashed and sank into the Atlantic before it could reach land again.

 

A couple of days later, on 10th of April, the first attempt to attack and destroy a land target was undertaken: two Do 217 F-0s took off to attack Bouldnor Battery, an armored British artillery position located on the Isle of Wight. One machine had to abort the attack due to oil leakages, the second Do 217 F-0 eventually reached its target and made a shallow attack run, but heavy fog obscured the location and the otherwise successful shot missed the fortification. Upon return to its home base the aircraft was intercepted by RAF fighters over the Channel and heavily damaged, even though German fighters deployed from France came to the rescue, fought the British attackers off and escorted the limping Do 217 F-0 back to its home base.

 

These events revealed that the overall SG 104 concept was generally feasible, but also showed that the Do 217 F-0 was very vulnerable without air superiority or a suitable escort, so that new tactics had to be developed. One consequence was that further Do 217 F-0 deployments were now supported by V/KG 40, the Luftwaffe's only long range maritime fighter unit. These escorts consisted of Junkers Ju 88C-6s, which were capable of keeping up with the Do 217 F-0 and fend of intercepting RAF Coastal Command’s Beaufighters and later also Mosquitos.

 

In the meantime, tests with the SG 104 progressed and several modifications were tested on different EKdo 104's Do 217 F-0s. One major upgrade was a further strengthening of the tail section, which added another 200 kg (440 lb) to the aircraft's dry weight. Furthermore, at least three aircraft were outfitted with additional dive brakes under the outer wings, so that the dive could be better controlled and intercepted. these aircraft, however, lost their plumbed underwing hardpoints, but these were only ever used for drop tanks during transfer flights - a loaded SG 104 precluded any other ordnance. On two other aircraft the SG 104 was modified to test different muzzle brakes and deflectors for the rear-facing opening, so that the gun blast was more effectively guided away from the airframe to prevent instability and structural damage. For instance, one machine was equipped with a bifurcated blast deflector that directed the rearward gasses partly sideways, away from the fuselage.

 

These tests did not last long, though. During the Allied Normandy landings in June 1944 E-Staffel 104 was hastily thrown into action and made several poorly-prepared attack runs against Allied support ships. The biggest success was a full hit and the resulting sinking of the Norwegian destroyer HNoMS Svenner (G03) by "1A+BA" at dawn on 6th of June, off Sword, one of the Allied landing zones. Other targets were engaged, too, but only with little effect. This involvement, however, led to the loss of three Do 217 F-0s within just two days and four more heavily damaged aircraft – leaving only two of EKdo 104's Do 217 F-0s operational.

 

With the Allied invasion of France and a worsening war condition, the SG 104 program was stopped in August 1944 and the idea of an airborne anti-ship gun axed in favor of more flexible guided weapons like the Hs 293 missile and the Fritz-X glide bomb. Plans for a further developed weapon with a three-round drum magazine were immediately stopped, also because there was no carrier aircraft in sight that could carry and deploy this complex 6.5 tons weapon. However, work on the SG 104 and the experience gained from EKdo 104's field tests were not in vain. The knowledge gathered from the Münchhausen program was directly used for the design of a wide range of other, smaller recoilless aircraft weapons, including the magnetically-triggered SG 113 "Förstersonde" anti-tank weapon or the lightweight SG 118 "Rohrblock" unguided air-to-air missile battery for the Heinkel He 162 "Volksjäger".

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 3 (pilot, navigator, radio operator/gunner)

Length: 20,73 m (67 ft 11 in) overall

18,93 m (62 ft 3/4 in) hull only

Wingspan: 19 m (62 ft 4 in)

Height: 4.97 m (16 ft 4 in)

Wing area: 57 m² (610 sq ft)

Empty weight: 9,065 kg (19,985 lb)

Empty equipped weight:10,950 kg (24,140 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 16,700 kg (36,817 lb)

Fuel capacity: 2,960 l (780 US gal; 650 imp gal) in fuselage tank and four wing tanks

 

Powerplant:

2× BMW 801D-2 14-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engines, delivering

1,300 kW (1,700 hp) each for take-off and 1,070 kW (1,440 hp) at 5,700 m (18,700 ft),

driving 3-bladed VDM constant-speed propellers

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 475 km/h (295 mph, 256 kn) at sea level

560 km/h (350 mph; 300 kn) at 5,700 m (18,700 ft)

Cruise speed: 400 km/h (250 mph, 220 kn) with loaded Gerät 104 at optimum altitude

Range: 2,180 km (1,350 mi, 1,180 nmi) with maximum internal fuel

Ferry range: 2,500 km (1,600 mi, 1,300 nmi); unarmed, with auxiliary fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 7,370 m (24,180 ft) with loaded Gerät 104,

9,500 m (31,200 ft) after firing

Rate of climb: 3.5 m/s (690 ft/min)

Time to altitude: 1,000 m (3,300 ft) in 4 minutes 10 seconds

2,000 m (6,600 ft) in 8 minutes 20 seconds

6,100 m (20,000 ft) in 24 minutes 40 seconds

 

Armament:

1x 355.6 mm (14-inch) Sondergerät 104 recoilless gun with a single round in ventral position

1x 15 mm (0.787 in) MG 151 machine cannon with 200 rounds, fixed in the nose

1x 13 mm (0.512 in) MG 131 machine gun with 500 rounds, movable in dorsal position

Two underwing hardpoints for a 900 l drop tank each, but only used during unarmed ferry flights

  

The kit and its assembly:

This was another submission to the "Gunships" group build at whatifmodellers.com in late 2021, and inspiration struck when I realized that I had two Italeri Do 217 in The Stash - a bomber and a night fighter - that could be combined into a suitable (fictional) carrier for a Sondergerät 104. This mighty weapon actually existed and even reached the hardware/test stage - but it was never integrated into an airframe and tested in flight. But that's what this model is supposed to depict.

 

On the Do 217, the Sg 104 would have been carried externally under the fuselage, even though there had been plans to integrate this recoilless rifle into airframes, esp. into the Ju 288. Since the latter never made it into production, the Do 217 would have been the most logical alternative, also because it had the highest payload of all German bombers during WWII and probably the only aircraft capable of carrying and deploying the Münchhausen device, as the SG 104 was also known.

 

The fictional Do 217 F-0 is a kitbashing, using a Do 217 N fuselage, combined with the wings from a Do 217 K bomber, plus some modifications. What initially sounded like a simple plan soon turned into a improvisation mess: it took some time to realize that I had already donated the Do 217 K's BMW 801 engines to another project, an upgraded He 115... I did not want to use the nightfighter's more powerful DB 603s, and I was lucky to have an Italeri Ju 188 kit at hand which comes with optional BMW 801s and Jumo 211s. Transplanting these engines onto the Do 217's wings took some tailoring of the adapter plates, but was feasible. However, the BMW 801s from the Ju 188 kit have a flaw: they lack the engine's characteristic cooling fans... Another lucky find: I found two such parts in the scrap box, even though from different kits - one left over from another Italeri Do 217 K, the other one from what I assume is/was an Italeri 1:72 Fw 190 A/F. To make matters worse, one propeller from the Ju 188 kit was missing, so that I had to find a(nother) replacement. :-/

I eventually used something that looked like an 1:72 F6F Hellcat propeller, but I an not certain about this because I have never built this model...? With some trimming on the blades' trailing edges and other mods, the donor's overall look could be adapted to the Ju 188 benchmark. Both propellers were mounted on metal axis' so that they could also carry the cooling fans. Lots of work, but the result looks quite good.

 

The Do 217 N's hull lost the lower rear gunner position and its ventral gondola, which was faired over with a piece of styrene sheet. The pilot was taken OOB, the gunner in the rear position was replaced by a more blob-like crew member from the scrap box. The plan to add a navigator in the seat to the lower right of the pilot did not work out due to space shortage, but this figure would probably have been invisble, anyway.

All gun openings in the nose were filled and PSRed away, and a fairing for a bomb aiming device and a single gun (the barrel is a hollow steel needle) were added.

 

The SG 104 was scratched. Starting point was a white metal replacement barrel for an 1:35 ISU-152 SPG with a brass muzzle brake. However, after dry-fitting the barrel under the hull the barrel turned out to be much too wide, so that only the muzzal brake survived and the rest of the weapon was created from a buddy refueling pod (from an Italeri 1:72 Luftwaffe Tornado, because of its two conical ends) and protective plastic caps from medical canulas. To attach this creation to the hull I abused a conformal belly tank from a Matchbox Gloster Meteor night fighter and tailored it into a streamlined fairing. While this quite a Frankenstein creation, the overall dimensions match the real SG 104 prototype and its look well.

 

Other cosmetic modifications include a pair of underwing dive brakes, translanted from an Italeri 1:72 Ju 88 A-4 kit, an extended (scratched) tail "stinger" which resembles the real dive brake arrangement that was installed on some Do 217 E bombers, and I added blast deflector vanes and a dorsal stabilizer fin.

In order to provide the aircraft with enough ground clearance, the tail wheel was slightly extended. Thanks to the long tail stinger, this is not blatantly obvious.

  

Painting and markings:

This was not an easy choice, but as a kind of prototype I decided that the paint scheme should be rather conservative. However, German aircraft operating over the Atlantic tended to carry rather pale schemes, so that the standard pattern of RLM 70/71/65 (Dunkelgrün, Schwarzgrün and Hellblau) with a low waterline - typical for experimental types - would hardly be appropriate.

I eventually found a compromise on a He 177 bomber (coded 6N+BN) from 1944 that was operated by KG 100: this particular aircraft had a lightened upper camouflage - still a standard splinter scheme but consisting of RLM 71 and 02 (Dunkelgrün and Grau; I used Modelmaster 2081 and Humbrol 240), a combination that had been used on German fighters during the Battle of Britain when the standard colors turned out to be too dark for operations over the Channel. The aircraft also carried standard RLM 65 (or maybe the new RLM76) underneath (Humbrol 65) and on the fin, but with a very high and slightly wavy waterline. As a rather unusual feature, no typical camouflage mottles were carried on the flanks or the fin, giving the aircraft a very bleak and simple look.

 

Despite my fears that this might look rather boring I adapted this scheme for the Do 217 F-0, and once basic painting was completed I was rather pleased by the aircraft's look! As an aircraft operated at the Western front, no additional markings like fuselage bands were carried.

To set the SG 104 apart from the airframe, I painted the weapon's visible parts in RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau, Humbrol 67), because this tone was frequently used for machinery (including the interior surfaces of aircraft towards 1945).

RLM 02 was also used for the interior surfaces and the landing gear, even though I used a slightly different, lighter shade in form of Revell 45 (Helloliv).

 

A light black ink washing was applied and post-shading to emphasize panel lines. Most markings/decals came from a Begemot 1:72 He 11 sheet, including the unusual green tactical code - it belongs to a staff unit, a suitable marking for such an experimental aircraft. The green (Humbrol 2) was carried over to the tips of the propeller spinners. The unit's code "1A" is fictional, AFAIK this combination had never been used by the Luftwaffe.

The small unit badge was alucky find: it actually depicts the fictional Baron von Münchhausen riding on a cannonball, and it comes from an Academy 1:72 Me 163 kit and its respective sheet. The mission markings underneath, depicting two anti-ship missions plus a successful sinking, came from a TL Modellbau 1:72 scale sheet with generic German WWII victory markings.

 

After some soot stains around the engine exhaust and weapon muzzles had been added with graphite, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish and final details like position lights and wire antennae (from heated black plastic sprue material) were added.

  

Well, what started as a combination of two kits of the same kind with a simple huge pipe underneath turned out to be more demanding than expected. The (incomplete) replacement engines were quite a challenge, and body work on the hull (tail stinger, fairing for the SG 104 as well as the weapon itself) turned out to be more complex and extensive than initially thought of. The result looks quite convincing, also supported by the rather simple paint scheme which IMHO just "looks right" and very convincing. And the whole thing is probably the most direct representation of the inspiring "Gunship" theme!

 

+++ 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 Sondergerät SG104 "Münchhausen" was a German airborne recoillless 355.6 mm (14-inch) caliber gun, intended to engage even the roughest enemy battleships, primarily those of the Royal Navy. The design of this unusual and massive weapon began in 1939. The rationale behind it was that a battleship’s most vulnerable part was the deck – a flat surface, with relatively thin armor (as typical hits were expected on the flanks) and ideally with vital targets underneath, so that a single, good hit would cripple of even destroy a ship. The purpose of such a high angle of attack was likely to allow the projectile to penetrate the target ship's deck, where the ship's armor, if there was any, would have been much thinner than the armor on its sidesHowever, hitting the deck properly with another ship’s main gun was not easy, since it could only be affected through indirect hits and the typical angle of the attack from aballistic shot would not necessarily be ideal for deep penetration, esp. at long range.

The solution to this problem: ensure that the heavy projectile would hit its target directly from above, ideally at a very steep angle. To achieve this, the gun with battleship caliber was “relocated” from a carrier ship or a coastal battery onto an aircraft – specifically to a type that was capable of dive-bombing, a feature that almost any German bomber model of the time offered.

 

Firing such a heavy weapon caused a lot fo problems, which were severe even if the gun was mounted on a ship or on land. To compensate for such a large-caliber gun’s recoil and to make firing a 14 in shell (which alone weighed around almost 700 kg/1.550 lb, plus the charge) from a relatively light airframe feasible, the respective gun had to be as light as possible and avoid any recoil, which would easily tear an aircraft – even a bomber – apart upon firing. Therefore, the Gerät 104 was designed as a recoilless cannon. Its firing system involved venting the same amount of the weapon's propellant gas for its round to the rear of the launch tube (which was open at both ends), in the same fashion as a rocket launcher. This created a forward directed momentum which was nearly equal to the rearward momentum (recoil) imparted to the system by accelerating the projectile itself. The balance thus created did not leave much net momentum to be imparted to the weapon's mounting or the carrying airframe in the form of felt recoil. A further share of the recoil induced by the moving round itself could be compensated by a muzzle brake which re-directed a part of the firing gases backwards. Since recoil had been mostly negated, a heavy and complex recoil damping mechanism was not necessary – even though the weapon itself was huge and heavy.

 

Work on the "Münchhausen" device (a secret project handle after a fictional German nobleman created by the German writer Rudolf Erich Raspe in the late 18th century who reputedly had ridden on a cannonball between enemy frontlines), was done by Rheinmetall-Borsig and lasted until 1941. The first test of a prototype weapon was conducted on 9th of September 1940 in Unterlüss with a satisfactory result, even though the weapon was only mounted onto an open rack and not integrated into an airframe yet. At that time, potential carriers were the Ju 88, the Dornier Do 217 and the new Junkers Ju 288. Even though the system’s efficacy was doubted, the prospect of delivering a single, fatal blow to an important , armored arget superseded any doubts at the RLM, and the project was greenlit in early 1942 for the next stage: the integration of the Sondergerät 104 into an existing airframe. The Ju 88 and its successor, the Ju 188, turned out to be too light and lacked carrying capacity for the complete, loaded weapon, and the favored Ju 288 was never produced, so that only the Dornier Do 217 or the bigger He 177 remained as a suitable carriers. The Do 217 was eventually chosen because it had the biggest payload and the airframe was proven and readily available.

 

After calculations had verified that the designed 14 in rifle would have effectively no recoil, preliminary tests with dumm airframes were carried out. After ground trials with a Do 217 E day bomber to check recoil and blast effects on the airframe, the development and production of a limited Nullserie (pre-production series) of the dedicated Do 217 F variant for field tests and eventual operational use against British sea and land targets was ordered in April 1942.

 

The resulting Do 217 F-0 was based on the late “E” bomber variant and powered by a pair of BMW 801 radial engines. It was, however, heavily modified for its unique weapon and the highly specialized mission profile: upon arriving at the zone of operation at high altitude, the aircraft would initiate a dive with an angle of attack between 50° and 80° from the horizontal, firing the SG 104 at an altitude between 6,000 and 2,000 meters. The flight time of the projectile could range from 16.0 seconds for a shot from an altitude of 6,000 meters at a 50° angle to just 4.4 seconds for a shot from 2.000 meters at an almost vertical 80° angle. Muzzle velocity of the SG 104 was only 300 m/s, but, prior to impact, the effective velocity of the projectile was projected to range between 449 and 468 m/s (1,616 to 1,674 km/h). Together with the round's weight of roughly 700 kg (1.550 lb) and a hardened tip, this would still ensure a high penetration potential.

 

The operational Sondergerät 104 had an empty mass of 2.780 kg (6,123 lb) and its complete 14 inch double cartridge weighed around 1.600 kg (3,525 lb). The loaded mass of the weapon was 4,237 kg, stretching the limits of the Do 217’s load capacity to the maximum, so that some armor and less vital pieces of equipment were deleted. Crew and defensive armament were reduced to a minimum.

Even though there had been plans to integrate the wepaon into the airframe (on the Ju 288), the Gerät 104 was on the Do 217 F-0 mounted externally and occupied the whole space under the aircraft, precluding any use of the bomb bay. The latter was occupied by the Gerät 104’s complex mount, which extended to the outside under a streamlined fairing and held the weapon at a distance from the airframe. Between the mount’s struts inside of the fuselage, an additional fuel tank for balance reasons was added, too.

The gun’s center, where the heavy round was carried, was positioned under the aircraft’s center of gravity, so that the gun barrel markedly protruded from under the aircraft’s nose. To make enough space, the Do 217 Es bomb aimer’s ventral gondola and his rearward-facing defensive position under the cockpit were omitted and faired over. The nose section was also totally different: the original extensive glazing (the so-called “Kampfkopf”) was replaced by a smaller, conventional canopy, similar to the later Do 217 J and N night fighter versions, together with a solid nose - the original glass panels would have easily shattered upon firing the gun, esp. in a steep high-speed dive. A "Lotfernrohr" bomb aiming device was still installed in a streamlined and protected fairing, though, so that the navigator could guide the pilot during the approach to the target and during the attack run.

To stabilize the heavy aircraft during its attack and to time- and safely pull out of the dive, a massive mechanical dive brake was mounted at the extended tail tip, which unfolded with four "petals". A charecteristic stabilizing dorsal strake was added between the twin fins, too.

 

The ventral area behind the gun’s rear-facing muzzle received additional metal plating and blast guiding vanes, after trials in late 1940 had revealed that firing the SG 104 could easily damage the Do 217’s tail structure, esp. all of the tail surfaces’ rudders and the fins’ lower ends in particular. Due to all this extra weight, the Do 217 F-0’s defensive armament consisted only of a single 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in a manually operated dorsal position behind the cockpit cabin, which offered space for a crew of three. A fixed 15 mm MG 151 autocannon was mounted in the nose, too, a weapon with a long barrel for extended range and accuracy. It was not an offensive weapon, though, rather intended as an aiming aid for the SG 104 because it was loaded with tracer bullets: during the final phase of the attack dive, the pilot kept firing the MG 151, and the bullet trail showed if he was on target to fire the SG 104 when the right altitude/range had been reached.

 

The first Do 217 F-0 was flown and tested in late 1943, and after some detail changes the type was cleared for a limited production run of ten aircraft in January 1944. The first operational machine was delivered to a dedicated testing commando, the Erprobungskommando 104 “Münchhausen”, also known as “Sonderkommando Münchhausen” or simply “E-Staffel 104”. The unit was based at Bordeaux/Merignac and directly attached to the KG 40's as a staff flight. At that time, KG 40 operated Do 217 and He 177 bombers and frequently flew reconnaissance and anti-shipping missions over the Atlantic west of France, up to the British west and southern coast, equipped with experimental Henschel Hs 293 glide bombs.

 

Initial flights confirmed that the Do 217 airframe was burdened with the SG 104 to its limits, the already rather sluggish aircraft (the Do 217 had generally a high wing loading and was not easy to fly) lost anything that was left of what could be called agility. It needed an experienced pilot to handle it safely, esp. during start and landing. It is no wonder that two Do 217 F-0s suffered ground accidents during the first two weeks of operations, but the machines could be repaired, resume the test program and carry out attack missions.

However, during one of the first test shots with the weapon, one Do 217 F-0 lost its complete tail section though the gun blast, and the aircraft crashed into the Bay of Biscay, killing the complete crew.

 

On 4th or April 1944 the first "hot" attack against an enemy ship was executed in the Celtic Sea off of Brest, against a convoy of 20 ships homeward bound from Gibraltar. The attack was not successful, though, the shot missing its target, and the German bomber was attacked and heavily damaged by British Bristol Beaufighters that had been deployed to protect the ships. The Do 217F-0 eventually crashed and sank into the Atlantic before it could reach land again.

 

A couple of days later, on 10th of April, the first attempt to attack and destroy a land target was undertaken: two Do 217 F-0s took off to attack Bouldnor Battery, an armored British artillery position located on the Isle of Wight. One machine had to abort the attack due to oil leakages, the second Do 217 F-0 eventually reached its target and made a shallow attack run, but heavy fog obscured the location and the otherwise successful shot missed the fortification. Upon return to its home base the aircraft was intercepted by RAF fighters over the Channel and heavily damaged, even though German fighters deployed from France came to the rescue, fought the British attackers off and escorted the limping Do 217 F-0 back to its home base.

 

These events revealed that the overall SG 104 concept was generally feasible, but also showed that the Do 217 F-0 was very vulnerable without air superiority or a suitable escort, so that new tactics had to be developed. One consequence was that further Do 217 F-0 deployments were now supported by V/KG 40, the Luftwaffe's only long range maritime fighter unit. These escorts consisted of Junkers Ju 88C-6s, which were capable of keeping up with the Do 217 F-0 and fend of intercepting RAF Coastal Command’s Beaufighters and later also Mosquitos.

 

In the meantime, tests with the SG 104 progressed and several modifications were tested on different EKdo 104's Do 217 F-0s. One major upgrade was a further strengthening of the tail section, which added another 200 kg (440 lb) to the aircraft's dry weight. Furthermore, at least three aircraft were outfitted with additional dive brakes under the outer wings, so that the dive could be better controlled and intercepted. these aircraft, however, lost their plumbed underwing hardpoints, but these were only ever used for drop tanks during transfer flights - a loaded SG 104 precluded any other ordnance. On two other aircraft the SG 104 was modified to test different muzzle brakes and deflectors for the rear-facing opening, so that the gun blast was more effectively guided away from the airframe to prevent instability and structural damage. For instance, one machine was equipped with a bifurcated blast deflector that directed the rearward gasses partly sideways, away from the fuselage.

 

These tests did not last long, though. During the Allied Normandy landings in June 1944 E-Staffel 104 was hastily thrown into action and made several poorly-prepared attack runs against Allied support ships. The biggest success was a full hit and the resulting sinking of the Norwegian destroyer HNoMS Svenner (G03) by "1A+BA" at dawn on 6th of June, off Sword, one of the Allied landing zones. Other targets were engaged, too, but only with little effect. This involvement, however, led to the loss of three Do 217 F-0s within just two days and four more heavily damaged aircraft – leaving only two of EKdo 104's Do 217 F-0s operational.

 

With the Allied invasion of France and a worsening war condition, the SG 104 program was stopped in August 1944 and the idea of an airborne anti-ship gun axed in favor of more flexible guided weapons like the Hs 293 missile and the Fritz-X glide bomb. Plans for a further developed weapon with a three-round drum magazine were immediately stopped, also because there was no carrier aircraft in sight that could carry and deploy this complex 6.5 tons weapon. However, work on the SG 104 and the experience gained from EKdo 104's field tests were not in vain. The knowledge gathered from the Münchhausen program was directly used for the design of a wide range of other, smaller recoilless aircraft weapons, including the magnetically-triggered SG 113 "Förstersonde" anti-tank weapon or the lightweight SG 118 "Rohrblock" unguided air-to-air missile battery for the Heinkel He 162 "Volksjäger".

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 3 (pilot, navigator, radio operator/gunner)

Length: 20,73 m (67 ft 11 in) overall

18,93 m (62 ft 3/4 in) hull only

Wingspan: 19 m (62 ft 4 in)

Height: 4.97 m (16 ft 4 in)

Wing area: 57 m² (610 sq ft)

Empty weight: 9,065 kg (19,985 lb)

Empty equipped weight:10,950 kg (24,140 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 16,700 kg (36,817 lb)

Fuel capacity: 2,960 l (780 US gal; 650 imp gal) in fuselage tank and four wing tanks

 

Powerplant:

2× BMW 801D-2 14-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engines, delivering

1,300 kW (1,700 hp) each for take-off and 1,070 kW (1,440 hp) at 5,700 m (18,700 ft),

driving 3-bladed VDM constant-speed propellers

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 475 km/h (295 mph, 256 kn) at sea level

560 km/h (350 mph; 300 kn) at 5,700 m (18,700 ft)

Cruise speed: 400 km/h (250 mph, 220 kn) with loaded Gerät 104 at optimum altitude

Range: 2,180 km (1,350 mi, 1,180 nmi) with maximum internal fuel

Ferry range: 2,500 km (1,600 mi, 1,300 nmi); unarmed, with auxiliary fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 7,370 m (24,180 ft) with loaded Gerät 104,

9,500 m (31,200 ft) after firing

Rate of climb: 3.5 m/s (690 ft/min)

Time to altitude: 1,000 m (3,300 ft) in 4 minutes 10 seconds

2,000 m (6,600 ft) in 8 minutes 20 seconds

6,100 m (20,000 ft) in 24 minutes 40 seconds

 

Armament:

1x 355.6 mm (14-inch) Sondergerät 104 recoilless gun with a single round in ventral position

1x 15 mm (0.787 in) MG 151 machine cannon with 200 rounds, fixed in the nose

1x 13 mm (0.512 in) MG 131 machine gun with 500 rounds, movable in dorsal position

Two underwing hardpoints for a 900 l drop tank each, but only used during unarmed ferry flights

  

The kit and its assembly:

This was another submission to the "Gunships" group build at whatifmodellers.com in late 2021, and inspiration struck when I realized that I had two Italeri Do 217 in The Stash - a bomber and a night fighter - that could be combined into a suitable (fictional) carrier for a Sondergerät 104. This mighty weapon actually existed and even reached the hardware/test stage - but it was never integrated into an airframe and tested in flight. But that's what this model is supposed to depict.

 

On the Do 217, the Sg 104 would have been carried externally under the fuselage, even though there had been plans to integrate this recoilless rifle into airframes, esp. into the Ju 288. Since the latter never made it into production, the Do 217 would have been the most logical alternative, also because it had the highest payload of all German bombers during WWII and probably the only aircraft capable of carrying and deploying the Münchhausen device, as the SG 104 was also known.

 

The fictional Do 217 F-0 is a kitbashing, using a Do 217 N fuselage, combined with the wings from a Do 217 K bomber, plus some modifications. What initially sounded like a simple plan soon turned into a improvisation mess: it took some time to realize that I had already donated the Do 217 K's BMW 801 engines to another project, an upgraded He 115... I did not want to use the nightfighter's more powerful DB 603s, and I was lucky to have an Italeri Ju 188 kit at hand which comes with optional BMW 801s and Jumo 211s. Transplanting these engines onto the Do 217's wings took some tailoring of the adapter plates, but was feasible. However, the BMW 801s from the Ju 188 kit have a flaw: they lack the engine's characteristic cooling fans... Another lucky find: I found two such parts in the scrap box, even though from different kits - one left over from another Italeri Do 217 K, the other one from what I assume is/was an Italeri 1:72 Fw 190 A/F. To make matters worse, one propeller from the Ju 188 kit was missing, so that I had to find a(nother) replacement. :-/

I eventually used something that looked like an 1:72 F6F Hellcat propeller, but I an not certain about this because I have never built this model...? With some trimming on the blades' trailing edges and other mods, the donor's overall look could be adapted to the Ju 188 benchmark. Both propellers were mounted on metal axis' so that they could also carry the cooling fans. Lots of work, but the result looks quite good.

 

The Do 217 N's hull lost the lower rear gunner position and its ventral gondola, which was faired over with a piece of styrene sheet. The pilot was taken OOB, the gunner in the rear position was replaced by a more blob-like crew member from the scrap box. The plan to add a navigator in the seat to the lower right of the pilot did not work out due to space shortage, but this figure would probably have been invisble, anyway.

All gun openings in the nose were filled and PSRed away, and a fairing for a bomb aiming device and a single gun (the barrel is a hollow steel needle) were added.

 

The SG 104 was scratched. Starting point was a white metal replacement barrel for an 1:35 ISU-152 SPG with a brass muzzle brake. However, after dry-fitting the barrel under the hull the barrel turned out to be much too wide, so that only the muzzal brake survived and the rest of the weapon was created from a buddy refueling pod (from an Italeri 1:72 Luftwaffe Tornado, because of its two conical ends) and protective plastic caps from medical canulas. To attach this creation to the hull I abused a conformal belly tank from a Matchbox Gloster Meteor night fighter and tailored it into a streamlined fairing. While this quite a Frankenstein creation, the overall dimensions match the real SG 104 prototype and its look well.

 

Other cosmetic modifications include a pair of underwing dive brakes, translanted from an Italeri 1:72 Ju 88 A-4 kit, an extended (scratched) tail "stinger" which resembles the real dive brake arrangement that was installed on some Do 217 E bombers, and I added blast deflector vanes and a dorsal stabilizer fin.

In order to provide the aircraft with enough ground clearance, the tail wheel was slightly extended. Thanks to the long tail stinger, this is not blatantly obvious.

  

Painting and markings:

This was not an easy choice, but as a kind of prototype I decided that the paint scheme should be rather conservative. However, German aircraft operating over the Atlantic tended to carry rather pale schemes, so that the standard pattern of RLM 70/71/65 (Dunkelgrün, Schwarzgrün and Hellblau) with a low waterline - typical for experimental types - would hardly be appropriate.

I eventually found a compromise on a He 177 bomber (coded 6N+BN) from 1944 that was operated by KG 100: this particular aircraft had a lightened upper camouflage - still a standard splinter scheme but consisting of RLM 71 and 02 (Dunkelgrün and Grau; I used Modelmaster 2081 and Humbrol 240), a combination that had been used on German fighters during the Battle of Britain when the standard colors turned out to be too dark for operations over the Channel. The aircraft also carried standard RLM 65 (or maybe the new RLM76) underneath (Humbrol 65) and on the fin, but with a very high and slightly wavy waterline. As a rather unusual feature, no typical camouflage mottles were carried on the flanks or the fin, giving the aircraft a very bleak and simple look.

 

Despite my fears that this might look rather boring I adapted this scheme for the Do 217 F-0, and once basic painting was completed I was rather pleased by the aircraft's look! As an aircraft operated at the Western front, no additional markings like fuselage bands were carried.

To set the SG 104 apart from the airframe, I painted the weapon's visible parts in RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau, Humbrol 67), because this tone was frequently used for machinery (including the interior surfaces of aircraft towards 1945).

RLM 02 was also used for the interior surfaces and the landing gear, even though I used a slightly different, lighter shade in form of Revell 45 (Helloliv).

 

A light black ink washing was applied and post-shading to emphasize panel lines. Most markings/decals came from a Begemot 1:72 He 11 sheet, including the unusual green tactical code - it belongs to a staff unit, a suitable marking for such an experimental aircraft. The green (Humbrol 2) was carried over to the tips of the propeller spinners. The unit's code "1A" is fictional, AFAIK this combination had never been used by the Luftwaffe.

The small unit badge was alucky find: it actually depicts the fictional Baron von Münchhausen riding on a cannonball, and it comes from an Academy 1:72 Me 163 kit and its respective sheet. The mission markings underneath, depicting two anti-ship missions plus a successful sinking, came from a TL Modellbau 1:72 scale sheet with generic German WWII victory markings.

 

After some soot stains around the engine exhaust and weapon muzzles had been added with graphite, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish and final details like position lights and wire antennae (from heated black plastic sprue material) were added.

  

Well, what started as a combination of two kits of the same kind with a simple huge pipe underneath turned out to be more demanding than expected. The (incomplete) replacement engines were quite a challenge, and body work on the hull (tail stinger, fairing for the SG 104 as well as the weapon itself) turned out to be more complex and extensive than initially thought of. The result looks quite convincing, also supported by the rather simple paint scheme which IMHO just "looks right" and very convincing. And the whole thing is probably the most direct representation of the inspiring "Gunship" theme!

 

+++ 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 Sondergerät SG104 "Münchhausen" was a German airborne recoillless 355.6 mm (14-inch) caliber gun, intended to engage even the roughest enemy battleships, primarily those of the Royal Navy. The design of this unusual and massive weapon began in 1939. The rationale behind it was that a battleship’s most vulnerable part was the deck – a flat surface, with relatively thin armor (as typical hits were expected on the flanks) and ideally with vital targets underneath, so that a single, good hit would cripple of even destroy a ship. The purpose of such a high angle of attack was likely to allow the projectile to penetrate the target ship's deck, where the ship's armor, if there was any, would have been much thinner than the armor on its sidesHowever, hitting the deck properly with another ship’s main gun was not easy, since it could only be affected through indirect hits and the typical angle of the attack from aballistic shot would not necessarily be ideal for deep penetration, esp. at long range.

The solution to this problem: ensure that the heavy projectile would hit its target directly from above, ideally at a very steep angle. To achieve this, the gun with battleship caliber was “relocated” from a carrier ship or a coastal battery onto an aircraft – specifically to a type that was capable of dive-bombing, a feature that almost any German bomber model of the time offered.

 

Firing such a heavy weapon caused a lot fo problems, which were severe even if the gun was mounted on a ship or on land. To compensate for such a large-caliber gun’s recoil and to make firing a 14 in shell (which alone weighed around almost 700 kg/1.550 lb, plus the charge) from a relatively light airframe feasible, the respective gun had to be as light as possible and avoid any recoil, which would easily tear an aircraft – even a bomber – apart upon firing. Therefore, the Gerät 104 was designed as a recoilless cannon. Its firing system involved venting the same amount of the weapon's propellant gas for its round to the rear of the launch tube (which was open at both ends), in the same fashion as a rocket launcher. This created a forward directed momentum which was nearly equal to the rearward momentum (recoil) imparted to the system by accelerating the projectile itself. The balance thus created did not leave much net momentum to be imparted to the weapon's mounting or the carrying airframe in the form of felt recoil. A further share of the recoil induced by the moving round itself could be compensated by a muzzle brake which re-directed a part of the firing gases backwards. Since recoil had been mostly negated, a heavy and complex recoil damping mechanism was not necessary – even though the weapon itself was huge and heavy.

 

Work on the "Münchhausen" device (a secret project handle after a fictional German nobleman created by the German writer Rudolf Erich Raspe in the late 18th century who reputedly had ridden on a cannonball between enemy frontlines), was done by Rheinmetall-Borsig and lasted until 1941. The first test of a prototype weapon was conducted on 9th of September 1940 in Unterlüss with a satisfactory result, even though the weapon was only mounted onto an open rack and not integrated into an airframe yet. At that time, potential carriers were the Ju 88, the Dornier Do 217 and the new Junkers Ju 288. Even though the system’s efficacy was doubted, the prospect of delivering a single, fatal blow to an important , armored arget superseded any doubts at the RLM, and the project was greenlit in early 1942 for the next stage: the integration of the Sondergerät 104 into an existing airframe. The Ju 88 and its successor, the Ju 188, turned out to be too light and lacked carrying capacity for the complete, loaded weapon, and the favored Ju 288 was never produced, so that only the Dornier Do 217 or the bigger He 177 remained as a suitable carriers. The Do 217 was eventually chosen because it had the biggest payload and the airframe was proven and readily available.

 

After calculations had verified that the designed 14 in rifle would have effectively no recoil, preliminary tests with dumm airframes were carried out. After ground trials with a Do 217 E day bomber to check recoil and blast effects on the airframe, the development and production of a limited Nullserie (pre-production series) of the dedicated Do 217 F variant for field tests and eventual operational use against British sea and land targets was ordered in April 1942.

 

The resulting Do 217 F-0 was based on the late “E” bomber variant and powered by a pair of BMW 801 radial engines. It was, however, heavily modified for its unique weapon and the highly specialized mission profile: upon arriving at the zone of operation at high altitude, the aircraft would initiate a dive with an angle of attack between 50° and 80° from the horizontal, firing the SG 104 at an altitude between 6,000 and 2,000 meters. The flight time of the projectile could range from 16.0 seconds for a shot from an altitude of 6,000 meters at a 50° angle to just 4.4 seconds for a shot from 2.000 meters at an almost vertical 80° angle. Muzzle velocity of the SG 104 was only 300 m/s, but, prior to impact, the effective velocity of the projectile was projected to range between 449 and 468 m/s (1,616 to 1,674 km/h). Together with the round's weight of roughly 700 kg (1.550 lb) and a hardened tip, this would still ensure a high penetration potential.

 

The operational Sondergerät 104 had an empty mass of 2.780 kg (6,123 lb) and its complete 14 inch double cartridge weighed around 1.600 kg (3,525 lb). The loaded mass of the weapon was 4,237 kg, stretching the limits of the Do 217’s load capacity to the maximum, so that some armor and less vital pieces of equipment were deleted. Crew and defensive armament were reduced to a minimum.

Even though there had been plans to integrate the wepaon into the airframe (on the Ju 288), the Gerät 104 was on the Do 217 F-0 mounted externally and occupied the whole space under the aircraft, precluding any use of the bomb bay. The latter was occupied by the Gerät 104’s complex mount, which extended to the outside under a streamlined fairing and held the weapon at a distance from the airframe. Between the mount’s struts inside of the fuselage, an additional fuel tank for balance reasons was added, too.

The gun’s center, where the heavy round was carried, was positioned under the aircraft’s center of gravity, so that the gun barrel markedly protruded from under the aircraft’s nose. To make enough space, the Do 217 Es bomb aimer’s ventral gondola and his rearward-facing defensive position under the cockpit were omitted and faired over. The nose section was also totally different: the original extensive glazing (the so-called “Kampfkopf”) was replaced by a smaller, conventional canopy, similar to the later Do 217 J and N night fighter versions, together with a solid nose - the original glass panels would have easily shattered upon firing the gun, esp. in a steep high-speed dive. A "Lotfernrohr" bomb aiming device was still installed in a streamlined and protected fairing, though, so that the navigator could guide the pilot during the approach to the target and during the attack run.

To stabilize the heavy aircraft during its attack and to time- and safely pull out of the dive, a massive mechanical dive brake was mounted at the extended tail tip, which unfolded with four "petals". A charecteristic stabilizing dorsal strake was added between the twin fins, too.

 

The ventral area behind the gun’s rear-facing muzzle received additional metal plating and blast guiding vanes, after trials in late 1940 had revealed that firing the SG 104 could easily damage the Do 217’s tail structure, esp. all of the tail surfaces’ rudders and the fins’ lower ends in particular. Due to all this extra weight, the Do 217 F-0’s defensive armament consisted only of a single 13 mm MG 131 machine gun in a manually operated dorsal position behind the cockpit cabin, which offered space for a crew of three. A fixed 15 mm MG 151 autocannon was mounted in the nose, too, a weapon with a long barrel for extended range and accuracy. It was not an offensive weapon, though, rather intended as an aiming aid for the SG 104 because it was loaded with tracer bullets: during the final phase of the attack dive, the pilot kept firing the MG 151, and the bullet trail showed if he was on target to fire the SG 104 when the right altitude/range had been reached.

 

The first Do 217 F-0 was flown and tested in late 1943, and after some detail changes the type was cleared for a limited production run of ten aircraft in January 1944. The first operational machine was delivered to a dedicated testing commando, the Erprobungskommando 104 “Münchhausen”, also known as “Sonderkommando Münchhausen” or simply “E-Staffel 104”. The unit was based at Bordeaux/Merignac and directly attached to the KG 40's as a staff flight. At that time, KG 40 operated Do 217 and He 177 bombers and frequently flew reconnaissance and anti-shipping missions over the Atlantic west of France, up to the British west and southern coast, equipped with experimental Henschel Hs 293 glide bombs.

 

Initial flights confirmed that the Do 217 airframe was burdened with the SG 104 to its limits, the already rather sluggish aircraft (the Do 217 had generally a high wing loading and was not easy to fly) lost anything that was left of what could be called agility. It needed an experienced pilot to handle it safely, esp. during start and landing. It is no wonder that two Do 217 F-0s suffered ground accidents during the first two weeks of operations, but the machines could be repaired, resume the test program and carry out attack missions.

However, during one of the first test shots with the weapon, one Do 217 F-0 lost its complete tail section though the gun blast, and the aircraft crashed into the Bay of Biscay, killing the complete crew.

 

On 4th or April 1944 the first "hot" attack against an enemy ship was executed in the Celtic Sea off of Brest, against a convoy of 20 ships homeward bound from Gibraltar. The attack was not successful, though, the shot missing its target, and the German bomber was attacked and heavily damaged by British Bristol Beaufighters that had been deployed to protect the ships. The Do 217F-0 eventually crashed and sank into the Atlantic before it could reach land again.

 

A couple of days later, on 10th of April, the first attempt to attack and destroy a land target was undertaken: two Do 217 F-0s took off to attack Bouldnor Battery, an armored British artillery position located on the Isle of Wight. One machine had to abort the attack due to oil leakages, the second Do 217 F-0 eventually reached its target and made a shallow attack run, but heavy fog obscured the location and the otherwise successful shot missed the fortification. Upon return to its home base the aircraft was intercepted by RAF fighters over the Channel and heavily damaged, even though German fighters deployed from France came to the rescue, fought the British attackers off and escorted the limping Do 217 F-0 back to its home base.

 

These events revealed that the overall SG 104 concept was generally feasible, but also showed that the Do 217 F-0 was very vulnerable without air superiority or a suitable escort, so that new tactics had to be developed. One consequence was that further Do 217 F-0 deployments were now supported by V/KG 40, the Luftwaffe's only long range maritime fighter unit. These escorts consisted of Junkers Ju 88C-6s, which were capable of keeping up with the Do 217 F-0 and fend of intercepting RAF Coastal Command’s Beaufighters and later also Mosquitos.

 

In the meantime, tests with the SG 104 progressed and several modifications were tested on different EKdo 104's Do 217 F-0s. One major upgrade was a further strengthening of the tail section, which added another 200 kg (440 lb) to the aircraft's dry weight. Furthermore, at least three aircraft were outfitted with additional dive brakes under the outer wings, so that the dive could be better controlled and intercepted. these aircraft, however, lost their plumbed underwing hardpoints, but these were only ever used for drop tanks during transfer flights - a loaded SG 104 precluded any other ordnance. On two other aircraft the SG 104 was modified to test different muzzle brakes and deflectors for the rear-facing opening, so that the gun blast was more effectively guided away from the airframe to prevent instability and structural damage. For instance, one machine was equipped with a bifurcated blast deflector that directed the rearward gasses partly sideways, away from the fuselage.

 

These tests did not last long, though. During the Allied Normandy landings in June 1944 E-Staffel 104 was hastily thrown into action and made several poorly-prepared attack runs against Allied support ships. The biggest success was a full hit and the resulting sinking of the Norwegian destroyer HNoMS Svenner (G03) by "1A+BA" at dawn on 6th of June, off Sword, one of the Allied landing zones. Other targets were engaged, too, but only with little effect. This involvement, however, led to the loss of three Do 217 F-0s within just two days and four more heavily damaged aircraft – leaving only two of EKdo 104's Do 217 F-0s operational.

 

With the Allied invasion of France and a worsening war condition, the SG 104 program was stopped in August 1944 and the idea of an airborne anti-ship gun axed in favor of more flexible guided weapons like the Hs 293 missile and the Fritz-X glide bomb. Plans for a further developed weapon with a three-round drum magazine were immediately stopped, also because there was no carrier aircraft in sight that could carry and deploy this complex 6.5 tons weapon. However, work on the SG 104 and the experience gained from EKdo 104's field tests were not in vain. The knowledge gathered from the Münchhausen program was directly used for the design of a wide range of other, smaller recoilless aircraft weapons, including the magnetically-triggered SG 113 "Förstersonde" anti-tank weapon or the lightweight SG 118 "Rohrblock" unguided air-to-air missile battery for the Heinkel He 162 "Volksjäger".

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 3 (pilot, navigator, radio operator/gunner)

Length: 20,73 m (67 ft 11 in) overall

18,93 m (62 ft 3/4 in) hull only

Wingspan: 19 m (62 ft 4 in)

Height: 4.97 m (16 ft 4 in)

Wing area: 57 m² (610 sq ft)

Empty weight: 9,065 kg (19,985 lb)

Empty equipped weight:10,950 kg (24,140 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 16,700 kg (36,817 lb)

Fuel capacity: 2,960 l (780 US gal; 650 imp gal) in fuselage tank and four wing tanks

 

Powerplant:

2× BMW 801D-2 14-cylinder air-cooled radial piston engines, delivering

1,300 kW (1,700 hp) each for take-off and 1,070 kW (1,440 hp) at 5,700 m (18,700 ft),

driving 3-bladed VDM constant-speed propellers

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 475 km/h (295 mph, 256 kn) at sea level

560 km/h (350 mph; 300 kn) at 5,700 m (18,700 ft)

Cruise speed: 400 km/h (250 mph, 220 kn) with loaded Gerät 104 at optimum altitude

Range: 2,180 km (1,350 mi, 1,180 nmi) with maximum internal fuel

Ferry range: 2,500 km (1,600 mi, 1,300 nmi); unarmed, with auxiliary fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 7,370 m (24,180 ft) with loaded Gerät 104,

9,500 m (31,200 ft) after firing

Rate of climb: 3.5 m/s (690 ft/min)

Time to altitude: 1,000 m (3,300 ft) in 4 minutes 10 seconds

2,000 m (6,600 ft) in 8 minutes 20 seconds

6,100 m (20,000 ft) in 24 minutes 40 seconds

 

Armament:

1x 355.6 mm (14-inch) Sondergerät 104 recoilless gun with a single round in ventral position

1x 15 mm (0.787 in) MG 151 machine cannon with 200 rounds, fixed in the nose

1x 13 mm (0.512 in) MG 131 machine gun with 500 rounds, movable in dorsal position

Two underwing hardpoints for a 900 l drop tank each, but only used during unarmed ferry flights

  

The kit and its assembly:

This was another submission to the "Gunships" group build at whatifmodellers.com in late 2021, and inspiration struck when I realized that I had two Italeri Do 217 in The Stash - a bomber and a night fighter - that could be combined into a suitable (fictional) carrier for a Sondergerät 104. This mighty weapon actually existed and even reached the hardware/test stage - but it was never integrated into an airframe and tested in flight. But that's what this model is supposed to depict.

 

On the Do 217, the Sg 104 would have been carried externally under the fuselage, even though there had been plans to integrate this recoilless rifle into airframes, esp. into the Ju 288. Since the latter never made it into production, the Do 217 would have been the most logical alternative, also because it had the highest payload of all German bombers during WWII and probably the only aircraft capable of carrying and deploying the Münchhausen device, as the SG 104 was also known.

 

The fictional Do 217 F-0 is a kitbashing, using a Do 217 N fuselage, combined with the wings from a Do 217 K bomber, plus some modifications. What initially sounded like a simple plan soon turned into a improvisation mess: it took some time to realize that I had already donated the Do 217 K's BMW 801 engines to another project, an upgraded He 115... I did not want to use the nightfighter's more powerful DB 603s, and I was lucky to have an Italeri Ju 188 kit at hand which comes with optional BMW 801s and Jumo 211s. Transplanting these engines onto the Do 217's wings took some tailoring of the adapter plates, but was feasible. However, the BMW 801s from the Ju 188 kit have a flaw: they lack the engine's characteristic cooling fans... Another lucky find: I found two such parts in the scrap box, even though from different kits - one left over from another Italeri Do 217 K, the other one from what I assume is/was an Italeri 1:72 Fw 190 A/F. To make matters worse, one propeller from the Ju 188 kit was missing, so that I had to find a(nother) replacement. :-/

I eventually used something that looked like an 1:72 F6F Hellcat propeller, but I an not certain about this because I have never built this model...? With some trimming on the blades' trailing edges and other mods, the donor's overall look could be adapted to the Ju 188 benchmark. Both propellers were mounted on metal axis' so that they could also carry the cooling fans. Lots of work, but the result looks quite good.

 

The Do 217 N's hull lost the lower rear gunner position and its ventral gondola, which was faired over with a piece of styrene sheet. The pilot was taken OOB, the gunner in the rear position was replaced by a more blob-like crew member from the scrap box. The plan to add a navigator in the seat to the lower right of the pilot did not work out due to space shortage, but this figure would probably have been invisble, anyway.

All gun openings in the nose were filled and PSRed away, and a fairing for a bomb aiming device and a single gun (the barrel is a hollow steel needle) were added.

 

The SG 104 was scratched. Starting point was a white metal replacement barrel for an 1:35 ISU-152 SPG with a brass muzzle brake. However, after dry-fitting the barrel under the hull the barrel turned out to be much too wide, so that only the muzzal brake survived and the rest of the weapon was created from a buddy refueling pod (from an Italeri 1:72 Luftwaffe Tornado, because of its two conical ends) and protective plastic caps from medical canulas. To attach this creation to the hull I abused a conformal belly tank from a Matchbox Gloster Meteor night fighter and tailored it into a streamlined fairing. While this quite a Frankenstein creation, the overall dimensions match the real SG 104 prototype and its look well.

 

Other cosmetic modifications include a pair of underwing dive brakes, translanted from an Italeri 1:72 Ju 88 A-4 kit, an extended (scratched) tail "stinger" which resembles the real dive brake arrangement that was installed on some Do 217 E bombers, and I added blast deflector vanes and a dorsal stabilizer fin.

In order to provide the aircraft with enough ground clearance, the tail wheel was slightly extended. Thanks to the long tail stinger, this is not blatantly obvious.

  

Painting and markings:

This was not an easy choice, but as a kind of prototype I decided that the paint scheme should be rather conservative. However, German aircraft operating over the Atlantic tended to carry rather pale schemes, so that the standard pattern of RLM 70/71/65 (Dunkelgrün, Schwarzgrün and Hellblau) with a low waterline - typical for experimental types - would hardly be appropriate.

I eventually found a compromise on a He 177 bomber (coded 6N+BN) from 1944 that was operated by KG 100: this particular aircraft had a lightened upper camouflage - still a standard splinter scheme but consisting of RLM 71 and 02 (Dunkelgrün and Grau; I used Modelmaster 2081 and Humbrol 240), a combination that had been used on German fighters during the Battle of Britain when the standard colors turned out to be too dark for operations over the Channel. The aircraft also carried standard RLM 65 (or maybe the new RLM76) underneath (Humbrol 65) and on the fin, but with a very high and slightly wavy waterline. As a rather unusual feature, no typical camouflage mottles were carried on the flanks or the fin, giving the aircraft a very bleak and simple look.

 

Despite my fears that this might look rather boring I adapted this scheme for the Do 217 F-0, and once basic painting was completed I was rather pleased by the aircraft's look! As an aircraft operated at the Western front, no additional markings like fuselage bands were carried.

To set the SG 104 apart from the airframe, I painted the weapon's visible parts in RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau, Humbrol 67), because this tone was frequently used for machinery (including the interior surfaces of aircraft towards 1945).

RLM 02 was also used for the interior surfaces and the landing gear, even though I used a slightly different, lighter shade in form of Revell 45 (Helloliv).

 

A light black ink washing was applied and post-shading to emphasize panel lines. Most markings/decals came from a Begemot 1:72 He 11 sheet, including the unusual green tactical code - it belongs to a staff unit, a suitable marking for such an experimental aircraft. The green (Humbrol 2) was carried over to the tips of the propeller spinners. The unit's code "1A" is fictional, AFAIK this combination had never been used by the Luftwaffe.

The small unit badge was alucky find: it actually depicts the fictional Baron von Münchhausen riding on a cannonball, and it comes from an Academy 1:72 Me 163 kit and its respective sheet. The mission markings underneath, depicting two anti-ship missions plus a successful sinking, came from a TL Modellbau 1:72 scale sheet with generic German WWII victory markings.

 

After some soot stains around the engine exhaust and weapon muzzles had been added with graphite, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish and final details like position lights and wire antennae (from heated black plastic sprue material) were added.

  

Well, what started as a combination of two kits of the same kind with a simple huge pipe underneath turned out to be more demanding than expected. The (incomplete) replacement engines were quite a challenge, and body work on the hull (tail stinger, fairing for the SG 104 as well as the weapon itself) turned out to be more complex and extensive than initially thought of. The result looks quite convincing, also supported by the rather simple paint scheme which IMHO just "looks right" and very convincing. And the whole thing is probably the most direct representation of the inspiring "Gunship" theme!

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  

General characteristics

Crew: 2

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

Wingspan: 14.97 m (49 ft)

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

Wing area: 30.30 m2 (326.1 sq ft)

Aspect ratio: 6.9:1

Airfoil: NACA 642A215 at root, NACA641 at tip

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

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

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

 

Powerplant:

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

 

Performance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

g limits: +6/-3 g

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

 

Armament

2× 30 mm ADEN cannons in the lower nose

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

  

The kit and its assembly:

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

  

Painting and markings:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

 

Some background:

The Su-21 attack aircraft had its roots in the Su-15 interceptor, which itself was a development of Sukhoi's tailed-delta Su-9 and Su-11 interceptor fighters. Construction of the Su-15 (internal project designation T-58) began in mid-1960, state acceptance tests of the respective T-58-8M1 interception complex with radar and air-to-air missiles started in August 1963.

In 1966 series production at Novosibirsk began, the first pre-series Su-15 interceptor made its first flight from Novosibirsk on 6 March 1966. Once identified as a new service aircraft, NATO christened the type 'Flagon'. While the Su-15 was in series production, a number of improved design features were developed, tested and subsequently introduced with a new production series of the interceptor.

 

In 1969, under the influence of the Vietnam conflict and the conclusion that dedicated ground attack aircraft were needed in a modern battlefield, the Sukhoi OKB investigated options for a new close-support "mudfighter" aircraft. One option was a derivative of the Su-15, designated the "T-58Sh" -- the suffix "Sh" stood for "shturmovik (storm bird)", a general Soviet name for a close-support aircraft.

 

The T-58Sh design was based on the Su-15 fuselage and engine installation with two Tumansky R-13-300 turbojets, but with considerable modifications. These included totally new wings and stabilizers - the orginal delta wing for high speed gave way to tapered wings with a constant 40° sweep, and the horizontal stabilizers were modified, too. The original fin was kept, though, as well as most of the landing gear installation, even though the front wheel retracted backwards now, since the complete nose up until spar no. 10 had been redesigned: instead of the interceptor's large radome, a slanted, considerably shorter nose improved the field of view for the pilot. In its tip it housed a 'Fon' laser rangefinder as well as a missile guidance antenna. A Doppler radar was housed under the nose, too, and an ASP-PF gunsight and a PBK-2 bomb sight optimized for lob-bombing were installed. The cockpit was completely armored, as well as parts of the lower fuselage around the engine section. All internal tanks (holding 4.500kg/9.921lb of fuel in the fuselage as well as in the wings) were self-sealing.

 

Another novelty was the freshly developed, built-in Gatling cannon, the GSh-30A, also known as 9A-621. This formidable, six-barreled weapon had a pneumatic mechanism (instead of en electric system, which was used in US types like the M61 'Vulcan' gun), fired 30mm shells and achieved a staggering fire rate of 5.000rpm. The cannon's magazine held 280 rounds - a shift of fuel tanks from the fuselage into the new wings with more internal space allowed the belly installation behind the front wheel well. Furthermore, a total of nine external weapon hardpoints allowed an ordnance load of up to 5.500kg (12.115lb), which included laser-guided smart bombs/missiles as well as tactical nuclear weapons.

 

Two T-58Sh prototypes were completed, and the first of these flew on 6 April 1968, the second on 26 September 1968. After State Acceptance Trials the Su-15Sh entered service in 1970 - in parallel, OKB Mikoyan was also working on a ground attack variant of its MiG-23 VG fighter, the later MiG-27, which flew in 1971 for the first time.

This advantage in time to service worked in favor of the Suchoj aircraft, which was so different from its Su-15 origins that it received a new service-designation, Su-21 (which was, by Western observers, often miss-attributed to the late Su-15 interceptor versions with ogive radomes and new double-delta wings).

By 1972, four squadrons were equipped with the new aircraft. Interestingly, none of the Su-21 were deployed to Afghanistan. Instead, the new fighter bombers were exclusively allocated to Attack Regiments in the potential Western conflict theatre, two of them based in Poland and two in Eastern Germany.

 

The basic version of the aircraft was produced at Factory 31, at Tbilisi, in the Soviet Republic of Georgia. Between 1969 and 1975, 182 Su-21 were produced. Much like the Su-15 interceptor variants, there were no exports, the Soviet/Russian Air Force remained the only operator - the more versatile MiG-23/27 filled that role. Later, foreign customers would receive the Su-25K from Sukhoi's export program, as well as the Su-20 and 22 VG fighter bombers.

 

During its service career, the Su-21 was constantly upgraded. One of the most significant changes was an MLU programme which, among others, introduced the 'Shkval' optical TV and aiming system, which was coupled with a new 'Prichal' laser rangefinder and target designator in an enlarged nosecone. This system enabled the aircraft to carry out all-weather missions, day and night, and also allowed to deploy the new 'Vikhr' laser-guided, tube-launched missiles, which were very effective against armored vehicles.

These updated aircraft received the designation Su-21D ('dorabotanyy' = updated). Two respective prototypes were built in 1982–84, and all aircraft were brought to this standard until 1988.

 

The only engagement of the Su-21 in a real combat scenario was its employment during the First Chechen War - which also signalized the type's retirement, after the conflict was over. Together with other Russian Air Force air assets, The Su-21s achieved air supremacy for Russian Forces, destroying up to 266 Chechen aircraft on the ground. The entire Air Force assets committed to the Chechen campaign between 1994 and 1996 performed around 9,000 air sorties, with around 5,300 being strike sorties. The 4th Russian Air Army had 140 Su-17Ms, Su-21Ds, Su-24s and Su-25s in the warzone supported by an A-50 AWACS aircraft. The employed munitions were generally unguided bombs and rockets with only 2.3% of the strikes using precision-guided munitions.

 

The Su-21 was a controversial aircraft. It was relatively reliable, benefitting from its two engines and solid armor, which was seen as one of the most important features for a true battlefield aircraft - inofficially, it was nicknamed 'ома́р' ('lobster') among the crews.

It had a high payload and was a very stable weapon platform. But the type suffered from the fact that it was an interceptor derivate which had originally been designed for dashes at Mach 2.5 at high altitudes. Consequently, the airframe had to be enforced to withstand higher G loads at low level flight and with heavy external loads, so that it was basically overweight. The extra armor did not help much either.

 

Additionally, the R-13 jet engines (basically the same that powered the 3rd generation MiG-21MF) were thirsty, even when running without the afterburner extra power, so that the type's range was very limited. Its ability to dash beyond Mach 1 even at low altitudes was of little tactical use, even though its high rate of acceleration and climb made it ideal for suprise attacks and delivery of tactical nuclear weapons - the latter was the main reason why the type was kept in service for so long until it was replaced by Su-24 bombers in this role.

 

Another source of constant trouble was the GSh-30A cannon. While its firepower was overwhelming, the vibrations it caused while firing and the pressure blasts from the nozzles could badly damage the aircraft's lower fuselage. There had been several incidents when the front wheel covers had literally been blown apart, and in one case the gun itself detached from its fuselage mount while firing - hitting the aircraft itself from below!

 

In the end, the Su-21 could not live up to the expectations of its intended role - even though this was less the aircraft's fault: the military demands had been unclear from the beginning, and the T-58Sh had been a second- choice solution to this diffuse performance profile.

Eventually the MiG-27 and also the Su-17/22 family as well as the biggher Su-24 tactical bomber, thanks to their variable geometry wings, proved to be the more flexible aircraft for the ground attack/fighter bomber role. But the lessons learned from the Su-21 eventually found their way into the very successful, subsonic Su-25 ('Frogfoot') family. The last Su-21D was retired in January 1997, after a service career of 25 years.

   

General characteristics

Crew: 1

Length (with pitot): 17.57 m (57 ft 6 1/4 in)

Wingspan: 12.24 m (40 ft 1 in)

Height: 4.84 m (15 ft 10 in)

Empty weight: 11.225 kg (24.725 lb)

Loaded weight: 17.500 kg (38.580 lb)

 

Powerplant:

2× Tumansky R-13-300 turbojets,each rated at 40.21 kN (9,040 lbf) dry and at 70.0 kN (15,730 lbf) with afterburner

 

Performance

Maximum speed: 1.250km/h (777mph/674nm) at sea level

Range: 1.380 km (855 ml)

Ferry range: 1.850 km (1.146 mi)

Service ceiling: 17.000 m (55.665 ft)

 

Armament

1× GSh-30A gatling gun with 280 RPG in the lower fuselage

9× hardpoints (three under the fuselage, three under each wing) for a weapon load of up to 5.500kg (12.115lb),

including iron bombs, unguided missiles and rocket pods, guided weapons, napalm tanks or gun pods; two R-60 (AA-8 "Aphid") AAMs were typically carried for self-defense on the outer pylon pair

  

The kit and its assembly:

This whif actually has a real background, as outlined above - OKB Sukhoi actually worked in the late 60ies on a Su-15 derivate as a specialized attack aircraft, since the Soviet Forces lacked that type. The ground attack types then in service were the vintage MiG-17 and converted MiG-19 fighters, as well as the fast but very limited Su-7 - either outdated fighters or a fighter-bomber with insufficient range and payload.

Specifications for a ground attack aircraft were unclear at that time, though. Supersonic capability was still seen as a vital asset for any military aircraft, and WWII tactics were still the basis for close air support duties. The T-58Sh was eventually one design direction that would keep development time and costs low, starting with a proven basic airframe and adapting it to a new (and very different) role.

 

The Su-15, from which the T-58Sh was derived, originally was a Mach 2 interceptor, solely armed with missiles. Making THIS a ground attack aircraft surely was a huge step. The projected Su-15Sh, how the aircrfat was also called, was still to be supersonic, since this was seen as a vital asset at that time. This concept would eventually be a dead end, though, or, alternatively, result in the lighter and much cheaper MiG-27 tactical fighter in the 70ies. But it should still take some more years until a subsonic, simple and dedicated aircraft (the T-8, which made its maiden flight in 1975 and became later the Su-25 'Frogfoot') would be the 'right' direction for the new shturmovik. The Su-15Sh actually never left the drawing board, the swing-wing Su-17/20/22 more or less took its place in real life.

 

With that background my idea was to build a model of the ground attack Su-15 derivate in front line service in the mid 80ies, at the Cold War's peak and used by the Group of Soviet Forces in (Eastern) Germany. The Su-21 designation is fictional. But since the aircraft would be SO different from the Su-15 interceptor I can hardly imagine that it would have been called Su-15Sh in service. Since its cousin, the MiG-27, also received a new designation, I decided to apply the Su-21 code (which was never applied to a real aircraft - those Su-15 versions called Su-21 are just misnomers or speculations of Western 'experts' when the Iron Curtain was still up).

 

As a coincidence, I had all 'ingredients' at hand:

● Fuselage and fin from a PM Model Su-15

● Nose section from an Academy MiG-27 (leftover from the Q-6 kitbach)

● Wings and horizontal stabilizers from an ESCI A-7

  

The A-7 wings have slightly more sweep than what the drafted T-58Sh had (45° vs. 40°), as far as I can tell from profiles, but otherwise they fit in shape and size. I just cut the orginal leading edge away, sculpted a new front from putty, and the result looked very good.

 

What became tricky were the landing gear wells. Part of the Su-15 landing gear retracts into the lower fuselage, and mating this with the Corsair's wings and the potential space for the landing gear there did not match up properly -the wings would end up much too far behind.

 

After some trials I decided to cut out the landing gear wells on the lower side of the wings, relatively far forward, and cut out a part of the lower fuselage, reversed it, so that the landing gear wells woukd be placed about 5mm further forward, and the wings were finally attached to the fuselage so that these would match the respective openings on the fuselage's bottom. This was more or less the only major and unexpected surgery, and the original Su-15 landing gear could be retained.

 

Using the A-7's stabilizers was also a bit off the original concept (the T-58Sh appeared to keep the original parts), but I found that the more slender but wider A-7 parts just made the aircraft look more homogenous?

 

Grafting the MiG-27 cockpit (which was taken OOB) onto the fuselage was not a big problem, since the intersection is of simple shape and fits well by height and width. I made a vertical cut on the Su-15 fuselage in the middle of the air intake area, which would later be hidden through the air intakes. The latter were taken from the Su-15, but simplified: the intake became simple and "vertical", and the large, orginal splitter plates were replaced by the shorter speiceimen from the MiG-27 kit. The fit almost perfectly, are just a bit short, so that a small hole had to be filled with styrene strips on the lower side.

 

The fin was taken OOB, just as on the propsed real aircraft. The resulting side profile reminds VERY much of a Dassault Étendard on steroids...? The whole thing also looks a bit like the missing link between the Su-15 and the later Su-24 fighter bomber - esp. when you know the Fencer's fixed-wing T-6 prototype.

 

Externally, the gatling gun (also taken from the leftoevr MiG-27) and a total of nine hardpoints were added - three under the fuselage, flanking the gun, and six under the outer wings.

Since the Su 15 is a pretty large aircraft, I used the opportunity to equip the aircraft with serious air-to-ground ordnance, a pair of TV-guided Kh-29T (AS-14 "Kedge") missiles from an ICM USSR weapon set and a pair of R-60 AAMs, leftover from an ESCI Ka-34. Furthermore, chaff/flare dispensers were added to the rear upper fuselage, as well as some antennae and the pitots.

 

Actually, this kitbash was less complicated as expected. Needed lots of putty, sure, but this would also have been needed on the OOB Su-15 from PM Models, as it is a primitive and crude model kit. Here, it found a good use. One drawback is, though, that the surface lacks detail: the PM Model Su-15 is bleak (to put it mildly), and the re-used A-7 wings lost much of their engraved details to leftover paint or sanding - paint tricks would have to mend this.

  

Painting and markings:

As a frontline service aircraft, this one would receive a tactical camouflage pattern. The Soviet Air Force offers a wide range of options, ranging from boring to bizarre, and I settled for a typical four-color camouflage with light blue undersides:

● Humbrol 119 (Light Earth)

● Humbrol 159 (Khaki Drab)

● Humbrol 195 (Chrome Oxide Green, RAL 6020)

● Testors 2005 (Burnt Umber)

● Humbrol 115 (Russian Blue) for the lower surfaces

 

The paint scheme was inspired by a East Germany-based Su-17, the colors are guesstimates, based on pictures of real-life Soviet aircraft.

 

Cockpit interior was painted in typical, infamous Soviet/Russian turqoise (*Argh*), the complete landing gear was painted in Aluminum (Humbrol 56); the wheel discs became bright green (Humbrol 131), di-electric panels (e .g. the fin tip) received a coat in Forest Green (Humbrol 149, FS 34092).

 

The model was weathered through some counter-shading with lighter tones of the five basic colors, a wash with black ink and some additional stains and blotches with different shades of green and brown, including Humbrol 98 118, 128, 151 - even some RLM 82 from Testors found its way onto the aircraft!

 

Decals and markings were puzzled together from various aftermarket sheets, and are based on real life pictures of Soviet/Russian aircraft based in Eastern Germany.

 

I also added some bare metal stains at the leading edges and soot stains around the gun. Since the kitbashed model was pretty bleak, I tried to add painted panel lines - using a thin brush and a mix of matt varnish and black. The counter-shading applied before enhances this effect, and if you do not look too closely at the model, the result is O.K.

 

Finally, everything was sealed under a coat of matt acrylic varnish.

Reproduced here with kind permission of the original artist.

 

The P-82 profiles on the left hand side were the initial spark that led to my "Bastang II" kitbashing - originally, the discussion circled around a "halved" P-82 with 2 engines and a conventional layout.

 

But when I started working, I thought about taking this concept further, and so I modded a conventional P-51 so far that it not only carried two wing-mounted engines, but also a tricycle landing gear, a crew of three and some other mods.

 

Tophe was so kind to create another profile of this result, including further variations (profiles on the right hand side).

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

1 2 ••• 21 22 24 26 27 ••• 79 80