View allAll Photos Tagged kitbash

⚔️💎

#motu #sheraprincessofpower #shera #princessofpower

#starla #starlaandthejewelriders #gwenevereandthejewelriders #kitbash #onesixthscale #onesixthcustom #onesixthfigure #faceup #repaint #repaintdoll #2020plans #lockdownproject #lockdownprojects2020

#dollproject #dollcrafts #sewingfordolls #dollsclothes #ooakdoll #boyswithdolls #toyartistry #toyphotography #customdoll #dollstagram

Bounty hunter ship or heavy starfighter. With ball-jointed outboard engines for high maneuverability.

 

Picked up this tiny little Bandai, so detailed, so cheap! Anyway the parts are fun to play around with. Some interesting ship designs resulted.

💎

#starla #starlaandthejewelriders #gwenevereandthejewelriders #kitbash #onesixthscale #onesixthcustom #onesixthfigure #faceup #repaint #repaintdoll #2020plans #lockdownproject #lockdownprojects2020

#dollproject #dollcrafts #sewingfordolls #dollsclothes #ooakdoll #boyswithdolls #toyartistry #toyphotography #customdoll #dollstagram

got a proper vest (not a spray painted tan one..) and the under armor style combat shirt for Chris here, he's pretty close to how he looks in Resident Evil 6 now, I also repainted his hair since in game it's more of a dark brown not black, also put him on a sideshow muscle body, which I hate because it really limits the pose ability, rifle aiming poses look kinda wonky now

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

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

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

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

Wing area: 241.3 sq ft (22,52 m²)

Empty weight: 10,681 lb (4.845 kg)

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

Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0134

Frontal area: 32 sq ft (3.0 m²)

 

Powerplant:

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

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

 

Performance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lift-to-drag: 17.7

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

Thrust/weight: 0.249 dry

0.328 with afterburner

 

Armament:

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

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

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

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

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

  

The kit and its assembly:

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  

Painting and markings:

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  

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

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Luxembourgeois (Luxembourg National Railway Company, abbreviated CFL) is the national railway company of Luxembourg. The Luxembourg rail system comprises (only) 275 route-kilometres (170 miles), of which 140 kilometres (87 mi) is double track and 135 kilometres (84 mi) single track. Of the total track length of 617 kilometres (383 mi), 576 kilometres (358 mi) are electrified at 25 kV, 50 Hz AC.

 

Luxembourg borders Belgium, France and Germany. Correspondingly, there are cross-border services into these countries. Some are wholly run by CFL, whereas others are run by SNCF, NMBS/SNCB and DB. CFL passenger trains cover most of the network and are operated by EMUs and electric locomotives, typically with push-pull stock. Despite a high degree of electrification, the CFL also had a fleet of diesel locomotives for hauling freight trains and for general shunting purposes. CFL.

The CFLs first electric locomotive, introduced in 1958, was the Class 3600, the so-called “fer à repasser” (= “electric iron”), a group of twenty electric locomotives that were built to the design of the French BB 12000 class. These were primarily intended for freight trains but also capable of pulling light passenger trains with up to 120 km/h (75 mph). The Class 3600 was originally designed to be capable of pulling 750 ton trains along a grade of 10 ‰, but in service it proved more than capable, frequently pulling 1100 tons and then even 1400 ton trains without problems.

 

However, for fast and heavier passenger trains, especially those that crossed the borders to Northern France with the same 25 kV, 50 Hz alternating current system as Luxembourg as well as to Germany with its 15 kV, 16.7 Hz electrification, the CFL ordered twelve additional dual system locomotive. They were more powerful and faster than the Class 3600 and became the new Class 3800 – roughly comparable with the German E 310/BR 181 dual system locomotives that were operated in the same region. The Class 3800 machines were designed and built between 1959 and 1961 in the Netherlands by Werkspoor in Utrecht, with technical support from the German Siemens-Schuckert-Werke (SSW) for the electric systems. They were heavily influenced by the contemporary Co′Co′ multipurpose Series 1200 electric locomotives for the Netherlands Spoorwegen (NS), originally designed by Baldwin and sporting typical American styling with a brawny silhouette, stepped “Cab unit” style nose sections and doors at the locomotives’ front ends to allow direct access to a coupled wagon from the driver cabins.

Even though they were based on the NS Series 1200, the CFL Class 3800 units used a shortened main frame and newly developed bogies with a Bo′Bo’ arrangement. All in all, the Class 3800 was more than 20 tons lighter than its Dutch six-axle sibling and only shared a superficial similarity – under the hood, the locomotive was technically totally different from the NS’ Series 1200 (which was designed for the Dutch 1.5 kV DC system).

 

The locomotives drew their energy from the 15 kV / 16 2/3 Hz or 25 kV / 50 Hz catenary via two diamond pantographs with contact strips of different lengths for the different areas of application. The 3-core transformers were oil-cooled, to which the control unit with its 28 running steps was connected. The acceleration was designed to function in delayed mode, where the engineer chose the running step, and the control unit would initiate the chosen setting independently. For emergency operation manual control by hand crank was possible, too. The voltage reached the main transformer via an air-operated main switch. On the secondary side, the traction motors were controlled via thyristors using stepless phase angle control, a modern technology at the time, as were the comparatively light mixed current motors. Mechanical switching mechanisms were therefore no longer required, and the vehicle control technology also worked with modern electronics. To ensure a good frictional connection between rail and wheel, the power converters always regulated a slightly lower tractive force on the preceding wheel sets of each bogie. If, however, one or more wheelsets slipped, the drive control reduced the tractive effort for a short time.

 

The CFL Class 3800’s four traction motors collective output was 3,700 kW (5,000 hp). This gave the Class 3800 a tractive effort of 275 kN (62,000 lbf) and a theoretical top speed of 150 km/h (93 mph), even though this was in practice limited to 140 km/h (87 mph). A time-division multiplex push-pull and double-traction control system was installed, too, so that two of these locomotives could together handle heavier freight trains and exploit the locomotives’ good traction. All locomotives featured an indirect air brake, with automatically stronger braking action at high speeds; for shunting/switching service an additional direct brake was present, too. All units featured a separately excited rheostatic/regenerative brake, which was coupled to the air brake. The heat generated by the electric brakes was dissipated via roof exhausts, supported by a pair of cooling fans.

 

The safety equipment in the driver's cab featured a mechanical or electronic deadman's device, punctiform automatic train controls, and train radio equipment with GSM-R communication. For operations in Germany the units received a third front light and separate red taillights, as well as an “Indusi” inductive system for data transfer between the track and locomotive by magnets mounted beside the rails and on the locomotive. Later in their career, automatic door locking at 0 km/h was retrofitted, which had become a compulsory requirement for all locomotives in passenger service.

 

After a thorough test phase of the pre-production locomotives 3801 and 3802 in 1960, the first Class 3800 serial units went into service in 1961 and were, due to the characteristic design of their driver’s cabins and their bulky shape, quickly nicknamed “Bouledogue” (Bulldog). The initial two locomotives were delivered in a pale blue-grey livery, but they were soon repainted in the CFL’s standard burgundy/yellow corporate paint scheme, and all following Class 3800 locomotives from 3803 on were directly delivered in this guise.

 

Initially, the service spectrum of the Bouledogues comprised primarily fast passenger trains on the CFL’s domestic main routes to the North and to the East, with additional border-crossing express trains, including prestigious TEE connections, to Germany (e. g. to Trier and Cologne) and France (Paris via Reims). The 3800s supplemented the CFL’s fast Series 1600 diesel locomotives on these important international destinations once they had been fully electrified. Occasionally, they were also used for freight trains in the industrial Esch-sur-Alzette region and for fast freight trains on the electrified main routes, as well as for regional passenger traffic on push-pull trains. Heavier freight trains remained the working field of the CFL Class 3600, even though occasional ore trains were handled by Class 3800 locomotives in double traction, too.

 

Even though Werkspoor hoped for more CFL orders for this dual-system type, the twelve Series 3800 locomotives remained the sole specimen. Potential buyers like Belgium or the Netherlands also did not show much interest – even though the SNCB ordered several multi-system locomotives, including eight indigenous Class 16 locomotives, equipped to run in France, Netherlands and Germany, or the six Class 18 four-system machines derived from the French SNCF CC 40100 express passenger locomotives.

 

During the Nineties the CFL started to use more and more EMUs on the domestic passenger routes, so that the Class 3800s gradually took over more and more freight train duties, relieving the older Series 3600s and replacing diesel-powered locomotives (esp. the Class 1800) on electrified routes. Border-crossing passenger train services were furthermore limited to trains to Germany since long-distance passenger train services in France switched to the TGV train system with its separate high-speed lines. Freight trains to France were still frequent Class 3800 duties, though, and occasionally coal trains were pulled directly to the industrial Ruhr Area region in Western Germany.

 

After the Millennium the Class 3800s gradually lost their duties to the new CFL Class 4000 multi-system locomotives, a variant of the Bombardier TRAXX locos found working across Europe. On 31 December 2006 the last Class 3800 (3809) was retired. Their versatility, robustness and performance have, however, allowed some of these locomotives to exceed 45 years of service. Bouledogue “3803” reached more than 9,2 million kilometers (5.7 million miles), a remarkable performance.

Only two 3800s had to be written off during the type’s career: 3804 suffered a major transformer damage and was destroyed by the ensuing fire near Troisvierges in Northern Luxembourg and 3810 was involved in a freight train derailment south of Differdange, where it was damaged beyond repair and had to be broken up on site. A single Class 3800 locomotive (3811) survived the retirement and has been kept as a static exhibition piece at the CFL Dépot at Luxembourg, the rest was scrapped.

  

General characteristics:

Gauge: 1,435 mm (4 ft 8½ in) standard gauge

UIC axle arrangement: Bo´Bo´

Overall length: 16.49 m (54 ft 1 in)

Pivot distance: 7,9 m (25 ft 10 in)

Bogie distance: 3,4 m (11 ft 1½ in)

Wheel diameter (when new): 1.250 mm (4 ft 1½ in)

Service weight: 83 t

 

Engine:

Four traction motors with a collective output of 3,700 kW (5,000 hp)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 150 km/h (93 mph), limited to 140 km/h (87 mph) in service

Torque: 275 kN starting tractive effort

164 kN continuous traction effort

  

The model and its assembly:

My second attempt to create a functional H0 scale what-if locomotive – and after I “only” did a color variant with some cosmetic changes on the basis of a Märklin V160/BR 216 diesel locomotive, I wanted something more special and challenging. However, kitbashing model locomotives with a metal chassis that includes a functional motor, respective drivetrain/gearing and electronics is not as easy as gluing some plastic parts together. And finding “matching” donor parts for such a stunt is also not as easy as it may seem. But what would life be without attempts to widen its boundaries?

 

This time I wanted an electric locomotive. Inspiration (and occasion) somewhat struck when I stumbled upon a running/functional chassis of a Märklin E 10/BR 110 (#3039), just without light and naturally missing the whole upper hull. Due to its incompleteness, I got it for a reasonable price, though. With this basis I started to watch out for eventual (and affordable) donor parts for a new superstructure, and remembered the collectible, non-powered all-plastic locomotive models from Atlas/IXO.

 

The good thing about the Märklin 3039 chassis was that it was just a solid and flat piece of metal without integrated outer hull elements, headstock or side skirts, so that a new hull could (theoretically) be simply tailored to fit over this motorized platform. Finding something with the exact length would be impossible, so I settled upon an Atlas H0 scale Nederlands Spoorwegen Series 1200 locomotive model, which is markedly longer than the German BR 110, due to its six axles vs. the E 10/BR 110’s four. Another selling point: the NS 1200’s body is virtually blank in its middle section, ideal for shortening it to match the different chassis. Detail of the Atlas plastic models is also quite good, so there was the potential for something quite convincing.

 

Work started with the disassembly of the static Atlas NS Class 1200 model. It's all-styrene, just with a metal plate as a chassis. Against my expectations the model's hull was only held on the chassis by two tiny screws under the "noses", so that I did not have to use force to separate it. The body's walls were also relatively thin, good for the upcoming modifications. The model also featured two nice driver's stations, which could be removed easily, too. Unfortunately; they had to go to make enough room for the electronics of the Märklin 3039 all-metal chassis.

 

Dry-fitting the chassis under the Class 1200 hull revealed that the stunt would basically work - the chassis turned out to be only marginally too wide. I just had to grind a little of the chassis' front edges away to reduce pressure on the styrene body, and I had to bend the end sections of the chassis’ stabilizing side walls.

To make the Class 1200 hull fit over the shorter BR 110 chassis a section of about 3 cm had to be taken out of the body’s middle section. The Class 1200 lent itself to this measure because the body is rather bare and uniform along its mid-section, so that re-combining two shortened halves should not pose too many problems.

 

To make the hull sit properly on the chassis I added styrene profiles inside of it - easy to glue them into place, thanks to the material. At this time, the original fixed pantographs and some wiring on the roof had gone, brake hoses on the nose were removed to make space for the BR 110 couplers, and the clear windows were removed after a little fight (they were glued into their places, but thankfully each side has three separate parts instead of just one that would easily break). PSR on the seam between the hull halves followed, plus some grey primer to check the surface quality.

 

Even though the new body now had a proper position on the metal chassis, a solution had to be found to securely hold it in place. My solution: an adapter for a screw in the chassis’ underside, scratched. I found a small area next to the central direction switch where I could place a screw and a respective receiver that could attached to the body’s roof. A 3 mm hole was drilled into the chassis’ floor and a long Spax screw with a small diameter was mated with a hollow square styrene profile, roughly trimmed down in length to almost reach the roof internally. Then a big lump of 2C putty was put into the hull, and the styrene adapter pressed into it, so that it would held well in place. Fiddly, but it worked!

 

Unfortunately, the pantographs of the Atlas/IXO model were static and not flexible at all. One was displayed raised while the other one was retracted. Due to the raised pantograph’s stiffness the model might lose contact to or even damage the model railroad catenary, even when not pulling power through it – not a satisfactory condition. Since the chassis could be powered either from below or through the pantographs (the Märklin 3039 chassis offers an analogue switch underneath to change between power sources) I decided to pimp my build further and improve looks and functionality. I organized a pair of aftermarket diamond pantographs, made from metal, fully functional and held in place on the model’s roof with (very short and) small screws from the inside.

I was not certain if the screws were conductive, and I had to somehow connect them with the switch in the chassis. I eventually soldered thin wire to the pantographs’ bases, led them through additional small holes in the roof inside and soldered them to the switch input, with an insulating screw joint in-between to allow a later detachment/disassembly without damage to the body. There might have been more elegant solutions, but my limited resources and skills did not allow more. It works, though, and I am happy with it, since the cables won’t be visible from the outside. This layout allows to draw power through them, I just had to create a flexible and detachable connection internally. Some plugs, wire and soldering created a solution – rough (electronics is not my strength!), but it worked! Another investment of money, time and effort into this project, but I think that the new pantographs significantly improve the overall look and the functionality of this model.

 

Internally, the missing light bulbs were retrofitted with OEM parts. A late external addition were PE brass ladders for the shunting platforms and under the doors for the driver’s cabins. They were rather delicate, but the model would not see much handling or railroading action, anyway, and the improve the overall impression IMHO a lot. On the roof, some details like cooling fans and tailored conduits (from the Atlas Series 1200) were added, they partly obscure the seam all around the body.

 

Unfortunately, due to the necessary space for the chassis, its motor and the electronics, the driver stations’ interiors could not be re-mounted – but this is not too obvious, despite the clear windows.

  

Painting and markings:

Finding a suitable operator took some time – I wanted a European company, and the livery had to be rather simple and easy to create with my limited means at hand, so that a presentable finish could be achieved. Belgium was one candidate, but I eventually settled on the small country of Luxembourg after I saw the CFL’s Class 3600s in their all-over wine-red livery with discreet yellow cheatlines.

 

The overall basic red was, after a coat with grey primer, applied with a rattle can, and I guesstimated the tone with RAL 3005 (Weinrot), based on various pictures of CFL locomotives in different states of maintenance and weathering. Apparently, the fresh paint was pretty bright, while old paint gained a rather brownish/maroon hue. For some contrast, the roof was painted in dark grey (Humbrol 67; RAL 7024), based on the CFL’s Class 3600 design, and the pantographs’ bases were painted and dry-brushed with this tone, too, for a coherent look. The chassis with its bogies and wheels remained basically black, but it was turned matt, and the originally bare metal wheel discs were painted, too. The visible lower areas were thoroughly treated with dry-brushed red-brown and dark grey, simulating rust and dust while emphasizing many delicate details on the bogies at the same time.

The hull was slightly treated with dry-brushed/cloudy wine red, so that the red would look a bit weathered and not so uniform. The grey roof was treated similarly.

 

The yellow cheatlines were created with yellow (RAL 1003) decal stripes from TL Modellbau in 5 and 2mm width. Generic H0 scale sheets from the same company provided the yellow CFL logos and the serial numbers on the flanks, so that the colors matched well. Stencils and some other small markings were procured from Andreas Nothaft (Modellbahndecals.de).

 

After securing the decals with some acrylic varnish the model was weathered with watercolors and some dry-brushing, simulating brownish-grey dust and dirt from the overhead contact line that frequently collects on the roof and is then washed down by rain. Finally, the whole body was sealed with matt acrylic varnish from the rattle can – even though it turned out to be rather glossy. But it does not look wrong, so I stuck with this flaw.

 

Among the last steps was the re-mounting of the clear windows (which had OOB thin silver trim, which was retained) and head- and taillights were created with ClearFix and white and red clear window color.

 

An original 1/6 scale kitbash figure of Dejah Thoris, conceived and assembled by myself, photographed using layered filters from Photoshop, Enjoyphoto, Superphoto & editing apps installed on my cameraphone.

An original 1/6 scale custom kitbash phicen doll of a futuristic reinterpretation of Lara Croft as a spare adventurer and xeno-archaeologist, inspired by sci-fi pulp magazine covers. Again photographed using layered filters from Enjoyphoto, Superphoto and default editing apps on my cameraphone.

Decided to switch out the original shields and give her a lance for a weapon.I might start painting it today?

 

All the wall pieces with the windows removed for easier gluing and painting.

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

💎

#starla #starlaandthejewelriders #gwenevereandthejewelriders #kitbash #onesixthscale #onesixthcustom #onesixthfigure #faceup #repaint #repaintdoll #2020plans #lockdownproject #lockdownprojects2020

#dollproject #dollcrafts #sewingfordolls #dollsclothes #ooakdoll #boyswithdolls #toyartistry #toyphotography #customdoll #dollstagram

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

  

Some background:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

General characteristics:

All-environment variable fighter and tactical combat Battroid,

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

 

Accommodation:

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

Dimensions:

Fighter Mode:

Length 14.23 meters

Wingspan 14.78 meters (at 20° minimum sweep)

Height 3.84 meters

 

Battroid Mode:

Height 12.68 meters

Width 7.3 meters

Length 4.0 meters

Empty weight: 13.25 metric tons;

Standard T-O mass: 18.5 metric tons;

MTOW: 37.0 metric tons

 

Power Plant:

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

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

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

 

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

 

Performance:

Battroid Mode: maximum walking speed 160 km/h

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

g limit: in space +7

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

 

Design Features:

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

 

Transformation:

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

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

 

Armament:

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

or a combination of above load-outs

 

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

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

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

  

The model and its assembly:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Painting and markings:

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

 

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

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

The A-14 program originally started in 2005 as a private venture, initiated by Northrop-Grumman together with the Elbit Group as a joint venture through Elbit’s Texas-based aircraft division M7 Aerosystems, an approved supplier to major aerospace clients. The aircraft was intended to replace the USAF’s A-10 attack aircraft as well as early F-16s in the strike role from 2010 onwards. The time slot for the project turned out to be advantageous, because at that time the USAF was contemplating to replace the simple and sturdy A-10 with the much more complex F-35, eventually even with its VTOL variant, and the highly specialized F-117 was retired, too.

The A-14 revived conceptual elements of Grumman’s stillborn A-12 stealth program for the US Navy, which had also been part of the USAF’s plans to replace the supersonic F-111 tactical bomber, but on a less ambitious and expensive level concerning technology, aiming for a more effective compromise between complexity, survivability and costs. The basic idea was an updated LTV A-7D (the A-10’s predecessor from the Vietnam War era), which had far more sophisticated sensor and navigation equipment than the rather simple but sturdy A-10, but with pragmatic stealth features and a high level of survivability in a modern frontline theatre or operations.

 

M7 Aerosystems started on a blank sheet, even though Northrop-Grumman’s A-12 influence was clearly visible, and to a certain degree the aircraft shared the basic layout with the F-117A. The A-14 was tailored from the start to the ground attack role, and therefore a subsonic design. Measures to reduce radar cross-section included airframe shaping such as alignment of edges, fixed-geometry serpentine inlets that prevented line-of-sight of the engine faces from any exterior view, use of radar-absorbent material (RAM), and attention to detail such as hinges and maintenance covers that could provide a radar return. The A-14 was furthermore designed to have decreased radio emissions, infrared signature and acoustic signature as well as reduced visibility to the naked eye.

 

The resulting airframe was surprisingly large for an attack aircraft – in fact, it rather reminded of a tactical bomber in the F-111/Su-24 class than an alternative to the A-10. The A-14 consisted of a rhomboid-shaped BWB (blended-wing-and-body) with extended wing tips and only a moderate (35°) wing sweep, cambered leading edges, a jagged trailing edge and a protruding cockpit section which extended forward of the main body.

The majority of the A-14’s structure and surface were made out of a carbon-graphite composite material that is stronger than steel, lighter than aluminum, and absorbs a significant amount of radar energy. The central fuselage bulge ended in a short tail stinger with a pair of swept, canted fins as a butterfly tail, which also shrouded the engine’s hot efflux. The fins could have been omitted, thanks to the aerodynamically unstable aircraft’s fly-by-wire steering system, and they effectively increased the A-14’s radar signature as well as its visual profile, but the gain in safety in case of FBW failure or physical damage was regarded as a worthwhile trade-off. Due to its distinctive shape and profile, the A-14 quickly received the unofficial nickname “Squatina”, after the angel shark family.

 

The spacious and armored cockpit offered room for the crew of two (pilot and WSO or observer for FAC duties), seated side-by-side under a generous glazing, with a very good field of view forward and to the sides. The fuselage structure was constructed around a powerful cannon, the five-barrel GAU-12/U 25 mm ‘Equalizer’ gun, which was, compared with the A-10’s large GAU-8/A, overall much lighter and more compact, but with only little less firepower. It fired a new NATO series of 25 mm ammunition at up to 4.200 RPM. The gun itself was located under the cockpit tub, slightly set off to port side, and the front wheel well was offset to starboard to compensate, similar in arrangement to the A-10 or Su-25. The gun’s ammunition drum and a closed feeding belt system were located behind the cockpit in the aircraft’s center of gravity. An in-flight refueling receptor (for the USAF’s boom system) was located in the aircraft’s spine behind the cockpit, normally hidden under a flush cover.

 

Due to the gun installation in the fuselage, however, no single large weapon bay to minimize radar cross section and drag through external ordnance was incorporated, since this feature would have increased airframe size and overall weight. Instead, the A-14 received four, fully enclosed compartments between the wide main landing gear wells and legs. The bays could hold single iron bombs of up to 2.000 lb caliber each, up to four 500 lb bombs or CBUs, single laser-guided GBU-14 glide bombs, AGM-154 JSOW or GBU-31/38 JDAM glide bombs, AGM-65 Maverick guided missiles or B61 Mod 11 tactical nuclear weapons, as well as the B61 Mod 12 standoff variant, under development at that time). Retractable launch racks for defensive AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles were available, too, and additional external pylons could be added, e.g. for oversize ordnance like AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) or AGM-158 Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), or drop tanks for ferry flights. The total in- and external ordnance load was 15,000 lb (6,800 kg).

 

The A-14 was designed with superior maneuverability at low speeds and altitude in mind and therefore featured a large wing area, with high wing aspect ratio on the outer wing sections, and large ailerons areas. The ailerons were placed at the far ends of the wings for greater rolling moment and were split, making them decelerons, so that they could also be used as air brakes in flight and upon landing.

This wing configuration promoted short takeoffs and landings, permitting operations from primitive forward airfields near front lines. The sturdy landing gear with low-pressure tires supported these tactics, and a retractable arrester hook, hidden by a flush cover under the tail sting, made it possible to use mobile arrested-recovery systems.

The leading edge of the wing had a honeycomb structure panel construction, providing strength with minimal weight; similar panels covered the flap shrouds, elevators, rudders and sections of the fins. The skin panels were integral with the stringers and were fabricated using computer-controlled machining, reducing production time and cost, and this construction made the panels more resistant to damage. The skin was not load-bearing, so damaged skin sections could be easily replaced in the field, with makeshift materials if necessary.

 

Power came from a pair of F412-GE-114 non-afterburning turbofans, engines that were originally developed for the A-12, but de-navalized and lightened for the A-14. These new engines had an output of 12,000 lbf (53 kN) each and were buried in blended fairings above the wing roots, with jagged intakes and hidden ducts. Flat exhausts on the wings’ upper surface minimized both radar and IR signatures.

 

Thanks to the generous internal fuel capacity in the wings and the fuselage, the A-14 was able to loiter and operate under 1,000 ft (300 m) ceilings for extended periods. It typically flew at a relatively low speed of 300 knots (350 mph; 560 km/h), which made it a better platform for the ground-attack role than fast fighter-bombers, which often have difficulty targeting small, slow-moving targets or executing more than just a single attack run on a selected target.

 

A mock-up was presented and tested in the wind tunnel and for radar cross-section in late 2008. The A-14’s exact radar cross-section (RCS) remained classified, but in 2009 M7 Aerosystems released information indicating it had an RCS (from certain angles) of −40 dBsm, equivalent to the radar reflection of a "steel marble". With this positive outcome and the effective design, M7 Aerosystems eventually received federal funding for the production of prototypes for an official DT&E (Demonstration Testing and Evaluation) program.

 

Three prototypes/pre-production aircraft were built in the course of 2010 and 2011, and the first YA-14 made its maiden flight on 10 May 2011. The DT&E started immediately, and the machines (a total of three flying prototypes were completed, plus two additional airframes for static tests) were gradually outfitted with mission avionics and other equipment. This included GPS positioning, an inertial navigation system, passive sensors to detect radar usage, a small, gyroscopically stabilized turret, mounted under the nose of the aircraft, containing a FLIR boresighted with a laser spot-tracker/designator, and an experimental 3-D laser scanning LIDAR in the nose as a radiation-less alternative to a navigation and tracking radar.

 

Soon after the DT&E program gained momentum in 2012, the situation changed for M7 Aerosystems when the US Air Force considered the F-35B STOVL variant as its favored replacement CAS aircraft, but concluded that the aircraft could not generate a sufficient number of sorties. However, the F-35 was established as the A-14’s primary rival and remained on the USAF’s agenda. For instance, at that time the USAF proposed disbanding five A-10 squadrons in its budget request to cut its fleet of 348 A-10s by 102 to lessen cuts to multi-mission aircraft in service that could replace the specialized attack aircraft.

In August 2013, Congress and the Air Force examined various proposals for an A-10 replacement, including the A-14, F-35 and the MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle, and, despite the A-14’s better qualities in the ground attack role, the F-35 came out as the overall winner, since it was the USAF’s favorite. Despite its complexity, the F-35 was – intended as a multi-role tri-service aircraft and also with the perspective of bigger international sales than the more specialized A-14 – regarded as the more versatile and, in the long run, more cost-efficient procurement option. This sealed the A-14’s fate and the F-35A entered service with U.S. Air Force F-35A in August 2016 (after the F-35B was introduced to the U.S. Marine Corps in July 2015). At that time, the U.S. planned to buy 2,456 F-35s through 2044, which would represent the bulk of the crewed tactical airpower of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps for several decades.

 

Since the A-14’s technology was considered to be too critical to be marketed to export customers (Israel showed early interest in the aircraft, as well as South Korea), the program was cancelled in 2016.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2 (pilot, WSO)

Length: 54 ft 11 1/2 in (16.78 m)

Wingspan: 62 ft 11 1/2 in (19.22 m)

Height: 11 ft 3 3/4 in (3.45 m)

Wing area: 374.9 ft² (117.5 m²)

Empty weight: 24,959 lb (11,321 kg)

Loaded weight: 30,384 lb (13,782 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 50,000 lb (22,700 kg)

Internal fuel capacity: 11,000 lb (4,990 kg)

 

Powerplant:

2× General Electric Whitney F412-GE-114 non-afterburning turbofans

with 12,000 lbf (53 kN) thrust each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 630 mph (1,010 km/h, 550 kn) at 40,000 ft altitude /

Mach 0.95 at sea level

Cruise speed: 560 mph (900 km/h, 487 kn) at 40,000 ft altitude

Range: 1,089 nmi (1,253 mi, 2,017 km)

Ferry range: 1,800 nmi (2,100 mi, 3,300 km)

Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,200 m)

Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min (250 m/s)

Wing loading: 133 lb/ft² (193 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.48 (full internal fuel, no stores)

Take-off run: 1,200 m (3,930 ft) at 42,000 lb (19,000 kg) over a 15 m (30 ft) obstacle

 

Armament:

1× General Dynamics GAU-12/U Equalizer 25 mm (0.984 in) 5-barreled rotary cannon

with 1,200 rounds (max. capacity 1,350 rounds)

4x internal weapon bays plus 4x external optional hardpoints with a total capacity of

15,000 lb (6,800 kg) and provisions to carry/deploy a wide range of ordnance

  

The kit and its assembly:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

  

Painting and markings:

For a stealth aircraft and a prototype I wanted something subdued or murky, but not an all-black or -grey livery. I eventually settled for the rather dark paint scheme that the USAF applied to its late B-52Gs and the B-1Bs, which consists of two tones from above, FS 36081 (Dark Grey, a.k.a. Dark Gunship Grey) and 34086 (Green Drab), and underneath (FS 36081 and 36118 (Gunship Grey). The irregular pattern was adapted (in a rather liberal fashion) from the USAF’s early B-1Bs, using Humbrol 32, 108 and 125 as basic colors. The 108 turned out to be too bright, so I toned it down with an additional coat of thinned Humbrol 66. While this considerably reduced the contrast between the green and the grey, the combination looks much better and B-1B-esque.

 

The wings’ leading edges were painted for more contrast with a greyish black (Tar Black, Revell 09), while the landing gear, the interior of the air intakes and the open bomb bay became glossy white. The cockpit was painted in medium grey (Humbrol 140) and the clear parts received a thinned inner coating with a mix of transparent yellow and brown, simulating an anti-radar coating – even though the effect turned out to be minimal, now it looks as of the plastic parts had just yellowed from age…

 

After the initial livery had been finished the model received a black ink washing and some post-panel shading with slightly brightened variations of the basic tones (using Humbrol 79, 144 and 224). Decals were added next, an individual mix from various sources. The “Stars-and-Bars” come from a PrintScale A-7 sheet, most stencils come from an F-16 sheet.

After some more detail painting and a treatment with graphite on the metal areas (exhausts, gun port), the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).

  

Batman’s next Batwing? Maybe, there’s certainly something fictional about this creation. But the “Squatina” turned out much more conclusive (and even pretty!) than I expected, even though it became a bigger aircraft than intended. And I am positively surprised how good the bodywork became – after all, lots of putty had to be used to fill all the gaps between parts that no one ever expected to be grafted together.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

 

Some background

The Hütter Hü 324 was the final development stage of BMW's 'Schnellbomber II' project, which had been designed around two mighty BMW 109-028 turboprops.

 

These innovative engines had been developed since February 1941, but did not receive fullest attention due to the more promising jet engines. Anyway, it soon became clear that no jet engine with the potential to drive a bomber-sized aircraft - considering both performance and fuel consumption - would be available on short notice. Consequently, the BMW 028 received more attention from the RLM from 1943 on.

 

Biggest pressure came from the fact that several obsolete types like the He 111 or Do 217 had to be replaced, and the ill-fated and complicated He 177 was another candidate with little future potential, since four-engined variants had been rejected. Additionally, the promising and ambitious Ju 288 had been stillborn, and a wide gap for a tactical medium bomber opned in the Luftwaffe arsenal.

 

In may 1943, new requirements for a medium bomber were concretised. Main objective was to design a fast, twin-engined bomber, primarily intended for horizontal bombing, which would be able to carry a 3.000 kilograms (6.600 lbs) payload at 800 kilometres per hour in a 1.500km (900 ml) radius. The plane had to be fast and to operate at great heights, limiting the threat of interception.

 

Since many major design bureaus’ resources were bound, Ulrich W. Hütter, an Austro-German engineer and university professor got involved in the RLM project and BMW's design team which had been working on appropriate designs. In July 1943, Hütter moved to the Research Institute of the Graf Zeppelin works (FGZ) convened in Ruit near Stuttgart, and as head of the engineering department he was also involved in the development of manned missiles, underwater towing systems and the Hü 211 high altitude interceptor/reconnaissance plane.

 

Under Ulrich W. Hütter and his brother, Wolfgang Hütter, BMW's original and highly innovative (if not over-ambitious) Schnellbomber designs gave way to a more conservative layout: the so-called BMW-Hütter Hü 324.

 

The plane was conventional in layout, with high, unswept laminar profile wings and a high twin tail. The engines were carried in nacelles slung directly under the wings. The nose wheel retracted rearwards, while the main wheels retracted forwards into the engine nacelles, rotating 90°, and laying flat under the engines. The crew of four (pilot, co-pilot/bombardier, navigator/radar operator and gunner/radio operator) were accommodated in a compact, pressurised "glass house" cockpit section – a popular design and morale element in Luftwaffe bomber and reconnaissance aircraft of that era.

 

Construction of the first prototype started in February 1945, and while the aircraft cell made good progress towards the hardware stage, the development suffered a serious setback in March when BMW admitted that the 109-028 turboprop engine would not be ready in time. It took until August to arrive, and the prototype did not fly until 6 November 1945.

Initial flight test of the four A-0 pre-production samples of the Hü 324 went surprisingly well. Stability and vibration problems with the aircraft were noted, though. One major problem was that the front glas elements were prone to crack at high speeds, and it took a while to trace the troubole source back to the engines and sort these problems out. Among others, contraprops were fitted to counter the vibration problems, the engines' power output had to be reduced by more than 500 WPS and the tail fins had to be re-designed.

 

Another innovative feature of this bomber was the “Elbegast” ground-looking navigation radar system, which allowed identification of targets on the ground for night and all-weather bombing. It was placed in a shallow radome behind the front wheel. Performance-wise, the system was comparable to the USAAF’s H2X radar, and similarly compact. Overall, the Hü 324 showed much promise and a convincing performance, was easy to build and maintain, and it was immediately taken to service.

 

Despite the relatively high speed and agility for a plane of its size, the Hü 324 bore massive defensive armament: the original equipment of the A-1 variant comprised two remotely operated FDL 131Z turrets in dorsal (just behind the cockpit) and ventral (behind the bomb bay) position with 2× 13 mm MG 131 machine guns each, plus an additional, unmanned tail barbette with a single 20mm canon. All these guns were aimed by the gunner through a sighting station at the rear of the cockpit, effectively covering the rear hemisphere of the bomber.

 

After first operational experience, this defence was beefed up with another remotely-controlled barbette with 2× 13 mm MG 131 machine guns under the cockpit, firing forwards. The reason was similar to the introduction of the chin-mounted gun turret in the B-17G: the plane was rather vulnerable to frontal attacks. In a secondary use, the chin guns could be used for strafing ground targets. This update was at first called /R1, but was later incorporated into series production, under the designation A-2.

 

Effectively, almost 4.500kg ordnance could be carried in- and externally, normally limited to 3.000kg in the bomb bay in order to keep the wings clean and reduce drag, for a high cruising speed. While simple iron bombs and aerial mines were the Hü 324's main payload, provisions were made to carry guided weapons like against small/heavily fortified targets. Several Rüstsätze (accessory packs) were developed, and the aircraft in service received an "/Rx" suffix to their designation, e. g. the R2 Rüstsatz for Fritz X bomb guidance or the R3 set for rocket-propelled Hs 293 bombs.

 

Trials were even carried out with a semi-recessed Fieseler Fi 103 missile, better known as the V1 flying bomb, hung under the bomber's belly and in an enlarged bomb bay, under deletion of the ventral barbette.

 

The Hü 324 bomber proved to be an elusive target for the RAF day and night fighters, especially at height. After initial attacks at low level, where fast fighters like the Hawker Tempest or DH Mosquito night fighters were the biggest threat, tactics were quickly changed. Approaching at great height and speed, bombing was conducted from medium altitudes of 10,000 to 15,000 feet (3,000 to 4,600 m).

 

The Hü 324 proved to be very successful, striking against a variety of targets, including bridges and radar sites along the British coast line, as well as ships on the North Sea.

From medium altitude, the Hü 324 A-2 proved to be a highly accurate bomber – thanks to its "Elbegast" radar system which also allowed the planes to act as pathfinders for older types or fast bombers with less accurate equipment like the Ar 232, Ju 388 or Me 410. Loss rates were far lower than in the early, low-level days, with the Hü 324 stated by the RLM as having the lowest loss rate in the European Theatre of Operations at less than 0.8 %.

  

BMW-Hütter Ha 324A-2, general characteristics:

Crew: 4

Length: 18.58 m (60 ft 10 in)

Wingspan: 21.45 m (70 ft 4½ in )

Height: 4.82 m (15 ft 9½ in)

Wing area: 60.80 m² (654.5 ft.²)

Empty weight: 12,890 kg (28,417 lb)

Loaded weight: 18,400 kg (40,565 lb)

Max. take-off weight: 21,200 kg (46,738 lb)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 810 km/h (503 mph) at optimum height

Cruising speed: 750 km/h (460 mph) at 10,000 m (32,800 ft)

Range: 3.500 km (2.180 ml)

Service ceiling: 11.400 m (37.500 ft)

Rate of climb: 34.7 m/s (6,820 ft/min)

 

Powerplant:

Two BMW 109-028 ‘Mimir’ turboprop engines, limited to 5.500 WPS (4.044 WkW) each plus an additional residual thrust of 650kg (1.433 lb), driving four-bladed contraprops.

 

Armament:

6× 13mm MG 131 in three FDL 131Z turrets

1× 20mm MG 151/20 in unmanned/remote-controlled tail barbette

Up to 4.500 kg (9.800 lbs) in a large enclosed bomb-bay in the fuselage and/or four underwing hardpoints.

Typically, bomb load was limited to 3.000 kg (6.500 lbs) internally.

  

The kit and its assembly

This project/model belongs in the Luft '46 category, but it has no strict real world paradigm - even though Luftwaffe projects like the Ju 288, the BMW Schnellbomber designs or Arado's E560/2 and E560/7 had a clear influence. Actually, “my” Hü 324 design looks pretty much like a He 219 on steroids! Anyway, this project was rather inspired by a ‘click’ when two ideas/elements came together and started forming something new and convincing. This is classic kitbashing, and the major ingredients are:

 

● Fuselage, wings, landing gear and engine nacelles from a Trumpeter Ilyushin Il-28 bomber

● Nose section from an Italeri Ju 188 (donated from a friend, leftover from his Ju 488 project)

● Stabilisers from an Italeri B-25, replacing the Il-28’s swept tail

● Contraprops and fuselage barbettes from a vintage 1:100 scale Tu-20(-95) kit from VEB Plasticart (yes, vintage GDR stuff!)

 

Most interestingly, someone from the Netherlands had a similar idea for a kitbashing some years ago: www.airwar1946.nl/whif/L46-ju588.htm. I found this after I got my idea for the Hü 324 together, though - but its funny to see how some ideas manifest independently?

 

Building the thing went pretty straightforward, even though Trumpeter's Il-28 kit has a rather poor fit. Biggest problem turned out to be the integration of the Ju 188 cockpit section: it lacks 4-5mm in width! That does not sound dramatic, but it took a LOT of putty and internal stabilisation to graft the parts onto the Il-28's fuselage.

 

The cockpit was completely re-equipped with stuff from the scrap box, and the main landing gear received twin wheels.

 

The chin turret was mounted after the fuselage was complete, the frontal defence had been an issue I had been pondering about for a long while. Originally, some fixed guns (just as the Il-28 or Tu-16) had been considered. But when I found an old Matchbox B-17G turret in my scrap box, I was convinced that this piece could do literally the same job in my model, and it was quickly integrated. As a side effect, this arrangement justifies the bulged cockpit bottom well, and it just looks "more dangerous".

 

Another task was the lack of a well for the front wheel, after the Il-28 fuselage had been cut and lacked the original interior. This was also added after the new fuselage had been fitted together, and the new well walls were built with thin polystyrene plates. Not 100% exact and clean, but the arrangement fits the bill and takes the twin front wheel.

 

The bomb bay was left open, since the Trumpeter kit offers a complete interior. I also added four underwing hardpoints for external loads (one pair in- and outboard of the engine nacelles), taken from A-7 Corsair II kits, but left them empty. Visually-guided weapons like the 'Fritz X' bomb or Hs 293 missiles would IMHO hardly make sense during night sorties? I also did not want to overload the kit with more and more distracting details.

  

Painting

Even though it is a whif I wanted to incorporate some serious/authentic late WWII Luftwaffe looks. Since the Hü 324 would have been an all-weather bomber, I went for a night bomber livery which was actually used on a He 177 from 2./KG 100, based in France: Black (RLM 22, I simply used Humbrol 33) undersides, and upper surfaces in RLM 76 (Base is Humbrol 128, FS36320, plus some added areas with Testors 2086, the authentic tone which is a tad lighter, but very close) with mottles in RLM 75 (Grauviolett, Testors 2085, plus some splotches of Humbrol 27, Medium Sea Grey), and some weathering through black ink, some enhanced panel lines (with a mix of matte varnish and Panzergrau), as well as some dry painting all over the fuselage.

 

All interior surfaces were painted in RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau/Black Grey, Testors 2079), typical for German late WWII aircraft. Propeller spinners were painted RLM 70 (Schwarzgrün) on the front half, the rear half was painted half black and half white.

 

Pretty simple scheme, but it looks VERY cool, esp. on this sleek aircraft. I am very happy with this decision, and I think that this rather simple livery is less distracting from the fantasy plane itself, making the whif less obvious. In the end, the whole thing looks a bit grey-in-grey, but that spooky touch just adds to the menacing look of this beefy aircraft. I think it would not look as good if it had been kept in daytime RLM 74/75/76 or even RLM 82/83/76?

 

Markings and squadron code were puzzled together from an Authentic Decal aftermarket sheet for a late He 111 and individual letters from TL Modellbau. The "F3" code for the fictional Kampfgruppe (KG) 210 is a random choice, "EV" marks the individual plane, the red "E" and the control letter "V" at the end designate a plane from the eleventh squadron of KG 210. My idea is that the Hü 324 would replace these machines and literally taking their place in the frontline aviaton units. So I tried to keep in line with the German aircraft code, but after all, it's just a whif...

  

So, after some more surgical work than expected, the Hü 324 medium bomber is ready to soar!

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

After 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:

Although the performance increases of jet-powered aircraft introduced towards the end of World War II over their piston-powered ancestors were breathtaking, there were those at the time who believed that much more was possible. As far back as 1943, the British Ministry of Aircraft Production had issued a specification designated "E.24/43" for a supersonic experimental jet aircraft that would be able to achieve 1,600 KPH (1,000 MPH).

 

Beginning in 1946, a design team at English Electric (EE) under W.E.W. "Teddy" Petter began design studies for a supersonic fighter, leading to award of a Ministry of Supply (MoS) contract in 1947 under specification "ER.103" for a design study on an experimental aircraft that could achieve Mach 1.2.

The MoS liked the EE concepts, and in early 1949 awarded the company a contract under specification "F.23/49" for two flying prototypes and one ground-test prototype of the "P.1".

 

The P.1 was defined as a supersonic research aircraft, though the design had provisions for armament and a radar gunsight. It incorporate advanced and unusual design features, such as twin turbojet engines mounted one above the other to reduce aircraft frontal area; and strongly swept wings, with the wingtip edges at a right angle to the fuselage, giving a wing configuration like that of a delta wing with the rear inner corners cut out. The aircraft featured an elliptical intake in the nose.

 

The P.1's performance was so outstanding that the decision was quickly made to proceed on an operational version that would be capable of Mach 2. In fact, the second P.1 prototype featured items such as a bulged belly tank and fit of twin Aden Mark 4 30 millimeter revolver-type cannon, bringing it closer to operational specification.

 

Orders were placed for three "P.1B" prototypes for a production interceptor and the original P.1 was retroactively designated "P.1A". The P.1B featured twin Rolls-Royce Avon afterburning engines and a larger tailfin. An airborne intercept (AI) radar was carried in the air intake shock cone, which was changed from elliptical to circular. The cockpit was raised for a better field of view and the P.1B was armed with two Aden cannon in the upper nose, plus a pack under the cockpit that could either support two De Havilland Blue Jay (later Firestreak) heat-seeking AAMs or 44 Microcell 5 centimeter (2 inch) unguided rockets.

 

The initial P.1B prototype performed its first flight on 4 April 1957 and the type entered RAF service as EE Lightning F.1. RAF Number 74 Squadron at Coltishall was the first full service unit, with the pilots acquiring familiarization with the type during late 1960 and the squadron declared operational in 1961.

 

However, while the Lightning was developed further into more and more advanced versions. Its concept was also the basis for another research aircraft that would also be developed into a high performance interceptor: the P.6/1, which later became the “Levin” fighter.

 

P.6 encompassed a total of four different layouts for a Mach 2+ research aircraft, tendering to ER.134T from 1952. P.6/1 was the most conservative design and it relied heavily on existing (and already proven) P.1 Lightning components, primarily the aerodynamic surfaces. The most obvious difference was a new fuselage of circular diameter, housing a single Rolls Royce RB.106 engine.

 

The RB.106 was a two-shaft design with two axial flow compressors each driven by its own single stage turbine and reheat. It was of similar size to the Rolls-Royce Avon, but it produced about twice the thrust at 21,750 lbf (96.7 kN) in the initial version. The two-shaft layout was relatively advanced for the era; the single-shaft de Havilland Gyron matched it in power terms, while the two-spool Bristol Olympus was much less powerful at the then-current state of development. Apart from being expected to power other British aircraft such as those competing for Operational Requirement F.155, it was also selected to be the powerplant for the Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow and led to the Orenda Iroquois engine, which even reach 30.000 lbf (130 kN).

 

The P.6/1 was eventually chosen by the MoS for further development because it was regarded as the least risky and costly alternative. Beyond its test bed role for the RB.106 the P.6/1 was also seen as a potential basis for a supersonic strategic air-to-ground missile (similar to the massive Soviet AS-3 ‘Kangaroo’ cruise missile) and the starting point for an operational interceptor that would be less complex than the Lightning, but with a comparable if not improved performance but a better range.

 

In 1955 English Electric received a go ahead for two P.6/1 research aircraft prototypes. Despite a superficial similarity to the Lightning, the P.6/1’s internal structure was very different. The air duct, for instance, was bifurcated and led around on both sides of the cockpit tub and the front wheel well instead of below it. Further down, the duct ran below the wing main spar and directly fed the RB.106.

The rear fuselage was area-ruled, the main landing gear retracted, just like the Lightning’s, outwards into the wings, while the front wheel retracted backwards into a well that was placed further aft than on the Lightning. The upper fuselage behind the main wings spar carried fuel tanks, more fuel was carried in wing tanks.

 

Both research machines were ready in 1958 and immediately started with aerodynamic and material tests for the MoS, reaching top speeds of Mach 2.5 and altitudes of 60.000 ft. and more.

In parallel, work on the fighter version, now called “Levin”, had started. The airframe was basically the same as the P.6/1’s. Biggest visible changes were a wider air intake with a bigger central shock cone (primarily for a radar dish), a shorter afterburner section and an enlarged fin with area increased by 15% that had become necessary in order to compensate instability through the new nose layout and the potential carriage of external ordnance, esp. under the fuselage. This bigger fin was taken over to the Lightning F.3 that also initially suffered from longitudal instability due to the new Red Top missiles.

 

The Levin carried armament and avionics similar to the Lightning, including the Ferranti-developed AI.23 monopulse radar. The aircraft was to be fully integrated into a new automatic intercept system developed by Ferranti, Elliot, and BAC. It would have turned the fighters into something like a "manned missile" and greatly simplified intercepts.

 

Anyway, the Levin’s weapon arrangement was slightly different from the Lightning: the Levin’s armament comprised theoretically a mix of up to four 30mm Aden cannons and/or up to four of the new Red Top AAMs, or alternatively the older Firestreak. The guns were mounted in the upper nose flanks (similar to the early Lightning arrangement, but set further back), right under the cockpit hatch, while a pair of AAMs was carried on wing tip launch rails. Two more AAMs could be carried on pylons under the lower front fuselage, similar to the Lightning’s standard configuration, even though there was no interchangeable module. Since this four-missile arrangement would not allow any cannon to be carried anymore and caused excessive drag, the typical payload was limited to two Aden cannons and the single pair of wing-tip missiles.

 

Despite its proven Lightning ancestry, the development of the Levin went through various troubles. While the RB.106 worked fine in the research P.6/1, it took until 1962 that a fully reliable variant for the interceptor could be cleared for service. Meanwhile the Lightning had already evolved into the F.3 variant and political discussions circled around the end of manned military aircraft. To make matters even worse, the RAF refused to buy the completely automatic intercept system, despite the fact that it had been fully engineered at a cost of 1.4 million pounds and trialed in one of the P.1Bs.

 

Eventually, the Levin F.1 finally entered service in 1964, together with the Lightning F.3. While the Lightning was rather seen as a point defense interceptor, due to the type’s limited range: If a Lightning F.3 missed its target on its first pass, it almost never had enough fuel to make a second attempt without topping off from a tanker, which would give an intruder plenty of time to get to its target and then depart… The Lightning’s flight endurance was less than 2 hours (in the F.2A, other variants even less), and it was hoped that the Levin had more potential through a longer range. Anyway, in service, the Levin’s range in clean configuration was only about 8% better than the Lightning’s. The Levin F.1’s flight endurance was about 2 ½ hours – an improvement, but not as substantial as expected.

 

In order to improve the range on both fighters, English Electric developed a new, stiffened wing for the carriage of a pair of jettisonable overwing ferry tanks with a capacity of 1,182 liters (312 US gallons / 260 Imperial gallons, so-called “Overburgers”). The new wing also featured a kinked leading edge, providing better low-speed handling. From mid 1965 onwards, all Levins were directly produced in this F.2 standard, and during regular overhauls the simpler F.1 machines were successively updated. The Lightning introduced the kinked wing with the F.3A variant and it was later introduced with the F.2A and F.6A variants.

 

Levin production comprised 21 original F.1 airframes, plus 34 F.2 fighters, and production was stopped in 1967. A trainer version was not produced, the Lightning trainers were deemed sufficient for conversion since the Levin and the Lightning shared similar handling characteristics.

The Levin served only with RAF 29 and 65 Squadron, the latter re-instated in 1970 as a dedicated fighter squadron. When in November 1984 the Tornado squadrons began to form, the Levin was gradually phased out and replaced until April 1987 by the Tornado F.3.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length w/o pitot: 51 ft 5 in (15,70 m), 55 ft 8 in (16.99 m) overall

Wingspan incl. wingtip launch rails: 34 ft 9 in (10.54 m)

Height: 19 ft 7 in (5.97 m)

Wing area: 474.5 ft² (44.08 m²)

Empty weight: 8937 kg (lb)

Loaded weight: 13,570 kg (29,915)

Max. takeoff weight: 15,210 kg (33,530 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Rolls-Royce RB.106-10S afterburning turbojet,

rated at 20,000 lbf (89 kN) dry and 26,000 lbf (116 kN) with afterburning

 

Performance:

Maximum speed:

- 1,150 km/h (620 kn, 715 mph, Mach 0.94) at sea level

- 2,230 km/h (1.202 kn, 1,386 mph, Mach 2.1;), clean with 2× Red Top AAMs at high altitude

- Mach 2.4 absolute top speed in clean configuration at 50.000 ft.

Range: 1,650 km (890 nmi, 1,025 mi) on internal fuel

Combat radius: 500 km (312 mi); clean, with a pair of wing tip Red Top AAMs

Ferry range: 1,270 mi (1.100 NM/ 2.040 km) with overwing tanks

Service ceiling: 16,760 m (55,000 ft)

Rate of climb: 136.7 m/s (27,000 ft/min)

Wing loading: 76 lb/ft² (370 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.78

Takeoff roll: 950 m (3,120 ft)

Landing roll: 700 m (2,300 ft)

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm (1.18 in) ADEN cannons with 120 RPG in the upper front fuselage

2× wing tip hardpoints for mounting air-to-air missiles (2 Red Top of Firestreak AAMs)

2× overwing pylon stations for 260 gal ferry tanks

Optional, but rarely used: 2× hardpoints under the front fuselage for mounting air-to-air missiles

(2 Red Top of Firestreak AAMs)

  

The kit and its assembly:

Another contribution to the Cold War GB at whatifmodelers.com, and the realization of a project I had on the agenda for long. The EE P.6/1 was a real project for a Mach 2+ research aircraft, as described above, but it never went off the drawing board. Its engine, the RB.106, also never saw the light of day, even though its later career as the Canadian Orenda Iroquois for the stillborn CF-105.

 

Building this aircraft as a model appears simple, because it’s a classic Lightning (actually a F.1 with the un-kinked wing and the small fin), just with a single engine and a rather tubular fuselage. But creating this is not easy at all…

 

I did not want to replicate the original P.6/1, but rather a service aircraft based on the research aircraft. Therefore I used parts from a Lightning F.6 (a vintage NOVO/Frog kit). For the fuselage I settled for a Su-17, from a MasterCraft kit. The kit’s selling point was its small price tag and the fuselage construction: the VG mechanism is hidden under a separate spine piece, and I wanted to transplant the Lightning’s spine and cockpit frame, so I thought that this would make things easier.

 

Nope.

 

Putting the parts from the VERY different kits/aircraft together was a major surgery feat, with several multiple PSR sessions on the fuselage, the air intake section (opened and fitted with both an internal splitter and a bulkhead to the cockpit section), the wings, the stabilizers, the fin… This model deserves the title “kitbash” like no other, because no major sections had ever been intended to be glued together, and in the intended position!

 

The landing gear was more or less taken OOB, but the main struts had to be elongated by 2mm – somehow the model turned out to be a low-riding tail sitter! The cockpit interior was improvised, too, consisting of a Su-17 cockpit tub, a scratched dashboard and a Martin Baker ejection seat from an Italeri Bae Hawk trainer.

 

Since most of the fuselage surface consists of various materials (styrene and two kinds of putty), I did not dare to engrave panel lines – after all the PSR work almost any surface detail was gone. I rather went for a graphic solution (see below). Some antennae and air scoops were added, though.

 

The overwing tanks come OOB from the NOVO kit, as well as the Red Top missiles, which ended up on improvised wing tip launch rails, based on design sketches for Lightning derivatives with this layout.

 

Colors and markings:

There are several “classic” RAF options, but I settled for a low-viz Eighties livery taken from BAC Lightnings. There’s a surprising variety of styles, and my version is a mix of several real world aircraft.

 

I settled for Dark Sea Grey upper surfaces (Modelmaster Authentic) with a high waterline, a fuselage completely in Medium Sea Grey (Humbrol 165 – had to be applied twice because the first tin I used was obviously old and the paint ended up in a tone not unlike PRU Blue!) and Light aircraft Grey underwing surfaces (Humbrol 166). The leading edges under the wings are Dark Sea Grey, too.

 

The cockpit interior was painted in dark grey (Humbrol 32 with some dry-brushing), while the landing gear is Aluminum (Humbrol 56).

 

Once the basic painting was done I had to deal with the missing panel lines on the fuselage and those raised lines that were sanded away during the building process. I decided to simulate these with a soft pencil, after the whole kit was buffed with a soft cotton cloth and some grinded graphite. This way, the remaining raised panel lines were emphasized, and from these the rest was drawn up. A ruler and masking tape were used as guidance for straight lines, and this worked better than expected, with good results.

 

As a next step, the newly created panels were highlighted with dry-brushed lighter tones of the basic paints (FS 36492 and WWII Italian Blue Grey from Modelmaster, and Humbrol 126), more for a dramatic than a weathered effect. The gun ports and the exhaust section were painted with Modelmaster Metallizer (Titanium and Magnesium).

 

The decals come from several Xtradecal aftermarket sheets, including a dedicated Lightning stencils sheet, another Lightning sheet with various squadron markings and a sheet for RAF Tornado ADVs.

The code number “XS970” was earmarked to a TSR.2, AFAIK, but since it was never used on a service aircraft it would be a good option for the Levin.

 

The kit received a coat of matt acrylic varnish from the rattle can – jn this case the finish was intended to bear a slight shine.

  

This was a project with LOTS of effort, but you hardly recognize it – it’s a single engine Lightning, so what? But welding the Lightning and Su-17 parts together for something that comes close to the P.6/1 necessitated LOTS of body work and improvisation, carving it from wood would probably have been the next complicated option. Except for the surprisingly long tail I am very happy with the result, despite the model’s shaggy origins, and the low-viz livery suits the sleek aircraft IMHO very well.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Soviet Laboratory of High-Speed Automobiles (LSA ChADI, today the Chardiv National Automobile and Highway University) was founded in 1953. One of the laboratory’s founders was Vladimir Nikitin, a famous racer not only inside the Soviet Union but also around the world. The main purpose of Vladimir Nikitin’s of was to build the fastest car in the world. This idea of creating race cars became the purpose of the laboratory and has been continued by students of Nikitin throughout the years, with research and prototypes in various fields of car propulsion.

 

The first car created in LSA by students was ChADI 2 in 1961. The body of the car was made of fiberglass, the first time that this material was used for a car body in the Soviet Union. This technology was improved and later used in mass-produced cars. Another famous LSA car was ChADI 7. To create it, Nikitin and his students used airplane wing elements as car body material and used the engine from a helicopter to power it. The highest speed of ChADI 7 – 400 kilometers per hour – was recorded on an airport runway near Chardiv in 1968, and it was at that time the fastest car in the Soviet Union, setting the national land speed record.

 

After this successful vehicle, Vladimir Nikitin started a new, even more ambitious project: a speed record car with the jet engine from a high performance airplane! The name of this project was ChADI 9, and it was ambitious. This time Nikitin and his team used a Tumansky RD-9 turbojet engine with a dry thrust of 25.5 kN (5,730 lbf), the same engine that powered the supersonic Mikoyan-Gurewich MiG-19 fighter plane. He expected that this needle-shaped car would be able to break the absolute land speed record, which meant supersonic speed at level zero of almost 1.200 kilometers an hour. The car was finished in 1981, but unfortunately ChADI 9 never participated in any race and no official top speed result was ever recorded. This had initially a very practical reason: in the 1980’s there were simply no tires in the USSR that could be safely used at the expected speeds in excess of 400 km/h, and there was furthermore no track long enough for a serious test drive in the Soviet Union! In consequence, ChADI 9 had to be tested on the runway of a military airport in the proximity of Chardiv, outfitted with wheels and tires from a MiG-19, but these were not ideal for prolonged high speeds. Film footage from these tests later appeared in a 1983 movie called “IgLa”.

The Automotive Federation of the United States even invited ChADI 9 to participate in an official record race in the USA, but this did not happen either, this time for political reasons. Nevertheless, the main contribution of this car was gathering experience with powerful jet engines and their operations in a ground vehicle, as well as experience with car systems that could withstand and operate at the expected high levels of speed, and the vehicle was frequently tested until it was destroyed in high speed tests in 1988 (see below).

 

ChADI 9 was not the end of Nikitin’s strife for speed (and the prestige associated with it). The know-how that the design team had gathered in the first years of testing ChADI 9 were subsequentially integrated into the LSA’s ultimate proposal not only to break the national, but also the absolute land speed record: with a new vehicle dubbed ChADI 9-II. This car was a completely new design, and its name was deliberately chosen in order to secure project budgets – it was easier to gain support for existing (and so far successful) projects rather than found new ones and convince superior powers of their value and success potential.

 

ChADI 9-II’s conceptual phase was launched in 1982 and it was basically a scaled-up evolution of ChADI 9, but it featured some significant differences. Instead of the RD-9 turbojet, the new vehicle was powered by a much more potent Tumansky R-25-300 afterburning turbojet with a dry thrust of 40.21 kN (9,040 lbf) and 69.62 kN (15,650 lbf) with full afterburner. This new engine (used and proven in the MiG-21 Mach 2 fighter) had already been thoroughly bench-tested by the Soviet Laboratory of High-Speed Automobiles in 1978, on an unmanned, tracked sled.

However, the development of ChADI 9-II and its details took more than two years of dedicated work by LSA ChADI’s students, and in 1984 the design was finally settled. The new vehicle was much bigger than its predecessor, 44 ft 10 in long, 15 ft 6¾ in wide, and 9 ft 10¾ in high (13.67 m by 4,75 m by 3,02 m), and it weighed around 9,000 lb (4 t). Its construction was based on a steel tube frame with an integrated security cell for the driver and an aluminum skin body, with some fibre glass elements. While ChADI 9’s slender cigar-shaped body with a circular diameter and the tricycle layout were basically retained, the front end of ChADI 9-II and its internal structure were totally different: instead of ChADI 9’s pointed nose, with the cockpit in the front and ahead of the vehicle’s front wheel and a pair of conformal (but not very efficient) side air intakes, ChADI 9-II featured a large, single orifice with a central shock cone. A small raked lower lip was to prevent FOD to the engine and act at the same time as a stabilizing front spoiler. The driver sat under a tight, streamlined canopy, the bifurcated air intake ducts internally flanking the narrow cockpit. Two steerable front wheels with a very narrow track were installed in front of the driver’s compartment. They were mounted side by side on a central steering pylon, which made them look like a single wheel. Behind the cockpit, still flanked by the air ducts, came two fuel tanks and finally, after a chamber where the air ducts met again, the engine compartment. Small horizontal stabilizers under the cockpit, which could be adjusted with the help of an electric actuator, helped keeping the vehicle’s nose section on the ground. Two small air brakes were mounted on the rear fuselage; these not only helped to reduce the vehicle’s speed, they could also be deployed in order to trim the aerodynamic downforce on the rear wheels. The latter ware carried on outriggers for a wide and stable track width and were covered in tight aerodynamic fairings, again made from fibre glass. The outriggers were furthermore swept back far enough so that the engine’s nozzle was placed in front of the rear wheel axis. This, together with a marked “nose-down” stance as well as a single swept fin on the rear above the afterburner nozzle with a brake parachute compartment, was to ensure stability and proper handling at expected speeds far in excess of 600 km/h (372 mph) without the use of the engine’s afterburner, and far more at full power.

 

Construction of ChADI 9-II lasted for more than another year, and in May 1986 the vehicle was rolled out and ready for initial trials at Chardiv, this time on the Chardiv State Aircraft Manufacturing Company’s runway. These non-public tests were successful and confirmed the soundness of the vehicle’s concept and layout. In the course of thorough tests until July 1987, ChADI 9-II was carefully pushed beyond the 400 km/h barrier and showed certain potential for more. This was the point when the vehicle was presented to the public (it could not be hidden due to the noisy trials within Chardiv’s city limits), and for this occasion (and marketing purposes) ChADI 9-II received a flashy livery in silver with red trim around the air intake and long the flanks and was officially christened with the more catchy title “„скорость“” (Skorost = Velocity).

 

Meanwhile, a potential area for serious high-speed trials had been identified with Lake Baskunchak, a salt sea near the Caspian Sea with flat banks that resembled the Bonneville Salt Flats in the USA. Lake Baskunchak became the site of further tests in 1988. Initially scheduled for May-July, the tests had to be postponed by six weeks due to heavy rain in the region, so that the sea would not build suitable dry salt banks for any safe driving tests. In late June the situation improved, and „скорость“ could finally take up its high speed tests.

 

During the following weeks the vehicle was gradually taken to ever higher speeds. During a test run on 8th of September, while travelling at roundabout 640 km/h (400 mph), one of the tail wheel fairings appeared to explode and the ensuing drag differences caused heavy oscillations that ended in a crash at 180 km/h (110 mph) with the vehicle rolling over and ripping the left rear wheel suspension apart.

The driver, LSA student and hobby rally driver Victor Barchenkov, miraculously left the vehicle almost unscathed, and the damage turned out to be only superficial. What had happened was an air pressure congestion inside of the wheel fairing, and the increasing revolutions of the wheels beyond 600 km/h caused small shock waves along the wheels, which eventually blew up the fairing, together with the tire. This accident stopped the 1988 trials, but not the work on the vehicle. Another disaster struck the LSA ChADI team when ChADI 9, which was still operated, crashed in 1988, too, and had to be written off completely.

 

In mid-1989 and with only a single high speed vehicle left, LSA team appeared again with „скорость“ at the shores of Lake Baskunchak – and this time the weather was more gracious and the track could be used from late June onwards. Analyzing last year’s accident and the gathered data, the vehicle had undergone repairs and some major modifications, including a new, anti-corrosive paintjob in light grey with red and white trim.

The most obvious change, though, was a completely re-shaped nose section: the original raked lower air intake lip had been considerably extended by almost 5 feet (the vehicle now had a total length of 49 ft 1 in/14,98 m) in order to enhance the downforce on the front wheels, and strakes along the lower nose ducted the airflow around the front wheels and towards the stabilizing fins. The central shock cone had been elongated and re-contoured, too, improving the airflow at high speeds.

New tireless all-aluminum wheels had been developed and mounted, because pressurized rubber tires, as formerly used, had turned out to be too unstable and unsafe. The central front wheels had received an additional aerodynamic fairing that prevented air ingestion into the lower fuselage, so that steering at high speeds became safer. The aerodynamic rear wheel fairings had by now been completely deleted and spoilers had been added to the rear suspension in order to keep the rear wheel on the ground at high speeds.

 

This time the goal was to push „скорость“ and the national land speed record in excess of 800 km/h (500 mph), and step by step the vehicle’s top speed was gradually increased. On August 15, an officially timed record attempt was made, again with Victor Barchenkov at the steering wheel. The first of the two obligatory runs within an hour was recorded at a very promising 846.961 km/h (526.277 mph), but, at the end of the second run, „скорость“ veered off and no time was measured. Even worse, the vehicle lost its parachute brakes and went out of control, skidding away from the dry race track into Lake Baskunchak’s wet salt sludge, where it hit a ground wave at around 200 mph (320 km/h) and was catapulted through the air into a brine pond where it landed on its right side and eventually sank. Again, pilot Victor Barchenkov remained mostly unharmed and was able to leave the car before it sank – but this fatal crash meant the end of the „скорость“ vehicle and the complete KhAGI 9-II project. Furthermore, the break-up of the Soviet Union at the same time prevented and further developments of high speed vehicles. The whereabouts of the „скорость“ wreck remain unclear, too, since no official attempt had been made to save the vehicle’s remains from Lake Baskunchak’s salt swamps.

  

The kit and its assembly:

This is another contribution to the late 2018 “Racing & Competition Group Build” at whatifmodelers.com. Since I primarily build aircraft in 1:72 scale, building a land speed record (LSR) vehicle from such a basis appeared like a natural choice. A slick streamliner? A rocket-powered prototype with Mach 1 potential? Hmmm… However, I wanted something else than the typical US or British Bonneville Salt Flats contender.

Inspiration struck when I remembered the real world high speed vehicle projects of LSA ChAGI in the former USSR, and especially the ill-fated, jet-powered ChADI 9, which looked a lot like Western, rocket-powered absolute LSR designs like The Blue Flame or Wingfoot Express 2. Another inspiration was a contemporary LSR vehicle called North American Eagle – basically a wingless F-104 Starfighter, put on wheels and sporting a garish, patriotic livery.

 

With this conceptual basis, the MiG-21 was quickly identified as the potential starting basis – but I wanted more than just a Fishbed sans wings and with some bigger wheels attached to it. I nevertheless wanted to retain the basic shape of the aircraft, but change the rest as good as possible with details that I have learned from reading about historic LSR vehicles (a very good source are the books by German author and LSR enthusiast Ferdinand C. W. Käsmann, which have, AFAIK, even been translated into English).

 

At the model’s core is a contemporary KP MiG-21MF, but it’s a hideous incarnation of the venerable Kovozávody Prostějov mold. While the wheels and the dashboard of this kit were surprisingly crisp, the fuselage halves did hardly match each other and some other parts like the landing gear covers could only be described as “blurred blobs”. Therefore it was no shame to slice the kit up, and the resulting kitbash with many donor parts and scratching almost became a necessity.

 

The MiG-21 fuselage and cockpit were more or less retained, the landing gear wells covered and PSR-ed. Fin, spine and the ventral stabilizer were cut away, and the attachment points for the wings and the horizontal stabilizers blended into the rest of the fuselage. Actually, only a few parts from the KP MiG-21 were eventually used.

 

The original shock cone in the air intake was used, but it was set further back into the nose opening – as an attachment point for a new, more organic shock cone which is actually the rear end of a drop tank from an Airfix 1:72 P-61 Black Widow. This detail was inspired by a real world benchmark: Art Arfons’ home-built “Green Monster” LSR car. This vehicle also inspired the highly modified air intake shape, which was scratched from the tail cone from a Matchbox 1:72 Blackburn Buccaneer – the diameter matched well with the MiG-21’s nose! With the new nose, I was able to retain the original MiG-21 layout, yet the shape and the extension forward changed the overall look enough to make it clear that this was not simply a MiG-21 on wheels.

 

With the spine gone, I also had to integrate a different, much smaller canopy, which came from an 1:144 Tornado. The cockpit opening had to be narrowed accordingly, and behind the canopy a new spine fairing was integrated – simply a piece from a streamlined 1:72 1.000 lb bomb plus lots of PSR.

Inside of the cockpit, a simpler seat was used, but the original cockpit tub and the dashboard were retained.

The large MiG-21 fin was replaced with a smaller piece, left over from an Amodel Kh-20 missile, with a scratched brake parachute fairing (cut from sprue material) placed under its rear. The exhaust nozzle was replaced, too, because the fit of the KP MiG-21’s rear end was abysmal. So I cut away a short piece and added an afterburner nozzle from a vintage 1:72 F-100, which fits well. Inside, the part’s rear wall was drilled open and extended inwards with a styrene tube.

 

The wheels of the vehicle come from an 1:72 Hasegawa “Panther with Schmalturm” tank kit – it comes not only with two turrets, but also with a second set of simplified track wheels. These had IMHO the perfect size and shape as massive aluminum wheels for the high speed vehicle.

For the front wheels, I used the thinner outer Panther wheels, and they were put, closely together, onto a central suspension pylon. This received a new “well” in the forward fuselage, with an internal attachment point. In order to streamline the front wheel installation (and also to change the overall look of the vehicle away from the MiG-21 basis), I added a scratched an aerodynamic fairing around it. This was made from tailored styrene strips, which were later filled and blended into the hull with putty.

 

The rear suspension was also fully scratched: the outriggers were made from styrene profiles while the wheel attachments were once part of an 1:35 tank kit suspension – I needed something to hold the three struts per side together. These parts look a bit large, but the vehicle is, after all, a Soviet design, so a little sturdiness may not be wrong, and I simply did not want to stick the wheels directly onto the outriggers. The rear wheels (in this case, the wider inner Panther track wheels with a central hub cover were used) also received a stabilizing notch around the contact surface, in an attempt to make them look slimmer than they actually are.

 

Final touches included the chines under the nose as well as spoilers on the rear suspension (both made from styrene profiles), and I added a pitot made from wire to the original MiG-21 angle of attack sensor fairing.

 

As an addition outside the model itself I also created a display base for the beauty pics, since I did not have anything at hand that would resemble the vastness of a flat and dry salt sea. The base is an 18x12” MDF board, on top of which I added a thin coat of white tile grout (which I normally use as a snow placebo, instead of plaster, which tends to absorb humidity over time and to become yellow). While the stuff was still wet I sprinkled some real salt onto the surface and wetted the whole affair with water sprays – hoping to create a flat yet structured surface with some glitter reflexes. And it actually worked!

  

Painting and markings:

I am not certain how ChADI 9 was painted (I assume overall silver), but I wanted for „скорость“ a little more color. Being a child of the Soviet era, red was a settled design element, but I thought that an all-red vehicle might have looked too cheesy. Other colors I considered were orange or white with blue trim, but did not find them to be appropriate for what I was looking. Eventually, I added some Russian Utilitarianism in the form of light grey for the upper hull (Humbrol 166, RAF Light Aircraft Grey), and the red (Humbrol 19) as a dark contrast around the complete air intake as well as the shock cone (somewhat inspired by the Green Monster #15 LSR vehicle), and then extended backwards into a narrowing cheatline along the flanks, which emphasizes the vehicle’s slender hull. For some more contrast between the two basic tones I later added thin white borders between them created with 2mm white decal stripes from TL Modellbau. Around the hull some bright red (Humbrol 238 Red Arrows Red) highlights as warning signs were added.

 

The vehicle’s afterburner section was painted with Modelmaster Steel Metallizer, the Panther wheels became Aluminum (Revell 99) with a black ink wash. Some black ink was also applied to the jet nozzle, so that the details became more pronounced, and some grinded graphite was used to enhance the burnt metal effect.

 

Since this would rather be an experimental car built and operated by a high school institute, and also operated in the Soviet Union, flashy sponsor markings would not be appropriate. Therefore I created some fictional marking at home with the help of PC software and printed them by myself. These designs included a fictional logo of the ChADI institute itself (created from a car silhouette drawing) and a logo for the vehicle’s title, “„скорость““. The latter was created from the cyrillic lettering, with some additions like the vehicle’s silhouette.

Unfortunately the production process for the home-made decals did not work properly – when coating the prints with gloss acrylic varnish the printer ink started to dissolve, bleeding magenta, so that the decals would look as if there was a red halo or glow around the otherwise black motifs. Thanks to the use of red in the vehicle’s overall design this flaw is not too apparent, so I stuck with the outcome and applied the decals to the car.

Beyond these basic markings, many stencils were added, including dull red inscriptions from an Italeri MiG-37 “Ferret” kit – finally, I found an expedient use for them! The Soviet flags on the fin came from an 1:144 Tu-144 airliner Braz Decal aftermarket sheet.

Finally, some panel lines were drawn onto the hull with a soft pencil and then the model was sealed with Italeri semi-gloss acrylic varnish. Just the black anti-glare panel in front of the windscreen became matt and the metallic rear section was left in “natural” finish.

  

I am very pleased with the outcome – the „скорость“ looks purposeful and does IMHO blend well into the line of spectacular USA and UK jet/rocket car designs that broke the 800 km/h barrier. I also find that, even though the MiG-21 ancestry is certainly there, the vehicle looks different enough so that the illusion that it was designed along the jet fighter’s lines (and not converted from one, like the real world “North American Eagle” which was built from an F-104 Starfighter) works well. I also think that the vehicle’s livery works well – it looks quite retro for a vehicle from the late Eighties, but that just adds to the “Soviet style”. An interesting project, outside of my normal comfort zone. :D

Tried to do a realistic take on the Solid Snake character, still waiting on the Foxhound patches I'm having made, but I'm pretty happy with it

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The РТАК-30 attack vintoplan (also known as vintokryl) owed its existence to the Mil Mi-30 plane/helicopter project that originated in 1972. The Mil Mi-30 was conceived as a transport aircraft that could hold up to 19 passengers or two tons of cargo, and its purpose was to replace the Mi-8 and Mi-17 Helicopters in both civil and military roles. With vertical takeoff through a pair of tiltrotor engine pods on the wing tips (similar in layout to the later V-22 Osprey) and the ability to fly like a normal plane, the Mil Mi-30 had a clear advantage over the older models.

 

Since the vintoplan concept was a completely new field of research and engineering, a dedicated design bureau was installed in the mid-Seventies at the Rostov-na-Donu helicopter factory, where most helicopters from the Mil design bureau were produced, under the title Ростов Тилт Ротор Авиационная Компания (Rostov Tilt Rotor Aircraft Company), or РТАК (RTRA), for short.

 

The vintoplan project lingered for some time, with basic research being conducted concerning aerodynamics, rotor design and flight control systems. Many findings later found their way into conventional planes and helicopters. At the beginning of the 1980s, the project had progressed far enough that the vintoplan received official backing so that РТАК scientists and Mil helicopter engineers assembled and tested several layouts and components for this complicated aircraft type.

At that time the Mil Mi-30 vintoplan was expected to use a single TV3-117 Turbo Shaft Engine with a four-bladed propeller rotors on each of its two pairs of stub wings of almost equal span. The engine was still installed in the fuselage and the proprotors driven by long shafts.

 

However, while being a very clean design, this original layout revealed several problems concerning aeroelasticity, dynamics of construction, characteristics for the converter apparatuses, aerodynamics and flight dynamics. In the course of further development stages and attempts to rectify the technical issues, the vintoplan layout went through several revisions. The layout shifted consequently from having 4 smaller engines in rotating pods on two pairs of stub wings through three engines with rotating nacelles on the front wings and a fixed, horizontal rotor over the tail and finally back to only 2 engines (much like the initial concept), but this time mounted in rotating nacelles on the wing tips and a canard stabilizer layout.

 

In August 1981 the Commission of the Presidium of the USSR Council of Ministers on weapons eventually issued a decree on the development of a flyworthy Mil Mi-30 vintoplan prototype. Shortly afterwards the military approved of the vintoplan, too, but desired bigger, more powerful engines in order to improve performance and weight capacity. In the course of the ensuing project refinement, the weight capacity was raised to 3-5 tons and the passenger limit to 32. In parallel, the modified type was also foreseen for civil operations as a short range feederliner, potentially replacing Yak-40 and An-24 airliners in Aeroflot service.

In 1982, РТАК took the interest from the military and proposed a dedicated attack vintoplan, based on former research and existing components of the original transport variant. This project was accepted by MAP and received the separate designation РТАК-30. However, despite having some close technical relations to the Mi-30 transport (primarily the engine nacelles, their rotation mechanism and the flight control systems), the РТАК-30 was a completely different aircraft. The timing was good, though, and the proposal was met with much interest, since the innovative vintoplan concept was to compete against traditional helicopters: the design work on the dedicated Mi-28 and Ka-50 attack helicopters had just started at that time, too, so that РТАК received green lights for the construction of five prototypes: four flyworthy machines plus one more for static ground tests.

 

The РТАК-30 was based on one of the early Mi-30 layouts and it combined two pairs of mid-set wings with different wing spans with a tall tail fin that ensured directional stability. Each wing carried a rotating engine nacelle with a so-called proprotor on its tip, each with three high aspect ratio blades. The proprotors were handed (i.e. revolved in opposite directions) in order to minimize torque effects and improve handling, esp. in the hover. The front and back pair of engines were cross-linked among each other on a common driveshaft, eliminating engine-out asymmetric thrust problems during V/STOL operations. In the event of the failure of one engine, it would automatically disconnect through torque spring clutches and both propellers on a pair of wings would be driven by the remaining engine.

Four engines were chosen because, despite the weight and complexity penalty, this extra power was expected to be required in order to achieve a performance that was markedly superior to a conventional helicopter like the Mi-24, the primary Soviet attack helicopter of that era the РТАК-30 was supposed to replace. It was also expected that the rotating nacelles could also be used to improve agility in level flight through a mild form of vectored thrust.

 

The РТАК-30’s streamlined fuselage provided ample space for avionics, fuel, a fully retractable tricycle landing gear and a two man crew in an armored side-by-side cockpit with ejection seats. The windshield was able to withstand 12.7–14.5 mm caliber bullets, the titanium cockpit tub could take hits from 20 mm cannon. An autonomous power unit (APU) was housed in the fuselage, too, making operations of the aircraft independent from ground support.

While the РТАК-30 was not intended for use as a transport, the fuselage was spacious enough to have a small compartment between the front wings spars, capable of carrying up to three people. The purpose of this was the rescue of downed helicopter crews, as a cargo hold esp. for transfer flights and as additional space for future mission equipment or extra fuel.

In vertical flight, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotor system used controls very similar to a twin or tandem-rotor helicopter. Yaw was controlled by tilting its rotors in opposite directions. Roll was provided through differential power or thrust, supported by ailerons on the rear wings. Pitch was provided through rotor cyclic or nacelle tilt and further aerodynamic surfaces on both pairs of wings. Vertical motion was controlled with conventional rotor blade pitch and a control similar to a fixed-wing engine control called a thrust control lever (TCL). The rotor heads had elastomeric bearings and the proprotor blades were made from composite materials, which could sustain 30 mm shells.

 

The РТАК-30 featured a helmet-mounted display for the pilot, a very modern development at its time. The pilot designated targets for the navigator/weapons officer, who proceeded to fire the weapons required to fulfill that particular task. The integrated surveillance and fire control system had two optical channels providing wide and narrow fields of view, a narrow-field-of-view optical television channel, and a laser rangefinder. The system could move within 110 degrees in azimuth and from +13 to −40 degrees in elevation and was placed in a spherical dome on top of the fuselage, just behind the cockpit.

 

The aircraft carried one automatic 2A42 30 mm internal gun, mounted semi-rigidly fixed near the center of the fuselage, movable only slightly in elevation and azimuth. The arrangement was also regarded as being more practical than a classic free-turning turret mount for the aircraft’s considerably higher flight speed than a normal helicopter. As a side effect, the semi-rigid mounting improved the cannon's accuracy, giving the 30 mm a longer practical range and better hit ratio at medium ranges. Ammunition supply was 460 rounds, with separate compartments for high-fragmentation, explosive incendiary, or armor-piercing rounds. The type of ammunition could be selected by the pilot during flight.

The gunner can select one of two rates of full automatic fire, low at 200 to 300 rds/min and high at 550 to 800 rds/min. The effective range when engaging ground targets such as light armored vehicles is 1,500 m, while soft-skinned targets can be engaged out to 4,000 m. Air targets can be engaged flying at low altitudes of up to 2,000 m and up to a slant range of 2,500 m.

 

A substantial range of weapons could be carried on four hardpoints under the front wings, plus three more under the fuselage, for a total ordnance of up to 2,500 kg (with reduced internal fuel). The РТАК-30‘s main armament comprised up to 24 laser-guided Vikhr missiles with a maximum range of some 8 km. These tube-launched missiles could be used against ground and aerial targets. A search and tracking radar was housed in a thimble radome on the РТАК-30’s nose and their laser guidance system (mounted in a separate turret under the radome) was reported to be virtually jam-proof. The system furthermore featured automatic guidance to the target, enabling evasive action immediately after missile launch. Alternatively, the system was also compatible with Ataka laser-guided anti-tank missiles.

Other weapon options included laser- or TV-guided Kh-25 missiles as well as iron bombs and napalm tanks of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber and several rocket pods, including the S-13 and S-8 rockets. The "dumb" rocket pods could be upgraded to laser guidance with the proposed Ugroza system. Against helicopters and aircraft the РТАК-30 could carry up to four R-60 and/or R-73 IR-guided AAMs. Drop tanks and gun pods could be carried, too.

 

When the РТАК-30's proprotors were perpendicular to the motion in the high-speed portions of the flight regime, the aircraft demonstrated a relatively high maximum speed: over 300 knots/560 km/h top speed were achieved during state acceptance trials in 1987, as well as sustained cruise speeds of 250 knots/460 km/h, which was almost twice as fast as a conventional helicopter. Furthermore, the РТАК-30’s tiltrotors and stub wings provided the aircraft with a substantially greater cruise altitude capability than conventional helicopters: during the prototypes’ tests the machines easily reached 6,000 m / 20,000 ft or more, whereas helicopters typically do not exceed 3,000 m / 10,000 ft altitude.

 

Flight tests in general and flight control system refinement in specific lasted until late 1988, and while the vintoplan concept proved to be sound, the technical and practical problems persisted. The aircraft was complex and heavy, and pilots found the machine to be hazardous to land, due to its low ground clearance. Due to structural limits the machine could also never be brought to its expected agility limits

During that time the Soviet Union’s internal tensions rose and more and more hampered the РТАК-30’s development. During this time, two of the prototypes were lost (the 1st and 4th machine) in accidents, and in 1989 only two machines were left in flightworthy condition (the 5th airframe had been set aside for structural ground tests). Nevertheless, the РТАК-30 made its public debut at the Paris Air Show in June 1989 (the 3rd prototype, coded “33 Yellow”), together with the Mi-28A, but was only shown in static display and did not take part in any flight show. After that, the aircraft received the NATO ASCC code "Hemlock" and caused serious concern in Western military headquarters, since the РТАК-30 had the potential to dominate the European battlefield.

 

And this was just about to happen: Despite the РТАК-30’s development problems, the innovative attack vintoplan was included in the Soviet Union’s 5-year plan for 1989-1995, and the vehicle was eventually expected to enter service in 1996. However, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dwindling economics, neither the РТАК-30 nor its civil Mil Mi-30 sister did soar out in the new age of technology. In 1990 the whole program was stopped and both surviving РТАК-30 prototypes were mothballed – one (the 3rd prototype) was disassembled and its components brought to the Rostov-na-Donu Mil plant, while the other, prototype No. 1, is rumored to be stored at the Central Russian Air Force Museum in Monino, to be restored to a public exhibition piece some day.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: Two (pilot, copilot/WSO) plus space for up to three passengers or cargo

Length: 45 ft 7 1/2 in (13,93 m)

Rotor diameter: 20 ft 9 in (6,33 m)

Wingspan incl. engine nacelles: 42 ft 8 1/4 in (13,03 m)

Total width with rotors: 58 ft 8 1/2 in (17,93 m)

Height: 17 ft (5,18 m) at top of tailfin

Disc area: 4x 297 ft² (27,65 m²)

Wing area: 342.2 ft² (36,72 m²)

Empty weight: 8,500 kg (18,740 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 12,000 kg (26,500 lb)

 

Powerplant:

4× Klimov VK-2500PS-03 turboshaft turbines, 2,400 hp (1.765 kW) each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 275 knots (509 km/h, 316 mph) at sea level

305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)

Cruise speed: 241 kn (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level

Stall speed: 110 kn (126 mph, 204 km/h) in airplane mode

Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)

Combat radius: 390 nmi (426 mi, 722 km)

Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (2,230 mi, 3,590 km) with auxiliary external fuel tanks

Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m)

Rate of climb: 2,320–4,000 ft/min (11.8 m/s)

Glide ratio: 4.5:1

Disc loading: 20.9 lb/ft² at 47,500 lb GW (102.23 kg/m²)

Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)

 

Armament:

1× 30 mm (1.18 in) 2A42 multi-purpose autocannon with 450 rounds

7 external hardpoints for a maximum ordnance of 2.500 kg (5.500 lb)

  

The kit and its assembly:

This exotic, fictional aircraft-thing is a contribution to the “The Flying Machines of Unconventional Means” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2019. While the propulsion system itself is not that unconventional, I deemed the quadrocopter concept (which had already been on my agenda for a while) to be suitable for a worthy submission.

The Mil Mi-30 tiltrotor aircraft, mentioned in the background above, was a real project – but my alternative combat vintoplan design is purely speculative.

 

I had already stashed away some donor parts, primarily two sets of tiltrotor backpacks for 1:144 Gundam mecha from Bandai, which had been released recently. While these looked a little toy-like, these parts had the charm of coming with handed propellers and stub wings that would allow the engine nacelles to swivel.

The search for a suitable fuselage turned out to be a more complex safari than expected. My initial choice was the spoofy Italeri Mi-28 kit (I initially wanted a staggered tandem cockpit), but it turned out to be much too big for what I wanted to achieve. Then I tested a “real” Mi-28 (Dragon) and a Ka-50 (Italeri), but both failed for different reasons – the Mi-28 was too slender, while the Ka-50 had the right size – but converting it for my build would have been VERY complicated, because the engine nacelles would have to go and the fuselage shape between the cockpit and the fuselage section around the original engines and stub wings would be hard to adapt. I eventually bought an Italeri Ka-52 two-seater as fuselage donor.

 

In order to mount the four engines to the fuselage I’d need two pairs of wings of appropriate span – and I found a pair of 1:100 A-10 wings as well as the wings from an 1:72 PZL Iskra (not perfect, but the most suitable donor parts I could find in the junkyard). On the tips of these wings, the swiveling joints for the engine nacelles from the Bandai set were glued. While mounting the rear wings was not too difficult (just the Ka-52’s OOB stabilizers had to go), the front pair of wings was more complex. The reason: the Ka-52’s engines had to go and their attachment points, which are actually shallow recesses on the kit, had to be faired over first. Instead of filling everything with putty I decided to cover the areas with 0.5mm styrene sheet first, and then do cosmetic PSR work. This worked quite well and also included a cover for the Ka-52’s original rotor mast mount. Onto these new flanks the pair of front wings was attached, in a mid position – a conceptual mistake…

 

The cockpit was taken OOB and the aircraft’s nose received an additional thimble radome, reminiscent of the Mi-28’s arrangement. The radome itself was created from a German 500 kg WWII bomb.

 

At this stage, the mid-wing mistake reared its ugly head – it had two painful consequences which I had not fully thought through. Problem #1: the engine nacelles turned out to be too long. When rotated into a vertical position, they’d potentially hit the ground! Furthermore, the ground clearance was very low – and I decided to skip the Ka-52’s OOB landing gear in favor of a heavier and esp. longer alternative, a full landing gear set from an Italeri MiG-37 “Ferret E” stealth fighter, which itself resembles a MiG-23/27 landing gear. Due to the expected higher speeds of the vintoplan I gave the landing gear full covers (partly scratched, plus some donor parts from an Academy MiG-27). It took some trials to get the new landing gear into the right position and a suitable stance – but it worked. With this benchmark I was also able to modify the engine nacelles, shortening their rear ends. They were still very (too!) close to the ground, but at least the model would not sit on them!

However, the more complete the model became, the more design flaws turned up. Another mistake is that the front and rear rotors slightly overlap when in vertical position – something that would be unthinkable in real life…

 

With all major components in place, however, detail work could proceed. This included the completion of the cockpit and the sensor turrets, the Ka-52 cannon and finally the ordnance. Due to the large rotors, any armament had to be concentrated around the fuselage, outside of the propeller discs. For this reason (and in order to prevent the rear engines to ingest exhaust gases from the front engines in level flight), I gave the front wings a slightly larger span, so that four underwing pylons could be fitted, plus a pair of underfuselage hardpoints.

The ordnance was puzzled together from the Italeri Ka-52 and from an ESCI Ka-34 (the fake Ka-50) kit.

  

Painting and markings:

With such an exotic aircraft, I rather wanted a conservative livery and opted for a typical Soviet tactical four-tone scheme from the Eighties – the idea was to build a prototype aircraft from the state acceptance trials period, not a flashy demonstrator. The scheme and the (guesstimated) colors were transferred from a Soviet air force MiG-21bis of that era, and it consists of a reddish light brown (Humbrol 119, Light Earth), a light, yellowish green (Humbrol 159, Khaki Drab), a bluish dark green (Humbrol 195, Dark Satin Green, a.k.a. RAL 6020 Chromdioxidgrün) and a dark brown (Humbrol 170, Brown Bess). For the undersides’ typical bluish grey I chose Humbrol 145 (FS 35237, Gray Blue), which is slightly lighter and less greenish than the typical Soviet tones. A light black ink wash was applied and some light post-shading was done in order to create panels that are structurally not there, augmented by some pencil lines.

 

The cockpit became light blue (Humbrol 89), with medium gray dashboard and consoles. The ejection seats received bright yellow seatbelts and bright blue pads – a detail seen on a Mi-28 cockpit picture.

Some dielectric fairings like the fin tip were painted in bright medium green (Humbrol 101), while some other antenna fairings were painted in pale yellow (Humbrol 71).

The landing gear struts and the interior of the wells became Aluminum Metalic (Humbrol 56), the wheels dark green discs (Humbrol 30).

 

The decals were puzzled together from various sources, including some Begemot sheets. Most of the stencils came from the Ka-52 OOB sheet, and generic decal sheet material was used to mark the walkways or the rotor tips and leading edges.

 

Only some light weathering was done to the leading edges of the wings, and then the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish.

  

A complex kitbashing project, and it revealed some pitfalls in the course of making. However, the result looks menacing and still convincing, esp. in flight – even though the picture editing, with four artificially rotating proprotors, was probably more tedious than building the model itself!

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

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

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

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

Wing area: 241.3 sq ft (22,52 m²)

Empty weight: 10,681 lb (4.845 kg)

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

Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0134

Frontal area: 32 sq ft (3.0 m²)

 

Powerplant:

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

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

 

Performance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lift-to-drag: 17.7

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

Thrust/weight: 0.249 dry

0.328 with afterburner

 

Armament:

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

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

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

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

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

  

The kit and its assembly:

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  

Painting and markings:

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  

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

I kitbashed the Power Girl figure using the Jiaou doll instead of using the Tbleague body since the Jiaou seems much more curvey than the Tbleague bodies , especially the lower half of the bodies and she filled her suit a whole lot better .

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The CAC Sabre, sometimes known as the Avon Sabre or CA-27, was an Australian variant of the North American Aviation F-86F Sabre fighter aircraft. In 1951, Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation obtained a license agreement to build the F-86F Sabre. In a major departure from the North American blueprint, it was decided that the CA-27 would be powered by a license-built version of the Rolls-Royce Avon R.A.7, rather than the General Electric J47. In theory, the Avon was capable of more than double the maximum thrust and double the thrust-to-weight ratio of the US engine. This necessitated a re-design of the fuselage, as the Avon was shorter, wider and lighter than the J47.

 

To accommodate the Avon, over 60 percent of the fuselage was altered and there was a 25 percent increase in the size of the air intake. Another major revision was in replacing the F-86F's six machine guns with two 30mm ADEN cannon, while other changes were also made to the cockpit and to provide an increased fuel capacity.

 

The prototype aircraft first flew on 3 August 1953. The production aircrafts' first deliveries to the Royal Australian Air Force began in 1954. The first batch of aircraft were powered by the Avon 20 engine and were designated the Sabre Mk 30. Between 1957 and 1958 this batch had the wing slats removed and were re-designated Sabre Mk 31. These Sabres were supplemented by 20 new-built aircraft. The last batch of aircraft were designated Sabre Mk 32 and used the Avon 26 engine, of which 69 were built up to 1961.

 

Beyond these land-based versions, an indigenous version for carrier operations had been developed and built in small numbers, too, the Sea Sabre Mk 40 and 41. The roots of this aircraft, which was rather a prestigious idea than a sensible project, could be traced back to the immediate post WWII era. A review by the Australian Government's Defence Committee recommended that the post-war forces of the RAN be structured around a Task Force incorporating multiple aircraft carriers. Initial plans were for three carriers, with two active and a third in reserve, although funding cuts led to the purchase of only two carriers in June 1947: Majestic and sister ship HMS Terrible, for the combined cost of AU£2.75 million, plus stores, fuel, and ammunition. As Terrible was the closer of the two ships to completion, she was finished without modification, and was commissioned into the RAN on 16 December 1948 as HMAS Sydney. Work progressed on Majestic at a slower rate, as she was upgraded with the latest technology and equipment. To cover Majestic's absence, the Colossus-class carrier HMS Vengeance was loaned to the RAN from 13 November 1952 until 12 August 1955.

 

Labour difficulties, late delivery of equipment, additional requirements for Australian operations, and the prioritization of merchant ships over naval construction delayed the completion of Majestic. Incorporation of new systems and enhancements caused the cost of the RAN carrier acquisition program to increase to AU£8.3 million. Construction and fitting out did not finish until October 1955. As the carrier neared completion, a commissioning crew was formed in Australia and first used to return Vengeance to the United Kingdom.

The completed carrier was commissioned into the RAN as HMAS Majestic on 26 October 1955, but only two days later, the ship was renamed Melbourne and recommissioned.

 

In the meantime, the rather political decision had been made to equip Melbourne with an indigenous jet-powered aircraft, replacing the piston-driven Hawker Fury that had been successfully operated from HMAS Sydney and HMAS Vengeance, so that the "new jet age" was even more recognizable. The choice fell on the CAC Sabre, certainly inspired by North American's successful contemporary development of the navalized FJ-2 Fury from the land-based F-86 Sabre. The CAC 27 was already a proven design, and with its more powerful Avon engine it even offered a better suitability for carrier operations than the FJ-2 with its rather weak J47 engine.

 

Work on this project, which was initially simply designated Sabre Mk 40, started in 1954, just when the first CAC 27's were delivered to operative RAAF units. While the navalized Avon Sabre differed outwardly only little from its land-based brethren, many details were changed and locally developed. Therefore, there was also, beyond the general outlines, little in common with the North American FJ-2 an -3 Fury.

Externally, a completely new wing with a folding mechanism was fitted. It was based on the F-86's so-called "6-3" wing, with a leading edge that was extended 6 inches at the root and 3 inches at the tip. This modification enhanced maneuverability at the expense of a small increase in landing speed due to deletion of the leading edge slats, a detail that was later introduced on the Sabre Mk 31, too. As a side benefit, the new wing leading edges without the slat mechanisms held extra fuel. However, the Mk 40's wing was different as camber was applied to the underside of the leading edge to improve low-speed handling for carrier operations. The wings were provided with four stations outboard of the landing gear wells for up to 1000 lb external loads on the inboard stations and 500 lb on the outboard stations.

 

Slightly larger stabilizers were fitted and the landing gear was strengthened, including a longer front wheel strut. The latter necessitated an enlarged front wheel well, so that the front leg’s attachment point had to be moved forward. A ventral launch cable hook was added under the wing roots and an external massive arrester hook under the rear fuselage.

Internally, systems were protected against salt and humidity and a Rolls-Royce Avon 211 turbojet was fitted, a downrated variant of the already navalized Avon 208 from the British DH Sea Vixen, but adapted to the different CAC 27 airframe and delivering 8.000 lbf (35.5 kN) thrust – slightly more than the engines of the land-based CAC Sabres, but also without an afterburner.

 

A single Mk 40 prototype was built from a new CAC 27 airframe taken directly from the production line in early 1955 and made its maiden flight on August 20th of the same year. In order to reflect its naval nature and its ancestry, this new CAC 27 variant was officially christened “Sea Sabre”.

Even though the modified machine handled well, and the new, cambered wing proved to be effective, many minor technical flaws were discovered and delayed the aircraft's development until 1957. These included the wing folding mechanism and the respective fuel plumbing connections, the landing gear, which had to be beefed up even more for hard carrier landings and the airframe’s structural strength for catapult launches, esp. around the ventral launch hook.

 

In the meantime, work on the land-based CAC 27 progressed in parallel, too, and innovations that led to the Mk 31 and 32 were also incorporated into the naval Mk 40, leading to the Sea Sabre Mk 41, which became the effective production aircraft. These updates included, among others, a detachable (but fixed) refueling probe under the starboard wing, two more pylons for light loads located under the wing roots and the capability to carry and deploy IR-guided AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, what significantly increased the Mk 41's efficiency as day fighter. With all these constant changes it took until April 1958 that the Sabre Mk 41, after a second prototype had been directly built to the new standard, was finally approved and cleared for production. Upon delivery, the RAN Sea Sabres carried a standard NATO paint scheme with Extra Dark Sea Grey upper surfaces and Sky undersides.

 

In the meantime, the political enthusiasm concerning the Australian carrier fleet had waned, so that only twenty-two aircraft were ordered. The reason behind this decision was that Australia’s carrier fleet and its capacity had become severely reduced: Following the first decommissioning of HMAS Sydney in 1958, Melbourne became the only aircraft carrier in Australian service, and she was unavailable to provide air cover for the RAN for up to four months in every year; this time was required for refits, refueling, personnel leave, and non-carrier duties, such as the transportation of troops or aircraft. Although one of the largest ships to serve in the RAN, Melbourne was one of the smallest carriers to operate in the post-World War II period, so that its contribution to military actions was rather limited. To make matters worse, a decision was made in 1959 to restrict Melbourne's role to helicopter operations only, rendering any carrier-based aircraft in Australian service obsolete. However, this decision was reversed shortly before its planned 1963 implementation, but Australia’s fleet of carrier-borne fixed-wing aircraft would not grow to proportions envisioned 10 years ago.

 

Nevertheless, on 10 November 1964, an AU£212 million increase in defense spending included the purchase of new aircraft for Melbourne. The RAN planned to acquire 14 Grumman S-2E Tracker anti-submarine aircraft and to modernize Melbourne to operate these. The acquisition of 18 new fighter-bombers was suggested (either Sea Sabre Mk 41s or the American Douglas A-4 Skyhawk), too, but these were dropped from the initial plan. A separate proposal to order 10 A-4G Skyhawks, a variant of the Skyhawk designed specifically for the RAN and optimized for air defense, was approved in 1965, but the new aircraft did not fly from Melbourne until the conclusion of her refit in 1969. This move, however, precluded the production of any new and further Sea Sabre.

 

At that time, the RAN Sea Sabres received a new livery in US Navy style, with upper surfaces in Light Gull Gray with white undersides. The CAC Sea Sabres remained the main day fighter and attack aircraft for the RAN, after the vintage Sea Furies had been retired in 1962. The other contemporary RAN fighter type in service, the Sea Venom FAW.53 all-weather fighter that had replaced the Furies, already showed its obsolescence.

In 1969, the RAN purchased another ten A-4G Skyhawks, primarily in order to replace the Sea Venoms on the carriers, instead of the proposed seventh and eighth Oberon-class submarines. These were operated together with the Sea Sabres in mixed units on board of Melbourne and from land bases, e.g. from NAS Nowra in New South Wales, where a number of Sea Sabres were also allocated to 724 Squadron for operational training.

 

Around 1970, Melbourne operated a standard air group of four jet aircraft, six Trackers, and ten Wessex helicopters until 1972, when the Wessexes were replaced with ten Westland Sea King anti-submarine warfare helicopters and the number of jet fighters doubled. Even though the A-4G’s more and more took over the operational duties on board of Melbourne, the Sea Sabres were still frequently deployed on the carrier, too, until the early Eighties, when both the Skyhawks and the Sea Sabres received once more a new camouflage, this time a wraparound scheme in two shades of grey, reflecting their primary airspace defense mission.

 

The CAC 27 Mk 41s’ last carrier operations took place in 1981 in the course of Melbourne’s involvements in two major exercises, Sea Hawk and Kangaroo 81, the ship’s final missions at sea. After Melbourne was decommissioned in 1984, the Fleet Air Arm ceased fixed-wing combat aircraft operation. This was the operational end of the Sabre Mk 41, which had reached the end of their airframe lifetime, and the Sea Sabre fleet had, during its career, severely suffered from accidents and losses: upon retirement, only eight of the original twenty-two aircraft still existed in flightworthy condition, so that the aircraft were all scrapped. The younger RAN A-4Gs were eventually sold to New Zealand, where they were kept in service until 2002.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 37 ft 6 in (11.43 m)

Wingspan: 37 ft 1 in (11.3 m)

Height: 14 ft 5 in (4.39 m)

Wing area: 302.3 sq ft (28.1 m²)

Empty weight: 12,000 lb (5,443 kg)

Loaded weight: 16,000 lb (7,256 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 21,210 lb (9,621 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Rolls-Royce Avon 208A turbojet engine with 8,200 lbf (36.44 kN)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 700 mph (1,100 km/h) (605 knots)

Range: 1,153 mi, (1,000 NM, 1,850 km)

Service ceiling: 52,000 ft (15,850 m)

Rate of climb: 12,000 ft/min at sea level (61 m/s)

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm ADEN cannons with 150 rounds per gun

5,300 lb (2,400 kg) of payload on six external hardpoints;

Bombs were usually mounted on outer two pylons as the mid pair were wet-plumbed pylons for

2× 200 gallons drop tanks, while the inner pair was usually occupied by a pair of AIM-9 Sidewinder

AAMs

A wide variety of bombs could be carried with maximum standard loadout being 2x 1,000 lb bombs

or 2x Matra pods with unguided SURA missiles plus 2 drop tanks for ground attacks, or 2x AIM-9 plus

two drop tanks as day fighter

  

The kit and its assembly:

This project was initially inspired by a set of decals from an ESCI A-4G which I had bought in a lot – I wondered if I could use it for a submission to the “In the navy” group build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2020. I considered an FJ-3M in Australian colors on this basis and had stashed away a Sword kit of that aircraft for this purpose. However, I had already built an FJ variant for the GB (a kitbashed mix of an F-86D and an FJ-4B in USMC colors), and was reluctant to add another Fury.

 

This spontaneously changed after (thanks to Corona virus quarantine…) I cleaned up one of my kit hoards and found a conversion set for a 1:72 CAC 27 from JAYS Model Kits which I had bought eons ago without a concrete plan. That was the eventual trigger to spin the RAN Fury idea further – why not a navalized version of the Avon Sabre for HMAS Melbourne?

 

The result is either another kitbash or a highly modified FJ-3M from Sword. The JAYS Model Kits set comes with a THICK sprue that carries two fuselage halves and an air intake, and it also offers a vacu canopy as a thin fallback option because the set is actually intended to be used together with a Hobby Craft F-86F.

 

While the parts, molded in a somewhat waxy and brittle styrene, look crude on the massive sprue, the fuselage halves come with very fine recessed engravings. And once you have cleaned the parts (NOTHING for people faint at heart, a mini drill with a saw blade is highly recommended), their fit is surprisingly good. The air intake was so exact that no putty was needed to blend it with the rest of the fuselage.

 

The rest came from the Sword kit and integrating the parts into the CAC 27 fuselage went more smoothly than expected. For instance, the FJ-3M comes with a nice cockpit tub that also holds a full air intake duct. Thanks to the slightly wider fuselage of the CAC 27, it could be mounted into the new fuselage halves without problems and the intake duct almost perfectly matches the intake frame from the conversion set. The tailpipe could be easily integrated without any mods, too. The fins had to be glued directly to the fuselage – but this is the way how the Sword kit is actually constructed! Even the FJ-3M’s wings match the different fuselage perfectly. The only modifications I had to make is a slight enlargement of the ventral wing opening at the front and at the read in order to take the deeper wing element from the Sword kit, but that was an easy task. Once in place, the parts blend almost perfectly into each other, just minor PSR was necessary to hide the seams!

 

Other mods include an extended front wheel well for the longer leg from the FJ-3M and a scratched arrester hook installation, made from wire, which is on purpose different from the Y-shaped hook of the Furies.

 

For the canopy I relied on the vacu piece that came with the JAYS set. Fitting it was not easy, though, it took some PSR to blend the windscreen into the rest of the fuselage. Not perfect, but O.K. for such a solution from a conversion set.

 

The underwing pylons were taken from the Sword kit, including the early Sidewinders. I just replaced the drop tanks – the OOB tanks are very wide, and even though they might be authentic for the FJ-3, I was skeptical if they fit at all under the wings with the landing gear extended? In order to avoid trouble and for a more modern look, I replaced them outright with more slender tanks, which were to mimic A-4 tanks (USN FJ-4s frequently carried Skyhawk tanks). They actually come from a Revell F-16 kit, with modified fins. The refueling probe comes from the Sword kit.

 

A last word about the Sword kit: much light, but also much shadow. While I appreciate the fine surface engravings, the recognizably cambered wings, a detailed cockpit with a two-piece resin seat and a pretty landing gear as well as the long air intake, I wonder why the creators totally failed to provide ANY detail of the arrester hook (there is literally nothing, as if this was a land-based Sabre variant!?) or went for doubtful solutions like a front landing gear that consists of five(!) single, tiny parts? Sadism? The resin seat was also broken (despite being packed in a seperate bag), and it did not fit into the cockpit tub at all. Meh!

  

Painting and markings:

From the start I planned to give the model the late RAN A-4Gs’ unique air superiority paint scheme, which was AFAIK introduced in the late Seventies: a two-tone wraparound scheme consisting of “Light Admiralty Grey” (BS381C 697) and “Aircraft Grey” (BS 381C 693). Quite simple, but finding suitable paints was not an easy task, and I based my choice on pictures of the real aircraft (esp. from "buzz" number 880 at the Fleet Air Arm Museum, you find pics of it with very good light condition) rather than rely on (pretty doubtful if not contradictive) recommendations in various painting instructions from models or decal sets.

 

I wanted to keep things simple and settled upon Dark Gull Grey (FS 36231) and Light Blue (FS 35414), both enamel colors from Modelmaster, since both are rather dull interpretations of these tones. Esp. the Light Blue comes quite close to Light Admiralty Grey, even though it should be lighter for more contrast to the darker grey tone. But it has that subtle greenish touch of the original BS tone, and I did not want to mix the colors.

 

The pattern was adapted from the late A-4Gs’ scheme, and the colors were dulled down even more through a light black ink wash. Some post-shading with lighter tones emphasized the contrast between the two colors again. And while it is not an exact representation of the unique RAN air superiority scheme, I think that the overall impression is there.

 

The cockpit interior was painted in very dark grey, while the landing gear, its wells and the inside of the air intake became white. A red rim was painted around the front opening, and the landing gear covers received a red outline, too. The white drop tanks are a detail I took from real world RAN A-4Gs - in the early days of the air superiority scheme, the tanks were frequently still finished in the old USN style livery, hence the white body but fins and tail section already in the updated colors.

 

The decals became a fight, though. As mentioned above, the came from an ESCI kit – and, as expected, the were brittle. All decals with a clear carrier film disintegrated while soaking in water, only those with a fully printed carrier film were more or less usable. One roundel broke and had to be repaired, and the checkered fin flash was a very delicate affair that broke several times, even though I tried to save and repair it with paint. But you can unfortunately see the damage.

 

Most stencils and some replacements (e. g. the “Navy” tag) come from the Sword FJ-3. While these decals are crisply printed, their carrier film is utterly thin, so thin that applying esp. the larger decals turned out to be hazardous and complicated. Another point that did not really convince me about the Sword kit.

 

Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and some soot stains were added around the exhaust and the gun ports with graphite.

  

In the end, this build looks, despite the troubles and the rather exotic ingredients like a relatively simple Sabre with Australian markings, just with a different Navy livery. You neither immediately recognize the FJ-3 behind it, nor the Avon Sabre’s bigger fuselage, unless you take a close and probably educated look. Very subtle, though.

The RAN air superiority scheme from the late Skyhawks suits the Sabre/Fury-thing well – I like the fact that it is a modern fighter scheme, but, thanks to the tones and the colorful other markings, not as dull and boring like many others, e. g. the contemporary USN "Ghost" scheme. Made me wonder about an early RAAF F-18 in this livery - should look very pretty, too?

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

  

Some background:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

General characteristics:

All-environment variable fighter and tactical combat Battroid,

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

 

Accommodation:

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

Dimensions:

Fighter Mode:

Length 14.23 meters

Wingspan 14.78 meters (at 20° minimum sweep)

Height 3.84 meters

 

Battroid Mode:

Height 12.68 meters

Width 7.3 meters

Length 4.0 meters

Empty weight: 13.25 metric tons;

Standard T-O mass: 18.5 metric tons;

MTOW: 37.0 metric tons

 

Power Plant:

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

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

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

 

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

 

Performance:

Battroid Mode: maximum walking speed 160 km/h

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

g limit: in space +7

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

 

Design Features:

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

 

Transformation:

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

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

 

Armament:

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

or a combination of above load-outs

 

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

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

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

  

The model and its assembly:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Painting and markings:

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

 

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

 

+++ 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 North American FJ-4 Fury was a swept-wing carrier-capable fighter-bomber for the United States Navy and Marine Corps. The final development in a lineage that included the Air Force's F-86 Sabre, the FJ-4 shared its general layout and engine with the earlier FJ-3, but, compared to that of the FJ-3, the FJ-4's new wing was much thinner, with a six percent thickness-to-chord ratio, and featured skin panels milled from solid alloy plates. It also had an increased area and tapered more sharply towards the tips. Slight camber behind the leading edge improved low speed characteristics. The main landing gear design had to be considerably modified to fold wheel and strut within the contours of the new wing. The track of the main wheels was increased, and because they were closer to the center of gravity, there was less weight on the nosewheel. Wing folding was limited to the outer wing panels.

 

The FJ-4 was intended as an all-weather interceptor, a role that required considerable range on internal fuel. The FJ-4 had 50% more fuel capacity than the FJ-3 and was lightened by omitting armor and reducing ammunition capacity. The new wing was "wet"; that is, it provided for integral fuel tankage. The fuselage was deepened to add more fuel and had a distinctive "razorback" rear deck. A modified cockpit made the pilot more comfortable during the longer missions. The tail surfaces were also extensively modified, had a thinner profile and featured an extended, taller fin. The overall changes resulted in an aircraft that had little in common with the earlier models, although a family resemblance was still present.

 

The FJ-4 was developed into a family of aircraft. Of the original order for 221 FJ-4 day fighters, the last 71 were modified into the FJ-4B fighter-bomber version. This had a stronger wing with six instead of four underwing stations and stronger landing gear. Additional aerodynamic brakes under the aft fuselage made landing safer by allowing pilots to use higher thrust settings and were also useful for dive attacks. External load was doubled. The most important characteristic of the FJ-4B was, since the Navy was eager to maintain a nuclear role in its rivalry with the Air Force, that it was capable of carrying a nuclear weapon on the inboard port station. For the delivery of nuclear weapons, the FJ-4B was equipped with the Low-Altitude Bombing System (LABS), and with this capability it replaced the carrier-based A-3 Skywarrior bombers, which were not suited well for the new low-level approach tactics.

 

In April 1956, the Navy ordered 151 more FJ-4Bs, 10 US Navy squadrons became equipped with the FJ-4B, and the type was also flown by three Marine squadrons. At the same time, the Navy requested a carrier-borne fighter with all-weather capability, radar-guided missiles and a higher performance. This new type was to replace several 1st generation US Navy jets, including the ponderous and heavy Douglas F3D Skyknight, the lackluster Vought F7U as well as the Grumman F9F-8 Cougar. This requirement led to the Douglas F4D Skyray and North American’s FJ-5, another thorough modification of the Fury’s basic design and its eventual final evolution stage.

 

North American’s FJ-5 was designed with compact dimensions in mind, so that the type could be operated on older Essex Class carriers, which offered rather limited storage and lift space. At the time of the FJ-5’s conception, several of these carriers were still in service – and this argument led to an order for the FJ-5 in addition to the F4D.

 

For the FJ-5, the FJ-4’s aerodynamic surfaces were retained, but the fuselage had to be modified considerably in order to accept an APQ-50A radar with a parabolic 24 inches diameter antenna in the nose. The radome was placed above the air intake, similar to the F-86D, and coupled with an Aero 13F fire-control system, which together provided full all-weather capability and information on automatic firing of rockets.

A deeper rear fuselage became necessary, too, because the FJ-5 was powered by a reheated J65-W-18 engine (a development of the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojet, optimized for a naval environment), which delivered up to 10,500 lbf (47 kN) at full power instead of the FJ-4’s original 7,700 lbf (34 kN). This upgrade had, limited by the airframe’s aerodynamics, only marginal impact on the aircraft’s top speed, but the extra power almost doubled its initial rate of climb, slightly raised the service ceiling and markedly improved acceleration and carrier operations handling through a better response to throttle input and a higher margin of power reserves.

 

Internal armament still consisted of four 20mm cannon. These had to be placed lower in the nose now, flanking the air intake underneath the radome. The FJ-4B’s six underwing hardpoints were retained and could carry AIM-9 Sidewinders (both the IR-guided AIM-9B as well as the Semi-Active Radar Homing (SARH) AIM-9C) as well as the new radar-guided medium-range AIM-7C Sparrow, even though the latter only on the outer pylons, limiting their number to four. Up to six pods with nineteen unguided 70 mm/2.75” unguided Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rocket (Mighty Mouse FFARs) were another armament option.

 

Beyond these air-to-air weapons, a wide range of other ordnance could be carried. This included the AGM-12 “Bullpup” guided missile (which necessitated a guidance pod on the right inner wing hardpoint), bombs or napalm tanks of up to 1.000 lb caliber, missile pods, drop tanks and ECM pods. The FJ-4B’s strike capabilities were mostly retained, even though the dedicated fighter lost the ability to carry and deliver nuclear weapons in order to save weight and internal space for the radar equipment.

 

The first FJ-5, a converted early FJ-4, made its maiden flight in April 1958. After a short and successful test phase, the type was quickly put into production and introduced to service with US Navy and US Marine Corps units. The new fighter was quickly nicknamed “Fury Dog” by its crews, a reminiscence of the USAF’s F-86D “Sabre Dog” and its characteristic nose section, even though the FJ-5 was officially still just called “Fury”, like its many quite different predecessors.

 

With the new unified designation system adopted in 1962, the FJ-4 became the F-1E, the FJ-4B the AF-1E and the FJ-5 the F-1F. From the prolific Fury family, only the FJ-5/F-1F became involved in a hot conflict: in late 1966, the USMC deployed F-1Fs to Vietnam, where they primarily flew escort and top cover missions for fighter bombers (esp. A-4 Skyhawks) from Da Nang AB, South Vietnam, plus occasional close air support missions (CAS) on their own. The Marines’ F-1Fs remained in Vietnam until 1970, with a single air-to-air victory (a North-Vietnamese MiG-17 was shot down with a Sidewinder missile), no losses and only one aircraft seriously damaged by anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) fire.

 

After this frontline experience, a radar upgrade with an AN/APQ-124 was briefly considered but never carried out, since the F-1F showed the age of the original Fifties design – the type already lacked overall performance for an all-weather fighter that could effectively engage supersonic bomber targets or low flying attack aircraft. However, the aircraft was still popular because of its ruggedness, good handling characteristics and compact dimensions.

Other upgrades that would improve the F-1F’s strike capability, e. g. additional avionics to deploy the AGM-62 Walleye glide bomb or the new AGM-65 Maverick, esp. the USMC’s laser-guided AGM-65E variant, were also rejected, because more capable types for both interceptor and attack roles, namely the Mach 2 Douglas F-4 Phantom II and the LTV A-7 Corsair II, had been introduced in the meantime.

Another factor that denied any updates were military budget cuts. Furthermore, the contemporary F-8 Crusader offered a better performance and was therefore selected in favor of the F-1F to be updated to the H-L variants. In the wake of this decision, all F-1Fs still in Navy service were, together with the decommission of the last Essex Class carriers, in 1975 handed over to the USMC in order to purge the Navy’s inventory and simplify maintenance and logistics.

 

FJ-4 and FJ-4B Fury fighter bombers served with United States Naval Reserve units until the late 1960s, while the F-1F soldiered on with the USMC until the early Eighties, even though only in reserve units. A considerable number had the heavy radar equipment removed and replaced by ballast in the late Seventies, and they were used as fighter-bombers, for dissimilar air combat training (simulating Soviet fighter types like the MiG-17 and -19), as high-speed target tugs or as in-flight refueling tankers, since the FJ-5 inherited this capability from the FJ-4, with up to two buddy packs under the wings. A few machines survived long enough to receive a new low-visibility livery.

 

However, even in the USMC reserve units, the FJ-5 was soon replaced by A-4 Skyhawks, due to the age of the airframes and further fleet reduction measures. The last F-1F was retired in 1982, ending the long career of North American’s F-86 design in US service.

 

A total of 1,196 Furies of all variants were received by the Navy and Marine Corps over the course of its production life, including 152 FJ-4s, 222 FJ-4Bs and 102 FJ-5s.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 40 ft 3 in (12.27 m)

Wingspan: 39 ft 1 in (11.9 m)

Height: 13 ft 11 in (4.2 m)

Wing area: 338.66 ft² (31.46 m²)

Empty weight: 13,518 lb (6,132 kg)

Gross weight: 19,975 lb (9,060 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 25,880 lb (11,750 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Wright J65-W-18 turbojet with 7,400 lbf (32.9 kN) dry thrust

and 10,500 lbf (46.7 kN) with afterburner

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 708 mph (1,139 km/h, 615 kn) at sea level,

737 mph (1,188 km/h/Mach 0.96) at height

Range: 2,020 mi (3,250 km) with 2× 200 gal (760 l) drop tanks and 2× AIM-9 missiles

Service ceiling: 49,750 ft (15,163 m)

Rate of climb: 12,150 ft/min (61.7 m/s)

Wing loading: 69.9 lb/ft² (341.7 kg/m²)

 

Armament:

4× 20 mm (0.787 in) Colt Mk 12 cannon (144 RPG, 578 rounds in total)

6× underwing hardpoints for 3,000 lb (1,400 kg) of ordnance, including AIM-9 and AIM-7 missiles

  

The kit and its assembly:

A project I had on the agenda for a long time. But, due to the major surgeries involved, I have been pushing it away – until the “In the navy” group build at whatifmolders.com came along in early 2020. So I collected my courage, dusted off the donor kits that had already been stashed away for years, and eventually started work.

 

The original inspiration was the F-8 Crusader’s career: I really like the look of the late RF-8s, which were kept long enough in service to receive the Eighties’ Low-Viz USN “Compass Ghost” livery. This looks cool, but also a little wrong. And what if the FJ-4B had been kept in service long enough to receive a similar treatment…?

 

In order to justify a career extension, I made up an all-weather development of the FJ-4B with a radar and a more powerful engine, a kind of light alternative to the Vought A-7. A plausible solution was a mix of FJ-4B and F-86D parts – this sounds easy, but both aircraft and their respective model kits actually have only VERY little in common.

 

At its core, the FJ-5 model is a kitbashing of parts from an Emhar FJ-4B (Revell re-boxing) and an Airfix F-86D. The FJ-4B provided the raised cockpit section with the canopy, spine and fin in the form of a complete transplant, which furthermore had to be extended by about 1cm/0.5” because the F-86D is longer than the Fury. The FJ-4B also provided its wings, stabilizers and the landing gear. The Fury’s ventral arrester hook section, a separate part, was also transferred into the F-86D’s lower rear fuselage, under the openings for the air brakes.

For a more lively look, the (thick!) Fury canopy was sawed into two pieces for open display and the flaps were lowered, too.

 

The cockpit was taken from the Airfix kit, since it would fit well into the lower fuselage and it looked much better than their respective counterparts from the relatively basic Emhar kit, which just comes with a narrow board with a strange, bulky seat-thing. As an extra, the cockpit received side consoles, a scratched gunsight and a different ejection seat that raised the pilot’s position into the Fury’s higher canopy.

 

Since the F-1F was supposed to be a fighter, still equipped with the radar set, I retained the OOB pylons from the Fury with its four launch rails. For an aircraft late in the career, I gave it a reduced ordnance, though, just a pair of drop tanks (left over from a Matchbox F3D Skyknight; I wanted something more slender than the stubby OOB drop tanks from the Emhar Fury kit), plus a better Sidewinder training round (hence its blue body) and a single red ACMI data pod on the outer pylons, as an aerial combat training outfit and nice color highlights on the otherwise dull/grey aircraft.

  

Painting and markings:

As mentioned above, the idea for livery was a vintage aircraft in modern, subdued markings. So I adapted the early USN Compass Ghost scheme, and the F-1F received a two-tone livery in FS 36320 and 36375 (Dark and Light Compass Ghost Grey, Humbrol 128 and 127, respectively) with a high, wavy waterline and a light fin. In front of the cockpit, a slightly darker anti-glare panel in Humbrol 145 (FS 35237) was added, inspired by early USN F-14s in Compass Ghost camouflage.

The radome was painted with Humbrol 156, for a slightly darker/different shade of grey than the aircraft’s upper surfaces – I considered a black or a beige (unpainted glass fiber) radome first, but that would have been a very harsh contrast to the rest.

 

The landing gear as well as the air intake duct were painted glossy white (Humbrol 22), the cockpit became medium grey (Humbrol 140, Dark Gull Gray). The inside of the air brakes as well es the edges of the flaps, normally concealed when they are retracted, were painted in bright red (Humbrol 174). The same tone was also used to highlight the edges of the land gear covers.

 

The grey leading edges on the wings the stabilizers were created with decal sheet strips (generic material from TL Modellbau), the gun blast plates were made with silver decal material.

In order to give the model a worn look, I applied a black ink wash, an overall, light treatment with graphite and some post shading. Some extra graphite was applied around the exhaust and the gun nozzles.

 

The markings were taken for an USMC A-4E/F from a Revell kit (which turned out to be a bit bluish). I wanted a consequent dull/toned-down look, typical for early Compass Ghost aircraft. Later, colored highlights, roundels and squadron markings crept back onto the aircraft, but in the early Eighties many USN/USMC machines were consequently finished in a grey-in-grey livery.

 

Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and the ordnance added.

  

Well, the end result looks simple, but creating this kitbashed Fury all-weather fighter was pretty demanding. Even though both the Fury and the F-86D are based on the same aircraft, they are completely different, and the same is also true for the model kits. It took major surgeries and body sculpting to weld the parts together. But I am quite happy with the outcome, the fictional F-1F looks pretty conclusive and natural, also in the (for this aircraft) unusual low-viz livery.

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

 

Some background:

The Hawker Cyclone was an evolutionary successor to the successful Hawker Typhoon and Tempest fighters and fighter-bombers of the Second World War. The Cyclone's design process was initiated in September 1942 by Sydney Camm, one of Hawker's foremost aircraft designers, to meet the Royal Air Force’s requirement for a lightweight Tempest Mk.II and V replacement.

The project, tentatively designated Tempest Mk. VIII, was formalised in January 1943 when the Air Ministry issued Specification F.2/42 around the "Tempest Light Fighter".This was followed up by Specification F.2/43, issued in May 1943, which required a high rate of climb of not less than 4,500 ft/min (23 m/s) from ground level to 20,000 feet (6,096 m), good fighting manoeu rability and a maximum speed of at least 450 mph (724 km/h) at 22,000 feet (6,705 m). The armament was to be four 20mm Hispano V cannon with a total capacity of 600 rounds, plus the capability of carrying two bombs each up to 1,000 pounds (454 kg). In April 1943, Hawker had also received Specification N.7/43 from the Admiralty, who sought a navalized version of the developing aircraft, what eventually led to the Hawker Sea Fury, which was a completely new aircraft, which only shared the general outlines of the Tempest.

 

The Royal Air Force was looking for a quicker solution, and Camm started working on a new laminar flow wing, which would further improve the Tempest’s speed. Further refinements were done to other aerodynamic components, too, like the radiator, since the Tempest V’s liquid-cooled Napier Sabre engine was to be used. After some experiments with new arrangements, an annular radiator directly behind the propeller was chosen – certainly inspired by fast German aircraft like the Fw 190D and developed by Napier.

 

A total of three prototypes were ordered; the first one was powered by a Napier Sabre IIA liquid-cooled H-24 sleeve-valve engine, generating 2,180 hp (1,625 kW), but the second and any following aircraft carried the more powerful Sabre V with 2,340 hp, driving a Rotol four-blade propeller. Later aircraft were even to carry the Napier Sabre VII, which was capable of developing 3,400–4,000 hp (2,535–2,983 kW) and pushing the top speed to 485 mph (780 km/h) and more. The third airframe was just a static test structure. However, since the differences between the Tempest and the new aircraft had become almost as big as to its predecessor, the Typhoon, the new type received its own name Cyclone.

 

The first Cyclone Mk. I to fly, on 30 August 1944, was NV950, and it became clear soon that the modifications would improve the Cyclone’s top speed vs. the Tempest by almost 30 mph (50 km/h), but the new components would also require a longer testing period than expected. The annular radiator frequently failed and overheated, and the new, slender wings caused directional stability problems so that the complete tail section had to be re-designed. This troubling phase took more than 6 months, so that eventual service aircraft would only be ready in mid-1945 – too late for any serious impact in the conflict.

 

However, since the Hawker Fury, the land-based variant of the Sea Fury, which had been developed from the Tempest for the Royal Navy in parallel, had been cancelled, the Royal Air Force still ordered 150 Cyclone fighters (F Mk. I), of which one third would also carry cameras and other reconnaissance equipment (as Cyclone FR Mk.II). Due to the end of hostilities in late 1945, this order immediately lost priority. Consequently, the first production Cyclone fighters were delivered in summer 1946 – and in the meantime, jet fighters had rendered the piston-powered fighters obsolete, at least in RAF service. As a consequence, all Cyclones were handed over to friendly Commonwealth nations and their nascent air forces, e. g. India, Thailand or Burma. India received its first Cyclones in late 1947, just when the Kashmir conflict with Pakistan entered a hot phase. The machines became quickly involved in this conflict from early 1948 onwards.

 

Cyclones played an important role in the strikes against hostiles at Pir Badesar and the dominating Pir Kalewa. The taking of Ramgarh fort and Pt. 6944 on the west flank of Bhimbar Gali was to be a classic close support action with Indian forces carrying out a final bayonet charge against the enemy trenches whilst RIAF Cyclones and Tempests strafed and rocketed the trenches at close quarters. On a chance reconnaissance, enemy airfields were located at Gilgit and 40 NMs south, at Chilas. Cyclones flew several strikes against the landing strips in Oct and Nov 48, cratering & damaging both and destroying several hangars, barracks and radio installations. This attack destroyed Pakistani plans to build an offensive air capability in the North. Already, with Tempests and Cyclones prowling the valleys, Pakistani re-supply by Dakotas had been limited to hazardous night flying through the valleys.

 

After the end of hostilities in late 1948 and the ensuing independence, the Cyclone squadrons settled into their peace time stations. However, constant engine troubles (particularly the radiator) continued to claim aircraft and lives and the skill required to land the Cyclone because of its high approach speed continued to cause several write offs. The arrival of the jet-engined Vampire were the first signs of the Cyclone’s demise. As the IAF began a rapid expansion to an all jet force, several Tempest and Cyclone squadrons began converting to Vampires, 7 Squadron being the first in Dec 49. By this time it had already been decided that the piston-engine fighters would be relegated to the fighter lead-in role to train pilots for the new jet fighters. A conversion training flight was set up at Ambala in Sep 49 with Spitfire T Mk IXs, XVIIIs and Tempests to provide 16 hrs/six weeks of supervised Tempest training. This unit eventually moved to Hakimpet two years later and operated till the end of 1952. Some Cyclone FR Mk. IIs remained in front line service until 1954, though.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: One

Length: 35 ft 5 3/4 in (10.83 m)

Wingspan: 42 ft 5 1/2 in (12.96 m)

Height (tail down): 15 ft 6 3/4 in (4.75 m)

Wing area: 302 ft² (28 m²)

Empty weight: 9,250 lb (4,195 kg)

Loaded weight: 11,400 lb (5,176 kg)

Max. takeoff weight: 13,640 lb (6,190 kg)

Powerplant:

1× Napier Sabre V liquid-cooled H-24 sleeve-valve engine with 2,340 hp (1,683 kW)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 460 mph (740 km/h) 18,400 ft (5,608 m),

Range: 740 mi (1,190 km)

1,530 mi (2,462 km) with two 90 gal (409 l) drop tanks

Service ceiling: 36,500 ft (11,125 m)

Rate of climb: 4,700 ft/min (23.9 m/s)

Wing loading: 37.75 lb/ft² (184.86 kg/m²)

Power/mass: 0.21 hp/lb (0.31 kW/kg)

 

Armament:

4× 20 mm (.79 in) Mark V Hispano cannons, 200 RPG

2× underwing hardpoints for 500 lb (227 kg) or 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs

or 2 × 45 gal (205 l) or 2 × 90 gal (409 l) drop tanks

plus 6× 3” (76.2 mm) RP-3 rockets

  

The kit and its assembly:

Another episode in the series “Things to make and do with Supermarine Attacker wings”. And what started as a simple switch of wings eventually turned into a major kitbashing, since the model evolved from a modded Tempest into something more complex and conclusive.

 

The initial spark was the idea of a Hawker alternative to Supermarine’s Spiteful and Seafang developments – especially with their slender laminar flow wings. Wouldn’t a Hawker alternative make sense?

 

Said and done, I dug out a NOVO Attacker kit and a Matchbox Tempest, and started measuring – and the wing transplantation appeared feasible! I made the cut on the Tempest wing just outside of the oil cooler, and the Attacker wings were then attached to these stubs – after some gaps for the landing gear wells had been cut into the massive lower wing halves. The stunt went more smoothly than expected, the only cosmetic flaw is that the guns went pretty far outboard, but that’s negligible.

 

But the different wings were not enough. I had recently seen in a book a picture of a Tempest (NV 768) with an experimental annular radiator for the Sabre engine (looking like a streamlined Tempest II), and wondered if this arrangement would have been the aerodynamically more efficient solution than the bulbous chin radiator of the Tempest V and VI? I decided to integrate this feature into my build, too, even though not as a copy of the real-world arrangement. The whole nose section, even though based on the OOB Mk. V nose, was scratched and re-sculpted with lots of putty. The radiator intake comes from a FROG He 219, with the front end opened and a fan from a Matchbox Fw 190 placed inside, as well as a styrene tube for the new propeller. The latter was scratched, too, from a Matchbox He 70 spinner and single blades from an Italeri F4U, plus a metal axis. The exhaust stubs were taken OOB, but their attachment slits had to be re-engraved into the new and almost massive nose section.

 

Once the wings and the nose became more concrete, I found that the Tempest’s original rounded tail surfaces would not match with the new, square wings. Therefore I replaced the stabilizers with donations from a Heller F-84G and modified the fin with a new, square tip (from an Intech Fw 190D) and got rid of the fin fillet – both just small modifications, but they change the Tempest’s profile thoroughly.

 

In order to underline the aircraft’s new, sleek lines, I left away any ordnance – but instead I added some camera fairings: one under the rear fuselage or a pair of vertical/oblique cameras, and another camera window portside for a horizontal camera. The openings were drilled, and, after painting, the kit the camera windows were created with Humbrol Clearfix.

  

Painting and markings:

Somehow I thought that this aircraft had to carry Indian markings – and I had a set of standard Chakra Wheels from the late Forties period in my stash. The camouflage is, typical for early IAF machines of British origin, RAF standard, with Dark Green and Ocean Grey from above and Medium Sea Grey from below. I just used the more brownish pst-war RAF Dark Green tone (Humbrol 163), coupled with the rather light Ocean Grey from Modelmaster (2057). The underside became Humbrol 165. All interior surfaces were painted with RAF Interior Green, nothing fancy. The only colorful addition is the saffron-colored spinner, in an attempt to match the fin flash’s tone.

 

As a standard measure, the kit received a black ink wash and some panel post-shading with lighter tones – only subtly, since the machine was not to look too weathered and beaten, just used from its Kashmir involvements.

 

The national markings come from a Printscale Airspeed Oxford sheet, the tactical code with alternating white and black letters, depending on the underground (the sky fuselage band comes from a Matchbox Brewster Buffalo), was puzzled together from single letters from TL Modellbau – both seen on different contemporary RIAF aircraft.

As another, small individual detail I gave the machine a tactical code letter on the fuselage, and the small tiger emblems under the cockpit were home-printed from the official IAF No. 1 Squadron badge.

  

Despite the massive modifications this one is a relatively subtle result, all the changes become only visible at a second glance. A sleek aircraft, and from certain angley the Cyclone looks like an A-1 Skyraider on a diet?

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Me 309 project began in mid-1940, just as the Bf 109 was having its first encounters with the Spitfire in the Battle of Britain, the first aircraft to match the 109 in speed and performance. Already, Messerschmitt anticipated the need for an improved design to replace the Bf 109. The Reich Air Ministry, however, did not feel the same urgency, with the project given a low priority, resulting in the design not being finalized until the end of 1941.

 

The new fighter had many novel features, such as tricycle landing gear (with a nose gear strut that twisted through 90° during retraction, to a "flat" orientation under the engine) and a pressurized cockpit, which would have given it more comfortable and effective high-altitude performance. Each of the new features was first tested on a number of Bf 109F airframes, the V23 having a ventral radiator, the V31 with a radiator and tricycle landing gear, and the V30 having a pressurized cockpit.

 

Low government interest in the project delayed completion of the first prototype until spring 1942, and trouble with the nose wheel pushed back the 309's first flight to July. When it did fly, the Me 309's performance was satisfactory – about 50 km/h (30 mph) faster than a standard Bf 109G – but not exemplary. In fact, the Bf 109G could out-turn its intended replacement. With the addition of armament, the aircraft's speed decreased to an unacceptable level. In light of its poor performance and the much more promising development of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190D, the Me 309 in its original form was canceled.

 

However, the design was not dead and eventually found its way into the Me 509 (with a mid-engine layout) and the Me 609 (a heavy fighter which joined two Me 309 fuselages with a new centre wing section). By the time designs were being ironed out in the course of 1943, revolutionary turbojet engines became operational and with them new designs like the Me 262 or the He 162. These promised superior performance concerning speed, but they had only a short range and the new turbojets’ reliability was poor.

 

In another attempt to keep the Me 309 alive, Franz Hirschleitner, a young engineer who had formerly worked for Blohm & Voss, proposed the addition of a turbojet engine to the piston fighter as a booster. This would combine the range and reliability of the old technology with the new engine’s potential gain of speed. Having worked on the innovative Bv 141 reconnaissance aircraft before, Hirschleitner proposed an unusual solution for the Me 309 update: since as many original parts of the fighter were to be retained (what ruled out a redesign of the fuselage to carry the turbojet engine), he presented an asymmetrical layout which added a new pod with the cockpit, the armament and an underslung BMW 003 turbojet, which was connected to the Me 309 fuselage with a short wing. The Me 309 fuselage itself was virtually identical with the original fighter, just the weapons had been deleted from it (saving weight) and the former cockpit was faired over, the internal space being used for additional fuel tanks. The outer wings were taken from the Me 309, too, except for a reinforced landing gear which now retracted outwards, so that the aircraft’s track width was kept in acceptable limits. The front wheel still retracted into the Me 309 fuselage.

 

This aircraft, called the Me 309 T (for “Turbine” = jet engine), was envisioned as a heavy single-seat fighter, armed with four 30 mm cannon. Hardpoints under the middle wing section allowed an external ordnance of 1.000 kg (2.202 lb), including two bombs of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber each or two 300l drop tanks. Furthermore, the cockpit pod was large enough to add a second crew member under an extended canopy, so that the type could also be developed into a night fighter with a radar.

 

Despite initial skepticism at the Messerschmitt design bureau, Hirschleitner’s proposal was accepted and presented to the RLM in late 1943. Not surprisingly, it was rejected at first for being “too innovative”. Nevertheless, growing pressure from the Allied forces made the RLM reconsider the Hirschleitner design, since it was based on existing components and could be quickly realized. Therefore, the Me 309 T was ordered into production as the T-0 version in Spring 1944. From these initial aircraft, 12 were produced until August 1944 and used for field tests and conversion training. The T-0 was powered by a DB 603G and a BMW 003C and armed with four MK 108 machine cannon. These initial frontline tests lasted until December 1945 and the aircraft was ordered into full production as the T-1.

 

Just as the first production machines left the factories in April 1945, an upgraded variant, the T-2, was introduced. It shared the same airframe as the earlier variants but had an upgraded turbojet engine, a BMW 003D, which offered 10.76 kN (2,420 lbf) of thrust instead of the former 8.81 kN (1,980 lbf), together with improved reliability. The armament was upgraded, too: Two of the MK 108s were replaced by MK 103 30 mm machine cannon, a weapon that offered a much higher range and penetration power, so that the aircraft could fire effectively while keeping outside of the Allied bombers' defensive fire, which now frequently entered German airspace. Furthermore a Rüstsatz (R1) was introduced which put two additional MK 108 behind the cockpit, firing obliquely upwards as "schräge Musik" .

 

Despite the acceptable performance, which made it superior to pure piston-driven fighters of the time like the Republic P-47 or the North American P-51D, the Me 309 T was not very popular among the pilots. The handling on the ground was difficult, not only because of the offset front wheel, but also due to the fact that the left fuselage blocked almost the complete portside field of view. This flaw also created a significant blind spot during flight. Furthermore, getting the Me 309 T into the air without the support from the jet engine could be a gamble, too, esp. when the machine carried external loads. The BMW 003D, even though its reliability had been improved over time, was prone to failure, and the resulting lack of thrust made it a dead weight that severely hampered the aircraft's performance. All in all, only 123 machines were eventually built, with no two-seat night fighter or a trainer ever produced.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: one

Length: 9.46 m (31 ft 0 in)

Wingspan: 13.60 m (44 ft 7 in)

Height: 3.9 m (12 ft 10 in)

Wing area: 21.1 m² (226 sq ft)

Empty weight: 3,795 kg (8,367 lb)

Gross weight: 6,473 kg (14,271 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 7,130 kg (15,719 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Daimler-Benz DB 603G inverted V-12 liquid-cooled piston engine, 1,287 kW (1,726 hp)

1× BMW 003D (TL 109-003) turbojet with 10.76 kN (2,420 lbf) / 10,000 rpm / sea level

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 840 km/h (522 mph, 464 kn) with both powerplants

695 km/h (431 mph, 383 kn) with the DB 603G only

Cruise speed: 665 km/h (413 mph, 359 kn)

Range: 1,100 km (680 mi, 590 nmi)

Service ceiling: 12,000 m (39,000 ft)

Wing loading: 256 kg/m2 (52 lb/sq ft)

Power/mass: 0.31 kW/kg (0.19 hp/lb)

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm (.1.181 in) MK 103 cannon

2× 30 mm (.1.181 in) MK 108 cannon

Underwing hardpoints for a total external ordnance of 1.000 kg (2.202 lb)

  

The kit and its assembly:

This model went through a prolonged development phase. It is based on the question whether an asymmetrical Blohm & Voss design could be made compact enough for a fighter aircraft? Aircraft like the Bv 141 reconnaissance aircraft (which actually flew) or the P-194 attack aircraft (which only existed as a paper project) were considerably bigger than typical single seat fighters.

While doing legwork I also found the relatively compact Blohm & Voss P-197 project in literature, which already came closer to my idea - I initally planned to build something along its lines, based on a Revell P-194 kit, but the latter turned out to be too big for this plan and I shelved the idea again.

However, the projected lingered in the back of my mind and was soon revived through the idea of using a Fw 190D fuselage as an alternative. But, alas, I still did not find the affair to be convincing enough for a build, also because of conceptual problems with the landing gear.

Then I eventually stumbled upon a HUMA Me 609 in the stash and considered a "modernized" asymmetrical layout with a tricycle landing gear. And this became the Me 309T.

 

It sounds so simple: take an aircraft model and add the cockpit pod, together with a new wing middle section. But turning this plan into hardware caused serious headaches. The biggest issue became the landing gear: the only space to stow the main landing gear would be the outer wings. Bu using the original Me 309 landing gear, which retracted inwards and already had a wide track, was impossible. So I decided to "reverse" the landing gear wells for an outward-retracting arrangement. Easier said than done, because the thin Me 309 wings come as single pieces in the HUMA kit: I had to cut out the complete well section on each wing, switch it around and re-sculpt the wings' profiles and surfaces. A lot of work!

 

The Me 309 fuselage was built OOB and I used the cockpit cover that comes with the Me 609 kit. The Bv P-194 cockpit pod with the jet engine was built OOB, too, but the wing attachment points had to be heavily re-sculpted because the P-194's wings are much deeper and thicker than the Me 309's. For the same reason I could not use the P-194's mid wing section - I had to scratch one from a leftover section of a VEB Plasticart 1:100 An-12, styrene sheet and putty. Messy affair, but at least it matches the outer Me 309 wings in shape and thickness.

 

A lot of putty was furthermore needed to finish the Me 309 fuselage and re-build all the wing/fuselage intersections. The HUMA Me 309 is a very basic affair, and fit as well as detail are mediocre, putting it in a polite fashion. The Revell P-194 is a little better, but it has many doubtful details like a pilot seat and canopy for pygmies or a poorly fitting jet exhaust section.

 

Thanks to the wing surgery, the Me 309's OOB landing gear could be retained - it looks pretty stalky, though, and the front wheel strut comes very close to the propeller disc.

 

Sice the HUMA Me 609 does not come with separate stabilizers I finally had to improvise again: I initially considered and asymmetrical layout (somewhat compensating for the cockpit pod on the starboard side with and extended span at port side), but when I saw how close the fuselages were, I settled upon an enlarged, convetional layout in the form of stabilizers from a Heller He 112.

  

Painting and markings:

This caused some headaches, too. I did not want a "conventional" late WWII Luftwaffe scheme, even though I wanted to use standard RLM colors. I eventually found inspiration in Me 262 recce aircraft, which frequently featured a unique paint scheme in the form of an overall RLM 76 livery onto which very fine dots or ondulating, thin lines in one or more darker contrast colors (RLM 81 and/or 83) were painted or sprayed. At first In wanted to adapt this scheme to the whole aircraft, but eventually decided to give the wings' upper surfaces a different, more "planar" scheme.

 

So, the whole model initially received and overall coat of RLM 76 (Humbrol 247), with the wings' undersides left in bare metal and the rudders painted in a greenish-grey primer. The cover of the DB 603 was kept in bare metal, too.

Contrast areas in RLM 81 and 83 (Braunviolett and Dunkelgrün, both from ModelMaster's Authentic line) were added onto the top of the wings, while I painted the fuselages and the fin with a semi-translucent "snake" pattern in RLM 82 (Humbrol 102).

 

The decals come from a Sky Models Fw 190A/F sheet, the crosses on the fuselage and under the wings come from a generic TL Modellbau sheet.

 

The cockpit interior as well as the landing gear wells were painted in very dark grey (Revell 09), while the landing gear struts became RLM 02 (Revell 45). The spinner received a black-and-white spiral, with black green propeller blades.

  

Well, I am not 100% happy with the result. While the overall model looks quite balanced, I am not happy with the finish - partly due to the massive use of putty and the fact that I had to mount parts in a fashion that the kits' manufacturers never expected to happen, but also due to the paint: The Humbrol enamels that I used turned out to be from the poor batch when the fabrication was moved to Belgium a while ago. With the result of a poor and gooey quality. That could have gone better. :-(

 

Nevertheless, I like the odd look of the asymmetrical design, esp. with the tricycle landing gear. From certain angles, the model looks really weird! And I am amazed how good the camouflage works - it's really disruptive.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The TIE/LN starfighter, or TIE/line starfighter, simply known as the TIE Fighter or T/F, was the standard Imperial starfighter seen in massive numbers throughout most of the Galactic Civil War and onward.

The TIE Fighter was manufactured by Sienar Fleet Systems and led to several upgraded TIE models such as TIE/sa bomber, TIE/IN interceptor, TIE/D Defender, TIE/D automated starfighter, and many more.

 

The original TIEs were designed to attack in large numbers, overwhelming the enemy craft. The Imperials used so many that they came to be considered symbols of the Empire and its might. They were also very cheap to produce, reflecting the Imperial philosophy of quantity over quality.

 

However, a disadvantage of the fighter was its lack of deflector shields. In combat, pilots had to rely on the TIE/LN's maneuverability to avoid damage. The cockpit did incorporate crash webbing, a repulsorlift antigravity field, and a high-g shock seat to help protect the pilot, however these did next to nothing to help protect against enemy blaster fire.

 

Due to the lack of life-support systems, each TIE pilot had a fully sealed flight suit superior to their Rebel counterparts. The absence of a hyperdrive also rendered the light fighter totally dependent on carrier ships when deployed in enemy systems. TIE/LNs also lacked landing gear, another mass-reducing measure. While the ships were structurally capable of "sitting" on their wings, they were not designed to land or disembark their pilots without special support. On Imperial ships, TIEs were launched from racks in the hangar bays.

 

The high success rate of more advanced Rebel starfighters against standard Imperial TIE Fighters resulted in a mounting cost of replacing destroyed fighters and their pilots. That, combined with the realization that the inclusion of a hyperdrive would allow the fleet to be more flexible, caused the Imperial Navy to rethink its doctrine of using swarms of cheap craft instead of fewer high-quality ones, leading to the introduction of the TIE Advanced x1 and its successor, the TIE Avenger. The following TIE/D Defender as well as the heavy TIE Escort Fighter (or TIE/E) were touted as the next "logical advance" of the TIE Series—representing a shift in starfighter design from previous, expendable TIE models towards fast, well armed and protected designs, capable of hyperspace travel and long-term crew teams which gained experience and capabilities over time.

 

The TIE/E Escort, was a high-performance TIE Series starfighter developed for the Imperial Navy by Sienar Fleet Systems and it was introduced into service shortly before the Battle of Endor. It was a much heavier counterpart to the agile and TIE/D fighter, and more of an attack ship or even a light bomber than a true dogfighter. Its role were independent long range operations, and in order to reduce the work load and boost morale a crew of two was introduced (a pilot and a dedicated weapon systems officer/WSO). The primary duty profile included attack and escort task, but also reconnoiter missions. The TIE/E shared the general layout with the contemporary TIE/D fighter, but the cockpit section as well as the central power unit were much bigger, and the ship was considerably heavier.

 

The crew enjoyed – compared with previous TIE fighter designs – a spacious and now fully pressurized cockpit, so that no pressurized suits had to be worn anymore. The crew members sat in tandem under a large, clear canopy. The pilot in front had a very good field of view, while the WSO sat behind him, in a higher, staggered position with only a limited field of view. Both work stations had separate entries, though, and places could not be switched in flight: the pilot mounted the cockpit through a hatch on port side, while the WSO entered the rear compartment through a roof hatch.

 

In a departure from the design of previous TIE models, instead of two parallel wings to either side of the pilot module, the TIE Escort had three quadanium steel solar array wings mounted symmetrically around an aft section, which contained an I-s4d solar ionization reactor to store and convert solar energy collected from the wing panels. The inclusion of a third wing provided additional solar power to increase the ship's range and the ship's energy management system was designed to allow weapons and shields to be charged with minimum loss of power to the propulsion system.

 

Although it was based on the standard twin ion engine design, the TIE/E’s propulsion system was upgraded to the entirely new, powerful P-sz9.8 triple ion engine. This allowed the TIE/E a maximum acceleration of 4,220 G or 21 MGLT/s and a top speed of 144 MGLT, or 1,680 km/h in an atmosphere — almost 40 percent faster than a former standard TIE Fighter. With tractor beam recharge power (see below) redirected to the engines, the top speed could be increased to 180 MGLT in a dash.

In addition to the main thrusters located in the aft section, the TIE Escort's triple wing design allowed for three arrays of maneuvering jets and it featured an advanced F-s5x flight avionics system to process the pilot's instructions. Production models received a class 2, ND9 hyperdrive motivator, modified from the version developed for the TIE Avenger. The TIE/E also carried a Sienar N-s6 Navcon navigation computer with a ten-jump memory.

 

Special equipment included a small tractor beam projector, originally developed for the TIE Avenger, which could be easily fitted to the voluminous TIE Escort. Models produced by Ysanne Isard's production facility regularly carried such tractor beams and the technology found other uses, such as towing other damaged starfighters until they could achieve the required velocity to enter hyperspace. The tractor beam had limited range and could only be used for a short time before stopping to recharge, but it added new tactics, too. For instance, the beam allowed the TIE/E crews to temporarily inhibit the mobility of enemy fighters, making it easier to target them with the ship's other weapon systems, or prevent enemies from clear shots.

 

The TIE Escort’s weapons systems were primarily designed to engage bigger ships and armored or shielded targets, like armed freighters frequently used by the Alliance. Thanks to its complex weapon and sensor suite, it could also engage multiple enemy fighters at once. The sensors also allowed an effective attack of ground targets, so that atmospheric bombing was a potential mission for the TIE/E, too.

.

The TIE Escort Fighter carried a formidable array of weaponry in two modular weapon bays that were mounted alongside the lower cabin. In standard configuration, the TIE/E had two L-s9.3 laser cannons and two NK-3 ion cannons. The laser and ion cannons could be set to fire separately or, if concentrated power was required, to fire-linked in either pairs or as a quartet.

The ship also featured two M-g-2 general-purpose warhead launchers, each of which could be equipped with a standard load of three proton torpedoes or four concussion missiles. Depending on the mission profile, the ship could be fitted with alternative warheads such as proton rockets, proton bombs, or magnetic pulse warheads.

Additionally, external stores could be carried under the fuselage, which included a conformal sensor pallet for reconnaissance missions or a cargo bay with a capacity for 500 kg (1.100 lb).

 

The ship's defenses were provided by a pair of forward and rear projecting Novaldex deflector shield generators—another advantage over former standard TIE models. The shields were designed to recharge more rapidly than in previous Imperial fighters and were nearly as powerful as those found on capital ships, so that the TIE/E could engage other ships head-on with a very high survivability. The fighters were not equipped with particle shields, though, relying on the reinforced titanium hull to absorb impacts from matter. Its hull and wings were among the strongest of any TIE series Starfighter yet.

 

The advanced starfighter attracted the attention of several other factions, and the Empire struggled to prevent the spread of the technology. The ship's high cost, together with political factors, kept it from achieving widespread use in the Empire, though, and units were assigned only to the most elite crews.

 

The TIE/E played a central role in the Empire's campaign against rogue Grand Admiral Demetrius Zaarin, and mixed Defender and Escort units participated in several other battles, including the Battle of Endor. The TIE Escort continued to see limited use by the Imperial Remnant up to at least 44 ABY, and was involved in numerous conflicts, including the Yuuzhan Vong War..

  

The kit and its assembly:

Another group build contribution, this time to the Science Fiction GB at whatifmodelers.com during summer 2017. Originally, this one started as an attempt to build a vintage MPC TIE Interceptor kit which I had bought and half-heartedly started to build probably 20 years ago. But I did not have the right mojo (probably, The Force was not strong enough…?), so the kit ended up in a dark corner and some parts were donated to other projects.

 

The sun collectors were still intact, though, and in the meantime I had the idea of reviving the kit’s remains, and convert it into (what I thought was) a fictional TIE Fighter variant with three solar panels. For this plan I got myself another TIE Interceptor kit, and stashed it away, too. Mojo was still missing, though.

 

Well, then came the SF GB and I took it as an occasion to finally tackle the build. But when I prepared for the build I found out that my intended design (over the years) more or less actually existed in the Star Wars universe: the TIE/D Defender! I could have built it with the parts and hand and some improvisation, but the design similarity bugged me. Well, instead of a poor copy of something that was more or less clearly defined, I rather decided to create something more individual, yet plausible, from the parts at hand.

 

The model was to stay a TIE design, though, in order to use as much donor material from the MPC kits as possible. Doing some legwork, I settled for a heavy fighter – bigger than the TIE Interceptor and the TIE/D fighter, a two-seater.

Working out the basic concept and layout took some time and evolved gradually. The creative spark for the TIE/E eventually came through a Revell “Obi Wan’s Jedi Starfighter” snap fit kit in my pile – actually a prize from a former GB participation at phoxim.de (Thanks a lot, Wolfgang!), and rather a toy than a true model kit.

 

The Jedi Fighter was in so far handy as it carries some TIE Fighter design traits, like the pilot capsule and the characteristic spider web windscreen. Anyway, it’s 1:32, much bigger than the TIE Interceptor’s roundabout 1:50 scale – but knowing that I’d never build the Jedi Starfighter OOB I used it as a donor bank, and from this starting point things started to evolve gradually.

 

Work started with the cockpit section, taken from the Jedi Starfighter kit. The two TIE Interceptor cockpit tubs were then mounted inside, staggered, and the gaps to the walls filled with putty. A pretty messy task, and once the shapes had been carved out some triangular tiles were added to the surfaces – a detail I found depicted in SW screenshots and some TIE Fighter models.

 

Another issue became the crew – even though I had two MPC TIE Interceptors and, theorectically, two pilot figures, only one of them could be found and the second crewman had to be improvised. I normally do not build 1:48 scale things, but I was lucky (and happy) to find an SF driver figure, left over from a small Dougram hoovercraft kit (from Takara, as a Revell “Robotech” reboxing). This driver is a tad bigger than the 1:50 TIE pilot, but I went with it because I did not want to invest money and time in alternatives. In order to justify the size difference I decided to paint the Dougram driver as a Chiss, based on the expanded SW universe (with blue skin and hair, and glowing red eyes). Not certain if this makes sense during the Battle of Endor timeframe, but it adds some color to the project – and the cockpit would not be visible in much detail since it would be finished fully closed.

 

Reason behind the closed canopy is basically the poor fit of the clear part. OOB, this is intended as an action toy – but also the canopy’s considerable size in 1:50 would prevent its original opening mechanism.

Additional braces on the rel. large window panels were created with self-adhesive tape and later painted over.

 

The rear fuselage section and the solar panel pylons were scratched. The reactor behind the cockpit section is actually a plastic adapter for water hoses, found in a local DIY market. It was slightly modified, attached to the cockpit “egg” and both parts blended with putty. The tail opening was closed with a hatch from the OOB TIE Interceptor – an incidental but perfect match in size and style.

 

The three pylons are also lucky finds: actually, these are SF wargaming/tabletop props and would normally be low walls or barriers, made from resin. For my build, they were more or less halved and trimmed. Tilted by 90°, they are attached to the hull with iron wire stabilizers, and later blended to the hull with putty, too.

 

Once the cockpit was done, things moved more swiftly. The surface of the hull was decorated with many small bits and pieces, including thin styrene sheet and profiles, steel and iron wire in various strengths, and there are even 1:72 tank tracks hidden somewhere, as well as protective caps from syringes (main guns and under the rear fuselage). It’s amazing how much stuff you can add to such a model – but IMHO it’s vital in order to create some structure and to emulate the (early) Star Wars look.

  

Painting and markings:

The less spectacular part of the project, even though still a lot of work because of the sheer size of the model’s surface. Since the whole thing is fictional, I tried to stay true to the Imperial designs from Episode IV-VI and gave the TIE/E a simple, all-light grey livery. All basic painting was done with rattle cans.

Work started with a basic coat of grey primer. On top of that, an initial coat of RAL 7036 Platingrau was added, esp. to the lower surfaces and recesses, for a rough shading effect. Then, the actual overall tone, RAL 7047, called “Telegrau 4”, one of Deutsche Telekom’s corporate tones, was added - mostly sprayed from abone and the sides onto the model. Fuselage and panels were painted separately, overall assembly was one of the final steps.

 

The solar panels were to stand out from the grey rest of the model, and I painted them with Revell Acrylic “Iron Metallic” (91) first, and later applied a rather rich wash with black ink , making sure the color settled well into the many small cells. The effect is pretty good, and the contrast was slightly enhanced through a dry-brushing treatment.

 

Only a few legible stencils were added all around the hull (most from the scrap box or from mecha sheets), the Galactic Empire Seal were inkjet-printed at home, as well as some tactical markings on the flanks, puzzled together from single digits in "Aurebash", one of the Imperial SW languages/fonts.

For some variety and color highlights, dozens of small, round and colorful markings were die-punched from silver, yellow, orange, red and blue decal sheet and were placed all over the hull - together with the large panels they blur into the the overall appearance, though. The hatches received thin red linings, also made from generic decals strips.

 

The cockpit interior was a bit challenging, though. Good TIE Fighter cockpit interior pictures are hard to find, but they suggest a dark grey tone. More confusingly, the MPC instructions call for a “Dark Green” cockpit? Well, I did not like the all-grey option, since the spaceship is already monochrome grey on the outside.

 

As a compromise I eventually used Tamiya XF-65 "Field Grey". The interior recieved a black ink in and dry-brushing treatment, and some instruments ansd screens were created with black decal material and glossy black paint; some neon paint was used for sci-fi-esque conmtraol lamps everywhere - I did not pay too much intention on the interior, since the cockpit would stay closed, and the thick clear material blurs everything inside.

Following this rationale, the crew was also painted in arather minimal fashion - both wear a dark grey uniform, only the Chiss pilot stands aout with his light blue skin and the flourescent red eyes.

 

After an overall black ink wash the model received a dry brusing treatment with FS 36492 and FS 36495, for a weathered and battle-worn look. After all, the "Vehement" would not survive the Ballte of Endor, but who knows what became of TIE/E "801"'s mixed crew...?

Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish, and some final cosmetic corrections made.

 

The display is a DIY creation, too, made from a 6x6" piece of wood, it's edges covered with edgebonder, a steel wire as holder, and finally the display was paited with semi-matt black acrylic paint from the rattle can.

  

A complex build, and the TIE/E more or less evolved along the way, with only the overall layout in mind. Work took a month, but I think it was worth the effort. This fantasy creation looks pretty plausible and blends well into the vast canonical TIE Fighter family - and I am happy that I finally could finish this mummy project, including the surplus Jedi Starfighter kit which now also find a very good use!

 

An epic one, and far outside my standard comfort zone. But a wothwhile build!

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The ZSU-62 (Zenitnaya Samokhodnaya Ustanovka = anti-aircraft self-propelled mount) was a potential successor for the Soviet ZSU-57-2 SPAAG, developed in parallel with the ZSU-23-4. But unlike its brethren, the ZSU-62 was only produced in limited numbers, but it received limited fame during its late operational second-line career when it was successfully deployed to Afghanistan.

 

The ZSU’62’s roots were laid down just after WWII with the ZSU-57-2. The first prototype (Objekt 500) was completed in the summer of 1950, production began in 1955. The vehicle was built using a modified chassis of the new T-54 tank and was armed with two S-68 57 mm cannons – at the time the most powerful guns mounted in an anti-aircraft system. The modification of the chassis included reducing the road wheels per side to four and using lighter armor. The ZSU-57-2 was powered by a V-54 12-cylinder diesel engine providing 520 hp. Despite the weight of 28 tons, thanks to the strong engine, the maximum speed was 50 km/h. With a fuel load of 850 liters, the operational range was 420 km.

 

Each cannon had a (theoretical) rate of fire of 240 rounds per minute with a muzzle velocity of 1,000 m/s. Maximum horizontal range was 12 km (with an effective range against ground targets of up to 4 km / 2.5 miles), maximum vertical range was 8.8 km (with a maximum effective vertical range of 4.5 km / 14,750 ft). The effective range, when used against flying targets, was 6 km. Armor-piercing rounds were able to penetrate 110 mm armor at 500 m or 70 mm armor at 2,000 m (at 90° impact angle).

Rate of fire was 120 RPM, but this was only a theoretical number, because each gun was fed with separate four-shot magazines so that only bursts and no continuous fire was possible. Both fragmentation and armor-piercing ammunition were available. The ZSU-57-2’s total ammunition load was 300 rounds, with 176 rounds being stored inside the turret and the remaining in the hull. To efficiently operate the vehicle, six crew members were needed: commander, gunner, loader, driver, and two sight adjusters.

The ZSU-57-2 had serious firepower that could easily destroy any aerial target but had many issues. The greatest weaknesses were the lack of modern range-finding and radar equipment, the impossibility of engaging targets at night or while on the move, the lack of protection for its crew (being open-topped), and low ammunition count. Nevertheless, more than 2.000 ZSU-57-2s were eventually built. While many would be sold to other Warsaw Pact countries, like East Germany, Romania, and Poland, its service within the Soviet Army was limited, because of its many operational deficiencies.

 

This led in 1957 to a new SPAAG program for the Soviet Army and initiated the development of the ZSU-23-4 "Shilka", the ZSU-37-2 "Yenisei" and a new ZSU-57-2 “Kama” (all baptized after Russian rivers) with the outlook to replace the original ZSU-57-2 by the mid to late Sixties. These vehicles were intended for AA defense of military facilities, troops, and mechanized columns on the march. “Shilka” was intended for close range defense (esp. against low-flying attack helicopters) while the more powerful guns of "Yenisei" and “Kama” were judged to be effective at covering the inner dead-zone of Soviet surface-to-air missile systems between 1.000 and 6.000 m altitude, with a focus on attack aircraft and more heavily armored targets.

 

All designs were based on existing tracked chassis’ and featured completely enclosed turrets as well as a proven radar system, the RPK-2 "Tobol" radar (NATO designator: "Gun Dish"). The ZSU-37-2 was soon dropped in favor of the higher firepower and range of the 57mm guns, so that both “Shilka” and “Kama” entered the hardware stage at Omsk Works No. 174.

 

However, “Kama” lagged behind the “Shilka” development because several technical and conceptual problems had to be solved. For instance, even though the armament still consisted of two proven S-68 cannon, the weapons’ mount had to be developed new to fit into the enclosed cast turret. To save space, both weapons were now mounted directly side-by-side. Their feeding system was furthermore changed from magazines to belts, what considerably improved the SPAAG’s firepower and now allowed continuous fire at a higher rate of fire of 150 RPM per gun. For sufficient flexibility, a belt-switching mechanism allowed to choose between two different ammunition supplies: each gun had supplies of 220 and 35 rounds, normally occupied with HE fragmentation and armor-piercing tracer (AP-T) shells, respectively, against aerial and armored ground targets. Changing between the two feeds just took a couple of seconds.

The twin S-68s were recoil-operated and the whole mount (without feeding mechanism) weighed 4,500 kg. The guns had a recoil of between 325 and 370 mm, and each air-cooled gun barrel, fitted with a muzzle brake, was 4365 mm long (76.6 calibers). The weapons could be elevated or depressed between −5° and +80° at a speed of between 0.3° and 32° per second, while the turret could traverse 360° at a speed of between 0.2° and 52° per second. Drive was from a direct current electric motor and universal hydraulic speed gears.

 

The “Kama” crew numbered four: driver (in the hull), commander, gunner and radar operator (all in the turret). The heavy guns, their ammunition supply and the radar system had to be housed in a turret, together with decent armor, and this resulted in a considerable volume and weight (a single 57 mm projectile alone already weighed 2.8 kg). Several layouts were tested, but weight and volume of the systems made it impossible to mate the “Kama” turret on the T-54/55 chassis, which was available in ample numbers for conversions. The limiting factor was the T-54/55’s relatively small turret bearing diameter.

To solve this problem, the “Kama” designers chose the more modern T-62 as chassis basis. It was outwardly very similar to the former T-54/55, but it featured a 2245 mm turret ring (250 mm more than the T-54/55’s bearing) that was able to take a much bigger/wider/heavier turret than its predecessor. Furthermore, the T-62 represented the Soviet Army’s “state of the art”. The choice of the T-62 ensured many component and maintenance communalities with the operational MBT and it also meant that the “Kama” SPAAG could operate in the same environment and the same pace as the T-62. In order to save costs and development time, the T-62 chassis was taken “as is”, with the same engine and armor level as the MBT. There were only minor changes in the electric components, e. g. a more powerful generator for the radar system.

 

In this combination, “Kama” eventually entered tests and state acceptance trials as “Object 503”. During these tests, some final changes to layout and equipment were made; for instance, the RPK-2’s dish-shaped radome received a retractable mount that allowed the antenna to be raised higher above the turret in order to avoid clutter and to protect the antenna when the vehicle was on the move.

The tests lasted until 1963 and were successful, so that an initial batch of 100 serial production tanks was ordered the same year. In order to avoid confusion with the old ZSU-57-2 from 1955, the new tank with the same armament was pragmatically designated ZSU-62.

 

Alas, while production of the “Kama” turrets ran up to be mated with T-62 hulls at the Uralvagonzavod factory in Nizhny Tagil, the ZSU-62’s future had already been sealed by the fast pace of technical developments: in the meantime MANPADS (Man Portable Air Defense System) had taken the medium-range SPAAG’s place and a foot soldier could now fulfill the same mission as an expensive and bulky 40 ton tank, so that the medium range/altitude gap between the ZSU-23-4 (which had already entered service) and heavier surface-to-air missile systems would not be filled with a dedicated vehicle anymore. The ZSU-62 had become superfluous the moment it had reached the first frontline units, and large-scale production was immediately stopped.

 

However, the initial production run was nevertheless completed until 1967, and the ZSU-62s were primarily sent to training units, where the vehicles were – due to their turrets’ shape – nicknamed “черепаха“ (turtle).

This could have been the ZSU-62’s fate, but the Soviet Union’s intervention in Afghanistan brought it back into frontline service. Since December 1978, the Afghan government called on Soviet forces, which were introduced in the spring and summer of 1979 to provide security and to assist in the fight against the mujaheddin rebels. After the killing of Soviet technicians in Herat by rioting mobs, the Soviet government sold several Mi-24 helicopters to the Afghan military and increased the number of military advisers in the country to 3,000. In April 1979, the Afghan government requested that the USSR send 15 to 20 helicopters with their crews to Afghanistan, and on June 16, the Soviet government responded and sent a detachment of tanks, BMPs, and crews to guard the government in Kabul and to secure the Bagram and Shindand airfields. In response to this request, an airborne battalion arrived at the Bagram Air Base on July 7, and ground forces were deployed from Turkmenistan territory into northern Afghanistan, securing the supply lines.

 

Experience in the mountainous Afghan landscape soon made the shortcomings of standard MBTs apparent, namely their lack of gun elevation, esp. when attacking hideouts and posts in high locations. While the ZSU-23-4 “Shilka” was readily available and used against such targets, it lacked range and firepower to take out protected posts at distances more than 2.000 m away. This led to the decision to send roundabout 40 ZSU-62s to the Afghan theatre of operations, where they were primarily used against ground targets – both fortifications as well as armored and unarmored vehicles. The weapons’ precision and range proved to be valuable assets, with devastating effect, and the vehicles remained in active service until 1985 when their role was more and more taken over by helicopters and aircraft like the new Su-25. The ZSU-62 were, nevertheless, still employed for aerial airfield defense and as a deterrent against ground attacks.

 

With the USSR’s withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1988 and 1989, the last operational ZSU-62s were retired. In the training units, the vehicles had already been replaced by ZSU-23-4s by 1984.

  

Specifications:

Crew: Four (commander, gunner, radar operator, driver)

Weight: 37 t (41 short tons; 36 long tons)

Length: 6.63 m (21 ft 9 in) hull only

9.22 m (30 ft 3½ in) with barrel in forward position

Width: 3.30 m (10 ft 10 in)

Height: 3.88 m (12 ft 9 in) with search radar fully extended,

2.84 m (9 ft 3¾ in) with search radar stowed

Suspension: Torsion bar

Ground clearance: 425 mm (16.7 in)

Fuel capacity: 960 l

 

Armor:

20 mm (hull bottom) – 102 mm (hull front)

 

Performance:

Speed: 50 km/h (31 mph) on roads,

40 km/h (25 mph) cross country)

Range: 450 km (280 mi) on road;

650 km (400 mi) with two 200 l (53 US gal; 44 imp gal) extra fuel tanks;

320 km (200 mi) cross-country

450 km (280 mi) with two 200-liter extra fuel tanks

Climbing ability: 0.7 m (2.3')

Maximum climb gradient: 30°

Trench crossing ability: 2.5 m (8.2')

Fording depth: 1.0 m (3.3')

Operational range: 500 km (310 mi)

Power/weight: 14.5 hp/tonne (10.8 kW/tonne)

 

Engine:

1x V-55 12-cylinder 4-stroke one-chamber 38.88 liter water-cooled diesel engine

with 581 hp (433 kW) at 2,000 rpm

 

Transmission:

Hydromechanical

 

Armament:

2× S-68 57mm (1.5 in) cannon with 255 rounds each

  

The kit and its assembly:

This fictional tank model came to be as a classic what-if, based on the question “what could have been a successor of the Soviet ZSU-57-2 SPAAG?”. Not an existential question that comes to your mind frequently, but it made me wonder – also because the real-world successor, the ZSU-23-4 “Shilka”, lacked the ZSU-57-2’s range and large-caliber firepower.

 

From this conceptual basis I decided to retain the 57mm twin guns, add an RPK-2 radar and mount these into a fully enclosed turret. The latter became a leftover M48 turret, which was suitably bulky, and the gun mount was taken from a Modelcollect E-75 SPAAG. However, both were heavily modified: the gun mount lost its boxy armor protection, just the brass barrels and the joint at the base were retained, the rest was scratched from styrene bits and wire. To accept the much taller weapon mount, the turret front had to be re-sculpted with putty, resulting in a boxier shape with steeper side walls – but the whole affair looks very organic. A simpler commander cupola was used and the whole radar dish arrangement on the rear roof was scratched, too.

 

The hull came from a Trumpeter T-62, just for the reasons explained in the background: the T-54/55 had a relatively small turret ring, and this caused severe development problems, because the MBT could not take a bigger turret and with it a more powerful cannon. Since this SPAAG would have been developed a couple of years later than the T-54/55, its successor, the T-62, appeared logical, and the “marriage” with the M48 turret worked like a charm. Even the turret’s adapter had the same diameter as the hull opening, I just had to modify the notches that hold it in place! The hull itself remained unmodified.

  

Painting and markings:

I wanted to place this SPAAG into the Afghanistan theatre of operations, and this was historically not very easy since I had to bridge some fifteen years of service to make this idea work. However, I found a story for the background, and the model received an appropriate paint scheme, based on real world vehicles around 1980 (actually from a BMP-1 operated in northern Afghanistan).

 

The camouflage consists of three tones, a pale/greyish sand, an olive drab tone and some contrasts in a dark, dull brown – it reminds of the US Army’s more complex MERDC scheme. The paints became Humbrol 167 (Hemp), Tamiya XF-62 (Olive Drab) and Humbrol 98 (Chocolate), even though the green appears darker than expected due to the high contrast with the sand tone.

 

The model received an overall washing with dark brown, highly thinned acrylic paint, and some dry-brushing with cream, faded olive drab and light grey. The few markings/decals were taken from the T-62 kit, and everything was sealed with matt acrylic varnish before the lower areas were finally dusted with a greyish-sand brown mix of artist pigments, simulating dust.

  

A plausible result, even though a cast turret might not appear to be a natural choice for a SPAAG? But the AMX-30 SPAAG from 1969 had a very similar design and there was a German prototype called “MATADOR” (a Gepard forerunner from 1968) that had a turret of similar shape, too. However, the kitbashed/scratched turret looks really good and convincing, and the T-62 hull is a great match for it in shape, size and timeframe. The ZSU-62 turned out way better than hoped for! :D

#saturdaysailormoon

🌙 ♥️✨

#sayurdaysparkle #usagitsukino #usagi #luna #sailormoon #sailormoondoll #project #dollproject #ooakproject #customdoll #ooakdoll #boyswithdolls #toyartistry #kitbash #vintagedoll #toyphotography #toycrewbuddies #doll #dollstagramm #dollgram #bandaisailormoon

So I am taking a little break from LEGO building, and I have been messing around with kitbashing Bandai 30 Minutes Missions (30MM) and 30 Minutes Sisters (30MS) model kits. Shannon Ocean had recently posted about a Bandai gunpla kit he had been building, and I figured why not share what I have been building.

 

This particular model uses parts from 8 different kits, but predominantly parts from the 30MM Spinatia Fencer, and the 30MS Option Parts Set 03 (Mechanical Unit)

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Luxembourgeois (Luxembourg National Railway Company, abbreviated CFL) is the national railway company of Luxembourg. The Luxembourg rail system comprises (only) 275 route-kilometres (170 miles), of which 140 kilometres (87 mi) is double track and 135 kilometres (84 mi) single track. Of the total track length of 617 kilometres (383 mi), 576 kilometres (358 mi) are electrified at 25 kV, 50 Hz AC.

 

Luxembourg borders Belgium, France and Germany. Correspondingly, there are cross-border services into these countries. Some are wholly run by CFL, whereas others are run by SNCF, NMBS/SNCB and DB. CFL passenger trains cover most of the network and are operated by EMUs and electric locomotives, typically with push-pull stock. Despite a high degree of electrification, the CFL also had a fleet of diesel locomotives for hauling freight trains and for general shunting purposes. CFL.

The CFLs first electric locomotive, introduced in 1958, was the Class 3600, the so-called “fer à repasser” (= “electric iron”), a group of twenty electric locomotives that were built to the design of the French BB 12000 class. These were primarily intended for freight trains but also capable of pulling light passenger trains with up to 120 km/h (75 mph). The Class 3600 was originally designed to be capable of pulling 750 ton trains along a grade of 10 ‰, but in service it proved more than capable, frequently pulling 1100 tons and then even 1400 ton trains without problems.

 

However, for fast and heavier passenger trains, especially those that crossed the borders to Northern France with the same 25 kV, 50 Hz alternating current system as Luxembourg as well as to Germany with its 15 kV, 16.7 Hz electrification, the CFL ordered twelve additional dual system locomotive. They were more powerful and faster than the Class 3600 and became the new Class 3800 – roughly comparable with the German E 310/BR 181 dual system locomotives that were operated in the same region. The Class 3800 machines were designed and built between 1959 and 1961 in the Netherlands by Werkspoor in Utrecht, with technical support from the German Siemens-Schuckert-Werke (SSW) for the electric systems. They were heavily influenced by the contemporary Co′Co′ multipurpose Series 1200 electric locomotives for the Netherlands Spoorwegen (NS), originally designed by Baldwin and sporting typical American styling with a brawny silhouette, stepped “Cab unit” style nose sections and doors at the locomotives’ front ends to allow direct access to a coupled wagon from the driver cabins.

Even though they were based on the NS Series 1200, the CFL Class 3800 units used a shortened main frame and newly developed bogies with a Bo′Bo’ arrangement. All in all, the Class 3800 was more than 20 tons lighter than its Dutch six-axle sibling and only shared a superficial similarity – under the hood, the locomotive was technically totally different from the NS’ Series 1200 (which was designed for the Dutch 1.5 kV DC system).

 

The locomotives drew their energy from the 15 kV / 16 2/3 Hz or 25 kV / 50 Hz catenary via two diamond pantographs with contact strips of different lengths for the different areas of application. The 3-core transformers were oil-cooled, to which the control unit with its 28 running steps was connected. The acceleration was designed to function in delayed mode, where the engineer chose the running step, and the control unit would initiate the chosen setting independently. For emergency operation manual control by hand crank was possible, too. The voltage reached the main transformer via an air-operated main switch. On the secondary side, the traction motors were controlled via thyristors using stepless phase angle control, a modern technology at the time, as were the comparatively light mixed current motors. Mechanical switching mechanisms were therefore no longer required, and the vehicle control technology also worked with modern electronics. To ensure a good frictional connection between rail and wheel, the power converters always regulated a slightly lower tractive force on the preceding wheel sets of each bogie. If, however, one or more wheelsets slipped, the drive control reduced the tractive effort for a short time.

 

The CFL Class 3800’s four traction motors collective output was 3,700 kW (5,000 hp). This gave the Class 3800 a tractive effort of 275 kN (62,000 lbf) and a theoretical top speed of 150 km/h (93 mph), even though this was in practice limited to 140 km/h (87 mph). A time-division multiplex push-pull and double-traction control system was installed, too, so that two of these locomotives could together handle heavier freight trains and exploit the locomotives’ good traction. All locomotives featured an indirect air brake, with automatically stronger braking action at high speeds; for shunting/switching service an additional direct brake was present, too. All units featured a separately excited rheostatic/regenerative brake, which was coupled to the air brake. The heat generated by the electric brakes was dissipated via roof exhausts, supported by a pair of cooling fans.

 

The safety equipment in the driver's cab featured a mechanical or electronic deadman's device, punctiform automatic train controls, and train radio equipment with GSM-R communication. For operations in Germany the units received a third front light and separate red taillights, as well as an “Indusi” inductive system for data transfer between the track and locomotive by magnets mounted beside the rails and on the locomotive. Later in their career, automatic door locking at 0 km/h was retrofitted, which had become a compulsory requirement for all locomotives in passenger service.

 

After a thorough test phase of the pre-production locomotives 3801 and 3802 in 1960, the first Class 3800 serial units went into service in 1961 and were, due to the characteristic design of their driver’s cabins and their bulky shape, quickly nicknamed “Bouledogue” (Bulldog). The initial two locomotives were delivered in a pale blue-grey livery, but they were soon repainted in the CFL’s standard burgundy/yellow corporate paint scheme, and all following Class 3800 locomotives from 3803 on were directly delivered in this guise.

 

Initially, the service spectrum of the Bouledogues comprised primarily fast passenger trains on the CFL’s domestic main routes to the North and to the East, with additional border-crossing express trains, including prestigious TEE connections, to Germany (e. g. to Trier and Cologne) and France (Paris via Reims). The 3800s supplemented the CFL’s fast Series 1600 diesel locomotives on these important international destinations once they had been fully electrified. Occasionally, they were also used for freight trains in the industrial Esch-sur-Alzette region and for fast freight trains on the electrified main routes, as well as for regional passenger traffic on push-pull trains. Heavier freight trains remained the working field of the CFL Class 3600, even though occasional ore trains were handled by Class 3800 locomotives in double traction, too.

 

Even though Werkspoor hoped for more CFL orders for this dual-system type, the twelve Series 3800 locomotives remained the sole specimen. Potential buyers like Belgium or the Netherlands also did not show much interest – even though the SNCB ordered several multi-system locomotives, including eight indigenous Class 16 locomotives, equipped to run in France, Netherlands and Germany, or the six Class 18 four-system machines derived from the French SNCF CC 40100 express passenger locomotives.

 

During the Nineties the CFL started to use more and more EMUs on the domestic passenger routes, so that the Class 3800s gradually took over more and more freight train duties, relieving the older Series 3600s and replacing diesel-powered locomotives (esp. the Class 1800) on electrified routes. Border-crossing passenger train services were furthermore limited to trains to Germany since long-distance passenger train services in France switched to the TGV train system with its separate high-speed lines. Freight trains to France were still frequent Class 3800 duties, though, and occasionally coal trains were pulled directly to the industrial Ruhr Area region in Western Germany.

 

After the Millennium the Class 3800s gradually lost their duties to the new CFL Class 4000 multi-system locomotives, a variant of the Bombardier TRAXX locos found working across Europe. On 31 December 2006 the last Class 3800 (3809) was retired. Their versatility, robustness and performance have, however, allowed some of these locomotives to exceed 45 years of service. Bouledogue “3803” reached more than 9,2 million kilometers (5.7 million miles), a remarkable performance.

Only two 3800s had to be written off during the type’s career: 3804 suffered a major transformer damage and was destroyed by the ensuing fire near Troisvierges in Northern Luxembourg and 3810 was involved in a freight train derailment south of Differdange, where it was damaged beyond repair and had to be broken up on site. A single Class 3800 locomotive (3811) survived the retirement and has been kept as a static exhibition piece at the CFL Dépot at Luxembourg, the rest was scrapped.

  

General characteristics:

Gauge: 1,435 mm (4 ft 8½ in) standard gauge

UIC axle arrangement: Bo´Bo´

Overall length: 16.49 m (54 ft 1 in)

Pivot distance: 7,9 m (25 ft 10 in)

Bogie distance: 3,4 m (11 ft 1½ in)

Wheel diameter (when new): 1.250 mm (4 ft 1½ in)

Service weight: 83 t

 

Engine:

Four traction motors with a collective output of 3,700 kW (5,000 hp)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 150 km/h (93 mph), limited to 140 km/h (87 mph) in service

Torque: 275 kN starting tractive effort

164 kN continuous traction effort

  

The model and its assembly:

My second attempt to create a functional H0 scale what-if locomotive – and after I “only” did a color variant with some cosmetic changes on the basis of a Märklin V160/BR 216 diesel locomotive, I wanted something more special and challenging. However, kitbashing model locomotives with a metal chassis that includes a functional motor, respective drivetrain/gearing and electronics is not as easy as gluing some plastic parts together. And finding “matching” donor parts for such a stunt is also not as easy as it may seem. But what would life be without attempts to widen its boundaries?

 

This time I wanted an electric locomotive. Inspiration (and occasion) somewhat struck when I stumbled upon a running/functional chassis of a Märklin E 10/BR 110 (#3039), just without light and naturally missing the whole upper hull. Due to its incompleteness, I got it for a reasonable price, though. With this basis I started to watch out for eventual (and affordable) donor parts for a new superstructure, and remembered the collectible, non-powered all-plastic locomotive models from Atlas/IXO.

 

The good thing about the Märklin 3039 chassis was that it was just a solid and flat piece of metal without integrated outer hull elements, headstock or side skirts, so that a new hull could (theoretically) be simply tailored to fit over this motorized platform. Finding something with the exact length would be impossible, so I settled upon an Atlas H0 scale Nederlands Spoorwegen Series 1200 locomotive model, which is markedly longer than the German BR 110, due to its six axles vs. the E 10/BR 110’s four. Another selling point: the NS 1200’s body is virtually blank in its middle section, ideal for shortening it to match the different chassis. Detail of the Atlas plastic models is also quite good, so there was the potential for something quite convincing.

 

Work started with the disassembly of the static Atlas NS Class 1200 model. It's all-styrene, just with a metal plate as a chassis. Against my expectations the model's hull was only held on the chassis by two tiny screws under the "noses", so that I did not have to use force to separate it. The body's walls were also relatively thin, good for the upcoming modifications. The model also featured two nice driver's stations, which could be removed easily, too. Unfortunately; they had to go to make enough room for the electronics of the Märklin 3039 all-metal chassis.

 

Dry-fitting the chassis under the Class 1200 hull revealed that the stunt would basically work - the chassis turned out to be only marginally too wide. I just had to grind a little of the chassis' front edges away to reduce pressure on the styrene body, and I had to bend the end sections of the chassis’ stabilizing side walls.

To make the Class 1200 hull fit over the shorter BR 110 chassis a section of about 3 cm had to be taken out of the body’s middle section. The Class 1200 lent itself to this measure because the body is rather bare and uniform along its mid-section, so that re-combining two shortened halves should not pose too many problems.

 

To make the hull sit properly on the chassis I added styrene profiles inside of it - easy to glue them into place, thanks to the material. At this time, the original fixed pantographs and some wiring on the roof had gone, brake hoses on the nose were removed to make space for the BR 110 couplers, and the clear windows were removed after a little fight (they were glued into their places, but thankfully each side has three separate parts instead of just one that would easily break). PSR on the seam between the hull halves followed, plus some grey primer to check the surface quality.

 

Even though the new body now had a proper position on the metal chassis, a solution had to be found to securely hold it in place. My solution: an adapter for a screw in the chassis’ underside, scratched. I found a small area next to the central direction switch where I could place a screw and a respective receiver that could attached to the body’s roof. A 3 mm hole was drilled into the chassis’ floor and a long Spax screw with a small diameter was mated with a hollow square styrene profile, roughly trimmed down in length to almost reach the roof internally. Then a big lump of 2C putty was put into the hull, and the styrene adapter pressed into it, so that it would held well in place. Fiddly, but it worked!

 

Unfortunately, the pantographs of the Atlas/IXO model were static and not flexible at all. One was displayed raised while the other one was retracted. Due to the raised pantograph’s stiffness the model might lose contact to or even damage the model railroad catenary, even when not pulling power through it – not a satisfactory condition. Since the chassis could be powered either from below or through the pantographs (the Märklin 3039 chassis offers an analogue switch underneath to change between power sources) I decided to pimp my build further and improve looks and functionality. I organized a pair of aftermarket diamond pantographs, made from metal, fully functional and held in place on the model’s roof with (very short and) small screws from the inside.

I was not certain if the screws were conductive, and I had to somehow connect them with the switch in the chassis. I eventually soldered thin wire to the pantographs’ bases, led them through additional small holes in the roof inside and soldered them to the switch input, with an insulating screw joint in-between to allow a later detachment/disassembly without damage to the body. There might have been more elegant solutions, but my limited resources and skills did not allow more. It works, though, and I am happy with it, since the cables won’t be visible from the outside. This layout allows to draw power through them, I just had to create a flexible and detachable connection internally. Some plugs, wire and soldering created a solution – rough (electronics is not my strength!), but it worked! Another investment of money, time and effort into this project, but I think that the new pantographs significantly improve the overall look and the functionality of this model.

 

Internally, the missing light bulbs were retrofitted with OEM parts. A late external addition were PE brass ladders for the shunting platforms and under the doors for the driver’s cabins. They were rather delicate, but the model would not see much handling or railroading action, anyway, and the improve the overall impression IMHO a lot. On the roof, some details like cooling fans and tailored conduits (from the Atlas Series 1200) were added, they partly obscure the seam all around the body.

 

Unfortunately, due to the necessary space for the chassis, its motor and the electronics, the driver stations’ interiors could not be re-mounted – but this is not too obvious, despite the clear windows.

  

Painting and markings:

Finding a suitable operator took some time – I wanted a European company, and the livery had to be rather simple and easy to create with my limited means at hand, so that a presentable finish could be achieved. Belgium was one candidate, but I eventually settled on the small country of Luxembourg after I saw the CFL’s Class 3600s in their all-over wine-red livery with discreet yellow cheatlines.

 

The overall basic red was, after a coat with grey primer, applied with a rattle can, and I guesstimated the tone with RAL 3005 (Weinrot), based on various pictures of CFL locomotives in different states of maintenance and weathering. Apparently, the fresh paint was pretty bright, while old paint gained a rather brownish/maroon hue. For some contrast, the roof was painted in dark grey (Humbrol 67; RAL 7024), based on the CFL’s Class 3600 design, and the pantographs’ bases were painted and dry-brushed with this tone, too, for a coherent look. The chassis with its bogies and wheels remained basically black, but it was turned matt, and the originally bare metal wheel discs were painted, too. The visible lower areas were thoroughly treated with dry-brushed red-brown and dark grey, simulating rust and dust while emphasizing many delicate details on the bogies at the same time.

The hull was slightly treated with dry-brushed/cloudy wine red, so that the red would look a bit weathered and not so uniform. The grey roof was treated similarly.

 

The yellow cheatlines were created with yellow (RAL 1003) decal stripes from TL Modellbau in 5 and 2mm width. Generic H0 scale sheets from the same company provided the yellow CFL logos and the serial numbers on the flanks, so that the colors matched well. Stencils and some other small markings were procured from Andreas Nothaft (Modellbahndecals.de).

 

After securing the decals with some acrylic varnish the model was weathered with watercolors and some dry-brushing, simulating brownish-grey dust and dirt from the overhead contact line that frequently collects on the roof and is then washed down by rain. Finally, the whole body was sealed with matt acrylic varnish from the rattle can – even though it turned out to be rather glossy. But it does not look wrong, so I stuck with this flaw.

 

Among the last steps was the re-mounting of the clear windows (which had OOB thin silver trim, which was retained) and head- and taillights were created with ClearFix and white and red clear window color.

 

Inspired by the covers for Dynamite Comics' run of Barsoom stories of the same title.

 

An original 1/6 scale kitbash figure of Dejah Thoris, conceived, assembled and photographed by myself employing layered filters from Photoshop, Enjoyphoto, Superphoto & additional editing apps installed on my cameraphone.

+++ 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.

An interpretation of Edgar Rice Burroughs' Martian heroine inspired largely by the art of Paul Renaud for Dynamite Comics' run of Barsoom stories centred around the Princess of Mars.

happy 50th Star Trek

gotta follow those 4 rules for Starfleet starships

Another one of my girlfriend's creations, she's part fallout, part sucker punch, part bomber pin up art.

An original 1/6 scale custom kitbash figure of Lara Croft, inspired by the latest video game, 'Rise of The Tomb Raider', photographed using layered filters from Photoshop, Enjoyphoto, Superphoto and default editing apps installed on my cameraphone.

A pinup inspired by Barbarella and Stella Star and their inappropriately impractical space attire.

 

An original sci-fi pinup character and 1/6 scale kitbash figure, conceived, assembled and photographed by myself employing layered filters from Photoshop, Enjoyphoto, Superphoto & additional editing apps installed on my cameraphone.

Inspired by the covers for Dynamite Comics' run of Barsoom stories that centred on the exploits of Dejah Thoris before she encountered a certain Earthman.

 

An original 1/6 scale kitbash figure of Dejah Thoris, conceived, assembled and photographed by myself employing layered filters from Photoshop, Enjoyphoto, Superphoto & additional editing apps installed on my cameraphone.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The 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?

A kitbash version of Grunt. One of the guys on IG was trying out some LBC Grunt figures, so I spotted these parts and figured I'd give it a try too.

 

The five o' clock shadow was added on a previous custom.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

In the late 1970s the Mikoyan OKB began development of a hypersonic high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft. Designated "Izdeliye 301" (also known as 3.01), the machine had an unusual design, combining a tailless layout with variable geometry wings. The two engines fueled by kerosene were located side by side above the rear fuselage, with the single vertical fin raising above them, not unlike the Tu-22 “Blinder” bomber of that time, but also reminiscent of the US-American SR-71 Mach 3 reconnaissance aircraft.

 

Only few and rather corny information leaked into the West, and the 301 was believed not only to act as a reconnaissance plane , it was also believed to have (nuclear) bombing capabilities. Despite wind tunnel testing with models, no hardware of the 301 was ever produced - aven though the aircraft could have become a basis for a long-range interceptor that would replace by time the PVO's Tupolew Tu-28P (ASCC code "Fiddler"), a large aircraft armed solely with missiles.

 

Despite limitations, the Tu-28P served well in its role, but the concept of a very fast interceptor aircraft, lingered on, since the Soviet Union had large areas to defend against aerial intruders, esp. from the North and the East. High speed, coupled with long range and the ability to intercept an incoming target at long distances independently from ground guidance had high priority for the Soviet Air Defence Forces. Even though no official requirement was issued, the concept of Izdeliye 301 from the Seventies was eventually developed further into the fixed-wing "Izdeliye 701" ultra-long-range high-altitude interceptor in the 1980ies.

 

The impulse for this new approach came when Oleg S. Samoylovich joined the Mikoyan OKB after having worked at Suchoi OKB on the T-60S missile carrier project. Similar in overall design to the former 301, the 701 was primarily intended as a kind of successor for the MiG-31 Foxhound for the 21st century, which just had completed flight tests and was about to enter PVO's front line units.

 

Being based on a long range cruise missile carrier, the 701 would have been a huge plane, featuring a length of 30-31m, a wing span of 19m (featuring a highly swept double delta wing) and having a maximum TOW of 70 tons! Target performance figures included a top speed of 2.500km/h, a cruising speed of 2.100km/h at 17.000m and an effective range of 7.000km in supersonic or 11.000km in subsonic mode. Eventually, the 701 program was mothballed, too, being too ambitious and expensive for a specialized development that could also have been a fighter version of the Tu-22 bomber!

 

Anyway, while the MiG-31 was successfully introduced in 1979 and had evolved in into a capable long-range interceptor with a top speed of more than Mach 3 (limited to Mach 2.8 in order to protect the aircraft's structural integrity), MiG OKB decided in 1984 to take further action and to develop a next-generation technology demonstrator, knowing that even the formidable "Foxhound" was only an interim solution on the way to a true "Four plus" of even a 6th generation fighter. Other new threats like low-flying cruise missiles, the USAF's "Project Pluto" or the assumed SR-71 Mach 5 successor “Aurora” kept Soviet military officials on the edge of their seats, too.

 

Main objective was to expand the Foxhound's state-of the-art performance, and coiple it with modern features like aerodynamic instability, supercruise, stealth features and further development potential.

 

The aircraft's core mission objectives comprised:

- Provide strategic air defense and surveillance in areas not covered by ground-based air defense systems (incl. guidance of other aircraft with less sophisticated avionics)

- Top speed of Mach 3.2 or more in a dash and cruise at Mach 3.0 for prolonged periods

- Long range/high speed interception of airspace intruders of any kind, including low flying cruise missiles, UAVs and helicopters

- Intercept cruise missiles and their launch aircraft from sea level up to 30.000m altitude by reaching missile launch range in the lowest possible time after departing the loiter area

 

Because funding was scarce and no official GOR had been issued, the project was taken on as a private venture. The new project was internally known as "Izdeliye 710" or "71.0". It was based on both 301 and 701 layout ideas and the wind tunnel experiences with their unusual layouts, as well as Oleg Samoylovich's experience with the Suchoi T-4 Mach 3 bomber project and the T-60S.

 

"Izdeliye 710" was from the start intended only as a proof-of-concept prototype, yet fully functional. It would also incorporate new technologies like heat-resistant ceramics against kinetic heating at prolonged high speeds (the airframe had to resist temperatures of 300°C/570°F and more for considerable periods), but with potential for future development into a full-fledged interceptor, penetrator and reconnaissance aircraft.

 

Overall, “Izdeliye 710" looked like a shrinked version of a mix of both former MiG OKB 301 and 701 designs, limited to the MiG-31's weight class of about 40 tons TOW. Compared with the former designs, the airframe received an aerodynamically more refined, partly blended, slender fuselage that also incorporated mild stealth features like a “clean” underside, softened contours and partly shielded air intakes. Structurally, the airframe's speed limit was set at Mach 3.8.

 

From the earlier 301 design,the plane retained the variable geometry wing. Despite the system's complexity and weight, this solution was deemed to be the best approach for a combination of a high continuous top speed, extended loiter time in the mission’s patrol areas and good performance on improvised airfields. Minimum sweep was a mere 10°, while, fully swept at 68°, the wings blended into the LERXes. Additional lift was created through the fuselage shape itself, so that aerodynamic surfaces and therefore drag could be reduced.

 

Pilot and radar operator sat in tandem under a common canopy with rather limited sight. The cockpit was equipped with a modern glass cockpit with LCD screens. The aircraft’s two engines were, again, placed in a large, mutual nacelle on the upper rear fuselage, fed by large air intakes with two-dimensional vertical ramps and a carefully modulated airflow over the aircraft’s dorsal area.

 

Initially, the 71.0 was to be powered by a pair of Soloviev D-30F6 afterburning turbofans with a dry thrust of 93 kN (20,900 lbf) each, and with 152 kN (34,172 lbf) with full afterburner. These were the same engines that powered the MiG-31, but there were high hopes for the Kolesov NK-101 engine: a variable bypass engine with a maximum thrust in the 200kN range, at the time of the 71.0's design undergoing bench tests and originally developed for the advanced Suchoj T-4MS strike aircraft.

With the D-30F6, the 71.0 was expected to reach Mach 3.2 (making the aircraft capable of effectively intercepting the SR-71), but the NK-101 would offer in pure jet mode a top speed in excess of Mach 3.5 and also improve range and especially loiter time when running as a subsonic turbofan engine.

 

A single fin with an all-moving top and an additional deep rudder at its base was placed on top of the engine nacelle. Additional maneuverability at lower speed was achieved by retractable, all-moving foreplanes, stowed in narrow slits under the cockpit. Longitudinal stability at high speed was improved through deflectable stabilizers: these were kept horizontal for take-off and added to the overall lift, but they could be folded down by up to 60° in flight, acting additionally as stabilizer strakes.

 

Due to the aircraft’s slender shape and unique proportions, the 71.0 quickly received the unofficial nickname "жура́вль" (‘Zhurávl' = Crane). The aircaft’s stalky impression was emphasized even more through its unusual landing gear arrangement: Due to the limited internal space for the main landing gear wells between the weapons bay, the wing folding mechanisms and the engine nacelle, MiG OKB decided to incorporate a bicycle landing gear, normally a trademark of Yakovlew OKB designs, but a conventional landing gear could simply not be mounted, or its construction would have become much too heavy and complex.

 

In order to facilitate operations from improvised airfields and on snow the landing gear featured twin front wheels on a conventional strut and a single four wheel bogie as main wheels. Smaller, single stabilizer wheels were mounted on outriggers that retracted into slender fairings at the wings’ fixed section trailing edge, reminiscent of early Tupolev designs.

 

All standard air-to-air weaponry, as well as fuel, was to be carried internally. Main armament would be the K-100 missile (in service eventually designated R-100), stored in a large weapons bay behind the cockpit on a rotary mount. The K-100 had been under development at that time at NPO Novator, internally coded ‘Izdeliye 172’. The K-100 missile was an impressive weapon, and specifically designed to attack vital and heavily defended aerial targets like NATO’s AWACS aircraft at BVR distance.

 

Being 15’ (4.57 m) long and weighing 1.370 lb (620 kg), this huge ultra-long-range weapon had a maximum range of 250 mi (400 km) in a cruise/glide profile and attained a speed of Mach 6 with its solid rocket engine. This range could be boosted even further with a pair of jettisonable ramjets in tubular pods on the missile’s flanks for another 60 mi (100 km). The missile could attack targets ranging in altitude between 15 – 25,000 meters.

 

The weapon would initially be allocated to a specified target through the launch aircraft’s on-board radar and sent via inertial guidance into the target’s direction. Closing in, the K-100’s Agat 9B-1388 active seeker would identify the target, lock on, and independently attack it, also in coordination with other K-100’s shot at the same target, so that the attack would be coordinated in time and approach directions in order to overload defense and ensure a hit.

 

The 71.0’s internal mount could hold four of these large missiles, or, alternatively, the same number of the MiG-31’s R-33 AAMs. The mount also had a slot for the storage of additional mid- and short-range missiles for self-defense, e .g. three R-60 or two R-73 AAMs. An internal gun was not considered to be necessary, since the 71.0 or potential derivatives would fight their targets at very long distances and rather rely on a "hit-and-run" tactic, sacrificing dogfight capabilities for long loitering time in stand-by mode, high approach speed and outstanding acceleration and altitude performance.

 

Anyway, provisions were made to carry a Gsh-301-250 gun pod on a retractable hardpoint in the weapons bay instead of a K-100. Alternatively, such pods could be carried externally on four optional wing root pylons, which were primarily intended for PTB-1500 or PTB-3000 drop tanks, or further missiles - theoretically, a maximum of ten K-100 missiles could be carried, plus a pair of short-range AAMs.

 

Additionally, a "buddy-to-buffy" IFR set with a retractable drogue (probably the same system as used on the Su-24) was tested (71.2 was outfitted with a retractable refuelling probe in front of the cockpit), as well as the carriage of simple iron bombs or nuclear stores, to be delivered from very high altitudes. Several pallets with cameras and sensors (e .g. a high resolution SLAR) were also envisioned, which could easily replace the missile mounts and the folding weapon bay covers for recce missions.

 

Since there had been little official support for the project, work on the 710 up to the hardware stage made only little progress, since the MiG-31 already filled the long-range interceptor role in a sufficient fashion and offered further development potential.

A wooden mockup of the cockpit section was presented to PVO and VVS officials in 1989, and airframe work (including tests with composite materials on structural parts, including ceramic tiles for leading edges) were undertaken throughout 1990 and 1991, including test rigs for the engine nacelle and the swing wing mechanism.

 

Eventually, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 suddenly stopped most of the project work, after two prototype airframes had been completed. Their internal designations were Izdeliye 71.1 and 71.2, respectively. It took a while until the political situation as well as the ex-Soviet Air Force’s status were settled, and work on Izdeliye 710 resumed at a slow pace.

 

After taking two years to be completed, 71.1 eventually made its roll-out and maiden flight in summer 1994, just when MiG-31 production had ended. MiG OKB still had high hopes in this aircraft, since the MiG-31 would have to be replaced in the next couple of years and "Izdeliye 710" was just in time for the potential procurement process. The first prototype wore a striking all-white livery, with dark grey ceramic tiles on the wings’ leading edges standing out prominently – in this guise and with its futuristic lines the slender aircraft reminded a lot of the American Space Shuttle.

 

71.1 was primarily intended for engine and flight tests (esp. for the eagerly awaited NK-101 engines), as well as for the development of the envisioned ramjet propulsion system for full-scale production and further development of Izdeliye 710 into a Mach 3+ interceptor. No mission avionics were initially fitted to this plane, but it carried a comprehensive test equipment suite and ballast.

 

Its sister ship 71.2 flew for the first time in late 1994, wearing a more unpretentious grey/bare metal livery. This plane was earmarked for avionics development and weapons integration, especially as a test bed for the K-100 missile, which shared Izdeliye 710’s fate of being a leftover Soviet project with an uncertain future and an even more corny funding outlook.

 

Anyway, aircraft 71.2 was from the start equipped with a complete RP-31 ('Zaslon-M') weapon control system, which had been under development at that time as an upgrade for the Russian MiG-31 fleet being part of the radar’s development program secured financial support from the government and allowed the flight tests to continue. The RP-31 possessed a maximum detection range of 400 km (250 mi) against airliner-sized targets at high altitude or 200 km against fighter-sized targets; the typical width of detection along the front was given as 225 km. The system could track 24 airborne targets at one time at a range of 120 km, 6 of which could be simultaneously attacked with missiles.

 

With these capabilities the RP-31 suite could, coupled with an appropriate carrier airframe, fulfil the originally intended airspace control function and would render a dedicated and highly vulnerable airspace control aircraft (like the Beriev A-50 derivative of the Il-76 transport) more or less obsolete. A group of four aircraft equipped with the 'Zaslon-M' suite would be able to permanently control an area of airspace across a total length of 800–900 km, while having ultra-long range weapons at hand to counter any intrusion into airspace with a quicker reaction time than any ground-based fighter on QRA duty. The 71.0, outfitted with the RP-31/K-100 system, would have posed a serious threat to any aggressor.

 

In March 1995 both prototypes were eventually transferred to the Kerchenskaya Guards Air Base at Savasleyka in the Oblast Vladimir, 300 km east of Mocsow, where they received tactical codes of '11 Blue' and '12 Blue'. Besides the basic test program and the RP-31/K-100 system tests, both machines were directly evaluated against the MiG-31 and Su-27 fighters by the Air Force's 4th TsBPi PLS, based at the same site.

 

Both aircraft exceeded expectations, but also fell short in certain aspects. The 71.0’s calculated top speed of Mach 3.2 was achieved during the tests with a top speed of 3,394 km/h (2.108 mph) at 21,000 m (69.000 ft). Top speed at sea level was confirmed at 1.200 km/h (745 mph) indicated airspeed.

Combat radius with full weapon load and internal fuel only was limited to 1,450 km (900 mi) at Mach 0.8 and at an altitude of 10,000 m (33,000 ft), though, and it sank to a mere 720 km (450 mi) at Mach 2.35 and at an altitude of 18,000 m (59,000 ft). Combat range with 4x K-100 internally and 2 drop tanks was settled at 3,000 km (1,860 mi), rising to 5,400 km (3,360 mi) with one in-flight refueling, tested with the 71.2. Endurance at altitude was only slightly above 3 hours, though. Service ceiling was 22,800 m (74,680 ft), 2.000 m higher than the MiG-31.

 

While these figures were impressive, Soviet officials were not truly convinced: they did not show a significant improvement over the simpler MiG-31. MiG OKB tried to persuade the government into more flight tests and begged for access to the NK-101, but the Soviet Union's collapse halted this project, too, so that both Izdeliye 710 had to keep the Soloviev D-30F6.

 

Little is known about the Izdeliye 710 project’s progress or further developments. The initial tests lasted until at least 1997, and obviously the updated MiG-31M received official favor instead of a completely new aircraft. The K-100 was also dropped, since the R-33 missile and later its R-37 derivative sufficiently performed in the long-range aerial strike role.

 

Development on the aircraft as such seemed to have stopped with the advent of modernized Su-27 derivatives and the PAK FA project, resulting in the Suchoi T-50 prototype. Unconfirmed reports suggest that one of the prototypes (probably 71.1) was used in the development of the N014 Pulse-Doppler radar with a passive electronically scanned array antenna in the wake of the MFI program. The N014 was designed with a range of 420 km, detection target of 250km to 1m and able to track 40 targets while able to shoot against 20.

 

Most interestingly, Izdeliye 710 was never officially presented to the public, but NATO became aware of its development through satellite pictures in the early Nineties and the aircraft consequently received the ASCC reporting codename "Fastback".

 

Until today, only the two prototypes have been known to exist, and it is assumed – had the type entered service – that the long-range fighter had received the official designation "MiG-41".

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2 (Pilot, weapon system officer)

Length (incl. pitot): 93 ft 10 in (28.66 m)

Wingspan:

- minimum 10° sweep: 69 ft 4 in (21.16 m)

- maximum 68° sweep: 48 ft 9 in (14,88 m)

Height: 23 ft 1 1/2 in (7,06 m )

Wing area: 1008.9 ft² (90.8 m²)

Weight: 88.151 lbs (39.986 kg)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed:

- Mach 3.2 (2.050 mph (3.300 km/h) at height

- 995 mph (1.600 km/h) supercruise speed at 36,000 ft (11,000 m)

- 915 mph (1.470 km/h) at sea level

Range: 3.705 miles (5.955 km) with internal fuel

Service ceiling: 75.000 ft (22.500 m)

Rate of climb: 31.000 ft/min (155 m/s)

 

Engine:

2x Soloviev D-30F6 afterburning turbofans with a dry thrust of 93 kN (20,900 lbf) each

and with 152 kN (34,172 lbf) with full afterburner.

 

Armament:

Internal weapons bay, main armament comprises a flexible missile load; basic ordnance of 4x K-100 ultra long range AAMs plus 2x R-73 short-range AAMs: other types like the R-27, R-33, R-60 and R-77 have been carried and tested, too, as well as podded guns on internal and external mounts. Alternatively, the weapon bay can hold various sensor pallets.

Four hardpoints under the wing roots, the outer pair “wet” for drop tanks of up to 3.000 l capacity, ECM pods or a buddy-buddy refueling drogue system. Maximum payload mass is 9000 kg.

  

The kit and its assembly

The second entry for the 2017 “Soviet” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com – a true Frankenstein creation, based on the scarce information about the real (but never realized) MiG 301 and 701 projects, the Suchoj T-60S, as well as some vague design sketches you can find online and in literature.

This one had been on my project list for years and I already had donor kits stashed away – but the sheer size (where will I leave it once done…?) and potential complexity kept me from tackling it.

 

The whole thing was an ambitious project and just the unique layout with a massive engine nacelle on top of the slender fuselage instead of an all-in-one design makes these aircraft an interesting topic to build. The GB was a good motivator.

 

“My” fictional interpretation of the MiG concepts is mainly based on a Dragon B-1B in 1:144 scale (fuselage, wings), a PM Model Su-15 two seater (donating the nose section and the cockpit, as well as wing parts for the fin) and a Kangnam MiG-31 (for the engine pod and some small parts). Another major ingredient is a pair of horizontal stabilizers from a 1:72 Hasegawa A-5 Vigilante.

 

Fitting the cockpit section took some major surgery and even more putty to blend the parts smoothly together. Another major surgical area was the tail; the "engine box" came to be rather straightforward, using the complete rear fuselage section from the MiG-31 and adding the intakes form the same kit, but mounted horizontally with a vertical splitter.

 

Blending the thing to the cut-away tail section of the B-1 was quite a task, though, since I not only wanted to add the element to the fuselage, but rather make it look a bit 'organic'. More than putty was necessary, I also had to made some cuts and transplantations. And after six PSR rounds I stopped counting…

 

The landing gear was built from scratch – the front wheel comes mostly from the MiG-31 kit. The central bogie and its massive leg come from a VEB Plasticart 1:100 Tu-20/95 bomber, plus some additional struts. The outriggers are leftover landing gear struts from a Hobby Boss Fw 190, mated with wheels which I believe come from a 1:200 VEB Plasticart kit, an An-24. Not certain, though. The fairings are slender MiG-21 drop tanks blended into the wing training edge. For the whole landing gear, the covers were improvised with styrene sheet, parts from a plastic straw(!) or leftover bits from the B-1B.

 

The main landing gear well was well as the weapons’ bay themselves were cut into the B-1B underside and an interior scratched from sheet and various leftover materials – I tried to maximize their space while still leaving enough room for the B-1B kit’s internal VG mechanism.

The large missiles (two were visible fitted and the rotary launcher just visibly hinted at) are, in fact, AGM-78 ‘Standard’ ARMs in a fantasy guise. They look pretty Soviet, though, like big brothers of the already not small R-33 missiles from the MiG-31.

 

While not in the focus of attention, the cockpit interior is completely new, too – OOB, the Su-15 cockpit only has a floor and rather stubby seats, under a massive single piece canopy. On top of the front wheel well (from a Hasegawa F-4) I added a new floor and added side consoles, scratched from styrene sheet. F-4 dashboards improve the decoration, and I added a pair of Soviet election seats from the scrap box – IIRC left over from two KP MiG-19 kits.

The canopy was taken OOB, I just cut it into five parts for open display. The material’s thickness does not look too bad on this aircraft – after all, it would need a rather sturdy construction when flying at Mach 3+ and withstanding the respective pressures and temperatures.

  

Painting

As a pure whif, I was free to use a weirdo design - but I rejected this idea quickly. I did not want a garish splinter scheme or a bright “Greenbottle Fly” Su-27 finish.

With the strange layout of the aircraft, the prototype idea was soon settled – and Soviet prototypes tend to look very utilitarian and lusterless, might even be left in grey. Consequently, I adapted a kind of bare look for this one, inspired by the rather shaggy Soviet Tu-22 “Blinder” bombers which carried a mix of bare metal and white and grey panels. With additional black leading edges on the aerodynamic surfaces, this would create a special/provisional but still purposeful look.

 

For the painting, I used a mix of several metallizer tones from ModelMaster and Humbrol (including Steel, Magnesium, Titanium, as well as matt and polished aluminum, and some Gun Metal and Exhaust around the engine nozzles, partly mixed with a bit of blue) and opaque tones (Humbrol 147 and 127). The “scheme” evolved panel-wise and step by step. The black leading edges were an interim addition, coming as things evolved, and they were painted first with black acrylic paint as a rough foundation and later trimmed with generic black decal stripes (from TL Modellbau). A very convenient and clean solution!

 

The radomes on nose and tail and other di-electric panels became dark grey (Humbrol 125). The cockpit tub was painted with Soviet Cockpit Teal (from ModelMaster), while the cockpit opening and canopy frames were kept in a more modest medium grey (Revell 57). On the outside of the cabin windows, a fat, deep yellow sealant frame (Humbrol 93, actually “Sand”) was added.

 

The weapon bay was painted in a yellow-ish primer tone (seen on pics of Tu-160 bombers) while the landing gear wells received a mix of gold and sand; the struts were painted in a mixed color, too, made of Humbrol 56 (Aluminum) and 34 (Flat White). The green wheel discs (Humbrol 131), a typical Soviet detail, stand out well from the rather subdued but not boring aircraft, and they make a nice contrast to the red Stars and the blue tactical code – the only major markings, besides a pair of MiG OKB logos under the cockpit.

 

Decals were puzzled together from various sheets, and I also added a lot of stencils for a more technical look. In order to enhance the prototype look further I added some photo calibration markings on the nose and the tail, made from scratch.

  

A massive kitbashing project that I had pushed away for years - but I am happy that I finally tackled it, and the result looks spectacular. The "Firefox" similarity was not intended, but this beast really looks like a movie prop - and who knwos if the Firefox was not inspired by the same projects (the MiG 301 and 701) as my kitbash model?

The background info is a bit lengthy, but there's some good background info concerning the aforementioned projects, and this aircraft - as a weapon system - would have played a very special and complex role, so a lot of explanations are worthwhile - also in order to emphasize that I di not simply try to glue some model parts together, but rather try to spin real world ideas further.

 

Mighty bird!

1 2 3 5 7 ••• 79 80