View allAll Photos Tagged kitbash
+++ 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.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some Background:
Antanas Gustaitis (March 26, 1898 – October 16, 1941) was an officer in the Lithuanian Armed Forces who modernized the Lithuanian Air Force, which at that time was part of the Lithuanian Army. He was the architect or aeronautical engineer who undertook the task to design and construct several military aircraft before WWII broke out.
Gustaitis was born in the village of Obelinė, in Javaravas county, in the Marijampolė district. He attended high school in Yaroslavl, and from there studied at the Institute of Engineering and School of Artillery in Petrograd. After joining the Lithuanian Army in 1919, he graduated from the School of Military Aviation as a Junior Lieutenant in 1920. Later that year, he saw action in the Polish-Lithuanian War. By 1922 he began to train pilots, and later became the head of the training squadron. He also oversaw the construction of aircraft for Lithuania in Italy and Czechoslovakia. Gustaitis was one of the founding members of the Aero Club of Lithuania, and later its Vice-President. He did much to promote aviation among the young people in Lithuania, especially concerning the sport of gliding. He also won the Lithuanian Chess Championship in 1922.
Between 1925 and 1928, Gustaitis studied aeronautical engineering in Paris. After his graduation he returned to Lithuania and was promoted to deputy Commander-in-Chief of Military Aviation and made chief of the Aviation Workshop (Karo Aviacijos Tiekimo Skyrius) in Kaunas. During this time, he reorganized the workshop and expanded its capability to repair aircraft as well. The aircraft he designed were named ANBO, an acronym for "Antanas Nori Būti Ore", which literally means “Antanas wants to be in the air” in Lithuanian.
Between 1925 and 1939, the ANBO design bureau developed, built and flew several trainers, reconnaissance and even fighter aircraft for the Lithuanian air force. The last projects, the ANBO VIII, a light single-engine reconnaissance bomber, and the ANBO IX, a single-seat fighter, were the most ambitious.
The ANBO IX started in 1935 as a light low-wing design with spatted, fixed landing gear and an open cockpit, powered by a British Bristol Mercury 830 hp (619 kW) 9-cylinder radial engine – a very clean all-metal design, outwardly not unlike the contemporary Japanese Nakajima Ki-27 or the Dutch Fokker D.XXI, but a much more modern construction.
A first prototype had been completed in summer 1936 and it flew for the first time on 1st of August, with good flight characteristics, but Gustaitis was not satisfied with the aircraft anymore. More powerful and aerodynamically more efficient engines had become available, and a retractable landing gear would improve the performance of the ANBO IX even more, so that the aircraft was heavily modified during the rest of the year.
The large Mercury was replaced with a Pratt & Whitney R-1535 Twin Wasp Junior, a two-row 14-cylinder radial engine with 825 hp and a much smaller frontal area that allowed the ANBO IX’s cowling to be wrapped much tighter around the engine than the Mercury’s former Townend ring, leading to a very aerodynamic overall shape. The oil cooler, formerly mounted starboard flank in front of the cockpit, was moved into a mutual fairing with the carburetor intake under the fuselage behind the engine.
The wings had to be modified to accommodate a retractable main landing gear: to make space for suitable wells, the inner wing section in front of the main spar was deepened, resulting in a kinked leading edge of the wing. The landing gear retracted inwards and was initially completely covered. The tail remained fixed, though, even though the former simple tailskid was replaced with a pressurized rubber wheel for better handling on paved runways.
These measures alone improved the ANBO IX’s top speed by 25 mph (40 km/h), and to improve the pilot’s working conditions the originally open cockpit with just a windscreen and a small headrest fairing was covered with a fully closed clear canopy and an enlarged aerodynamic spinal fairing that ended at the fin’s base. This additional space was used to introduce another contemporary novel feature on board: a radio set.
Together with some other refinements on a second prototype (e. g. a smaller diameter of the front fuselage section, an even more streamlined cowling that now also covered two synchronized machine guns above the engine and a recontoured wing/fuselage intersection), which flew in September 1937, top speed rose by another 6 mph (10 km/h) from 460 km/h (285 mph) of the original aircraft to a competitive 510 km/h (317 mph) that put the ANBO IX on a par with many other contemporary European fighter aircraft.
In this form the ANBO IX was cleared for production in early 1938, even though the desired R-1535 Twin Wasp Junior was not cleared for export or license production. With the Manfréd Weiss WM K.14 engine from Hungary, a derivative of the French Gnôme-Rhône 14 K with 900 hp, a similar, even slightly more powerful replacement could be quickly found, even though the adaptation of the airframe to the different powerplant delayed production by four months. Beyond a new engine mount, the machine guns in the fuselage and its synchronization gearbox had to be deleted, but the weapons could be moved into the outer wings, so that a total of four machine guns as main armament was retained. Additionally, a single ventral hardpoint was added that could either carry a single bomb with its respective shackles or – more frequently – a drop tank that extended the fighter’s rather limited range.
The Lithuanian air force ordered fifty of these machines, primarily to replace its Fiat CR.20 biplane fighters, and several regional export customers like Finland, Estonia and Bulgaria showed interest in the modern ANBO IX, too. Due to the complex all-metal airframe and limited workshop capacities, however, production started only slowly.
The first batch of six ANBO IXs arrived at Lithuanian frontline units in November 1939, more were in the ANBO workshops in Kaunas at that time in various stages of assembly. In 1940, the Lithuanian Air Force consisted of eight Air Squadrons, including reconnaissance, fighter, bomber and training units. However, only the 5th fighter squadron had by the time enough ANBO IXs and trained pilots to be fully operational with the new type. Air Force bases had been established in the cities and towns of Kaunas/Žagariškės, Šiauliai /Zokniai (Zokniai airfield), Panevėžys /Pajuostis. In the summertime, airports in the cities of Palanga and Rukla were also used. A total of 117 aircraft and 230 pilots and observers were listed in the books at that time, but less than ten of them were modern ANBO IX fighters, and probably only half of them were actually operational.
Following the Soviet occupation of Lithuania, however, the Lithuanian Air Force was formally disbanded on October 23, 1940. Part of Lithuanian Air Force (77 senior officers, 72 junior officers, 59 privates, 20 aircraft) was reorganized into Red Army's 29th Territorial Rifle Corps Aviation, also referred to as National Squadron (Tautinė eskadrilė). Other planes and equipment were taken over by Red Army's Air Force Bases No. 13 and 213. About third of Tautinė eskadrilė's personnel latter suffered repressions by Soviet authorities, significant share joined June uprising, after the start of German invasion into Soviet Union several pilots of Tautinė eskadrilė and fewer than six planes withdrew with the Soviet army.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 7.71 m (25 ft 2¾ in)
Wingspan: 10.22 m (33 ft 5¾ in)
Wing area: 16 m2 (170 sq ft)
Height: 2.62 m (8 ft 7 in)
Empty weight: 2,070 kg (4,564 lb)
Gross weight: 2,520 kg (5,556 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Manfred Weiss WM K.14 (Gnome-Rhône 14Kfrs Mistral-Major) 14-cyinder air-cooled radial
piston engine with 647 kW (900 hp), driving a 3-bladed constant-speed metal propeller
Performance:
Maximum speed: 510 km/h (320 mph, 280 kn)
Minimum control speed: 113 km/h (70 mph, 61 kn)
Range: 730 km (450 mi, 390 nmi) on internal fuel
1.000 km (621 mi, 543 nmi) with 300 l drop tank
Service ceiling: 10.000 m (33,000 ft)
Time to altitude: 4'41" to 5,000 meters
Wing loading: 157,5 kg/m² (32.7 lb/sq ft)
Power/mass: 3.89 kg/kW (6.17 lb/hp)
Take-off run to 8 m (26 ft): 270 m (886 ft)
Landing run from 8 m (26 ft): 340 m (1,115 ft)
Armament:
4x 7.7 mm (0.303 in) fixed forward-firing M1919 Browning machine guns with 500 rpg
in the outer wings
1x ventral hardpoint for a single 250 kg (550 lb) bomb or a 300 l (66 imp gal) drop tank
The kit and its assembly:
This small aircraft model is the result of a spontaneous kitbashing flash, when I dug through the sprue piles and the spares box. It started with a leftover fuselage from a Mistercraft PZL P-7 fighter, and further searches revealed the wings from a PM Model Fokker D.XXI and the sawn-off wings from a Hobby Boss MS.406. The sprue stash came up with other useful parts like small stabilizers and a landing gear – and it turned out to be the rest of the MS.406, which had originally been butchered to be mated with the P-7 wings to become my fictional Polish RWD-24 fighter prototype. So, as a serious recycling project, I decided to accept the challenge and use the remains of the P-7 and the MS.406 to create a “counterpart” to the RWD-24, and it became the fictional ANBO IX.
While the ingredients for a basic airframe were now available, some parts were still missing. Most important: an engine. One option was an early Merlin, left over from a Spitfire, but due to the circular P-7 fuselage I preferred a radial engine. With the cowling from a Japanese Mitsubishi Ha-102 two-row radial (from an Airfix Ki-46 “Dinah”) I found a suitable and very streamlined donor, which received a small three-blade propeller with a scratched spinner on a metal axis inside.
The cockpit and the canopy caused more headaches, because the P-7 has an open cockpit with a rather wide opening. For a fighter with a retractable landing gear this would hardly work anymore and finding a solution as well as a suitable donor piece took a while. I initially wanted to use a kind of bubble canopy (with struts, so that it would not look too modern), but eventually rejected this because the proportions would have looked odd – and the overall style would have been too modern.
So I switched to an early Spitfire canopy, which had a good size for the small aircraft, even though it called for a spinal fairing – the latter became the half from a drop tank (IIRC from an Airfix P-61?).
Lots of PSR was necessary everywhere to blend the disparate parts together. The cockpit opening had to be partly filled and reshaped, blending both canopy and spine into the hull took several layers.
The area in front of the cockpit (originally holding the P-7’s shoulder-mounted wings) had to be re-sculpted and blended into the Ki-46 cowling.
The ventral area between the wings had also to be fully sculpted with putty, and huge gaps along the wing roots on the wings’ upper surfaces had to be filled and formed, too. No wonder that many surface details disappeared along the way… Nevertheless, the effort was worthwhile, because the resulting airframe, esp. the sleek fuselage, looks very aerodynamic, almost like a Thirties air speed record contender?
Painting and markings:
This is where the real trouble came to play. It took a while to find a suitable/authentic paint scheme for a pre-WWII Lithuanian aircraft, and I took inspiration from mid-Thirties Letov S.20 biplane fighters and the real ANBO VIII light bomber prototype. Apparently, a two-tone camouflage in two shades of green were an option, even though the tones appear debatable. The only real-life reference was a b/w picture of an S.20, and it showed a good contrast between the greens, so that my first choice were Humbrol 120 (FS 34227) and 172 (Satin Dark Green). However: 120 turned out to be much too pale, and the 172 had a somewhat grainy consistency. Leaving a horrible finish on the already less-than-perfect PSR mess of the model.
With a heavy heart I eventually decided to remove the initial coat of enamel paint with a two-day bath in foamed oven cleaner, which did the job but also worked on the putty. Disaster struck when one wing came loose while cleaning the model, and the canopy came off, too…
Repairs were possible, but did not improve the model’s surface finish – but I eventually pulled a second coat of paint through, this time with slightly different green tones: a mix of Humbrol 80 (Grass Green) and Revell 360 (fern Green), resulting in a rich but rather yellow-ish tone, and Humbrol 245 (RLM 75, Graugrün), as a subdued contrast. The result, though, reminded a lot of Finnish WWII aircraft, so that I gave the aircraft an NMF cowling (again inspired by the ANBO VIII prototype) and a very light grey (Modelmaster 2077, RLM 63) underside with a low waterline. This gave the model a somewhat Italian touch?
The national markings came from two different Blue Rider decal sheets for modern Lithuanian aircraft, the tactical code and the knight helmet as squadron emblem came from a French Dewoitine D.520 (PrintScale sheet).
After a black ink washing the kit received light panel post-shading to virtually restore some of the missing surface details, some weathering with Tamiya Smoke and silver was done and the model received a final overall coat of matt acrylic varnish.
Well, I am not happy with the outcome – mostly because of the painting mishaps and the resulting collateral damage overall. However, the kitbashed aircraft looks pretty conclusive and plays the role of one of the many European pre-WWII monoplane fighters with modern features like a retractable landing gear and a closed canopy well, it’s a very subtle result.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
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 Indian „Samudree Baaj“ (समुद्री बाज, Sea Hawk) was a highly modified, navalized version of the British BAE Systems Hawk land-based training jet aircraft, which had been manufactured under license by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). The first indigenously built Hawk Mk. 132 trainer was delivered in 2008 to the Indian Air Force, and the type has since then been updated with indigenous avionics into the “Hawk-I” Mk. 132 from 2020 onwards. The aircraft’s Rolls Royce Adour Mk 871 engine was also license-built by HAL, and the company had experience from a wide range of aircraft projects in the past.
The Samudree Baaj project was initiated in 2006 by the Indian Navy, as part of the long historic plan to provide the Indian Navy with a fully capable aircraft carrier. This plan had been initiated in 1989, when India announced a plan to replace its ageing British-built aircraft carriers, INS Vikrant and INS Viraat (ex-HMS Hermes), with two new 28,000-ton Air Defence Ships (ADS) that would operate the BAe Sea Harrier aircraft. The first vessel was to replace Vikrant, which was set to decommission in early 1997. Construction of the ADS was to start at the Cochin Shipyard (CSL) in 1993 after the Indian Naval Design Organisation had translated this design study into a production model. Following the 1991 economic crisis, the plans for construction of the vessels were put on hold indefinitely.
In 1999, then-Defence Minister George Fernandes revived the project and sanctioned the construction of the Project “71 ADS”. By that time, given the ageing Sea Harrier fleet, the letter of intent called for a carrier that would carry more modern jet fighters. In 2001, CSL released a graphic illustration showing a 32,000-ton STOBAR (Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery) design with a pronounced ski jump. The aircraft carrier project finally received formal government approval in January 2003. By then, design updates called for a 37,500-ton carrier to operate the MiG-29K. India opted for a three-carrier fleet consisting of one carrier battle group stationed on each seaboard, and a third carrier held in reserve, in order to continuously protect both its flanks, to protect economic interests and mercantile traffic, and to provide humanitarian platforms in times of disasters, since a carrier can provide a self-generating supply of fresh water, medical assistance or engineering expertise to populations in need for assistance.
In August 2006, then-Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Arun Prakash stated that the designation for the vessel had been changed from Air Defence Ship (ADS) to Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC). The euphemistic ADS had been adopted in planning stages to ward off concerns about a naval build-up. Final revisions to the design increased the displacement of the carrier from 37,500 tons to over 40,000 tons. The length of the ship also increased from 252 metres (827 ft) to 262 metres (860 ft).
It was at this time that, beyond the MiG-29K, primarily a carrier-capable trainer and also a light (and less costly) strike aircraft would be needed. With the running production of the Hawk Mk. 132 for the Indian Air Force and BAE Systems’ connection and experience to the USA and McDonnell/Boeing’s adaptation of the Hawk as the US Navy’s carrier-capable T-45 trainer, HAL was instructed to develop a suitable aircraft family on the Hawk’s basis for the new carriers.
HAL’s Samudree Baaj is a fully carrier-capable version of the British Aerospace Hawk Mk. The Hawk had not originally been designed to perform carrier operations, so that numerous modifications were required, such as the extensive strengthening of the airframe to withstand the excessive forces imposed by the stresses involved in catapult launches and high sink-rate landings, both scenarios being routine in aircraft carrier operations.
The aerodynamic changes of the aircraft, which were mutually developed by HAL and BAE Systems, included improvements to the low-speed handling characteristics and a reduction in the approach speed. Most notable amongst the changes made to the Hawk's design were extended flaps for better low-speed handling, along with the addition of spoilers on the wings to reduce lift and strakes on the fuselage which improved airflow and stabilizer efficiency.
Other, less obvious modifications included a reinforced airframe, the adoption of a more robust and widened landing gear, complete with a catapult tow bar attachment to the oleo strut of the new two-wheel nose gear design, and an arresting hook. The tail fin was extended by 1 foot (12 in, 30.5 cm) to compensate for the loss of the Hawk’s ventral stabilizing strakes. To make room for the arrester hook, the original ventral air brake was split and re-located to the flanks, similar to the USN’s T-45 trainer.
At the time of the Samudree Baaj’s design, the exact catapult arrangement and capacity on board of India’s new carriers was not clear yet – even more so, since the MiG-29K and its powerful engines might have made a catapult obsolete. Therefore, the Samudree Baaj was designed to be operable either with a ski jump ramp (in the style of the Russian Kiev class carriers, of which India had purchased one as INS Vikramaditya) or with only minimal launch support within the projected STOBAR concept, which included a relatively short-stroke steam catapult and a similarly short, undampened arrester gear.
By 2009 the basic airframe had been defined and four prototypes were built for two versions: the Mk. 101 trainer, which was basically a navalized version of the land-based Mk. 132 with almost the same mission equipment, and the Mk. 201, a single-seater. Two airframes of each type were built and the first Samudree Baaj flight took place in early 2011. The Indian government ordered 30 trainers and 15 attack aircraft, to be delivered with the first new Indian carrier, INS Vikrant, in late 2017.
The Samudree Baaj Mk. 201 was developed from the basic navalized Hawk airframe as a light multirole fighter with a small visual signature and high maneuverability, but high combat efficiency and capable of both strike and point defense missions. It differed from the trainer through a completely new forward fuselage whereby the forward cockpit area, which normally housed the trainee, was replaced by an electronics bay for avionics and onboard systems, including a fire control computer, a LINS 300 ring laser gyroscope inertial navigation system and a lightweight (145 kg) multimode, coherent, pulse-Doppler I band airborne radar. This multimode radar was developed from the Ferranti Blue Fox radar and capable of airborne interception and air-to-surface strike roles over water and land, with look-down/shoot-down and look-up modes. It had ten air-to-surface and ten air-to-ground modes for navigation and weapon aiming purposes.
A ventral fairing behind the radome carried a laser rangefinder and a forward-looking infrared (FLIR). Mid-air refueling was also possible, through a detachable (but fixed) probe. GPS navigation or modern night-flight systems were integrated, too.
Like the trainer, the Mk. 201 had a total of seven weapon hardpoints (1 ventral, four underwing and a pair of wing tip launch rails), but the more sophisticated avionics suite allowed a wider range of ordnance to be carried and deployed, which included radar-guided AAMs for BVR strokes and smart weapons and guided missiles – especially the Sea Eagle and AGM-84 “Harpoon” anti-ship missiles in the Indian Navy’s arsenal. For the maritime strike role and as a support for ASW missions, the Samudree Baaj Mk. 201 could even deploy Sting Ray homing torpedoes.
Furthermore, a pair of 30mm (1.18 in) ADEN machine cannon with 150 RPG were housed in a shallow fairing under the cockpit. The self-protection systems include a BAE SkyGuardian 200 RWR and automatic Vinten chaff/flare dispensers located above the engine exhaust.
The Samudree Baaj project was highly ambitious, so that it does not wonder that there were many delays and teething troubles. Beyond the complex avionics integration this included the maritime adaptation of the Adour engine, which eventually led to the uprated Adour Mk. 871-1N, which, as a side benefit, also offered about 10% more power.
However, in parallel, INS Vikrant also ran into delays: In July 2012, The Times of India reported that construction of Vikrant has been delayed by three years, and the ship would be ready for commissioning by 2018. Later, in November 2012, Indian English-language news channel NDTV reported that cost of the aircraft carrier had increased, and the delivery has been delayed by at least five years and is expected to be with the Indian Navy only after 2018 as against the scheduled date of delivery of 2014. Work then commenced for the next stage of construction, which included the installation of the integrated propulsion system, the superstructure, the upper decks, the cabling, sensors and weapons. Vikrant was eventually undocked on 10 June 2015 after the completion of structural work. Cabling, piping, heat and ventilation works were to be completed by 2017; sea trials would begin thereafter. In December 2019, it was reported that the engines on board the ship were switched on and in November 2020, only the basin trials of the aircraft carrier were completed.
By that time, the first Samudree Baaj aircraft had been delivered to Indian Navy 300 squadron, and even though only based at land at Hansa Air Station, flight training and military operations commenced. In the meantime, the start of Vikrant's trials had initially been scheduled to begin on 12 March 2020, but further construction delays caused that to be moved back to April. With the COVID-19 crisis, the navy explained that trials were unlikely to begin before September/October. During the Navy Day press meeting in December 2019, Navy Chief Admiral Karambir Singh said Vikrant would be fully operational before the end of 2022. The COVID-19 pandemic had already pushed that back to 2023 and further delays appeared possible.
In late 2020, the Indian Navy expected to commission Vikrant by the end of 2021. Until then, the Samudree Baaj fleet will remain land-based at INS Hansa near Goa. This not only is the INAS 300 home base, it is also the location of the Indian Navy's Shore Based Test Facility (SBTF), which is a mock-up of the 283-metre (928 ft) INS Vikramaditya (a modified Kiev-class aircraft carrier) deck built to train and certify navy pilots, primarily the the Mikoyan MiG-29K for operating from the aircraft carrier, but now also for the Samudree Baaj and for the developmental trials of the naval HAL Tejas lightweight fighter.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 11.38 m (37 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 9.39 m (30 ft 10 in)
Height: 4.30 m (14 ft 1 in)
Wing area: 17.66 m2 (190.1 sq ft)
Empty weight: 9,394 lb (4,261 kg)
Gross weight: 12,750 lb (5,783 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 9,101 kg (20,064 lb)
Fuel capacity: 1,360 kg (3,000 lb) internal
3,210 kg (7,080 lb) with 3 drop tanks
Powerplant:
1× Rolls-Royce Turbomeca Adour Mk. 871-1N non-afterburning turbofan, 28,89 kN (6,445 lbf) thrust
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,037 km/h (644 mph, 560 kn) at sea level
Maximum speed: Mach 1.2 (never exceed at altitude)
Cruise speed: 796 km/h (495 mph, 430 kn) at 12,500 m (41,000 ft)
Carrier launch speed: 121 kn (139 mph; 224 km/h)
Approach speed: 125 kn (144 mph; 232 km/h)
Never exceed speed: 575 kn (662 mph, 1,065 km/h) / M1.04 design dive limit
Stall speed: 197 km/h (122 mph, 106 kn) flaps down
Range: 892 km (554 mi, 482 nmi) internal fuel only
Combat range: 617 km (383 mi, 333 nmi) with 2x AGM-84 and 2x 592 l (156 US gal; 130 imp gal)
Ferry range: 1,950 km (1,210 mi, 1,050 nmi) with 3 drop tanks
Service ceiling: 15,250 m (50,030 ft)
G-limits: +8/-3
Rate of climb: 58.466 m/s (11,509.1 ft/min)
Takeoff distance with maximum weapon load: 2,134 m (7,001 ft)
Landing distance at maximum landing weight with brake chute: 854 m (2,802 ft)
Landing distance at maximum landing weight without brake chute: 1,250 m (4,100 ft)
Armament:
2× 30 mm (1.181 in) Aden cannon with 150 rounds each
7× hardpoints (4× under-wing, 1× under-fuselage and 2 × wingtip)
for a total ordnance of 3.085 kg (6,800 lb) and a wide range of weapons
The kit and its assembly:
A subtle kitbashing project, inspired by a CG-rendition of a carrier-based (yet un-navalized) BAe Hawk 200 in Indian Navy service by fellow user SPINNERS in January 2021. I found the idea inspiring but thought that the basic concept could be taken further and into hardware form with a model. And I had a Matchbox Hawk 200 in The Stash™, as well as a McDonnell T-45 trainer from Italeri…
The plan sounds simple: take a T-45 and replace the cockpit section with the single-seat cockpit from the Hawk 200. And while the necessary cuts were easy to make, reality rears its ugly head when you try to mate parts from basically the same aircraft but from models by different manufacturers.
The challenges started with the fact that the fuselage shapes of both models differ – the Matchbox kit is more “voluminous”, and the different canopy shape called for a partial spine transplant, which turned out to be of very different shape than the T-45’s respective section! Lots of PSR…
In order to improve the pretty basic Matchbox Hawk cockpit I integrated the cockpit tub from the Italeri T-45, including the ejection seat, dashboard and its top cover.
For the totally different T-45 front wheel I had to enlarge the respective well and added a “ceiling” to it, since the strut had to be attached somewhere. The Hawk 200’s ventral tub for the cannons (which only the first prototype carried, later production aircraft did not feature them) were retained – partly because of their “whiffy“ nature, but also because making it disappear would have involved more major surgeries.
Most of the are behind the cockpit comes from the Italeri T-45, I just added a RHAWS fairing to the fin, extending it by 3mm.
A major problem became the air intakes, because the two kits differ in their construction. I wanted to use the Italeri parts, because they match the fairings on the fuselage flanks well and are better detailed than the Matchbox parts. But the boundary layer spacers between intakes and fuselage are molded into the Italeri parts, while the Matchbox kit has them molded into the fuselage. This called for major surgery and eventually worked out fine, and more PSR blended the rest of the fuselage donors around the cockpit together. A tedious process, though.
The pylons were puzzled together, including a former Matchbox EA-6B wing pylon under the fuselage, cut down and mounted in reverse and upside down! The ordnance comes from the Italeri NATO weapons set (Matra Magic and AGM-84), the ventral drop tank comes IIRC from an Eduard L-39 Albatros. Matra Magics were chosen because India never operated any Sidewinder AAM, just French or Soviet/Russian missiles like the R-60 or R-73 (unlikely on the Hawk, IMHO), and I had preferred a pair of Sea Eagle ASMs (from a Hasegawa Sea Harrier kit), but their span turned out to be too large for the Hawk’s low wings. The alternative, more slender Harpoons are plausible, though, since they are actually part of the Indian Navy’s inventory.
Painting and markings:
The Indian Navy theme was already settled, and I wanted to stay close to SPINNERS’ illustration as well as to real world Indian Navy aircraft. SPINNERS’ Hawk carried the typical Sea Harreir scheme in Extra Dark Sea Grey and White, and I found this livery to look a bit too much retro, because I’d place this what-if aircraft in the early 2020s, when the Sea Harriers had already been phased out. A “realistic” livery might have been an overall mid-grey paint scheme (like the land-based Indian Hawk 132s), but I found this to look too boring. As a compromise, I gave the Samudree Baaj a simple two-tone paint scheme, carried by a few late Indian Sea Harriers. It consists of upper surfaces in Dark Sea Grey (Humbrol 164) and undersides in Medium Sea Grey (Modelmaster 2058), with a low waterline. The Modelmaster MSG has – for my taste – a rather bluish hue and appears almost like PRU Blue, but I left it that way.
The decals were puzzled together from variosu sources. the roundels come from a MiG-21F (Begemot), the unit markings and tactical codes from a Model Alliance Sea Harrier sheet, and the stencils are a mix from the Matchbox Hawk 200 and the Italeri T-45.
The kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish from Italeri.
The fictional HAL „Samudree Baaj“ looks simple, but combining kits of the basically same aircraft from different manufacturers reveals their differences, and they are not to be underestimated! However, I like the result of a navalized Hawk single-seater, and - also with the relatively simple and dull livery - it looks pretty convincing.
Many thanks to SPINNERS for the creative inspiration - even though my build is not a 100% "copy" of the artwork, but rather a step further into the navalisation idea with the T-45 parts.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The OV-10 Bronco was initially conceived in the early 1960s through an informal collaboration between W. H. Beckett and Colonel K. P. Rice, U.S. Marine Corps, who met at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California, and who also happened to live near each other. The original concept was for a rugged, simple, close air support aircraft integrated with forward ground operations. At the time, the U.S. Army was still experimenting with armed helicopters, and the U.S. Air Force was not interested in close air support.
The concept aircraft was to operate from expedient forward air bases using roads as runways. Speed was to be from very slow to medium subsonic, with much longer loiter times than a pure jet. Efficient turboprop engines would give better performance than piston engines. Weapons were to be mounted on the centerline to get efficient aiming. The inventors favored strafing weapons such as self-loading recoilless rifles, which could deliver aimed explosive shells with less recoil than cannons, and a lower per-round weight than rockets. The airframe was to be designed to avoid the back blast.
Beckett and Rice developed a basic platform meeting these requirements, then attempted to build a fiberglass prototype in a garage. The effort produced enthusiastic supporters and an informal pamphlet describing the concept. W. H. Beckett, who had retired from the Marine Corps, went to work at North American Aviation to sell the aircraft.
The aircraft's design supported effective operations from forward bases. The OV-10 had a central nacelle containing a crew of two in tandem and space for cargo, and twin booms containing twin turboprop engines. The visually distinctive feature of the aircraft is the combination of the twin booms, with the horizontal stabilizer that connected them at the fin tips. The OV-10 could perform short takeoffs and landings, including on aircraft carriers and large-deck amphibious assault ships without using catapults or arresting wires. Further, the OV-10 was designed to take off and land on unimproved sites. Repairs could be made with ordinary tools. No ground equipment was required to start the engines. And, if necessary, the engines would operate on high-octane automobile fuel with only a slight loss of power.
The aircraft had responsive handling and could fly for up to 5½ hours with external fuel tanks. The cockpit had extremely good visibility for both pilot and co-pilot, provided by a wrap-around "greenhouse" that was wider than the fuselage. North American Rockwell custom ejection seats were standard, with many successful ejections during service. With the second seat removed, the OV-10 could carry 3,200 pounds (1,500 kg) of cargo, five paratroopers, or two litter patients and an attendant. Empty weight was 6,969 pounds (3,161 kg). Normal operating fueled weight with two crew was 9,908 pounds (4,494 kg). Maximum takeoff weight was 14,446 pounds (6,553 kg).
The bottom of the fuselage bore sponsons or "stub wings" that improved flight performance by decreasing aerodynamic drag underneath the fuselage. Normally, four 7.62 mm (.308 in) M60C machine guns were carried on the sponsons, accessed through large forward-opening hatches. The sponsons also had four racks to carry bombs, pods, or fuel. The wings outboard of the engines contained two additional hardpoints, one per side. Racked armament in the Vietnam War was usually seven-shot 2.75 in (70 mm) rocket pods with white phosphorus marker rounds or high-explosive rockets, or 5" (127 mm) four-shot Zuni rocket pods. Bombs, ADSIDS air-delivered/para-dropped unattended seismic sensors, Mk-6 battlefield illumination flares, and other stores were also carried.
Operational experience showed some weaknesses in the OV-10's design. It was significantly underpowered, which contributed to crashes in Vietnam in sloping terrain because the pilots could not climb fast enough. While specifications stated that the aircraft could reach 26,000 feet (7,900 m), in Vietnam the aircraft could reach only 18,000 feet (5,500 m). Also, no OV-10 pilot survived ditching the aircraft.
The OV-10 served in the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corps, and U.S. Navy, as well as in the service of a number of other countries. In U.S. military service, the Bronco was operated until the early Nineties, and obsoleted USAF OV-10s were passed on to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms for anti-drug operations. A number of OV-10As furthermore ended up in the hands of the California Department of Forestry (CDF) and were used for spotting fires and directing fire bombers onto hot spots.
This was not the end of the OV-10 in American military service, though: In 2012, the type gained new attention because of its unique qualities. A $20 million budget was allocated to activate an experimental USAF unit of two airworthy OV-10Gs, acquired from NASA and the State Department. These machines were retrofitted with military equipment and were, starting in May 2015, deployed overseas to support Operation “Inherent Resolve”, flying more than 120 combat sorties over 82 days over Iraq and Syria. Their concrete missions remained unclear, and it is speculated they provided close air support for Special Forces missions, esp. in confined urban environments where the Broncos’ loitering time and high agility at low speed and altitude made them highly effective and less vulnerable than helicopters.
Furthermore, these Broncos reputedly performed strikes with the experimental AGR-20A “Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System (APKWS)”, a Hydra 70-millimeter rocket with a laser-seeking head as guidance - developed for precision strikes against small urban targets with little collateral damage. The experiment ended satisfactorily, but the machines were retired again, and the small unit was dissolved.
However, the machines had shown their worth in asymmetric warfare, and the U.S. Air Force decided to invest in reactivating the OV-10 on a regular basis, despite the overhead cost of operating an additional aircraft type in relatively small numbers – but development and production of a similar new type would have caused much higher costs, with an uncertain time until an operational aircraft would be ready for service. Re-activating a proven design and updating an existing airframe appeared more efficient.
The result became the MV-10H, suitably christened “Super Bronco” but also known as “Black Pony”, after the program's internal name. This aircraft was derived from the official OV-10X proposal by Boeing from 2009 for the USAF's Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance requirement. Initially, Boeing proposed to re-start OV-10 manufacture, but this was deemed uneconomical, due to the expected small production number of new serial aircraft, so the “Black Pony” program became a modernization project. In consequence, all airframes for the "new" MV-10Hs were recovered OV-10s of various types from the "boneyard" at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona.
While the revamped aircraft would maintain much of its 1960s-vintage rugged external design, modernizations included a completely new, armored central fuselage with a highly modified cockpit section, ejection seats and a computerized glass cockpit. The “Black Pony” OV-10 had full dual controls, so that either crewmen could steer the aircraft while the other operated sensors and/or weapons. This feature would also improve survivability in case of incapacitation of a crew member as the result from a hit.
The cockpit armor protected the crew and many vital systems from 23mm shells and shrapnel (e. g. from MANPADS). The crew still sat in tandem under a common, generously glazed canopy with flat, bulletproof panels for reduced sun reflections, with the pilot in the front seat and an observer/WSO behind. The Bronco’s original cargo capacity and the rear door were retained, even though the extra armor and defensive measures like chaff/flare dispensers as well as an additional fuel cell in the central fuselage limited the capacity. However, it was still possible to carry and deploy personnel, e. g. small special ops teams of up to four when the aircraft flew in clean configuration.
Additional updates for the MV-10H included structural reinforcements for a higher AUW and higher g load maneuvers, similar to OV-10D+ standards. The landing gear was also reinforced, and the aircraft kept its ability to operate from short, improvised airstrips. A fixed refueling probe was added to improve range and loiter time.
Intelligence sensors and smart weapon capabilities included a FLIR sensor and a laser range finder/target designator, both mounted in a small turret on the aircraft’s nose. The MV-10H was also outfitted with a data link and the ability to carry an integrated targeting pod such as the Northrop Grumman LITENING or the Lockheed Martin Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod (ATP). Also included was the Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receiver (ROVER) to provide live sensor data and video recordings to personnel on the ground.
To improve overall performance and to better cope with the higher empty weight of the modified aircraft as well as with operations under hot-and-high conditions, the engines were beefed up. The new General Electric CT7-9D turboprop engines improved the Bronco's performance considerably: top speed increased by 100 mph (160 km/h), the climb rate was tripled (a weak point of early OV-10s despite the type’s good STOL capability) and both take-off as well as landing run were almost halved. The new engines called for longer nacelles, and their circular diameter markedly differed from the former Garrett T76-G-420/421 turboprop engines. To better exploit the additional power and reduce the aircraft’s audio signature, reversible contraprops, each with eight fiberglass blades, were fitted. These allowed a reduced number of revolutions per minute, resulting in less noise from the blades and their tips, while the engine responsiveness was greatly improved. The CT7-9Ds’ exhausts were fitted with muzzlers/air mixers to further reduce the aircraft's noise and heat signature.
Another novel and striking feature was the addition of so-called “tip sails” to the wings: each wingtip was elongated with a small, cigar-shaped fairing, each carrying three staggered, small “feather blade” winglets. Reputedly, this installation contributed ~10% to the higher climb rate and improved lift/drag ratio by ~6%, improving range and loiter time, too.
Drawing from the Iraq experience as well as from the USMC’s NOGS test program with a converted OV-10D as a night/all-weather gunship/reconnaissance platform, the MV-10H received a heavier gun armament: the original four light machine guns that were only good for strafing unarmored targets were deleted and their space in the sponsons replaced by avionics. Instead, the aircraft was outfitted with a lightweight M197 three-barrel 20mm gatling gun in a chin turret. This could be fixed in a forward position at high speed or when carrying forward-firing ordnance under the stub wings, or it could be deployed to cover a wide field of fire under the aircraft when it was flying slower, being either slaved to the FLIR or to a helmet sighting auto targeting system.
The original seven hardpoints were retained (1x ventral, 2x under each sponson, and another pair under the outer wings), but the total ordnance load was slightly increased and an additional pair of launch rails for AIM-9 Sidewinders or other light AAMs under the wing tips were added – not only as a defensive measure, but also with an anti-helicopter role in mind; four more Sidewinders could be carried on twin launchers under the outer wings against aerial targets. Other guided weapons cleared for the MV-10H were the light laser-guided AGR-20A and AGM-119 Hellfire missiles, the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System upgrade to the light Hydra 70 rockets, the new Laser Guided Zuni Rocket which had been cleared for service in 2010, TV-/IR-/laser-guided AGM-65 Maverick AGMs and AGM-122 Sidearm anti-radar missiles, plus a wide range of gun and missile pods, iron and cluster bombs, as well as ECM and flare/chaff pods, which were not only carried defensively, but also in order to disrupt enemy ground communication.
In this configuration, a contract for the conversion of twelve mothballed American Broncos to the new MV-10H standard was signed with Boeing in 2016, and the first MV-10H was handed over to the USAF in early 2018, with further deliveries lasting into early 2020. All machines were allocated to the newly founded 919th Special Operations Support Squadron at Duke Field (Florida). This unit was part of the 919th Special Operations Wing, an Air Reserve Component (ARC) of the United States Air Force. It was assigned to the Tenth Air Force of Air Force Reserve Command and an associate unit of the 1st Special Operations Wing, Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC). If mobilized the wing was gained by AFSOC (Air Force Special Operations Command) to support Special Tactics, the U.S. Air Force's special operations ground force. Similar in ability and employment to Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC), U.S. Army Special Forces and U.S. Navy SEALs, Air Force Special Tactics personnel were typically the first to enter combat and often found themselves deep behind enemy lines in demanding, austere conditions, usually with little or no support.
The MV-10Hs are expected to provide support for these ground units in the form of all-weather reconnaissance and observation, close air support and also forward air control duties for supporting ground units. Precision ground strikes and protection from enemy helicopters and low-flying aircraft were other, secondary missions for the modernized Broncos, which are expected to serve well into the 2040s. Exports or conversions of foreign OV-10s to the Black Pony standard are not planned, though.
General characteristics:
Crew: 2
Length: 42 ft 2½ in (12,88 m) incl. pitot
Wingspan: 45 ft 10½ in(14 m) incl. tip sails
Height: 15 ft 2 in (4.62 m)
Wing area: 290.95 sq ft (27.03 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 64A315
Empty weight: 9,090 lb (4,127 kg)
Gross weight: 13,068 lb (5,931 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 17,318 lb (7,862 kg)
Powerplant:
2× General Electric CT7-9D turboprop engines, 1,305 kW (1,750 hp) each,
driving 8-bladed Hamilton Standard 8 ft 6 in (2.59 m) diameter constant-speed,
fully feathering, reversible contra-rotating propellers with metal hub and composite blades
Performance:
Maximum speed: 390 mph (340 kn, 625 km/h)
Combat range: 198 nmi (228 mi, 367 km)
Ferry range: 1,200 nmi (1,400 mi, 2,200 km) with auxiliary fuel
Maximum loiter time: 5.5 h with auxiliary fuel
Service ceiling: 32.750 ft (10,000 m)
13,500 ft (4.210 m) on one engine
Rate of climb: 17.400 ft/min (48 m/s) at sea level
Take-off run: 480 ft (150 m)
740 ft (227 m) to 50 ft (15 m)
1,870 ft (570 m) to 50 ft (15 m) at MTOW
Landing run: 490 ft (150 m)
785 ft (240 m) at MTOW
1,015 ft (310 m) from 50 ft (15 m)
Armament:
1x M197 3-barreled 20 mm Gatling cannon in a chin turret with 750 rounds ammo capacity
7x hardpoints for a total load of 5.000 lb (2,270 kg)
2x wingtip launch rails for AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs
The kit and its assembly:
This fictional Bronco update/conversion was simply spawned by the idea: could it be possible to replace the original cockpit section with one from an AH-1 Cobra, for a kind of gunship version?
The basis is the Academy OV-10D kit, mated with the cockpit section from a Fujimi AH-1S TOW Cobra (Revell re-boxing, though), chosen because of its “boxy” cockpit section with flat glass panels – I think that it conveys the idea of an armored cockpit section best. Combining these parts was not easy, though, even though the plan sound simple. Initially, the Bronco’s twin booms, wings and stabilizer were built separately, because this made PSR on these sections easier than trying the same on a completed airframe. One of the initial challenges: the different engines. I wanted something uprated, and a different look, and I had a pair of (excellent!) 1:144 resin engines from the Russian company Kompakt Zip for a Tu-95 bomber at hand, which come together with movable(!) eight-blade contraprops that were an almost perfect size match for the original three-blade props. Biggest problem: the Tu-95 nacelles have a perfectly circular diameter, while the OV-10’s booms are square and rectangular. Combining these parts and shapes was already a messy PST affair, but it worked out quite well – even though the result rather reminds of some Chinese upgrade measure (anyone know the Tu-4 copies with turboprops? This here looks similar!). But while not pretty, I think that the beafier look works well and adds to the idea of a “revived” aircraft. And you can hardly beat the menacing look of contraprops on anything...
The exotic, so-called “tip sails” on the wings, mounted on short booms, are a detail borrowed from the Shijiazhuang Y-5B-100, an updated Chinese variant/copy of the Antonov An-2 biplane transporter. The booms are simple pieces of sprue from the Bronco kit, the winglets were cut from 0.5mm styrene sheet.
For the cockpit donor, the AH-1’s front section was roughly built, including the engine section (which is a separate module, so that the basic kit can be sold with different engine sections), and then the helicopter hull was cut and trimmed down to match the original Bronco pod and to fit under the wing. This became more complicated than expected, because a) the AH-1 cockpit and the nose are considerably shorter than the OV-10s, b) the AH-1 fuselage is markedly taller than the Bronco’s and c) the engine section, which would end up in the area of the wing, features major recesses, making the surface very uneven – calling for massive PSR to even this out. PSR was also necessary to hide the openings for the Fujimi AH-1’s stub wings. Other issues: the front landing gear (and its well) had to be added, as well as the OV-10 wing stubs. Furthermore, the new cockpit pod’s rear section needed an aerodynamical end/fairing, but I found a leftover Academy OV-10 section from a build/kitbashing many moons ago. Perfect match!
All these challenges could be tackled, even though the AH-1 cockpit looks surprisingly stout and massive on the Bronco’s airframe - the result looks stockier than expected, but it works well for the "Gunship" theme. Lots of PSR went into the new central fuselage section, though, even before it was mated with the OV-10 wing and the rest of the model.
Once cockpit and wing were finally mated, the seams had to disappear under even more PSR and a spinal extension of the canopy had to be sculpted across the upper wing surface, which would meld with the pod’s tail in a (more or less) harmonious shape. Not an easy task, and the fairing was eventually sculpted with 2C putty, plus even more PSR… Looks quite homogenous, though.
After this massive body work, other hardware challenges appeared like small distractions. The landing gear was another major issue because the deeper AH-1 section lowered the ground clearance, also because of the chin turret. To counter this, I raised the OV-10’s main landing gear by ~2mm – not much, but it was enough to create a credible stance, together with the front landing gear transplant under the cockpit, which received an internal console to match the main landing gear’s length. Due to the chin turret and the shorter nose, the front wheel retracts backwards now. But this looks quite plausible, thanks to the additional space under the cockpit tub, which also made a belt feed for the gun’s ammunition supply believable.
To enhance the menacing look I gave the model a fixed refueling boom, made from 1mm steel wire and a receptor adapter sculpted with white glue. The latter stuff was also used add some antenna fairings around the hull. Some antennae, chaff dispensers and an IR decoy were taken from the Academy kit.
The ordnance came from various sources. The Sidewinders under the wing tips were taken from an Italeri F-16C/D kit, they look better than the missiles from the Academy Bronco kit. Their launch rails came from an Italeri Bae Hawk 200. The quadruple Hellfire launchers on the underwing hardpoints were left over from an Italeri AH-1W, and they are a perfect load for this aircraft and its role. The LAU-10 and -19 missile pods on the stub wings were taken from the OV-10 kit.
Painting and markings:
Finding a suitable and somewhat interesting – but still plausible – paint scheme was not easy. Taking the A-10 as benchmark, an overall light grey livery (with focus on low contrast against the sky as protection against ground fire) would have been a likely choice – and in fact the last operational American OV-10s were painted in this fashion. But in order to provide a different look I used the contemporary USAF V-22Bs and Special Operations MC-130s as benchmark, which typically carry a darker paint scheme consisting of FS 36118 (suitably “Gunship Gray” :D) from above, FS 36375 underneath, with a low, wavy waterline, plus low-viz markings. Not spectacular, but plausible – and very similar to the late r/w Colombian OV-10s.
The cockpit tub became Dark Gull Grey (FS 36231, Humbrol 140) and the landing gear white (Revell 301).
The model received an overall black ink washing and some post-panel-shading, to liven up the dull all-grey livery. The decals were gathered from various sources, and I settled for black USAF low-viz markings. The “stars and bars” come from a late USAF F-4, the “IP” tail code was tailored from F-16 markings and the shark mouth was taken from an Academy AH-64. Most stencils came from another Academy OV-10 sheet and some other sources.
Decals were also used to create the trim on the propeller blades and markings on the ordnance.
Finally, the model was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and some exhaust soot stains were added with graphite along the tail boom flanks.
A successful transplantation – but is this still a modified Bronco or already a kitbashing? The result looks quite plausible and menacing, even though the TOW Cobra front section appears relatively massive. But thanks to the bigger engines and extended wing tips the proportions still work. The large low-pressure tires look a bit goofy under the aircraft, but they are original. The grey livery works IMHO well, too – a more colorful or garish scheme would certainly have distracted from the modified technical basis.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The OV-10 Bronco was initially conceived in the early 1960s through an informal collaboration between W. H. Beckett and Colonel K. P. Rice, U.S. Marine Corps, who met at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California, and who also happened to live near each other. The original concept was for a rugged, simple, close air support aircraft integrated with forward ground operations. At the time, the U.S. Army was still experimenting with armed helicopters, and the U.S. Air Force was not interested in close air support.
The concept aircraft was to operate from expedient forward air bases using roads as runways. Speed was to be from very slow to medium subsonic, with much longer loiter times than a pure jet. Efficient turboprop engines would give better performance than piston engines. Weapons were to be mounted on the centerline to get efficient aiming. The inventors favored strafing weapons such as self-loading recoilless rifles, which could deliver aimed explosive shells with less recoil than cannons, and a lower per-round weight than rockets. The airframe was to be designed to avoid the back blast.
Beckett and Rice developed a basic platform meeting these requirements, then attempted to build a fiberglass prototype in a garage. The effort produced enthusiastic supporters and an informal pamphlet describing the concept. W. H. Beckett, who had retired from the Marine Corps, went to work at North American Aviation to sell the aircraft.
The aircraft's design supported effective operations from forward bases. The OV-10 had a central nacelle containing a crew of two in tandem and space for cargo, and twin booms containing twin turboprop engines. The visually distinctive feature of the aircraft is the combination of the twin booms, with the horizontal stabilizer that connected them at the fin tips. The OV-10 could perform short takeoffs and landings, including on aircraft carriers and large-deck amphibious assault ships without using catapults or arresting wires. Further, the OV-10 was designed to take off and land on unimproved sites. Repairs could be made with ordinary tools. No ground equipment was required to start the engines. And, if necessary, the engines would operate on high-octane automobile fuel with only a slight loss of power.
The aircraft had responsive handling and could fly for up to 5½ hours with external fuel tanks. The cockpit had extremely good visibility for both pilot and co-pilot, provided by a wrap-around "greenhouse" that was wider than the fuselage. North American Rockwell custom ejection seats were standard, with many successful ejections during service. With the second seat removed, the OV-10 could carry 3,200 pounds (1,500 kg) of cargo, five paratroopers, or two litter patients and an attendant. Empty weight was 6,969 pounds (3,161 kg). Normal operating fueled weight with two crew was 9,908 pounds (4,494 kg). Maximum takeoff weight was 14,446 pounds (6,553 kg).
The bottom of the fuselage bore sponsons or "stub wings" that improved flight performance by decreasing aerodynamic drag underneath the fuselage. Normally, four 7.62 mm (.308 in) M60C machine guns were carried on the sponsons, accessed through large forward-opening hatches. The sponsons also had four racks to carry bombs, pods, or fuel. The wings outboard of the engines contained two additional hardpoints, one per side. Racked armament in the Vietnam War was usually seven-shot 2.75 in (70 mm) rocket pods with white phosphorus marker rounds or high-explosive rockets, or 5" (127 mm) four-shot Zuni rocket pods. Bombs, ADSIDS air-delivered/para-dropped unattended seismic sensors, Mk-6 battlefield illumination flares, and other stores were also carried.
Operational experience showed some weaknesses in the OV-10's design. It was significantly underpowered, which contributed to crashes in Vietnam in sloping terrain because the pilots could not climb fast enough. While specifications stated that the aircraft could reach 26,000 feet (7,900 m), in Vietnam the aircraft could reach only 18,000 feet (5,500 m). Also, no OV-10 pilot survived ditching the aircraft.
The OV-10 served in the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corps, and U.S. Navy, as well as in the service of a number of other countries. In U.S. military service, the Bronco was operated until the early Nineties, and obsoleted USAF OV-10s were passed on to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms for anti-drug operations. A number of OV-10As furthermore ended up in the hands of the California Department of Forestry (CDF) and were used for spotting fires and directing fire bombers onto hot spots.
This was not the end of the OV-10 in American military service, though: In 2012, the type gained new attention because of its unique qualities. A $20 million budget was allocated to activate an experimental USAF unit of two airworthy OV-10Gs, acquired from NASA and the State Department. These machines were retrofitted with military equipment and were, starting in May 2015, deployed overseas to support Operation “Inherent Resolve”, flying more than 120 combat sorties over 82 days over Iraq and Syria. Their concrete missions remained unclear, and it is speculated they provided close air support for Special Forces missions, esp. in confined urban environments where the Broncos’ loitering time and high agility at low speed and altitude made them highly effective and less vulnerable than helicopters.
Furthermore, these Broncos reputedly performed strikes with the experimental AGR-20A “Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System (APKWS)”, a Hydra 70-millimeter rocket with a laser-seeking head as guidance - developed for precision strikes against small urban targets with little collateral damage. The experiment ended satisfactorily, but the machines were retired again, and the small unit was dissolved.
However, the machines had shown their worth in asymmetric warfare, and the U.S. Air Force decided to invest in reactivating the OV-10 on a regular basis, despite the overhead cost of operating an additional aircraft type in relatively small numbers – but development and production of a similar new type would have caused much higher costs, with an uncertain time until an operational aircraft would be ready for service. Re-activating a proven design and updating an existing airframe appeared more efficient.
The result became the MV-10H, suitably christened “Super Bronco” but also known as “Black Pony”, after the program's internal name. This aircraft was derived from the official OV-10X proposal by Boeing from 2009 for the USAF's Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance requirement. Initially, Boeing proposed to re-start OV-10 manufacture, but this was deemed uneconomical, due to the expected small production number of new serial aircraft, so the “Black Pony” program became a modernization project. In consequence, all airframes for the "new" MV-10Hs were recovered OV-10s of various types from the "boneyard" at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona.
While the revamped aircraft would maintain much of its 1960s-vintage rugged external design, modernizations included a completely new, armored central fuselage with a highly modified cockpit section, ejection seats and a computerized glass cockpit. The “Black Pony” OV-10 had full dual controls, so that either crewmen could steer the aircraft while the other operated sensors and/or weapons. This feature would also improve survivability in case of incapacitation of a crew member as the result from a hit.
The cockpit armor protected the crew and many vital systems from 23mm shells and shrapnel (e. g. from MANPADS). The crew still sat in tandem under a common, generously glazed canopy with flat, bulletproof panels for reduced sun reflections, with the pilot in the front seat and an observer/WSO behind. The Bronco’s original cargo capacity and the rear door were retained, even though the extra armor and defensive measures like chaff/flare dispensers as well as an additional fuel cell in the central fuselage limited the capacity. However, it was still possible to carry and deploy personnel, e. g. small special ops teams of up to four when the aircraft flew in clean configuration.
Additional updates for the MV-10H included structural reinforcements for a higher AUW and higher g load maneuvers, similar to OV-10D+ standards. The landing gear was also reinforced, and the aircraft kept its ability to operate from short, improvised airstrips. A fixed refueling probe was added to improve range and loiter time.
Intelligence sensors and smart weapon capabilities included a FLIR sensor and a laser range finder/target designator, both mounted in a small turret on the aircraft’s nose. The MV-10H was also outfitted with a data link and the ability to carry an integrated targeting pod such as the Northrop Grumman LITENING or the Lockheed Martin Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod (ATP). Also included was the Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receiver (ROVER) to provide live sensor data and video recordings to personnel on the ground.
To improve overall performance and to better cope with the higher empty weight of the modified aircraft as well as with operations under hot-and-high conditions, the engines were beefed up. The new General Electric CT7-9D turboprop engines improved the Bronco's performance considerably: top speed increased by 100 mph (160 km/h), the climb rate was tripled (a weak point of early OV-10s despite the type’s good STOL capability) and both take-off as well as landing run were almost halved. The new engines called for longer nacelles, and their circular diameter markedly differed from the former Garrett T76-G-420/421 turboprop engines. To better exploit the additional power and reduce the aircraft’s audio signature, reversible contraprops, each with eight fiberglass blades, were fitted. These allowed a reduced number of revolutions per minute, resulting in less noise from the blades and their tips, while the engine responsiveness was greatly improved. The CT7-9Ds’ exhausts were fitted with muzzlers/air mixers to further reduce the aircraft's noise and heat signature.
Another novel and striking feature was the addition of so-called “tip sails” to the wings: each wingtip was elongated with a small, cigar-shaped fairing, each carrying three staggered, small “feather blade” winglets. Reputedly, this installation contributed ~10% to the higher climb rate and improved lift/drag ratio by ~6%, improving range and loiter time, too.
Drawing from the Iraq experience as well as from the USMC’s NOGS test program with a converted OV-10D as a night/all-weather gunship/reconnaissance platform, the MV-10H received a heavier gun armament: the original four light machine guns that were only good for strafing unarmored targets were deleted and their space in the sponsons replaced by avionics. Instead, the aircraft was outfitted with a lightweight M197 three-barrel 20mm gatling gun in a chin turret. This could be fixed in a forward position at high speed or when carrying forward-firing ordnance under the stub wings, or it could be deployed to cover a wide field of fire under the aircraft when it was flying slower, being either slaved to the FLIR or to a helmet sighting auto targeting system.
The original seven hardpoints were retained (1x ventral, 2x under each sponson, and another pair under the outer wings), but the total ordnance load was slightly increased and an additional pair of launch rails for AIM-9 Sidewinders or other light AAMs under the wing tips were added – not only as a defensive measure, but also with an anti-helicopter role in mind; four more Sidewinders could be carried on twin launchers under the outer wings against aerial targets. Other guided weapons cleared for the MV-10H were the light laser-guided AGR-20A and AGM-119 Hellfire missiles, the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System upgrade to the light Hydra 70 rockets, the new Laser Guided Zuni Rocket which had been cleared for service in 2010, TV-/IR-/laser-guided AGM-65 Maverick AGMs and AGM-122 Sidearm anti-radar missiles, plus a wide range of gun and missile pods, iron and cluster bombs, as well as ECM and flare/chaff pods, which were not only carried defensively, but also in order to disrupt enemy ground communication.
In this configuration, a contract for the conversion of twelve mothballed American Broncos to the new MV-10H standard was signed with Boeing in 2016, and the first MV-10H was handed over to the USAF in early 2018, with further deliveries lasting into early 2020. All machines were allocated to the newly founded 919th Special Operations Support Squadron at Duke Field (Florida). This unit was part of the 919th Special Operations Wing, an Air Reserve Component (ARC) of the United States Air Force. It was assigned to the Tenth Air Force of Air Force Reserve Command and an associate unit of the 1st Special Operations Wing, Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC). If mobilized the wing was gained by AFSOC (Air Force Special Operations Command) to support Special Tactics, the U.S. Air Force's special operations ground force. Similar in ability and employment to Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC), U.S. Army Special Forces and U.S. Navy SEALs, Air Force Special Tactics personnel were typically the first to enter combat and often found themselves deep behind enemy lines in demanding, austere conditions, usually with little or no support.
The MV-10Hs are expected to provide support for these ground units in the form of all-weather reconnaissance and observation, close air support and also forward air control duties for supporting ground units. Precision ground strikes and protection from enemy helicopters and low-flying aircraft were other, secondary missions for the modernized Broncos, which are expected to serve well into the 2040s. Exports or conversions of foreign OV-10s to the Black Pony standard are not planned, though.
General characteristics:
Crew: 2
Length: 42 ft 2½ in (12,88 m) incl. pitot
Wingspan: 45 ft 10½ in(14 m) incl. tip sails
Height: 15 ft 2 in (4.62 m)
Wing area: 290.95 sq ft (27.03 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 64A315
Empty weight: 9,090 lb (4,127 kg)
Gross weight: 13,068 lb (5,931 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 17,318 lb (7,862 kg)
Powerplant:
2× General Electric CT7-9D turboprop engines, 1,305 kW (1,750 hp) each,
driving 8-bladed Hamilton Standard 8 ft 6 in (2.59 m) diameter constant-speed,
fully feathering, reversible contra-rotating propellers with metal hub and composite blades
Performance:
Maximum speed: 390 mph (340 kn, 625 km/h)
Combat range: 198 nmi (228 mi, 367 km)
Ferry range: 1,200 nmi (1,400 mi, 2,200 km) with auxiliary fuel
Maximum loiter time: 5.5 h with auxiliary fuel
Service ceiling: 32.750 ft (10,000 m)
13,500 ft (4.210 m) on one engine
Rate of climb: 17.400 ft/min (48 m/s) at sea level
Take-off run: 480 ft (150 m)
740 ft (227 m) to 50 ft (15 m)
1,870 ft (570 m) to 50 ft (15 m) at MTOW
Landing run: 490 ft (150 m)
785 ft (240 m) at MTOW
1,015 ft (310 m) from 50 ft (15 m)
Armament:
1x M197 3-barreled 20 mm Gatling cannon in a chin turret with 750 rounds ammo capacity
7x hardpoints for a total load of 5.000 lb (2,270 kg)
2x wingtip launch rails for AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs
The kit and its assembly:
This fictional Bronco update/conversion was simply spawned by the idea: could it be possible to replace the original cockpit section with one from an AH-1 Cobra, for a kind of gunship version?
The basis is the Academy OV-10D kit, mated with the cockpit section from a Fujimi AH-1S TOW Cobra (Revell re-boxing, though), chosen because of its “boxy” cockpit section with flat glass panels – I think that it conveys the idea of an armored cockpit section best. Combining these parts was not easy, though, even though the plan sound simple. Initially, the Bronco’s twin booms, wings and stabilizer were built separately, because this made PSR on these sections easier than trying the same on a completed airframe. One of the initial challenges: the different engines. I wanted something uprated, and a different look, and I had a pair of (excellent!) 1:144 resin engines from the Russian company Kompakt Zip for a Tu-95 bomber at hand, which come together with movable(!) eight-blade contraprops that were an almost perfect size match for the original three-blade props. Biggest problem: the Tu-95 nacelles have a perfectly circular diameter, while the OV-10’s booms are square and rectangular. Combining these parts and shapes was already a messy PST affair, but it worked out quite well – even though the result rather reminds of some Chinese upgrade measure (anyone know the Tu-4 copies with turboprops? This here looks similar!). But while not pretty, I think that the beafier look works well and adds to the idea of a “revived” aircraft. And you can hardly beat the menacing look of contraprops on anything...
The exotic, so-called “tip sails” on the wings, mounted on short booms, are a detail borrowed from the Shijiazhuang Y-5B-100, an updated Chinese variant/copy of the Antonov An-2 biplane transporter. The booms are simple pieces of sprue from the Bronco kit, the winglets were cut from 0.5mm styrene sheet.
For the cockpit donor, the AH-1’s front section was roughly built, including the engine section (which is a separate module, so that the basic kit can be sold with different engine sections), and then the helicopter hull was cut and trimmed down to match the original Bronco pod and to fit under the wing. This became more complicated than expected, because a) the AH-1 cockpit and the nose are considerably shorter than the OV-10s, b) the AH-1 fuselage is markedly taller than the Bronco’s and c) the engine section, which would end up in the area of the wing, features major recesses, making the surface very uneven – calling for massive PSR to even this out. PSR was also necessary to hide the openings for the Fujimi AH-1’s stub wings. Other issues: the front landing gear (and its well) had to be added, as well as the OV-10 wing stubs. Furthermore, the new cockpit pod’s rear section needed an aerodynamical end/fairing, but I found a leftover Academy OV-10 section from a build/kitbashing many moons ago. Perfect match!
All these challenges could be tackled, even though the AH-1 cockpit looks surprisingly stout and massive on the Bronco’s airframe - the result looks stockier than expected, but it works well for the "Gunship" theme. Lots of PSR went into the new central fuselage section, though, even before it was mated with the OV-10 wing and the rest of the model.
Once cockpit and wing were finally mated, the seams had to disappear under even more PSR and a spinal extension of the canopy had to be sculpted across the upper wing surface, which would meld with the pod’s tail in a (more or less) harmonious shape. Not an easy task, and the fairing was eventually sculpted with 2C putty, plus even more PSR… Looks quite homogenous, though.
After this massive body work, other hardware challenges appeared like small distractions. The landing gear was another major issue because the deeper AH-1 section lowered the ground clearance, also because of the chin turret. To counter this, I raised the OV-10’s main landing gear by ~2mm – not much, but it was enough to create a credible stance, together with the front landing gear transplant under the cockpit, which received an internal console to match the main landing gear’s length. Due to the chin turret and the shorter nose, the front wheel retracts backwards now. But this looks quite plausible, thanks to the additional space under the cockpit tub, which also made a belt feed for the gun’s ammunition supply believable.
To enhance the menacing look I gave the model a fixed refueling boom, made from 1mm steel wire and a receptor adapter sculpted with white glue. The latter stuff was also used add some antenna fairings around the hull. Some antennae, chaff dispensers and an IR decoy were taken from the Academy kit.
The ordnance came from various sources. The Sidewinders under the wing tips were taken from an Italeri F-16C/D kit, they look better than the missiles from the Academy Bronco kit. Their launch rails came from an Italeri Bae Hawk 200. The quadruple Hellfire launchers on the underwing hardpoints were left over from an Italeri AH-1W, and they are a perfect load for this aircraft and its role. The LAU-10 and -19 missile pods on the stub wings were taken from the OV-10 kit.
Painting and markings:
Finding a suitable and somewhat interesting – but still plausible – paint scheme was not easy. Taking the A-10 as benchmark, an overall light grey livery (with focus on low contrast against the sky as protection against ground fire) would have been a likely choice – and in fact the last operational American OV-10s were painted in this fashion. But in order to provide a different look I used the contemporary USAF V-22Bs and Special Operations MC-130s as benchmark, which typically carry a darker paint scheme consisting of FS 36118 (suitably “Gunship Gray” :D) from above, FS 36375 underneath, with a low, wavy waterline, plus low-viz markings. Not spectacular, but plausible – and very similar to the late r/w Colombian OV-10s.
The cockpit tub became Dark Gull Grey (FS 36231, Humbrol 140) and the landing gear white (Revell 301).
The model received an overall black ink washing and some post-panel-shading, to liven up the dull all-grey livery. The decals were gathered from various sources, and I settled for black USAF low-viz markings. The “stars and bars” come from a late USAF F-4, the “IP” tail code was tailored from F-16 markings and the shark mouth was taken from an Academy AH-64. Most stencils came from another Academy OV-10 sheet and some other sources.
Decals were also used to create the trim on the propeller blades and markings on the ordnance.
Finally, the model was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and some exhaust soot stains were added with graphite along the tail boom flanks.
A successful transplantation – but is this still a modified Bronco or already a kitbashing? The result looks quite plausible and menacing, even though the TOW Cobra front section appears relatively massive. But thanks to the bigger engines and extended wing tips the proportions still work. The large low-pressure tires look a bit goofy under the aircraft, but they are original. The grey livery works IMHO well, too – a more colorful or garish scheme would certainly have distracted from the modified technical basis.
A kitbash using a Phicen body with a Scarlet Witch headsculpt by Hot Toy's and an outfit by Super Duck .
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
After the success of the Soviet Union’s first carrier ship, the Moskva Class (Projekt 1123, also called „Кондор“/„Kondor“) cruisers in the mid 1960s, the country became more ambitious. This resulted in Project 1153 Orel (Russian: Орёл, Eagle), a planned 1970s-era Soviet program to give the Soviet Navy a true blue water aviation capability. Project Orel would have resulted in a program very similar to the aircraft carriers available to the U.S. Navy. The ship would have been about 75-80,000 tons displacement, with a nuclear power plant and carried about 70 aircraft launched via steam catapults – the first Soviet aircraft carrier that would be able to deploy fixed-wing aircraft.
Beyond this core capability, the Orel carrier was designed with a large offensive capability with the ship mounts including 24 vertical launch tubes for anti-ship cruise missiles. In the USSR it was actually classified as the "large cruiser with aircraft armament".
Anyway, the carrier needed appropriate aircraft, and in order to develop a the aircraft major design bureaus were asked to submit ideas and proposals in 1959. OKB Yakovlev and MiG responded. While Yakovlev concentrated on the Yak-36 VTOL design that could also be deployed aboard of smaller ships without catapult and arrester equipment, Mikoyan-Gurevich looked at navalized variants of existing or projected aircraft.
While land-based fighters went through a remarkable performance improvement during the 60ies, OKB MiG considered a robust aircraft with proven systems and – foremost – two engines to be the best start for the Soviet Union’s first naval fighter. “Learning by doing”, the gathered experience would then be used in a dedicated new design that would be ready in the mid 70ies when Project 1153 was ready for service, too.
Internally designated “I-SK” or “SK-01” (Samolyot Korabelniy = carrier-borne aircraft), the naval fighter was based on the MiG-19 (NATO: Farmer), which had been in production in the USSR since 1954.
Faster and more modern types like the MiG-21 were rejected for a naval conversion because of their poor take-off performance, uncertain aerodynamics in the naval environment and lack of ruggedness. The MiG-19 also offered the benefit of relatively compact dimensions, as well as a structure that would carry the desired two engines.
Several innovations had to be addresses:
- A new wing for improved low speed handling
- Improvement of the landing gear and internal structures for carrier operations
- Development of a wing folding mechanism
- Integration of arrester hook and catapult launch devices into the structure
- Protection of structure, engine and equipment from the aggressive naval environment
- Improvement of the pilot’s field of view for carrier landings
- Improved avionics, esp. for navigation
Work on the SK-01 started in 1960, and by 1962 a heavily redesigned MiG-19 was ready as a mock-up for inspection and further approval. The “new” aircraft shared the outlines with the land-based MiG-19, but the nose section was completely new and shared a certain similarity to the experimental “Aircraft SN”, a MiG-17 derivative with side air intakes and a solid nose that carried a. Unlike the latter, the cockpit had been moved forward, which offered, together with an enlarged canopy and a short nose, an excellent field of view for the pilot.
On the SK-01 the air intakes with short splitter plates were re-located to the fuselage flanks underneath the cockpit. In order to avoid gun smoke ingestion problems (and the lack of space in the nose for any equipment except for a small SRD-3 Grad gun ranging radar, coupled with an ASP-5N computing gun-sight), the SK-01’s internal armament, a pair of NR-30 cannon, was placed in the wing roots.
The wing itself was another major modification, it featured a reduced sweep of only 33° at ¼ chord angle (compared to the MiG-19’s original 55°). Four wing hardpoints, outside of the landing gear wells, could carry a modest ordnance payload, including rocket and gun pods, unguided missiles, iron bombs and up to four Vympel K-13 AAMs.
Outside of these pylons, the wings featured a folding mechanism that allowed the wing span to be reduced from 10 m to 6.5 m for stowage. The fin remained unchanged, but the stabilizers had a reduced sweep, too.
The single ventral fin of the MiG-19 gave way to a fairing for a massive, semi-retractable arrester hook, flanked by a pair of smaller fins. The landing gear was beefed up, too, with a stronger suspension. Catapult launch from deck was to be realized through expandable cables that were attached onto massive hooks under the fuselage.
The SK-01 received a “thumbs up” in March 1962 and three prototypes, powered by special Sorokin R3M-28 engines, derivatives of the MiG-19's RB-9 that were adapted to the naval environment, were created and tested until 1965, when the type – now designated MiG-SK – went through State Acceptance Trials, including simulated landing tests on an “unsinkalble carrier” dummy, a modified part of the runway at Air Base at the Western coast of the Caspian Sea. Not only flight tests were conducted at Kaspiysk, but also different layouts for landing cables were tested and optimized as well. Furthermore, on a special platform at the coast, an experimental steam catapult went through trials, even though no aircraft starts were made from it – but weights hauled out into the sea.
Anyway, the flight tests and the landing performance on the simulated carrier deck were successful, and while the MiG-SK (the machine differed from the MiG-19 so much that it was not recognized as an official MiG-19 variant) was not an outstanding combat aircraft, rather a technology carrier with field use capabilities.
The MiG-SK’s performance was good enough to earn OKB MiG an initial production run of 20 aircraft, primarily intended for training and development units, since the whole infrastructure and procedures for naval aviation from a carrier had to be developed from scratch. These machines were built at slow pace until 1968 and trials were carried out in the vicinity of the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea.
The MiG-SK successfully remained hidden from the public, since the Soviet Navy did not want to give away its plans for a CTOL carrier. Spy flights of balloons and aircraft recognized the MiG-SK, but the type was mistaken as MiG-17 fighters. Consequently, no NATO codename was ever allocated.
Alas, the future of the Soviet, carrier-borne fixed wing aircraft was not bright: Laid down in in 1970, the Kiev-class aircraft carriers (also known as Project 1143 or as the Krechyet (Gyrfalcon) class) were the first class of fixed-wing aircraft carriers to be built in the Soviet Union, and they entered service, together with the Yak-38 (Forger) VTOL fighter, in 1973. This weapon system already offered a combat performance similar to the MiG-SK, and the VTOL concept rendered the need for catapult launch and deck landing capability obsolete.
OKB MiG still tried to lobby for a CTOL aircraft (in the meantime, the swing-wing MiG-23 was on the drawing board, as well as a projected, navalized multi-purpose derivative, the MiG-23K), but to no avail.
Furthermore, carrier Project 1153 was cancelled in October 1978 as being too expensive, and a program for a smaller ship called Project 11435, more V/STOL-aircraft-oriented, was developed instead; in its initial stage, a version of 65,000 tons and 52 aircraft was proposed, but eventually an even smaller ship was built in the form of the Kuznetsov-class aircraft carriers in 1985, outfitted with a 12-degree ski-jump bow flight deck instead of using complex aircraft catapults. This CTOL carrier was finally equipped with navalized Su-33, MiG-29 and Su-25 aircraft – and the MiG-SK paved the early way to these shipboard fighters, especially the MiG-29K.
General characteristics:
Crew: One
Length: 13.28 m (43 ft 6 in)
Wingspan: 10.39 m (34 ft)
Height: 3.9 m (12 ft 10 in)
Wing area: 22.6 m² (242.5 ft²)
Empty weight: 5.172 kg (11,392 lb)
Max. take-off weight: 7,560 kg (16,632 lb)
Powerplant:
2× Sorokin R3M-28 turbojets afterburning turbojets, rated at 33.8 kN (7,605 lbf) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,145 km/h (618 knots, 711 mph) at 3,000 m (10,000 ft)
Range: 2,060 km (1,111 nmi, 1,280 mi) with drop tanks
Service ceiling: 17,500 m (57,400 ft)
Rate of climb: 180 m/s (35,425 ft/min)
Wing loading: 302.4 kg/m² (61.6 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.86
Armament:
2x 30 mm NR-30 cannons in the wing roots with 75 RPG
4x underwing pylons, with a maximum load of 1.000 kg (2.205 lb)
The kit and its assembly:
This kitbash creation was spawned by thoughts concerning the Soviet Naval Aviation and its lack of CTOL aircraft carriers until the 1980ies and kicked-off by a CG rendition of a navalized MiG-17 from fellow member SPINNERS at whatifmodelers.com, posted a couple of months ago. I liked this idea, and at first I wanted to convert a MiG-17 with a solid nose as a dedicated carrier aircraft. But the more I thought about it and did historic research, the less probable this concept appeared to me: the MiG-17 was simply too old to match Soviet plans for a carrier ship, at least with the real world as reference.
A plausible alternative was the MiG-19, esp. with its twin-engine layout, even though the highly swept wings and the associated high start and landing speeds would be rather inappropriate for a shipborne fighter. Anyway, a MiG-21 was even less suitable, and I eventually took the Farmer as conversion basis, since it would also fit into the historic time frame between the late 60ies and the mid-70ies.
In this case, the basis is a Plastyk MiG-19 kit, one of the many Eastern European re-incarnations of the vintage KP kit. This cheap re-issue became a positive surprise, because any former raised panel and rivet details have disappeared and were replaced with sound, recessed engravings. The kit is still a bit clumsy, the walls are very thick (esp. the canopy – maybe 2mm!), but IMHO it’s a considerable improvement with acceptable fit, even though there are some sink holes and some nasty surprises (in my case, for instance, the stabilizer fins would not match with the rear fuselage at all, and you basically need putty everywhere).
Not much from the Plastyk kit was taken over, though: only the fuselage’s rear two-thirds were used, some landing gear parts as well as fin and the horizontal stabilizers. The latter were heavily modified and reduced in sweep in order to match new wings from a Hobby Boss MiG-15 (the parts were cut into three pieces each and then set back together again).
Furthermore, the complete front section from a Novo Supermarine Attacker was transplanted, because its short nose and the high cockpit are perfect parts for a carrier aircraft. The Attacker’s front end, including the air intakes, fits almost perfectly onto the round MiG-19 forward fuselage, only little body work was necessary. A complete cockpit tub and a new seat were implanted, as well as a front landing gear well and walls inside of the (otherwise empty) air intakes. The jet exhausts were drilled open, too, and afterburner dummies added. Simple jobs.
On the other side, the wings were trickier than expected. The MiG-19 kit comes with voluminous and massive wing root fairings, probably aerodynamic bodies for some area-ruling. I decided to keep them, but this caused some unexpected troubles…
The MiG-15 wings’ position, considerably further back due to the reduced sweep angle, was deduced from the relative MiG-19’s landing gear position. A lot of sculpting and body work followed, and after the wings were finally in place I recognized that the aforementioned, thick wing root fairings had reduced the wing sweep – basically not a bad thing, but with the inconvenient side effect that the original wing MiG-15 fences were not parallel to the fuselage anymore, looking rather awkward! What to do? Grrrr…. I could not leave it that way, so I scraped them away and replaced with them with four scratched substitutes (from styrene profiles), moving the outer pair towards the wing folding mechanism.
Under the wings, four new pylons were added (two from an IAI Kfir, two from a Su-22) and the ordnance gathered from the scrap box – bombs and rocket pods formerly belonged to a Kangnam/Revell Yak-38.
The landing gear was raised by ~2mm for a higher stance on the ground. The original, thick central fin was reduced in length, so that it could become a plausible attachment point for an arrester hook (also from the spares box), and a pair of splayed stabilizer fins was added as a compensation. Finally, some of the OOB air scoops were placed all round the hull and some pitots, antennae and a gun camera fairing added.
Painting and markings:
This whif was to look naval at first sight, so I referred to the early Yak-38 VTOL aircraft and their rather minimalistic paint scheme in an overall dull blue. The green underside, seen on many service aircraft, was AFAIK a (later) protective coating – an obsolete detail for a CTOL aircraft.
Hence, all upper surfaces and the fuselage were painted in a uniform “Field Blue” (Tamiya XF-50). It’s a bit dark, but I have used this unique, petrol blue tone many moons ago on a real world Kangnam Forger where it looks pretty good, and in this case the surface was furthermore shaded with Humbrol 96 and 126 after a black in wash.
For some contrast I painted the undersides of the wings and stabilizers as well as a fuselage section between the wings in a pale grey (Humbrol 167), seen on one of the Yak-38 prototypes. Not very obvious, but at least the aircraft did not end up in a boring, uniform color.
The interior was painted in blue-gray (PRU Blue, shaded with Humbrol 87) while the landing gear wells became Aluminum (Humbrol 56). The wheel discs became bright green, just in order to keep in style and as a colorful contrast, and some di-electric panels and covers became very light grey or bright green. For some color contrast, the anti-flutter weight tips on the stabilizers as well as the pylons’ front ends were painted bright red.
The markings/decals reflect the early Soviet Navy style, with simple Red Stars, large yellow tactical codes and some high contrast warning stencils, taken from the remains of a Yak-38 sheet (American Revell re-release of the Kangnam kit).
Finally, after some soot stains with graphite around the gun muzzles and the air bleed doors, the kit was sealed with a coat of semi-matt acrylic varnish and some matt accents (anti-glare panel, radomes).
A simple idea that turned out to be more complex than expected, due to the wing fence troubles. But I am happy that the Attacker nose could be so easily transplanted, it changes the MiG-19’s look considerably, as well as the wings with (much) less sweep angle.
The aircraft looks familiar, but you only recognize at second glance that it is more than just a MiG-19 with a solid nose. The thing looks pretty retro, reminds me a bit of the Supermarine Scimitar (dunno?), and IMHO it appears more Chinese than Soviet (maybe because the layout reminds a lot of the Q-5 fighter bomber)? It could even, with appropriate markings, be a Luft ’46 design?
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The T-34, a Soviet medium tank, had a profound and lasting effect on the field of tank design. At its introduction in 1940, the T-34 possessed an unprecedented combination of firepower, mobility, protection and ruggedness. Its 76.2 mm high-velocity tank gun provided a substantial increase in firepower over any of its contemporaries while its well-sloped armour was difficult to penetrate by most contemporary anti-tank weapons. Although its armour and armament were surpassed later in the war, it has often been credited as the most effective, efficient and influential tank design of the Second World War.
The T-34 was the mainstay of Soviet armoured forces throughout the Second World War. Its design allowed it to be continuously refined to meet the constantly evolving needs of the Eastern Front: as the war went on it became more capable, but also quicker and cheaper to produce. Soviet industry would eventually produce over 80,000 T-34s of all variants, allowing steadily greater numbers to be fielded as the war progressed despite the loss of tens of thousands in combat against the German Wehrmacht. Replacing many light and medium tanks in Red Army service, it was the most-produced tank of the war, as well as the second most produced tank of all time (after its successor, the T-54/55 series). T-34 variants were widely exported after World War II, and even as recently as 2010, the tank has seen limited front-line service with several developing countries
One of the unusual and rather unknown operators of the T-34 was Austria. 25 tanks (some sources claim 27 or even 37) of the late T-34/85 variant came as a gift from (well, they were actually left behind by) the Soviet Union in 1955 when the Red Army left the country, meaning that the Austrian Bundesheer was re-established. These vehicles became the young army's initial backbone, until more modern equipment (e. g. M41 and M47 tanks procured from the USA and AMX-13/75 tanks from France) replaced them in frontline service. Due to their ruggedness and simplicity, they were kept in service, though - primarily for training, and some vehicles were in the 1970s integrated into hidden bunkers, defending strategically vital "security space zones".
A revival of the Austrian T-34/85 fleet came in the late Sixties, though, when the Austrian Army recognized a lack in long range attack capabilities (at 1.000 m range and more) against hardened targets like enemy tanks, paired with high mobility and low costs, similar to the German Jagdpanzer profile from WWII. At that time, Austria operated roundabout 50 Charioteer tanks with 83.4 mm guns in this role, but these British vehicles were outdated and needed a timely replacement.
Another limiting factor were severe budget restrictions. The eventual solution came from the Austrian company Saurer: a relatively simple conversion of the indigenous Saurer APC, armed with a version of the French AMX-13's FL-12 oscillating turret, armed with a powerful 105mm cannon, which had just become available in an export version. However, in order to bridge the new tank hunter's development time and quickly fill the defense gap, the Austrian T-34/85s were checked whether it was possible to modernize them with the new turret, too.
The first conversion was carried out by Saurer in 1963 and proved to be successful. Since the light FL-12 turret had a smaller bearing diameter than the old T-34/85 turret, the integration into the hull went straightforward with the help of a simple adapter ring. What made the conversion even simpler was the fact that the FL-12, with its integrated cannon and an automated loading system, was a complete, self-sufficient unit.
The French turret was only lightly armoured, since the tank was not supposed to engage heavily-armed enemies at close range. The turret's front armour protected the crew from 20mm armour-piercing rounds over its frontal arc, while all-round protection was against small arms bullets only. The commander was seated on the left of the turret and the gunner on the right. The commander was provided with seven periscopes and a periscopic sight. The commander's infrared night sight had a magnification of x6. The gunner had two observation periscopes, a telescopic sight and a one-piece lifting and swiveling hatch cover. Due to the design of the oscillating turret, all sights were always linked to the main and secondary armament (a standard NATO machine gun). For engaging targets at night, an infrared periscopic sight was provided for the commander. In order to simplify and lighten the tank, the T-34’s bow machine gun in the hull was deleted and its opening faired over and the crew was reduced to three.
The 105 mm gun could penetrate 360 mm of armour, and the internal magazines of 2x 6 shots allowed a very high rate of fire (up to 12 shots per minute), even though a crew member had to leave the tank in order to fill the magazines up again from the outside. Once the gun had been fired the empty cartridge cases were ejected out of the rear of the turret through a trapdoor hinged on the left. Beyond the 12 rounds in the turret, a further 42 rounds were stored in the tank's hull, primarily in a stowage rack for 30 shots where the former second crew member in the front hull had been placed, and a further twelve rounds in magazines at the turret’s base.
The T-34/85’s engine and transmission were not changed, since an update was beyond the conversion budget limit, but lighter “skeleton” wheels from Czech T-34 post-war production were introduced, so that the modified tank weighed roundabout 30 tons, 2 less than the standard T-35/85.
After highly successful field tests with the prototype in the course of 1963 and 1964, a further conversion program for 16 tanks was approved and carried out until early 1965. The modified tanks received the official designation T-34/105Ö and allocated to two tank battalions. Most of the time these tanks were only used for training purposes, though, in preparation of the arrival of the "real" tank hunter, the SK-105 "Kürassier" (Cuirassier) with almost identical weapon systems. The SK-105’s first prototype was eventually ready in 1967 and delivery of pre-production vehicles commenced in 1971, but teething troubles and many detail problems delayed the type's quick and widespread introduction. Lighter and much more agile than the vintage T-34s, it became a big success and was produced in more than 700 specimen, almost 300 of them for the Austrian Army and the rest for export (Argentina, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Morocco and Tunisia). In consequence, the small T-34/105Ö fleet was soon retired and by 1976, when the Kürassier was in service and other, heavy tanks had become available, none of the converted tanks was still active anymore. Nevertheless, a few Austrian T-34s that had become part of the hidden bunker installations soldiered secretly on, the last ones were dug out of their positions and scrapped in 2007(!).
Specifications:
Crew: Three (commander, gunner, driver)
Weight: 29.7 t combat load
Length: 8.21 m (26 ft 10 ½ in) with turret forward
6.10 m (19 ft 11 ¾ in) hull only
Width: 3.00 m (9 ft 10 in)
Height: 2,74 m (8 ft 11 ½ in)
Suspension: Christie
Ground clearance: 0.4 m (16 in)
Fuel capacity: eight internal tanks, total capacity of 545 l (145 U.S. gal; 118 imp gal),
plus up to four external fuel drums à 90 l each (24 U.S. gal; 19.5 imp gal)
Engine:
Model V-2-34M 38.8 l V12 Diesel engine with 520 hp (370 kW) at 1.800 rpm
Transmission:
5 forward and 1 reverse gears
Armor:
16 - 45 mm steel (plus composite armour in the turret)
Performance:
Speed:
- Maximum, road: 58 km/h (36 mph)
- Cross country: up to 40 km/h (28 mph)
Operational range: 250 km (155) on streets with internal fuel only,
up to 330 km (250 mi) with four additional fuel drums
Power/weight: 17.5 hp/t
Armament:
1× 105 mm CN 105-57 rifled gun with a total 54 rounds, 12 of them ready in the turret's magazines
1× 7.62mm (0.3") co-axial NATO machine gun with 2.000 rounds
2× 2 smoke grenade dischargers
The kit and its assembly:
This weird, fictional combo was originally spawned by an Israeli idea: some vintage M4 Sherman tanks had been outfitted with the AMX-13's swiveling turrets and armed with French CN-75-50 75mm a cannon, creating the so-called "Isherman". I kept this concept in the back of my mind for a long time, with the plan to build one some day.
Then I came a couple of weeks ago across a picture on FlickR that showed a T-34/85 with Austrian markings. At first I thought that it had been a fictional museum piece in fake markings, but upon some legwork I found out that Austria had actually operated the T-34!
So, why not combine both ideas into a new and fictional one...? The rest was straightforward kitbashing: the FL-12 turret with a 105 mm cannon came from a Heller AMX-13 (a shaggy thing with dubious fit, but it was cheap) and for the chassis I tried the relatively new Zvezda T-35/85. The latter is actually a very crisp snap-fit kit, just some light flash here and there. Detail and proportions are very good, though, as well as fit. I was only surprised by the construction of the tracks, because it is a different approach from both of the traditional vinyl tracks or IP track segments. Instead, you get complete, rather thin and delicate IP tracks, and Zvezda expects the builder to bend them around the wheels and stick them between the wheels' halves during the construction process. You actually have to mount the “inner” half of the wheels first, then the track is attached to a locator pin on one of the main wheels, bent into shape, and finally the wheels' “outer” halves are added. Sounds complicated, and it actually is, and it also makes painting the whole running gear quite difficult, but it works – even though the result is IMHO not better than the traditional solutions.
The AMX-13 turret’s integration was easier than expected. Building the turret was a little complicated, because all side walls are separate and there are no locator pins or other aides for orientation. Some PSR became necessary to fill some minor gaps, but nothing dramatic. Mounting the AMX-13 turret to the T-34 hull was made easy through a very convenient design detail of the Zvezda kit: the T-34 comes with a separate turret ring that could be used as an adapter for the Heller turret. Three ejection/sprue residues inside of the ring could be used as a foundation for the AMX-13 turret, and the turret’s lower half/ring was, after some sanding to reduce the gap between the turret and the hull, was also glued onto the adapter. Worked like a charm, and the resulting combo looks very natural!
In order to improve the turret’s look I added a cloth seal between the lower and the upper, oscillating turret section, simulated with paper tissue drenched in thinned white glue (OOB the turret cannot be moved vertically at all). A similar seal was added at the barrel’s base.
Other changes were only minimal: the machine gun port in the front hull was sanded away and faired over, and I omitted the spare track links attached to the front hull. For a modernized look I gave the tank an additional pair of front lights as well as stoplights at the rear, scratched from styrene bits.
Painting and markings:
Basically a very simple affair, because there is ONLY one possible livery and color that suits an Austrian Bundesheer vehicle or item from the Seventies: RAL 7013 (Braungrau). This is a very ugly tone, though, "greenish, fresh mud" describes it well: a dull, brownish olive drab, but definitively not a green (like the omnipresent NATO tone Gelboliv RAL 6014, which was used by the German Bundeswehr until the standardized NATO three-tone camouflage was introduced around 1984). I organized a rattle can of this special color, since the tank model would receive a simple, uniform livery.
Due to the kit's , err, unique running gear construction, painting became a little complicated. I had to paint the hull and the (still) separate wheel parts in advance, so that the pre-painted elements could be assembled around the tracks (see above). The tracks themselves were painted with a cloudy mix of iron metallic, black and leather brown (Revell 99, 8 and 84). The turret was painted separately.
After the kit’s major sections had been assembled they received a light wash with a mix of highly thinned black with some red brown added, and the washing was immediately dabbed off of the surfaces so that most of the pigments ended up in recesses and around details, while the rest received an blurry, light dirt filter.
Once dry, I applied the decals. The tiny Austrian roundels come from a generic TL Modellbau sheet (never expected to find any use for them!), the tactical code comes from another tank kit sheet. In order to add some more highlights I also added some small, white markings on the fenders.
Then I gave the model an overall dry-brushing treatment with olive drab, medium grey and finally some ochre, just emphasizing details and edges.
Since the uniform livery appeared a bit dull to me, I decided to add a few camouflage nets to the hull, which also hide some weak points of the Zvezda kit, e.g. the missing rails along the hull. The nets were created from gauze bandages: small pieces (~1”x1”) of the material were dipped into a mix of white glue and olive drab acrylic paint and then carefully placed on hull, turret and barrel. Once dry, they were also dry-brushed.
As final steps, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (rattle can again) and I dusted the lower areas with a greyish-brown pigment mix, simulating dust and some mud crusts.
What started as a weird idea turned into a very conclusive what-if project – in fact, the T-34 with the French FL-12/44 turret does not look bad at all, and the Austrian colors and markings make this piece of fiction IMHO very convincing. Adding the camouflage nets was also a good move. They hide some of the details (e.g. the omitted bow machine gun station), but they liven up the rather clean and bleak exterior of the tank. I am positively surprised how good the T-34/105Ö looks!
A kitbash using a Phicen body with a Scarlet Witch headsculpt by Hot Toy's and an outfit by Super Duck .
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe or Sturmvogel (English: "Swallow"/ "Storm Bird") was the world's second operational jet-powered fighter aircraft. Design work started before World War II began, but engine problems and top-level interference kept the aircraft from operational status with the Luftwaffe until mid-1944.
The Me 262 was faster, and more heavily-armed than any Allied fighter, including the British jet-powered Gloster Meteor which entered service in the UK a month earlier than the Me 262. One of the most advanced aviation designs in operational use during World War II, the Me 262 was used in a variety of roles, including light bomber, reconnaissance, and even experimental night fighter versions.
The latter was a variant that was direly needed, and the development of a fast night fighter led to several prototypes and an operational interim version. Several two-seat trainer variants of the Me 262, the Me 262 B-1a, had been adapted through the Umrüst-Bausatz 1 factory refit package as night fighters, complete with on-board FuG 218 Neptun high-VHF band radar, using Hirschgeweih ("stag's antlers") antennae with a set of shorter dipole elements than the Lichtenstein SN-2 had used, as the B-1a/U1 version. Serving with 10 Staffel, Nachtjagdgeschwader 11, near Berlin, these few aircraft (alongside several single-seat examples) accounted for most of the 13 Mosquitoes lost over Berlin in the first three months of 1945.
Anyway, the Me 262 B-1a's deficiencies were clear from the start and in parallel Messerschmitt already worked on a dedicated night fighter variant that would offer a better performance (primarily concerning range and speed) than the converted trainer, which was, nevertheless, rushed into service and gathered valuable information.
Initially, the idea of a night-fighter 262 was developed independently by Messerschmitt as the Me 262B-2. It was to have a longer fuselage accommodating the two crew, internal fuel tanks with the capacity comparable to that of a single-seat variant, and a Berlin radar antenna hidden inside the modified nose cone. However, by the end of 1944 the war situation deteriorated so rapidly that it was realized that an interim solution must be found before the B-2 could reach production status.
Instead of the complex B-2 Messerschmitt also proposed a less ambitious approach which would use as many Me 262 fighter components as possible, primarily the aerodynamic surfaces, the engines and the landing gear. This proposal was accepted by the RLM in September 1944 and became the Me 262 G.
This variant received a completely re-designed and aerodynamically refined fuselage. It was, from the start, tailored to carry the heavy radar equipment, a second crew member as radar operator and navigator and a bigger fuselage tank (the trainers that were converted into night fighters had part of their fuel capacity reduced to make place for the 2nd seat). The result was a slender, streamlined aircraft with a considerably smaller cross section than the Me 262 day fighter/bomber.
The crew was separated into two cabins in front and behind the fuselage main tank. This arrangement also offered enough space for a "Schräge Musik" installation (a pair of guns firing upwards, either two 20mm MG 151/20 or two 30mm MK 108), to allow the night fighter to attack RAF bombers from their belly blind spot.
The main armament was a pair of MK 103 30mm cannons - while this was a reduction of firepower compared to the Me 262 B-1a, the MK 103 was much more accurate, had a longer range and a much higher muzzle velocity (860 m/s (2,822 ft/s) versus 540 m/s (1,800 ft/s) with HE/M), so that targets could be engaged at longer distance with less expenditure of ammunition and further outside of the bombers' defensive fire.
The first operational version, the G-1, was ready for service in December 1944 and exclusively delivered to the NJG 6, based in southern Germany after withdrawal from Romania and regrouping.The G-1 still carried the FuG 218 Neptun radar, still coupled with a high drag Hirschgeweih antenna and with a FuG 350 Zc Naxos radar warning receiver/detector, but the G-1 was still faster than the B-1a and had a longer range on internal fuel than the B-1a with two external 300l drop tanks, which further reduced top speed. Later versions (G-2) were supposed to carry the more modern FuG 240 with a parabolic dish antenna under a more treamlined thimble nose radome, and a single seat long range reconnaissance version (G-3) was also planned, which would carry no guns but an camera array in the radar operators's place.
Anyway, only about 20 Me 262 G-1 were delivered to NJG 6 at all, and probably less than a dozen were operational when Germany surrendered. The G-3 recce variant remained on the drawing board, while two prototypes with radomes for the FuG 240 were under construction and underwent wind tunnel tests.
General characteristics:
Crew: 2
Length overall: 11.67 m (38 ft 3 in)
Wingspan: 12.60 m (41 ft 6 in)
Height: 3.50 m (11 ft 6 in)
Wing area: 21.7 m² (234 ft²)
Empty weight: 3,795 kg[101] (8,366 lb)
Loaded weight: 6,473 kg[101] (14,272 lb)
Max. takeoff weight: 7,130 kg[101] (15,720 lb)
Powerplant:
Aspect ratio: 7.32
Powerplant:
2× Junkers Jumo 004 B-1 turbojets, 8.8 kN (1,980 lbf) each
Performance:
Maximum speed: 900 km/h (559 mph)
Range: 1,050 km (652 mi)
Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,565 ft)
Rate of climb: 1,200 m/min (At max weight of 7,130 kg) (3,900 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 0.28
Armament:
2x 30mm MK 103 cannon in the lower front fuselage with 120 RPG
2x 30mm MK 108 cannon "Schräge Musik" installation with 80 RPG,
angled 70° upwards, between the cockpits
2x hardpoints under the wings, each able to carry up to 250kg (550lb), including bombs, drop tanks or unguided missiles (rarely used)
The kit and its assembly:
Connoisseurs will immediately recognize this kitbash - and the Me 262 G was spawned from the thought that the Japanese Ki-46 was such an elegant aircraft - wouldn't a jet version somehow make sense? So, initially this was supposed to become a Hikoki '46 model, but when I held some Me 262 parts next to the Ki-46's fuselage the idea of a Luftwaffe night fighter was born.
And this actually worked better than expected. This whif is a kitbash of an Airfix Ki-46 fuselage with wings, tail, engines, landing gear and Hirschgeweih from a Revell Me 262 B-1a.
Mating the parts went pretty straightforward, even though I made a mistake when I measured the position of the wing under the fuselage. Somehow it ended up 4-5mm too close to the nose - while the flaw was acceptable I decided to add a 5mm plug behind the pilot cockpit to compensate... And the added length just underlines the elegant Ki-46 lines.
In order to keep the model on its three feet lots of lead beads were hidden in the fuselage, the nose tip and even the front ends of the engine nacelles. Since the Ki-46 fuselage is considerably smaller than the Me 262's I had to fill the wing roots with putty, but that was a rather easy task.
Painting and markings:
I wanted something different from other German night fighters/bombers I had already built, yet a simple livery. Since many German night fighters left the factories in an overall RLM 76 finish I used this as a basis and just added mottles in RLM 75 on the upper surfaces - inspired by a Ta 154 Moskito night fighter prototype.
The cockpits were painted in very dark grey (RLM 66) while the landing gear and the respective wells were painted with RLM 02. Everything very conventional.
The markings were puzzled together - the national markings and stencils come from the Revell Me 262 B-1a sheet while the registration was created from single aftermarket letters, matching a hypothetical aircraft from 4. Staffel, II./NJG 6 in code and colors.
The kit received a light black in wash and some dry-brushing to emphasize panel lines. On the fuselage, however, I painted some panel lines with a pencil, since the Airfix Ki-46 is completely bare of details. Some soot stains around the guns were added with graphite and finally everything sealed under matt acrylic varnish.
A simple kitbashing project, and I am amazed how plausible the Ki-46/Me 262 mix looks, despite the mistake I made with the wing position. I wonder how a Ki-46 III with its streamlined cockpit would look in this case?
⚔️💎
#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
Kitbashed custom-painted CP Rail double door 40' lumber boxcar, circa 1969.
Intermountain model, TLT paints and CDS dry transfer decals. Multimark painted on(!).
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
RWD was a Polish aircraft construction bureau active between 1928 and 1939. It started as a team of three young designers, Stanisław Rogalski, Stanisław Wigura and Jerzy Drzewiecki, whose names formed the RWD acronym.
They started work while studying at Warsaw University of Technology. In December 1925, with some other student constructors, they set up workshops at the Aviation Section of Mechanics Students' Club (Sekcja Lotnicza Koła Mechaników Studentów), where they manufactured their first designs. From 1926 they designed several aircraft alone, in 1928 they joined forces as one team, starting with RWD-1 sportsplane. Apart from building planes, J. Drzewiecki was a test pilot of their designs, while S. Wigura flew as a mechanic in competitions. In 1930 the team was moved to new workshops at Okęcie district in Warsaw, near the Polish Air Force’s Okęcie aerodrome, today's Warsaw International Airport.
At first, the RWD team designed and built light sportsplanes. Early designs were built in small series and used in Polish sports aviation, including their debut at the Challenge 1930 international contest. Their next designs performed particularly well in competitions - the RWD-6 won the Challenge 1932 and RWD-9s won the Challenge 1934 international contest. The sportsplane RWD-5 was the lightest plane to fly across the Atlantic in 1933. Three types saw mass production: the RWD-8, which became the Polish Air Force basic trainer, the RWD-13 touring plane and the RWD-14 Czapla reconnaissance plane. Other important designs were the RWD-10 aerobatic plane (1933), RWD-17 aerobatic-trainer plane (1937) and RWD-21 light sport plane (1939). Their most ambitious design that entered the hardware stage and eventually took to flight was the RWD-24, a fighter aircraft. However, World War II prevented further development and serial production of later RWD designs, and also put an end to the RWD construction bureau and its workshops.
The RWD-24 had been designed in response to a requirement for a fighter issued by the Polish Air Force in 1934. RWD responded and built a prototype of mixed materials, heavily influenced by French designs and resources, since Poland had procured several fighter, bomber and reconnaissance aircraft from France during the mid-twenties.
RWD’s design team quickly projected that only a monoplane design would be capable of delivering the desired level of performance sought; other modern features were to include a fully enclosed cockpit, a variable-pitch propeller, and landing flaps. The resulting RWD-24 was a high-wing monoplane of mixed construction, with fabric-covered wooden tail and rudders. The wings were directly attached to the upper fuselage and braced. They consisted of a two-spar duralumin structure, complete with rivetted ribs to both the spars and skin. The exterior of the wing was covered by finely corrugated duralumin sheet, while the slotted ailerons had a fabric covering.
Power came from a water-cooled Hispano-Suiza Y V12 engine – a novelty among Polish fighter designs, which traditionally relied upon radial engines, e.g. the Bristol Mercury and Jupiter, imported as license builds from Czechoslovakia (Skoda). The Hispano-Suiza engine meant a considerable step forward, though, since it increased the output by almost +50%, with appreciable improvements of overall performance that promised to put the RWD-24 on eye level with other contemporary foreign monoplane fighters.
In order to improve performance further, much effort was put into aerodynamic effectiveness, despite a rather conservative structure with bracing struts for the wings and stabilizers. For instance, the ventral radiator could be retracted manually, adapting the frontal area to the engine’s cooling needs. The RWD-24’s landing gear was fixed but covered with aerodynamic fairings and spats.
Armament consisted of a 20 mm (0.787 in) Hispano-Suiza HS.404 cannon with 60 rounds from a drum magazine, mounted as a “moteur canon” between the cylinder banks and firing through the propeller hub, plus two pairs of 7.92 mm (0.312 in) KM Wz 33 machine guns with 450 RPG in the wings outside of the propeller disc. The prototypes only carried the cannon and a single pair of machine guns, though.
First flown by RWD-founder Jerzy Drzewiecki himself, the first prototype demonstrated the type's favorable flying characteristics from the onset – even though the poor field of view for the pilot ahead and downwards during landing and taxiing was criticized. Another critical point was the retractable radiator; while it allowed a remarkable boost in top speed for short periods, the manual temperature management – esp. during combat situations – turned out to be impractical and an automated solution was requested. The firepower of the 20mm cannon received praise, too, despite its limited ammunition capacity. After 80 hours of test flights, in January 1936, the prototype was delivered with all military equipment fitted to the Polish Air Force at Okęcie aerodrome to participate in service trials, while a second prototype was built in parallel and joined the program in May. It differed from the first RWD-24 through a different tail section, which was covered with a bonded metal/wood material (Plymax) skin fixed to duralumin tubing.
Despite its good handling qualities and impressive performance (the contemporary Polish standard fighter, the PZL P.11, had a top speed of 390 km/h (240 mph, 210 kn), while the RWD-24 surpassed 440 km/h (273 mph, 240 kn) at ideal altitude), both the shape and basic configuration of the RWD-24 were hotly contended, particularly between 'traditional' advocates of biplane aircraft and supporters of 'modern' monoplane with retractable landing gear. The RWD-24 would not satisfy either party, and the high wing layout offered no real development potential, together with the field of view issues. Only a complete redesign of the RWD-24 into a low-wing configuration with a retractable landing gear would have been a viable solution. RWD engineers deemed this task to be feasible, but the Polish Air Force did not want to wait any longer for a new fighter aircraft. In consequence, the RWD-24’s development was officially stopped in early 1938, after only two airframes had been built. In the meantime, RWD had also started work on a dedicated low-wing fighter powered by a 800 hp (597 kW) Gnome-Rhône Mars radial engine, the RWD-25, but until then only a mock-up of this alternative type had been built.
However, the two RWD-24 prototypes remained based at Okęcie and were further tested by both the company and by the Polish Air Force. During these test in 1938, the RWD-24s were, among others, evaluated against a Hawker Hurricane Mk.I and a Dewoitine D.520 that had been delivered to Poland for trials (and eventual sales). In the meantime, driven by rising political tensions and threatened by neighboring Germany, the Polish Air Force had started to follow the idea of importing fully developed monoplane fighters in order to quickly boost the country’s air power and deterrent potential. This eventually led to the procurement of Hawker Hurricanes from Great Britain in 1939. But this decision came too late: the fighters were not delivered before 1 September 1939, when Germany invaded Poland, and the Polish Hurricanes on order were alternatively sent to Turkey instead.
Upon the German invasion the RWD-24 prototypes were, together with most other active Polish combat aircraft, dispersed to secondary airfields and allocated to the so-called Pursuit Brigade, deployed in the Warsaw area, where both served until they became unserviceable after a week, due to their exotic nature. Their fate remains unclear, though, since both machines disappeared. But most likely they were both destroyed within two weeks, like 70% of the Polish Air Force’s aircraft.
General characteristics:
Crew: One
Length: 8.17 m (26 ft 10 in)
Wingspan: 10.72 m (35 ft 2 in)
Height: 3.05 m (10 ft)
Wing area: 21 m² (240 sq ft)
Empty weight: 1,328 kg (2,928 lb)
Gross weight: 1,890 kg (4,167 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 2,000 kg (4,409 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Hispano-Suiza 12Ybrp V-12 liquid-cooled piston engine,
delivering 565 kW (785 hp) for take-off at 2,520 rpm at sea level
and driving a two-position variable pitch three blade metal propeller
Performance:
Maximum speed: 443 km/h (275 mph; 239 kn) at 2,000 m (6,600 ft)
Landing speed: 102 km/h (63 mph; 55 kn)
Range: 1,100 km (680 mi, 590 nmi) at 66% power
Combat range: 720 km (450 mi, 390 nmi)
Endurance: 2 hours 20 minutes 30 seconds (average combat mission)
Service ceiling: 9,400 m (30,800 ft)
Time to altitude: 4,500 m (14,764 ft) in 6 minutes 16 seconds
Take-off run: 100 m (328 ft)
Landing run: 275 m (902 ft)
Armament:
1x 20 mm (0.787 in) Hispano-Suiza HS.404 cannon with 60 rounds, firing through the propeller hub
4x* 7.92 mm (0.312 in) KM Wz 33 machine guns with 450 RPG (*projected for production aircraft,
the prototypes only carried two of these weapons)
The kit and its assembly:
This was a rather spontaneous submission for the “Prototypes” group build at whatifmodelers.com in July 2020, originally spawned by the idea of retrograding a Morane Saulnier MS.406 into a biplane with a fixed landing gear, a kind of French Gloster Gladiator. However, this changed when I found a surplus Mistercraft PZL P.7 kit in the stash, which had been part of a combo deal some time ago. Why not use it for a kitbashing and create a late interwar period Polish fighter prototype from the MS.406…?
The MS.406 fuselage comes from the simple Hobby Boss kit, even though some serious bodywork had to be done in order to make the low wing attachment points and the respective large wing root fairings disappear – on the simple Hobby Boss kit, wings and lower fuselage are one integral part, so that some major cutting and PSR were necessary to create a new, “clean” lower fuselage. For the new wings a piece of the cowling in front of the windscreen had to be cut out, the result looks very natural, though, the P.7 wing literally fell into place. The P.7 wings were taken, together with their respective support struts, wholesale from the Mistercraft kit, I just added flaps and lowered them, and I added fairings under the wings for the machine guns – OOB the kit comes with shallow holes that look a bit strange?
The empennage was taken over from the MS.406, but the stabilizers were replaced with the P.7’s, because they were bigger and their shape matches the fin so well. The fixed landing gear is a donor from an ICM Heinkel He 51 floatplane (surplus parts), it was just shortened by about 2mm in order to avoid an exaggerated nose-up stance due to the high propeller position.
The cockpit was taken OOB, just a pilot figure was added to hide the Hobby Boss kit’s rather basic interior.
Painting and markings:
Prototype liveries tend to be dry affairs, and therefore my RWD-24 received a standard pre-WWII livery for Polish aircraft in a uniform brownish-green khaki (”Light Polish Khaki”) over light blue wing undersides. For the very unique khaki tone I used Modelmaster 1711 (FS 34087, a rather yellowish interpretation of this tone), while the wings’ undersides were painted with Humbrol 65 (Aircraft Blue). The khaki tone was - on Polish high wing aircraft of the time - typically carried on the whole fuselage, including the undersides, so I adopted the tone for the complete landing gear and the wing struts, too. For a little more variety, I gave the engine a cowling in a bare metal finish (Humbrol Polished Aluminum Metallizer) and the airframe parts that are covered with fabric were apinted with Humbrol 155 - FS 34087, too, but a morre greenish and darker interpretation of this tone.
The kit received a black ink washing and some post-shading through dry-brushing of single panels with lighter tones. The cockpit interior was painted in a medium grey, the propeller blades became Revell 99 (Aluminum) with red tips, a black spinner and partly blackened back sides (in order to avoid light reflections that could blind the pilot).
Most markings come from a Polish aircraft aftermarket sheet. The red lightning cheatline on the fuselage and on the wings were borrowed from Indonesian MiG-21Fs (from two Begemot sheets). The contrast to the khaki is not strong, but I thought that some decoration would suit a prototype fighter well. The tactical codes consist of single white and black letters (both TL Modellbau stuff).
After some exhaust and gun soot stains the model was finally sealed with matt acrylic varnish, just the metallic cowling and the spinner received a light shine.
While the outcome looks rather unsuspicious, this kitbashing was a lot of work – esp. the landing gear and the cosmetic surgery to remove the MS.406’s lower wings was more demanding than I had thought at first. But the fictional RWD-24 looks very conclusive, a wild mix between outdated and modern features, so typical for many interwar designs. And the Polish colors and markings suit the model well, too.
Some background:
Instead of a story compiled/edited by myself, a very good “real” source: an article about the “American Spirit” project from 1996, scanned from a magazine and posted elsewhere:
This and some more information, including a drawing of the (apparently never) finished aircraft and a photo of the semi-finished airframe on airliners.net were the basis for my build.
The kit and its assembly:
This is my third and last entry to the “Racing” group build at whatifmodelers.com that ended in Feb. 2019. It is nothing less than the attempt to re-create the potentially fastest piston engine aircraft in the world as a model, based on the sparse information I was able to gather (see above). The aircraft’s design is quite odd, and it is worth reading the design background in the article, because it was a true “garage build” with the intention to use as many existing components in order to save costs and development time.
This was, more or less, mirrored during the building process, and like the real “American Spirit” the model consists at its core of a Matchbox T-2 “Buckeye” jet trainer! The T-2 fuselage lost its nose section, the ventral engine bay and the original cockpit fairing. This left a lot of fuselage surface to be re-constructed. The fin was clipped, too, just like in real life. At the fin’s base I added a cockpit opening and implanted a cockpit tub, taken from a Revell G.91. A new bucket seat (probably from an Academy Fw 190) was installed, and a new, tight canopy – I think it originally came from a Revell Go 229, but it was trimmed down considerably to match the T-2’s fuselage lines. The canopy was blended into the fin root with massive 2C putty sculpting, and the area in front of the windscreen was created with 2C putty, too. Both a tedious PSR process.
Once the upper fuselage shape was finished I started searching for a cowling and a matching propeller. After several attempts with bigger engines (e. g. from a Super Constellation) I eventually settled upon a rather narrow (but bleak) cowling from an Pioneer2/Airfix Hawker Sea Fury, which turned out to have just the right diameter for the re-constructed T-2 fuselage and matched the “American Spirit” drawing’s well.
It also had at the front end the right diameter for the propeller: it comes, just like in real life, from a C-130 Hercules, even though I used a late variant with six blades, a resin aftermarket piece, taken from an Attack Squadron engine nacelle set. Unfortunately, the spinners were molded onto the engines, so that I had to cut my donor part away. Three of the six propeller blade attachment points were faired over. While the original “American Spirit” carried clipped blades from an Electra airliner, I used parts from a P-3 Orion – the come very close in shape and size, and were easy to install. Finally, the propeller received a metal axis and a matching styrene tube adapter in the Sea Fury cowling.
Once the engine was in place, the cowling was filled with as much lead as possible, since the model would be built with an extended landing gear.
However, a large ventral section was still missing, and it was created with a leftover underwater section from a model ship hull, and lots of more putty, of course. A small tail bumper was added under the fin.
Once the fuselage was more or less finished, I turned my attention to the wings and stabilizers. The latter were supposed to be “un-swept F-86H stabilizers”, but unfortunately I could not find visual evidence of what this would have looked like. I tried some donor parts, including stabilizers from an F-86A and D, as well as from a MiG-15, and eventually decided to use individual parts, because nothing looked convincing to me, either swept or straight. Actually the MiG-15 parts looked the best, but they were too small, so I used the wings from an 1:144 Panavia Tornado (Dragon) and tailored them into a sweep angle similar to the MiG-15 parts, but with more depth and span. Not certain how “realistic” this is, but it looks good and compliments the swept T-2 fin well.
The T-2 wings saw only minor modifications: the wing tip tanks were cut off and the tips as well as the flaps faired over, since the “American Spirit” did not feature the latter anymore. The small LERXs were cut away, too, and instead I added small air intakes – the “American Spirit” probably did not feature them, but I wondered where the aircraft’s engine would feed its carburetor or an oil cooler? The respective gaps on the fuselage flanks were filled accordingly.
Some more work waited on the fuselage, too. The aircraft’s drawing showed shallow openings on the forward fuselage’s flanks, but their function was not clear – I assume that the exhausts from the 18 cylinder engine were collected there, 9 on each side, so I carved the openings into the massive plastic and putty fuselage with a mini drill tool and added exhaust stubs as well as deflector plates.
Another issue was the well for the front landing gear – this came, together with the complete front leg, from an Italeri F-100, just like in real life. The good thing about the Italeri kit is that it comes with a separate well tub, which made the installation quite easy. I just cut a square section out of the lower fuselage behind the engine and the landing gear well snuggly fell into place, with only little PSR effort. And, to my surprise, the end result seems to be a very good match to the real life design – even though I was not able to confirm this with picture material.
The main landing gear was taken OOB from the Matchbox T-2 – and it is really a weird sight, since the T-2’s track is very wide while the wheelbase is unusually short. But the source article indicates that this must have been the designers’ plans!
Painting and markings:
While the model’s hardware came quite close to the real thing, the livery of the “American Spirit” was totally open, so I created my own. I felt that two design directions would be appropriate: either a relatively dry and clean design, e. g. in overall silver or white with a little trim, or something patriotic, reflecting the aircraft’s name.
I eventually settled for the latter, and considered several approaches in white, red and blue, and eventually settled for one of my first ideas, a kind of “flying American flag” in an asymmetrical design, somewhat inspired by a Bicentennial F-106A from 1976: this machine carried a white fuselage with some red trim stripes and a blue nose section that featured lots of tiny white stars. I took this layout a little further and gave the “American Spirit” a dark blue engine cowling and front fuselage section, as well as a single blue wing. From that, wide red and white stripes stream backwards across the other wing, the fuselage and the tail. The design was mirrored on the undersides.
The stripes were painted with a wide brush with Humbrol 19 and 22, after the kit had been primed with white and had received an overall white basic coat with acrylic paint from the rattle can, too. The blue section was painted with Revell 350 (RAL 5013/Lufthansa Blue). I tried to add some “wavy flag texture” effect to the basic paints with slightly different tones, added wet-in-wet to the basic paints, but the visual effect turned out to be minimal, so I left it like that.
The stars are all individual waterslide decals, coming from an 1:87 Allied WWII markings sheet from TL Modellbau. The big white stars that are the background for the starting numbers on top and below the blue wing come from an 1:72 F4U. The red and blue starting numbers themselves were taken from a TL Modellbau sheet for firefighting vehicles: they are actually parts of German emergency telephone numbers…
Some stencils and leading edges on all wings, created with generic silver decal material, completed the outside, and finally I painted some fake panel lines onto the hull with a soft pencil. The T-2 air brakes, which were retained for the “American Spirit”, were re-created with fine black decal lines. Similar material in silver was used to simulate panel lines for the cooling air outlet flaps on the cowling. Unfortunately, the T-2 kit itself did not come with much surface detail, and any leftover rest (like the air brakes) disappeared during the extensive PSR sessions and under the primer and paint coats. Finally, the kit was sealed with a coat of semi-gloss acrylic varnish (Italeri).
A massive scratch-build. While challenging the work on this model was fun because it followed in its creation a similar process as the real “American Spirit”, which was, AFAIK, sold and never completed. In the end, I am positively surprised how close the overall outlines seem to come to the real (and odd-looking) aircraft, even though the garish livery is purely speculative, so that this model is, despite its roots in the real world and the attempt to stay true to the original, a fictional/whif piece. The finish is a bit rough, though, but that’s probably the price to pay when you create things from scratch.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The ASTA (Aerospace Technologies of Australia, formerly Government Aircraft Factories) Baza development was started in 1995 when the Royal Australian Air Force was searching for a two-seat training aircraft that would allow the transition from initial training on piston-engined aircraft to jets, and could also be used for weapon training and CAS/reconnaissance duties.
ASTA responded with a low-wing two-turboprop-engined all-metal monoplane with retractable landing gear, capable of operating from unprepared strips when operationally required. The aircraft, internally coded “A-31”, was of conventional, all-metal (mainly duralumin) construction. The unswept cantilever wings have 3° of dihedral and are fitted with slotted trailing-edge flaps.
The A-31 had a tandem cockpit arrangement; the crew of two was seated under the upward opening clamshell canopy on Martin-Baker Mk 6AP6A zero/zero ejection seats and were provided with dual controls.
Armor plating was fitted to protect the crew and engines from hostile ground fire. The aircraft was powered by a pair of Garrett TPE 331 engines, driving sets of three-bladed propellers which were also capable of being used as air brakes.
The A-31 was designed for operations from short, rough airstrips.[The retractable tricycle landing gear, with a single nose wheel and twin main wheels retracting into the engine nacelles, is therefore fitted with low pressure tires to suit operations on rough ground, while the undercarriage legs are tall to give good clearance for underslung weapon loads. The undercarriage, flaps and brakes are operated hydraulically, with no pneumatic systems.
Two JATO rockets can be fitted under the fuselage to allow extra-short take-off.
Fuel is fed from two fuselage tanks of combined capacity of 800 L (180 imp gal; 210 US gal) and two self-sealing tanks of 460 L (100 imp gal; 120 US gal) in the wings.
Fixed armament of the A-31 consisted of two 30mm Aden cannons mounted under the cockpits with 200 rounds each. A total of nine hardpoints were fitted for the carriage of external stores such as bombs, rockets or external fuel tanks, with one of 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) capacity mounted under the fuselage and the remaining two pairs of 500 kg (1,100 lb) capacity beneath the wing roots and wings inside of the engine nacelles, and two more pairs of hardpoints outside of the engines for another 500 kg and 227 kg, respectively. Total external weapons load was limited to 6,800 lb (3,085 kg) of weapons, though.
Onboard armaments were aimed by a simple reflector sight, since no all weather/night capabilities were called for – even though provisions were made that external sensors could be carried (e. g. a TISEO or a PAVE Spike pod).
Severe competition arose through the BAe Hawk, though: the Royal Australian Air Force ordered 33 Hawk 127 Lead-in Fighters (LIFs) in June 1997, 12 of which were produced in the UK and 21 in Australia – and this procurement severely hampered the A-31’s progress. The initial plan to build 66 aircraft for domestic use, with prospects for export, e. g. to Sri Lanka, Indonesia or Turkey, was cut down to a mere 32 aircraft which were to be used in conjunction with the Australian Army in the FAC role and against mobile ground targets.
This extended role required an upgrade with additional avionics, an optional forward looking infrared (FLIR) sensor and a laser ranger in an extended nose section, which lead to the Mk. II configuration - effectively, only five machines were produced as Mk.I types, and they were updated to Mk. II configuration even before delivery to the RAAF in August 1999.
Since then, the ASTA A-31 has been used in concunction with RAAF's Pilatus PC-9 and BAe Hawk Mk. 127 trainers. Beyond educational duties the type is also employed for Fleet support to Navy operations and for close air support to Army operations.
The 'Baza' (christened by a small sized bird of prey found in the forests of South Asia and Southeast Asia) has even seen serious military duty and already fired in anger: since August 2007, a detachment of No. 114 Mobile Control and Reporting Unit RAAF has been on active service at Kandahar Airfield in southern Afghanistan, and a constant detachment of six A-31's from RAAF 76 Suqadron has been assigned to armed reconnaissance and protection of approximately 75 personnel deployed with the AN/TPS-77 radar, assigned the responsibility to co-ordinate coalition air operations.
General characteristics
Crew: 2
Length (incl. Pitot): 14.69 m (48 ft 1 ½ in)
Wingspan: 14.97 m (49 ft)
Height: 3, 75 m (12 ft 3 in)
Wing area: 30.30 m2 (326.1 sq ft)
Aspect ratio: 6.9:1
Airfoil: NACA 642A215 at root, NACA641 at tip
Empty weight: 4,020 kg (8,863 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 6,800 kg (14,991 lb)
Internal fuel capacity: 1,280 L (280 imp gal; 340 US gal)
Powerplant:
2 × Garrett TPE 331-11U-601G turboprop engines, 820 kW (1.100 hp) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 515 km/h (311 mph; 270 kn) at 4.570 m (15.000 ft)
Cruising speed: 430 km/h (267 mph; 232 kn) at 2.500 m (8.200 ft)
Stall speed: 143 km/h (89 mph; 77 kn) (flaps and undercarriage down)
Never exceed speed: 750 km/h (466 mph; 405 kn)
Range:1.611 km (1.000 mi; 868 nmi), clean and internal fuel only
Ferry range: 3,710 km (2,305 mi; 2,003 nmi) max internal and external fuel
Service ceiling: 10,000 m (32,808 ft)
g limits: +6/-3 g
Rate of climb: 6.5 m/s (1.276 ft/min)
Armament
2× 30 mm ADEN cannons in the lower nose
Up to 6,800 lb (3,085 kg) of weapons on nine external hardpoints
The kit and its assembly:
Like many of my whifs, this was spawned by a project at whatifmodelers.com from fellow user silverwindblade that ran under the handle "COIN aircraft from a Hawk" - and in fact, the BAe Hawk's fuselage with its staggered cockpit and good field of view appears as a good basis for a conversion.
I liked the idea VERY much, and while silverwindblade's work would rather develop into a futuristic canard layout aircraft, I decided to keep the COIN aircraft rather conservative - the FMA 58 'Pucara' from Argentina would be a proper benchmark.
The basis here is the Italeri BAe Hawk Mk. 127 kit which comes with the longer nose and modified wings for the RAAF version, as well as with false decals.
Anyway, I'd only use the fuselage, anything else is implanted, partly from unlikely donation kits! Wings incl. engine nacelles and stablizers come from the vintage box scale (1:166?) Revell Convair R3Y-2 Tradewind flying boat(!), the fin from an Academy OV-10 Bronco.
The landing gear was puzzled together, among other from parts of a 1:200 Concorde, the propellers were scratched.
Biggest mod to the fuselage is the dissection of the air intakes (and their blending with the fuselage) as well as a new tail section where the Adour jet engine's exhaust had been.
Painting and markings:
This model was agood excuse to finally apply an SIOP color scheme, which was originally carried by USAF's strategic bombers like B-52 or FB-111. But what actually inspired me were Australian C-130s - it took some time to figure out that their scheme were the USAF's SIOP colors (FS 34201, 34159 and 34079). But that made the Baza's potential user's choice (and fictional origin) easy.
As a COIN role aircraft I settled on a wraparound scheme. I found a pattern scheme on an USN Aggerssor A-4 Skyhawk that had been painted in SIOP colors, too, and adapted it for the model. Basic colors were Humbrol 31, 84 and 116, good approximations - the result looks odd, but suits the Baza well.
Later, panels were emphasized through dry painting with lighter shades and a light black ink wash was applied.
The landing gear became classic white, the cockpit interior medium gray - nothing fancy.
The markings were improvised - the Italeri Hawk Mk. 127 features RAAF 'roos, but these are printed in black - wrong for the OOB kit, but very welcome on my aircraft. The rest was salvaged from the scrap box, the tactical code A-31-06 created with single letters from TL Modellbau.
This is a kitbash kit from Top, with a WorldBox body. Really nice set, actually. The jacket is particularly nice, and the headsculpt is quite good. Yes, I know I don't have a proper Winter Soldier hand on him. I need to get him a couple. I could use those from my HT sets, but I just don't want to.
OK, totally kitbashing here: bow&arrow from Barbie Antiope, shirt from MH Hunter Huntsman, Phicen body, headsculpt - but I just needed to have my own Oliver ;-)
----
© 2018 photos4dreams - all rights reserved
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 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 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!
An original 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.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background
The Focke Wulf Ta 338 originated as a response of request by the RLM in mid 1943 for an aircraft capable of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL), optimized for the interceptor and point defense role and without a hazardous liquid rocket engine as means of propulsion. In the course of the year, several German manufacturers responded with a multitude of highly innovative if not unusual design, including Heinkel with the ducted fan project "Lerche", Rheinmetall-Borsig with a jet-powered tailsitter, and Focke Wulf. This company’s engineering teams submitted two designs: the revolutionary "Triebflügel" concept and the more conservative, yet still futuristic "P.03.10338" tail sitter proposal, conceived by Focke Wulf’s leading engineer Kurt Tank and Walter Kappus from BMW, responsible for the engine development.
The P.03.10338 was based on the proven Fw 190 fighter, but the similarities were only superficial. Only the wings and a part of the fuselage structure around the cockpit would be used, but Tank assumed that using existing parts and tools would appreciably reduce development and production time.
A great part of the fuselage structure had to be re-designed to accommodate a powerful BMW 803 engine and its integral gearbox for an eight-bladed contraprop.
The BMW 803 was BMW's attempt to build a high-output aircraft engine, primarily for heavy bombers, by basically "coupling" two BMW 801 engines back-to-back into a single and very compact power unit. The result was a 28-cylinder, four-row radial engine, each comprising a multiple-bank in-line engine with two cylinders in each bank, which, due to cooling concerns, were liquid cooled.
This arrangement was from the start intended to drive independent contra-rotating propellers, in order to avoid stiffness problems with the whole engine driving just a single crankshaft and also to simply convert the raw power of this unit into propulsion. The front half of the engine drove the front propeller directly, while the rear engine drove a number of smaller shafts that passed between the cylinders of the front engine before being geared back together to drive the rear prop. This complex layout resulted in a rather large and heavy gearbox on the front of the engine, and the front engine needing an extended shaft to "clear" that gearbox. The four-row 803 engine weighed 2,950 kg (6,490 lb) dry and 4,130 kg (9,086 lb) fully loaded, and initial versions delivered 3,900 PS (3,847 hp; 2,868 kW).
While the engine was heavy and there were alternatives with a better weight/output ratio (e. g. the Jumo 222), the BMW 803 was favored for this project because it was the most powerful engine available, and it was relatively compact so that it could be fitted into a fighter's airframe. On the P.03.10338 it drove an all-metal, eight-blade contraprop with a diameter of 4,25 m (13 ft 11 in).
In order to accept this massive engine, the P.03.10338’s structure had to be stiffened and the load-bearing structures re-arranged. The aircraft kept the Fw 190's wing structure and surface, but the attachment points at the fuselage had to be moved for the new engine mount, so that they ended up in mid position. The original space for the Fw 190's landing gear was used for a pair of radiator baths in the wings' inner leading edge, the port radiator catering to the front engine half while the radiator on starboard was connected with the rear half. An additional annular oil and sodium cooler for the gearbox and the valve train, respectively, was mounted in the fuselage nose.
The tail section was completely re-designed. Instead of the Fw 190's standard tail with fin and stabilizers the P.03.10338’s tail surfaces were a reflected cruciform v-tail (forming an x) that extended above and below the fuselage. On the four fin tips, aerodynamic bodies carried landing pads while the fuselage end contained an extendable landing damper. The pilot sat in a standard Fw 190 cockpit, and the aircraft was supposed to start and land vertically from a mobile launch pad. In the case of an emergency landing, the lower stabilizers could be jettisoned. Nor internal armament was carried, instead any weaponry was to be mounted under the outer wings or the fuselage, in the form of various “Rüstsätze” packages.
Among the many exotic proposals to the VTOL fighter request, Kurt Tank's design appeared as one of the most simple options, and the type received the official RLM designation Ta 338. In a rush of urgency (and maybe blinded by clever Wunderwaffen marketing from Focke Wulf’s side), a series of pre-production aircraft was ordered instead of a dedicated prototype, which was to equip an Erprobungskommando (test unit, abbreviated “EK”) that would evaluate the type and develop tactics and procedures for the new fighter.
Fueled by a growing number of bomber raids over Germany, the “EK338” was formed as a part of JG300 in August 1944 in Schönwalde near Berlin, but it took until November 1944 that the first Ta 338 A-0 machines were delivered and made operational. These initial eight machines immediately revealed several flaws and operational problems, even though the VTOL concept basically worked and the aircraft flew well – once it was in the air and cruising at speeds exceeding 300 km/h (186 mph).
Beyond the many difficulties concerning the aircraft’s handling (esp. the landing was hazardous), the lack of a landing gear hampered ground mobility and servicing. Output of the BMW 803 was sufficient, even though the aircraft had clear limits concerning the take-off weight, so that ordnance was limited to only 500 kg (1.100 lb). Furthermore, the noise and the dust kicked up by starting or landing aircraft was immense, and servicing the engine or the weapons was more complicated than expected through the high position of many vital and frequently tended parts.
After three Ta 338 A-0 were lost in accidents until December 1944, a modified version was ordered for a second group of the EK 338. This led to the Ta 338 A-1, which now had shorter but more sharply swept tail fins that carried single wheels and an improved suspension under enlarged aerodynamic bodies.
This machine was now driven by an improved BMW 803 A-2 that delivered more power and was, with an MW-50 injection system, able to produce a temporary emergency output of 4.500 hp (3.308 kW).
Vertical start was further assisted by optional RATO units, mounted in racks at the rear fuselage flanks: either four Schmidding SG 34 solid fuel booster rockets, 4.9 kN (1,100 lbf) thrust each, or two larger 9.8 kN (2,203 lbf) solid fuel booster rockets, could be used. These improvements now allowed a wider range of weapons and equipment to be mounted, including underwing pods with unguided rockets against bomber pulks and also a conformal pod with two cameras for tactical reconnaissance.
The hazardous handling and the complicated maintenance remained the Ta 338’s Achilles heel, and the tactical benefit of VTOL operations could not outbalance these flaws. Furthermore, the Ta 338’s range remained very limited, as well as the potential firepower. Four 20mm or two 30mm cannons were deemed unsatisfactory for an interceptor of this class and power. And while bundles of unguided missiles proved to be very effective against large groups of bombers, it was more efficient to bring these weapons with simple and cheap vehicles like the Bachem Ba 349 Natter VTOL rocket fighter into target range, since these were effectively “one-shot” weapons. Once the Ta 338 fired its weapons it had to retreat unarmed.
In mid 1945, in the advent of defeat, further tests of the Ta 338 were stopped. I./EK338 was disbanded in March 1945 and all machines retreated from the Eastern front, while II./EK338 kept defending the Ruhrgebiet industrial complex until the Allied invasion in April 1945. Being circled by Allied forces, it was not possible to evacuate or destroy all remaining Ta 338s, so that at least two more or less intact airframes were captured by the U.S. Army and later brought to the United States for further studies.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length/height on the ground: 10.40 m (34 ft 2 in)
Wingspan: 10.50 m (34 ft 5 in)
Fin span: 4:07 m (13 ft 4 in)
Wing area: 18.30 m² (196.99 ft²)
Empty weight: 11,599 lb (5,261 kg)
Loaded weight: 16,221 lb (7,358 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 16,221 lb (7,358 kg)
Powerplant:
1× BMW 803 A-2 28-cylinder, liquid-cooled four-row radial engine,
rated at 4.100 hp (2.950 kW) and at 4.500 hp (3.308 kW) with emergency boost.
4x Schmidding SG 34 solid fuel booster rockets, 4.9 kN (1,100 lbf) thrust each, or
2x 9.8 kN (2,203 lbf) solid fuel booster rockets
Performance:
Maximum speed: 860 km/h (534 mph)
Cruise speed: 650 km/h (403 mph)
Range: 750 km (465 ml)
Service ceiling: 43,300 ft (13,100 m)
Rate of climb: 10,820 ft/min (3,300 m/min)
Wing loading: 65.9 lb/ft² (322 kg/m²)
Armament:
No internal armament, any weapons were to be mounted on three hardpoints (one under the fuselage for up to 1.000 kg (2.200 lb) and two under the outer wings, 500 kg (1.100 lb) each. Total ordnance was limited to 1.000 kg (2.200 lb).
Various armament and equipment sets (Rüstsätze) were tested:
R1 with 4× 20 mm (.79 in) MG 151/20 cannons
R2 with 2x 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 213C cannons
R3 with 48x 73 mm (2.874 in) Henschel Hs 297 Föhn rocket shells
R4 with 66x 55 mm (2.165 in) R4M rocket shells
R5 with a single 1.000 kg (2.200 lb) bomb under the fuselage
R6 with an underfuselage pod with one Rb 20/20 and one Rb 75/30 topographic camera
The kit and its assembly:
This purely fictional kitbashing is a hardware tribute to a highly inspiring line drawing of a Fw 190 VTOL tailsitter – actually an idea for an operational RC model! I found the idea, that reminded a lot of the Lockheed XFV-1 ‘Salmon’ prototype, just with Fw 190 components and some adaptations, very sexy, and so I decided on short notice to follow the urge and build a 1:72 version of the so far unnamed concept.
What looks simple (“Heh, it’s just a Fw 190 with a different tail, isn’t it?”) turned out to become a major kitbashing. The basis was a simple Hobby Boss Fw 190 D-9, chose because of the longer tail section, and the engine would be changed, anyway. Lots of work followed, though.
The wings were sliced off and moved upwards on the flanks. The original tail was cut off, and the cruciform fins are two pairs of MiG-21F stabilizers (from an Academy and Hasegawa kit), outfitted with reversed Mk. 84 bombs as aerodynamic fairings that carry four small wheels (from an 1:144 T-22M bomber) on scratched struts (made from wire).
The cockpit was taken OOB, only a pilot figure was cramped into the seat in order to conceal the poor interior detail. The engine is a bash from a Ju 188’s BMW 801 cowling and the original Fw 190 D-9’s annular radiator as well as a part of its Jumo 213 cowling. BMW 801 exhaust stubs were inserted, too, and the propeller comes from a 1:100 VEB Plasticart Tu-20/95 bomber.
Since the BMW 803 had liquid cooling, radiators had to go somewhere. The annular radiator would certainly not have been enough, so I used the space in the wings that became available through the deleted Fw 190 landing gear (the wells were closed) for additional radiators in the wings’ leading edges. Again, these were scratched with styrene profiles, putty and some very fine styrene mesh.
As ordnance I settled for a pair of gun pods – in this case these are slipper tanks from a Hobby Boss MiG-15, blended into the wings and outfitted with hollow steel needles as barrels.
Painting and markings:
Several design options were possible: all NMF with some colorful markings or an overall RLM76 finish with added camouflage. But I definitively went for a semi-finished look, inspired by late WWII Fw 190 fighters.
For instance, the wings’ undersides were partly left in bare metal, but the rudders painted in RLM76 while the leading edges became RLM75. This color was also taken on the wings’ upper sides, with RLM82 thinly painted over. The fuselage is standard RLM76, with RLM82 and 83 on the upper side and speckles on the flanks. The engine cowling became NMF, but with a flashy ‘Hartmann Tulpe’ decoration.
Further highlights are the red fuselage band (from JG300 in early 1945) and the propeller spinner, which received a red tip and segments in black and white on both moving propeller parts. Large red “X”s were used as individual aircraft code – an unusual Luftwaffe practice but taken over from some Me 262s.
After a light black ink wash some panel shading and light weathering (e.g. exhaust soot, leaked oil, leading edges) was done, and the kit sealed under matt acrylic varnish.
Building this “thing” on the basis of a line drawing was real fun, even though challenging and more work than expected. I tried to stay close to the drawing, the biggest difference is the tail – the MiG-21 stabilizers were the best option (and what I had at hand as donation parts), maybe four fins from a Hawker Harrier or an LTV A-7 had been “better”, but now the aircraft looks even faster. ;)
Besides, the Ta 338 is so utterly Luft ’46 – I am curious how many people might take this for real or as a Hydra prop from a contemporary Captain America movie…
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 historical facts. BEWARE!
In the period immediately after the Second World War the world found itself with hundreds of thousands of surplus aircraft and just as many surplus aviators. Most aircraft would meet the salvage blade and the smelter’s fiery furnace. Most pilots would return to civilian life, the bulk of them never to fly again.
With the plethora of military aircraft languishing in desert lots awaiting a certain fate, some of those disenfranchised aviators and aircraft designers would look to new growing markets for salvation. One of these emerging markets was the new-found requirement for fast and capable business transport aircraft for executives looking to link business interests across the vast distances of the nation. With few purpose-built business aircraft available for executives, medium bombers became the drug of choice for high flying big shots—fast, powerful and, with the right interior appointments, a visual statement of their success and power.
In early variants like the Executive, On Mark simply removed military equipment and replaced them with fairings and civil avionics, sealed the bomb bay doors, soundproofed the cabin, and added additional cabin windows. Later models had special wing spars designed to give more interior room, pressurization and equipment from bigger surplus aircraft such as DC-6 brakes and flat glass cockpit windows. It was an elegant mashing together of equipment, but it was not a true business aircraft.
In the Sixties, Jet Craft Ltd. of Las Vegas, Nevada, went for a different interpretation of the same topic: The company had purchased a number of former Royal Australian Air Force Vampire trainers and RCAF single-seaters, which were to be converted to a new design for a business aircraft called 'Mystery Jet', offering 4-8-seats.
Jet Craft worked with stellar British conversion experts Aviation Traders to do the structural design work. Aviation Traders Limited (ATL) was a war-surplus aircraft and spares trader formed in 1947. In 1949, it began maintaining aircraft used by some of Britain’s contemporary independent airlines on the Berlin Airlift. In the early 1950s, it branched out into aircraft conversions and manufacturing.
Aviation Traders worked on the drawings and the structural mock-ups. A full-scale mock-up of the Mystery Jet languished at Southend airport for a decade, trying to lure owners and operators into buying it. And this actually happened: about twenty former Vampire airframes were converted into Mystery Jet business aircraft, tailored to the customers' needs and desires.
The Mystery Jet was just what it looked like: a former De Havilland Vampire with a new, roomy nose section grafted onto it. The cabin was pressurized, and was available in two different lengths (130 and 160 inches long, with two or three rows of seats and reflected in the aircraft's title) and several window and door options - the most exotic option being the "Landaulet" cabin which featured a panoramic roof/window installation over the rear pair of seats (or, alternatively, a two-seat bench).
The original Goblin engine was retained, CG was retained due to the fact that the new cabin was, despite being considerably longer than the Vampire's nose, the biggest version being more than 8 feet longer. The new front section was much lighter, though, e. g. through the loss of the heavy cannons and their armament, as well as some more military avionics. The loss of fuel capacity through the enlarged cabin was compensated through fixed wing tip tanks, so that range was on par with the former military jet, just top speed and ceiling were slightly inferior.
Anyway, prices were steep and from the United States more modern and economical offerings ruled the market. Maintaining a former military jet was also a costly business, so, consequently, after a slight buzz (more of a hum, actually) in the early Seventies, the Mystery Jet and Jet Craft of Las Vegas, also fuelled by some dubious business practices by the company's owner, disappeared. Even further developments of the original concept, e .g. with a wide body for up to 14 passengers and two engines, would not save the Mystery Jet from failure.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1 pilot plus 5-7 passengers
Length (Mystery Jet 160): 38 ft 5 in (11.73 m)
Wingspan incl. tip tanks: 39 ft 7 1/2 in (12.09 m)
Height: 8 ft 10 in (2.69 m)
Wing area: 262 ft² (24.34 m²)
Empty weight: 7,283 lb (3,304 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 12,390 lb (5,620 kg)
Powerplant:
1× de Havilland Goblin 3 centrifugal turbojet, rated at 3,350 lbf (14.90 kN)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 516 mph (832 km/h)
Cruising speed: 400 mph (644 km/h)
Range: 1,220 mi (1,960 km)
Service ceiling: 37,700 ft (11,500 m)
Armament:
None
The kit and its assembly:
The first finished work in 2017 is a different kind of whif, one of the few civilian models in my collection. This conversion looks sick, but ,as weird as it may seem, the Business-Jet-From-Vintage-Vampires idea was real. For more information, and the source from where some of the backgound story was gathered, please check:
www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/article...
Anyway, my build is just a personal interpretation of the original concept, not a true model of the Mystery Jet. In fact, this was limited through the donor parts for this kitbash.
The rear end was the smaller problem: Airfix offers a very good Vampire T.11 trainer with excellent detail and fit - the passenger cabin was the bigger challenge. Finding "something" that would fit in shape and especialsl size was not easy - my first choice was a nose section from a vintage 1:100 Antonow An-24 from VEB Plasticart (still much too wide, though), and the best solution came as an accidental find in a local model kit shop where I found a heavily discounted MPM Focke Wulf Fw 189 B-0 trainer.
The reason: the kit was complete, but the bag holding the sprues must have been heated immensely during the packaging process: the main sprues were horrible warped - except for some single parts including the canopies and the sprue with the cabin! Height wind width were perfect, only the boxy shape caused some headaches. But I guess I would not find anything better...
That said, the transplantation mess started. I never built any of the two donor kits before, so I carefully tried to find the best place where to cut the Vampire's nose - I ended up with a staggered solution right in front of the wing root air intakes.
The Fw 189's cabin was bit more tricky, because I had to get rid of the original wing roots and wanted to use as much space as possible, up to the rear bulkhead and together with the rear cabin window. The idea was to blend the Fw 189's roof line into the Vampire's engine section, while keeping the original air intake ducts, so that the overall arrangement would look plausible.
The result became a pretty long nose section - and at that time the tail booms were not fited yet, so I was not certain concerning overall proportions. The cabin's underside had to be improvised, and blending the boxy front end with a flat underside into the tubby, round Vampire fuselage caused some headaches. I also had to re-create the lower flank section with styrene sheet, because I had originally hoped that I could "push" the new cabin between the wing roots - but that space was occupied by the Goblin's inlet ducts.
Inside of the cabin, the original floor, bulkheads and dashboard were used, plus five bucket seats that come with the MPM kit. In order to hide the body work from the inside, side panels from 0.5mm styrene sheet were added in the cabin - with the benefit of additional stability, but also costing some space... Since the machine was built with closed cabin, a pilot was added - actually a bash of a WWII Matchbox pilot and a German officer from an ESCI tank kit. Looks pretty good and "professional". ;-)
Once the cabin was in place, lots of PSR followed and the tail booms could be fitted. To my relief, the longer nose did not look too unbalanced (and actually, design sketches for the original Mystery Jet suggest just this layout!) - but I decided to add wing tip tanks which would beef up wingspan and shift the visual mass slightly forward. They come from an 1:100 Tamiya Il-28, or better the "R" recce variant.
The only other big change concerned the nose wheel. While the OOB wheel and strut were used, the well is now located in front of the wheel and it would retract forwards, giving the nose a more balanced look - and the cabin arrangement made this change more plausible, too.
Another addition were three small porthole windows in the solid parts of the cabin flanks - one of them ending up in the middle of the cabin door on starboard, where a solid part of the canopy roof lent itself for a good place just behind the pilots' seats.
Painting and markings:
I cannot help it, but the thing looks like a design from a vintage Tintin or Yoko Tsuno comic! This was not planned or expected - and actually the paint scheme evolved step by step. I had no plan or clue what to apply - the real Mystery Jet mock-up in silver with blue trim looked sharp, but somehow I did not want blue. So I started with the interior (out of a necessity, as the fuselage had to be closed before any further work progress at some point) and settled for plushy, British colors: Cream (walls and roof) and Claret-Red (carpet and seats).
I tried to find something for the outside that would complement this choice of colors, and eventually settled on Ivory and White (upper and lower fuselage halves, respectively) with some deep red trim, plus pale grey wing surfaces. I even considered some thin golden trim lines, but I think this would have been too much?
The trim was created with decals tripes from generic sheet material, the black anti-glare panel was painted, though. As a color contrast I painted some of the upper canopy panels in translucent, light blue, and this looks very good.
The wings received a lightb treatment with thinned black ink, in order to emphasize the engravings. No post-shading was done, though, for a rather clean look.
Most markings were puzzled together; the registration G-AZRE actually belonged to a Vickers Vanguard (from the 1:144 Airfix kit), the large letters above and under the wings were created with single 45° letters (USAF style). Most stencils come from a Vampire trainer aftermarket sheet from Xtradecal, from the OOB sheet only the "No step" warnings on the wings were used.
Finally, the kit was sealed with a semi-matt coat of varnish, except for the anti-glare panel, which recived a matt coat. The three small windows received artificial panes made from Clearfix, after their rims had been painted black.
A messy project, and you better do not take a close look. But the overall elegance of this creation surprises me - the real Mystery Jet already looked sleek, and this model, despite a more blunt nose, confirms this impression. The colors work together well, too - and the thing has a dedicated retro feel about it. Tintin might be on board, as well as Elton John, both sharing a cigar on the rear seats... ;)
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based 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!
So I've been wanting to put Rapunzel on a slimmer but poseable body like Obitsu for ages but I've been a lazy butt about ordering one.
When I got back home I found my parts box of doll parts, including an Olsen Twin torso I had one cracked open to accept a pair of Barbie arms and melted the lower half to make it fit into an Obitsu pelvis.
I eventually gave up on this after getting frustrated at the Barbie Arms' lack of wrist articulation and shelved the project.
But hey, I had a junky Liv body to cannibalise the arms out of so I figure I got a chance to make a slimmer body for Rapunzel heh.
The hardest part about this is that the arm posts for the Liv shoulders are the right width but they sit far too deep in the torso (weirdly enough Belly Button/Fashionista Barbie arms fit the torso perfectly so yeah) so I had to fill in the gap in the shoulder hole with Milliput/putty so the arms could sit a bit more naturally in the torso.
But hey, I managed to get an obitsu proportioned figure for my Rapunzel doll without buying a new body so woo.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
After the Ukrainian independence in 1991, the Ukrainian Air Force (Повітряні Сили України, Povitryani Syly Ukrayiny) was established on March 17, 1992, in accordance with a Directive of the General Staff Chief of the Armed Forces. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, many aircraft were left on Ukrainian territory, including a wide range of fighters and attack aircraft, helicopters and even strategic bombers, and these became the initial equipment. Ever since, the Ukrainian air force has been downsizing and upgrading its forces, but for many years the main inventory still consisted of Soviet-made aircraft.
Following the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution and subsequent March 2014 Russian annexation of the Crimea peninsula and the following violence and insurgency in east Ukraine, the Ukrainian government tried to increase its defense spending and capabilities. Returning equipment (of Russian origin, though) to service was a key part of the spending drive, but in parallel attempts were made to procure flying material from Western sources in order to become moer and more independent from the obtrusive neighbor. In April 2014 two MiG-29 aircraft were restored to flight on short notice and in August a decommissioned An-26 transport aircraft was restored to active service by a volunteer group. On 5 January 2015 the air force received another 4 restored airplanes, two MiG-29s and two Su-27s, as well as two Mi-8 and Mi-2 helicopters. However, since these aircraft had already accumulated a considerable number of flying hours, this could only have been an interim solution and the Ukraine turned directly to NATO for material support.
This politically highly delicate help was eventually granted in the form of eight General Dynamics F-16 C (six) and D (two) multi-role fighters of early Block 40 standard, leased from the U.S.A. and diverted from active aircraft which were about to become surplus stock and mothballed, anyway.
The F-16 Fighting Falcon itself was a single-engine supersonic multirole fighter aircraft originally developed by General Dynamics for the United States Air Force (USAF). Designed as a light air superiority day fighter as a complement to the heavier F-15 Eagle interceptor, it evolved into a successful all-weather multirole aircraft. Over 4,600 aircraft were built since production was approved in 1976. In 1993, General Dynamics sold its aircraft manufacturing business to the Lockheed Corporation, which in turn became part of Lockheed Martin after a 1995 merger with Martin Marietta.
Although no longer being purchased by the launch customer, the U.S. Air Force, improved versions are still being built for export customers – the F-16 has been procured to serve in the air forces of 25 other nations all around the world, making it one of the world's most numerous fixed-wing aircraft in military service.
The Fighting Falcon's key features include a frameless bubble canopy for better visibility, side-mounted control stick to ease control while maneuvering, an ejection seat reclined 30 degrees from vertical to reduce the effect of g-forces on the pilot, and the first use of a relaxed static stability/fly-by-wire flight control system which helps to make it an agile aircraft. The F-16 has an internal M61 Vulcan cannon and the advanced C/D version features a total of 11 locations for mounting weapons and other mission equipment.
The eight machines for the Ukraine arrived in June 2016 via direct transfer flights over the Atlantic and Western Europe. The former USAF machines were delivered “as is”, even though they had some state-of-the-art avionics replaced by less sensitive alternatives from older F-16 production blocks. Together with the fighters, an undisclosed number of AIM-9M Sidewinder and AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles were delivered, but the leasing agreement did not include LANTIRN pods that would provide the F-16C/D with improved all-day/all-weather strike capability. Other equipment like ECM pods was also not included. Service, maintenance and logistics for the new type in Ukrainian service was, due to the small operational number, secured with the help of the Polish air force, which had been operating 48 F-16C/D+ Block 52 fighters since 2006 and had the required experience and facilities at its 31st Tactical Air Base in Poznań-Krzesiny.
Upon arrival, the aircraft were immediately re-painted in a striking digital camouflage and received non-consecutive tactical codes, apparently based on the airframe’s former U.S. serial numbers, using the last two digits. They were all allocated to the 40th Tactical Aviation Brigade, based at Vasylkiv air base, south of Kiev, where they replaced a number of outdated and partly grounded MiG-29 fighters. They were exclusively tasked with aerial defense of the Ukrainian capital city – also as a political sign that the machines were not intended for attack missions.
Since their introduction, the Ukrainian F-16s have been fulfilling QRA duties and airspace patrol, and the corresponding maintenance infrastructure has been gradually built up, so that F-16 operations became independent from Poland in 2019. With the worsening relationship to Russia, more military hardware of Western origin is expected to enter Ukrainian service. If the tight Ukrainian defense budget allows it, twenty more 2nd hand F-16s are to be delivered in 2021 to replace more Soviet fighter types (primarily the rest of the Ukrainian MiG-29 “Fulcrum” single and two seater fleet), and the procurement of LANTIRN pods to expand the type’s capabilities is under consideration and negotiations, too.
General characteristics:
Length: 49 ft 5 in (15.06 m)
Wingspan: 32 ft 8 in (9.96 m)
Height: 16 ft (4.9 m)
Wing area: 300 sq ft (28 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 64A204
Empty weight: 18,900 lb (8,573 kg)
Gross weight: 26,500 lb (12,020 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 42,300 lb (19,187 kg)
Internal fuel capacity: 7,000 pounds (3,200 kg)
Powerplant:
1× General Electric F110-GE-100 afterburning turbofan
with 17,155 lbf (76.31 kN) dry and 28,600 lbf (127 kN) thrust with afterburner
Performance:
Maximum speed: Mach 2.05 at altitude in clean configuration
Mach 1.2, 800 kn (921 mph; 1,482 km/h) at sea level
Combat range: 295 nmi (339 mi, 546 km) on a hi-lo-hi mission with 4x 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs
Ferry range: 2,277 nmi (2,620 mi, 4,217 km) with drop tanks
Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,000 m) plus
g limits: +9.0 (limited by flight control system)
Rate of climb: +50,000 ft/min (250 m/s)
Wing loading: 88.3 lb/sq ft (431 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 1.095 (1.24 with loaded weight & 50% internal fuel)
Armament:
1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M61A1 Vulcan 6-barrel rotary cannon with 511 rounds
2× wing-tip air-to-air missile launch rails plus 6× under-wing
and 3× under-fuselage pylon (2 of these for sensors) stations
with a capacity of up to 17,000 lb (7,700 kg) of a wide range of stores
The kit and its assembly:
I am not a big F-16 fan, but in some cases it’s an unavoidable canvas – just like in this case here. This fictional aircraft model (or better: this model of a [yet] fictional F-16 operator) was spawned by two ideas. One was the simple question: what if the Ukraine had after the USSR’s dissolution chosen a stronger attachment to (old) Western forces after the dissolution of the USSSR? And/or: what if the Ukraine had started to procure non-Russian equipment, esp. aircraft? So, what would an Ukrainian F-16 might have looked like, in general but esp. after the Crimea annexation in 2014 when such a scenario had become even more possible?
The other source of inspiration was a picture of an Ukrainian Su-24 with grey digital camouflage, a scheme that was/is also worn by some Su-25s. When I stumbled upon an Authentic Decals sheet for this unique paint scheme that allows to apply the complex and delicate pattern through water-slide transfers, I thought that the relatively “flat” F-16 surface would be an ideal basis to try this stunt?
What sounded like a very simple livery whif on an OOB model turned into a construction nightmare. Originally, this project provided me with a purpose for a dubious Trumpeter F-16 kit that I had bought some years ago – dead cheap, but righteously so. This kit is cruel, the model even has no concrete variant specification and is apparently the re-boxing of a kit from an obscure Chinese company called “Income”. Effectively, the Trumpeter F-16 is a rip-off of Italeri’s quite nice F-16C/D kit – but the Income/Trumpeter clone comes with MUCH deeper engravings esp. on the fuselage that remind a lot of the dreaded Matchbox “trenches”. Everything is rather “soft” and toylike, the clear parts are poor and the (few) decals look like toy stickers (!!!). I’d call it crude, even the instructions are apparently poor scans or photocopies from the Italeri kit, including hints for detail painting with no corresponding reference what colors should be used at all… All that could have been overlooked, but after starting with the kit I could not commit myself to use it any further. It’s rare that I give up because of a kit’s basis!
Next idea to “save” the project’s idea of an Ukrainian F-16 was to dig out a surplus Intech F-16 from the pile, also bought long ago because it was cheap, as conversion fodder. This kit has also been re-released in infinite variations under the Mister-/Mastercraft label. Upon closer inspection this kit turned out to have massive flaws, too, but in different areas from the Trumpeter thing. For instance, the Intech kit’s wings are utterly thick, certainly 1mm thicker than the Trumpeter model’s parts. This does not sound much, but on the really thin F-16 wings and stabilizers this looks really awful! Furthermore, the clear parts had not been fully molded, so I’d have needed a replacement canopy, anyway. Again, I gave up on building…
…until I decided to make the best of this mess and combine the “best” parts from both gimp models, trying to mend the worst flaws to an acceptable level. This led to the glorious kitbashing that this model eventually became! From the Intech kit I took the acceptable fuselage, including cockpit interior, air intake and landing gear, as well as the fin and the weapon pylons. The Trumpeter kit donated its thinner wings and the stabilizers, as well as the much better open exhaust nozzle (there’s an optional closed one, too; the Intech kit only offers an open nozzle, without ANY surface detail at all, it’s just a blank pipe!).
Beyond these basic ingredients, some more donors became necessary: All clear parts from both Intech and Trumpeter kit turned out to be rubbish for various reasons. The decision to build an F-16D two-seater was dictated by the fact that I had a leftover canopy from an Italeri F-16 kit in the donor bank – luckily it fitted well to the Intech kit’s body. Two crewmen from the spares box populate the cockpit and hide the rather basic interior, which was not improved at all. Furthermore, the ordnance came from external sources, too. The characteristic drop tanks with their cut-off tails were also leftover parts from the Italeri F-16, all AAMs come from a Hasegawa weapon set.
Some PSR was necessary to blend the parts from different kits together – thankfully, almost all F-16 kits are constructed in a similar fashion, even though there are small detail differences. In this case, the wings had to be slightly modified to fit onto the Intech fuselage. However, even those parts from the original kit(s) that are supposed to fit, e.g. the fin or the alternative cockpit opening frames for the optional single- and two-seater canopies, do hardly match at all. Horrible.
I rather focused on the model’s exterior, and a personal addition to improve the overall look of the otherwise rather basic/poor model, I added some small blade antennae that were totally missing on either model. Another extra detail are the small static dischargers on the trailing edges, created with thin, heated sprue material. Only small details, but they improve IMHO the model’s look considerably.
Painting and markings:
Until today, I never dared to apply decal camouflage to a model, but I expected that the flat/smooth F-16 surface would make this stunt relatively easy. This application method would also make painting the model easy, since only a single, uniform color had to be laid down from above and below.
To my surprise, the painting instructions of the Authentic Decals sheet for a number of Ukrainian Su-25 (which all carry the same standardized pixel camouflage) indicated RAL tones – a little surprising, but: why not? Since no other authentic color references were available, I cross-checked the paint suggestions with real life pictures of Su-24s and -25s in this striking paint scheme, and the indicated tones appear very plausible.
The problem: not every RAL tone is available as a model paint, so I had to make guesstimates. This eventually led to Modelmaster 2133 (Fulcrum Grey) as a light grey overall basis (suggested: RAL 7030 Achatgrau/Agate Grey, a tone with a brownish hue) from above and Humbrol 47 (Sea Blue Gloss) for a pale blue underside. The recommendation for the belly is RAL 7001 (Silbergrau/Silver Grey, very close to FS 36375), and this appears plausible, too, even though real-life pictures suggest a more bluish tone. But for a more dramatic look and some color contrast to the upper side’s all-grey I deliberately settled upon the Humbrol color, and this looks IMHO good.
The other suggested grey tones that make up the pixel patterns are RAL 7040 (Fenstergrau/Window Grey), RAL 7037 (Staubgrau/Dust Grey) and RAL 7043 (Verkehrsgrau B/Traffic Grey).
The cockpit interior was painted in medium grey (FS 36231, Humbrol 140), the air intake and the landing gear in white (Humbrol 22). The exhaust nozzle was painted externally with individual Metallizer mixes (with blue and gold added), while the inside was painted with Burnt Steel Metallizer towards the afterburner section while the ceramic nozzle petals were painted in a pale, almost white grey with darker lines, applied wet-in-wet. This looks pretty good – but does not withstand a closer inspection, just like the rest of this Franken-bashed F-16 thing.
Applying the digital camouflage pattern went better than expected. The decals turned out to be very thin and delicate, though, with almost no excessive clear film outside of the printed areas, so that application had to be executed swiftly and with lots of water to slide them into place. Nothing for modelers who are faint at heart! Because the single pixel clouds partly follow the Su-25 outlines, the decals had partly to be tailored to the rather different F-16 shape, and due to the different proportions I also had to improvise with the material at hand – fortunately the Su-25 sheet offered enough material to cover the F-16! Some small areas lacked decal material and had to be filled through painting, though, with replacement model paints for the aforementioned darker RAL greys, namely Humbrol 246 (RLM 75) and a 2:1 mix of Humbrol 125 and 67. The lightest grey on the prints turned out to be very close to the Fulcrum Grey, so there’s unfortunately very little contrast, and this only became clear after the decals had already dried. However, I left it that way, because lightening the Fulcrum Grey up further would have been a quite messy affair, ending in a rather dirty look that I wanted to avoid, and it had called for an almost white tone.
Another challenge became the weathering process, since I normally apply a black ink wash and some post-panel shading to the finished and painted model before I add the decals to a model. Fearing that the ink might creep under the decals’ clear sections, I left that step out completely. The delicate static dischargers were another complicating factor. So, I decided to finish the upper camouflage with the light grey base and the decals cammo first. This made trimming down excess decal material easier. After that had been roughly finished, the dischargers were added and the underside was painted blue. On top of that came the “normal” decals with national markings, codes and stencils. The latter were mostly taken from a vintage Microscale F-16 sheet, the tactical code came from a Begemot Ka-27 sheet. Since the bort number on the air intake was not well visible frame every angle, I added a white 77 to the fin, too. Thereafter I added some panel lines with the help of thinned black ink and a soft pencil. This way the model appears pretty clean, and I think that’s fine since many recent Ukrainian aircraft I know from pictures look well-tended. Finally, the model was sealed with matt acrylic varnish overall.
A simple F-16 in alternative markings – that’s what this model was supposed to be. I did not expect that the building phase would become such a challenge, and I’d sincerely recommend to any modeler who wants to build a “serious” F-16 in 1:72 to stay away from the Trumpeter and the Intech/Mister-/Mastercraft kits. They might be cheap, but that does not outweigh their flaws and building troubles.
Beyond these technical issues, I like the look of this “Ukrainized” Viper, the digital camouflage looks very special and works well on the aircraft. The light grey base could have been lighter, though. In fact, the F-16 now looks like an exaggerated U.S. Aggressor on first sight, but with the Ukrainian markings the whole thing looks pretty different and conclusive - a “what if” in the best sense. 😉
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 historical facts. BEWARE!
Development studies at Grumman for jet-powered fighter aircraft began near the end of World War II as the first jet engines emerged. In a competition for a jet-powered night fighter for the United States Navy, on 3 April 1946 the Douglas F3D Skyknight was selected over Grumman's G-75, a two-seater powered by four Westinghouse J30s. The Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) also issued a contract to Grumman for two G-75 prototype aircraft on 11 April 1946, in case the Skyknight ran into problems.
However, Grumman soon realized that the G-75 was a dead end. But the company had been working on a completely different day fighter, the G-79, which offered a higher potential. In order to keep Grumman in the US Navy’s procurement loop, BuAer, in a bureaucratic maneuver, did not cancel the G-75 contract, but changed the wording to include prototypes of the entirely different G-79, too.
The G-79 project comprised a total of four different layouts and engine arrangements for a single seat fighter aircraft. G-79A and B were traditional tail sitters, but both featured mixed propulsion for an enhanced performance: G-79A was powered by an R-2800 radial engine and a Rolls Royce Derwent VI jet booster in the tail, fed by a pair of dorsal air intakes behind the cockpit. The G-79B was a similar aircraft, but its primary engine was a General Electric TG-100 turboprop in a more slender nose section. Even though both designs were big aircraft, initial calculations indicated a performance that would be superior to the Grumman F8F Bearcat, which had been designed as a thoroughbred interceptor.
The other two designs were pure jet fighters, both with a tricycle landing gear. G-79C had a layout reminiscent of the Gloster Meteor and was powered by two Derwent VI engines in bulky wing nacelles, and G-79D was finally an overall smaller and lighter aircraft, similar in its outlines to the early Vought F6U Pirate, and powered by a single Nene in the rear fuselage, fed by air intakes in the wing roots.
Since the operation of jet-powered aircraft from carriers was terra incognita for the US Navy, and early turbojets thirsty and slow to react to throttle input, BuAer decided to develop two of Grumman's G-79 designs into prototypes for real life evaluation: one of the conservative designs, as a kind of safe route, and one of the more modern jets.
From the mixed propulsion designs, the turboprop-powered G-79B was chosen (becoming the XF9F-1 'JetCat'), since it was expected to offer a higher performance and development potential than the radial-powered 'A'. From the pure jet designs the G-79D was chosen, because of its simplicity and compact size, and designated XF9F-2 'Panther'.
The first JetCat prototype made its maiden flight on 26 October 1947, but it was only a short airfield circuit since the TG-100 turpoprop failed to deliver full power and the jet booster had not been installed yet. The prototype Panther, piloted by test pilot Corky Meyer, first flew on 21 November 1947 without major problems.
In the wake of the two aircrafts' test program, several modifications and improvements were made. This included an equal armament of four 20mm guns (mounted in the outer, foldable wings on the JetCat and, respectively, in the Panther’s nose). Furthermore, both aircraft were soon armed with underwing HVAR air-to-ground rockets and bombs, and the JetCat even received an underfuselage pylon for the potential carriage of an airborne torpedo. Since there was insufficient space within the foldable wings and the fuselage in both aircraft for the thirsty jet’s fuel, permanently mounted wingtip fuel tanks were added on both aircraft, which incidentally improved the fighters' rate of roll. Both F9F types were cleared for flight from aircraft carriers in September 1949.
The F9F-1 was soon re-engined with an Allison T38 turboprop, which was much more reliable than the TF-100 (in the meantime re-designated XT31) and delivered a slightly higher power output. Another change was made for the booster: the bulky Derwent VI engine from the prototype stage was replaced by a much more compact Westinghouse J34 turbojet, which not only delivered slightly more thrust, it also used up much less internal space which was used for radio and navigation equipment, a life raft and a relocated oil tank. Due to a resulting CG shift towards the nose, the fuselage fuel cell layout had to be revised. As a consequence, the cockpit was moved 3’ backwards, slightly impairing the pilot’s field of view, but it was still superior to the contemporary Vought F4U.
Despite the engine improvements, though, the F9F-1 attained markedly less top speed than the F9F-2. On the other side, it had a better rate of climb and slow speed handling characteristics, could carry more ordnance and offered a considerably bigger range and extended loiter time. The F9F-2 was more agile, though, and more of the nimble dogfighter the US Navy was originally looking for. Its simplicity with just a single engine was appealing, too.
The Panther was eventually favored as the USN's first operational jet day fighter and put into production, but the F9F-1 showed much potential as a fast fighter bomber. Through pressure from the USMC, who was looking for a replacement for its F7F heavy Tigercat fighters, a production order for 50 JetCats was eventually placed, later augmented to 82 aircraft because the US Navy also recognized the type’s potential as a fast, ship-borne multi-role fighter. Further interest came in 1949 from Australia, when the country’s government was looking for a - possibly locally-built in license - replacement for the outdated Mustang Mk 23 and De Havilland Vampire then operated by the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). Both Grumman designs were potential contenders, rivalling with the domestic CAC CA-23 fighter development.
The Grumman Panther became the most widely used U.S. Navy jet fighter of the Korean War, flying 78,000 sorties and scoring the first air-to-air kill by the U.S. Navy in the war, the downing of a North Korean Yakovlev Yak-9 fighter. Being rugged aircraft, F9F-2s, -3s and -5s were able to sustain operations, even in the face of intense anti-aircraft fire. The pilots also appreciated the Panther’s air conditioned cockpit, which was a welcome change from the humid environment of piston-powered aircraft.
The F9F-1 did fare less glamorous. Compared with the prototypes, the T38 turboprop's power output could be enhanced on service aircraft, but not on a significant level. The aircraft's original, rather sluggish response to throttle input and its low-speed handling were improved through an eight-blade contraprop, which, as a side benefit, countered torque problems during starts and landings on carriers.
The JetCat’s mixed powerplant installation remained capricious, though, and the second engine and its fuel meant a permanent weight penalty. The aircraft's complexity turned out to be a real weak point during the type's deployment to front line airfields in the Korean War, overall readiness was – compared with conservative types like the F4U and also the F9F-2, low. Despite the turboprop improvements, the jet booster remained necessary for carrier starts and vital in order to take on the MiG-15 or post-war piston engine types of Soviet origin like the Lavochkin La-9 and -11 or the Yakowlev Yak-9.
Frequent encounters with these opponents over Korea confirmed that the F9F-1 was not a “naturally born” dogfighter, but rather fell into the escort fighter or attack aircraft class. In order to broaden the type's duty spectrum, a small number of USMC and USN F9F-1s was modified in field workshops with an APS-6 type radar equipment from F4U-4N night fighters. Similar to the Corsair, the radar dish was carried in a streamlined pod under the outer starboard wing. The guns received flame dampers, and these converted machines, re-designated F9F-1N, were used with mild success as night and all-weather fighters.
However, the JetCat remained unpopular among its flight and ground crews and, after its less-than-satisfactory performance against MiGs, quickly retired. After the end of the Korean War in July 1953, all machines were grounded and by 1954 all had been scrapped. However, the turboprop-powered fighter bomber lived on with the USMC, which ordered the Vought A3U SeaScorpion as successor.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 40 ft 5 in (12,31 m)
Wingspan: 43 ft 5 in (13,25 m)
Height: 15 ft 6 3/4 in (4,75 m)
Wing area: 250 ft² (23 m²)
Empty weight: 12,979 lb (5,887 kg)
Gross weight: 24,650 lb (11,181 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Allison T38E turboprop, rated at 2,500 shp (1,863 kW) plus 600 lbf (2.7 kN) residual thrust
1× Westinghouse J34-WE-13 turbojet booster with 3,000 lbf (13.35 kN)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 507 mph (441 kn; 816 km/h) at 30,000 ft (9,100 m)
497 mph (432 kn, 800 km/h) at sea level
Cruise speed: 275 mph (443 km/h; 239 kn) at 30,000 ft (9,100 m)
Stall speed: 74 mph (119 km/h; 64 kn) with flaps
Range: 2,500 mi (2,172 nmi; 4,023 km)
Service ceiling: 47,000 ft (14,000 m)
Rate of climb: 5,300 ft/min (27 m/s)
Wing loading: 71 lb/ft² (350 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.42
Armament:
4× 20 mm (0.79 in) AN/M3 cannon in the outer, foldable wings with 220 RPG
Underwing hardpoints and provisions to carry combinations of up to 6× 5 " (127 mm) HVAR
missiles and/or bombs on underwing hardpoints, for a total ordnance of 3,000 lb (1,362 kg)
The kit and its assembly:
This is another submission to the Cold War GB at whatifmodelers in early 2018, and rather a spontaneous idea. It was actually spawned after I finished my fictional Gudkov Gu-1 mixed propulsion fighter - while building (using the engine front from an F6F Hellcat) I had the impression that it could also have ended up as a post-war USN fighter design.
A couple of days later, while browsing literature for inspiration, I came across Grumman's G-79 series of designs that eventually led to the F9F Panther - and I was amazed that the 'A' design almost looked like my kitbashed Soviet fighter!
So I considered a repeated build of a P-47D/Supermarine Attacker kitbash, just in American colors. But with the F9F relationship, I planned the integration of Panther parts, so that the new creation would look different from the Gu-1, but also show some (more) similarity to the Panther.
The plan appeared feasible. Again, the aircraft's core is an Academy P-47D, with its outer wings cut off. Cockpit and landing gear were retained. However, instead of Supermarine Attacker wings from a Novo kit, I attached F9F-2 wings from a Hasegawa kit. Shape-wise this worked fine, but the Panther wings are much thinner than the Thunderbolt’s, so that I had to integrate spacers inside of the intersections which deepen the Hasegawa parts. Not perfect, but since the type would feature folding wings, the difference and improvisation is not too obvious.
On the fuselage, the Thunderbolt’s air outlets on its flanks were faired over and most of the tail section cut away. In the lower part of the tail, a jet pipe (from a Heller F-84G) was added and blended with PSR into the Thunderbolt fuselage, similar to the Gu-1. A completely new fin was scratched from an outer wing section from a Heinkel He 189, in an attempt to copy the G-79B's shape according to the drawing I used as benchmark for the build. I also used the F9F's stabilizers. With clipped tips they match well in size and shape, and add to the intended Grumman family look. The original tail wheel well was retained, but the tail wheel was placed as far back as possible and replaced by the twin wheel from a Hasegawa F5U. The Panther’s OOB tail hook was integrated under the jet pipe, too.
The front section is completely different and new, and my choice fell on the turboprop-powered G-79B because I did not want to copy the Gu-1 with its radial engine. However, the new turboprop nose was not less complicated to build. Its basis is a 1:100 engine and contraprop from a VEB Plasticart Tu-20/95 bomber, a frequent ingredient in my builds because it works so well in 1:72 scale. This slender core was attached to the Thunderbolt's fuselage, and around this basis a new cowling was built up with 2C putty, once more in an attempt to mimic the original G-79B design as good as possible.
In order to blend the new engine with the fuselage and come close to the G-79B’s vaguely triangular fuselage diameter, the P-47's deep belly was cut away, faired over with styrene sheet, and everything blended into each other with more PSR work. As a final step, two exhaust pipes were mounted to the lower fuselage in front of the wings’ leading edge.
The air intakes for the jet booster are actually segments from a Sopwith Triplane fuselage (Revell) – an unlikely source, but the shape of the parts was just perfect. More PSR was necessary to blend them into the aircraft’s flanks, though.
Painting and markings:
As per usual, I'd rather go with conservative markings on a fictional aircraft. Matching the Korean War era, the aircraft became all-over FS 35042 (Modelmaster). A black ink wash emphasized the partly re-engraved panel lines, and some post shading highlighted panels.
The wings’ leading edges and the turboprop’s intake were painted with aluminum, similar edges on fin and stabilizers were created with silver decal material. The interior of cockpit and landing gear was painted with green chromate primer.
The markings were puzzled together. “Stars and Bars” and VF-53 markings were taken from a Hobby Boss F4U-4 kit. The blue fin tip is the marking for the 3rd squadron, so that the “307” tactical code is plausible, too (the latter comes from a Hobby Boss F9F-2). In order to keep things subtle and more business-like (after all, the aircraft is supposed to be operated during the ongoing Korean War), I did not carry the bright squadron color to any other position like the spinner or the wing tips.
After some final detail work and gun and exhaust soot stains, the kit was sealed with semi-gloss acrylic varnish (Italeri). Matt acrylic varnish was used for weathering effects, so that the aircraft would not look too clean and shiny.
While it is not a prefect recreation of the Grumman G-79B, I am quite happy with the result. The differences between the model and the original design sketch can be explained through serial production adaptations, and overall the whole thing looks pretty conclusive. In fact, the model appears from certain angles like a naval P-51 on steroids, even though the G-79B was a much bigger aircraft than the Mustang.
Beatrix Dante, an original steampunk character of my own devising, inspired by the classic 'Devil May Cry' videogames, and a 1/6 scale kitbash action figure, conceived, assembled and photographed by myself employing layered filters from Enjoyphoto, Superphoto and default editing apps on my cameraphone.
A kitbash using a Phicen body and the blonde headsculpt by Kimi , also wearing a cowgirl outfit by Super Duck .
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based 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.
I didn't like how the side of the window ledges weren't painted so I decided to very carefully paint them.
+++ 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.
+++ 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.
An original 1/6 scale kitbash figure of Lara Croft, inspired by the latest video game, 'Rise of The Tomb Raider', photographed using layered filters from Enjoyphoto, Photoshop, Superphoto & default editing apps on my cameraphone.
SH-RP4
(ruggedized modified power droid)
Custom built from a heavily modified Industrial Automation EG series chassis and incorporating the processing unit of an R-series astromech, SH-RP4 and its sister units were co-designed by archaeologists and technologists at the Shadow University. They were engineered for use in investigations of remote areas where traditional power droids might be unable to navigate. By incorporating the analytical and communication capacity of an astromech, the SH-RP4 also offered archaeologists with data storage, retrieval, uplink, and analysis functions.
Of 12 such units built in the Shadow University’s technology recovery lab, SH-RP4 was one of the only droids that had a personality chip which seemed to harmonize within the new form and capabilities. Colloquially, it was “happy” in this new body. Affable and easy to work with, SH-RP4 was the most often requested companion droid by investigating archaeologists with enough clout to burn on their requisition forms - or credits to bribe the mechanics in the garage.
Some of the post-doc fellows and archaeology interns took to lovingly calling this unit "Sherpa" as she worked both as a skilled guide and strong-backed companion.
-------
So, this is my first try at a custom Star Wars model and I'm quite pleased with the results. I pulled this together for The Smuggler's Room YouTube channel's challenge. With a combination of crayon storage boxes, salvaged toy parts, and a 3D printed head, this little kitbash droid has been a joy to pull together.
+++ 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 historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
At the end of WW2, Sweden was in search of a new fighter offering better performance than the J21 could offer. The latter was an indigenous fighter/attack aircraft from SAAB that first took to the air in 1943 and dated back to a requirement from 1941. The J21 was designed as an unusual twin boom pusher configuration, where the propeller was mounted in the rear of the fuselage, pushing the aircraft forward. The advantages of a pusher design were that the view forward was unobstructed and armament could be concentrated in the nose, while the heavy engine was placed close to the center of gravity for better handling and agility. A major drawback was the difficulty in escaping from the aircraft in an emergency, though, as the pilot could get drawn into the propeller blades. SAAB deliberated between systems that would eject the pilot, or jettison the propeller or even the whole engine, via a system of explosive bolts, and eventually installed an early, explosives-powered ejector seat developed by Bofors for this purpose.
However, the SAAB 21 had its share of trouble (overheating an unreliable DB 605 engine), and in 1944 a new requirement for a more powerful and conventional fighter was issued. Selecting the Rolls Royce Griffon as the powerplant, SAAB initially looked into adapting the engine to the J21. However, this proved impractical, so SAAB started work on a clean-sheet design.
The L27, as it was known in the project stage, ended up closely resembling the latest designs to come from Britain like the Supermarine Spitfire or the Martin Baker MB 5, as well as the North American P-51 Mustang. The Griffon engine, chosen for initial development and flight tests, drove a contra-rotating propeller and sat in the nose. Top speed with the Griffon was expected to be around 700 km/h (435 mph). Later production aircraft were to be powered by a domestically developed, new H-24 cylinder motor similar to the British Napier Sabre engine and delivering output in significant excess of 2.200 hp (1.640 kW). With this machine, the aircraft was expected to reach a top speed of 740 km/h (460 mph) or even more.
The wings were similar to those used on the Fairey Firefly, complete with Fairey’s characteristic Youngman flaps, but with small wing root extensions and a thicker profile than the late Spitfires’ wings, and with more rounded wing tips. Similar to the P-51, the L27’s landing gear with a wide track retracted inwards into the wings, and the tail wheel could be fully retracted, too.
Armament, consisting of four 20mm Hispano cannons, was to be concentrated in the wings just outside of the propeller arc, and unlike the Spitfire’s arrangement with underwing coolers, the L27’s single radiator was placed in a ventral tunnel position, very similar to the arrangement on the P-51.
A total of three prototypes were ordered, and the aircraft was now formally designated J27A; two were to be powered by Rolls-Royce Griffon 83 engines, and one as a test structure and earmarked for the development of the 24 cylinder engine and its integration into the projected J27B.
The first flight of a J27A took place in March 1945, and the promising results kept the project evolving until late 1946, when the aircraft was cleared for service and production in January 1947. 70 aircraft with Griffon engines were ordered.
Anyway, in early 1945, SAAB had also launched a project to determine how to provide the J21A with a jet engine to get the experience of jet engines and flying at high speeds. The goal was to catch up with the development of jet aircraft, which were moving ahead fast in England, where, among others, de Havilland already had the de Havilland Vampire in production. The resulting J21R, SAAB's first jet, made its first flight on 10 March 1947 and it marked the death knell for any piston-engine fighter development and use in Sweden. Consequentially the 24 cylinder engine never made it from the drawing board, and after the initial production run of the Griffon-powered J27A was completed until early 1949, further production was stopped and the whole J27 program terminated. Serial production J27As differed only slightly from the prototypes. The most obvious change was a taller vertical stabilizer and a small fin fillet, less obvious was a modified landing gear cover arrangement, because the original design with a single, large cover of the main wheels tended to bulge outward at high speed. A split design mended this problem.
While the J27A’s projected top speed of 700km/h was impressive for a piston-engine fighter and frequently confirmed in service, it was inadequate in the oncoming jet age. In the end, SAAB opted to pursuit jet fighter endeavors that soon led to the very modern and innovative SAAB J29 that soon became Sweden’s standard jet fighter.
In frontline service the J27 was, even though it was popular among its pilots and maintenance crews, almost immediately replaced by jets, at first with the J28B Vampire (from 1951 on), which were in turn quickly replaced in 1952 with the indigenous J29 Tunnan.
The last J27A was, after serving with fighter units primarily in southern Sweden, already retired from frontline duties in 1955. Some aircraft, though, were kept in service as target tugs, liaison aircraft for the air staff and for dissimilar air combat training. The last machine was finally decommissioned in summer 1961.
General characteristics:
Crew: One
Length: 9.90 m (32 ft 5 in)
Wingspan: 11.84 m (38 ft 9 1/2 in)
Height: 4.19 (13 ft 9 in)
Wing area: 22.2 m² (238.87 ft²)
Empty weight: 3,250 kg (7,165 lb)
Loaded weight: 4,150 kg (9,149 lb)
Max. take-off weight: 4,413 kg (9,730 lb)
Powerplant:
1× license-built Rolls-Royce Griffon 83 liquid-cooled V-12 engine, 2,340 hp (1,745 kW),
driving a six-bladed contraprop
Performance:
Maximum speed: 435 mph (700 km/h) at 20,000 ft (6,100 m)
Cruise speed: 495 km/h (265 knots, 308 mph)
Range: 1,100 mi (1,770 km)
Service ceiling: 40,000 ft (12,190 m)
Rate of climb: 3,800 ft/min (19.3 m/s)
Armament:
4× 20 mm Bofors cannon (license-built Hispano Mk.II cannon) with 200 rpg in the outer wings
Underwing hardpoints for 8-12 × 3inch "60 lb" rocket projectiles
or 2× 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs
or a pair of 45 gal (205 l) or 90 gal (409 l) drop tanks.
The kit and its assembly:
This is a “real” what-if model, or at least the attempt to build a phantom aircraft from single parts! The SAAB 27 is a bit of a mystery, because valid information is sparse, especially concerning details about its shape. You find some drawings or profiles, but IMHO these are based on guesswork and rather vague. The J27 is frequently described as a “Swedish Spitfire with a P-51 radiator” or a “Swedish Super-Spitfire”, but that leaves much to be desired, because the similarity is only superficial. Hence, this model here is rather a free interpretation of what a service J27 could have looked like.
For long time I fought with two building options: either convert a Fairey Firefly (Airfix’ Mk. 5 would have been my bet), or use a Spitfire Mk. 22. After long considerations I settled for the latter one, because I feared that the Firefly would result in a rather massive aircraft, and the Airfix kit itself is vintage and worth a building fight on its own.
So I used an Airfix Spitfire Mk. 22, but from this (very nice!) kit just a few things were taken, because I wanted a more individual look. Only the fuselage, cockpit interior and landing gear survived, and I even inserted a 2.5mm wide “wedge plug” around the cockpit and wedge-shaped inserts at the fuselage halves’ seams in order to add some beef to the sleek (if not spindly) Spitfire. I think it’s hard to notice, but the overall proportions look good. At the tail and the front end, the original fuselage width was kept, though.
Reason behind this was the P-51 radiator’s width (leftover from a Matchbox kit) that was considerably wider than the Spitfire fuselage. Furthermore, the thicker/more massive wings from a P-47 (from an early MPM kit) also called for a more massive body.
For the new wings, some adaptations to the Spitfire wing roots had to be made, though, e.g. a bulged mid-wing section under the fuselage. The Thunderbolt parts also had the benefit of wells for a landing gear that retracts inwards. I also used P-47 landing gear parts, even though the struts were shortened at their bases by 3mm and the covers accordingly. For the sake of a different look (the Spitfire wheels are very characteristic) I used different main wheels from a Revell G.91R. The landing gear cover arrangement differs from J27 sketches (as far as I can tell, it must have been similar to the P-51's), but I stuck with the P-47 parts because they match well with the rest of the aircraft.
The contraprop belongs to a late mark Seafire, left over from a Special Hobby kit. The propeller was in so far modified that I added a metal axis and a styrene tube adapter for the fuselage, so that both propeller parts can (theoretically) spin. OOB, the Special Hobby solution is simply to be glued onto the nose, fixed, despite being constructed in two separate parts?
Furthermore, the carburetor intake was changed: the Spitfire’s scoop at the wings’ leading edge was replace by a Firefly-style lip intake right behind the propeller.
The whole tail section was reconditioned, too. Descriptions of the J27’s tail are corny, but “more square than a Spitfire’s”. Instead of simple cosmetic surgery I thoroughly replaced the OOB fin with a Supermarine Attacker’s (Novo kit) with some mods to the outline, which fits well in size and is …more square!
The new tail is a bit taller and has a fin fillet, making it look very P-51-ish, but that’s O.K. for me. At least it’s different from the round Spitfire shape.
I also exchanged the stabilizers, the round Spitfire parts gave way to differently shaped pieces from a Hobby Boss La-7. Their shape is similar to a P-47’s, but they are smaller and match J27 illustrations well.
The canopy was also changed. Through the widened fuselage around the cockpit the tight OOB Spitfire hood would hardly match, anyway. The bubble layout remained, and I adapted a bigger Matchbox P-51 canopy to the new fuselage contours, and moved forward as far as possible.
Painting and markings:
The Swedish Air Force as operator was settled, as well as early post-WWII markings. But I did not want the standard, uniform olive green/blue grey livery, so I painted the upper surfaces with camouflage scheme made from two green tones: a medium green tone (Humbrol 102, Army Green, ~FS 34096) and a bluish, dark green (Humbrol 91, RLM 70 equivalent), applied in bands – somewhat inspired by a scheme carried by some SAAB 32 Lansen in the early 60ies.
The underside was kept in the typical Swedish blue-grey, for which I used Humbrol 87. The waterline was placed very low so that the upper camouflage was also taken to the radiator flanks under the fuselage and wings.
The cockpit was painted in very dark grey (Humbrol 32), while the landing gear and the wells were kept in Aluminum (Humbrol 56).
As a 2nd squadron machine, the code letter became blue, as well as the two-part spinner, latter’s paint was mixed, based on the squadron code letter decal’s tone on the tail.
The roundels and the 'R' codes come from an RBD Studio aftermarket sheet from Sweden, further decals like the yellow ‘9’ code, the squadron’s ‘Bonzo’ dog mascot emblem as well as most stencils come from a Heller SAAB 21.
A complex build, yet the model aircraft looks so innocent… Anyway, the goal was IMHO achieved: this J27 model just looks like a “Swedish Spitfire with a P-51 radiator”, and at first glance you cannot be certain if this is a modified Griffon Spitfire or a P-51D. Both is true, to a certain degree, but also not correct, because the changes are more fundamental and the wings are completely different from either. So, the mission’s been accomplished. ;)
And I feel inclined to tackle a J23, too, a Bf109/P-51B design hybrid that was designed as a conservative alternative to the pusher J21.