View allAll Photos Tagged kitbash

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

 

Some background:

In the late 1920s, the Aéronautique Militaire (Belgian Air Force) set out to replace its old aircraft. Accordingly, Belgian officers attended the Hendon Air Display where they saw a Fairey Firefly and met Fairey staff. The Firefly toured Belgian air bases in 1930 and met with approval from pilots. This led to a contract for 12 UK-built Firefly II to be followed by a further 33 aircraft built in Belgium.

 

Fairey already had a number of Belgians in key roles in the company; Ernest Oscar Tips and Marcel Lobelle had joined during the First World War. Tips went to Belgium to set up the subsidiary company. He based the new company near Charleroi. The fighter ace Fernand Jacquet who operated a flying school nearby joined the company in 1931.

Avions Fairey received further orders for Fireflies followed by Fairey Foxes which would be the main aircraft of the Belgian Air Force; being used as a fighter, bomber and training aircraft.

 

Most of Avions Fairey work was on military contracts. The contact with the Belgian military led to Fairey developing the Fairey Fantôme as a followup to the Firefly for the Belgians. Of the three prototypes, two ended up in Spain (via the USSR) the third as a test aircraft with the RAF.

 

Another indigenous design of Avions Fairey was the Faune fighter, or better: it's fall-back design. The original design for the Faune started as an advanced (for the era) monoplane under the direction of Ernest Oscar Tips in 1934. He grew concerned that the design would not mature, and ordered a backup biplane design, just to be safe.

 

Internally called the "Faune-B", the alternative biplane was also a modern design with staggered, gulled upper wings that were directly attached to the fuselage and stabilized by single spars. The single bay wings were of wooden construction, while the fuselage was of mixed steel and duralumin construction, with a fabric covered steering surfaces.

 

Aerodynamic problems with the favored monoplane design led in 1935 to an end of its development, and further resources were allocated to the biplane. The most significant change of this revised version was the introduction of a retractable landing gear, which necessitated the lower wing main spar to be moved backwards by almost 1' and led to a distinctive wing layout.

 

In this modified guise the first flight was made in October 1936 with Fernand Jacquet at the controls, powered by an imported Bristol Jupiter engine and outfitted with a wooden, fixed pitch propeller. Armament comprised four 7.5 mm (.295 in) MAC 1934 machine guns with 300 RPG, two synchronized in the upper forward fuselage, and one under each lower wing, mounted in an external nacelle outside the propeller disc.

 

The Belgian Air Force accepted the fighter and production as Mk. I started in 1938, now powered by a licensed built Bristol Mercury that drove a three blade variable pitch propeller, and a fully enclosed cockpit. Compared with the very similar Gloster Gladiator, which was used by the Aviation Militaire Belge at that time, too, the Faune showed a higher speed and better climb rate, but was not as agile. The field of view for the pilot was poor, especially on the ground, and the narrow and low landing gear made ground handling, esp. on unprepared airfields, hazardous. Furthermore, the landing gear's complicated manual mechanism was prone to failure, and as a consequence the landing gear was frequently kept down so that the aerodynamic bonus was negated.

 

In late 1939 a total of 42 Avions Fairey Faunes had been built, and in order to compensate for the weaknesses trials were made to incorporate heavier armament in early 1939: the wing-mounted machine guns were on some machines replaced by 20mm Hispano-Suiza HS.404 cannon in deeper fairings and with 40 RPG, and the modified machines were designated Mk. IA. Around 20 machines were converted from service airframes and reached the active squadrons in early 1940. Furthermore, one Faune Mk. I was experimentally outfitted with a streamlined cowling, designated Mk. II, but befor the machine could be tested or even flown, Belgium had been occupied.

 

With the looming German neighbors, Belgium also ordered Hawker Hurricanes to be built in Belgium. However, on 10 May 1940, the Avions Fairey factory was heavily bombed by the Germans, the company personnel evacuated to France, and then left for England. Their ship was sunk by German bombers outside St Nazaire, though, and eight Fairey staff were killed; the survivors worked for the parent company during the Second World War. None of the Belgian Faunes survived this WWII episode.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 27 ft 5 in (8.36 m)

Wingspan: 32 ft 3 in (9.83 m)

Height: 11 ft 9 in (3.58 m)

Wing area: 323 ft2 (30.0 m2)

Empty weight: 3,217 lb (1,462 kg)

Loaded weight: 4,594 lb (2,088 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Bristol Mercury VIII radial engine, 625 kW (840 hp)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 253 mph (220 knots, 407 km/h) at 14,500 ft (4,400 m)

Cruise speed: 210 mph[94]

Stall speed: 53 mph (46 knots, 85 km/h)

Endurance: 2 hours

Service ceiling: 32,800 ft (10,000 m)

Rate of climb: 2,300 ft/min[94] (11.7 m/s)

Climb to 10,000 ft (3,050 m): 4.75 min

 

Armament:

Initially (Mk. I) two synchronised .303" Vickers machine guns in fuselage sides,

plus two .303" Lewis machine guns; one beneath each lower wing.

Mk. IA aircraft had the wing-mounted machine guns replaced by

two 20mm Hispano-Suiza HS.404 cannon

 

The kit and its assembly:

This one was inspired on short notice by a series of side profiles of a fictional British creation called "Bristol Badger", published by whatifmodeler.com's NightHunter with support from Eswube and Darth Panda - very reminiscent of the PZL 24 fighter, but a biplane. A very pretty creation that could rival with the Gloster Gladiator - and seeing the profiles I wondered if a retractable landing gear could be added, in the style of a Grumman F4F or the Curtiss SBC? Hence the idea was born to take this CG creation to the hardware stage.

 

Another side of the story is that I had been pondering about changing the ugly Curtiss SBC into a single seat fighter. And since the "Badger" would be an equivalent build I eventually decided to combine both ideas.

 

Legwork turned out that the Bristol Badger actually existed, so it was not the proper name for this creation. Since my designh benchmark was a Belgian aircraft I simply switched the manufacturer to Avions Fairey (see above). ;)

 

Effectively the Faune is a kitbash of a Heller SBC and a Polikarpov I-15 from ICM - the latter is a noteworthy, small kit because it is full of details, including even an internal frame structure for the cockpit and a highly detailed engine - without any PE parts.

 

From the SBC the fuselage and the lower wing was taken. The I-15 donated the upper gull wing and its tail - the SBC's was cut away where the observer's station would be, and the diameter of both fuselage sections matches well. The I-15's fabric cover on the tail disappeared under putty. The SBC's canopy was also used , just the observer's rearmost part was cut away and a new spine and fairing sculpted from putty.

 

Since I wanted a different engine installation (not the streamlined but somewhat ugly solution of the SBC) the SBC fuselage was also cut away in front of the landing gear wells. Bulkheads from styrene sheet were added, and I implanted the nose section and the Bristol Jupiter engine with an open ring cowling from a Matchbox Vickers Wellesley.

Once the wings were in place I implanted the SBC's struts and some wiring was added. The landing gear comes from the SBC, too. The cannons under the wings come from a Hobby Boss Bf 109F.

  

Painting and markings:

As mentioned above, I used a Belgian Air Force aircraft as design benchmark, and this meant a simple livery in khaki and aluminum dope, similar to Belgian Gloster Gladiators or Fairey Foxes in the late 30ies.

 

The paint scheme is very simple, I used "French Khaki" from Modelmaster's Authentic enamel range and acrylic Aluminum from Revell. All internal surfaces were painted with RAF Cockpit Green (Modelmaster). The wing struts were painted glossy black, just as on Belgian Foxes or Gladiators of the time.

After a light black ink wash I did some shading with Faded Olive Drab, Humbrol 102 and even some RLM 02, while the Aluminum received some panels in Humbrol 56 and Modelmaster's Aluminum Lacquer. Panel lines were added with a simple, soft pencil.

 

The decals had to be puzzled together - originally I wanted to use a set for a Belgian Hurricane, but the carreir film turned out to be brittle, so the roundels now come from a generic TL Modellbau sheet, the "Cocotte Bleue" from an anniversary Mirage 5BE, and the codes actually belong to a Chilean D.H. Venom...

 

Finally, everything was sealed under a mix of 80% flat and 20% gloss acrylic varnish.

 

In the end, a major kitbash that looks rather simple - but I am actually surprised how well the parts of the I-15 and SBC went together. And the result does not look like the Frankenstein creation this whif kit actually is... ;)

 

+++ 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.

 

I'm trying to put together atleast one figure to represent each of the major NATO armies, since no one makes CADPAT we'll say this guy is JTF2 or something seen a lot of pictures of my northern friends in Multicam so I figured this would work.

+++ 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 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 historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

  

General characteristics.

Crew: 1

Length: 33 ft 9 in (10.36 m)

Wingspan: 38 ft 4 in (11.7 m)

Height: 13 ft (3.96 m)

Wing area: 248 sq ft (23 m²)

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

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

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

 

Powerplant:

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

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 559 mph (900 km/h)

Range: 500 mi (444 nmi, 805 km)

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

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

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

Thrust/weight: 0.45

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

 

Armament:

4× Hispano M2 20 mm cannon with 150 rounds

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

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

  

The kit and its assembly:

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

  

Painting and markings:

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

 

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

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

  

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

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

The Fiat Macchi C.170 Brezza ("Gust of wind") was a single-seat biplane fighter which served primarily in Italy's Regia Aeronautica before and in the early stages of World War II. The aircraft was produced by the Varese firm, and entered service, in smaller numbers, with the air forces of Italy, Austria and Hungary.

 

In spite of the biplane configuration, the C.170 was a modern, 'sleek-looking' design based around a strong steel and alloy frame incorporating a NACA cowling housing the radial engine, with fairings for the fixed main landing gear. The C.170's upper wing was slightly larger than its lower wing, carried only by six struts and a few bracing wires. Only the upper wing featured ailerons while the lower wing carried large flaps. Although it looked slightly outdated, the aircraft proved exceptionally agile thanks to its very low wing loading and a powerful, responsive engine.

 

Power was provided by a 650 kW (870 hp) Fiat A.74 14 cylinder radial engine, which also drove the contemporary Fiat CR.32 fighter. With the "direttiva" (Air Ministry Specific) of 1932, Italian industrial leaders had been instructed to concentrate solely on radial engines for fighters, due to their better reliability. The A.74 was actually a re-design of the American Pratt & Whitney R-1830 SC-4 Twin Wasp made by engineers Tranquillo Zerbi and Antonio Fessia, and in the C.170 it was geared to drive a metal three-blade Fiat-Hamilton Standard 3D.41-1 propeller of 2.9 m (9.5 ft) diameter. This allowed an impressive top speed of 441 km/h (272 mph) at 6.500 m (20.000 ft), and 342 km/h (213 mph) at ground level.

 

The first C.170 prototype flew on 24 December 1934 in Lonate Pozzolo, Varese, with Macchi Chief Test Pilot Giuseppe Burei at the controls. It was followed by the second prototype early the next year, which flew with an armored headrest and fairing in place (the C.170 lacked any further armor!) and other minor changes that were incorporated for serial production.

Despite Macchi’s proposal for a closed cockpit canopy the cockpit remained open – Italian pilots were rather conservative. Additional protection was introduced through armored side panels, though, which would protect the pilot’s shoulders. Radio equipment was also not included, as in many other Italian fighter aircraft.

 

During evaluation in early 1935 the C.170 was tested against the Fiat CR.42 and the Caproni Ca.165 biplane fighters, and was judged to be on par with the CR.42, although the Ca.165 was a more modern design which boasted a higher speed at the cost of maneuverability. An initial order of 99 C.170 for Italy's Regia Aeronautica was placed to Macchi factory in summer 1935, followed by foreign interest and order options from Austria, Belgium and Spain.

 

Anyway, what looked like a prosperous design was soon rendered obsolete: Following the end of Italy's campaigns in East Africa, a program was started to completely re-equip the Regia Aeronautica with a new interceptor aircraft of modern design. The 10 February 1936 specifications called for an aircraft powered by a single radial engine, with a top speed of 500 km/h, climb rate at 6,000 meters of 5 minutes, with a flight endurance of two hours, and armed with a single (later increased to two) 12.7 mm (0.5 in) machine gun. That was more or less the premature end for the C.170, as Macchi and other manufacturers quickly turned to more modern monoplane designs.

 

Therefore, orders and production of the Macchi Brezza remained limited. Beyond the original 99 aircraft for the Regia Aeronautica only 24 further C.170s were delivered. These aircraft went in spring 1936 to Austria to equip Jagdgeschwader II at Wiener Neustadt. Immediately after their delivery the Brezza fighters were retro-fitted with radio equipment, recognizable through the antenna installation on the headrest fairing. The potential orders from Belgium and Spain were soon cancelled, due to political tensions.

 

As a side note, the Austrian C.170s fighters were the first aircraft to sport the new national emblem, which had been the result of a competition and won by flight engineer Rosner from the Graz-Thalerhof base. The white, equilateral triangle with the point facing downwards in a red disc was a completely new design and had (other than the flag or coats of arms) no prior basis.

 

The C.170s' career in Austrian service was short, though: in March 1938 the Austrian units were absorbed into the Luftwaffe, and after a brief period the aircraft were handed over to Hungary where they were used for training purposes.

 

Although an obsolete design, it proved to be robust, durable and effective especially in severe conditions. In spring 1943, surviving C.170s were rounded up from training schools and delivered to night ground attack units operating on the Eastern Front. The C.170 was used to conduct night harassment sorties on the Eastern Front until September 1944, when the units were disbanded, due to a lack of serviceable airframes and spare parts.

  

General characteristics

Crew: 1

Length: 8.25 m (27 ft 1 in)

Wingspan: 32 ft 3 in (9.83 m)

Height: 11 ft 9 in (3.58 m)

Wing area: 323 ft² (30.0 m²)

Empty weight: 3,217 lb (1,462 kg)

Loaded weight: 4,594 lb (2,088 kg)

 

Powerplant

1× Fiat A.74 R.C.38 14-cylinder air-cooled radial engine, 650 kW (870 hp) at 2,520 rpm for take-off

 

Performance

Maximum speed: 441 km/h (238 kn, 274 mph) at 20,000 ft

Cruise speed: 338 km/h (187 kn, 210 mph)

Range: 780 km (420 nmi, 485 mi)

Service ceiling: 10,210 m (33,500 ft)

Rate of climb: 11.8 m/s (2,340 ft/min)

Climb to 10,000 ft (3,050 m): 4.75 min

Wing loading: 69,6 kg/m² (15,3 lb/ft²)

Power/mass: 311 W/kg (0.19 hp/lb)

 

Armament

2× 12.7 mm (0.5 in) Breda-SAFAT synchronized machine guns above the engine, 370 rpg

Some aircraft were field-modified to carry up to 8× 15 kg (33 lb) or 2× 50 or 100 kg (110/220 lb) bombs under the wings

  

The kit and its assembly

Inspiration for this little, whiffy biplane came when I posted a pic of an Austrian Ju 86 bomber as a reply/ suggestion to a fellow modeler's (NARSES2) search at whatifmodelers.com for “something” to make from a Gloster Gladiator.

When I looked at the paint scheme a second time I remembered that I still had some Austrian roundels in stock, as well some very old biplane spare parts... hmmm.

 

Biplanes are tricky to build, even OOB, and kitbashing this kind of whif would not make things easier. Anyway, I love such challenges, and the potential outcome would surely look nice, if not exotic, so I decided to tackle the project.

 

Basically, the following donation ingredients went into it:

● Fuselage, engine, cockpit/pilot and tail from a Revell Macchi C.200 "Saetta"

● Upper wing from a Matchbox Gloster "Gladiator"

● Lower wings from a Matchbox SBC "Helldiver"

● Wheels from a Matchbox Hs 126 (shortened)

 

Pretty straightforward, but even though it would be a small aircraft model, it would come with two big challenges: mounting the lower wings and shaping the resulting, gaping belly, and the custom-made struts and wirings for the upper wing.

 

Work started with the Macchi C.200’s fuselage, which was built OOB - just without the wing, which is a single part, different pilot (the included one is a pygmy!) and with a free spinning metal axis for the propeller.

 

The wing installation started with the lower wings. I glued the Helldiver wings onto the C.200 fuselage, so that the wings' trailing edge would match the C.200's wing root ends. From that, a floor plate was fitted under the fuselage and any excessive material removed, the gaps filled with lumps of 2C putty. That moved the lower wing's roots backwards, creating space at the lower forward fuselage for the new landing gear.

 

The latter was taken from a vintage Matchbox Hs 126 reconnaissance aircraft - probably 25, if 30 years old... Size was O.K., but the struts had to shortened by about 5mm, as thge HS 126 is a much bigger/longer aircraft than the C.200. A cut was made just above the wheel spats, material taken out, and the separate parts were glued back together again.

 

With the lower wings in place I started building strut supports for the upper wing from styrene strips - tricky and needs patience, but effective. I started with the outer supports, carving something SBC-style from styrene. These were glued into place, slightly canted outwards, and their length/height adapted to the upper wing’s position.

When this was settled, the upper Gladiator wing was glued into place. After a thorough drying period the short fuselage supports in front of the cockpit – again, styrene strips – were inserted into the gap. This allowed an individual lengthening, and was easier than expected, with a stable result.

After having the upper wing glued in place I added some wiring, made from heated and pulled-out styrene sprues. This not only enhances the kit's look, it also (just like in real life) improves rigidity of the model. Also a tedious task, but IMHO worth the effort. I tried thin wire, nylon strings and sewing yarn for this job, but finally the styrene solution is what worked best for me.

The exhaust installation had also to be modified: the new Hs 126 struts with spats would have been where the original C.200’s hot exhaust gases would have gone, so I added new exhaust pipes that would go between the new legs.

Other small added details included, among others, a pitot on a wing strut, a visor in front of the cockpit, a radio antenna, a ladder made from wire.

  

Painting and markings:

I would not call the Austrian 3+1-tone pre-WWII-scheme spectacular, but the colors are unique. My scheme is based on an Austrian Ju 86 bomber from 1938, so it fits into the intended time frame.

 

The colors were puzzled together from various sources and are subjective guesstimates:

● A pale, yellow-ish beige (Humbrol 74, ‘Linen’, out of production)

● A rather brownish green (Testors 1711, ‘Olive Drab’, FS 34087)

● A dark green with a yellow-ish hue (Humbrol 116, ‘US Dark Green’ FS 34079)

● Light blue for the undersides (Humbrol 65, ‘Aircraft Blue’, RLM 65)

 

In order to add some details I painted the area behind the engine cowling in aluminum. The respective part under the fuselage, where the exhaust gases would pass, was painted in Steel – both Testors Metallizers.

The interior surfaces were painted in a neutral Grey – but with the engine and the pilot in place you cannot see anything of that at all.

Markings are minimal: the Austrian roundels come from a TL Decals aftermarket sheet, the flag on the rudder was laid out with red paint (a mix of Humbrol 19 and 60), the white bar is a decal. The tactical code is fictional, puzzled together from single digits in various sizes (also from TL Modellbau sheets). The original documents how purely black fuselage codes, but I found these hard to read. So I chose digits with a white rim (actually, these belong to modern German Luftwaffe tactical codes in 1:32), which improve contrast a little.

The kit received a thin black ink wash and some shading/dry-painting with lighter basic tones (Humbrol 103, 155, Model Master 2138,‘Israeli Armor Sand Grey’, and Humbrol 122). After decal application, another turn with overall Hemp and Light Grey was done in order to fade contrast and to emphasize the surface structure. The wires were also painted, but only with thinned black ink and a VERY soft brush.

 

Finally, everything was sealed under a spray coat of matt acrylic varnish.

Voilà, and done in just about a week!

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

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

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

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

Wing area: 241.3 sq ft (22,52 m²)

Empty weight: 10,681 lb (4.845 kg)

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

Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0134

Frontal area: 32 sq ft (3.0 m²)

 

Powerplant:

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

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

 

Performance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lift-to-drag: 17.7

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

Thrust/weight: 0.249 dry

0.328 with afterburner

 

Armament:

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

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

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

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

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

  

The kit and its assembly:

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  

Painting and markings:

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  

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

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 40 ft 3 in (12.27 m)

Wingspan: 39 ft 1 in (11.9 m)

Height: 13 ft 11 in (4.2 m)

Wing area: 338.66 ft² (31.46 m²)

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

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

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

 

Powerplant:

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

and 10,500 lbf (46.7 kN) with afterburner

 

Performance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Armament:

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

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

  

The kit and its assembly:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

  

Painting and markings:

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

  

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

 

I used the razor blade to pry the windows off the wall pieces.

+++ 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!

VIKING “I’m Still Alive” Policewoman 1:6 scale Head sculpt and Accessory set aka Jill Valentine on a TTL body

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

 

Some background:

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  

General characteristics:

Crew: One

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

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

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

Wing area: 302 ft² (28 m²)

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

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

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

Powerplant:

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

 

Performance:

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

Range: 740 mi (1,190 km)

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

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

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

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

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

 

Armament:

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

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

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

plus 6× 3” (76.2 mm) RP-3 rockets

  

The kit and its assembly:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  

Painting and markings:

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

 

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

 

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

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

  

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

 

Some background:

The idea for a heavy infantry support vehicle capable of demolishing heavily defended buildings or fortified areas with a single shot came out of the experiences of the heavy urban fighting in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942. At the time, the Wehrmacht had only the Sturm-Infanteriegeschütz 33B available for destroying buildings, a Sturmgeschütz III variant armed with a 15 cm sIG 33 heavy infantry gun. Twelve of them were lost in the fighting at Stalingrad. Its successor, the Sturmpanzer IV, also known by Allies as Brummbär, was in production from early 1943. This was essentially an improved version of the earlier design, mounting the same gun on the Panzer IV chassis with greatly improved armour protection.

 

While greatly improved compared to the earlier models, by this time infantry anti-tank weapons were improving dramatically, too, and the Wehrmacht still saw a need for a similar, but more heavily armoured and armed vehicle. Therefore, a decision was made to create a new vehicle based on the Tiger tank and arm it with a 210 mm howitzer. However, this weapon turned out not to be available at the time and was therefore replaced by a 380 mm rocket launcher, which was adapted from a Kriegsmarine depth charge launcher.

 

The 380 mm Raketen-Werfer 61 L/5.4 was a breech-loading barrel, which fired a short-range, rocket-propelled projectile roughly 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in) long. The gun itself existed in two iterations at the time. One, the RaG 43 (Raketenabschuss-Gerät 43), was a ship-mounted anti-aircraft weapon used for firing a cable-spooled parachute-anchor creating a hazard for aircraft. The second, the RTG 38 (Raketen Tauch-Geschoss 38), was a land-based system, originally planned for use in coastal installations by the Kriegsmarine firing depth-charges against submarines with a range of about 3.000 m. For use in a vehicle, the RTG 38 was to find use as a demolition gun and had to be modified for that role. This modification work was carried out by Rheinmetall at their Sommerda works.

 

The design of the rocket system caused some problems. Modified for use in a vehicle, the recoil from the modified rocket-mortar was enormous, about 40-tonnes, and this meant that only a heavy chassis could be used to mount the gun. The hot rocket exhaust could not be vented into the fighting compartment nor could the barrel withstand the pressure if the gasses were not vented. Therefore, a ring of ventilation shafts was put around the barrel which channeled the exhaust and gave the weapon something of a pepperbox appearance.

 

The shells for the weapon were extremely heavy, far too heavy for a man to load manually. As a result, each of them had to be carried by means of a ceiling-mounted trolley from their rack to a roller-mounted tray at the breech. Once on the tray, four soldiers could then push it into the breech to load it. The whole process took 10 minutes per shot from loading, aiming, elevating and, finally, to firing.

There were a variety of rocket-assisted round types with a weight of up to 376 kg (829 lb), and a maximum range of up to 6,000 m (20,000 ft), which either contained a high explosive charge of 125 kg (276 lb) or a shaped charge for use against fortifications, which could penetrate up to 2.5 m (8 ft 2 in) of reinforced concrete. The stated range of the former was 5,650 m (6,180 yd). A normal charge first accelerated the projectile to 45 m/s (150 ft/s) to leave the short, rifled barrel, the 40 kg (88 lb) rocket charge then boosted this to about 250 m/s (820 ft/s).

 

In September 1943 plans were made for Krupp to fabricate new Tiger I armored hulls for the Sturmtiger. The Tiger I hulls were to be sent to Henschel for chassis assembly and then to Alkett, where the superstructures would be mounted. The first prototype was ready and presented in October 1943. By May 1944, the Sturmtiger prototype had been kept busy with trials and firing tests for the development of range tables, but production had still not started yet and the concept was likely to be scrapped. Rather than ditch the idea though, orders were given that, instead of interrupting the production of the Tiger I, the Sturmtigers would be built on the chassis of Tiger I tanks which had already been in action and suffered serious damage. Twelve superstructures and RW 61 weapons were prepared and mounted on rebuilt Tiger I chassis. However, by August 1944 the dire need for this kind of vehicle led to the adaptation of another chassis to the 380 mm Sturmmörser: the SdKfz. 184, better known as “Ferdinand” (after its designer’s forename) and later, in an upgraded version, “Elefant”.

 

The Elefant (German for "elephant") was actually a heavy tank destroyer and the result of mismanagement and poor planning: Porsche GmbH had manufactured about 100 chassis for their unsuccessful proposal for the Tiger I tank, the so-called "Porsche Tiger". Both the successful Henschel proposal and the Porsche design used the same Krupp-designed turret—the Henschel design had its turret more-or-less centrally located on its hull, while the Porsche design placed the turret much closer to the front of the superstructure. Since the competing Henschel Tiger design was chosen for production, the Porsche chassis were no longer required for the Tiger tank project, and Porsche was left with 100 unfinished heavy tank hulls.

It was therefore decided that the Porsche chassis were to be used as the basis of a new heavy tank hunter, the Ferdinand, mounting Krupp's newly developed 88 mm (3.5 in) Panzerjägerkanone 43/2 (PaK 43) anti-tank gun with a new, long L71 barrel. This precise long-range weapon was intended to destroy enemy tanks before they came within their own range of effective fire, but in order to mount the very long and heavy weapon on the Porsche hull, its layout had to be completely redesigned.

 

Porsche’s SdKfz. 184’s unusual petrol-electric transmission made it much easier to relocate the engines than would be the case on a mechanical-transmission vehicle, since the engines could be mounted anywhere, and only the length of the power cables needed to be altered, as opposed to re-designing the driveshafts and locating the engines for the easiest routing of power shafts to the gearbox. Without the forward-mounted turret of the Porsche Tiger prototype, the twin engines were relocated to the front, where the turret had been, leaving room ahead of them for the driver and radio operator. As the engines were placed in the middle, the driver and the radio operator were isolated from the rest of the crew and could be addressed only by intercom. The now empty rear half of the hull was covered with a heavily armored, full five-sided casemate with slightly sloped upper faces and armored solid roof, and turned into a crew compartment, mounting a single 8.8 cm Pak 43 cannon in the forward face of the casemate.

 

From this readily available basis, the SdKfz. 184/1 was hurriedly developed. It differed from the tank hunter primarily through its new casemate that held the 380 mm Raketenwerfer. Since the SdKfz. 184/1 was intended for use in urban areas in close range street fighting, it needed to be heavily armoured to survive. Its front plate had a greater slope than the Ferdinand while the sides were more vertical and the roof was flat. Its sloped (at 47° from vertical) frontal casemate armor was 150 mm (5.9 in) thick, while its superstructure side and rear plates had a strength of 82 mm (3.2 in). The SdKfz.184/1 also received add-on armor of 100 mm thickness, bolted to the hull’s original vertical front plates, increasing the thickness to 200 mm but adding 5 tons of weight. All these measures pushed the weight of the vehicle up from the Ferdinand’s already bulky 65 t to 75 t, limiting the vehicle’s manoeuvrability even further. Located at the rear of the loading hatch was a Nahverteidigungswaffe launcher which was used for close defense against infantry with SMi 35 anti-personnel mines, even though smoke grenades or signal flares could be fired with the device in all directions, too. For close-range defense, a 7.92 mm MG 34 machine gun was carried in a ball mount in the front plate, an addition that was introduced to the Elefant tank hunters, too, after the SdKfz. 184 had during its initial deployments turned out to be very vulnerable to infantry attacks.

 

Due to the size of the RW 61 and the bulkiness of the ammunition, only fourteen rounds could be carried internally, of which one was already loaded, with another stored in the loading tray, and the rest were carried in two storage racks, leaving only little space for the crew of four in the rear compartment. To help with the loading of ammunition into the vehicle, a loading crane was fitted at the rear of the superstructure next to the loading hatch on the roof.

Due to the internal limits and the tactical nature of the vehicle, it was intended that each SdKfz. 184/1 (as well as each Sturmtiger) would be accompanied by an ammunition carrier, typically based on the Panzer IV chassis, but the lack of resources did not make this possible. There were even plans to build a dedicated, heavily armored ammunition carrier on the Tiger I chassis, but only one such carrier was completed and tested, it never reached production status.

 

By the time the first RW 61 carriers had become available, Germany had lost the initiative, with the Wehrmacht being almost exclusively on the defensive rather than the offensive, and this new tactical situation significantly weakened the value of both Sturmtiger and Sturmelefant, how the SdKfz 184/1 was semi-officially baptized. Nevertheless, three new Panzer companies were raised to operate the Sturmpanzer types: Panzer Sturmmörser Kompanien (PzStuMrKp) ("Armored Assault Mortar Company") 1000, 1001 and 1002. These originally were supposed to be equipped with fourteen vehicles each, but this figure was later reduced to four each, divided into two platoons, consisting of mixed vehicle types – whatever was available and operational.

 

PzStuMrKp 1000 was raised on 13 August 1944 and fought during the Warsaw Uprising with two vehicles, as did the prototype in a separate action, which may have been the only time the Sturmtiger was used in its intended role. PzStuMrKp 1001 and 1002 followed in September and October. Both PzStuMrKp 1000 and 1001 served during the Ardennes Offensive, with a total of four Sturmtiger and three Sturmelefanten.

After this offensive, the Sturmpanzer were used in the defence of Germany, mainly on the Western Front. During the battle for the bridge at Remagen, German forces mobilized Sturmmörserkompanie 1000 and 1001 (with a total of 7 vehicles, five Sturmtiger and two Sturmelefanten) to take part in the battle. The tanks were originally tasked with using their mortars against the bridge itself, though it was discovered that they lacked the accuracy needed to hit the bridge and cause significant damage with precise hits to vital structures. During this action, one of the Sturmtigers in Sturmmörserkompanie 1001 near Düren and Euskirchen allegedly hit a group of stationary Shermans tanks in a village with a 380mm round, resulting in nearly all the Shermans being put out of action and their crews killed or wounded - the only recorded tank-on-tank combat a Sturmtiger was ever engaged in. After the bridge fell to the Allies, Sturmmörserkompanie 1000 and 1001 were tasked with bombardment of Allied forces to cover the German retreat, as opposed to the bunker busting for which they had originally been designed for. None was actually destroyed through enemy fire, but many vehicles had to be given up due to mechanical failures or the lack of fuel. Most were blown up by their crews, but a few fell into allied hands in an operational state.

 

Total production numbers of the SdKfz. 184/1 are uncertain but, being an emergency product and based on a limited chassis supply, the number of vehicles that left the Nibelungenwerke in Austria was no more than ten – also because the tank hunter conversion had top priority and the exotic RW 61 launcher was in very limited supply. As a consequence, only a total of 18 Sturmtiger had been finished by December 1945 and put into service, too. However, the 380 mm Raketen-Werfer 61 remained in production and was in early 1946 adapted to the new Einheitspanzer E-50/75 chassis.

  

Specifications:

Crew: Six (driver, radio operator/machine gunner in the front cabin,

commander, gunner, 2× loader in the casemate section)

Weight: 75 tons

Length: 7,05 m (23 ft 1½ in)

Width: 3,38 m (11 ft 1 in)

Height w/o crane: 3,02 m (9 ft 10¾ in)

Ground clearance: 1ft 6¾ in (48 cm)

Climbing: 2 ft 6½ in (78 cm)

Fording depth: 3 ft 3¼ (1m)

Trench crossing: 8 ft 7 ¾ in (2,64 m)

Suspension: Longitudinal torsion-bar

Fuel capacity: 1.050 liters

 

Armour:

62 to 200 mm (2.44 to 7.87 in)

 

Performance:

30 km/h (19 mph) on road

15 km/h (10 miles per hour () off road

Operational range: 150 km (93 mi) on road

90 km (56 mi) cross-country

Power/weight: 8 hp/ton

 

Engine:

2× Maybach HL120 TRM petrol engines with 300 PS (246 hp, 221 kW) each, powering…

2× Siemens-Schuckert D1495a 500 Volt electric engines with 320 PS (316 hp, 230 kW) each

 

Transmission:

Electric

 

Armament:

1x 380 mm RW 61 rocket launcher L/5.4 with 14 rounds

1x 7.92 mm (0.312 in) MG 34 machine gun with 600 rounds

1x 100 mm grenade launcher (firing anti-personnel mines, smoke grenades or signal flares)

  

The kit and its assembly:.

This fictional tank model is not my own idea, it is rather based on a picture of a similar kitbashing of an Elefant with a Sturmtiger casemate and its massive missile launcher – even though it was a rather crude model, with a casemate created from cardboard. However, I found the idea charming, even more so because the Ferdinand/Elefant was rather a rolling bunker than an agile tank hunter, despite its powerful weapon. Why not use the same chassis as a carrier for the Sturmtiger’s huge mortar as an assault SPG?

 

The resulting Sturmelefant was created as a kitbashing: the chassis is an early boxing of the Trumpeter Elefant, which comes not only with IP track segments but also alternative vinyl tracks (later boxing do not feature them), and casemate parts come from a Trumpeter Sturmtiger.

While one would think that switching the casemate would be straightforward affair, the conversion turned out to be more complex than expected. Both Elefant and Sturmtiger come with separate casemate pieces, but they are not compatible. The Sturmtiger casemate is 2mm wider than the Elefant’s hull, and its glacis plate is deeper than the Elefant’s, leaving 4mm wide gaps at the sides and the rear. One option could have been to trim down the glacis plate, but I found the roofline to become much too low – and the casemate’s length would have been reduced.

 

So, I used the Sturmtiger casemate “as is” and filled the gaps with styrene sheet strips. This worked, but the casemate’s width created now inward-bent sections that looked unplausible. Nobody, even grazed German engineers, would not have neglected the laws of structural integrity. What to do? Tailoring the casemate’s sides down would have been one route, but this would have had created a strange shape. The alternative I chose was to widen the flanks of the Elefant’s hull underneath the casemate, which was achieved with tailored 0.5 mm styrene sheet panels and some PSR – possible through the Elefant’s simple shape and the mudguards that run along the vehicle’s flanks.

Some more PSR was necessary to blend the rear into a coherent shape and to fill a small gap at the glacis plate’s base. Putty was also used to fill/hide almost all openings on the glacis plate, since no driver sight or ball mount for a machine gun was necessary anymore. New bolts between hull and casemate were created with small drops of white glue. The rest of the surface details were taken from the respective donor kits.

  

Painting and markings:

This was not an easy choice. A classic Hinterhalt scheme would have been a natural choice, but since the Sturmelefant would have been converted from existing hulls with new parts, I decided to emphasize this heritage through a simple, uniform livery: all Ferdinand elements would be painted/left in a uniform Dunkelgelb (RAL, 7028, Humbrol 83), while the new casemate as well as the bolted-on front armor were left in a red primer livery, in two different shades (Humbrol 70 and 113). This looked a little too simple for my taste, so that I eventually added snaky lines in Dunkelgelb onto the primer-painted sections, blurring the contrast between the two tones.

 

Markings remained minimal, just three German crosses on the flanks and at the rear and a tactical code on the casemate – the latter in black and in a hand-written style, as if the vehicle had been rushed into frontline service.

 

After the decals had been secured under sone varnish the model received an overall washing with dark brown, highly thinned acrylic paint, some dry-brushing with light grey and some rust traces, before it was sealed overall with matt acrylic varnish and received some dirt stains with mixed watercolors and finally, after the tracks had been mounted, some artist pigments as physical dust on the lower areas.

  

Again a project that appeared simple but turned out to be more demanding because the parts would not fit as well as expected. The resulting bunker breaker looks plausible, less massive than the real Sturmtiger but still a menacing sight.

 

Space hotel???

 

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

Jiaou Doll wheat skin big bust figure .

A kitbash using a Phicen body and a Kimi headsculpt .

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

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Main objective was to expand the Foxhound's state-of the-art performance, and coiple it with modern features like aerodynamic instability, supercruise, stealth features and further development potential.

 

The aircraft's core mission objectives comprised:

- Provide strategic air defense and surveillance in areas not covered by ground-based air defense systems (incl. guidance of other aircraft with less sophisticated avionics)

- Top speed of Mach 3.2 or more in a dash and cruise at Mach 3.0 for prolonged periods

- Long range/high speed interception of airspace intruders of any kind, including low flying cruise missiles, UAVs and helicopters

- Intercept cruise missiles and their launch aircraft from sea level up to 30.000m altitude by reaching missile launch range in the lowest possible time after departing the loiter area

 

Because funding was scarce and no official GOR had been issued, the project was taken on as a private venture. The new project was internally known as "Izdeliye 710" or "71.0". It was based on both 301 and 701 layout ideas and the wind tunnel experiences with their unusual layouts, as well as Oleg Samoylovich's experience with the Suchoi T-4 Mach 3 bomber project and the T-60S.

 

"Izdeliye 710" was from the start intended only as a proof-of-concept prototype, yet fully functional. It would also incorporate new technologies like heat-resistant ceramics against kinetic heating at prolonged high speeds (the airframe had to resist temperatures of 300°C/570°F and more for considerable periods), but with potential for future development into a full-fledged interceptor, penetrator and reconnaissance aircraft.

 

Overall, “Izdeliye 710" looked like a shrinked version of a mix of both former MiG OKB 301 and 701 designs, limited to the MiG-31's weight class of about 40 tons TOW. Compared with the former designs, the airframe received an aerodynamically more refined, partly blended, slender fuselage that also incorporated mild stealth features like a “clean” underside, softened contours and partly shielded air intakes. Structurally, the airframe's speed limit was set at Mach 3.8.

 

From the earlier 301 design,the plane retained the variable geometry wing. Despite the system's complexity and weight, this solution was deemed to be the best approach for a combination of a high continuous top speed, extended loiter time in the mission’s patrol areas and good performance on improvised airfields. Minimum sweep was a mere 10°, while, fully swept at 68°, the wings blended into the LERXes. Additional lift was created through the fuselage shape itself, so that aerodynamic surfaces and therefore drag could be reduced.

 

Pilot and radar operator sat in tandem under a common canopy with rather limited sight. The cockpit was equipped with a modern glass cockpit with LCD screens. The aircraft’s two engines were, again, placed in a large, mutual nacelle on the upper rear fuselage, fed by large air intakes with two-dimensional vertical ramps and a carefully modulated airflow over the aircraft’s dorsal area.

 

Initially, the 71.0 was to be powered by a pair of Soloviev D-30F6 afterburning turbofans with a dry thrust of 93 kN (20,900 lbf) each, and with 152 kN (34,172 lbf) with full afterburner. These were the same engines that powered the MiG-31, but there were high hopes for the Kolesov NK-101 engine: a variable bypass engine with a maximum thrust in the 200kN range, at the time of the 71.0's design undergoing bench tests and originally developed for the advanced Suchoj T-4MS strike aircraft.

With the D-30F6, the 71.0 was expected to reach Mach 3.2 (making the aircraft capable of effectively intercepting the SR-71), but the NK-101 would offer in pure jet mode a top speed in excess of Mach 3.5 and also improve range and especially loiter time when running as a subsonic turbofan engine.

 

A single fin with an all-moving top and an additional deep rudder at its base was placed on top of the engine nacelle. Additional maneuverability at lower speed was achieved by retractable, all-moving foreplanes, stowed in narrow slits under the cockpit. Longitudinal stability at high speed was improved through deflectable stabilizers: these were kept horizontal for take-off and added to the overall lift, but they could be folded down by up to 60° in flight, acting additionally as stabilizer strakes.

 

Due to the aircraft’s slender shape and unique proportions, the 71.0 quickly received the unofficial nickname "жура́вль" (‘Zhurávl' = Crane). The aircaft’s stalky impression was emphasized even more through its unusual landing gear arrangement: Due to the limited internal space for the main landing gear wells between the weapons bay, the wing folding mechanisms and the engine nacelle, MiG OKB decided to incorporate a bicycle landing gear, normally a trademark of Yakovlew OKB designs, but a conventional landing gear could simply not be mounted, or its construction would have become much too heavy and complex.

 

In order to facilitate operations from improvised airfields and on snow the landing gear featured twin front wheels on a conventional strut and a single four wheel bogie as main wheels. Smaller, single stabilizer wheels were mounted on outriggers that retracted into slender fairings at the wings’ fixed section trailing edge, reminiscent of early Tupolev designs.

 

All standard air-to-air weaponry, as well as fuel, was to be carried internally. Main armament would be the K-100 missile (in service eventually designated R-100), stored in a large weapons bay behind the cockpit on a rotary mount. The K-100 had been under development at that time at NPO Novator, internally coded ‘Izdeliye 172’. The K-100 missile was an impressive weapon, and specifically designed to attack vital and heavily defended aerial targets like NATO’s AWACS aircraft at BVR distance.

 

Being 15’ (4.57 m) long and weighing 1.370 lb (620 kg), this huge ultra-long-range weapon had a maximum range of 250 mi (400 km) in a cruise/glide profile and attained a speed of Mach 6 with its solid rocket engine. This range could be boosted even further with a pair of jettisonable ramjets in tubular pods on the missile’s flanks for another 60 mi (100 km). The missile could attack targets ranging in altitude between 15 – 25,000 meters.

 

The weapon would initially be allocated to a specified target through the launch aircraft’s on-board radar and sent via inertial guidance into the target’s direction. Closing in, the K-100’s Agat 9B-1388 active seeker would identify the target, lock on, and independently attack it, also in coordination with other K-100’s shot at the same target, so that the attack would be coordinated in time and approach directions in order to overload defense and ensure a hit.

 

The 71.0’s internal mount could hold four of these large missiles, or, alternatively, the same number of the MiG-31’s R-33 AAMs. The mount also had a slot for the storage of additional mid- and short-range missiles for self-defense, e .g. three R-60 or two R-73 AAMs. An internal gun was not considered to be necessary, since the 71.0 or potential derivatives would fight their targets at very long distances and rather rely on a "hit-and-run" tactic, sacrificing dogfight capabilities for long loitering time in stand-by mode, high approach speed and outstanding acceleration and altitude performance.

 

Anyway, provisions were made to carry a Gsh-301-250 gun pod on a retractable hardpoint in the weapons bay instead of a K-100. Alternatively, such pods could be carried externally on four optional wing root pylons, which were primarily intended for PTB-1500 or PTB-3000 drop tanks, or further missiles - theoretically, a maximum of ten K-100 missiles could be carried, plus a pair of short-range AAMs.

 

Additionally, a "buddy-to-buffy" IFR set with a retractable drogue (probably the same system as used on the Su-24) was tested (71.2 was outfitted with a retractable refuelling probe in front of the cockpit), as well as the carriage of simple iron bombs or nuclear stores, to be delivered from very high altitudes. Several pallets with cameras and sensors (e .g. a high resolution SLAR) were also envisioned, which could easily replace the missile mounts and the folding weapon bay covers for recce missions.

 

Since there had been little official support for the project, work on the 710 up to the hardware stage made only little progress, since the MiG-31 already filled the long-range interceptor role in a sufficient fashion and offered further development potential.

A wooden mockup of the cockpit section was presented to PVO and VVS officials in 1989, and airframe work (including tests with composite materials on structural parts, including ceramic tiles for leading edges) were undertaken throughout 1990 and 1991, including test rigs for the engine nacelle and the swing wing mechanism.

 

Eventually, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 suddenly stopped most of the project work, after two prototype airframes had been completed. Their internal designations were Izdeliye 71.1 and 71.2, respectively. It took a while until the political situation as well as the ex-Soviet Air Force’s status were settled, and work on Izdeliye 710 resumed at a slow pace.

 

After taking two years to be completed, 71.1 eventually made its roll-out and maiden flight in summer 1994, just when MiG-31 production had ended. MiG OKB still had high hopes in this aircraft, since the MiG-31 would have to be replaced in the next couple of years and "Izdeliye 710" was just in time for the potential procurement process. The first prototype wore a striking all-white livery, with dark grey ceramic tiles on the wings’ leading edges standing out prominently – in this guise and with its futuristic lines the slender aircraft reminded a lot of the American Space Shuttle.

 

71.1 was primarily intended for engine and flight tests (esp. for the eagerly awaited NK-101 engines), as well as for the development of the envisioned ramjet propulsion system for full-scale production and further development of Izdeliye 710 into a Mach 3+ interceptor. No mission avionics were initially fitted to this plane, but it carried a comprehensive test equipment suite and ballast.

 

Its sister ship 71.2 flew for the first time in late 1994, wearing a more unpretentious grey/bare metal livery. This plane was earmarked for avionics development and weapons integration, especially as a test bed for the K-100 missile, which shared Izdeliye 710’s fate of being a leftover Soviet project with an uncertain future and an even more corny funding outlook.

 

Anyway, aircraft 71.2 was from the start equipped with a complete RP-31 ('Zaslon-M') weapon control system, which had been under development at that time as an upgrade for the Russian MiG-31 fleet being part of the radar’s development program secured financial support from the government and allowed the flight tests to continue. The RP-31 possessed a maximum detection range of 400 km (250 mi) against airliner-sized targets at high altitude or 200 km against fighter-sized targets; the typical width of detection along the front was given as 225 km. The system could track 24 airborne targets at one time at a range of 120 km, 6 of which could be simultaneously attacked with missiles.

 

With these capabilities the RP-31 suite could, coupled with an appropriate carrier airframe, fulfil the originally intended airspace control function and would render a dedicated and highly vulnerable airspace control aircraft (like the Beriev A-50 derivative of the Il-76 transport) more or less obsolete. A group of four aircraft equipped with the 'Zaslon-M' suite would be able to permanently control an area of airspace across a total length of 800–900 km, while having ultra-long range weapons at hand to counter any intrusion into airspace with a quicker reaction time than any ground-based fighter on QRA duty. The 71.0, outfitted with the RP-31/K-100 system, would have posed a serious threat to any aggressor.

 

In March 1995 both prototypes were eventually transferred to the Kerchenskaya Guards Air Base at Savasleyka in the Oblast Vladimir, 300 km east of Mocsow, where they received tactical codes of '11 Blue' and '12 Blue'. Besides the basic test program and the RP-31/K-100 system tests, both machines were directly evaluated against the MiG-31 and Su-27 fighters by the Air Force's 4th TsBPi PLS, based at the same site.

 

Both aircraft exceeded expectations, but also fell short in certain aspects. The 71.0’s calculated top speed of Mach 3.2 was achieved during the tests with a top speed of 3,394 km/h (2.108 mph) at 21,000 m (69.000 ft). Top speed at sea level was confirmed at 1.200 km/h (745 mph) indicated airspeed.

Combat radius with full weapon load and internal fuel only was limited to 1,450 km (900 mi) at Mach 0.8 and at an altitude of 10,000 m (33,000 ft), though, and it sank to a mere 720 km (450 mi) at Mach 2.35 and at an altitude of 18,000 m (59,000 ft). Combat range with 4x K-100 internally and 2 drop tanks was settled at 3,000 km (1,860 mi), rising to 5,400 km (3,360 mi) with one in-flight refueling, tested with the 71.2. Endurance at altitude was only slightly above 3 hours, though. Service ceiling was 22,800 m (74,680 ft), 2.000 m higher than the MiG-31.

 

While these figures were impressive, Soviet officials were not truly convinced: they did not show a significant improvement over the simpler MiG-31. MiG OKB tried to persuade the government into more flight tests and begged for access to the NK-101, but the Soviet Union's collapse halted this project, too, so that both Izdeliye 710 had to keep the Soloviev D-30F6.

 

Little is known about the Izdeliye 710 project’s progress or further developments. The initial tests lasted until at least 1997, and obviously the updated MiG-31M received official favor instead of a completely new aircraft. The K-100 was also dropped, since the R-33 missile and later its R-37 derivative sufficiently performed in the long-range aerial strike role.

 

Development on the aircraft as such seemed to have stopped with the advent of modernized Su-27 derivatives and the PAK FA project, resulting in the Suchoi T-50 prototype. Unconfirmed reports suggest that one of the prototypes (probably 71.1) was used in the development of the N014 Pulse-Doppler radar with a passive electronically scanned array antenna in the wake of the MFI program. The N014 was designed with a range of 420 km, detection target of 250km to 1m and able to track 40 targets while able to shoot against 20.

 

Most interestingly, Izdeliye 710 was never officially presented to the public, but NATO became aware of its development through satellite pictures in the early Nineties and the aircraft consequently received the ASCC reporting codename "Fastback".

 

Until today, only the two prototypes have been known to exist, and it is assumed – had the type entered service – that the long-range fighter had received the official designation "MiG-41".

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2 (Pilot, weapon system officer)

Length (incl. pitot): 93 ft 10 in (28.66 m)

Wingspan:

- minimum 10° sweep: 69 ft 4 in (21.16 m)

- maximum 68° sweep: 48 ft 9 in (14,88 m)

Height: 23 ft 1 1/2 in (7,06 m )

Wing area: 1008.9 ft² (90.8 m²)

Weight: 88.151 lbs (39.986 kg)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed:

- Mach 3.2 (2.050 mph (3.300 km/h) at height

- 995 mph (1.600 km/h) supercruise speed at 36,000 ft (11,000 m)

- 915 mph (1.470 km/h) at sea level

Range: 3.705 miles (5.955 km) with internal fuel

Service ceiling: 75.000 ft (22.500 m)

Rate of climb: 31.000 ft/min (155 m/s)

 

Engine:

2x Soloviev D-30F6 afterburning turbofans with a dry thrust of 93 kN (20,900 lbf) each

and with 152 kN (34,172 lbf) with full afterburner.

 

Armament:

Internal weapons bay, main armament comprises a flexible missile load; basic ordnance of 4x K-100 ultra long range AAMs plus 2x R-73 short-range AAMs: other types like the R-27, R-33, R-60 and R-77 have been carried and tested, too, as well as podded guns on internal and external mounts. Alternatively, the weapon bay can hold various sensor pallets.

Four hardpoints under the wing roots, the outer pair “wet” for drop tanks of up to 3.000 l capacity, ECM pods or a buddy-buddy refueling drogue system. Maximum payload mass is 9000 kg.

  

The kit and its assembly

The second entry for the 2017 “Soviet” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com – a true Frankenstein creation, based on the scarce information about the real (but never realized) MiG 301 and 701 projects, the Suchoj T-60S, as well as some vague design sketches you can find online and in literature.

This one had been on my project list for years and I already had donor kits stashed away – but the sheer size (where will I leave it once done…?) and potential complexity kept me from tackling it.

 

The whole thing was an ambitious project and just the unique layout with a massive engine nacelle on top of the slender fuselage instead of an all-in-one design makes these aircraft an interesting topic to build. The GB was a good motivator.

 

“My” fictional interpretation of the MiG concepts is mainly based on a Dragon B-1B in 1:144 scale (fuselage, wings), a PM Model Su-15 two seater (donating the nose section and the cockpit, as well as wing parts for the fin) and a Kangnam MiG-31 (for the engine pod and some small parts). Another major ingredient is a pair of horizontal stabilizers from a 1:72 Hasegawa A-5 Vigilante.

 

Fitting the cockpit section took some major surgery and even more putty to blend the parts smoothly together. Another major surgical area was the tail; the "engine box" came to be rather straightforward, using the complete rear fuselage section from the MiG-31 and adding the intakes form the same kit, but mounted horizontally with a vertical splitter.

 

Blending the thing to the cut-away tail section of the B-1 was quite a task, though, since I not only wanted to add the element to the fuselage, but rather make it look a bit 'organic'. More than putty was necessary, I also had to made some cuts and transplantations. And after six PSR rounds I stopped counting…

 

The landing gear was built from scratch – the front wheel comes mostly from the MiG-31 kit. The central bogie and its massive leg come from a VEB Plasticart 1:100 Tu-20/95 bomber, plus some additional struts. The outriggers are leftover landing gear struts from a Hobby Boss Fw 190, mated with wheels which I believe come from a 1:200 VEB Plasticart kit, an An-24. Not certain, though. The fairings are slender MiG-21 drop tanks blended into the wing training edge. For the whole landing gear, the covers were improvised with styrene sheet, parts from a plastic straw(!) or leftover bits from the B-1B.

 

The main landing gear well was well as the weapons’ bay themselves were cut into the B-1B underside and an interior scratched from sheet and various leftover materials – I tried to maximize their space while still leaving enough room for the B-1B kit’s internal VG mechanism.

The large missiles (two were visible fitted and the rotary launcher just visibly hinted at) are, in fact, AGM-78 ‘Standard’ ARMs in a fantasy guise. They look pretty Soviet, though, like big brothers of the already not small R-33 missiles from the MiG-31.

 

While not in the focus of attention, the cockpit interior is completely new, too – OOB, the Su-15 cockpit only has a floor and rather stubby seats, under a massive single piece canopy. On top of the front wheel well (from a Hasegawa F-4) I added a new floor and added side consoles, scratched from styrene sheet. F-4 dashboards improve the decoration, and I added a pair of Soviet election seats from the scrap box – IIRC left over from two KP MiG-19 kits.

The canopy was taken OOB, I just cut it into five parts for open display. The material’s thickness does not look too bad on this aircraft – after all, it would need a rather sturdy construction when flying at Mach 3+ and withstanding the respective pressures and temperatures.

  

Painting

As a pure whif, I was free to use a weirdo design - but I rejected this idea quickly. I did not want a garish splinter scheme or a bright “Greenbottle Fly” Su-27 finish.

With the strange layout of the aircraft, the prototype idea was soon settled – and Soviet prototypes tend to look very utilitarian and lusterless, might even be left in grey. Consequently, I adapted a kind of bare look for this one, inspired by the rather shaggy Soviet Tu-22 “Blinder” bombers which carried a mix of bare metal and white and grey panels. With additional black leading edges on the aerodynamic surfaces, this would create a special/provisional but still purposeful look.

 

For the painting, I used a mix of several metallizer tones from ModelMaster and Humbrol (including Steel, Magnesium, Titanium, as well as matt and polished aluminum, and some Gun Metal and Exhaust around the engine nozzles, partly mixed with a bit of blue) and opaque tones (Humbrol 147 and 127). The “scheme” evolved panel-wise and step by step. The black leading edges were an interim addition, coming as things evolved, and they were painted first with black acrylic paint as a rough foundation and later trimmed with generic black decal stripes (from TL Modellbau). A very convenient and clean solution!

 

The radomes on nose and tail and other di-electric panels became dark grey (Humbrol 125). The cockpit tub was painted with Soviet Cockpit Teal (from ModelMaster), while the cockpit opening and canopy frames were kept in a more modest medium grey (Revell 57). On the outside of the cabin windows, a fat, deep yellow sealant frame (Humbrol 93, actually “Sand”) was added.

 

The weapon bay was painted in a yellow-ish primer tone (seen on pics of Tu-160 bombers) while the landing gear wells received a mix of gold and sand; the struts were painted in a mixed color, too, made of Humbrol 56 (Aluminum) and 34 (Flat White). The green wheel discs (Humbrol 131), a typical Soviet detail, stand out well from the rather subdued but not boring aircraft, and they make a nice contrast to the red Stars and the blue tactical code – the only major markings, besides a pair of MiG OKB logos under the cockpit.

 

Decals were puzzled together from various sheets, and I also added a lot of stencils for a more technical look. In order to enhance the prototype look further I added some photo calibration markings on the nose and the tail, made from scratch.

  

A massive kitbashing project that I had pushed away for years - but I am happy that I finally tackled it, and the result looks spectacular. The "Firefox" similarity was not intended, but this beast really looks like a movie prop - and who knwos if the Firefox was not inspired by the same projects (the MiG 301 and 701) as my kitbash model?

The background info is a bit lengthy, but there's some good background info concerning the aforementioned projects, and this aircraft - as a weapon system - would have played a very special and complex role, so a lot of explanations are worthwhile - also in order to emphasize that I di not simply try to glue some model parts together, but rather try to spin real world ideas further.

 

Mighty bird!

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 Nakajima Ki-104 was a further development of the Ki-87; the latter was a Japanese high-altitude fighter-interceptor of World War II, a single seat, exhaust-driven turbo-supercharged engined, low-wing monoplane with a conventional undercarriage.

 

The Ki-87 was one of several designs of various manufacturers developed in response to American B-29 Superfortress raids on the Home Islands. The Ki-87 followed up on earlier research by Nakajima and the Technical Division of Imperial Army Headquarters into boosting a large radial engine with an exhaust-driven turbo-supercharger, which had begun in 1942, well before the B-29 raids began.

 

The efforts of the Technical Division of Imperial Army Headquarters eventually culminated into the high-performance, tandem-engine Tachikawa Ki-94-I, while the Ki-87 under the lead of Kunihiro Aoki was developed as a fall-back project, using less stringent requirements.

Nakajima started in July 1943 with the construction of three prototypes, to be completed between November 1944 and January 1945, and seven pre-production aircraft, to be delivered by April 1945.

 

The Technical Division of Imperial Army Headquarters made itself felt during the development of the Ki-87 prototype when they insisted upon placing the turbo-supercharger in the rear-fuselage, and from the sixth prototype the Nakajima fighter was to have that arrangement. Construction was further delayed due to problems with the electrical undercarriage and the turbo-supercharger itself. As a consequence, the first Ki-87 prototype was not completed until February 1945; it first flew in April, but only five test flights were completed.

 

A further variant, the Ki-87-II, powered by a 3,000 hp Nakajima Ha217 (Ha-46) engine and with the turbo-supercharger in the same position as the P-47 Thunderbolt. Due to the long development period of the Ki-87, several major structural changes were made, too, that eventually changed the aircraft so much that it received a new, separate kitai number and became the Ki-104.

 

Kunihiro Aoki's new design was approved by the Koku Hombu, and an order was placed for one static test airframe, three prototypes, and eighteen pre-production aircraft. Only 2 prototypes were built in the event; the first was equipped with a single 1,895 kW (2,541 hp) Nakajima Ha219 [Ha-44] engine, driving a 4-blade, but the second one received the stronger Nakajima Ha217 (Ha-46) and a 6-blade propeller.

 

The pre-production machines (Ki-104-I or -Tei) were all produced with Ha217 engines, but featured various four-bladed propeller (-a, -b) designs as well as the new 6-blade propeller (-c). Compared to the prototypes, armament was beefed up from a pair of 20mm Ho-5 and a pair of 30mm Ho-155-I cannons in the wings to four of the new, more compact Ho-155-II cannons (originally designed for the unsuccessful Ki-102 assault aircraft and optimized for wing installation).

 

All pre-production Ki-104-Is were allocated to an independent IJA Headquarter Flight where they were tested alongside established fighters in the defence of the Tokyo region. Based on this 3rd Independent Flight's unit marking, a completely black tail with the unit's emblem, the Ki-104s were inofficially called Ic '黒の尾'/'Kurono-'o, which literally means "Black Tail".

 

The first operational Ki-104s reached this unit in spring 1945 and saw limited use against the incoming streams of B-29 bombers (2 unconfirmed downings in the Tokyo region). After these initial contacts that left a serious impression the new type received the USAF code name "Cooper", but the hostilities' soon end however stopped any further work and serial production. No Ki-104 survived the war.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 12 m (39 ft 4 in)

Wingspan: 14 m (45 ft 11 in)

Height: 4.65 m (15 ft 3 in)

Wing area: 28 m² (301.388 ft²)

Airfoil: Tatsuo Hasegawa airfoil

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

Loaded weight: 6.450 kg (14.220 lb)

Powerplant:

1× Nakajima Ha219 [Ha-44-12] 18-cylinder air-cooled radial engine, 1,835 kW (2,461 hp)

 

Performance

Maximum speed: 712 km/h (385 kn, 443 mph)

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

Range: 2,100 km (1,305 mi)

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Armament

4× 30 mm (1.18 in) Ho-155-II cannons in the wings

Underwing hardpoints and centerline pylon for up to 3× 250 kg (551 lb) bombs

or a single 300l drop tank under the fuselage

  

The kit and its assembly:

This whif is the result of many ideas and occasions. First of all, I had a leftover six-blade propeller from a Hasegawa J7W Shinden in stock. Then I recently had an eye on kits of late Japanese high altitude fighters with turbosuperchargers, like the Ki-91-II or the Ki-106. These are available from RS Models, but rare and rather costly. And I wondered how a P-47 might look like without its deep belly? All this was finally thrown into a big idea stew, and the Ki-104 is the home-made hardware result!

 

As a side note: the Ki-104 was a real IJA project, AFAIK based/related to the Tachikawa Ki-94-I twin-boom/push-pull high altitude fighter, a re-worked, more conventional design. Information is sparese and it never reached any hardware stage and remained a paper project as the Rikugun Kogiken Ki-104; I just "revived" the number for my whif, but maybe the real Ki-104 could have looked like it... ;-)

 

The kit is a bashing of various parts and pieces:

- Fuselage and wing roots from an Academy P-47-25

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

- Tail fin is a modified part of a Matchbox Ju 188 stabilizer

- The stabilizers are outer sections from a Matchbox Douglas F3D Skyknight

- Cowling comes from an ART Model Grumman F8F Bearcat, the engine was scratched

- Propeller from a Hasegawa J7W Shinden

- Main wheels from a Matchbox F6F Hellcat

 

My choice fell onto the Academy Thunderbolt because it has engraved panel lines, offers the bubble canopy as well as good fit and detail. The belly duct had simply been sliced off, and the opening later faired over with styrene sheet and putty.

The Bearcat cowling was chosen because it had very good fitting width in order to match with the P-47 fuselage, and it turned out to be a very good choice - even though I had to add a dorsal connection, a simple styrene wedge, to create a good profile.

Inside, the engine consists of a reversed Hobby Boss F6F engine, with a fan dummy that covers any view on non-existent interior details... A styrene tube was added, into which a metal axis can be inserted. The latter holds the propeller, so that it can spin with little hindrance.

 

The Attacker wings were chosen because of their "modern" laminar profile - the Novo kit is horrible, but acceptable for donations. And the risen panel lines and rivets should later do great work during the weathering process... OOB, the Attacker wings had too little span for the big P-47, so I decided to mount the Thunderbolt's OOB wings and cut them at a suitable point: maybe 0.5", just where the large wheel fairings for the main landing gear ends.

The intersection with the Attacker wings is almost perfect in depth and width, relatively little putty work was necessary. I just had to cut out new landing gear well parts.

 

With the new wing shape, the tail surfaces had to be changed accordingly, with parts from a Matchbox Skyknight and a highly modified piece from a Matchbox Ju 188 stabilizer.

 

The OOB cockpit and landing gear was retained, I just replaced the main wheels with slightly more delicate alternatives from a Matchbox F6F Hellcat.

 

Once the basic bodywork was done I added the exhaust arrangement under the fuselage; the outlets are oil cooler parts from a Fw 190A, the air scoop once belonged to a Martin Marauder and the long ducts are actually HO scale roof rails. The oil cooler under the engine comes from a Hobby Boss La-7.

 

Pretty wild mix, but it works surprisingly well!

  

Painting and markings:

Even though this was supposed to become a late WWII IJA fighter, I did neither want the stereotype NMF look nor the classic green/grey livery or a respective mottled scheme. What I finally settled upon, though, took a long while to manifest, and it looks ...odd.

 

I wanted a camouflage scheme, but none of the more exotic real world options was fine for me; there had been fighters with black upper surfaces, bright blue ones, or blue mottle on top of NMF. But all this did not convince me, and I eventually created an experimental scheme. And the paint was supposed to look heavily worn, as if the paint had been applied directly onto the bare metal, without primer, so that it chips and flakes off easily.

 

The tones were supposed to be suitable for high altitudes, but not the classic IJA colors - nothing even close. eventuelly I came up with an all-around turquoise green (ModelMaster Fulcrum Grey Green) plus a pale grey-green (ModelMaster RAF Dark Slate Grey) as contrast for the upper sides. Sick combination, yes, esp. with the Aluminum shining through, which was applied first as a kind of acrylic primer. The camouflage paint was carefully brushed on top of that, with panel-wise strokes from back to front. Tedious, but effective.

 

The black tail was applied similarly, it is a free interpretation of real IJA markings; for instance, the 244th Sentai arcraft bore all-red tail sections. Black is an uncommon color, but since I wanted to create fictional squadron markings, too, this was a suitable concept. And it looks cool and mysterious...

 

The cockpit interior was painted with Aodake Iro (Modelmaster), the section behind the pilot's seat and where the sliding canopy moves on the outside, were painted with IJA Dark Green - just an odd idea. In front of the cockpit a black anti glare panel was added. The landing gear and the respective wells were painted with Steel Metallizer (just to set them apart from the lighter Aluminum all around). The propeller was painted in reddish brown tones, the spinner in Humbrol 160 and the blades in 173.

 

After this basic painting the kit received a black ink wash, and decals were applied. These were taken from various aftermarket sheets, including generic, white and yellow sheet for the Home Defence markings on wings and fuselage, the white fuselage trim or the yellow ID markings on the wings' leading edges.

 

As next step the complete kit was carefully wet-sanded, primarily from front to back, so that more of the aluminum primer showed through, the decals (esp. the Hinomaru) were worn out and the camouflage paint on top lost some of its hard edges.

The sanding residues had to be cleaned away thoroughly (with a soft toothbrush and lots of water), and then, repairs, e .g. where the bare plastic came through, as well as extra effects with dry-painted, lighter camouflage tones were done. Final cosmetics also include oil and dirt stains with Tamiya"Smoke", also applied by brush.

 

Once everything was dry and clean (despite the kit's look), everything was sealed under a coat of varnish - a 3:1 mix of matt and gloss Revell Acrylics.

 

A complex and lengthy painting process, but I think the effort paid out because the procedure mimicks the structure and look of a worn paint job instead of trying to look like it when you paint a cammo scheme and add metal effects "on top". This works for small chips, but not for the flaked look I had been looking for.

 

The Ki-104 turned out to be a very conclusive kitbashing - I think that the P-47-with-Attacker-wings-and-new-cowling bears more potential, and I might try it again, e. g. for a naval Thunderbolt development?

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

 

Some background:

In the late 1920s, the Aéronautique Militaire (Belgian Air Force) set out to replace its old aircraft. Accordingly, Belgian officers attended the Hendon Air Display where they saw a Fairey Firefly and met Fairey staff. The Firefly toured Belgian air bases in 1930 and met with approval from pilots. This led to a contract for 12 UK-built Firefly II to be followed by a further 33 aircraft built in Belgium.

 

Fairey already had a number of Belgians in key roles in the company; Ernest Oscar Tips and Marcel Lobelle had joined during the First World War. Tips went to Belgium to set up the subsidiary company. He based the new company near Charleroi. The fighter ace Fernand Jacquet who operated a flying school nearby joined the company in 1931.

Avions Fairey received further orders for Fireflies followed by Fairey Foxes which would be the main aircraft of the Belgian Air Force; being used as a fighter, bomber and training aircraft.

 

Most of Avions Fairey work was on military contracts. The contact with the Belgian military led to Fairey developing the Fairey Fantôme as a followup to the Firefly for the Belgians. Of the three prototypes, two ended up in Spain (via the USSR) the third as a test aircraft with the RAF.

 

Another indigenous design of Avions Fairey was the Faune fighter, or better: it's fall-back design. The original design for the Faune started as an advanced (for the era) monoplane under the direction of Ernest Oscar Tips in 1934. He grew concerned that the design would not mature, and ordered a backup biplane design, just to be safe.

 

Internally called the "Faune-B", the alternative biplane was also a modern design with staggered, gulled upper wings that were directly attached to the fuselage and stabilized by single spars. The single bay wings were of wooden construction, while the fuselage was of mixed steel and duralumin construction, with a fabric covered steering surfaces.

 

Aerodynamic problems with the favored monoplane design led in 1935 to an end of its development, and further resources were allocated to the biplane. The most significant change of this revised version was the introduction of a retractable landing gear, which necessitated the lower wing main spar to be moved backwards by almost 1' and led to a distinctive wing layout.

 

In this modified guise the first flight was made in October 1936 with Fernand Jacquet at the controls, powered by an imported Bristol Jupiter engine and outfitted with a wooden, fixed pitch propeller. Armament comprised four 7.5 mm (.295 in) MAC 1934 machine guns with 300 RPG, two synchronized in the upper forward fuselage, and one under each lower wing, mounted in an external nacelle outside the propeller disc.

 

The Belgian Air Force accepted the fighter and production as Mk. I started in 1938, now powered by a licensed built Bristol Mercury that drove a three blade variable pitch propeller, and a fully enclosed cockpit. Compared with the very similar Gloster Gladiator, which was used by the Aviation Militaire Belge at that time, too, the Faune showed a higher speed and better climb rate, but was not as agile. The field of view for the pilot was poor, especially on the ground, and the narrow and low landing gear made ground handling, esp. on unprepared airfields, hazardous. Furthermore, the landing gear's complicated manual mechanism was prone to failure, and as a consequence the landing gear was frequently kept down so that the aerodynamic bonus was negated.

 

In late 1939 a total of 42 Avions Fairey Faunes had been built, and in order to compensate for the weaknesses trials were made to incorporate heavier armament in early 1939: the wing-mounted machine guns were on some machines replaced by 20mm Hispano-Suiza HS.404 cannon in deeper fairings and with 40 RPG, and the modified machines were designated Mk. IA. Around 20 machines were converted from service airframes and reached the active squadrons in early 1940. Furthermore, one Faune Mk. I was experimentally outfitted with a streamlined cowling, designated Mk. II, but befor the machine could be tested or even flown, Belgium had been occupied.

 

With the looming German neighbors, Belgium also ordered Hawker Hurricanes to be built in Belgium. However, on 10 May 1940, the Avions Fairey factory was heavily bombed by the Germans, the company personnel evacuated to France, and then left for England. Their ship was sunk by German bombers outside St Nazaire, though, and eight Fairey staff were killed; the survivors worked for the parent company during the Second World War. None of the Belgian Faunes survived this WWII episode.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 27 ft 5 in (8.36 m)

Wingspan: 32 ft 3 in (9.83 m)

Height: 11 ft 9 in (3.58 m)

Wing area: 323 ft2 (30.0 m2)

Empty weight: 3,217 lb (1,462 kg)

Loaded weight: 4,594 lb (2,088 kg)

 

Powerplant:

1× Bristol Mercury VIII radial engine, 625 kW (840 hp)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 253 mph (220 knots, 407 km/h) at 14,500 ft (4,400 m)

Cruise speed: 210 mph[94]

Stall speed: 53 mph (46 knots, 85 km/h)

Endurance: 2 hours

Service ceiling: 32,800 ft (10,000 m)

Rate of climb: 2,300 ft/min[94] (11.7 m/s)

Climb to 10,000 ft (3,050 m): 4.75 min

 

Armament:

Initially (Mk. I) two synchronised .303" Vickers machine guns in fuselage sides,

plus two .303" Lewis machine guns; one beneath each lower wing.

Mk. IA aircraft had the wing-mounted machine guns replaced by

two 20mm Hispano-Suiza HS.404 cannon

 

The kit and its assembly:

This one was inspired on short notice by a series of side profiles of a fictional British creation called "Bristol Badger", published by whatifmodeler.com's NightHunter with support from Eswube and Darth Panda - very reminiscent of the PZL 24 fighter, but a biplane. A very pretty creation that could rival with the Gloster Gladiator - and seeing the profiles I wondered if a retractable landing gear could be added, in the style of a Grumman F4F or the Curtiss SBC? Hence the idea was born to take this CG creation to the hardware stage.

 

Another side of the story is that I had been pondering about changing the ugly Curtiss SBC into a single seat fighter. And since the "Badger" would be an equivalent build I eventually decided to combine both ideas.

 

Legwork turned out that the Bristol Badger actually existed, so it was not the proper name for this creation. Since my designh benchmark was a Belgian aircraft I simply switched the manufacturer to Avions Fairey (see above). ;)

 

Effectively the Faune is a kitbash of a Heller SBC and a Polikarpov I-15 from ICM - the latter is a noteworthy, small kit because it is full of details, including even an internal frame structure for the cockpit and a highly detailed engine - without any PE parts.

 

From the SBC the fuselage and the lower wing was taken. The I-15 donated the upper gull wing and its tail - the SBC's was cut away where the observer's station would be, and the diameter of both fuselage sections matches well. The I-15's fabric cover on the tail disappeared under putty. The SBC's canopy was also used , just the observer's rearmost part was cut away and a new spine and fairing sculpted from putty.

 

Since I wanted a different engine installation (not the streamlined but somewhat ugly solution of the SBC) the SBC fuselage was also cut away in front of the landing gear wells. Bulkheads from styrene sheet were added, and I implanted the nose section and the Bristol Jupiter engine with an open ring cowling from a Matchbox Vickers Wellesley.

Once the wings were in place I implanted the SBC's struts and some wiring was added. The landing gear comes from the SBC, too. The cannons under the wings come from a Hobby Boss Bf 109F.

  

Painting and markings:

As mentioned above, I used a Belgian Air Force aircraft as design benchmark, and this meant a simple livery in khaki and aluminum dope, similar to Belgian Gloster Gladiators or Fairey Foxes in the late 30ies.

 

The paint scheme is very simple, I used "French Khaki" from Modelmaster's Authentic enamel range and acrylic Aluminum from Revell. All internal surfaces were painted with RAF Cockpit Green (Modelmaster). The wing struts were painted glossy black, just as on Belgian Foxes or Gladiators of the time.

After a light black ink wash I did some shading with Faded Olive Drab, Humbrol 102 and even some RLM 02, while the Aluminum received some panels in Humbrol 56 and Modelmaster's Aluminum Lacquer. Panel lines were added with a simple, soft pencil.

 

The decals had to be puzzled together - originally I wanted to use a set for a Belgian Hurricane, but the carreir film turned out to be brittle, so the roundels now come from a generic TL Modellbau sheet, the "Cocotte Bleue" from an anniversary Mirage 5BE, and the codes actually belong to a Chilean D.H. Venom...

 

Finally, everything was sealed under a mix of 80% flat and 20% gloss acrylic varnish.

 

In the end, a major kitbash that looks rather simple - but I am actually surprised how well the parts of the I-15 and SBC went together. And the result does not look like the Frankenstein creation this whif kit actually is... ;)

 

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

 

How it came to be:

It has been a long time since I built a "real" airplane kit, and this one here is a one-of-a-kind. After a bleak phase with lots of reading about German WWII airplane projects I found a spark to fire up a project I kept in the back of my mind for a long time: building one of these semi-fictional WWII airplanes from scratch. These astonishing designs were on the drawing boards at their time and rarely made it beyond that. Only a few reached prototype status at the end of the war, but today these partly weird designs are the basis of today's Luft '46 model kit genre: What-if airplanes, based on sketches, construction plans and pure speculation, in the case the war would have gone on.

 

At this point I want to make clear that this kit has NO political background. It is not even intended, and any Nazi symbolism is intentionally avoided and rejected. It is rather a hommage to an impressive design and, from my personal point of view, pure science fiction, based on vague historic facts.

 

Some historic background on this plane:

This plane is a Focke-Wulf study from 1941 for a heavy fighter. It was developes shortly after the Fw 190 introduction and surely influenced by the twin-boom Fw 189 reconnaissance aircraft, which became very popular due to its high agility, stable flight characteristics and toughness against enemy fire. The small "Flitzer" turbine engine fighter will surely also have had some impact, since it was on Focke Wulf's drawing boards in 1943, too.

 

This beast here would have been a much larger airplane, though: a heavy, high performance fighter built around the potent BMW 803 engine: a 28 cylinder, liquid-cooled radial engine in the 4.000 hp output range - comparable to the P&W-R-4360 Wasp Major engine (the so-called "corncob") which actually found its way into the Vought F2G Corsair but "just" put out 3.000 hp.

For reference, this Focke Wulf design was quite comparable to the US American XP-54, both in design and performance

 

The Focke Wulf fighter never received an official designation, and saw some mutation in the course of 1943. Even though the basic layout as a twin-boom, single pusher engine airplane with a tricycle landing gear was retained, the radiator placements, wing and tail shape changed.

From the original 1941 annular radiator design (a ring opening around the central fuselage), the arrangement was modified in April 1943 to a single drum radiator in the nose and, alternatively, twin drum radiators in the front ends of the tailbooms. The latter design is the layout I chose for my model, or better: where I ended up (see below).

  

Valuable sources:

Walter Schick, Ingolf Meyer: Luftwaffe Secret Projects, Fighters 1939-1945, Hinckley, 2005 (this is an English translation of the original German edition, Stuttgart, 1994, but with many colored illustrations added).

 

Sundin, Claes; Bergstroem, Christer: Deutsche Jaqgdflugzeuge 1939-1945 in Farbprofilen, Bonn, 1999.

 

www.luft46.com - a great online institution which offers many facts, information and artwork about secret German WWII airplane designs like this one - you can find a nice CG graphic of the initial 1941 design of this machine there.

 

wp.scn.ru - "Wings Palette" - a Russian website which collects plane profiles and some details about the respective machine's history. A nice reference archive, since a lot information concerning colors can be found there, too. Handling is poor, though. But once you get it, it is a great model kit building source.

  

The construction:

Anyway, this Focke Wulf design never left the drawing board, and this model here is just an interpretation of the vague design sketches I found in literature. It is also limited by the use of various existing kits as a kitbashing basis. My idea was to build a what-if version of the airplane if it had entered service, which would allow some deviations from the blueprints and also leave some room for a semi-realistic Luftwaffe livery.

 

What went into this model:

 

Grumman Panther (1:72, Matchbox/Revell):

- Main body,

- Parts of the outer wings

- Cockpit interior

- Canopy

 

Lockheed P-38E Lightning (1:72; Airfix):

- Tailbooms

- Horizontal fin

- Cockpit parts

- Landing gear

- Propeller spinners

 

Messerschmidt Me 262 A-2a (1:72, Hobby Master):

- Outer wings

- Wheels

 

Dornier Do 217N (1:72, Italeri):

- Engine cowling (rear central fuselage)

- Propellers

 

Other smaller donations:

- Kamow Ka-25 (1:72, Airfix): Vertical fins

- Chance Vought XF5U-1 (1:72, Hasegawa): Propeller spinners

- Chance Vought F4U (1:72, Matchbox): Engine block

- Messerschmidt Me-110 (1:72, Matchbox): Pilot figure

...and a lot of small stuff of unknown origin!

  

Laying the foundations

The basic choice for donation kits was quickly done: the central body would come from the Grumman F9F-4 Panther kit from Matchbox (currently released by Revell). Its overall proportions match well with the Focke Wulf design's central body and its size well, and the kit's construction with folded wings and a separate tail fin allowed easy modification for the pusher engine layout.

 

Originally, I wanted to use the Panther's jet intakes as radiator openings for a fictional (and more elegant) design alternative to the "official" radiator solutions, but I had to skip this idea (see below). The slender tailbooms come from a vintage Airfix P-38H kit and are much more slender than the Focke Wulf designs. Furthermore, the original Focke Wulf main landing gear looks as if it would retract inwards - which collided with my intial radiator ideas! Due to the pusher propeller, a much longer landing gear than the Panther's wpould be necessary, and this would have needed much bigger compartments. Enlarging them appeared too complex, and there's be actually no space with my inital wing root radiator idea. Therefore, I decided to retract the main wheels into the twin booms, and the P-38 pieces were just perfect for my ideas (and at hand). They'd undergo major modifications, though.

 

The twin booms were to be mounted onto the Panther's inner wings, and from there the rest of the model design would come when the parts were needed or available, since matching proportions for a balanced look is an important aspect when you build from scratch - a lesson I learned through varioius mecha bashings and modifications. I had some plans though: for the outer wings, for instance, I considered straight wings from a Fw 190 or parts from a Do 335 "Arrow", since these are slightly swept and would match the original drawings quite well.

  

The body parts get assembled

Work started straightforward with the tailbooms: they needed total cleaning, so that the P-38 look would disappear as much as possible: intercooolers and turbochargers had to go, and the engines were to "disappear", too. The Airfix kit is pretty old and clumsy, but offers massive material to work with. Another positive aspect is that the main landing gear compartments are complete parts, including the doors and all the inside. A neat arrangement which would later allow a switch between extended and retracted wheels!

 

The Panther's fuselage was cut open at the rear end to hold the BMW 803 engine, which requiered a new cowling. This came from a Dornier Do 217 with BMW 801 engines from Italeri, the BMW 803 dummy inside comes from a Matchbox F4U kit. The diameters of both segments were pretty equal and were easily merged with putty.

 

The Panther's front end was taken as it is, including the cockpit. The latter is actually very detailed for a Matchbox kit, with side consoles, a dashboard with instruments and even steering stick is included. I just fitted a better seat and a WWII pilot figure, which received an oxygen mask and its head was turned left for a more vivid look.

 

Since the front wheel had to be much longer than the Panther pieces I decided to use the P-38 front landing gear. Consequently, I enlarged its compartment (towards the nose, with a transplanted interior) and moved the Panther's nose guns from their original low position upwards. The kit's nose was filled with lots of lead in order to ensure a good weight on the front wheel for free standing on its tricycle undercarriage.

 

The BMW 803's contraprops had to be built from scratch. The basis were two leftover three-bladed rotors from the aforementioned Do 217 Italeri kit (they had just the correct diameter!) for the static display version, and two transparent plastic discs of the same diameter in order to mimic running propellers for photo shooting purposes in flight.

The spinners were a nightmare, though. They come from a wrecked 1:72 Hasegawa kit of a Chance Vought XF5U-1 (The "Flying Pancake"). Cut into three pieces, the three-bladed props were implanted into the spinner segments and a metal axis inserted, so that the propellers can be moved and interchanged. A plastic tube inside of the engine dummy is the respective adapter and offers a stable hold.

  

Trouble! ...and even more trouble!

As rough work progressed, some fundamental problems became obvious:

 

a) the P-38 booms were too long at their front, and their diameter was much too large. Cutting the front ends off did not help much, since I would have had to create new front covers/noses from putty and their bulky shape would look very unsinspired - way off of the Focke Wulf design! Hence, I finally decided to switch my personal design plan from the wing root intake arrangement to the authetic twin drum radiator layout from April 1943.

The Panther's air intakes would be totally closed, leaving pretty "fat" wing roots of high thickness. But since armament was supposed to be loacted in both the nose and wing roots of this machine (see below), this offered a good chance to cover the mess up a little.

Finding something to act as drum radiators was another problem that followed suit! At first I thought I'd become happy with two leftover engines from a Matchbox PB4-Y2 Privateer in 1:72 scale. These are/were actually Twin Wasp radial engines, but their diameter, the grates inside and their cooling flaps made them suited for my kit. They fitted well, but it just did not look right (see some of the WIP pics).

Heavy-hearted I skipped this approach and also built the drums radiators from scratch. I finally found some good parts in model railraod equipment: in a HO Modulars set from Cornerstone with various roof detils for industrial buildings, I found two nice "tubs" (parts for motorized vents) which were merged with lots of putty and sanding onto the clipped tail booms. The radiator arrangement inside was made up from parts from a 1:72 scale Panzer IV(!) and from the Airfix P-38 spinners. The cooling flaps are very thin Plasticard. Comparing this solution with the original plane sketches, the result looks convicing and more "realistic" than originally planned! Whew...

 

b) The wing root/twin boom area was another source of headaches, since I had to merge parts that were never supposed to meet, in places even less intended for construction. But a mini drill with a diamond cutter and epoxy putty are wonderful things!

Spacers between the Panther hull and the booms had to be made, closing a 5mm gap on each side because the propeller needed this much space between the booms. Parts of the leftover Panther kit's outer wings were the basis, and the original P-38's horizonmtal fin could be used, too. Sound simple, but almost the complete area had to be remodeled with putty.

  

The big picture becomes clear(er)

Now that the main part of the body was finished, the final missing pieces could be added and first details defined.

 

For the outer wings, I finally settled on parts from a Me 262 from Hobby Boss. These have the advantage that they are massive pieces (not two halves, as usual) and that the Me 262's engine nacelles could easily be left away. As a result, I had two thin, slightly swept wings which could easily be cut into the right length for my project. Fixing them to the P-38 tail booms was another story, though!

The original Focke Wulf design uses simpler and thicker wings, which look very similar to the Do 335. But I justify my choice with the advancements in aerodynamics since the 1943 revision of the original plane's design and the effective introduction of the Me 262 into production and service. Using these parts or a similar design for high speeds in another airplane appears plausible in order to get this machine into the air quickly, and the slender Me 262 wings blend well with the angles of the inner wings from the Panther.

 

The vertical fins also puzzled me for some time. The round P-38 fins had definitively to go, but the different Focke Wulf design sketches did not show a definitive vertical fin shape or arrangement. Since I wanted an old-fashioned, not jet-like look, I went for parts from the scrap box again. And, believe it or not, the model's retro-looking vertical fins actually come from a helicopter: from an antique 1:72 scale Kamow Ka-25 "Hokum" from Airfix!

 

The main landing gear was taken from the P-38, but the wheels come from the scrap box. I am not sure where these come from - they could come from a Douglas Skyknight from Matchbox. Since the Airfix kit's contruction offers the main landing gear to be inserted as complete units, I also used the covers for the retracted gear for the photo shootings, for some pictures in flight.

  

Armament:

Being a heavy daylight fighter, I stuck to the original 1941 design armament: four fixed 20mm MG 151/20 in the nose, plus "provision for two larger calibre cannons", plus two or four machine guns installed in the wing-roots. The firepower would have been massive!

 

For my model I adopted the four 20mm guns in the upper nose and added four 30mm MK 103 cannons in the wing roots. Since these offered now lots of space, this arrangement would make the thick wing and the blended bodywork plausible, without looking exagerrated.

The nose guns are just thin polystyrol sticks, the larger calibre guns are syringe needles cut to length with the beloved diamond cutter.

 

But beyond the guns, I also wanted to add some of the experimental air-to-air weapons that were under development against allied bomber forces in 1945. Among those was the world's probably first guided AAM, the Kramer X-4: a relatively small, wire-guided missile with a range of just 3 miles and a contact detonator.

Tests with this innovative weapon were conducted in the late war months, and the X-4 was suppoesed to be carried by e. g. Me 262 fighters. The targeting procedure would easily overstress a single pilot's capabilities, though, esp. in the heat of a bomber formation attack at high speeds. Therefore, field tests were rather performed by multi-seated planes like the Ju 88, and the X-4 did not enter serious service.

But this missile would have been a plausible weapon for this Focke Wulf design, and so two X-4s found their way with starting racks under my model's wings.

Each missile consists of nine parts and had to be built from scratch. The body is a streamlined, modern 250 lbs. Mk 81 bomb, the wings were cut from thin polystyrol. The wire spools on the wing tips are actually parts from a HO scale fence(!), the acoustic detonator nose are leftover tool handles from a 1:35 scale tank kit.

  

Livery and markings:

Being a semi-fictional design that never left the drawing board, I tried to implement a "typical" late war Luftwaffe livery. Benchmarks were Me 262 fighter paint schemes, as well as late Fw 190D-9 and Ta-152 machines. Since the plane itself was already centre of attraction, the paint job should be rather subtle, yet authentic.

 

All interior areas (cockpit, engine, landing gear) were painted in RLM 02. For the outside I ended up with a basic livery in RLM 74/75/76, using colors from Testor's Military Models and Figures range, 2071, 2084, 2085, 2086.

The upper splinter scheme with faded/mottled fuselage sides (which includes RLM 02 in order to create a soft color transition from the dark upper sides into the light RLM 76 underneath, a common practice in field conditions) was derived from a Me 262 profile. This machine also contributed the dark green (RLM 82) color fields on the nose and other fuselage parts. These would not have been standard livery, I think, rather improvised in the field. But this subtle detail prevents the plane from being all grey-in-grey.

 

The markings come from various decal sheets and were a kind of challenge. I intended to mark this machine as being part of an Erprobungskommando (test unit), or EKdo or EK, for short. But these squadrons would not have special designations, though. Prototypes woud carry a "V"-number (for Versuch/test), but I wanted a machine already in service. So I made up a semi-fictional squadron marking as a part of the late Reich defense.

 

Typical markings are the colored band at the rear fuselage, its color and scheme being associated with certain Jagdgeschwader (JG) wings, dedicated to interception tasks. The red tail band(s) denote this machine as being part of JG 1, which comprised several Staffeln/groups and squadrons with individual emblems. The JG 1's red tail band would not have been used in the late war years in real life, but, hey, it LOOKS good, and we're finally doing fictional things here! As a side note, JG 1 was the only wing (to be exact: 1./JG 1 and later, in April 1945 III./JG 1) to use the He 162 Salamender jet fighter, so JG 1 appears to be a general plausible choice for this fictional Focke Wulf fighter.

The red wave symbol should, AFAIK, mark the 2nd group of that wing, but it could also be a symbol for the pilot's rank - that's quite obscure and had not been handled consistently. For squadron markings I setlled on 6./JG 1 - the red wyvern was this group's squadron emblem.

 

Decals come from aftermarkets sheet from TL-Modellbau (superb quality) and others i e. from a MiG-25 from Hasegawa (the red bort number) or the leftover decal sheet of the Hobby Boss Me 262 (mostly stencellings and warning signs).

 

After application of the decals on the semi-matte paint, everything was sealed under matte varnish.

 

The X-4 missiles were painted in a color livery I found for a museum X-4. Other test missiles were painted in black and white, checkered. Not sure if the field use missiles would have looked that bright, but for a test unit, the blank fuselage and the hi-vis, orange fins look just right and make a nice contrast to the dull rest of the machine.

  

Finally...

Lots of work, but the result looks better and more harmonious than I expected. O.K., the Panther's fuselage and cockpit deviate from the Focke Wulf sketches - but the plane I built would have had entered service 3 years after its redesign to the drum radiator design, and details like the bubble canopy or more modern weaponry would have certainly been incorporated.

The finish is not as good as a kit "out of the box", but considering the massive putty work, this machine looks quite good :)

 

And, after all, it is a fictional 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:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Main objective was to expand the Foxhound's state-of the-art performance, and coiple it with modern features like aerodynamic instability, supercruise, stealth features and further development potential.

 

The aircraft's core mission objectives comprised:

- Provide strategic air defense and surveillance in areas not covered by ground-based air defense systems (incl. guidance of other aircraft with less sophisticated avionics)

- Top speed of Mach 3.2 or more in a dash and cruise at Mach 3.0 for prolonged periods

- Long range/high speed interception of airspace intruders of any kind, including low flying cruise missiles, UAVs and helicopters

- Intercept cruise missiles and their launch aircraft from sea level up to 30.000m altitude by reaching missile launch range in the lowest possible time after departing the loiter area

 

Because funding was scarce and no official GOR had been issued, the project was taken on as a private venture. The new project was internally known as "Izdeliye 710" or "71.0". It was based on both 301 and 701 layout ideas and the wind tunnel experiences with their unusual layouts, as well as Oleg Samoylovich's experience with the Suchoi T-4 Mach 3 bomber project and the T-60S.

 

"Izdeliye 710" was from the start intended only as a proof-of-concept prototype, yet fully functional. It would also incorporate new technologies like heat-resistant ceramics against kinetic heating at prolonged high speeds (the airframe had to resist temperatures of 300°C/570°F and more for considerable periods), but with potential for future development into a full-fledged interceptor, penetrator and reconnaissance aircraft.

 

Overall, “Izdeliye 710" looked like a shrinked version of a mix of both former MiG OKB 301 and 701 designs, limited to the MiG-31's weight class of about 40 tons TOW. Compared with the former designs, the airframe received an aerodynamically more refined, partly blended, slender fuselage that also incorporated mild stealth features like a “clean” underside, softened contours and partly shielded air intakes. Structurally, the airframe's speed limit was set at Mach 3.8.

 

From the earlier 301 design,the plane retained the variable geometry wing. Despite the system's complexity and weight, this solution was deemed to be the best approach for a combination of a high continuous top speed, extended loiter time in the mission’s patrol areas and good performance on improvised airfields. Minimum sweep was a mere 10°, while, fully swept at 68°, the wings blended into the LERXes. Additional lift was created through the fuselage shape itself, so that aerodynamic surfaces and therefore drag could be reduced.

 

Pilot and radar operator sat in tandem under a common canopy with rather limited sight. The cockpit was equipped with a modern glass cockpit with LCD screens. The aircraft’s two engines were, again, placed in a large, mutual nacelle on the upper rear fuselage, fed by large air intakes with two-dimensional vertical ramps and a carefully modulated airflow over the aircraft’s dorsal area.

 

Initially, the 71.0 was to be powered by a pair of Soloviev D-30F6 afterburning turbofans with a dry thrust of 93 kN (20,900 lbf) each, and with 152 kN (34,172 lbf) with full afterburner. These were the same engines that powered the MiG-31, but there were high hopes for the Kolesov NK-101 engine: a variable bypass engine with a maximum thrust in the 200kN range, at the time of the 71.0's design undergoing bench tests and originally developed for the advanced Suchoj T-4MS strike aircraft.

With the D-30F6, the 71.0 was expected to reach Mach 3.2 (making the aircraft capable of effectively intercepting the SR-71), but the NK-101 would offer in pure jet mode a top speed in excess of Mach 3.5 and also improve range and especially loiter time when running as a subsonic turbofan engine.

 

A single fin with an all-moving top and an additional deep rudder at its base was placed on top of the engine nacelle. Additional maneuverability at lower speed was achieved by retractable, all-moving foreplanes, stowed in narrow slits under the cockpit. Longitudinal stability at high speed was improved through deflectable stabilizers: these were kept horizontal for take-off and added to the overall lift, but they could be folded down by up to 60° in flight, acting additionally as stabilizer strakes.

 

Due to the aircraft’s slender shape and unique proportions, the 71.0 quickly received the unofficial nickname "жура́вль" (‘Zhurávl' = Crane). The aircaft’s stalky impression was emphasized even more through its unusual landing gear arrangement: Due to the limited internal space for the main landing gear wells between the weapons bay, the wing folding mechanisms and the engine nacelle, MiG OKB decided to incorporate a bicycle landing gear, normally a trademark of Yakovlew OKB designs, but a conventional landing gear could simply not be mounted, or its construction would have become much too heavy and complex.

 

In order to facilitate operations from improvised airfields and on snow the landing gear featured twin front wheels on a conventional strut and a single four wheel bogie as main wheels. Smaller, single stabilizer wheels were mounted on outriggers that retracted into slender fairings at the wings’ fixed section trailing edge, reminiscent of early Tupolev designs.

 

All standard air-to-air weaponry, as well as fuel, was to be carried internally. Main armament would be the K-100 missile (in service eventually designated R-100), stored in a large weapons bay behind the cockpit on a rotary mount. The K-100 had been under development at that time at NPO Novator, internally coded ‘Izdeliye 172’. The K-100 missile was an impressive weapon, and specifically designed to attack vital and heavily defended aerial targets like NATO’s AWACS aircraft at BVR distance.

 

Being 15’ (4.57 m) long and weighing 1.370 lb (620 kg), this huge ultra-long-range weapon had a maximum range of 250 mi (400 km) in a cruise/glide profile and attained a speed of Mach 6 with its solid rocket engine. This range could be boosted even further with a pair of jettisonable ramjets in tubular pods on the missile’s flanks for another 60 mi (100 km). The missile could attack targets ranging in altitude between 15 – 25,000 meters.

 

The weapon would initially be allocated to a specified target through the launch aircraft’s on-board radar and sent via inertial guidance into the target’s direction. Closing in, the K-100’s Agat 9B-1388 active seeker would identify the target, lock on, and independently attack it, also in coordination with other K-100’s shot at the same target, so that the attack would be coordinated in time and approach directions in order to overload defense and ensure a hit.

 

The 71.0’s internal mount could hold four of these large missiles, or, alternatively, the same number of the MiG-31’s R-33 AAMs. The mount also had a slot for the storage of additional mid- and short-range missiles for self-defense, e .g. three R-60 or two R-73 AAMs. An internal gun was not considered to be necessary, since the 71.0 or potential derivatives would fight their targets at very long distances and rather rely on a "hit-and-run" tactic, sacrificing dogfight capabilities for long loitering time in stand-by mode, high approach speed and outstanding acceleration and altitude performance.

 

Anyway, provisions were made to carry a Gsh-301-250 gun pod on a retractable hardpoint in the weapons bay instead of a K-100. Alternatively, such pods could be carried externally on four optional wing root pylons, which were primarily intended for PTB-1500 or PTB-3000 drop tanks, or further missiles - theoretically, a maximum of ten K-100 missiles could be carried, plus a pair of short-range AAMs.

 

Additionally, a "buddy-to-buffy" IFR set with a retractable drogue (probably the same system as used on the Su-24) was tested (71.2 was outfitted with a retractable refuelling probe in front of the cockpit), as well as the carriage of simple iron bombs or nuclear stores, to be delivered from very high altitudes. Several pallets with cameras and sensors (e .g. a high resolution SLAR) were also envisioned, which could easily replace the missile mounts and the folding weapon bay covers for recce missions.

 

Since there had been little official support for the project, work on the 710 up to the hardware stage made only little progress, since the MiG-31 already filled the long-range interceptor role in a sufficient fashion and offered further development potential.

A wooden mockup of the cockpit section was presented to PVO and VVS officials in 1989, and airframe work (including tests with composite materials on structural parts, including ceramic tiles for leading edges) were undertaken throughout 1990 and 1991, including test rigs for the engine nacelle and the swing wing mechanism.

 

Eventually, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 suddenly stopped most of the project work, after two prototype airframes had been completed. Their internal designations were Izdeliye 71.1 and 71.2, respectively. It took a while until the political situation as well as the ex-Soviet Air Force’s status were settled, and work on Izdeliye 710 resumed at a slow pace.

 

After taking two years to be completed, 71.1 eventually made its roll-out and maiden flight in summer 1994, just when MiG-31 production had ended. MiG OKB still had high hopes in this aircraft, since the MiG-31 would have to be replaced in the next couple of years and "Izdeliye 710" was just in time for the potential procurement process. The first prototype wore a striking all-white livery, with dark grey ceramic tiles on the wings’ leading edges standing out prominently – in this guise and with its futuristic lines the slender aircraft reminded a lot of the American Space Shuttle.

 

71.1 was primarily intended for engine and flight tests (esp. for the eagerly awaited NK-101 engines), as well as for the development of the envisioned ramjet propulsion system for full-scale production and further development of Izdeliye 710 into a Mach 3+ interceptor. No mission avionics were initially fitted to this plane, but it carried a comprehensive test equipment suite and ballast.

 

Its sister ship 71.2 flew for the first time in late 1994, wearing a more unpretentious grey/bare metal livery. This plane was earmarked for avionics development and weapons integration, especially as a test bed for the K-100 missile, which shared Izdeliye 710’s fate of being a leftover Soviet project with an uncertain future and an even more corny funding outlook.

 

Anyway, aircraft 71.2 was from the start equipped with a complete RP-31 ('Zaslon-M') weapon control system, which had been under development at that time as an upgrade for the Russian MiG-31 fleet being part of the radar’s development program secured financial support from the government and allowed the flight tests to continue. The RP-31 possessed a maximum detection range of 400 km (250 mi) against airliner-sized targets at high altitude or 200 km against fighter-sized targets; the typical width of detection along the front was given as 225 km. The system could track 24 airborne targets at one time at a range of 120 km, 6 of which could be simultaneously attacked with missiles.

 

With these capabilities the RP-31 suite could, coupled with an appropriate carrier airframe, fulfil the originally intended airspace control function and would render a dedicated and highly vulnerable airspace control aircraft (like the Beriev A-50 derivative of the Il-76 transport) more or less obsolete. A group of four aircraft equipped with the 'Zaslon-M' suite would be able to permanently control an area of airspace across a total length of 800–900 km, while having ultra-long range weapons at hand to counter any intrusion into airspace with a quicker reaction time than any ground-based fighter on QRA duty. The 71.0, outfitted with the RP-31/K-100 system, would have posed a serious threat to any aggressor.

 

In March 1995 both prototypes were eventually transferred to the Kerchenskaya Guards Air Base at Savasleyka in the Oblast Vladimir, 300 km east of Mocsow, where they received tactical codes of '11 Blue' and '12 Blue'. Besides the basic test program and the RP-31/K-100 system tests, both machines were directly evaluated against the MiG-31 and Su-27 fighters by the Air Force's 4th TsBPi PLS, based at the same site.

 

Both aircraft exceeded expectations, but also fell short in certain aspects. The 71.0’s calculated top speed of Mach 3.2 was achieved during the tests with a top speed of 3,394 km/h (2.108 mph) at 21,000 m (69.000 ft). Top speed at sea level was confirmed at 1.200 km/h (745 mph) indicated airspeed.

Combat radius with full weapon load and internal fuel only was limited to 1,450 km (900 mi) at Mach 0.8 and at an altitude of 10,000 m (33,000 ft), though, and it sank to a mere 720 km (450 mi) at Mach 2.35 and at an altitude of 18,000 m (59,000 ft). Combat range with 4x K-100 internally and 2 drop tanks was settled at 3,000 km (1,860 mi), rising to 5,400 km (3,360 mi) with one in-flight refueling, tested with the 71.2. Endurance at altitude was only slightly above 3 hours, though. Service ceiling was 22,800 m (74,680 ft), 2.000 m higher than the MiG-31.

 

While these figures were impressive, Soviet officials were not truly convinced: they did not show a significant improvement over the simpler MiG-31. MiG OKB tried to persuade the government into more flight tests and begged for access to the NK-101, but the Soviet Union's collapse halted this project, too, so that both Izdeliye 710 had to keep the Soloviev D-30F6.

 

Little is known about the Izdeliye 710 project’s progress or further developments. The initial tests lasted until at least 1997, and obviously the updated MiG-31M received official favor instead of a completely new aircraft. The K-100 was also dropped, since the R-33 missile and later its R-37 derivative sufficiently performed in the long-range aerial strike role.

 

Development on the aircraft as such seemed to have stopped with the advent of modernized Su-27 derivatives and the PAK FA project, resulting in the Suchoi T-50 prototype. Unconfirmed reports suggest that one of the prototypes (probably 71.1) was used in the development of the N014 Pulse-Doppler radar with a passive electronically scanned array antenna in the wake of the MFI program. The N014 was designed with a range of 420 km, detection target of 250km to 1m and able to track 40 targets while able to shoot against 20.

 

Most interestingly, Izdeliye 710 was never officially presented to the public, but NATO became aware of its development through satellite pictures in the early Nineties and the aircraft consequently received the ASCC reporting codename "Fastback".

 

Until today, only the two prototypes have been known to exist, and it is assumed – had the type entered service – that the long-range fighter had received the official designation "MiG-41".

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2 (Pilot, weapon system officer)

Length (incl. pitot): 93 ft 10 in (28.66 m)

Wingspan:

- minimum 10° sweep: 69 ft 4 in (21.16 m)

- maximum 68° sweep: 48 ft 9 in (14,88 m)

Height: 23 ft 1 1/2 in (7,06 m )

Wing area: 1008.9 ft² (90.8 m²)

Weight: 88.151 lbs (39.986 kg)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed:

- Mach 3.2 (2.050 mph (3.300 km/h) at height

- 995 mph (1.600 km/h) supercruise speed at 36,000 ft (11,000 m)

- 915 mph (1.470 km/h) at sea level

Range: 3.705 miles (5.955 km) with internal fuel

Service ceiling: 75.000 ft (22.500 m)

Rate of climb: 31.000 ft/min (155 m/s)

 

Engine:

2x Soloviev D-30F6 afterburning turbofans with a dry thrust of 93 kN (20,900 lbf) each

and with 152 kN (34,172 lbf) with full afterburner.

 

Armament:

Internal weapons bay, main armament comprises a flexible missile load; basic ordnance of 4x K-100 ultra long range AAMs plus 2x R-73 short-range AAMs: other types like the R-27, R-33, R-60 and R-77 have been carried and tested, too, as well as podded guns on internal and external mounts. Alternatively, the weapon bay can hold various sensor pallets.

Four hardpoints under the wing roots, the outer pair “wet” for drop tanks of up to 3.000 l capacity, ECM pods or a buddy-buddy refueling drogue system. Maximum payload mass is 9000 kg.

  

The kit and its assembly

The second entry for the 2017 “Soviet” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com – a true Frankenstein creation, based on the scarce information about the real (but never realized) MiG 301 and 701 projects, the Suchoj T-60S, as well as some vague design sketches you can find online and in literature.

This one had been on my project list for years and I already had donor kits stashed away – but the sheer size (where will I leave it once done…?) and potential complexity kept me from tackling it.

 

The whole thing was an ambitious project and just the unique layout with a massive engine nacelle on top of the slender fuselage instead of an all-in-one design makes these aircraft an interesting topic to build. The GB was a good motivator.

 

“My” fictional interpretation of the MiG concepts is mainly based on a Dragon B-1B in 1:144 scale (fuselage, wings), a PM Model Su-15 two seater (donating the nose section and the cockpit, as well as wing parts for the fin) and a Kangnam MiG-31 (for the engine pod and some small parts). Another major ingredient is a pair of horizontal stabilizers from a 1:72 Hasegawa A-5 Vigilante.

 

Fitting the cockpit section took some major surgery and even more putty to blend the parts smoothly together. Another major surgical area was the tail; the "engine box" came to be rather straightforward, using the complete rear fuselage section from the MiG-31 and adding the intakes form the same kit, but mounted horizontally with a vertical splitter.

 

Blending the thing to the cut-away tail section of the B-1 was quite a task, though, since I not only wanted to add the element to the fuselage, but rather make it look a bit 'organic'. More than putty was necessary, I also had to made some cuts and transplantations. And after six PSR rounds I stopped counting…

 

The landing gear was built from scratch – the front wheel comes mostly from the MiG-31 kit. The central bogie and its massive leg come from a VEB Plasticart 1:100 Tu-20/95 bomber, plus some additional struts. The outriggers are leftover landing gear struts from a Hobby Boss Fw 190, mated with wheels which I believe come from a 1:200 VEB Plasticart kit, an An-24. Not certain, though. The fairings are slender MiG-21 drop tanks blended into the wing training edge. For the whole landing gear, the covers were improvised with styrene sheet, parts from a plastic straw(!) or leftover bits from the B-1B.

 

The main landing gear well was well as the weapons’ bay themselves were cut into the B-1B underside and an interior scratched from sheet and various leftover materials – I tried to maximize their space while still leaving enough room for the B-1B kit’s internal VG mechanism.

The large missiles (two were visible fitted and the rotary launcher just visibly hinted at) are, in fact, AGM-78 ‘Standard’ ARMs in a fantasy guise. They look pretty Soviet, though, like big brothers of the already not small R-33 missiles from the MiG-31.

 

While not in the focus of attention, the cockpit interior is completely new, too – OOB, the Su-15 cockpit only has a floor and rather stubby seats, under a massive single piece canopy. On top of the front wheel well (from a Hasegawa F-4) I added a new floor and added side consoles, scratched from styrene sheet. F-4 dashboards improve the decoration, and I added a pair of Soviet election seats from the scrap box – IIRC left over from two KP MiG-19 kits.

The canopy was taken OOB, I just cut it into five parts for open display. The material’s thickness does not look too bad on this aircraft – after all, it would need a rather sturdy construction when flying at Mach 3+ and withstanding the respective pressures and temperatures.

  

Painting

As a pure whif, I was free to use a weirdo design - but I rejected this idea quickly. I did not want a garish splinter scheme or a bright “Greenbottle Fly” Su-27 finish.

With the strange layout of the aircraft, the prototype idea was soon settled – and Soviet prototypes tend to look very utilitarian and lusterless, might even be left in grey. Consequently, I adapted a kind of bare look for this one, inspired by the rather shaggy Soviet Tu-22 “Blinder” bombers which carried a mix of bare metal and white and grey panels. With additional black leading edges on the aerodynamic surfaces, this would create a special/provisional but still purposeful look.

 

For the painting, I used a mix of several metallizer tones from ModelMaster and Humbrol (including Steel, Magnesium, Titanium, as well as matt and polished aluminum, and some Gun Metal and Exhaust around the engine nozzles, partly mixed with a bit of blue) and opaque tones (Humbrol 147 and 127). The “scheme” evolved panel-wise and step by step. The black leading edges were an interim addition, coming as things evolved, and they were painted first with black acrylic paint as a rough foundation and later trimmed with generic black decal stripes (from TL Modellbau). A very convenient and clean solution!

 

The radomes on nose and tail and other di-electric panels became dark grey (Humbrol 125). The cockpit tub was painted with Soviet Cockpit Teal (from ModelMaster), while the cockpit opening and canopy frames were kept in a more modest medium grey (Revell 57). On the outside of the cabin windows, a fat, deep yellow sealant frame (Humbrol 93, actually “Sand”) was added.

 

The weapon bay was painted in a yellow-ish primer tone (seen on pics of Tu-160 bombers) while the landing gear wells received a mix of gold and sand; the struts were painted in a mixed color, too, made of Humbrol 56 (Aluminum) and 34 (Flat White). The green wheel discs (Humbrol 131), a typical Soviet detail, stand out well from the rather subdued but not boring aircraft, and they make a nice contrast to the red Stars and the blue tactical code – the only major markings, besides a pair of MiG OKB logos under the cockpit.

 

Decals were puzzled together from various sheets, and I also added a lot of stencils for a more technical look. In order to enhance the prototype look further I added some photo calibration markings on the nose and the tail, made from scratch.

  

A massive kitbashing project that I had pushed away for years - but I am happy that I finally tackled it, and the result looks spectacular. The "Firefox" similarity was not intended, but this beast really looks like a movie prop - and who knwos if the Firefox was not inspired by the same projects (the MiG 301 and 701) as my kitbash model?

The background info is a bit lengthy, but there's some good background info concerning the aforementioned projects, and this aircraft - as a weapon system - would have played a very special and complex role, so a lot of explanations are worthwhile - also in order to emphasize that I di not simply try to glue some model parts together, but rather try to spin real world ideas further.

 

Mighty bird!

Re-bodied and yet he can still fit in them skinny jeans.. yeah!

+++ 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.

 

My finger to show how small N scale is... :D

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

  

General characteristics:

Crew: two, pilot and observer

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

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

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

Wing area: 30.2 m² (325 sq ft)

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

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

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

 

Powerplant:

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

driving a three-bladed variable pitch metal propeller

 

u>Performance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Armament:

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

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

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

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

  

The kit and its assembly:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  

Painting and markings:

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based 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:

In the aftermath of the Second World War, Britain identified a threat posed by the jet-powered strategic bomber and atomic weaponry and thus placed a great emphasis on developing aerial supremacy through continuing to advance its fighter technology, even following the end of conflict. Blackburn Aircraft responded to a 1947 Air Ministry requirement for a high-performance night fighter under Air Ministry specification F.44/46. The specification called for a two-seat night fighter that would intercept enemy aircraft at heights of up to at least 40,000 feet. It would also have to reach a maximum speed of no less than 525 kn at this height, be able to perform rapid ascents and attain an altitude of 45,000 feet within ten minutes of engine ignition.

 

Additional criteria given in the requirement included a minimum flight endurance of two hours, a takeoff distance of 1,500 yards, structural strength to support up to 4g manoeuvers at high speed and for the aircraft to incorporate airborne interception radar, multi-channel VHF radio and various navigational aids. The aircraft would also be required to be economical to produce, at a rate of ten per month for an estimated total of 150 aircraft.

 

Blackburn produced several design proposals in the hope of satisfying the requirement. B.47, drawn up in 1946, was essentially a two-seat Meteor with slightly swept wings. A similar design was also offered to the Royal Navy as the B.49. The later-issued B.76 and B.77 of early 1947 had adopted many of the features that would be distinctive of the later Barghest, including the large, swept wings and the engine nacelles moved to the wing roots, integrated into the fuselage. The two projects differed primarily in role: P.76 was a single-seat day fighter with a V-tail, while P.77 was a two-seat night fighter with a radar and a mid-mounted tail plane.

 

The RAF requirements were subject to some changes, mainly in regards to radar equipment and armaments. Blackburn also initiated some changes, as further research was conducted into the aerodynamic properties of the new swept wings and tail surfaces. For propulsion, the new Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire turbojet engine was chosen and the airframe adapted accordingly.

 

On 13 April 1949 the Ministry of Supply issued instructions to three aircraft manufacturers, Blackburn, Gloster and de Havilland, to each construct four airworthy prototypes of their competing designs to meet the requirement, as well as one airframe each for structural testing. These prototype aircraft were the Gloster GA.5, designed by Richard Walker, the de Havilland DH.110, which held the advantage of also being under consideration for the Royal Navy (and became the Sea Vixen), and the Blackburn B.87, which was a refined B.77 with a slimmed-down fuselage and a swept T-tail.

 

The development of all of these designs was considerably delayed through political cost-cutting measures, the number of prototypes being trimmed down to an unworkable level of two each before the decision was entirely reversed! The B.87 was soon christened Barghest and first prototype was structurally completed in 1951. Following a month of ground testing the first prototype conducted its first flight on 26 November 1951 and the second prototype followed in February 1952 (and was in 1953 used for aerodynamic tests that led to the improved Mk. 3, see below). The third prototype, and the first to be fitted with operational equipment including radar and weapons, first flew on 7 March 1953. The fourth airframe was passed to the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment (A&AEE) in August 1953 for trials.

 

The original Barghest all-weather fighter was equipped with a British AI.17 radar and powered by two Sapphire Sa.5 engines without afterburner, delivering 6,500 lbf (28.91 kN) thrust each. The aircraft did not have built-in weapons, but could carry various weapon packages in a spacious, ventral weapon bay. Options included a tray with four 30 mm ADEN cannon, three retractable pods with a total of 70 unguided Microcell 2 in (51mm) missiles, or a recoilless 4.5 in gun with 7 rounds in a drum magazine, even though this huge weapon, intended against incoming bomber formations at high altitude, never made it beyond the prototype stage and ground tests. Furthermore, four underwing hardpoints could carry drop tanks (on the inner pair of pylons only), bombs or unguided SNEB rocket pods for a total load of 4.000 lb (1.814 kg).

 

The official production order for the Barghest was issued in mid-1953, together with the Gloster GA.5, which became the Javelin – an unusual decision, but the need for an operational all-weather fighter was so dire that two types were procured at the same time in order to fill the defense gaps as quickly as possible and to have a fall back option at hand immediately. While some delays were incurred, the Barghest's status as a "super priority" for production helped to minimize the time involved in producing each aircraft. Production was assisted by a large order placed by the United States Air Force, purchasing aircraft for the RAF as part of the Mutual Defense Aid Program.

 

On 22 July 1954 the first production aircraft took flight at Leeds, and the Barghest F(AW).1 entered service with the RAF in 1956 with 46 Squadron based at RAF Odiham, England. The Barghests were immediately put to use in an intensive flying program, to rapidly familiarize crews with the type. In order to assist conversion training, twelve machines from the initial production batch were converted into dual control trainers. They lacked the radar equipment and were designated T.2.

 

The introduction of the Barghest allowed the RAF to expand its night-fighter activity considerably. During RAF trials, the type proved readily capable of intercepting jet bombers such as the English Electric Canberra and modern jet fighters, over a hundred miles out to sea, and the Barghest turned out to be quite an agile aircraft with good flying characteristics, despite its size. By the end of July 1959, all remaining Meteor squadrons had been converted to the Barghest and the Javelin.

 

After an initial production batch of 48 F(AW).1 fighters and a dozen T.2 trainers, the upgraded F(AW).3 was introduced in October 1956, which featured several changes and improvements. The biggest external change was the introduction of a modified wing with a dog tooth (tested on the 2nd prototype from 1953 onwards), which enhanced airflow and handling at high speed. Furthermore, the tailplane was modified so that either the rudders could be operated at slow speed or, alternatively, the whole stabilizer at high speed. A bulbous aerodynamic fairing on the fin’s top held the more complicated mechanism.

The Barghest F(AW).3 was furthermore equipped with a more capable AI.22 radar (actually a U.S.-made Westinghouse AN/APQ-43 radar) and it was able to carry up to four IR-guided Firestreak AAMs on pylons under the wings, what significantly improved the aircraft's interceptor capabilities. The aircraft now featured a total of six hardpoints, even though the new, outermost pylons could only carry a single Firestreak missile each. The ventral weapon bay was retained, but, typically, only the pack of four Aden cannon was carried.

 

In order to cope with a higher all-up weight and improve overall performance, the F(AW).3 was powered by Sapphire Sa.6 engines, which delivered 23% more thrust and were recognizable by enlarged air intakes of oval shape instead of the original, circular orifices. Stronger engines with afterburners could not be mounted, though – their addition would have required a severe structural change to the aircraft’s rear fuselage, and this lack of development potential eventually favored the Barghest’s rival, the Gloster Javelin.

 

Beyond newly produced F(AW).3 airframes, most F(AW).1s were eventually upgraded to this standard, and a further twelve F(AW).1s were modified into trainers. All T.2 aircraft received the wing and tail upgrade, but retained the weaker Sapphire Sa.5s, and their designation was eventually changed into T.4.

 

Due to its higher development potential, the Gloster Javelin overshadowed the Barghest during its relatively short career. The last Barghest fighter was already withdrawn from service in 1966, with a total of 125 airframes having been produced, while the Javelin, produced in more than 420 units, kept on serving until 1968. Both types were replaced by the Mach 2-capable BAC Lightning interceptor.

However, the experience gathered from the Barghest's early development was successfully used by Blackburn during the Buccaneer development process for the Royal Navy in the mid-Fifties.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: two

Length: 54 ft in (16,49 m)

Wingspan: 40 ft 7 in (12.38 m)

Wing area: 514.7 ft² (47.82 m²)

Height: 14 ft 9 in (4,50 m)

Empty weight: 19,295 lb (8,760 kg)

Gross weight: 29,017 lb (13,174 kg)

Max takeoff weight: 34,257 lb (15,553 kg)

 

Powerplant:

2× Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire Sa.6 engines with 8,000 lbf (35.6 kN) thrust each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 606 kn (697 mph; 1,122 km/h) at sea level

Range: 954 mi (1,530 km)

Service ceiling: 52,800 ft (15,865 m)

Rate of climb: 7,000 ft/min (35.6 m/s)

Wing loading: 66 lb/ft² (325 kg/m²)

Thrust/weight: 0.56

 

Armament:

Ventral weapon bay, typically carrying 4× 30 mm (0.79 in) ADEN revolver cannon with 180 RPG;

alternatively, three retractable packs with a total of 70 unguided Microcell 2 in (51mm) missiles

could be carried;

Six underwing hardpoints (The outer pair of pylons could only carry Firestreak AAMs) for a total

ordnance of 4.000 lb (1.814 kg), including up to 4× Firestreak IR-guided AAMs, drop tanks on the

inner pair of pylons, or unguided bombs and SNEB missile pods.

   

The kit and its assembly:

This kitbash model originally started as an early Fifties all-weather fighter for the Royal Navy, and the idea was a Gloster Meteor night fighter fuselage mated with the engines and swept wings from a Blackburn Buccaneer. However, things change and evolve as ideas turn into hardware (for another submission to the 2018 “RAF Centenary” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com), and so this project gradually transformed into an all-weather fighter for the Royal Air Force, as a rival to the Gloster Javelin, and some other fundamental changes to the original plan as things evolved on the work bench.

 

Work started with a Matchbox Gloster Meteor, from which the fuselage (incl. the NF.14 cockpit with its bubble canopy) and tail cone (w/o fin, though) were taken OOB. Then a Matchbox Buccaneer donated its nose cone and the engine pods, together with the inner wing sections. An initial attempt to use the Buccaneer’s fin and stabilizer was made, but it did not work at all (looked horrible and totally unbalanced!). Instead, I used a leftover fin from a Revell 1:200 Concorde because of its retro shape and depth, and waited for the stabilizers until the wings were mounted, so that size, position and proportions would become clearer.

The nose cone had to be squashed, because its OOB oval diameter would not go onto the circular Meteor front end without problems and major PSR. With some force from a vice and internal stabilization through 2C putty the shape could be successfully modified, though, and blended into the fuselage contours. Looks pretty good and fast!

 

Once the engine nacelles were in place, I initially tried the Buccaneer’s OOB outer wings, but I was not really happy with the look. Their shape did not look “right”, they were a bit too large and just very Buccaneer-esque. After a donor bank safari I found a leftover sprue with wings and stabilizers from a Matchbox Hawker Hunter, and after some measurements and trials I found that they could be quite easily adapted to the Buccaneer’s inner wing stubs, even though this called for more serious surgery and PSR work. The latter was also necessary in order to blend the engine nacelles into the slender Meteor fuselage – messy, but feasible.

 

Alas, one challenge leads to the next one: Once in place, the massive engines created a ventral gap, due to the Meteor’s slender tail section. This was eventually filled with the Matchbox Buccaneer’s extra fuel bomb bay door, simply cut away from the kit, trimmed down and transplanted between the engine nacelles. As a side benefit, its bulged shape would now simulate a fairing for a ventral gun pack, somewhat similar to the CF-100’s arrangement. More PSR ensued, though, and between and around the jet exhausts the fuselage had to be fully re-sculpted.

 

The stabilizers also caused some headaches. With the new Hunter swept wings tips, I also needed new, matching stabilizers. I eventually used the Hunter stabilizers from the surplus Matchbox kit sprue. At first I tried to mate them with a shortened central fairing from the Buccaneer, but this did work even less than the whole Bucc tail, and so I scratched a more slender central fairing for the T-tail on top of the Concorde fin from a piece of sprue. Even though the Hunter stabilizers turned out to look a bit diminutive, I stuck with them since they complement the wing shape so well.

 

The benefit of the Buccaneer engine nacelles is that they come with proper landing gear wells, so that only the landing gear had to be improvises and adapted to the new aircraft and its proportions. I wanted to use the Meteor landing gear, but this turned out to be much too short! So I replaced the front wheel with a respective part from a Matchbox Buccaneer. The main wheels from the Meteor kit were retained, but they had to be extended - with a 5mm styrene tube “plug”, which is, thankfully, well hidden behind the covers.

 

Others small changes/additions are ejection seats in the cockpit instead of the Meteor bucket seats, the jet exhausts were drilled open and an interior was added, and some antennae were placed on the aircraft’s hull.

 

The ordnance was to reflect a typical late Fifties RAF fighter, and so the Barghest received a pair of drop tanks (from a Heller SEPECAT Jaguar, with simplified fins) and a pair of Firestreak AAMs (from a Matchbox BAC Lightning) on a pair of launch rails from an Academy MiG-23.

  

Colors and markings:

As per usual, I rather keep complicated whiffs visually simple, so I used the standard RAF scheme of Dark Green/Dark Sea Grey/Light Aircraft Grey on the Barghest, with the Buccaneer’s typical pattern as benchmark. Humbrol enamels (163, 164 and 166) were used for basic painting.

The cockpit interior became Tar Black (Revell 06), while the landing gear and its respective wells were painted in Aluminum (Humbrol 56). The kit received a light black ink washing and mild post-shading – more for a dramatic than a weathering effect, since RAF machines in the Fifties looked very tidy and clean.

The drop tanks received camouflage and the Firestreaks became white, while their clear seeker cones were painted with a mix of silver and translucent blue. The IR sensors were created with thin decal stripes.

 

The decals come primarily from an Xtradecal BAC Lightning sheet (roundels and 19 Sq. markings – the squadron badges are unfortunately quite large, since they belong to a NMF aircraft), most stencils and the tactical code come from an Airfix Venom trainer and an Italeri Tornado.

 

Finally, the kit was sealed with a matt acrylic varnish, a mix of matt and little semi-gloss Italeri varnish, for a sheen finish.

  

A true kitbashing, made from many well-known RAF ingredients and a disturbing look between odd and familiar! A Buccaneer? No, it’s too scrawny. A Javelin? No, it does not have delta wings, and it’s got a tail sting. A de-navalized Sea Vixen? Well, no twin tail, and anything else does not match either... Despite the puzzling details (or because of them?), the Barghest looks disturbingly British and Fifties, as if it had been created from a profound RAF DNA pool – and it actually is! And with lots of putty. ;-)

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 .

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 .

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

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based 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:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

  

General characteristics:

Crew: two, pilot and observer

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

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

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

Wing area: 30.2 m² (325 sq ft)

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

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

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

 

Powerplant:

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

driving a three-bladed variable pitch metal propeller

 

u>Performance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Armament:

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

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

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

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

  

The kit and its assembly:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  

Painting and markings:

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The ASTA (Aerospace Technologies of Australia, formerly Government Aircraft Factories) Baza development was started in 1995 when the Royal Australian Air Force was searching for a two-seat training aircraft that would allow the transition from initial training on piston-engined aircraft to jets, and could also be used for weapon training and CAS/reconnaissance duties.

 

ASTA responded with a low-wing two-turboprop-engined all-metal monoplane with retractable landing gear, capable of operating from unprepared strips when operationally required. The aircraft, internally coded “A-31”, was of conventional, all-metal (mainly duralumin) construction. The unswept cantilever wings have 3° of dihedral and are fitted with slotted trailing-edge flaps.

 

The A-31 had a tandem cockpit arrangement; the crew of two was seated under the upward opening clamshell canopy on Martin-Baker Mk 6AP6A zero/zero ejection seats and were provided with dual controls.

 

Armor plating was fitted to protect the crew and engines from hostile ground fire. The aircraft was powered by a pair of Garrett TPE 331 engines, driving sets of three-bladed propellers which were also capable of being used as air brakes.

 

The A-31 was designed for operations from short, rough airstrips.[The retractable tricycle landing gear, with a single nose wheel and twin main wheels retracting into the engine nacelles, is therefore fitted with low pressure tires to suit operations on rough ground, while the undercarriage legs are tall to give good clearance for underslung weapon loads. The undercarriage, flaps and brakes are operated hydraulically, with no pneumatic systems.

 

Two JATO rockets can be fitted under the fuselage to allow extra-short take-off. Fuel is fed from two fuselage tanks of combined capacity of 800 L (180 imp gal; 210 US gal) and two self-sealing tanks of 460 L (100 imp gal; 120 US gal) in the wings.

 

Fixed armament of the A-31 consisted of two 30mm Aden cannons mounted under the cockpits with 200 rounds each. A total of nine hardpoints were fitted for the carriage of external stores such as bombs, rockets or external fuel tanks, with one of 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) capacity mounted under the fuselage and the remaining two pairs of 500 kg (1,100 lb) capacity beneath the wing roots and wings inside of the engine nacelles, and two more pairs of hardpoints outside of the engines for another 500 kg and 227 kg, respectively. Total external weapons load was limited to 6,800 lb (3,085 kg) of weapons, though.

 

Onboard armaments were aimed by a simple reflector sight, since no all weather/night capabilities were called for – even though provisions were made that external sensors could be carried (e. g. a TISEO or a PAVE Spike pod).

 

Severe competition arose through the BAe Hawk, though: the Royal Australian Air Force ordered 33 Hawk 127 Lead-in Fighters (LIFs) in June 1997, 12 of which were produced in the UK and 21 in Australia – and this procurement severely hampered the A-31’s progress. The initial plan to build 66 aircraft for domestic use, with prospects for export, e. g. to Sri Lanka, Indonesia or Turkey, was cut down to a mere 32 aircraft which were to be used in conjunction with the Australian Army in the FAC role and against mobile ground targets.

 

This extended role required an upgrade with additional avionics, an optional forward looking infrared (FLIR) sensor and a laser ranger in an extended nose section, which lead to the Mk. II configuration - effectively, only five machines were produced as Mk.I types, and they were updated to Mk. II configuration even before delivery to the RAAF in August 1999.

 

Since then, the ASTA A-31 has been used in concunction with RAAF's Pilatus PC-9 and BAe Hawk Mk. 127 trainers. Beyond educational duties the type is also employed for Fleet support to Navy operations and for close air support to Army operations.

 

The 'Baza' (christened by a small sized bird of prey found in the forests of South Asia and Southeast Asia) has even seen serious military duty and already fired in anger: since August 2007, a detachment of No. 114 Mobile Control and Reporting Unit RAAF has been on active service at Kandahar Airfield in southern Afghanistan, and a constant detachment of six A-31's from RAAF 76 Suqadron has been assigned to armed reconnaissance and protection of approximately 75 personnel deployed with the AN/TPS-77 radar, assigned the responsibility to co-ordinate coalition air operations.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2

Length (incl. Pitot): 14.69 m (48 ft 1 ½ in)

Wingspan: 14.97 m (49 ft)

Height: 3, 75 m (12 ft 3 in)

Wing area: 30.30 m2 (326.1 sq ft)

Aspect ratio: 6.9:1

Airfoil: NACA 642A215 at root, NACA641 at tip

Empty weight: 4,020 kg (8,863 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 6,800 kg (14,991 lb)

Internal fuel capacity: 1,280 L (280 imp gal; 340 US gal)

 

Powerplant:

2 × Garrett TPE 331-11U-601G turboprop engines, 820 kW (1.100 hp) each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 515 km/h (311 mph; 270 kn) at 4.570 m (15.000 ft)

Cruising speed: 430 km/h (267 mph; 232 kn) at 2.500 m (8.200 ft)

Stall speed: 143 km/h (89 mph; 77 kn) (flaps and undercarriage down)

Never exceed speed: 750 km/h (466 mph; 405 kn)

Range:1.611 km (1.000 mi; 868 nmi), clean and internal fuel only

Ferry range: 3,710 km (2,305 mi; 2,003 nmi) max internal and external fuel

Service ceiling: 10,000 m (32,808 ft)

g limits: +6/-3 g

Rate of climb: 6.5 m/s (1.276 ft/min)

 

Armament:

2× 30 mm ADEN cannons in the lower nose

Up to 6,800 lb (3,085 kg) of weapons on nine external hardpoints

  

The kit and its assembly:

Like many of my whifs, this was spawned by a project at whatifmodelers.com from fellow user silverwindblade that ran under the handle "COIN aircraft from a Hawk" - and in fact, the BAe Hawk's fuselage with its staggered cockpit and good field of view appears as a good basis for a conversion.

 

I liked the idea VERY much, and while silverwindblade's work would rather develop into a futuristic canard layout aircraft, I decided to keep the COIN aircraft rather conservative - the FMA 58 'Pucara' from Argentina would be a proper benchmark.

 

The basis here is the Italeri BAe Hawk Mk. 127 kit which comes with the longer nose and modified wings for the RAAF version, as well as with false decals.

Anyway, I'd only use the fuselage, anything else is implanted, partly from unlikely donation kits! Wings incl. engine nacelles and stablizers come from the vintage box scale (1:166?) Revell Convair R3Y-2 Tradewind flying boat(!), the fin from an Academy OV-10 Bronco.

 

The landing gear was puzzled together, among other from parts of a 1:200 Concorde, the propellers were scratched.

 

Biggest mod to the fuselage is the dissection of the air intakes (and their blending with the fuselage) as well as a new tail section where the Adour jet engine's exhaust had been.

  

Painting and markings:

This model was agood excuse to finally apply an SIOP color scheme, which was originally carried by USAF's strategic bombers like B-52 or FB-111. But what actually inspired me were Australian C-130s - it took some time to figure out that their scheme were the USAF's SIOP colors (FS 34201, 34159 and 34079). But that made the Baza's potential user's choice (and fictional origin) easy.

 

As a COIN role aircraft I settled on a wraparound scheme. I found a pattern scheme on an USN Aggerssor A-4 Skyhawk that had been painted in SIOP colors, too, and adapted it for the model. Basic colors were Humbrol 31, 84 and 116, good approximations - the result looks odd, but suits the Baza well.

 

Later, panels were emphasized through dry painting with lighter shades and a light black ink wash was applied.

 

The landing gear became classic white, the cockpit interior medium gray - nothing fancy.

 

The markings were improvised - the Italeri Hawk Mk. 127 features RAAF 'roos, but these are printed in black - wrong for the OOB kit, but very welcome on my aircraft. The rest was salvaged from the scrap box, the tactical code A-31-06 created with single letters from TL Modellbau.

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

 

Some background:

In December 1953, NATO Supreme Command issued specifications for a new light tactical support aircraft. European manufacturers were invited to submit their designs for this requested Light Weight Strike Fighter role. The G.91 was one contender and designed to this specification by the Italian engineer Giuseppe Gabrielli, hence the "G" designation.

 

The competition was intended to produce an aircraft that was light, small, expendable, equipped with basic weapons and avionics and capable of operating with minimal ground support. These specifications were developed for two reasons: the first was the nuclear threat to large air bases, many cheaper aircraft could be better dispersed, and the other was to counter the trend towards larger and more expensive aircraft.

 

The technical requirements were:

• 1,100 m (3,610 ft) takeoff distance over a 15 m (49 ft) obstacle

• Capability to operate from grass strips and roads

• Maximum speed of Mach 0.95

• Range of 280 km (170 mi) with 10 minutes over the target

• Armoured protection for the pilot and the fuel tanks

• 4 × 12.7 mm (.5 in) or 2 × 20 mm or 30 mm guns

• A maximum of 2,200 kg (4,850 lb) empty weight and 4,700 kg (10,360 lb) max. weight

 

The challenge of providing an engine that matched the requirements of lightness and power, reliability and ease of maintenance was solved by using the Bristol Siddeley Orpheus turbojet.

 

Project selections took 18 months to complete and the final selection of the three remaining competing designs was planned for late 1957. In September 1957, at the Centre d'Essais en Vol at Brétigny-sur-Orge, in France, the three rival aircraft types met for evaluation trials. During the trials the Italian aircraft performed impressively and, in January 1958, the Fiat G.91 was officially declared the winner.

 

Following a meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in April 1958 it was agreed that the G.91 would be the first NATO lightweight strike fighter. A production meeting was planned for May 1958 to discuss the production of the aircraft with financial support from the United States, the Americans would provide some of the finance for the French, German and Italian aircraft and pay for the Turkish aircraft. Other NATO states were supposed to buy the G.91, too., and the defence ministers reached agreement to order 50 aircraft for each country.

 

Given the large economic and commercial interests at stake, there was a certain amount of controversy surrounding this decision. After the loss of the G.91 prototype, the French government preferred to pursue development of the locally-designed Étendard. The British government similarly ignored the competition to concentrate on Hawker Hunter production for the same role.

The Italian government ordered the G.91 for the Italian Air Force before the results of the competition were known. An initial pre-production batch of machines would later go on to serve for many years with the Italian aerobatic team, the Frecce Tricolori as the G.91 PAN.

 

The G.91 was also considered by Austria, Norway, Spain, Greece, Switzerland, and even the United States Army, which briefly evaluated the type as a possible Forward Air Control aircraft before relinquishing all fixed-wing aircraft operations to the Air Force.

 

Spain bought the intended 50 aircraft (42 single seaters called G.91R/2, outfitting two fighter bomber squadrons, plus 8 trainers with tandem seats, comparable with the Italian G.91T/1 trainers), which were produced in Italy from early 1961 onwards and became operational with the Ejército del Aire in late 1962, replacing the F-86 and HA-220 Super Saetas in the ground attack/CAS role.

 

The G.91R/2 was a hybrid between the simple Italian G.91R/1 and the later, more sophisticated G.91R/4 for Greece and Turkey. It used the R/1's airframe with the modified nose housing three cameras, but already had four underwing hardpoints, structural reinforcements and improved avionics, including a Doppler radar and a revised instrumentation that was also introduced with the Italian R/1A.

 

The G.91 in Spanish service was already phased out from the mid 70ies onwards and completely retired in 1986, being replaced by F-5 and Mirage F.1.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 1

Length: 10.3 m (33 ft 9 in)

Wingspan: 8.56 m (28 ft 1 in)

Height: 4.0 m (13 ft 1 in)

Wing area: 16.4 m² (177 ft²)

Empty weight: 3,100 kg (6,830 lb)

Loaded weight: 5,440 kg (11,990 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 5,500 kg (12,100 lb)

 

Powerplant:

1× Bristol Siddeley Orpheus 803 turbojet, 22.2 kN (5,000 lbf)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,075 km/h (580 kn, 668 mph)

Range: 1,150 km (621 nmi, 715 mi)

Service ceiling: 13,100 m (43,000 ft)

Rate of climb: 30 m/s (6,000 ft/min)

Wing loading: 331 kg/m² (67.8 lb/ft²)

Thrust/weight: 0.42

 

Armament:

4× 12.7 mm (0.50 in) M2 Browning machine guns,

4× under-wing pylon stations holding up to 680 kg/1.500 lb of payload

  

The kit and its assembly:

Second entry for the "1 Week group Build" at whatifmodelers.com, since my first model was finished in just three days... This one struck me recently when I browsed through the F-5 book of the "Planes and Pilots" series, and came across the Spanish machines. What if Spain had bought the G.91...?

 

The resulting aircraft would surely have looked pretty in the three-tone "Small Asia" paint scheme, so the idea landed on the list and now entered the hardware stage.

 

...not until I got hands on a G.91 kit. Not easy, at least if you do not want to sink a fortune. I was lucky to find a pair of Airfix G.91s - from Japanese production, the boxes are dated 1981! And the kit is accordingly rather basic, especially anything concerning the interior is primitive, the wheels are a joke and the ordnance better ignored.

 

However, the fuselage lines are not bad, and since I had some leftover sprues from the more modern Revell G.91 in store I decided to pimp the Airfix kit with some donation parts and build an Ejércite del Aire whif.

 

It's not a true kitbashing, but a lot of Revell parts went into the vintage Airfix kit:

• The cockpit tub (which includes an upper wall for the air intake) was implanted

• The ejection seat and the dashboard, too

• An improvised jet nozzle was added - the Airfix kit just offers a bare hole(!)

• From the landing gear only the main struts were taken

• Even the landing gear covers were taken from the Revell kit

• The outer pylons are donations, too, while the inner ones were modified

• Ordnance is new, too, all from the spares box

 

The kit needed some putty work, but fit was surprisingly good.

  

Painting and markings:

Well, Spain is the theme and so I gave this Gina a "typical" livery, borrowed from export F-5s (e .g. for Spain, Iran, Jordania), the “Small Asia” paint scheme.

As basic colors I used Humbrol 74 (Linen), 29 (RAF Dark Earth) and 116 (FS34079), with pale grey undersides in Humbrol 129 (FS36440). The landing gear, its wells and the air intake were painted in Aluminum (Modelmaster), while the cockpit was kept in Dark Sea Grey (Humbrol 164) with a light blue dashboard - confirmed by real life pics.

 

As per usual the kit received a light black ink wash, light panel shading (also adding to a sun-bleached look) and some dry painting with light grey. No OOB decal was and could be used - 35 years took their toll!

 

Anyway, the decals come primarily from a Heller Mirage III, as well as some additional stencils e .g. from a BAC Lightning (Xtradecal sheet) and many red stripes or the camera ports, which were cut from TL Modellbau decal stripes.

 

Soot/exhaust stains were created with grinded graphite and around the nozzle and the gun ports. Finally, everything was sealed under a coat of matt acrylic varnish.

 

This Hispanic Gina is not a great piece of work, but the paint scheme changes IMHO the total look of the small aircraft, very different from what you usually see? And it's a second proud addition to whatifmodelers.com's "1 Week Group Build", created in the leftover five day timeframe after the first whif kit.

 

And does anybody doubt that Spain flew the G.91...?

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based 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. 😉

+++ 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.

A kitbash using a Phicen body and a Kimi headsculpt .

DISCLAIMER

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

.

 

Some background:

The mighty Suchoj SuCh-1 started its life in early March 1943, when the Sukhoi OKB finished work on the design of a high-speed fighter with a unique powerplant arrangement. The aircraft was an all-metal low-wing mono­plane with conventional tail surfaces. The three-section wings had constant dihedral and basically trapezoidal planform; the sta­bilizers had zero dihedral.

 

Two Klimov M-107 water-cooled Vee-12 engines, each with a. take-off power of 1 ,600 hp (1,193 kW) and a maximum design power of 1,500 hp (1,119 kW) at 5,500 m (18,045 ft), were mounted in the center fuse­lage in a staggered-tandem arrangement: the front engine was offset to starboard and of the rear one to port. Thus, the total power was increased but the drag was the same as for a single-engined aircraft, which was expected to increase fight speed consider­ably. Consequently, the project was internally designated 'I-2M107', literally "Article powered by two M107 engines".

 

Furthermore, the left cylinder bank of the front engine and the right cylinder bank of the rear engine were disposed vertically, so that each engine had one set of exhaust stubs on top of the fuselage and one on the fuselage side. Both engines drove a single three ­blade tractor propeller of 4.0 m (13 tt 2 in) diameter via parallel extension shafts and a common reduction gearbox. Both water radiators were located side by side in a chin housing, while the oil coolers were buried in the wings. The total fuel capacity of the four tanks arranged in the center fuselage was 1,113 litres (244.86 Imp. gal).

 

Because of the power plant arrangement and the large ground angle (necessary to give adequate ground clearance for the large propeller) the cockpit was offset to port and placed ahead of the wing leading edge to provide better forward visibility on take-off and landing. The cockpit was protected by a bulletproof windscreen, a front armor plate and an armored backrest; the armor weight totaled 70kg (154Ib).

 

The main landing gear units with 800 x 280 mm (31.5x11 in) wheels retracted inwards into the wing roots and the 400 x 150 mm (15.7 x 5.9 in) tail wheel retracted aft. The fighter's armament consisted of two wing-mounted 12.7-mm Berezin UBS machine-guns firing outside the propeller disc and a single 20-mm ShVAK cannon fir­ing through the propeller hub*.

 

A full-scale mock-up was inspected in December 1943, and with German long range bombers threatening the Western front line as well as the lack of a fast and powerful fighters to intercept them (the earlier MiG-5 had turned out to be a disappointment, and Mikoyan's I-211/221 family if high altitude fighters also suffered from serious technical problems at that time), OKB Suchoj received an immediate go-ahead for further development of the SuCh-1, how the I-2M107 was now officially called, since Vladimir A. Chizhevskiy took lead of the project.

 

In the course of 1944 three prototypes went through a fast development program. While the aircraft itself was easy to handle, overheating problems and trouble with the gearbox for the two engines could only partly be rectified - esp. the power transmission should remain the SuCh-1s Achilles Heel.

 

Anyway, the Su-5 was ready for service introduction towards late 1944, and the powerful type was exclusively to be used as an interceptor. Several improvements had been made, compared to the prototypes: now two slightly more powerful Klimov VK-107A engines were used, which were better suited for high altitude operations, and the chin-mounted water cooler was considerably enlarged. The oil coolers had been re-designed and they were now placed under the wing roots.

 

The wing span had been extended by 6' and a bigger (now 4.3m diameter!), four-bladed propeller was added in order to improve performance at high altitude. No pressurized cabin was installed, but the cockpit received an extended glazing for better all-round field of vision.

 

Armament had also been augmented: now a Nudelman N-23 23mm cannon was firing through the propeller hub, and the number of UBS machine-guns in the wings was increased to four.

 

As initial duty experience was gathered, it became quickly clear that the firepower had to be augmented, so that the propeller-hub-mounted 23mm cannon was quickly replaced by a Nudelman-Richter NR-37 37mm cannon, and the four wing-mounted UBS machine guns were replaced by two 20-mm ShVAK cannons or even two Nudelman N-23 23mm cannons - the latter became the production standard from March 1945 on, even though the type's designation did not change.

 

Experience also showed that the overheating problem had been cured, but the complicated gear box tended to malfunction, esp. when full power was called for in aerial combat: high G forces took their toll and damaged the bearings, even warping the extension shafts and structural parts, so that some SuCh-1 were literally torn apart in mid-air.

 

The high torque powers of the large propeller also took their toll on handling: starting and landing was described as "hazardous", esp. when the fuel tanks were empty or in cross winds.

Consequently, SuCh-1 pilots were warned to engage into any dogfight or enter close combat with single-engined enemy fighters, and just focus on large enemy aircraft.

 

On the other side, the SuCh-1's powerful cannon armament made it a deadly foe: a single hit with the NR-37 cannon could down an aircraft, and its top speed of roundabout 700 km/h (435 mph) was more than enough for the Luftwaffe's heavy bomber types like the He 177.

 

Several engine and armament experiments were undertaken. For instance, at least one SuCh-1 was outfitted with a Nudelman-Sooranov NS-45 45mm cannon firing through the propeller hub, even a 57mm cannon was envisaged. Furthermore, one airframe was prepared to carry two Charomskiy M-30V 12 cylinder diesel engines, in order to produce a heavy long-range escort fighter (internally called I-2M30V).

In order to minimize the torque problems a contraprop arrangement with two three-bladed propellers and a diameter of only 3.6m was under development.

 

All in all only 120 of these powerful machines were built until the end of hostilities, as the feared mass attacks of German long range bombers did not materialize. as the Su-7 was complicated to operate and jet engines promised a far more efficient way of propulsion for high speeds, the type was already retired in 1947 and replaced by 1st generation jet fighters like the Yak-15 and MiG-9, which carried a similar armament, attained a better performance (except for the range) but weighed only half of the large and heavy SuCh-1.

.

 

General characteristics

Crew: One

Length: 11.75 m (38 ft 5 3/4 in)

Wingspan: 13.85 m (45 ft 3 1/4 in)

Height: 5.30 m (17 ft 4 in)

Empty weight: 5.250 kg (11.565 lb)

Max. take-off weight: 8.100 kg (17.840 lb)

 

Powerplant:

2× Klimov VK-107A liquid-cooled V12 engines with an output of 1.650 hp (1.210 kW) each at sea level and 900 hp (650 kW) at 8.300m (27.220 ft)

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 720 km/h (447 mph) at height, clean configuration

Range: 750 km (465 mi)

Service ceiling: 11.700 m (38.400 ft)

Rate of climb: 876 m/mim (2.850 ft/min)

 

Armament:

1× Nudelman-Richter NR-37 37mm cannon with 60 RPG, firing through the propeller hub

2× Nudelman N-23 23mm cannons with 120 RPG in the wings

Many different cannon and machine gun arrangements coulod be found, though.

 

*Information about the conceptual Suchoj I-2M107 was primarily gathered from the book 'OKB Suchoj', written by Yefim Gordon & Dmitriy Komissarov; Hersham (UK), 2010.

.

 

The kit and its assembly (a long story!):

This abomination of an aircraft is/was real, even though the I-2M107 was never built – the fictional name Suchoj-Chizhevskiy SuCh-1 was actually chosen because I could not find any plausible Su-X code for a WWII fighter. Vladimir A. Chizhevskiy actually joined the Suchoj OKB in mid WWII, so I deemed this alternative to be plausible.

 

I had this on the agenda for a long time, but the horrors of kitbashing kept me from building it - until now. The current Anthony P memorial Group Build (for the deceased fellow member at whatifmodelers.com, RIP) was a good motivation to tackle this brute thing. Fortunately, I already had some major ingredients in store, so work could start asap.

 

From that, anything else was improvised from the scrap box, and with only a three side view of the I-2M107 as guidance. It became a true Frankenstein creation with...

 

● Fuselage and inner wings from the (horrible) NOVO Attacker

● Wings from an Italeri Fw 190 D-9 attached to them

● Nose is a resin Griffon from an Avro Lincoln conversion set from OzMods

● Tail cone is a radar nose from an F-4J Phantom II

● Tail fin is a horizontal stabilizer from a Matchbox SB2C Helldiver

● Vertical stabilizers come from a Matchbox Me 410

● Oil coolers are modified front landing gear wells from two Revell G.91 kits

● Cockpit hood comes from a Revell P-39 Airacobra

● Landing gear comes from an Italeri Fw 190 D-9, covers were modified/improvised

● Main wheels belong to a MPM Ryan Dark Shark

● Tail wheel belongs to a Matchbox Harrier

● The propeller was scratched, IIRC from a Grumman Hellcat drop tank front and blades from an Airfix A-1 Skyraider. Inside, a metal axis was mounted.

.

 

Work started with the fuselage and the wings as separate segments.

 

The Attacker fuselage lost its fin and the cockpit and air intakes were simply cut away, just as the tail pipe. The resin Griffon was slightly shortened at the front, but more or less directly attached to the fuselage, after I had cut out openings for the four rows of exhaust nozzles.

Then, the new tail cone was glued onto the end and the original fairings for the Attacker's stabilizer cut away and sanded even - anything had to be made new.

 

The wings were a bit tricky. I had hoped to use the Attacker's OOB wings, but these were not only much too small and did not have the proper shape, they also lacked landing gear wells!

 

Finding a solution was not easy, and I had to improvise. After some trials I decided to cut the Attacker wing span at about the width where the guns are located, and then add Fw 190 wings.

The depth would be fine, even though the Fw 190 wings were a bit thicker, and they offered a leading edge kink which was good for the original and characteristic I-2M107's wing root extensions. The latter were sculpted from a 6mm thick core or styrene sheet, added to the Attacker parts' leading edge, and the rest, as well as the lacking Attacker wing's thickness, sculpted with 2C and later NC putty.

 

Furthermore I cut out and sculpted landing gear wells, another challenging, since these had to cover the Attacker/Fw 190 parts' intersection! LOTS of putty work, sanding and shaving, but as a benefit I was able to use the Attacker kit's original wing/fuselage joints. Effectively, my placement turned out to be a bit far outside, so the track appears too wide - the price to pay when you work on single parts. Anyway, I left it was it turned out, as a major correction at a late working stage would mean to tear anything apart again...

 

Back to the nose: adding the propeller and the cockpit into the massive nose was the next working station. The propeller had to be huge, and also needed a rather big spinner. A contraprop was ruled out, even though it would have looked great here. But eventually I settled for a scratch-built thing, made from a teardrop-shaped drop tank front onto which the four blades from a A-1 Skyraider were glued. Probably the biggest prop I have ever put onto a 1:72 scale model! Since the resin nose was massive, drilling a hole and adding a metal axis to the propeller was enough.

 

With that in place I started carving out a cockpit opening - it worked better and easier than expected with a mini drill and a coarse shaving head! The opening is still rather small, a seat and a pilot hardly fit, but it works - I found a rather smallish pilot figure, and added a seat and some other small details from the scrap box, just to have something inside.

 

For a canopy I found a very old (30 years, I guess...) clear part from a Revell P-39 Airacobra in the scrap box, which was almost perfect in shape and width. It was a bit blind and stained with ancient enamel paint, but some wet sanding and serious polishing almost got it back to translucent status. Since I would not open the cockpit, this was a sufficient solution.

 

The asymmetrical cockpit opening was, in an initial step, faired with styrene strips, for a rough outline, and then sculpted with 2C and later NC putty, blending it into the rest of the fuselage.

 

For the tail surfaces, the SB2C stabilizer was cut away at its base - it is not a bad donation piece, its shape and rudder come pretty close to the I-2M107's original design!

The stabilizers I used on my kitbash come from a Me 410, and their leading edge was a cut away so that the sweep angle would be a bit larger. They lack depth, compared to the I-2M107's original design, but since the wings have become more slender, too, I think it's a good compromise, and the best what I had at hand in the spares stash.

 

Finally, and before detail work could start, the wings were attached to the fuselage. I eventually set them back by ~6mm, so that the new, extended leading edge would match the respective fairing on the fuselage. The resulting gap at the trailing edge was, again, filled with 2C and NC putty.

 

A personal change was a different oil cooler arrangement. The original location was to be in the wings' leading edge, just in front of the landing gear wells - but that appeared a bit doubtful, as I could not find a plausible solution where the exit for the air would be? Consequently, and in order to avoid even more messy putty sculpting on the wings, I decided to re-locate the oil coolers completely, into shallow, tunnel-like fairings under the wing roots, not unlike the radiator arrangement on a Spitfire or Bf 109.

 

In order to check the surface quality I decided to add a coat of grey primer, once the fuselage/wing segments had been connected. This showed only minor flaws, but made another turn with NC putty and wet sanding necessary.

 

Now it was time for finishing touches, e .g. mounting the landing gear, completing the cockpit and adding exhaust stubs - cut individually from HO scale model railroad roof tiles and inserted into the four fuselage fairings.

 

The canopy was fixed into place with white glue, which also helped closing some small gaps.

.

 

Painting and markings:

While the I-2M107 looks odd, to say the least, I wanted to keep the paint scheme rather simple and quasi-authentic. I went for a pale grey/green camouflage, used e. g. on late war Yakovlev Yak-3 fighters.

 

Basic colors are Humbrol 31 (Slate Grey, it has a very greenish, even teal, hue), ModelMaster 1740 (Dark Gull Grey, FS 36231) and Humbrol 167 (Barley Grey) for the lower sides with a wavy waterline. Since only marginal surface details were left over, I decided to fake panels and panel lines with paint.

Panels were simulated with lighter shades of the basic tones (RLM 62 from ModelMaster, Humbrol 140 and 127 below), panel lines were painted with highly thinned grey acrylic paint and a special brush - in German it's called a 'Schlepppinsel', it's got very long hairs and is also used to paint scallops on car models, and similar things are used for real car tuning/custom paintwork, too.

Sure, the painted panel lines are a bit rough, but I did not want to risk any damage through manual engraving on the rather delicate mixed-media surface of the kitbashed model. For an overall look or first impression it's very good, though.

 

As 'highlights' I added a white spinner and half of the fin was painted white, too.

 

The decals were puzzled together. The flashes and the tactical code number come from a Hobby Boss La-7, the Red Stars, IIRC, belong to a vintage MiG-21F from Hasegawa. The "Rodinu" slogan actually belongs to a 1:35 Soviet Tank decals set.

 

Finally, after some additional dry painting with light grey, some oil stains around the engines and coolers and soot stains at the exhaust stubs and guns (painted, plus some grinded graphite, as it yields a nice, metallic shimmer that looks like oil or burnt metal), everything was sealed under a coat of matt acrylic varnish.

  

If it had been built, the Suchoj I-2M107 must have been an impressive aircraft - it was bigger than a P-47 Thunderbolt or an A-1 Skyraider, and one can only wonder how its field performance would have been?

Similar concepts had been underway in UK, too, e. g. for a heavy naval attack aircraft, but the I-2M107 with its asymmetrical cockpit and engine arrangement were unique. A worthy whif, even if some details like the landing gear or the borrowed nose section are not 100% 'correct'.

 

+++ 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!

  

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 2 (pilot, WSO)

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

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

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

Wing area: 374.9 ft² (117.5 m²)

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

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

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

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

 

Powerplant:

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

with 12,000 lbf (53 kN) thrust each

 

Performance:

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

Mach 0.95 at sea level

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

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

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

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

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

Wing loading: 133 lb/ft² (193 kg/m²)

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

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

 

Armament:

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

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

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

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

  

The kit and its assembly:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

  

Painting and markings:

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

 

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

 

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

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

  

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

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

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

  

Some background:

The 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:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

  

General characteristics:

Crew: two, pilot and observer

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

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

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

Wing area: 30.2 m² (325 sq ft)

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

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

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

 

Powerplant:

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

driving a three-bladed variable pitch metal propeller

 

u>Performance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Armament:

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

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

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

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

  

The kit and its assembly:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

  

Painting and markings:

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

Jiaou Doll wheat skin big bust figure .

1 2 ••• 6 7 9 11 12 ••• 79 80