View allAll Photos Tagged kitbash
SH-RP4
(ruggedized modified power droid)
Custom built from a heavily modified Industrial Automation EG series chassis and incorporating the processing unit of an R-series astromech, SH-RP4 and its sister units were co-designed by archaeologists and technologists at the Shadow University. They were engineered for use in investigations of remote areas where traditional power droids might be unable to navigate. By incorporating the analytical and communication capacity of an astromech, the SH-RP4 also offered archaeologists with data storage, retrieval, uplink, and analysis functions.
Of 12 such units built in the Shadow University’s technology recovery lab, SH-RP4 was one of the only droids that had a personality chip which seemed to harmonize within the new form and capabilities. Colloquially, it was “happy” in this new body. Affable and easy to work with, SH-RP4 was the most often requested companion droid by investigating archaeologists with enough clout to burn on their requisition forms - or credits to bribe the mechanics in the garage.
Some of the post-doc fellows and archaeology interns took to lovingly calling this unit "Sherpa" as she worked both as a skilled guide and strong-backed companion.
-------
So, this is my first try at a custom Star Wars model and I'm quite pleased with the results. I pulled this together for The Smuggler's Room YouTube channel's challenge. With a combination of crayon storage boxes, salvaged toy parts, and a 3D printed head, this little kitbash droid has been a joy to pull together.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star was the first jet fighter used operationally by the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) during World War II. Designed and built by Lockheed in 1943 and delivered just 143 days from the start of design, production models were flying, and two pre-production models did see very limited service in Italy just before the end of World War II. The XP-80 had a conventional all-metal airframe, with a slim low wing and tricycle landing gear. Like most early jets designed during World War II—and before the Allies captured German research data that confirmed the speed advantages of swept-wings—the XP-80 had straight wings similar to previous propeller-driven fighters, but they were relatively thin to minimize drag at high speed.
The Shooting Star began to enter service in late 1944 with 12 pre-production YP-80As. Four were sent to Europe for operational testing (demonstration, familiarization, and possible interception roles), two to England and two to the 1st Fighter Group at Lesina Airfield, Italy. Because of delays in delivery of production aircraft, the Shooting Star saw no actual combat during the conflict. The initial production order was for 344 P-80As after USAAF acceptance in February 1945. A total of 83 P-80s had been delivered by the end of July 1945 and 45 assigned to the 412th Fighter Group (later redesignated the 1st Fighter Group) at Muroc Army Air Field. Production continued after the war, although wartime plans for 5,000 were quickly reduced to 2,000 at a little under $100,000 each. A total of 1,714 single-seat F-80A, F-80B, F-80C, and RF-80s were manufactured by the end of production in 1950, of which 927 were F-80Cs (including 129 operational F-80As upgraded to F-80C-11-LO standards). However, the two-seat TF-80C, first flown on 22 March 1948, became the basis for the T-33 trainer, of which 6,557 were produced.
Shooting Stars first saw combat service in the Korean War, and were among the first aircraft to be involved in jet-versus-jet combat. Despite initial claims of success, the speed of the straight-wing F-80s was inferior to the 668 mph (1075 km/h) swept-wing transonic MiG-15. The MiGs incorporated German research showing that swept wings delayed the onset of compressibility problems, and enabled speeds closer to the speed of sound. F-80s were soon replaced in the air superiority role by the North American F-86 Sabre, which had been delayed to also incorporate swept wings into an improved straight-winged naval FJ-1 Fury.
This prompted Lockheed to improve the F-80 to keep the design competitive, and the result became the F-80E, which was almost a completely different aircraft, despite similar outlines. Lockheed attempted to change as little of the original airframe as possible while the F-80E incorporated two major technical innovation of its time. The most obvious change was the introduction of swept wings for higher speed. After the engineers obtained German swept-wing research data, Lockheed gave the F-80E a 25° sweep, with automatically locking leading edge slots, interconnected with the flaps for lateral stability during take-off and landing, and the wings’ profile was totally new, too. The limited sweep was a compromise, because a 35° sweep had originally been intended, but the plan to retain the F-80’s fuselage and wing attachment points would have resulted in massive center of gravity and mechanical problems. However, wind tunnel tests quickly revealed that even this compromise would not be enough to ensure stable flight esp. at low speed, and that the modified aircraft would lack directional stability. The swept-wing aircraft’s design had to be modified further.
A convenient solution came in the form of the F-80’s trainer version fuselage, the T-33, which had been lengthened by slightly more than 3 feet (1 m) for a second seat, instrumentation, and flight controls, under a longer canopy. Thanks to the extended front fuselage, the T-33’s wing attachment points could accept the new 25° wings without much further modifications, and balance was restored to acceptable limits. For the fighter aircraft, the T-33’s second seat was omitted and replaced with an additional fuel cell. The pressurized front cockpit was retained, together with the F-80’s bubble canopy and out fitted with an ejection seat.
The other innovation was the introduction of reheat for the engine. The earlier F-80 fighters were powered by centrifugal compressor turbojets, the F-80C had already incorporated water injection to boost the rather anemic powerplant during the start phase and in combat. The F-80E introduced a modified engine with a very simple afterburner chamber, designated J33-A-39. It was a further advanced variant of the J33-A-33 for the contemporary F-94 interceptor with water-alcohol injection and afterburner. For the F-80E with less gross weight, the water-alcohol injection system was omitted so save weight and simplify the system, and the afterburner was optimized for quicker response. Outwardly, the different engine required a modified, wider tail section, which also slightly extended the F-80’s tail.
The F-80E’s armament was changed, too. Experience from the Korean War had shown that the American aircrafts’ traditional 0.5” machine guns were reliable, but they lacked firepower, esp. against bigger targets like bombers, and even fighter aircraft like the MiG-15 had literally to be drenched with rounds to cause significant damage. On the other side, a few 23 mmm rounds or just a single hit with an explosive 37 mm shell from a MiG could take a bomber down. Therefore, the F-80’s six machine guns in the nose were replaced with four belt-fed 20mm M24 cannon. This was a license-built variant of the gas-operated Hispano-Suiza HS.404 with the addition of electrical cocking, allowing the gun to re-cock over a lightly struck round. It offered a rate of fire of 700-750 rounds/min and a muzzle velocity of 840 m/s (2,800 ft/s).In the F-80E each weapon was provided with 190 rounds.
Despite the swept wings Lockheed retained the wingtip tanks, similar to Lockheed’s recently developed XF-90 penetration fighter prototype. They had a different, more streamlined shape now, to reduce drag and minimize the risk of torsion problems with the outer wing sections and held 225 US gal (187 imp gal; 850 l) each. Even though the F-80E was conceived as a daytime fighter, hardpoints under the wings allowed the carriage of up to 2.000 lb of external ordnance, so that the aircraft could, like the straight-wing F-80s before, carry out attack missions. A reinforced pair of plumbed main hardpoints, just outside of the landing gear wells, allowed to carry another pair of drop tanks for extra range or single bombs of up to 1.000 lb (454 kg) caliber. A smaller, optional pair of pylons was intended to carry pods with nineteen “Mighty Mouse” 2.75 inches (70 mm) unguided folding-fin air-to-air rockets, and further hardpoints under the outer wings allowed eight 5” HVAR unguided air-to-ground rockets to be carried, too. Total external payload (including the wing tip tanks) was 4,800 lb (roughly 2,200 kg) of payload
The first XP-80E prototype flew in December 1953 – too late to take part in the Korean War, but Lockheed kept the aircraft’s development running as the benefits of swept wings were clearly visible. The USAF, however, did not show much interest in the new aircraft since the proven F-86 Sabre was readily available and focus more and more shifted to radar-equipped all-weather interceptors armed with guided missiles. However, military support programs for the newly founded NATO, esp. in Europe, stoked the demand for jet fighters, so that the F-80E was earmarked for export to friendly countries with air forces that had still to develop their capabilities after WWII. One of these was Germany; after World War II, German aviation was severely curtailed, and military aviation was completely forbidden after the Luftwaffe of the Third Reich had been disbanded by August 1946 by the Allied Control Commission. This changed in 1955 when West Germany joined NATO, as the Western Allies believed that Germany was needed to counter the increasing military threat posed by the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies. On 9 January 1956, a new German Air Force called Luftwaffe was founded as a branch of the new Bundeswehr (Federal Defence Force). The first volunteers of the Luftwaffe arrived at the Nörvenich Air Base in January 1956, and the same year, the Luftwaffe was provided with its first jet aircraft, the US-made Republic F-84 Thunderstreak from surplus stock, complemented by newly built Lockheed F-80E day fighters and T-33 trainers.
A total of 43 F-80Es were delivered to Germany in the course of 1956 and early 1957 via freight ships as disassembled kits, initially allocated to WaSLw 10 (Waffenschule der Luftwaffe = Weapon Training School of the Luftwaffe) at Nörvenich, one of three such units which focused on fighter training. The unit was quickly re-located to Northern Germany to Oldenburg, an airfield formerly under British/RAF governance, where the F-80Es were joined by Canada-built F-86 Sabre Mk. 5s. Flight operations began there in November 1957. Initially supported by flight instructors from the Royal Canadian Air Force from Zweibrücken, the WaSLw 10’s job was to train future pilots for jet aircraft on the respective operational types. F-80Es of this unit were in the following years furthermore frequently deployed to Decimomannu AB on Sardinia (Italy), as part of multi-national NATO training programs.
The F-80Es’ service at Oldenburg with WaSLw 10 did not last long, though. In 1963, basic flight and weapon system training was relocated to the USA, and the so-called Europeanization was shifted to the nearby Jever air base, i. e. the training in the more crowded European airspace and under notoriously less pleasant European weather conditions. The remaining German F-80E fleet was subsequently allocated to the Jagdgeschwader 73 “Steinhoff” at Pferdsfeld Air Base in Rhineland-Palatinate, where the machines were – like the Luftwaffe F-86s – upgraded to carry AIM-9 Sidewinder AAMs, a major improvement of their interceptor capabilities. But just one year later, on October 1, 1964, JG 73 was reorganized and renamed Fighter-Bomber Squadron 42, and the unit converted to the new Fiat G.91 attack aircraft. In parallel, the Luftwaffe settled on the F-86 (with more Sabre Mk. 6s from Canada and new F-86K all-weather interceptors from Italian license production) as standard fighter, with the plan to convert to the supersonic new Lockheed F-104 as standard NATO fighter as soon as the type would become available.
For the Luftwaffe the F-80E had become obsolete, and to reduce the number of operational aircraft types, the remaining German aircraft, a total of 34, were in 1965 passed through to the Türk Hava Kuvvetleri (Turkish air force) as part of international NATO military support, where they remained in service until 1974 and were replaced by third generation F-4E Phantom II fighter jets.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 36 ft 9 1/2 in (11.23 m)
Wingspan: 37 ft 6 in (11.44 m) over tip tanks
Height: 13 ft 5 1/4 in (4.10 m)
Wing area: 241.3 sq ft (22,52 m²)
Empty weight: 10,681 lb (4.845 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 18,464 lb (8.375 kg)
Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0134
Frontal area: 32 sq ft (3.0 m²)
Powerplant:
1× Allison J33-A-39 centrifugal compressor turbojet with 4,600 lbf (20 kN) dry thrust
and 27.0 kN (6,070 lbf) thrust with afterburning
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,060 km/h (660 mph, 570 kn)
Cruise speed: 439 mph (707 km/h, 381 kn)
Range: 825 mi (1,328 km, 717 nmi)
Ferry range: 1,380 mi (2,220 km, 1,200 nmi)
Service ceiling: 50,900 ft (15,500 m)
Rate of climb: 7,980 ft/min (40.5 m/s)
Time to altitude: 20,000 ft (6,100 m) in 4 minutes 50 seconds
Lift-to-drag: 17.7
Wing loading: 51.3 lb/sq ft (250 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.249 dry
0.328 with afterburner
Armament:
4× 0.79 in (20 mm) M24 cannon (190 rpg)
2x wing tip auxiliary tanks with 225 US gal (187 imp gal; 850 l) each
Underwing hardpoints for a total ordnance load of 4,800 lb (2.200 kg), including
2× 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs, up to 4× pods with nineteen unguided Mighty Mouse FFARs each,
and/or up to 8× 5” (127 mm) HVAR unguided air-to-ground rockets
The kit and its assembly:
The idea of a swept-wing F-80 had been lingering on my idea list for a while, and I actually tried this stunt before in the form of a heavily modified F-94. The recent “Fifties” group build at whatifmodellers.com and a similar build by fellow forum member mat revived the interest in this topic – and inspired by mat’s creation, based on a T-33 fuselage, I decided to use the opportunity and add my personal interpretation of the idea.
Having suitable donor parts at hand was another decisive factor to start this build: I had a Heller T-33 in store, which had already been (ab)used as a donor bank for other projects, and which could now find a good use. I also had an F-80 canopy left over (from an Airfix kit), and my plan was to use Saab J29 wings (from a Matchbox kit) because of their limited sweep angle that would match the post-WWII era well.
Work started with the fuselage; it required a completely new cockpit interior because these parts had already gone elsewhere. I found a cockpit tub with its dashboard from an Italeri F4U, and with some trimming it could be mounted into the reduced cockpit opening, above the OOB front landing gear well. The T-33’s rear seat was faired of with styrene sheet and later PSRed away. The standard nose cone from the Heller T-33 was used, but I added gun ports for the new/different cannon armament.
For a different look with an afterburner engine I modified the tail section under the stabilizers, which was retained because of its characteristic shape. A generous section from the tail was cut away and replaced with the leftover jet pipe from an Italeri (R)F-84F, slightly longer and wider and decorated with innards from a Matchbox Mystère IV. This change is rather subtle but changes the F-80 profile and appears like a compromise between the F-80 and F-94 arrangements.
The T-33 wings were clipped down to the connection lower fuselage part. This ventral plate with integral main landing gear wells was mounted onto the T-33 hull and then the Saab 29 wings were dry-fitted to check their position along the fuselage and to define the main landing gear wells, which had to be cut into them to match their counterparts from the aircraft’s belly.
Their exact position was eventually fixed when the new swept stabilizers, taken from a Hobby Boss F-86, were mounted to the tail. They match well with the swept wings, and for an odd look I kept their dihedral.
The fin was eventually replaced, too – mat’s build retained the original F-80 fin, but with all other surfaces swept I found that the fin had to reflect this, too. So, I implanted a shortened Italeri (R)F-84F fin onto the original base, blended with some PSR into the rest of the tail.
With all aerodynamic surfaces in place it was time for fine-tuning, and to give the aircraft a simpler look I removed the dog teeth from the late Tunnan's outer wings, even though I retained the small LERXs. The wing tips were cut down a little and tip tanks (probably drop tanks from a Hobby Boss F-5E) added – without them the aircraft looked like a juvenile Saab 32!
The landing gear was mostly taken over from the Heller T-33, I just added small consoles for the main landing gear struts to ensure a proper stance, because the new wings and the respective attachment points were deeper. I also had to scratch some landing gear covers because the T-33 donor kit was missing them. The canopy was PSRed over the new opening and a new ejection seat tailored to fit into the F4U cockpit.
A final addition was a pair of pods with unguided FFARs. AFAIK the Luftwaffe did not use such weapons, but they’d make thematically sense on a Fifties anti-bomber interceptor - and I had a suitable pair left over from a Matchbox Mystère IV kit, complete with small pylons.
Painting and markings:
Since the time frame was defined by the Fifties, early Luftwaffe fighters had to carry a bare metal finish, with relatively few decorations. For the F-80E I gave the model an overall base coat with White Aluminum from a Dupli Color rattle can, a very nice and bright silver tone that comes IMHO close to NMF. Panels were post-shaded with Revell 99 (Aluminum) and 91 (Iron Metallic). An anti-glare panel in front of the windscreen was painted in the Luftwaffe tone RAL 6014, Gelboliv (Revell 42).
For some color highlights I gave the tip tanks bright red (Feuerrot, RAL 3000; Revell 330) outer halves, while the inner halves were painted black to avoid reflections that could distract the pilot (seen on a real Luftwaffe T-33 from the late Fifties). For an even more individual touch I added light blue (Tamiya X-14, Sky Blue) highlights on the nose and the fin, reflecting the squadron’s color code which is also carried within the unit emblem – the Tamiya paint came closest to the respective decal (see below).
The cockpit interior was painted with zinc chromate green primer (I used Humbrol 80, which is brighter than the tone should be, but it adds contrast to the black dials on the dashboard), the landing gear wells were painted with a mix of Humbrol 80 and 81, for a more yellowish hue. The landing gear struts became grey, dry-brushed with silver, while the inside of the ventral air brakes were painted in Feuerrot, too.
Then the model received an overall washing with black ink to emphasize the recessed panel lines, plus additional panel shading with Matt Aluminum Metallizer (Humbrol 27001), plus a light rubbing treatment with grinded graphite that emphasized the (few leftover) raised panel lines and also added a dark metallic shine to the silver base. Some of the lost panel lines were simulated with simple pencil strokes, too.
The decals/markings primarily came from an AirDoc aftermarket sheet for late Fifties Luftwaffe F-84Fs. The tactical code (“BB-xxx” was then assigned to the WaSLw 10 as unit code, but this soon changed to a similar but different format that told about the unit’s task as well as the specific unit and squadron within it; this was replaced once more by a simple xx+yy code that was only connected to a specific aircraft with no unit reference anymore, and this format is still in use today) was puzzled together from single letters/digits from the same decal set. Some additional markings like the red band on the fuselage had to be scratched, but most stencils came from an all-bare-metal Luftwaffe F-84F.
After some more detail painting the model was sealed with semi-gloss acrylic paint, just the anti-glare panel and the di-electric fairings on the nose and the fin tip became matt.
A thorough kitbashing build, but the result looks quite plausible, if not elegant? The slightly swept wings suit the F-80 with its organic fuselage shape well, even though they reveal the designs rather baroque shape. There’s a sense of obsolescence about the F-80E, despite its modern features? The Luftwaffe markings work well on the aircraft, too, and with the red and blue highlights the machine looks more attractive despite its simple NMF livery than expected.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
At the end of WW2, Sweden was in search of a new fighter offering better performance than the J21 could offer. The latter was an indigenous fighter/attack aircraft from SAAB that first took to the air in 1943 and dated back to a requirement from 1941. The J21 was designed as an unusual twin boom pusher configuration, where the propeller was mounted in the rear of the fuselage, pushing the aircraft forward. The advantages of a pusher design were that the view forward was unobstructed and armament could be concentrated in the nose, while the heavy engine was placed close to the center of gravity for better handling and agility. A major drawback was the difficulty in escaping from the aircraft in an emergency, though, as the pilot could get drawn into the propeller blades. SAAB deliberated between systems that would eject the pilot, or jettison the propeller or even the whole engine, via a system of explosive bolts, and eventually installed an early, explosives-powered ejector seat developed by Bofors for this purpose.
However, the SAAB 21 had its share of trouble (overheating an unreliable DB 605 engine), and in 1944 a new requirement for a more powerful and conventional fighter was issued. Selecting the Rolls Royce Griffon as the powerplant, SAAB initially looked into adapting the engine to the J21. However, this proved impractical, so SAAB started work on a clean-sheet design.
The L27, as it was known in the project stage, ended up closely resembling the latest designs to come from Britain like the Supermarine Spitfire or the Martin Baker MB 5, as well as the North American P-51 Mustang. The Griffon engine, chosen for initial development and flight tests, drove a contra-rotating propeller and sat in the nose. Top speed with the Griffon was expected to be around 700 km/h (435 mph). Later production aircraft were to be powered by a domestically developed, new H-24 cylinder motor similar to the British Napier Sabre engine and delivering output in significant excess of 2.200 hp (1.640 kW). With this machine, the aircraft was expected to reach a top speed of 740 km/h (460 mph) or even more.
The wings were similar to those used on the Fairey Firefly, complete with Fairey’s characteristic Youngman flaps, but with small wing root extensions and a thicker profile than the late Spitfires’ wings, and with more rounded wing tips. Similar to the P-51, the L27’s landing gear with a wide track retracted inwards into the wings, and the tail wheel could be fully retracted, too.
Armament, consisting of four 20mm Hispano cannons, was to be concentrated in the wings just outside of the propeller arc, and unlike the Spitfire’s arrangement with underwing coolers, the L27’s single radiator was placed in a ventral tunnel position, very similar to the arrangement on the P-51.
A total of three prototypes were ordered, and the aircraft was now formally designated J27A; two were to be powered by Rolls-Royce Griffon 83 engines, and one as a test structure and earmarked for the development of the 24 cylinder engine and its integration into the projected J27B.
The first flight of a J27A took place in March 1945, and the promising results kept the project evolving until late 1946, when the aircraft was cleared for service and production in January 1947. 70 aircraft with Griffon engines were ordered.
Anyway, in early 1945, SAAB had also launched a project to determine how to provide the J21A with a jet engine to get the experience of jet engines and flying at high speeds. The goal was to catch up with the development of jet aircraft, which were moving ahead fast in England, where, among others, de Havilland already had the de Havilland Vampire in production. The resulting J21R, SAAB's first jet, made its first flight on 10 March 1947 and it marked the death knell for any piston-engine fighter development and use in Sweden. Consequentially the 24 cylinder engine never made it from the drawing board, and after the initial production run of the Griffon-powered J27A was completed until early 1949, further production was stopped and the whole J27 program terminated. Serial production J27As differed only slightly from the prototypes. The most obvious change was a taller vertical stabilizer and a small fin fillet, less obvious was a modified landing gear cover arrangement, because the original design with a single, large cover of the main wheels tended to bulge outward at high speed. A split design mended this problem.
While the J27A’s projected top speed of 700km/h was impressive for a piston-engine fighter and frequently confirmed in service, it was inadequate in the oncoming jet age. In the end, SAAB opted to pursuit jet fighter endeavors that soon led to the very modern and innovative SAAB J29 that soon became Sweden’s standard jet fighter.
In frontline service the J27 was, even though it was popular among its pilots and maintenance crews, almost immediately replaced by jets, at first with the J28B Vampire (from 1951 on), which were in turn quickly replaced in 1952 with the indigenous J29 Tunnan.
The last J27A was, after serving with fighter units primarily in southern Sweden, already retired from frontline duties in 1955. Some aircraft, though, were kept in service as target tugs, liaison aircraft for the air staff and for dissimilar air combat training. The last machine was finally decommissioned in summer 1961.
General characteristics:
Crew: One
Length: 9.90 m (32 ft 5 in)
Wingspan: 11.84 m (38 ft 9 1/2 in)
Height: 4.19 (13 ft 9 in)
Wing area: 22.2 m² (238.87 ft²)
Empty weight: 3,250 kg (7,165 lb)
Loaded weight: 4,150 kg (9,149 lb)
Max. take-off weight: 4,413 kg (9,730 lb)
Powerplant:
1× license-built Rolls-Royce Griffon 83 liquid-cooled V-12 engine, 2,340 hp (1,745 kW),
driving a six-bladed contraprop
Performance:
Maximum speed: 435 mph (700 km/h) at 20,000 ft (6,100 m)
Cruise speed: 495 km/h (265 knots, 308 mph)
Range: 1,100 mi (1,770 km)
Service ceiling: 40,000 ft (12,190 m)
Rate of climb: 3,800 ft/min (19.3 m/s)
Armament:
4× 20 mm Bofors cannon (license-built Hispano Mk.II cannon) with 200 rpg in the outer wings
Underwing hardpoints for 8-12 × 3inch "60 lb" rocket projectiles
or 2× 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs
or a pair of 45 gal (205 l) or 90 gal (409 l) drop tanks.
The kit and its assembly:
This is a “real” what-if model, or at least the attempt to build a phantom aircraft from single parts! The SAAB 27 is a bit of a mystery, because valid information is sparse, especially concerning details about its shape. You find some drawings or profiles, but IMHO these are based on guesswork and rather vague. The J27 is frequently described as a “Swedish Spitfire with a P-51 radiator” or a “Swedish Super-Spitfire”, but that leaves much to be desired, because the similarity is only superficial. Hence, this model here is rather a free interpretation of what a service J27 could have looked like.
For long time I fought with two building options: either convert a Fairey Firefly (Airfix’ Mk. 5 would have been my bet), or use a Spitfire Mk. 22. After long considerations I settled for the latter one, because I feared that the Firefly would result in a rather massive aircraft, and the Airfix kit itself is vintage and worth a building fight on its own.
So I used an Airfix Spitfire Mk. 22, but from this (very nice!) kit just a few things were taken, because I wanted a more individual look. Only the fuselage, cockpit interior and landing gear survived, and I even inserted a 2.5mm wide “wedge plug” around the cockpit and wedge-shaped inserts at the fuselage halves’ seams in order to add some beef to the sleek (if not spindly) Spitfire. I think it’s hard to notice, but the overall proportions look good. At the tail and the front end, the original fuselage width was kept, though.
Reason behind this was the P-51 radiator’s width (leftover from a Matchbox kit) that was considerably wider than the Spitfire fuselage. Furthermore, the thicker/more massive wings from a P-47 (from an early MPM kit) also called for a more massive body.
For the new wings, some adaptations to the Spitfire wing roots had to be made, though, e.g. a bulged mid-wing section under the fuselage. The Thunderbolt parts also had the benefit of wells for a landing gear that retracts inwards. I also used P-47 landing gear parts, even though the struts were shortened at their bases by 3mm and the covers accordingly. For the sake of a different look (the Spitfire wheels are very characteristic) I used different main wheels from a Revell G.91R. The landing gear cover arrangement differs from J27 sketches (as far as I can tell, it must have been similar to the P-51's), but I stuck with the P-47 parts because they match well with the rest of the aircraft.
The contraprop belongs to a late mark Seafire, left over from a Special Hobby kit. The propeller was in so far modified that I added a metal axis and a styrene tube adapter for the fuselage, so that both propeller parts can (theoretically) spin. OOB, the Special Hobby solution is simply to be glued onto the nose, fixed, despite being constructed in two separate parts?
Furthermore, the carburetor intake was changed: the Spitfire’s scoop at the wings’ leading edge was replace by a Firefly-style lip intake right behind the propeller.
The whole tail section was reconditioned, too. Descriptions of the J27’s tail are corny, but “more square than a Spitfire’s”. Instead of simple cosmetic surgery I thoroughly replaced the OOB fin with a Supermarine Attacker’s (Novo kit) with some mods to the outline, which fits well in size and is …more square!
The new tail is a bit taller and has a fin fillet, making it look very P-51-ish, but that’s O.K. for me. At least it’s different from the round Spitfire shape.
I also exchanged the stabilizers, the round Spitfire parts gave way to differently shaped pieces from a Hobby Boss La-7. Their shape is similar to a P-47’s, but they are smaller and match J27 illustrations well.
The canopy was also changed. Through the widened fuselage around the cockpit the tight OOB Spitfire hood would hardly match, anyway. The bubble layout remained, and I adapted a bigger Matchbox P-51 canopy to the new fuselage contours, and moved forward as far as possible.
Painting and markings:
The Swedish Air Force as operator was settled, as well as early post-WWII markings. But I did not want the standard, uniform olive green/blue grey livery, so I painted the upper surfaces with camouflage scheme made from two green tones: a medium green tone (Humbrol 102, Army Green, ~FS 34096) and a bluish, dark green (Humbrol 91, RLM 70 equivalent), applied in bands – somewhat inspired by a scheme carried by some SAAB 32 Lansen in the early 60ies.
The underside was kept in the typical Swedish blue-grey, for which I used Humbrol 87. The waterline was placed very low so that the upper camouflage was also taken to the radiator flanks under the fuselage and wings.
The cockpit was painted in very dark grey (Humbrol 32), while the landing gear and the wells were kept in Aluminum (Humbrol 56).
As a 2nd squadron machine, the code letter became blue, as well as the two-part spinner, latter’s paint was mixed, based on the squadron code letter decal’s tone on the tail.
The roundels and the 'R' codes come from an RBD Studio aftermarket sheet from Sweden, further decals like the yellow ‘9’ code, the squadron’s ‘Bonzo’ dog mascot emblem as well as most stencils come from a Heller SAAB 21.
A complex build, yet the model aircraft looks so innocent… Anyway, the goal was IMHO achieved: this J27 model just looks like a “Swedish Spitfire with a P-51 radiator”, and at first glance you cannot be certain if this is a modified Griffon Spitfire or a P-51D. Both is true, to a certain degree, but also not correct, because the changes are more fundamental and the wings are completely different from either. So, the mission’s been accomplished. ;)
And I feel inclined to tackle a J23, too, a Bf109/P-51B design hybrid that was designed as a conservative alternative to the pusher J21.
+++ 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 "Entwicklung" tank series (= "development"), more commonly known as the E-Series, was a late-World War II attempt by Germany to produce a standardized series of tank designs. There were to be six standard designs in different weight classes, from which several specialized variants were to be developed. This intended to reverse the trend of extremely complex tank designs that had resulted in poor production rates and mechanical unreliability.
The E-series designs were simpler, cheaper to produce and more efficient than their predecessors. But, on the other side, their design offered only modest improvements in armor and firepower over the designs they were intended to replace, such as the Jagdpanzer 38(t), Panther Ausf.G or Tiger II. However, the resulting high degree of standardization of German armored vehicles would also have made production, logistics and maintenance easier. Indeed, nearly all of the E-series vehicles — up through and including the E-75 — were intended to use what were essentially the Tiger II's eighty centimeter diameter, steel-rimmed road wheels for their suspension, meant to overlap each other. An innovative conical spring system, replacing their predecessors' torsion bar system which required a special steel alloy, simplified production and required less internal space.
Focus of initial chassis and combat vehicle development was the E-50/75 Standardpanzer, designed by Adler, both being mostly identical and only differing in armor thickness, overall weight and running gear design to cope with the different weights. But there were lighter chassis variants, too, including the light E-5 and E-10 for armored, tracked reconnaissance vehicles, and the medium E-25.
The E-25 designs, in the 25-50 tonnes weight class, were to be replacements for all Panzer III and Panzer IV based designs still in service, as well as for the early variants of the Panzer V (the Panther). This chassis' main designers were Alkett, Argus and Adler, with the involvement of Porsche. The proposed vehicle family would include medium reconnaissance vehicles, a medium Jagdpanzer and a heavy Waffenträger, but the chassis was also considered for other armed vehicles.
The original E-25 chassis used five Tiger II style road wheels per side, combined with "slack-track" design. Track propulsion was switched to a rear drive sprocket, as a consequence of mating the engine and the gearbox into a single tail-mounted, very compact power pack that made the voluminous and heavy power train all through the hull obsolete. This allowed the tank’s body to be lowered, and the gained space offered more room for the crew’s operations, heavier guns and ammunition storage.
The first member of the E-25 family that entered production was the medium tank hunter. It received highest priority and the project was called “Jagdpanzer E-25/88”, running under the inventory ordnance number "SdKfZ. 194". However, at the time of its introduction the E-25 chassis was also considered for a medium battle tank in the 35 ton class, since it had become clear that the E-50/75 battle tanks were rather large and resource-consuming. A lighter, more agile vehicle was needed, and it was to be armed with either the highly effective 75mm L/70 cannon (used in the Panther and the late Jagdpanzer IV) or the more powerful 8.8 cm L/56 gun, used in the Tiger I and the Jagdpanther.
Porsche was tasked with the adaptation of the E-25 chassis for a turret for both heavy guns. The work was in close collaboration with Henschel and the Oberschlesische Gusswerke Beuthen who were both working on a new, unified cast steel turret for the 88mm gun for a wide range of medium tanks like the Panther, the E-50/75 family and the heavy Tiger II. Alternatively, the new E-25 battle tank was to accept the so-called Schmalturm, which could carry both cannon types, too.
After the Allied invasion in the Normandy in 1944 and with ever-rising pressure through the Red Army from the East, the E-25 MBT project eventually gained more and more priority and momentum. As a consequence, Porsche was assigned by the Heeresleitung to build a running prototype as quickly as possible, ideally until early 1945.
Porsche was certain that the original E-25 chassis was too short and light for the adaptation of the cast turret. In order to keep the tight timeline, Porsche decided to develop a new welded steel hull while using as many Einheitspanzer components as possible. The resulting vehicle had little in common with the original Adler E-25 chassis and rather resembled the bigger and heavier E-50/75 family. Overall dimensions ended up close to the Panther hull, as a result of a certain minimum width that was necessary to mount the new turret’s bearings and balance its weight. However, the new tank's overall silhouette was considerably lower than the Panther’s or the E-50/75 family MBT’s.
The Porsche design also made full use of several new technical solutions for the engine and the new, space-saving E-50/75 suspension. For instance, thanks to the rear-mounted power unit with the gearbox and the driving sprocket wheels, the front armor could be optimized to offer very good ballistic protection (achieving a very shallow 30°angle) despite a maximum thickness of only 70 mm. The thickest armor, the cast steel gun mantlet, was 80 mm.
The tank’s running gear consisted of six steel-rimmed wheels per side, mounted in three staggered pairs, similar to the heavier E-50 tank. Thanks to the lower overall weight, a new Niresit track with less width could be used. The so-called “Beuthen Turm” offered excellent ballistic protection, a very low profile and featured a commander cupola with a full 360° view through periscopes as well as a 200cm width stereoscopic optical rangefinder for the gunner. A few vehicles were additionally equipped with FG1250/1251 infrared illuminators, too, allowing night operations in coordination with special versions of the Sd.Kfz.251 with long-range infrared illuminators, and complemented by assault troops using Vampir-modified Sturmgewehr guns.
Savings in material and complexity were achieved through simplified shapes and the use of stock components from other or older tanks, as well as the reduction of the crew to only four: the traditional radio operator in the hull, next to the driver, as well as a hull-mounted machine gun, were completely omitted. The driver was furthermore moved to the right side, a result of the secondary ammunition bunker in the hull being placed in front of the loader in the turret for easy access.
In this form, the tank was tested in early 1945 and hastily pushed into production, receiving the designation Sonderkraftfahrzeug 194 and officially christened ”Fuchs”. In order to reflect Porsche's involvement in this new tank's design and to differentiate it from the standard E-25 tank, the vehicle and its chassis variant was called E-25(P).
The resulting medium battle tank received, depending on its main weapon, the suffix 'A' for the 75mm cannon (SdKfz. 194/1) and 'B' for the 88mm gun (SdKfz. 194/1). The Schmalturm did not find its way on the production vehicles, and both variants had an operational weight of roundabout 38 tons. This was considerably less than any German contemporary MBT from the E-50/75 family, and even lighter than the late Panther variants. For its weight, the powerful main weapons made the vehicle a highly mobile and deadly enemy, enabling the crews to execute “hit and run” tactics which were impossible with the bigger and slower tanks.
The first production vehicles were deployed to independent units at the Western front line along the lower Rhine in May 1945, but due to the lack of thorough tests, sufficient crew training and lack of combat experience with the new vehicle, the initial results were poor. The majority of tank losses was not through enemy fire, though - many tanks had to be abandoned and were destroyed by their crews after technical failures.
The Fuchs MBT was popular among the crews, though, since it offered a much higher mobility than its heavier Einheitspanzer brethren. The relatively large and spacious turret was another point that found much appraise – but its poor technical reliability was its biggest Achilles heel.
Due to the ever-worsening situation, less than 100 E-25(P) hulls were completed and probably less than 50 combat-worthy vehicles arrived at front line units and were involved in battle until the end of hostilities. But the design work, with many radical and innovative ideas, did not get lost – many of the Fuchs’ design features like its hull layout and armor design or the Beuthen turret found their way into the highly successful German Leopard I MBT in the early 1960ies, which entered service with the German Bundeswehr in 1965 and still serves with several armies until today.
Specifications:
Crew: Five (commander, gunner, loader, radio operator, driver)
Weight: 38 tonnes (41.9 short tons)
Length: 7,02 metres (23 ft), hull only
9.77 metres (32 ft) overall, with the gun forward
Width: 3.96 metres (12 ft 11 1/2 in)
Height: 2.34 metres (7 ft 8 in)
Ground clearance: 495 to 510 mm (1 ft 7.5 in to 1 ft 8.1 in)
Suspension: Conical spring
Fuel capacity: 450 litres (120 US gal)
Armor:
10–80 mm (0.4 – 3.15 in)
Performance:
Speed
- Maximum, road: 52 km/h (32 mph)
- Sustained, road: 42 km/h (26 mph)
- Cross country: 16 to 25 km/h (9.5 to 15.5 mph)
Operational range: 210 km (130 mi)
Power/weight: 14,47 PS/tonne (12,86 hp/ton)
Engine:
V12 Maybach HL 101 gasoline engine with 550 PS (539 hp, 341 kW)
Transmission:
ZF AK 7-200 with 7 forward 1 reverse gears
Armament:
1× 8.8 cm KwK 43/4 L/56 with 48 rounds
2× 7.92 mm MG 34 machine guns with a total of 5.200 rounds
(one co-axial with the main weapon, one manually operated on the commander's cupola)
The kit and its assembly:
This fictional Heer '46 is based on the fact that the famous German post-WWII MBT Leopard 1 – at least the Porsche prototype – was based on designs from the WWII era. So, why not spin this story further and retro-grade a Leopard 1 into a Heer ’46 tank, as a kind of grandfather design with then-state-of-the-art technologies…?
Well, that job could be easily done with a Leopard 1 kit built more or less OOB and just painted in typical WWII colors – I have actually seen such things in simulation games like World of Tanks, and it did not look bad at all. But for the ambitious modelers, this would be a bit too simple, wouldn’t it?
For instance, there are some features like the running gear on the Leopard that are very modern and would IMHO not fit into the late WWII timeframe. The general lack of high quality materials and design simplifications everywhere would certainly also take their toll. As a consequence the starting basis for this whiffy tank model actually became an 1:72 Leopard 1 (to be exact, it’s Revell’s Leopard 1A5 kit), but from this basis only a few parts were actually taken over.
Work started with the upper hull, which received the transplantation of the complete upper rear deck from a leftover Hasegawa Panther, including the turret’s attachment ring. Internally the whole affair was reinforced with styrene profiles along the seams. The basic idea behind this move was to get rid of the rather modernistic, raised engine cover of the Leopard, and the Panther’s armored cooling fan covers would add a very familiar, German touch. Furthermore, the Panther turret is set relatively further back than on the Leopard, resulting IMHO in a positive side effect for the vehicle’s proportions. The front with the driver’s hatch and the side walls of the Leopard hull were taken over, just the glacis plate was cleaned from the moulded snow claws for the modern Leopard track.
While I could have used the original, casted Leopard 1 turret without any extra armor, I rather reverted to a donor part: an aftermarket resin turret from the German short run producer Modell Trans. What spoke for this aftermarket piece is that this Heer ’46 turret piece was exactly that kind of add-on this kit would need: a retrograded Leopard 1 turret, with a simplified shape, a simple commander cupola, typical bulges for a late-war optical rangefinder in the turret sides and even a 8.8cm KwK barrel! The resin turret, which also comes with an AA machine gun, was taken OOB. Only the original resin gun barrel came slightly bent – this could have been corrected easily, but I replaced it with a more delicate white metal and brass piece, anyway. Additionally, an adapter for the hull opening had to be scratched.
So far, so good - but the running gear became the biggest challenge. The Leopard 1’s advanced torsion bar running gear with rubber-rimmed wheels would not make sense anymore, due to the special high quality materials needed for its construction. Since the Einheitspanzer family was to share as many components as possible, I decided to implant an E-50-style running gear with its typical cast standard wheels.
This sounds easy, but scratching a running gear is a real stunt! Work started with the attachment points for the driving and guide wheels at the hull’s ends, which were cut off of the Revell kit’s parts and glued into their respective places. The drive wheel was taken over from the Leopard, but the guide wheel at the front end was replaced by a simpler and smaller pair of wheels from a Russian IS-3 tank.
Using the E-50 as benchmark for the running wheels, I gathered twelve of them from the scrap box and from several Modellcollect kits in the stash (The 1:72 E-50 kits from Modelcollect and Trumpeter all come with the option to build an E-75, too, so that each kit offers two pairs of excess parts). Mounting these wheels to the hull, in a staggered fashion, became the kit’s true challenge, though, because I did not have a sufficient number of original wheel carriers/suspension packs. Improvisation resulted in the adaptation of twelve leftover suspension arms from a Modelcollect E-100 kit, even though they had to be tailored in depth and length to fit under the Leopard’s hull. It took some trial and error to find a proper position that would produce a plausible stance, but I think the effort of this transplantation really changes the tank’s look into something Heer ’46-ish?
The track was taken OOB from the Leopard 1 kit, and it is of the segmented IP type. It was mounted after most painting was done, starting with single track segments on the drive and guiding wheels, and then the gaps were filled with other track elements. A bit of a gamble, but the theory, that the track parts should match, was confirmed. Phew…
Painting and markings:
For some subtlety, the model received a classic German paint scheme with “Hinterhalt” colors (Dunkelgelb, Olivgrün and Rotbraun). Once the kit’s components were finished (hull, turret and the separate wheels), everything received an overall coat with matt RAL 7028 (Modelmaster Authentics).
On top of that, a dense pattern of red brown (Humbrol 160) and finally green (RAL 6003 from Modelmaster Authentics) mottles in 1 1:2 ratio was applied with a flat, narrow brush, for a somewhat square shape of the blotches. Pretty straightforward, seen on a late war Panther - and suitable for a summertime scenario as well as in line with common field practice, even though at the time where the model is placed, tanks might have looked more extraordinary or improvised due to the general material shortages.
Once the basic painting was done, the kit received a thin, water-based wash with dark brown, carefully swabbed with a soft cotton cloth in order to leave just a thin and cloudy film on the surfaces and more of the wash in recesses and corners. There were only a few decals to apply, namely three small German crosses and the tactical code on the turret’s flanks. Later some dry-brushing with light grey and hemp was done, emphasizing the edges and highlighting surface details.
The track segments were primed with a mix of acrylic iron, black and dark brown and received a final paint treatment after mounting them onto the wheels, hiding some glue stains and other blemishes.
Artist pigments (a mix of ochre, grey and brown) were dusted with a soft brush onto the lower kit areas, after having sealed the model with matt acrylic varnish beforehand.
Well, what could have been a simple paint job in order to achieve a time-warped Leopard 1 became a massive kitbashing project. However, I think this extra effort, esp. the adaptation of the E-50 running gear, and all the potential risks of mixing parts from different kits, was worthwhile? The paint scheme certainly suggest the WWII era, too. The resulting “new” tank looks IMHO pretty plausible, and both hull and turret shape remind of the Leopard 1 without looking like the real thing behind this build. In fact, from certain angles this one appears like the missing link between the Panther and the Leopard 1, and a lot like an inspiration for the Soviet T-54/55 or even the T-72?
+++ 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.
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 Hütter Hü 324 was the final development stage of BMW's 'Schnellbomber II' project, which had been designed around two mighty BMW 109-028 turboprops.
These innovative engines had been developed since February 1941, but did not receive fullest attention due to the more promising jet engines. Anyway, it soon became clear that no jet engine with the potential to drive a bomber-sized aircraft - considering both performance and fuel consumption - would be available on short notice. Consequently, the BMW 028 received more attention from the RLM from 1943 on.
Biggest pressure came from the fact that several obsolete types like the He 111 or Do 217 had to be replaced, and the ill-fated and complicated He 177 was another candidate with little future potential, since four-engined variants had been rejected. Additionally, the promising and ambitious Ju 288 had been stillborn, and a wide gap for a tactical medium bomber opned in the Luftwaffe arsenal.
In may 1943, new requirements for a medium bomber were concretised. Main objective was to design a fast, twin-engined bomber, primarily intended for horizontal bombing, which would be able to carry a 3.000 kilograms (6.600 lbs) payload at 800 kilometres per hour in a 1.500km (900 ml) radius. The plane had to be fast and to operate at great heights, limiting the threat of interception.
Since many major design bureaus’ resources were bound, Ulrich W. Hütter, an Austro-German engineer and university professor got involved in the RLM project and BMW's design team which had been working on appropriate designs. In July 1943, Hütter moved to the Research Institute of the Graf Zeppelin works (FGZ) convened in Ruit near Stuttgart, and as head of the engineering department he was also involved in the development of manned missiles, underwater towing systems and the Hü 211 high altitude interceptor/reconnaissance plane.
Under Ulrich W. Hütter and his brother, Wolfgang Hütter, BMW's original and highly innovative (if not over-ambitious) Schnellbomber designs gave way to a more conservative layout: the so-called BMW-Hütter Hü 324.
The plane was conventional in layout, with high, unswept laminar profile wings and a high twin tail. The engines were carried in nacelles slung directly under the wings. The nose wheel retracted rearwards, while the main wheels retracted forwards into the engine nacelles, rotating 90°, and laying flat under the engines. The crew of four (pilot, co-pilot/bombardier, navigator/radar operator and gunner/radio operator) were accommodated in a compact, pressurised "glass house" cockpit section – a popular design and morale element in Luftwaffe bomber and reconnaissance aircraft of that era.
Construction of the first prototype started in February 1945, and while the aircraft cell made good progress towards the hardware stage, the development suffered a serious setback in March when BMW admitted that the 109-028 turboprop engine would not be ready in time. It took until August to arrive, and the prototype did not fly until 6 November 1945.
Initial flight test of the four A-0 pre-production samples of the Hü 324 went surprisingly well. Stability and vibration problems with the aircraft were noted, though. One major problem was that the front glas elements were prone to crack at high speeds, and it took a while to trace the troubole source back to the engines and sort these problems out. Among others, contraprops were fitted to counter the vibration problems, the engines' power output had to be reduced by more than 500 WPS and the tail fins had to be re-designed.
Another innovative feature of this bomber was the “Elbegast” ground-looking navigation radar system, which allowed identification of targets on the ground for night and all-weather bombing. It was placed in a shallow radome behind the front wheel. Performance-wise, the system was comparable to the USAAF’s H2X radar, and similarly compact. Overall, the Hü 324 showed much promise and a convincing performance, was easy to build and maintain, and it was immediately taken to service.
Despite the relatively high speed and agility for a plane of its size, the Hü 324 bore massive defensive armament: the original equipment of the A-1 variant comprised two remotely operated FDL 131Z turrets in dorsal (just behind the cockpit) and ventral (behind the bomb bay) position with 2× 13 mm MG 131 machine guns each, plus an additional, unmanned tail barbette with a single 20mm canon. All these guns were aimed by the gunner through a sighting station at the rear of the cockpit, effectively covering the rear hemisphere of the bomber.
After first operational experience, this defence was beefed up with another remotely-controlled barbette with 2× 13 mm MG 131 machine guns under the cockpit, firing forwards. The reason was similar to the introduction of the chin-mounted gun turret in the B-17G: the plane was rather vulnerable to frontal attacks. In a secondary use, the chin guns could be used for strafing ground targets. This update was at first called /R1, but was later incorporated into series production, under the designation A-2.
Effectively, almost 4.500kg ordnance could be carried in- and externally, normally limited to 3.000kg in the bomb bay in order to keep the wings clean and reduce drag, for a high cruising speed. While simple iron bombs and aerial mines were the Hü 324's main payload, provisions were made to carry guided weapons like against small/heavily fortified targets. Several Rüstsätze (accessory packs) were developed, and the aircraft in service received an "/Rx" suffix to their designation, e. g. the R2 Rüstsatz for Fritz X bomb guidance or the R3 set for rocket-propelled Hs 293 bombs.
Trials were even carried out with a semi-recessed Fieseler Fi 103 missile, better known as the V1 flying bomb, hung under the bomber's belly and in an enlarged bomb bay, under deletion of the ventral barbette.
The Hü 324 bomber proved to be an elusive target for the RAF day and night fighters, especially at height. After initial attacks at low level, where fast fighters like the Hawker Tempest or DH Mosquito night fighters were the biggest threat, tactics were quickly changed. Approaching at great height and speed, bombing was conducted from medium altitudes of 10,000 to 15,000 feet (3,000 to 4,600 m).
The Hü 324 proved to be very successful, striking against a variety of targets, including bridges and radar sites along the British coast line, as well as ships on the North Sea.
From medium altitude, the Hü 324 A-2 proved to be a highly accurate bomber – thanks to its "Elbegast" radar system which also allowed the planes to act as pathfinders for older types or fast bombers with less accurate equipment like the Ar 232, Ju 388 or Me 410. Loss rates were far lower than in the early, low-level days, with the Hü 324 stated by the RLM as having the lowest loss rate in the European Theatre of Operations at less than 0.8 %.
BMW-Hütter Ha 324A-2, general characteristics:
Crew: 4
Length: 18.58 m (60 ft 10 in)
Wingspan: 21.45 m (70 ft 4½ in )
Height: 4.82 m (15 ft 9½ in)
Wing area: 60.80 m² (654.5 ft.²)
Empty weight: 12,890 kg (28,417 lb)
Loaded weight: 18,400 kg (40,565 lb)
Max. take-off weight: 21,200 kg (46,738 lb)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 810 km/h (503 mph) at optimum height
Cruising speed: 750 km/h (460 mph) at 10,000 m (32,800 ft)
Range: 3.500 km (2.180 ml)
Service ceiling: 11.400 m (37.500 ft)
Rate of climb: 34.7 m/s (6,820 ft/min)
Powerplant:
Two BMW 109-028 ‘Mimir’ turboprop engines, limited to 5.500 WPS (4.044 WkW) each plus an additional residual thrust of 650kg (1.433 lb), driving four-bladed contraprops.
Armament:
6× 13mm MG 131 in three FDL 131Z turrets
1× 20mm MG 151/20 in unmanned/remote-controlled tail barbette
Up to 4.500 kg (9.800 lbs) in a large enclosed bomb-bay in the fuselage and/or four underwing hardpoints.
Typically, bomb load was limited to 3.000 kg (6.500 lbs) internally.
The kit and its assembly
This project/model belongs in the Luft '46 category, but it has no strict real world paradigm - even though Luftwaffe projects like the Ju 288, the BMW Schnellbomber designs or Arado's E560/2 and E560/7 had a clear influence. Actually, “my” Hü 324 design looks pretty much like a He 219 on steroids! Anyway, this project was rather inspired by a ‘click’ when two ideas/elements came together and started forming something new and convincing. This is classic kitbashing, and the major ingredients are:
● Fuselage, wings, landing gear and engine nacelles from a Trumpeter Ilyushin Il-28 bomber
● Nose section from an Italeri Ju 188 (donated from a friend, leftover from his Ju 488 project)
● Stabilisers from an Italeri B-25, replacing the Il-28’s swept tail
● Contraprops and fuselage barbettes from a vintage 1:100 scale Tu-20(-95) kit from VEB Plasticart (yes, vintage GDR stuff!)
Most interestingly, someone from the Netherlands had a similar idea for a kitbashing some years ago: www.airwar1946.nl/whif/L46-ju588.htm. I found this after I got my idea for the Hü 324 together, though - but its funny to see how some ideas manifest independently?
Building the thing went pretty straightforward, even though Trumpeter's Il-28 kit has a rather poor fit. Biggest problem turned out to be the integration of the Ju 188 cockpit section: it lacks 4-5mm in width! That does not sound dramatic, but it took a LOT of putty and internal stabilisation to graft the parts onto the Il-28's fuselage.
The cockpit was completely re-equipped with stuff from the scrap box, and the main landing gear received twin wheels.
The chin turret was mounted after the fuselage was complete, the frontal defence had been an issue I had been pondering about for a long while. Originally, some fixed guns (just as the Il-28 or Tu-16) had been considered. But when I found an old Matchbox B-17G turret in my scrap box, I was convinced that this piece could do literally the same job in my model, and it was quickly integrated. As a side effect, this arrangement justifies the bulged cockpit bottom well, and it just looks "more dangerous".
Another task was the lack of a well for the front wheel, after the Il-28 fuselage had been cut and lacked the original interior. This was also added after the new fuselage had been fitted together, and the new well walls were built with thin polystyrene plates. Not 100% exact and clean, but the arrangement fits the bill and takes the twin front wheel.
The bomb bay was left open, since the Trumpeter kit offers a complete interior. I also added four underwing hardpoints for external loads (one pair in- and outboard of the engine nacelles), taken from A-7 Corsair II kits, but left them empty. Visually-guided weapons like the 'Fritz X' bomb or Hs 293 missiles would IMHO hardly make sense during night sorties? I also did not want to overload the kit with more and more distracting details.
Painting
Even though it is a whif I wanted to incorporate some serious/authentic late WWII Luftwaffe looks. Since the Hü 324 would have been an all-weather bomber, I went for a night bomber livery which was actually used on a He 177 from 2./KG 100, based in France: Black (RLM 22, I simply used Humbrol 33) undersides, and upper surfaces in RLM 76 (Base is Humbrol 128, FS36320, plus some added areas with Testors 2086, the authentic tone which is a tad lighter, but very close) with mottles in RLM 75 (Grauviolett, Testors 2085, plus some splotches of Humbrol 27, Medium Sea Grey), and some weathering through black ink, some enhanced panel lines (with a mix of matte varnish and Panzergrau), as well as some dry painting all over the fuselage.
All interior surfaces were painted in RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau/Black Grey, Testors 2079), typical for German late WWII aircraft. Propeller spinners were painted RLM 70 (Schwarzgrün) on the front half, the rear half was painted half black and half white.
Pretty simple scheme, but it looks VERY cool, esp. on this sleek aircraft. I am very happy with this decision, and I think that this rather simple livery is less distracting from the fantasy plane itself, making the whif less obvious. In the end, the whole thing looks a bit grey-in-grey, but that spooky touch just adds to the menacing look of this beefy aircraft. I think it would not look as good if it had been kept in daytime RLM 74/75/76 or even RLM 82/83/76?
Markings and squadron code were puzzled together from an Authentic Decal aftermarket sheet for a late He 111 and individual letters from TL Modellbau. The "F3" code for the fictional Kampfgruppe (KG) 210 is a random choice, "EV" marks the individual plane, the red "E" and the control letter "V" at the end designate a plane from the eleventh squadron of KG 210. My idea is that the Hü 324 would replace these machines and literally taking their place in the frontline aviaton units. So I tried to keep in line with the German aircraft code, but after all, it's just a whif...
So, after some more surgical work than expected, the Hü 324 medium bomber is ready to soar!
My final summer kitbashing project was to make a couple of Milwaukee Road trailers out of two old Athearn 40' refrigerated trailers. On the left is open-top 405003 and the right is reefer van 505397. Both feature kitbashed landing gear, bogies and rear doors. I added tarpaulin bars on the open-top along with a false floor on the interior- they ride on a Walthers 89' piggyback flat that I backdated and renumbered.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background
The Focke Wulf Ta 338 originated as a response of request by the RLM in mid 1943 for an aircraft capable of vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL), optimized for the interceptor and point defense role and without a hazardous liquid rocket engine as means of propulsion. In the course of the year, several German manufacturers responded with a multitude of highly innovative if not unusual design, including Heinkel with the ducted fan project "Lerche", Rheinmetall-Borsig with a jet-powered tailsitter, and Focke Wulf. This company’s engineering teams submitted two designs: the revolutionary "Triebflügel" concept and the more conservative, yet still futuristic "P.03.10338" tail sitter proposal, conceived by Focke Wulf’s leading engineer Kurt Tank and Walter Kappus from BMW, responsible for the engine development.
The P.03.10338 was based on the proven Fw 190 fighter, but the similarities were only superficial. Only the wings and a part of the fuselage structure around the cockpit would be used, but Tank assumed that using existing parts and tools would appreciably reduce development and production time.
A great part of the fuselage structure had to be re-designed to accommodate a powerful BMW 803 engine and its integral gearbox for an eight-bladed contraprop.
The BMW 803 was BMW's attempt to build a high-output aircraft engine, primarily for heavy bombers, by basically "coupling" two BMW 801 engines back-to-back into a single and very compact power unit. The result was a 28-cylinder, four-row radial engine, each comprising a multiple-bank in-line engine with two cylinders in each bank, which, due to cooling concerns, were liquid cooled.
This arrangement was from the start intended to drive independent contra-rotating propellers, in order to avoid stiffness problems with the whole engine driving just a single crankshaft and also to simply convert the raw power of this unit into propulsion. The front half of the engine drove the front propeller directly, while the rear engine drove a number of smaller shafts that passed between the cylinders of the front engine before being geared back together to drive the rear prop. This complex layout resulted in a rather large and heavy gearbox on the front of the engine, and the front engine needing an extended shaft to "clear" that gearbox. The four-row 803 engine weighed 2,950 kg (6,490 lb) dry and 4,130 kg (9,086 lb) fully loaded, and initial versions delivered 3,900 PS (3,847 hp; 2,868 kW).
While the engine was heavy and there were alternatives with a better weight/output ratio (e. g. the Jumo 222), the BMW 803 was favored for this project because it was the most powerful engine available, and it was relatively compact so that it could be fitted into a fighter's airframe. On the P.03.10338 it drove an all-metal, eight-blade contraprop with a diameter of 4,25 m (13 ft 11 in).
In order to accept this massive engine, the P.03.10338’s structure had to be stiffened and the load-bearing structures re-arranged. The aircraft kept the Fw 190's wing structure and surface, but the attachment points at the fuselage had to be moved for the new engine mount, so that they ended up in mid position. The original space for the Fw 190's landing gear was used for a pair of radiator baths in the wings' inner leading edge, the port radiator catering to the front engine half while the radiator on starboard was connected with the rear half. An additional annular oil and sodium cooler for the gearbox and the valve train, respectively, was mounted in the fuselage nose.
The tail section was completely re-designed. Instead of the Fw 190's standard tail with fin and stabilizers the P.03.10338’s tail surfaces were a reflected cruciform v-tail (forming an x) that extended above and below the fuselage. On the four fin tips, aerodynamic bodies carried landing pads while the fuselage end contained an extendable landing damper. The pilot sat in a standard Fw 190 cockpit, and the aircraft was supposed to start and land vertically from a mobile launch pad. In the case of an emergency landing, the lower stabilizers could be jettisoned. Nor internal armament was carried, instead any weaponry was to be mounted under the outer wings or the fuselage, in the form of various “Rüstsätze” packages.
Among the many exotic proposals to the VTOL fighter request, Kurt Tank's design appeared as one of the most simple options, and the type received the official RLM designation Ta 338. In a rush of urgency (and maybe blinded by clever Wunderwaffen marketing from Focke Wulf’s side), a series of pre-production aircraft was ordered instead of a dedicated prototype, which was to equip an Erprobungskommando (test unit, abbreviated “EK”) that would evaluate the type and develop tactics and procedures for the new fighter.
Fueled by a growing number of bomber raids over Germany, the “EK338” was formed as a part of JG300 in August 1944 in Schönwalde near Berlin, but it took until November 1944 that the first Ta 338 A-0 machines were delivered and made operational. These initial eight machines immediately revealed several flaws and operational problems, even though the VTOL concept basically worked and the aircraft flew well – once it was in the air and cruising at speeds exceeding 300 km/h (186 mph).
Beyond the many difficulties concerning the aircraft’s handling (esp. the landing was hazardous), the lack of a landing gear hampered ground mobility and servicing. Output of the BMW 803 was sufficient, even though the aircraft had clear limits concerning the take-off weight, so that ordnance was limited to only 500 kg (1.100 lb). Furthermore, the noise and the dust kicked up by starting or landing aircraft was immense, and servicing the engine or the weapons was more complicated than expected through the high position of many vital and frequently tended parts.
After three Ta 338 A-0 were lost in accidents until December 1944, a modified version was ordered for a second group of the EK 338. This led to the Ta 338 A-1, which now had shorter but more sharply swept tail fins that carried single wheels and an improved suspension under enlarged aerodynamic bodies.
This machine was now driven by an improved BMW 803 A-2 that delivered more power and was, with an MW-50 injection system, able to produce a temporary emergency output of 4.500 hp (3.308 kW).
Vertical start was further assisted by optional RATO units, mounted in racks at the rear fuselage flanks: either four Schmidding SG 34 solid fuel booster rockets, 4.9 kN (1,100 lbf) thrust each, or two larger 9.8 kN (2,203 lbf) solid fuel booster rockets, could be used. These improvements now allowed a wider range of weapons and equipment to be mounted, including underwing pods with unguided rockets against bomber pulks and also a conformal pod with two cameras for tactical reconnaissance.
The hazardous handling and the complicated maintenance remained the Ta 338’s Achilles heel, and the tactical benefit of VTOL operations could not outbalance these flaws. Furthermore, the Ta 338’s range remained very limited, as well as the potential firepower. Four 20mm or two 30mm cannons were deemed unsatisfactory for an interceptor of this class and power. And while bundles of unguided missiles proved to be very effective against large groups of bombers, it was more efficient to bring these weapons with simple and cheap vehicles like the Bachem Ba 349 Natter VTOL rocket fighter into target range, since these were effectively “one-shot” weapons. Once the Ta 338 fired its weapons it had to retreat unarmed.
In mid 1945, in the advent of defeat, further tests of the Ta 338 were stopped. I./EK338 was disbanded in March 1945 and all machines retreated from the Eastern front, while II./EK338 kept defending the Ruhrgebiet industrial complex until the Allied invasion in April 1945. Being circled by Allied forces, it was not possible to evacuate or destroy all remaining Ta 338s, so that at least two more or less intact airframes were captured by the U.S. Army and later brought to the United States for further studies.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length/height on the ground: 10.40 m (34 ft 2 in)
Wingspan: 10.50 m (34 ft 5 in)
Fin span: 4:07 m (13 ft 4 in)
Wing area: 18.30 m² (196.99 ft²)
Empty weight: 11,599 lb (5,261 kg)
Loaded weight: 16,221 lb (7,358 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 16,221 lb (7,358 kg)
Powerplant:
1× BMW 803 A-2 28-cylinder, liquid-cooled four-row radial engine,
rated at 4.100 hp (2.950 kW) and at 4.500 hp (3.308 kW) with emergency boost.
4x Schmidding SG 34 solid fuel booster rockets, 4.9 kN (1,100 lbf) thrust each, or
2x 9.8 kN (2,203 lbf) solid fuel booster rockets
Performance:
Maximum speed: 860 km/h (534 mph)
Cruise speed: 650 km/h (403 mph)
Range: 750 km (465 ml)
Service ceiling: 43,300 ft (13,100 m)
Rate of climb: 10,820 ft/min (3,300 m/min)
Wing loading: 65.9 lb/ft² (322 kg/m²)
Armament:
No internal armament, any weapons were to be mounted on three hardpoints (one under the fuselage for up to 1.000 kg (2.200 lb) and two under the outer wings, 500 kg (1.100 lb) each. Total ordnance was limited to 1.000 kg (2.200 lb).
Various armament and equipment sets (Rüstsätze) were tested:
R1 with 4× 20 mm (.79 in) MG 151/20 cannons
R2 with 2x 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 213C cannons
R3 with 48x 73 mm (2.874 in) Henschel Hs 297 Föhn rocket shells
R4 with 66x 55 mm (2.165 in) R4M rocket shells
R5 with a single 1.000 kg (2.200 lb) bomb under the fuselage
R6 with an underfuselage pod with one Rb 20/20 and one Rb 75/30 topographic camera
The kit and its assembly:
This purely fictional kitbashing is a hardware tribute to a highly inspiring line drawing of a Fw 190 VTOL tailsitter – actually an idea for an operational RC model! I found the idea, that reminded a lot of the Lockheed XFV-1 ‘Salmon’ prototype, just with Fw 190 components and some adaptations, very sexy, and so I decided on short notice to follow the urge and build a 1:72 version of the so far unnamed concept.
What looks simple (“Heh, it’s just a Fw 190 with a different tail, isn’t it?”) turned out to become a major kitbashing. The basis was a simple Hobby Boss Fw 190 D-9, chose because of the longer tail section, and the engine would be changed, anyway. Lots of work followed, though.
The wings were sliced off and moved upwards on the flanks. The original tail was cut off, and the cruciform fins are two pairs of MiG-21F stabilizers (from an Academy and Hasegawa kit), outfitted with reversed Mk. 84 bombs as aerodynamic fairings that carry four small wheels (from an 1:144 T-22M bomber) on scratched struts (made from wire).
The cockpit was taken OOB, only a pilot figure was cramped into the seat in order to conceal the poor interior detail. The engine is a bash from a Ju 188’s BMW 801 cowling and the original Fw 190 D-9’s annular radiator as well as a part of its Jumo 213 cowling. BMW 801 exhaust stubs were inserted, too, and the propeller comes from a 1:100 VEB Plasticart Tu-20/95 bomber.
Since the BMW 803 had liquid cooling, radiators had to go somewhere. The annular radiator would certainly not have been enough, so I used the space in the wings that became available through the deleted Fw 190 landing gear (the wells were closed) for additional radiators in the wings’ leading edges. Again, these were scratched with styrene profiles, putty and some very fine styrene mesh.
As ordnance I settled for a pair of gun pods – in this case these are slipper tanks from a Hobby Boss MiG-15, blended into the wings and outfitted with hollow steel needles as barrels.
Painting and markings:
Several design options were possible: all NMF with some colorful markings or an overall RLM76 finish with added camouflage. But I definitively went for a semi-finished look, inspired by late WWII Fw 190 fighters.
For instance, the wings’ undersides were partly left in bare metal, but the rudders painted in RLM76 while the leading edges became RLM75. This color was also taken on the wings’ upper sides, with RLM82 thinly painted over. The fuselage is standard RLM76, with RLM82 and 83 on the upper side and speckles on the flanks. The engine cowling became NMF, but with a flashy ‘Hartmann Tulpe’ decoration.
Further highlights are the red fuselage band (from JG300 in early 1945) and the propeller spinner, which received a red tip and segments in black and white on both moving propeller parts. Large red “X”s were used as individual aircraft code – an unusual Luftwaffe practice but taken over from some Me 262s.
After a light black ink wash some panel shading and light weathering (e.g. exhaust soot, leaked oil, leading edges) was done, and the kit sealed under matt acrylic varnish.
Building this “thing” on the basis of a line drawing was real fun, even though challenging and more work than expected. I tried to stay close to the drawing, the biggest difference is the tail – the MiG-21 stabilizers were the best option (and what I had at hand as donation parts), maybe four fins from a Hawker Harrier or an LTV A-7 had been “better”, but now the aircraft looks even faster. ;)
Besides, the Ta 338 is so utterly Luft ’46 – I am curious how many people might take this for real or as a Hydra prop from a contemporary Captain America movie…
DISCLAIMER
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Northrop Grumman-IAI F-24 is the latest reincarnation of the USAF "Lightweight Fighter Program" which dates back to the 1950ies and started with the development of Northrop's F-5 "Freedom Fighter".
The 1st generation F-5 became very successful in the export market and saw a long line of development, including the much more powerful F-5E "Tiger II" and the F-20 Tigershark (initially called F-5G). Northrop had high hopes for the F-20 in the international market; however, policy changes following Ronald Reagan's election meant the F-20 had to compete for sales against aircraft like the F-16, the USAF's latest fighter design (which was politically favored). The F-20 development program was eventually abandoned in 1986 after three prototypes had been built and a fourth partially completed.
But this was not the end for Northrop’s Lightweight Fighter. In the early 1980s, two X-29As experimental aircraft were built by Grumman from two existing Northrop F-5A Freedom Fighter airframes. The Grumman X-29 was a testbed for forward-swept wings, canard control surfaces, and other novel aircraft technologies. The aerodynamic instability of this arrangement increased agility but required the use of computerized fly-by-wire control. Composite materials were used to control the aeroelastic divergent twisting experienced by forward-swept wings, also reducing the weight. The NASA test program continued from 1984 to 1991 and the X-29s flew 242 times, gathering valuable data and breaking ground for new aerodynamic technologies of 4th and 5th generation fighters.
Even though no service aircraft directly evolved from the X-29, its innovative FBW system as well as the new material technologies also opened the door for an updated F-20 far beyond the 1990ies. It became clear that ever expensive and complex aircraft could not be the answer to modern, asymmetrical warfare in remote corners of the world, with exploding development costs and just a limited number of aircraft in service that could not generate true economies of scale, esp. when their state-of-the-art design would not permit any export.
Anyway, a global market for simpler fighter aircraft was there, as 1st generation F-16s as well as the worldwide, aging F-5E fleet and types of Soviet/Russian origin like the MiG-29 provided the need for a modern, yet light and economical jet fighter. Contemporary types like the Indian HAL Tejas, the Swedish Saab Gripen, the French Dassault Rafale and the Pakistani/Chinese FC-1/JF-17 ”Thunder” proved this trend among 4th - 4.5th generation fighter aircraft.
Northrop Grumman (Northrop bought Grumman in 1994) initiated studies and basic design work on a respective New Lightweight Fighter (NLF) as a private venture in 1995. Work on the NLF started at a slow pace, as the company was busy with re-structuring.
The idea of an updated lightweight fighter was fueled by another source, too: Israel. In 1998 IAI started looking in the USA for a development partner for a new, light fighter that would replace its obsolete Kfir fleet and partly relieve its F-16 and F-15 fleet from interception tasks. The domestic project for that role, the IAI Lavi, had been stillborn, but lots of its avionics and research were still at hand and waited for an airframe for completion.
The new aircraft for the IAF was to be superior to the MiG-29, at least on par with the F-16C/D, but easier to maintain, smaller and overall cheaper. Since the performance profiles appeared to be similar to what Northrop Grumman was developing under the NLF label, the US company eventually teamed up with IAI in 2000 and both started the mutual project "Namer" (=נמר, “Tiger” in Hebrew), which eventually lead to the F-24 I for the IAF which kept its project name for service and to the USAF’s F-24A “Tigershark”.
The F-24, as the NLF, was based on the F-20 airframe, but outwardly showed only little family heritage, onle the forward fuselage around the cockpit reminds of the original F-5 design . Many aerodynamic details, e. g. the air intakes and air ducts, were taken over from the X-29, though, as the experimental aircraft and its components had been developed for extreme maneuvers and extra high agility. Nevertheless, the X-29's forward-swept wing was considered to be too exotic and fragile for a true service aircraft, but the F-24 was to feature an Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) system.
AAW Technology integrates wing aerodynamics, controls, and structure to harness and control wing aeroelastic twist at high speeds and dynamic pressures. By using multiple leading and trailing edge controls like "aerodynamic tabs", subtle amounts of aeroelastic twist can be controlled to provide large amounts of wing control power, while minimizing maneuver air loads at high wing strain conditions or aerodynamic drag at low wing strain conditions. This system was initially tested on the X-29 and later on the X-53 research aircraft, a modified F-18, until 2006.
Both USAF and IAF versions feature this state-of-the-art aerodynamic technology, but it is uncertain if other customers will receive it. While details concerning the F-24's system have not been published yet, it is assumed that its AAW is so effective that canard foreplanes could be omitted without sacrificing lift and maneuverability, and that drag is effectively minimized as the wing profile can be adjusted according to the aircraft’s speed, altitude, payload and mission – much like a VG wing, but without its clumsy and heavy swiveling mechanism which has to bear high g forces. As a result, the F-24 is, compared to the F-20, which could carry an external payload of about 3.5 tons, rumored to be able to carry up to 5 tons of ordnance.
The delta wing shape proved to be a perfect choice for the required surface and flap actuators inside of the wings, and it would also offer a very good compromise between lift and drag for a wide range of performance. Anyway, there was one price to pay: in order to keep the wing profile thin and simple, the F-24’s landing gear retracts into the lower fuselage, leaving the aircraft with a relatively narrow track.
Another major design factor for the outstanding performance of this rather small aircraft was weight reduction and structural integrity – combined with simplicity, ruggedness and a modular construction which would allow later upgrades. Instead of “going big” and expensive, the new F-24 was to create its performance through dedicated loss of weight, which was in some part also a compensation for the AAW system in the wings and its periphery.
Weight was saved wherever possible, e .g. a newly developed, lightweight M199A1 gatling gun. This 20mm cannon is a three-barreled, heavily modified version of the already “stripped” M61A2 gun in the USAF’s current F-18E and F-22. One of the novel features is a pneumatic drive instead of the traditional electric mechanism, what not only saves weight but also improves trigger response. The new gun weighs only a mere 65kg (the six-barreled M61A2 weighs 92kg, the original M61A1 112 kg), but still reaches a burst rate of fire of 1.800 RPM (about 800 RPM under cyclic fire, standard practice is to fire the cannon in 30 to 50-round bursts, though) and a muzzle velocity of 1.050 metres per second (3,450 ft/s) with a PGU-28/B round.
While the F-16 was and is still made from 80% aluminum alloys and only from 3% composites, the F-24 makes major use of carbon fiber and other lightweight materials, which make up about 40% of the aircraft’s structure, plus an increased share of Titanium and Magnesium alloys. As a consequence and through many other weight-saving measures like keeping stealth capabilities to a minimum (even though RAM was deliberately used and many details designed to have a natural low radar signature, resulting in modest radar cross-section (RCS) reductions), a single, relatively small engine, a fuel-efficient F404-GE-402 turbofan, is enough to make the F-24 a fast and very agile aircraft, coupled with a good range. The F-24’s thrust/weight ratio is considerably higher than 1, and later versions with a vectored thrust nozzle (see below) will take this level of agility even further – with the pilot becoming the limiting factor for the aircraft’s performance.
USAF and IAF F-24s are outfitted with Northrop Grumman's AN/APG-80 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, also used in the F-16 Block 60 aircraft. Other customers might only receive the AN/APG-68, making the F-24 comparable to the F-16C/D.
The first prototype, the YF-24, flew on 8th of March 2008, followed by two more aircraft plus a static airframe until summer 2010. In early 2011 the USAF placed an initial order of 101 aircraft (probably also to stir export sales – the earlier lightweight fighters from Northrop suffered from the fact that the manufacturer’s country would not use the aircraft in its own forces). These initial aircraft will replace older F-16 in the interceptor role, or free them for fighter bomber tasks. The USN and USMC also showed interest in the aircraft for their aggressor squadrons, for dissimilar air combat training. A two-seater, called the F-24B, is supposed to follow soon, too, and a later version for 2020 onwards, tentatively designated F-24C, is to feature an even stronger F404 engine and a 3D vectoring nozzle.
Israel is going to produce its own version domestically from late 2014 on, which will exclusively be used by the IAF. These aircraft will be outfitted with different avionics, built by Elta in Israel, and cater to national requirements which focus more on multi-purpose service, while the USAF focusses with its F-24A on aerial combat and interception tasks.
International interest for the F-24A is already there: in late 2013 Grumman stated that initial talks have been made with various countries, and potential export candidates from 2015 on are Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, Finland, Norway, Australia and Japan.
General F-24A characteristics:
Crew: 1 pilot
Length: 47 ft 4 in (14.4 m)
Wingspan: 27 ft 11.9 in / 8.53 m; with wingtip missiles (26 ft 8 in/ 8.13 m; without wingtip missiles)
Height: 13 ft 10 in (4.20 m)
Wing area: 36.55 m² (392 ft²)
Empty weight: 13.150 lb (5.090 kg)
Loaded weight: 15.480 lb (6.830 kg)
Max. take-off weight: 27.530 lb (12.500 kg)
Powerplant
1× General Electric F404-GE-402 turbofan with a dry thrust of 11,000 lbf (48.9 kN) and 17,750 lbf (79.2 kN) with afterburner
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2
Combat radius: 300 nmi (345 mi, 556 km); for hi-lo-hi mission with 2 × 330 US gal (1,250 L) drop tanks
Ferry range: 1,490 nmi (1715 mi, 2759 km); with 3 × 330 US gal (1,250 L) drop tanks
Service ceiling: 55,000 ft (16,800 m)
Rate of climb: 52,800 ft/min (255 m/s)
Wing loading: 70.0 lb/ft² (342 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 1.09 (1.35 with loaded weight & 50% fuel)
Armament
1× 20 mm (0.787 in) M199A1 3-barreled Gatling cannon in the lower fuselage with 400 RPG
Eleven external hardpoints (two wingtip tails, six underwing hardpoints, three underfuselage hardpoints) and a total capacity of 11.000 lb (4.994 kg) of missiles (incl. AIM 9 Sidewinder and AIM 120 AMRAAM), bombs, rockets, ECM pods and drop tanks for extended range.
The kit and its assembly:
A spontaneous project. This major kitbash was inspired by fellow user nighthunter at whatifmodelers.com, who came up with a profile of a mashed-up US fighter, created “out of boredom”. The original idea was called F-21C, and it was to be a domestic successor to the IAI Kfirs which had been used by the US as aggressor aircraft in USN and USMC service for a few years.
As a weird(?) coincidence I had many of the necessary ingredients for this fictional aircraft in store, even though some parts and details were later changed. This model here is an interpretation of the original design. The idea was spun further, and the available parts that finally went into the model also had some influence on design and background.
I thank nighthunter for sharing the early ideas, inviting me to take the design to the hardware stage (sort of…) and adapting my feedback into new design sketches, too, which, in return, inspired the model building process.
Well, what went into this thing? To cook up a F-24 à la Dizzyfugu you just need (all in 1:72):
● Fuselage from a Hasegawa X-29, including the cockpit and the landing gear
● Fin and nose cone from an Italeri F-16A
● Inner wings from a (vintage) Hasegawa MiG-21F
● Outer wings from a F-4 (probably a J, Hasegawa or Fujimi)
The wing construction deviates from nighthunter’s original idea. The favorite ingredients would have been F-16XL or simple Mirage III wings, but I found the composite wing to be more attractive and “different”. The big F-16XL wings, despite their benefit of a unique shape, might also have created scale/size problems with a F-20 style fuselage? So I built hybrid wings: The MiG-21 landing gear wells were filled with putty and the F-4 outer wings simply glued onto the MiG inner wing sections, which were simply cut down in span. It sounds like an unlikely combo, but these parts fit together almost perfectly! In order to hide the F-4 origins I modified them to carry wingtip launch rails, though, which were also part of nighthunter’s original design.
The AAW technology detail mentioned in the background came in handy as it explains the complicated wing shape and the fact that the landing gear retracts into the fuselage, not into the wings, which would have been more plausible… Anyway, there’s still room for a simpler export version, with Mirage III or Kfir C.2/7 wings, and maybe canards?
Using the X-29 as basis also made fitting the new wings onto the area-ruled fuselage pretty easy, as I could use the wing root parts from the X-29 to bridge the gap. The original, forward-swept wings were just cut away, and the remains used as consoles for the new hybrid delta wings. Took some SERIOUS putty work, but the result is IMHO fine.
The bigger/square X-29 air intakes were taken over, and they change the look of the aircraft, making it look less F-5-ish than a true F-20 fuselage. For the same reason I kept the large fairing at the fin base, combining it with a bigger F-16 tail, though, as a counter-balance to the new, bigger wings. Again, the F-16 fin was/is part of nighthunter’s idea, so the model stays true to the original concept.
For the same reason I omitted the original X-29 nose, which is rather pointy, sports vanes and a large sensor boom. The F-16 nose was a plausible choice, as the AN/APG-80 is also carried by late Fighting Falcons, and its shape fits well, too.
All around the hull, some small details like radar warning sensors, pitots and air scoops were added. Not really necessary, but such thing add IMHO to the overall impression of such a fictional aircraft beyond the prototype stage.
Cockpit and landing gear were taken OOB, I just added a pilot figure and slightly modified the seat.
The ordnance was puzzled together from the scrap box, the AIM-9Ls come from the same F-4 kit which donated its outer wings, the AIM-120s come from an Italeri NATO weapons kit. The drop tanks belong to an F-16.
Painting and markings:
At first I considered an F-24I in IAF markings, or even a Japanese aircraft, but then reverted to one of nighthunter’s initial, simple ideas: an USAF aircraft in the “Hill II” paint scheme (F-16 style), made up from three shades of gray (FS 36118, 36270 and 36375) with low-viz markings and stencils. Dutch/Turkish NF-5A/Bs in the “Hill II” scheme were used as design benchmarks, too. It’s a simple livery, but on this delta wing aircraft it looks pretty interesting. I used enamels, what I had at hand: Humbrol 127 and 126, and Modelmaster's 1723.
A light black ink wash was applied, in order to em,phasize the engraved panel lines, in contrast to that, panels were manually highlighted through dry-brushed, lighter shades of gray (Humbrol 27, 166 and 167).
“Hill II” also adds to a generic, realistic touch for this whif. Doing an exotic air force thing is rather easy, but creating a convincing whif for a huge military machinery like the USAF’s takes more subtlety, I think.
The cockpit was painted in medium Gray (Dark Gull Grey, FS 36231, Humbrol 140), as well as the radome. The landing gear and the air intakes were painted white. The radome was painted with Revell 47 and dry-brushed with Humbrol 140.
Decals were puzzled together from various USAF aircraft, including sheets from an Airfix F-117, an Italeri F-15E and even an Academy OV-10D.
Tadah: a hardware tribute to an idea, born from boredom - and the aircraft does not look even bad at all? What I wanted to achieve was to make the F-24 neither look like a F-20, nor a Saab Gripen clone, as the latter comes close in overall shape, size and design.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The T-34, a Soviet medium tank, had a profound and lasting effect on the field of tank design. At its introduction in 1940, the T-34 possessed an unprecedented combination of firepower, mobility, protection and ruggedness. Its 76.2 mm high-velocity tank gun provided a substantial increase in firepower over any of its contemporaries while its well-sloped armour was difficult to penetrate by most contemporary anti-tank weapons. Although its armour and armament were surpassed later in the war, it has often been credited as the most effective, efficient and influential tank design of the Second World War.
The T-34 was the mainstay of Soviet armoured forces throughout the Second World War. Its design allowed it to be continuously refined to meet the constantly evolving needs of the Eastern Front: as the war went on it became more capable, but also quicker and cheaper to produce. Soviet industry would eventually produce over 80,000 T-34s of all variants, allowing steadily greater numbers to be fielded as the war progressed despite the loss of tens of thousands in combat against the German Wehrmacht. Replacing many light and medium tanks in Red Army service, it was the most-produced tank of the war, as well as the second most produced tank of all time (after its successor, the T-54/55 series). T-34 variants were widely exported after World War II, and even as recently as 2010, the tank has seen limited front-line service with several developing countries
One of the unusual and rather unknown operators of the T-34 was Austria. 25 tanks (some sources claim 27 or even 37) of the late T-34/85 variant came as a gift from (well, they were actually left behind by) the Soviet Union in 1955 when the Red Army left the country, meaning that the Austrian Bundesheer was re-established. These vehicles became the young army's initial backbone, until more modern equipment (e. g. M41 and M47 tanks procured from the USA and AMX-13/75 tanks from France) replaced them in frontline service. Due to their ruggedness and simplicity, they were kept in service, though - primarily for training, and some vehicles were in the 1970s integrated into hidden bunkers, defending strategically vital "security space zones".
A revival of the Austrian T-34/85 fleet came in the late Sixties, though, when the Austrian Army recognized a lack in long range attack capabilities (at 1.000 m range and more) against hardened targets like enemy tanks, paired with high mobility and low costs, similar to the German Jagdpanzer profile from WWII. At that time, Austria operated roundabout 50 Charioteer tanks with 83.4 mm guns in this role, but these British vehicles were outdated and needed a timely replacement.
Another limiting factor were severe budget restrictions. The eventual solution came from the Austrian company Saurer: a relatively simple conversion of the indigenous Saurer APC, armed with a version of the French AMX-13's FL-12 oscillating turret, armed with a powerful 105mm cannon, which had just become available in an export version. However, in order to bridge the new tank hunter's development time and quickly fill the defense gap, the Austrian T-34/85s were checked whether it was possible to modernize them with the new turret, too.
The first conversion was carried out by Saurer in 1963 and proved to be successful. Since the light FL-12 turret had a smaller bearing diameter than the old T-34/85 turret, the integration into the hull went straightforward with the help of a simple adapter ring. What made the conversion even simpler was the fact that the FL-12, with its integrated cannon and an automated loading system, was a complete, self-sufficient unit.
The French turret was only lightly armoured, since the tank was not supposed to engage heavily-armed enemies at close range. The turret's front armour protected the crew from 20mm armour-piercing rounds over its frontal arc, while all-round protection was against small arms bullets only. The commander was seated on the left of the turret and the gunner on the right. The commander was provided with seven periscopes and a periscopic sight. The commander's infrared night sight had a magnification of x6. The gunner had two observation periscopes, a telescopic sight and a one-piece lifting and swiveling hatch cover. Due to the design of the oscillating turret, all sights were always linked to the main and secondary armament (a standard NATO machine gun). For engaging targets at night, an infrared periscopic sight was provided for the commander. In order to simplify and lighten the tank, the T-34’s bow machine gun in the hull was deleted and its opening faired over and the crew was reduced to three.
The 105 mm gun could penetrate 360 mm of armour, and the internal magazines of 2x 6 shots allowed a very high rate of fire (up to 12 shots per minute), even though a crew member had to leave the tank in order to fill the magazines up again from the outside. Once the gun had been fired the empty cartridge cases were ejected out of the rear of the turret through a trapdoor hinged on the left. Beyond the 12 rounds in the turret, a further 42 rounds were stored in the tank's hull, primarily in a stowage rack for 30 shots where the former second crew member in the front hull had been placed, and a further twelve rounds in magazines at the turret’s base.
The T-34/85’s engine and transmission were not changed, since an update was beyond the conversion budget limit, but lighter “skeleton” wheels from Czech T-34 post-war production were introduced, so that the modified tank weighed roundabout 30 tons, 2 less than the standard T-35/85.
After highly successful field tests with the prototype in the course of 1963 and 1964, a further conversion program for 16 tanks was approved and carried out until early 1965. The modified tanks received the official designation T-34/105Ö and allocated to two tank battalions. Most of the time these tanks were only used for training purposes, though, in preparation of the arrival of the "real" tank hunter, the SK-105 "Kürassier" (Cuirassier) with almost identical weapon systems. The SK-105’s first prototype was eventually ready in 1967 and delivery of pre-production vehicles commenced in 1971, but teething troubles and many detail problems delayed the type's quick and widespread introduction. Lighter and much more agile than the vintage T-34s, it became a big success and was produced in more than 700 specimen, almost 300 of them for the Austrian Army and the rest for export (Argentina, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Morocco and Tunisia). In consequence, the small T-34/105Ö fleet was soon retired and by 1976, when the Kürassier was in service and other, heavy tanks had become available, none of the converted tanks was still active anymore. Nevertheless, a few Austrian T-34s that had become part of the hidden bunker installations soldiered secretly on, the last ones were dug out of their positions and scrapped in 2007(!).
Specifications:
Crew: Three (commander, gunner, driver)
Weight: 29.7 t combat load
Length: 8.21 m (26 ft 10 ½ in) with turret forward
6.10 m (19 ft 11 ¾ in) hull only
Width: 3.00 m (9 ft 10 in)
Height: 2,74 m (8 ft 11 ½ in)
Suspension: Christie
Ground clearance: 0.4 m (16 in)
Fuel capacity: eight internal tanks, total capacity of 545 l (145 U.S. gal; 118 imp gal),
plus up to four external fuel drums à 90 l each (24 U.S. gal; 19.5 imp gal)
Engine:
Model V-2-34M 38.8 l V12 Diesel engine with 520 hp (370 kW) at 1.800 rpm
Transmission:
5 forward and 1 reverse gears
Armor:
16 - 45 mm steel (plus composite armour in the turret)
Performance:
Speed:
- Maximum, road: 58 km/h (36 mph)
- Cross country: up to 40 km/h (28 mph)
Operational range: 250 km (155) on streets with internal fuel only,
up to 330 km (250 mi) with four additional fuel drums
Power/weight: 17.5 hp/t
Armament:
1× 105 mm CN 105-57 rifled gun with a total 54 rounds, 12 of them ready in the turret's magazines
1× 7.62mm (0.3") co-axial NATO machine gun with 2.000 rounds
2× 2 smoke grenade dischargers
The kit and its assembly:
This weird, fictional combo was originally spawned by an Israeli idea: some vintage M4 Sherman tanks had been outfitted with the AMX-13's swiveling turrets and armed with French CN-75-50 75mm a cannon, creating the so-called "Isherman". I kept this concept in the back of my mind for a long time, with the plan to build one some day.
Then I came a couple of weeks ago across a picture on FlickR that showed a T-34/85 with Austrian markings. At first I thought that it had been a fictional museum piece in fake markings, but upon some legwork I found out that Austria had actually operated the T-34!
So, why not combine both ideas into a new and fictional one...? The rest was straightforward kitbashing: the FL-12 turret with a 105 mm cannon came from a Heller AMX-13 (a shaggy thing with dubious fit, but it was cheap) and for the chassis I tried the relatively new Zvezda T-35/85. The latter is actually a very crisp snap-fit kit, just some light flash here and there. Detail and proportions are very good, though, as well as fit. I was only surprised by the construction of the tracks, because it is a different approach from both of the traditional vinyl tracks or IP track segments. Instead, you get complete, rather thin and delicate IP tracks, and Zvezda expects the builder to bend them around the wheels and stick them between the wheels' halves during the construction process. You actually have to mount the “inner” half of the wheels first, then the track is attached to a locator pin on one of the main wheels, bent into shape, and finally the wheels' “outer” halves are added. Sounds complicated, and it actually is, and it also makes painting the whole running gear quite difficult, but it works – even though the result is IMHO not better than the traditional solutions.
The AMX-13 turret’s integration was easier than expected. Building the turret was a little complicated, because all side walls are separate and there are no locator pins or other aides for orientation. Some PSR became necessary to fill some minor gaps, but nothing dramatic. Mounting the AMX-13 turret to the T-34 hull was made easy through a very convenient design detail of the Zvezda kit: the T-34 comes with a separate turret ring that could be used as an adapter for the Heller turret. Three ejection/sprue residues inside of the ring could be used as a foundation for the AMX-13 turret, and the turret’s lower half/ring was, after some sanding to reduce the gap between the turret and the hull, was also glued onto the adapter. Worked like a charm, and the resulting combo looks very natural!
In order to improve the turret’s look I added a cloth seal between the lower and the upper, oscillating turret section, simulated with paper tissue drenched in thinned white glue (OOB the turret cannot be moved vertically at all). A similar seal was added at the barrel’s base.
Other changes were only minimal: the machine gun port in the front hull was sanded away and faired over, and I omitted the spare track links attached to the front hull. For a modernized look I gave the tank an additional pair of front lights as well as stoplights at the rear, scratched from styrene bits.
Painting and markings:
Basically a very simple affair, because there is ONLY one possible livery and color that suits an Austrian Bundesheer vehicle or item from the Seventies: RAL 7013 (Braungrau). This is a very ugly tone, though, "greenish, fresh mud" describes it well: a dull, brownish olive drab, but definitively not a green (like the omnipresent NATO tone Gelboliv RAL 6014, which was used by the German Bundeswehr until the standardized NATO three-tone camouflage was introduced around 1984). I organized a rattle can of this special color, since the tank model would receive a simple, uniform livery.
Due to the kit's , err, unique running gear construction, painting became a little complicated. I had to paint the hull and the (still) separate wheel parts in advance, so that the pre-painted elements could be assembled around the tracks (see above). The tracks themselves were painted with a cloudy mix of iron metallic, black and leather brown (Revell 99, 8 and 84). The turret was painted separately.
After the kit’s major sections had been assembled they received a light wash with a mix of highly thinned black with some red brown added, and the washing was immediately dabbed off of the surfaces so that most of the pigments ended up in recesses and around details, while the rest received an blurry, light dirt filter.
Once dry, I applied the decals. The tiny Austrian roundels come from a generic TL Modellbau sheet (never expected to find any use for them!), the tactical code comes from another tank kit sheet. In order to add some more highlights I also added some small, white markings on the fenders.
Then I gave the model an overall dry-brushing treatment with olive drab, medium grey and finally some ochre, just emphasizing details and edges.
Since the uniform livery appeared a bit dull to me, I decided to add a few camouflage nets to the hull, which also hide some weak points of the Zvezda kit, e.g. the missing rails along the hull. The nets were created from gauze bandages: small pieces (~1”x1”) of the material were dipped into a mix of white glue and olive drab acrylic paint and then carefully placed on hull, turret and barrel. Once dry, they were also dry-brushed.
As final steps, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (rattle can again) and I dusted the lower areas with a greyish-brown pigment mix, simulating dust and some mud crusts.
What started as a weird idea turned into a very conclusive what-if project – in fact, the T-34 with the French FL-12/44 turret does not look bad at all, and the Austrian colors and markings make this piece of fiction IMHO very convincing. Adding the camouflage nets was also a good move. They hide some of the details (e.g. the omitted bow machine gun station), but they liven up the rather clean and bleak exterior of the tank. I am positively surprised how good the T-34/105Ö looks!
Blonde Ken: Bet you wish you'd had some free balloons off the nice lady now don't you?
Brunette Ken: Sigh.
+++ 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 Lockheed F-94 Starfire was a first-generation jet aircraft of the United States Air Force. It was developed from the twin-seat Lockheed T-33 Shooting Star in the late 1940s as an all-weather, day/night interceptor.
The aircraft reached operational service in May 1950 with Air Defense Command, replacing the propeller-driven North American F-82 Twin Mustang in the all-weather interceptor role. The F-94 was the first operational USAF fighter equipped with an afterburner and was the first jet-powered all-weather fighter to enter combat during the Korean War in January 1953.
The initial production model was the F-94A, which entered operational service in May 1950. Its armament consisted of four 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M3 Browning machine guns mounted in the fuselage with the muzzles exiting under the radome. Two 165 US Gallon (1,204 litre) drop tanks, as carried by the F-80 and T-33, were carried on the wingtips. Alternatively, these could be replaced by a pair of 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs under the wings, giving the aircraft a secondary fighter bomber capability. 109 were produced.
The subsequent F-94B, which entered service in January 1951, was outwardly virtually identical to the F-94A. The Allison J33 turbojet had a number of modifications made, though, which made it a very reliable engine. The pilot was provided with a more roomy cockpit and the canopy was replaced by a canopy with a bow frame in the center between the two crew members, as well as a new Instrument Landing System (ILS). 356 of these were built.
The following F-94C was extensively modified and initially designated F-97, but it was ultimately decided to treat it as a new version of the F-94. USAF interest was lukewarm, since aircraft technology developed at a fast pace in the Fifties, so Lockheed funded development themselves, converting two F-94B airframes to YF-94C prototypes for evaluation.
To improve performance, a completely new, much thinner wing was fitted, along with a swept tail surface. The J33 engine was replaced with a more powerful Pratt & Whitney J48, a license-built version of the afterburning Rolls-Royce Tay, which produced a dry thrust of 6,350 pounds-force (28.2 kN) and approximately 8,750 pounds-force (38.9 kN) with afterburning.
The fire control system was upgraded to the Hughes E-5 with an AN/APG-40 radar in a modified nose with an enlarged radome. The guns were removed and replaced with an all-rocket armament, which was – at that time – regarded as more effective against high-flying, subsonic bomber formations. The internal armament consisted of four flip-up panels in a ring around the nose, each containing six rockets. External pods on the wings augmented the offensive ordnance to 48 projectiles. Operational service began with six squadrons by May 1954.
According to test pilot Tony LeVier, the F-94C was capable of supersonic flight, but Lockheed felt that the straight wing limited the airframe's potential, esp. with the uprated engine. Besides, the earlier F-94 variants already saw the end of their relatively brief operational life, already being replaced in the mid-1950s by the Northrop F-89 Scorpion and North American F-86D Sabre interceptor aircraft in front-line service and relegated to National Guard service. Therefore, Lockheed launched another update program for the F-94 in 1953, again as a private venture.
The resulting F-94E (the F-94D was a proposed fighter bomber variant which made it to prototype staus) was another, evolutionary modification of the basic concept, which, in the meantime, had almost nothing left in common with its F-80/T-33 ancestry.
It was based on the F-94C, most obvious change was the introduction of swept wings for supersonic capability in level flight. This change also necessitated other aerodynamic adjustments, including a new, deeper fin with increased area and a modified landing gear that would better cope with the increased AUW.
Under the hood, the F-94E was constructed around the new Hughes MG-3 fire control system, similar to the early F-102, but kept the AN/APG-40, even though it was coupled with an enlarged antenna. The respective new radome now covered the complete nose cross section. Furthermore, the F-94 E introduced innovations like a Texas Instruments infrared search/tracking system (IRST), which allowed passive tracking of heat emissions, mounted in a canoe fairing under the nose, passive radar warning receivers, transponders as well as backup artificial horizons.
With this improved equipment the interceptor was now able to deploy semi-active radar homing GAR-1s and/or infrared GAR-2s (later re-designated AIM-4A/B Falcon), operating at day and night as well as under harsh weather conditions.
All missiles were carried externally on underwing pylons. Beside the original main wet hardpoints outside the landing gear (typically a pair of 165 US Gallon (1,204 litre) drop tank, that were carried on the wing tips on the former versions), two additional pairs of lighter pylons were added under the wing roots and the outer wings.
Typically, a pair of SARH- and IR-guided AIM-4s were carried, one per pylon, plus a pair of drop tanks. Alternatively, the F-94E could carry up to 4.000 lb (1,816 kg) of ordnance, including up to six streamlined pods, each holding nineteen 2 ¾” in (70 mm) Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rockets. Any internal armament was deleted.
The F-94E's new wings allowed a top speed of 687mph at sea level and a top speed of 693 mph (1,115 km/h) at height – compared with the F-94C’s 640 mph (556 kn, 1,030 km/h) a rather mild improvement. But the enlarged wing area resulted in a considerably improved rate of climb as well as good maneuverability at height. The F-94E's performance was overall on par with the F-86D, with the benefit of a second crew member, while its weapon capability was comparable with the much bigger (but slower) F-89.
Both of these types were already introduced, so the Air Force's interest was, once more, less than enthusiastic. Eventually the F-94's proven resilience to harsh climate conditions, esp. in the Far North, earned Lockheed in 1955 a production contract for 72 F-94Es for interceptor squadrons based in Alaska, New Foundland, Greenland and Iceland.
These production machines arrived to the Northern theatre of operations in summer 1956 and featured an improved weapon capability: on the wet wing hardpoints, a pair of MB-1 Genie (formerly known as ‘Ding Dong’ missile, later re-coded AIR-2) nuclear unguided rockets could be carried.
For the missile pylons under the wing roots, twin launch rails were introduced so that the F-94E could theoretically carry a total of up to eight AIM-4 missiles, even though the wet pylons were typically occupied with the drop tanks and only two pairs of AIM-4A and B were carried under the wing roots. The J48 engine was slightly uprated, too: the F-94E’s P-9 variant delivered now 6,650 lbf (29.5 kN) dry thrust and 10,640 lbf (47.3 kN) at full afterburner.
Keflavik Airport, Iceland, although controlled by Military Air Transport Service (MATS), was the first base to be equipped with F-94Es as part of the 82d Fighter-Interceptor Squadron in early 1957, where the machines replaced F-94Bs and F-89Cs.
The type was popular among the crews, because it coupled a relatively high agility (compared with the F-89 Scorpion) with the psychological benefit of a two men crew, not to be underestimated during operations in the Far North as well as over open water.
The F-94's career didn't last long, though, the aircraft soon became outdated. The last F-94E was already retired from USAF front-line service in November 1962, only three years after the last F-94C Starfires were phased out of ANG service. Eventually, the fighters were replaced by the F-101, F-102 and the F-106.
General characteristics:
Crew: 2
Length: 44 ft 11 in (13.71 m)
Wingspan: 39 ft 10 in (12.16 m)
Height: 14 ft 6 in (4.43 m)
Wing area: 313.4 sq ft (29.11 m²)
Empty weight: 12,708 lb (5,764 kg)
Loaded weight: 18,300 lb (8,300 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 24,184 lb (10,970 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Pratt & Whitney J48-P-9 turbojet, rated at 6,650 lbf (29.5 kN) dry thrust
and 10,640 lbf (47.3 kN) at full afterburner.
Performance:
Maximum speed: 693 mph (1,115 km/h) at height and in level flight
Range: 805 mi (700 nmi, 1,300 km) in combat configuration with four AAMs and two drop tanks
Ferry range: 1,275 mi (1,100 nmi, 2,050 km)
Service ceiling: 51,400 ft (15,670 m)
Rate of climb: 12,150 ft/min (61.7 m/s)
Wing loading: 78.6 lb/ft² (384 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.48
Armament:
Six underwing pylons for a mix of AIM-4 Falcon AAMs (IR- and SARH-guided),
pods with unguided 19× 2.75” (70 mm) Mk 4/Mk 40 Folding-Fin Aerial Rockets,
a pair of 165 gal. drop tanks or a pair of unguided nuclear MB-1 Genie air-to-air missiles
The kit and its assembly:
Another entry for the Cold War GB at whatifmodelers.com. This build was originally inspired by profiles of a P-80/F-86 hybrid, and respective kitbashings from other modelers. An elegant, though fictional, aircraft! Nevertheless, I wanted to build one, too, and take the original idea a step further. So I chose the F-94 as an ingredient for the kit mix – a rather overlooked aircraft, and getting hands on a donation kit took some time, since there are not many options.
I wanted to use the F-94C as starting point, which is already considerably different from the F-80/T-33. Adding swept wings (from a Hobby Boss F-86F, with larger “6-3” wings) changed this look even more. So much that I decided to modify the fin, which did not look appropriate anymore.
The fin and the spine’s rear end was replaced with the fin of a Kangnam/Revell Yak-38. In order to unify shapes and make the donation less obvious, the Yak-38 fin’s characteristic, pointed tip was clipped and replaced by a more conventional design, scratched from a piece of 1.5mm styrene sheet. In the wake of this modification, the round elevator tips were clipped, too.
Using the F-94’s landing gear wells as benchmarks, the F-86 wings (which had to be cut off of the Hobby Boss kit’s integral, lower fuselage part) were sanded into shape and simply glued into a proper position.
This worked so well that a completely new and plausible main landing gear installation was created. As a consequence, I used the F-86’s landing gear struts - they are much better detailed than the Emhar F-94C’s parts. The front wheel strut (it’s a single piece) was transplanted too, even though the suspension was switched 180°.
The Emhar F-94C’s cockpit is pretty good (esp. the seats) and were taken OOB. I just covered some gaps in the cockpit walls and under the windscreen with paper tissue, soaked with white glue.
The nose was replaced by a bigger radome, taken from an Armstrong Whitworth Meteor NF.14 (Matchbox kit). Its diameter and shape fit almost perfectly onto the F-94C’s front end, and the result reminds a lot of the EF-94C photo reconnaissance test aircraft! Under the nose, a shallow fairing for the IR sensor was added, and all four air brakes were mounted in open position.
The underwing pylons come from the scrap box (one pair from an Airfix A-1 Skyraider, another from an ESCI Kamow Ka-34 ‘Hokum’ which also provide the launch rails for the ordnance). The drop tanks come probably from an Italeri F-16 (not certain) while the four AIM-4s come from a Hasegawa USAF air-to-air weapons set.
Painting and markings:
This was supposed to become a classic USAF aircraft of the late Fifties, since the F-94 had never been exported. I was actually tempted to add Red Stars, though, because the overall shape has a certain Soviet look to it - esp. the nose, which reminds a lot of the contemporary Yak-25 interceptor?
But the original USAF idea won, with an all-metal finish. In order to brighten things up I chose a squadron that served with the Northeast or Alaskan Air Command, which added orange-red high-viz markings to wings and fuselage.
The NMF sections were primed with a base coat of Revell’s acrylic Aluminum. On top of that, single panels and details were painted with Alu Plate and Steel Metallizer from Modelmaster.
The International Orange markings were created with Humbrol 132, slightly shaded with orange (Humbrol 18).
Part of the nose section and the spine were painted in ADC Grey (FS 16473, Modelmaster), just for some diversity. Cockpit interior and landing gear wells received a coat of US Cockpit Green (Humbrol 226), while the interior of the air brakes was painted in Zinc Primer (Humbrol 81), according to pictures of operational F-94s.
The landing gear struts and the inside of their covers became Aluminum (Humbrol 56). The anti glare panel in front of the cockpit was done with dark olive drab (Humbrol 66), the radome flat black and weathered with wet-in-wet streaks of sand brown.
Operational F-94s show serious weathering on their di-electric noses, so this detail was taken over to the kit. Other weathering with paint, beyond a basic black ink wash and some shading on the orange areas, was not done.
The drop tanks were painted with Steel Metallizer, for a different metallic shade from the fuselage, and the AIM-4’s received a typical outfit in white and bright red with different seeker heads.
Primary decals come from a Heller F-94B kit, which have the benefit of a silver background – even though this does not match 100% with the paint. Squadron markings come from an Xtradecal F-102 sheet, tailored to the kit. Most stencils come from the Emhar OOB sheet, plus some more from the aforementioned F-102 sheet.
After some soot stains around the exhaust were added with graphite, the kit was sealed under a coat of semi-glossy acrylic varnish. The anti glare panel and the radome were kept matt, though.
A pretty result. Mixing parts from a Shooting Star and a Sabre (a Shooting Sabre, perhaps?) results in a very elegant aircraft. And while the F-94 lost much of its original, elegant appeal, the combo still works with this later interceptor variant of the F-80. Very plausible, IMHO.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
RWD was a Polish aircraft construction bureau active between 1928 and 1939. It started as a team of three young designers, Stanisław Rogalski, Stanisław Wigura and Jerzy Drzewiecki, whose names formed the RWD acronym.
They started work while studying at Warsaw University of Technology. In December 1925, with some other student constructors, they set up workshops at the Aviation Section of Mechanics Students' Club (Sekcja Lotnicza Koła Mechaników Studentów), where they manufactured their first designs. From 1926 they designed several aircraft alone, in 1928 they joined forces as one team, starting with RWD-1 sportsplane. Apart from building planes, J. Drzewiecki was a test pilot of their designs, while S. Wigura flew as a mechanic in competitions. In 1930 the team was moved to new workshops at Okęcie district in Warsaw, near the Polish Air Force’s Okęcie aerodrome, today's Warsaw International Airport.
At first, the RWD team designed and built light sportsplanes. Early designs were built in small series and used in Polish sports aviation, including their debut at the Challenge 1930 international contest. Their next designs performed particularly well in competitions - the RWD-6 won the Challenge 1932 and RWD-9s won the Challenge 1934 international contest. The sportsplane RWD-5 was the lightest plane to fly across the Atlantic in 1933. Three types saw mass production: the RWD-8, which became the Polish Air Force basic trainer, the RWD-13 touring plane and the RWD-14 Czapla reconnaissance plane. Other important designs were the RWD-10 aerobatic plane (1933), RWD-17 aerobatic-trainer plane (1937) and RWD-21 light sport plane (1939). Their most ambitious design that entered the hardware stage and eventually took to flight was the RWD-24, a fighter aircraft. However, World War II prevented further development and serial production of later RWD designs, and also put an end to the RWD construction bureau and its workshops.
The RWD-24 had been designed in response to a requirement for a fighter issued by the Polish Air Force in 1934. RWD responded and built a prototype of mixed materials, heavily influenced by French designs and resources, since Poland had procured several fighter, bomber and reconnaissance aircraft from France during the mid-twenties.
RWD’s design team quickly projected that only a monoplane design would be capable of delivering the desired level of performance sought; other modern features were to include a fully enclosed cockpit, a variable-pitch propeller, and landing flaps. The resulting RWD-24 was a high-wing monoplane of mixed construction, with fabric-covered wooden tail and rudders. The wings were directly attached to the upper fuselage and braced. They consisted of a two-spar duralumin structure, complete with rivetted ribs to both the spars and skin. The exterior of the wing was covered by finely corrugated duralumin sheet, while the slotted ailerons had a fabric covering.
Power came from a water-cooled Hispano-Suiza Y V12 engine – a novelty among Polish fighter designs, which traditionally relied upon radial engines, e.g. the Bristol Mercury and Jupiter, imported as license builds from Czechoslovakia (Skoda). The Hispano-Suiza engine meant a considerable step forward, though, since it increased the output by almost +50%, with appreciable improvements of overall performance that promised to put the RWD-24 on eye level with other contemporary foreign monoplane fighters.
In order to improve performance further, much effort was put into aerodynamic effectiveness, despite a rather conservative structure with bracing struts for the wings and stabilizers. For instance, the ventral radiator could be retracted manually, adapting the frontal area to the engine’s cooling needs. The RWD-24’s landing gear was fixed but covered with aerodynamic fairings and spats.
Armament consisted of a 20 mm (0.787 in) Hispano-Suiza HS.404 cannon with 60 rounds from a drum magazine, mounted as a “moteur canon” between the cylinder banks and firing through the propeller hub, plus two pairs of 7.92 mm (0.312 in) KM Wz 33 machine guns with 450 RPG in the wings outside of the propeller disc. The prototypes only carried the cannon and a single pair of machine guns, though.
First flown by RWD-founder Jerzy Drzewiecki himself, the first prototype demonstrated the type's favorable flying characteristics from the onset – even though the poor field of view for the pilot ahead and downwards during landing and taxiing was criticized. Another critical point was the retractable radiator; while it allowed a remarkable boost in top speed for short periods, the manual temperature management – esp. during combat situations – turned out to be impractical and an automated solution was requested. The firepower of the 20mm cannon received praise, too, despite its limited ammunition capacity. After 80 hours of test flights, in January 1936, the prototype was delivered with all military equipment fitted to the Polish Air Force at Okęcie aerodrome to participate in service trials, while a second prototype was built in parallel and joined the program in May. It differed from the first RWD-24 through a different tail section, which was covered with a bonded metal/wood material (Plymax) skin fixed to duralumin tubing.
Despite its good handling qualities and impressive performance (the contemporary Polish standard fighter, the PZL P.11, had a top speed of 390 km/h (240 mph, 210 kn), while the RWD-24 surpassed 440 km/h (273 mph, 240 kn) at ideal altitude), both the shape and basic configuration of the RWD-24 were hotly contended, particularly between 'traditional' advocates of biplane aircraft and supporters of 'modern' monoplane with retractable landing gear. The RWD-24 would not satisfy either party, and the high wing layout offered no real development potential, together with the field of view issues. Only a complete redesign of the RWD-24 into a low-wing configuration with a retractable landing gear would have been a viable solution. RWD engineers deemed this task to be feasible, but the Polish Air Force did not want to wait any longer for a new fighter aircraft. In consequence, the RWD-24’s development was officially stopped in early 1938, after only two airframes had been built. In the meantime, RWD had also started work on a dedicated low-wing fighter powered by a 800 hp (597 kW) Gnome-Rhône Mars radial engine, the RWD-25, but until then only a mock-up of this alternative type had been built.
However, the two RWD-24 prototypes remained based at Okęcie and were further tested by both the company and by the Polish Air Force. During these test in 1938, the RWD-24s were, among others, evaluated against a Hawker Hurricane Mk.I and a Dewoitine D.520 that had been delivered to Poland for trials (and eventual sales). In the meantime, driven by rising political tensions and threatened by neighboring Germany, the Polish Air Force had started to follow the idea of importing fully developed monoplane fighters in order to quickly boost the country’s air power and deterrent potential. This eventually led to the procurement of Hawker Hurricanes from Great Britain in 1939. But this decision came too late: the fighters were not delivered before 1 September 1939, when Germany invaded Poland, and the Polish Hurricanes on order were alternatively sent to Turkey instead.
Upon the German invasion the RWD-24 prototypes were, together with most other active Polish combat aircraft, dispersed to secondary airfields and allocated to the so-called Pursuit Brigade, deployed in the Warsaw area, where both served until they became unserviceable after a week, due to their exotic nature. Their fate remains unclear, though, since both machines disappeared. But most likely they were both destroyed within two weeks, like 70% of the Polish Air Force’s aircraft.
General characteristics:
Crew: One
Length: 8.17 m (26 ft 10 in)
Wingspan: 10.72 m (35 ft 2 in)
Height: 3.05 m (10 ft)
Wing area: 21 m² (240 sq ft)
Empty weight: 1,328 kg (2,928 lb)
Gross weight: 1,890 kg (4,167 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 2,000 kg (4,409 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Hispano-Suiza 12Ybrp V-12 liquid-cooled piston engine,
delivering 565 kW (785 hp) for take-off at 2,520 rpm at sea level
and driving a two-position variable pitch three blade metal propeller
Performance:
Maximum speed: 443 km/h (275 mph; 239 kn) at 2,000 m (6,600 ft)
Landing speed: 102 km/h (63 mph; 55 kn)
Range: 1,100 km (680 mi, 590 nmi) at 66% power
Combat range: 720 km (450 mi, 390 nmi)
Endurance: 2 hours 20 minutes 30 seconds (average combat mission)
Service ceiling: 9,400 m (30,800 ft)
Time to altitude: 4,500 m (14,764 ft) in 6 minutes 16 seconds
Take-off run: 100 m (328 ft)
Landing run: 275 m (902 ft)
Armament:
1x 20 mm (0.787 in) Hispano-Suiza HS.404 cannon with 60 rounds, firing through the propeller hub
4x* 7.92 mm (0.312 in) KM Wz 33 machine guns with 450 RPG (*projected for production aircraft,
the prototypes only carried two of these weapons)
The kit and its assembly:
This was a rather spontaneous submission for the “Prototypes” group build at whatifmodelers.com in July 2020, originally spawned by the idea of retrograding a Morane Saulnier MS.406 into a biplane with a fixed landing gear, a kind of French Gloster Gladiator. However, this changed when I found a surplus Mistercraft PZL P.7 kit in the stash, which had been part of a combo deal some time ago. Why not use it for a kitbashing and create a late interwar period Polish fighter prototype from the MS.406…?
The MS.406 fuselage comes from the simple Hobby Boss kit, even though some serious bodywork had to be done in order to make the low wing attachment points and the respective large wing root fairings disappear – on the simple Hobby Boss kit, wings and lower fuselage are one integral part, so that some major cutting and PSR were necessary to create a new, “clean” lower fuselage. For the new wings a piece of the cowling in front of the windscreen had to be cut out, the result looks very natural, though, the P.7 wing literally fell into place. The P.7 wings were taken, together with their respective support struts, wholesale from the Mistercraft kit, I just added flaps and lowered them, and I added fairings under the wings for the machine guns – OOB the kit comes with shallow holes that look a bit strange?
The empennage was taken over from the MS.406, but the stabilizers were replaced with the P.7’s, because they were bigger and their shape matches the fin so well. The fixed landing gear is a donor from an ICM Heinkel He 51 floatplane (surplus parts), it was just shortened by about 2mm in order to avoid an exaggerated nose-up stance due to the high propeller position.
The cockpit was taken OOB, just a pilot figure was added to hide the Hobby Boss kit’s rather basic interior.
Painting and markings:
Prototype liveries tend to be dry affairs, and therefore my RWD-24 received a standard pre-WWII livery for Polish aircraft in a uniform brownish-green khaki (”Light Polish Khaki”) over light blue wing undersides. For the very unique khaki tone I used Modelmaster 1711 (FS 34087, a rather yellowish interpretation of this tone), while the wings’ undersides were painted with Humbrol 65 (Aircraft Blue). The khaki tone was - on Polish high wing aircraft of the time - typically carried on the whole fuselage, including the undersides, so I adopted the tone for the complete landing gear and the wing struts, too. For a little more variety, I gave the engine a cowling in a bare metal finish (Humbrol Polished Aluminum Metallizer) and the airframe parts that are covered with fabric were apinted with Humbrol 155 - FS 34087, too, but a morre greenish and darker interpretation of this tone.
The kit received a black ink washing and some post-shading through dry-brushing of single panels with lighter tones. The cockpit interior was painted in a medium grey, the propeller blades became Revell 99 (Aluminum) with red tips, a black spinner and partly blackened back sides (in order to avoid light reflections that could blind the pilot).
Most markings come from a Polish aircraft aftermarket sheet. The red lightning cheatline on the fuselage and on the wings were borrowed from Indonesian MiG-21Fs (from two Begemot sheets). The contrast to the khaki is not strong, but I thought that some decoration would suit a prototype fighter well. The tactical codes consist of single white and black letters (both TL Modellbau stuff).
After some exhaust and gun soot stains the model was finally sealed with matt acrylic varnish, just the metallic cowling and the spinner received a light shine.
While the outcome looks rather unsuspicious, this kitbashing was a lot of work – esp. the landing gear and the cosmetic surgery to remove the MS.406’s lower wings was more demanding than I had thought at first. But the fictional RWD-24 looks very conclusive, a wild mix between outdated and modern features, so typical for many interwar designs. And the Polish colors and markings suit the model well, too.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The TIE/LN starfighter, or TIE/line starfighter, simply known as the TIE Fighter or T/F, was the standard Imperial starfighter seen in massive numbers throughout most of the Galactic Civil War and onward.
The TIE Fighter was manufactured by Sienar Fleet Systems and led to several upgraded TIE models such as TIE/sa bomber, TIE/IN interceptor, TIE/D Defender, TIE/D automated starfighter, and many more.
The original TIEs were designed to attack in large numbers, overwhelming the enemy craft. The Imperials used so many that they came to be considered symbols of the Empire and its might. They were also very cheap to produce, reflecting the Imperial philosophy of quantity over quality.
However, a disadvantage of the fighter was its lack of deflector shields. In combat, pilots had to rely on the TIE/LN's maneuverability to avoid damage. The cockpit did incorporate crash webbing, a repulsorlift antigravity field, and a high-g shock seat to help protect the pilot, however these did next to nothing to help protect against enemy blaster fire.
Due to the lack of life-support systems, each TIE pilot had a fully sealed flight suit superior to their Rebel counterparts. The absence of a hyperdrive also rendered the light fighter totally dependent on carrier ships when deployed in enemy systems. TIE/LNs also lacked landing gear, another mass-reducing measure. While the ships were structurally capable of "sitting" on their wings, they were not designed to land or disembark their pilots without special support. On Imperial ships, TIEs were launched from racks in the hangar bays.
The high success rate of more advanced Rebel starfighters against standard Imperial TIE Fighters resulted in a mounting cost of replacing destroyed fighters and their pilots. That, combined with the realization that the inclusion of a hyperdrive would allow the fleet to be more flexible, caused the Imperial Navy to rethink its doctrine of using swarms of cheap craft instead of fewer high-quality ones, leading to the introduction of the TIE Advanced x1 and its successor, the TIE Avenger. The following TIE/D Defender as well as the heavy TIE Escort Fighter (or TIE/E) were touted as the next "logical advance" of the TIE Series—representing a shift in starfighter design from previous, expendable TIE models towards fast, well armed and protected designs, capable of hyperspace travel and long-term crew teams which gained experience and capabilities over time.
The TIE/E Escort, was a high-performance TIE Series starfighter developed for the Imperial Navy by Sienar Fleet Systems and it was introduced into service shortly before the Battle of Endor. It was a much heavier counterpart to the agile and TIE/D fighter, and more of an attack ship or even a light bomber than a true dogfighter. Its role were independent long range operations, and in order to reduce the work load and boost morale a crew of two was introduced (a pilot and a dedicated weapon systems officer/WSO). The primary duty profile included attack and escort task, but also reconnoiter missions. The TIE/E shared the general layout with the contemporary TIE/D fighter, but the cockpit section as well as the central power unit were much bigger, and the ship was considerably heavier.
The crew enjoyed – compared with previous TIE fighter designs – a spacious and now fully pressurized cockpit, so that no pressurized suits had to be worn anymore. The crew members sat in tandem under a large, clear canopy. The pilot in front had a very good field of view, while the WSO sat behind him, in a higher, staggered position with only a limited field of view. Both work stations had separate entries, though, and places could not be switched in flight: the pilot mounted the cockpit through a hatch on port side, while the WSO entered the rear compartment through a roof hatch.
In a departure from the design of previous TIE models, instead of two parallel wings to either side of the pilot module, the TIE Escort had three quadanium steel solar array wings mounted symmetrically around an aft section, which contained an I-s4d solar ionization reactor to store and convert solar energy collected from the wing panels. The inclusion of a third wing provided additional solar power to increase the ship's range and the ship's energy management system was designed to allow weapons and shields to be charged with minimum loss of power to the propulsion system.
Although it was based on the standard twin ion engine design, the TIE/E’s propulsion system was upgraded to the entirely new, powerful P-sz9.8 triple ion engine. This allowed the TIE/E a maximum acceleration of 4,220 G or 21 MGLT/s and a top speed of 144 MGLT, or 1,680 km/h in an atmosphere — almost 40 percent faster than a former standard TIE Fighter. With tractor beam recharge power (see below) redirected to the engines, the top speed could be increased to 180 MGLT in a dash.
In addition to the main thrusters located in the aft section, the TIE Escort's triple wing design allowed for three arrays of maneuvering jets and it featured an advanced F-s5x flight avionics system to process the pilot's instructions. Production models received a class 2, ND9 hyperdrive motivator, modified from the version developed for the TIE Avenger. The TIE/E also carried a Sienar N-s6 Navcon navigation computer with a ten-jump memory.
Special equipment included a small tractor beam projector, originally developed for the TIE Avenger, which could be easily fitted to the voluminous TIE Escort. Models produced by Ysanne Isard's production facility regularly carried such tractor beams and the technology found other uses, such as towing other damaged starfighters until they could achieve the required velocity to enter hyperspace. The tractor beam had limited range and could only be used for a short time before stopping to recharge, but it added new tactics, too. For instance, the beam allowed the TIE/E crews to temporarily inhibit the mobility of enemy fighters, making it easier to target them with the ship's other weapon systems, or prevent enemies from clear shots.
The TIE Escort’s weapons systems were primarily designed to engage bigger ships and armored or shielded targets, like armed freighters frequently used by the Alliance. Thanks to its complex weapon and sensor suite, it could also engage multiple enemy fighters at once. The sensors also allowed an effective attack of ground targets, so that atmospheric bombing was a potential mission for the TIE/E, too.
.
The TIE Escort Fighter carried a formidable array of weaponry in two modular weapon bays that were mounted alongside the lower cabin. In standard configuration, the TIE/E had two L-s9.3 laser cannons and two NK-3 ion cannons. The laser and ion cannons could be set to fire separately or, if concentrated power was required, to fire-linked in either pairs or as a quartet.
The ship also featured two M-g-2 general-purpose warhead launchers, each of which could be equipped with a standard load of three proton torpedoes or four concussion missiles. Depending on the mission profile, the ship could be fitted with alternative warheads such as proton rockets, proton bombs, or magnetic pulse warheads.
Additionally, external stores could be carried under the fuselage, which included a conformal sensor pallet for reconnaissance missions or a cargo bay with a capacity for 500 kg (1.100 lb).
The ship's defenses were provided by a pair of forward and rear projecting Novaldex deflector shield generators—another advantage over former standard TIE models. The shields were designed to recharge more rapidly than in previous Imperial fighters and were nearly as powerful as those found on capital ships, so that the TIE/E could engage other ships head-on with a very high survivability. The fighters were not equipped with particle shields, though, relying on the reinforced titanium hull to absorb impacts from matter. Its hull and wings were among the strongest of any TIE series Starfighter yet.
The advanced starfighter attracted the attention of several other factions, and the Empire struggled to prevent the spread of the technology. The ship's high cost, together with political factors, kept it from achieving widespread use in the Empire, though, and units were assigned only to the most elite crews.
The TIE/E played a central role in the Empire's campaign against rogue Grand Admiral Demetrius Zaarin, and mixed Defender and Escort units participated in several other battles, including the Battle of Endor. The TIE Escort continued to see limited use by the Imperial Remnant up to at least 44 ABY, and was involved in numerous conflicts, including the Yuuzhan Vong War..
The kit and its assembly:
Another group build contribution, this time to the Science Fiction GB at whatifmodelers.com during summer 2017. Originally, this one started as an attempt to build a vintage MPC TIE Interceptor kit which I had bought and half-heartedly started to build probably 20 years ago. But I did not have the right mojo (probably, The Force was not strong enough…?), so the kit ended up in a dark corner and some parts were donated to other projects.
The sun collectors were still intact, though, and in the meantime I had the idea of reviving the kit’s remains, and convert it into (what I thought was) a fictional TIE Fighter variant with three solar panels. For this plan I got myself another TIE Interceptor kit, and stashed it away, too. Mojo was still missing, though.
Well, then came the SF GB and I took it as an occasion to finally tackle the build. But when I prepared for the build I found out that my intended design (over the years) more or less actually existed in the Star Wars universe: the TIE/D Defender! I could have built it with the parts and hand and some improvisation, but the design similarity bugged me. Well, instead of a poor copy of something that was more or less clearly defined, I rather decided to create something more individual, yet plausible, from the parts at hand.
The model was to stay a TIE design, though, in order to use as much donor material from the MPC kits as possible. Doing some legwork, I settled for a heavy fighter – bigger than the TIE Interceptor and the TIE/D fighter, a two-seater.
Working out the basic concept and layout took some time and evolved gradually. The creative spark for the TIE/E eventually came through a Revell “Obi Wan’s Jedi Starfighter” snap fit kit in my pile – actually a prize from a former GB participation at phoxim.de (Thanks a lot, Wolfgang!), and rather a toy than a true model kit.
The Jedi Fighter was in so far handy as it carries some TIE Fighter design traits, like the pilot capsule and the characteristic spider web windscreen. Anyway, it’s 1:32, much bigger than the TIE Interceptor’s roundabout 1:50 scale – but knowing that I’d never build the Jedi Starfighter OOB I used it as a donor bank, and from this starting point things started to evolve gradually.
Work started with the cockpit section, taken from the Jedi Starfighter kit. The two TIE Interceptor cockpit tubs were then mounted inside, staggered, and the gaps to the walls filled with putty. A pretty messy task, and once the shapes had been carved out some triangular tiles were added to the surfaces – a detail I found depicted in SW screenshots and some TIE Fighter models.
Another issue became the crew – even though I had two MPC TIE Interceptors and, theorectically, two pilot figures, only one of them could be found and the second crewman had to be improvised. I normally do not build 1:48 scale things, but I was lucky (and happy) to find an SF driver figure, left over from a small Dougram hoovercraft kit (from Takara, as a Revell “Robotech” reboxing). This driver is a tad bigger than the 1:50 TIE pilot, but I went with it because I did not want to invest money and time in alternatives. In order to justify the size difference I decided to paint the Dougram driver as a Chiss, based on the expanded SW universe (with blue skin and hair, and glowing red eyes). Not certain if this makes sense during the Battle of Endor timeframe, but it adds some color to the project – and the cockpit would not be visible in much detail since it would be finished fully closed.
Reason behind the closed canopy is basically the poor fit of the clear part. OOB, this is intended as an action toy – but also the canopy’s considerable size in 1:50 would prevent its original opening mechanism.
Additional braces on the rel. large window panels were created with self-adhesive tape and later painted over.
The rear fuselage section and the solar panel pylons were scratched. The reactor behind the cockpit section is actually a plastic adapter for water hoses, found in a local DIY market. It was slightly modified, attached to the cockpit “egg” and both parts blended with putty. The tail opening was closed with a hatch from the OOB TIE Interceptor – an incidental but perfect match in size and style.
The three pylons are also lucky finds: actually, these are SF wargaming/tabletop props and would normally be low walls or barriers, made from resin. For my build, they were more or less halved and trimmed. Tilted by 90°, they are attached to the hull with iron wire stabilizers, and later blended to the hull with putty, too.
Once the cockpit was done, things moved more swiftly. The surface of the hull was decorated with many small bits and pieces, including thin styrene sheet and profiles, steel and iron wire in various strengths, and there are even 1:72 tank tracks hidden somewhere, as well as protective caps from syringes (main guns and under the rear fuselage). It’s amazing how much stuff you can add to such a model – but IMHO it’s vital in order to create some structure and to emulate the (early) Star Wars look.
Painting and markings:
The less spectacular part of the project, even though still a lot of work because of the sheer size of the model’s surface. Since the whole thing is fictional, I tried to stay true to the Imperial designs from Episode IV-VI and gave the TIE/E a simple, all-light grey livery. All basic painting was done with rattle cans.
Work started with a basic coat of grey primer. On top of that, an initial coat of RAL 7036 Platingrau was added, esp. to the lower surfaces and recesses, for a rough shading effect. Then, the actual overall tone, RAL 7047, called “Telegrau 4”, one of Deutsche Telekom’s corporate tones, was added - mostly sprayed from abone and the sides onto the model. Fuselage and panels were painted separately, overall assembly was one of the final steps.
The solar panels were to stand out from the grey rest of the model, and I painted them with Revell Acrylic “Iron Metallic” (91) first, and later applied a rather rich wash with black ink , making sure the color settled well into the many small cells. The effect is pretty good, and the contrast was slightly enhanced through a dry-brushing treatment.
Only a few legible stencils were added all around the hull (most from the scrap box or from mecha sheets), the Galactic Empire Seal were inkjet-printed at home, as well as some tactical markings on the flanks, puzzled together from single digits in "Aurebash", one of the Imperial SW languages/fonts.
For some variety and color highlights, dozens of small, round and colorful markings were die-punched from silver, yellow, orange, red and blue decal sheet and were placed all over the hull - together with the large panels they blur into the the overall appearance, though. The hatches received thin red linings, also made from generic decals strips.
The cockpit interior was a bit challenging, though. Good TIE Fighter cockpit interior pictures are hard to find, but they suggest a dark grey tone. More confusingly, the MPC instructions call for a “Dark Green” cockpit? Well, I did not like the all-grey option, since the spaceship is already monochrome grey on the outside.
As a compromise I eventually used Tamiya XF-65 "Field Grey". The interior recieved a black ink in and dry-brushing treatment, and some instruments ansd screens were created with black decal material and glossy black paint; some neon paint was used for sci-fi-esque conmtraol lamps everywhere - I did not pay too much intention on the interior, since the cockpit would stay closed, and the thick clear material blurs everything inside.
Following this rationale, the crew was also painted in arather minimal fashion - both wear a dark grey uniform, only the Chiss pilot stands aout with his light blue skin and the flourescent red eyes.
After an overall black ink wash the model received a dry brusing treatment with FS 36492 and FS 36495, for a weathered and battle-worn look. After all, the "Vehement" would not survive the Ballte of Endor, but who knows what became of TIE/E "801"'s mixed crew...?
Finally, the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish, and some final cosmetic corrections made.
The display is a DIY creation, too, made from a 6x6" piece of wood, it's edges covered with edgebonder, a steel wire as holder, and finally the display was paited with semi-matt black acrylic paint from the rattle can.
A complex build, and the TIE/E more or less evolved along the way, with only the overall layout in mind. Work took a month, but I think it was worth the effort. This fantasy creation looks pretty plausible and blends well into the vast canonical TIE Fighter family - and I am happy that I finally could finish this mummy project, including the surplus Jedi Starfighter kit which now also find a very good use!
An epic one, and far outside my standard comfort zone. But a wothwhile build!
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Indian „Samudree Baaj“ (समुद्री बाज, Sea Hawk) was a highly modified, navalized version of the British BAE Systems Hawk land-based training jet aircraft, which had been manufactured under license by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). The first indigenously built Hawk Mk. 132 trainer was delivered in 2008 to the Indian Air Force, and the type has since then been updated with indigenous avionics into the “Hawk-I” Mk. 132 from 2020 onwards. The aircraft’s Rolls Royce Adour Mk 871 engine was also license-built by HAL, and the company had experience from a wide range of aircraft projects in the past.
The Samudree Baaj project was initiated in 2006 by the Indian Navy, as part of the long historic plan to provide the Indian Navy with a fully capable aircraft carrier. This plan had been initiated in 1989, when India announced a plan to replace its ageing British-built aircraft carriers, INS Vikrant and INS Viraat (ex-HMS Hermes), with two new 28,000-ton Air Defence Ships (ADS) that would operate the BAe Sea Harrier aircraft. The first vessel was to replace Vikrant, which was set to decommission in early 1997. Construction of the ADS was to start at the Cochin Shipyard (CSL) in 1993 after the Indian Naval Design Organisation had translated this design study into a production model. Following the 1991 economic crisis, the plans for construction of the vessels were put on hold indefinitely.
In 1999, then-Defence Minister George Fernandes revived the project and sanctioned the construction of the Project “71 ADS”. By that time, given the ageing Sea Harrier fleet, the letter of intent called for a carrier that would carry more modern jet fighters. In 2001, CSL released a graphic illustration showing a 32,000-ton STOBAR (Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery) design with a pronounced ski jump. The aircraft carrier project finally received formal government approval in January 2003. By then, design updates called for a 37,500-ton carrier to operate the MiG-29K. India opted for a three-carrier fleet consisting of one carrier battle group stationed on each seaboard, and a third carrier held in reserve, in order to continuously protect both its flanks, to protect economic interests and mercantile traffic, and to provide humanitarian platforms in times of disasters, since a carrier can provide a self-generating supply of fresh water, medical assistance or engineering expertise to populations in need for assistance.
In August 2006, then-Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Arun Prakash stated that the designation for the vessel had been changed from Air Defence Ship (ADS) to Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC). The euphemistic ADS had been adopted in planning stages to ward off concerns about a naval build-up. Final revisions to the design increased the displacement of the carrier from 37,500 tons to over 40,000 tons. The length of the ship also increased from 252 metres (827 ft) to 262 metres (860 ft).
It was at this time that, beyond the MiG-29K, primarily a carrier-capable trainer and also a light (and less costly) strike aircraft would be needed. With the running production of the Hawk Mk. 132 for the Indian Air Force and BAE Systems’ connection and experience to the USA and McDonnell/Boeing’s adaptation of the Hawk as the US Navy’s carrier-capable T-45 trainer, HAL was instructed to develop a suitable aircraft family on the Hawk’s basis for the new carriers.
HAL’s Samudree Baaj is a fully carrier-capable version of the British Aerospace Hawk Mk. The Hawk had not originally been designed to perform carrier operations, so that numerous modifications were required, such as the extensive strengthening of the airframe to withstand the excessive forces imposed by the stresses involved in catapult launches and high sink-rate landings, both scenarios being routine in aircraft carrier operations.
The aerodynamic changes of the aircraft, which were mutually developed by HAL and BAE Systems, included improvements to the low-speed handling characteristics and a reduction in the approach speed. Most notable amongst the changes made to the Hawk's design were extended flaps for better low-speed handling, along with the addition of spoilers on the wings to reduce lift and strakes on the fuselage which improved airflow and stabilizer efficiency.
Other, less obvious modifications included a reinforced airframe, the adoption of a more robust and widened landing gear, complete with a catapult tow bar attachment to the oleo strut of the new two-wheel nose gear design, and an arresting hook. The tail fin was extended by 1 foot (12 in, 30.5 cm) to compensate for the loss of the Hawk’s ventral stabilizing strakes. To make room for the arrester hook, the original ventral air brake was split and re-located to the flanks, similar to the USN’s T-45 trainer.
At the time of the Samudree Baaj’s design, the exact catapult arrangement and capacity on board of India’s new carriers was not clear yet – even more so, since the MiG-29K and its powerful engines might have made a catapult obsolete. Therefore, the Samudree Baaj was designed to be operable either with a ski jump ramp (in the style of the Russian Kiev class carriers, of which India had purchased one as INS Vikramaditya) or with only minimal launch support within the projected STOBAR concept, which included a relatively short-stroke steam catapult and a similarly short, undampened arrester gear.
By 2009 the basic airframe had been defined and four prototypes were built for two versions: the Mk. 101 trainer, which was basically a navalized version of the land-based Mk. 132 with almost the same mission equipment, and the Mk. 201, a single-seater. Two airframes of each type were built and the first Samudree Baaj flight took place in early 2011. The Indian government ordered 30 trainers and 15 attack aircraft, to be delivered with the first new Indian carrier, INS Vikrant, in late 2017.
The Samudree Baaj Mk. 201 was developed from the basic navalized Hawk airframe as a light multirole fighter with a small visual signature and high maneuverability, but high combat efficiency and capable of both strike and point defense missions. It differed from the trainer through a completely new forward fuselage whereby the forward cockpit area, which normally housed the trainee, was replaced by an electronics bay for avionics and onboard systems, including a fire control computer, a LINS 300 ring laser gyroscope inertial navigation system and a lightweight (145 kg) multimode, coherent, pulse-Doppler I band airborne radar. This multimode radar was developed from the Ferranti Blue Fox radar and capable of airborne interception and air-to-surface strike roles over water and land, with look-down/shoot-down and look-up modes. It had ten air-to-surface and ten air-to-ground modes for navigation and weapon aiming purposes.
A ventral fairing behind the radome carried a laser rangefinder and a forward-looking infrared (FLIR). Mid-air refueling was also possible, through a detachable (but fixed) probe. GPS navigation or modern night-flight systems were integrated, too.
Like the trainer, the Mk. 201 had a total of seven weapon hardpoints (1 ventral, four underwing and a pair of wing tip launch rails), but the more sophisticated avionics suite allowed a wider range of ordnance to be carried and deployed, which included radar-guided AAMs for BVR strokes and smart weapons and guided missiles – especially the Sea Eagle and AGM-84 “Harpoon” anti-ship missiles in the Indian Navy’s arsenal. For the maritime strike role and as a support for ASW missions, the Samudree Baaj Mk. 201 could even deploy Sting Ray homing torpedoes.
Furthermore, a pair of 30mm (1.18 in) ADEN machine cannon with 150 RPG were housed in a shallow fairing under the cockpit. The self-protection systems include a BAE SkyGuardian 200 RWR and automatic Vinten chaff/flare dispensers located above the engine exhaust.
The Samudree Baaj project was highly ambitious, so that it does not wonder that there were many delays and teething troubles. Beyond the complex avionics integration this included the maritime adaptation of the Adour engine, which eventually led to the uprated Adour Mk. 871-1N, which, as a side benefit, also offered about 10% more power.
However, in parallel, INS Vikrant also ran into delays: In July 2012, The Times of India reported that construction of Vikrant has been delayed by three years, and the ship would be ready for commissioning by 2018. Later, in November 2012, Indian English-language news channel NDTV reported that cost of the aircraft carrier had increased, and the delivery has been delayed by at least five years and is expected to be with the Indian Navy only after 2018 as against the scheduled date of delivery of 2014. Work then commenced for the next stage of construction, which included the installation of the integrated propulsion system, the superstructure, the upper decks, the cabling, sensors and weapons. Vikrant was eventually undocked on 10 June 2015 after the completion of structural work. Cabling, piping, heat and ventilation works were to be completed by 2017; sea trials would begin thereafter. In December 2019, it was reported that the engines on board the ship were switched on and in November 2020, only the basin trials of the aircraft carrier were completed.
By that time, the first Samudree Baaj aircraft had been delivered to Indian Navy 300 squadron, and even though only based at land at Hansa Air Station, flight training and military operations commenced. In the meantime, the start of Vikrant's trials had initially been scheduled to begin on 12 March 2020, but further construction delays caused that to be moved back to April. With the COVID-19 crisis, the navy explained that trials were unlikely to begin before September/October. During the Navy Day press meeting in December 2019, Navy Chief Admiral Karambir Singh said Vikrant would be fully operational before the end of 2022. The COVID-19 pandemic had already pushed that back to 2023 and further delays appeared possible.
In late 2020, the Indian Navy expected to commission Vikrant by the end of 2021. Until then, the Samudree Baaj fleet will remain land-based at INS Hansa near Goa. This not only is the INAS 300 home base, it is also the location of the Indian Navy's Shore Based Test Facility (SBTF), which is a mock-up of the 283-metre (928 ft) INS Vikramaditya (a modified Kiev-class aircraft carrier) deck built to train and certify navy pilots, primarily the the Mikoyan MiG-29K for operating from the aircraft carrier, but now also for the Samudree Baaj and for the developmental trials of the naval HAL Tejas lightweight fighter.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 11.38 m (37 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 9.39 m (30 ft 10 in)
Height: 4.30 m (14 ft 1 in)
Wing area: 17.66 m2 (190.1 sq ft)
Empty weight: 9,394 lb (4,261 kg)
Gross weight: 12,750 lb (5,783 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 9,101 kg (20,064 lb)
Fuel capacity: 1,360 kg (3,000 lb) internal
3,210 kg (7,080 lb) with 3 drop tanks
Powerplant:
1× Rolls-Royce Turbomeca Adour Mk. 871-1N non-afterburning turbofan, 28,89 kN (6,445 lbf) thrust
Performance:
Maximum speed: 1,037 km/h (644 mph, 560 kn) at sea level
Maximum speed: Mach 1.2 (never exceed at altitude)
Cruise speed: 796 km/h (495 mph, 430 kn) at 12,500 m (41,000 ft)
Carrier launch speed: 121 kn (139 mph; 224 km/h)
Approach speed: 125 kn (144 mph; 232 km/h)
Never exceed speed: 575 kn (662 mph, 1,065 km/h) / M1.04 design dive limit
Stall speed: 197 km/h (122 mph, 106 kn) flaps down
Range: 892 km (554 mi, 482 nmi) internal fuel only
Combat range: 617 km (383 mi, 333 nmi) with 2x AGM-84 and 2x 592 l (156 US gal; 130 imp gal)
Ferry range: 1,950 km (1,210 mi, 1,050 nmi) with 3 drop tanks
Service ceiling: 15,250 m (50,030 ft)
G-limits: +8/-3
Rate of climb: 58.466 m/s (11,509.1 ft/min)
Takeoff distance with maximum weapon load: 2,134 m (7,001 ft)
Landing distance at maximum landing weight with brake chute: 854 m (2,802 ft)
Landing distance at maximum landing weight without brake chute: 1,250 m (4,100 ft)
Armament:
2× 30 mm (1.181 in) Aden cannon with 150 rounds each
7× hardpoints (4× under-wing, 1× under-fuselage and 2 × wingtip)
for a total ordnance of 3.085 kg (6,800 lb) and a wide range of weapons
The kit and its assembly:
A subtle kitbashing project, inspired by a CG-rendition of a carrier-based (yet un-navalized) BAe Hawk 200 in Indian Navy service by fellow user SPINNERS in January 2021. I found the idea inspiring but thought that the basic concept could be taken further and into hardware form with a model. And I had a Matchbox Hawk 200 in The Stash™, as well as a McDonnell T-45 trainer from Italeri…
The plan sounds simple: take a T-45 and replace the cockpit section with the single-seat cockpit from the Hawk 200. And while the necessary cuts were easy to make, reality rears its ugly head when you try to mate parts from basically the same aircraft but from models by different manufacturers.
The challenges started with the fact that the fuselage shapes of both models differ – the Matchbox kit is more “voluminous”, and the different canopy shape called for a partial spine transplant, which turned out to be of very different shape than the T-45’s respective section! Lots of PSR…
In order to improve the pretty basic Matchbox Hawk cockpit I integrated the cockpit tub from the Italeri T-45, including the ejection seat, dashboard and its top cover.
For the totally different T-45 front wheel I had to enlarge the respective well and added a “ceiling” to it, since the strut had to be attached somewhere. The Hawk 200’s ventral tub for the cannons (which only the first prototype carried, later production aircraft did not feature them) were retained – partly because of their “whiffy“ nature, but also because making it disappear would have involved more major surgeries.
Most of the are behind the cockpit comes from the Italeri T-45, I just added a RHAWS fairing to the fin, extending it by 3mm.
A major problem became the air intakes, because the two kits differ in their construction. I wanted to use the Italeri parts, because they match the fairings on the fuselage flanks well and are better detailed than the Matchbox parts. But the boundary layer spacers between intakes and fuselage are molded into the Italeri parts, while the Matchbox kit has them molded into the fuselage. This called for major surgery and eventually worked out fine, and more PSR blended the rest of the fuselage donors around the cockpit together. A tedious process, though.
The pylons were puzzled together, including a former Matchbox EA-6B wing pylon under the fuselage, cut down and mounted in reverse and upside down! The ordnance comes from the Italeri NATO weapons set (Matra Magic and AGM-84), the ventral drop tank comes IIRC from an Eduard L-39 Albatros. Matra Magics were chosen because India never operated any Sidewinder AAM, just French or Soviet/Russian missiles like the R-60 or R-73 (unlikely on the Hawk, IMHO), and I had preferred a pair of Sea Eagle ASMs (from a Hasegawa Sea Harrier kit), but their span turned out to be too large for the Hawk’s low wings. The alternative, more slender Harpoons are plausible, though, since they are actually part of the Indian Navy’s inventory.
Painting and markings:
The Indian Navy theme was already settled, and I wanted to stay close to SPINNERS’ illustration as well as to real world Indian Navy aircraft. SPINNERS’ Hawk carried the typical Sea Harreir scheme in Extra Dark Sea Grey and White, and I found this livery to look a bit too much retro, because I’d place this what-if aircraft in the early 2020s, when the Sea Harriers had already been phased out. A “realistic” livery might have been an overall mid-grey paint scheme (like the land-based Indian Hawk 132s), but I found this to look too boring. As a compromise, I gave the Samudree Baaj a simple two-tone paint scheme, carried by a few late Indian Sea Harriers. It consists of upper surfaces in Dark Sea Grey (Humbrol 164) and undersides in Medium Sea Grey (Modelmaster 2058), with a low waterline. The Modelmaster MSG has – for my taste – a rather bluish hue and appears almost like PRU Blue, but I left it that way.
The decals were puzzled together from variosu sources. the roundels come from a MiG-21F (Begemot), the unit markings and tactical codes from a Model Alliance Sea Harrier sheet, and the stencils are a mix from the Matchbox Hawk 200 and the Italeri T-45.
The kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish from Italeri.
The fictional HAL „Samudree Baaj“ looks simple, but combining kits of the basically same aircraft from different manufacturers reveals their differences, and they are not to be underestimated! However, I like the result of a navalized Hawk single-seater, and - also with the relatively simple and dull livery - it looks pretty convincing.
Many thanks to SPINNERS for the creative inspiration - even though my build is not a 100% "copy" of the artwork, but rather a step further into the navalisation idea with the T-45 parts.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The 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!
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.
+++ 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... ;)
I kitbashed the Power Girl figure using the Jiaou doll instead of using the Tbleague body since the Jiaou seems much more curvey than the Tbleague bodies , especially the lower half of the bodies and she filled her suit a whole lot better .
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The 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.
A kitbash using a Phicen body and the blonde headsculpt by Kimi , also wearing a cowgirl outfit by Super Duck .
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
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 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 historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The Hawker Cyclone was an evolutionary successor to the successful Hawker Typhoon and Tempest fighters and fighter-bombers of the Second World War. The Cyclone's design process was initiated in September 1942 by Sydney Camm, one of Hawker's foremost aircraft designers, to meet the Royal Air Force’s requirement for a lightweight Tempest Mk.II and V replacement.
The project, tentatively designated Tempest Mk. VIII, was formalised in January 1943 when the Air Ministry issued Specification F.2/42 around the "Tempest Light Fighter".This was followed up by Specification F.2/43, issued in May 1943, which required a high rate of climb of not less than 4,500 ft/min (23 m/s) from ground level to 20,000 feet (6,096 m), good fighting manoeu rability and a maximum speed of at least 450 mph (724 km/h) at 22,000 feet (6,705 m). The armament was to be four 20mm Hispano V cannon with a total capacity of 600 rounds, plus the capability of carrying two bombs each up to 1,000 pounds (454 kg). In April 1943, Hawker had also received Specification N.7/43 from the Admiralty, who sought a navalized version of the developing aircraft, what eventually led to the Hawker Sea Fury, which was a completely new aircraft, which only shared the general outlines of the Tempest.
The Royal Air Force was looking for a quicker solution, and Camm started working on a new laminar flow wing, which would further improve the Tempest’s speed. Further refinements were done to other aerodynamic components, too, like the radiator, since the Tempest V’s liquid-cooled Napier Sabre engine was to be used. After some experiments with new arrangements, an annular radiator directly behind the propeller was chosen – certainly inspired by fast German aircraft like the Fw 190D and developed by Napier.
A total of three prototypes were ordered; the first one was powered by a Napier Sabre IIA liquid-cooled H-24 sleeve-valve engine, generating 2,180 hp (1,625 kW), but the second and any following aircraft carried the more powerful Sabre V with 2,340 hp, driving a Rotol four-blade propeller. Later aircraft were even to carry the Napier Sabre VII, which was capable of developing 3,400–4,000 hp (2,535–2,983 kW) and pushing the top speed to 485 mph (780 km/h) and more. The third airframe was just a static test structure. However, since the differences between the Tempest and the new aircraft had become almost as big as to its predecessor, the Typhoon, the new type received its own name Cyclone.
The first Cyclone Mk. I to fly, on 30 August 1944, was NV950, and it became clear soon that the modifications would improve the Cyclone’s top speed vs. the Tempest by almost 30 mph (50 km/h), but the new components would also require a longer testing period than expected. The annular radiator frequently failed and overheated, and the new, slender wings caused directional stability problems so that the complete tail section had to be re-designed. This troubling phase took more than 6 months, so that eventual service aircraft would only be ready in mid-1945 – too late for any serious impact in the conflict.
However, since the Hawker Fury, the land-based variant of the Sea Fury, which had been developed from the Tempest for the Royal Navy in parallel, had been cancelled, the Royal Air Force still ordered 150 Cyclone fighters (F Mk. I), of which one third would also carry cameras and other reconnaissance equipment (as Cyclone FR Mk.II). Due to the end of hostilities in late 1945, this order immediately lost priority. Consequently, the first production Cyclone fighters were delivered in summer 1946 – and in the meantime, jet fighters had rendered the piston-powered fighters obsolete, at least in RAF service. As a consequence, all Cyclones were handed over to friendly Commonwealth nations and their nascent air forces, e. g. India, Thailand or Burma. India received its first Cyclones in late 1947, just when the Kashmir conflict with Pakistan entered a hot phase. The machines became quickly involved in this conflict from early 1948 onwards.
Cyclones played an important role in the strikes against hostiles at Pir Badesar and the dominating Pir Kalewa. The taking of Ramgarh fort and Pt. 6944 on the west flank of Bhimbar Gali was to be a classic close support action with Indian forces carrying out a final bayonet charge against the enemy trenches whilst RIAF Cyclones and Tempests strafed and rocketed the trenches at close quarters. On a chance reconnaissance, enemy airfields were located at Gilgit and 40 NMs south, at Chilas. Cyclones flew several strikes against the landing strips in Oct and Nov 48, cratering & damaging both and destroying several hangars, barracks and radio installations. This attack destroyed Pakistani plans to build an offensive air capability in the North. Already, with Tempests and Cyclones prowling the valleys, Pakistani re-supply by Dakotas had been limited to hazardous night flying through the valleys.
After the end of hostilities in late 1948 and the ensuing independence, the Cyclone squadrons settled into their peace time stations. However, constant engine troubles (particularly the radiator) continued to claim aircraft and lives and the skill required to land the Cyclone because of its high approach speed continued to cause several write offs. The arrival of the jet-engined Vampire were the first signs of the Cyclone’s demise. As the IAF began a rapid expansion to an all jet force, several Tempest and Cyclone squadrons began converting to Vampires, 7 Squadron being the first in Dec 49. By this time it had already been decided that the piston-engine fighters would be relegated to the fighter lead-in role to train pilots for the new jet fighters. A conversion training flight was set up at Ambala in Sep 49 with Spitfire T Mk IXs, XVIIIs and Tempests to provide 16 hrs/six weeks of supervised Tempest training. This unit eventually moved to Hakimpet two years later and operated till the end of 1952. Some Cyclone FR Mk. IIs remained in front line service until 1954, though.
General characteristics:
Crew: One
Length: 35 ft 5 3/4 in (10.83 m)
Wingspan: 42 ft 5 1/2 in (12.96 m)
Height (tail down): 15 ft 6 3/4 in (4.75 m)
Wing area: 302 ft² (28 m²)
Empty weight: 9,250 lb (4,195 kg)
Loaded weight: 11,400 lb (5,176 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 13,640 lb (6,190 kg)
Powerplant:
1× Napier Sabre V liquid-cooled H-24 sleeve-valve engine with 2,340 hp (1,683 kW)
Performance:
Maximum speed: 460 mph (740 km/h) 18,400 ft (5,608 m),
Range: 740 mi (1,190 km)
1,530 mi (2,462 km) with two 90 gal (409 l) drop tanks
Service ceiling: 36,500 ft (11,125 m)
Rate of climb: 4,700 ft/min (23.9 m/s)
Wing loading: 37.75 lb/ft² (184.86 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.21 hp/lb (0.31 kW/kg)
Armament:
4× 20 mm (.79 in) Mark V Hispano cannons, 200 RPG
2× underwing hardpoints for 500 lb (227 kg) or 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs
or 2 × 45 gal (205 l) or 2 × 90 gal (409 l) drop tanks
plus 6× 3” (76.2 mm) RP-3 rockets
The kit and its assembly:
Another episode in the series “Things to make and do with Supermarine Attacker wings”. And what started as a simple switch of wings eventually turned into a major kitbashing, since the model evolved from a modded Tempest into something more complex and conclusive.
The initial spark was the idea of a Hawker alternative to Supermarine’s Spiteful and Seafang developments – especially with their slender laminar flow wings. Wouldn’t a Hawker alternative make sense?
Said and done, I dug out a NOVO Attacker kit and a Matchbox Tempest, and started measuring – and the wing transplantation appeared feasible! I made the cut on the Tempest wing just outside of the oil cooler, and the Attacker wings were then attached to these stubs – after some gaps for the landing gear wells had been cut into the massive lower wing halves. The stunt went more smoothly than expected, the only cosmetic flaw is that the guns went pretty far outboard, but that’s negligible.
But the different wings were not enough. I had recently seen in a book a picture of a Tempest (NV 768) with an experimental annular radiator for the Sabre engine (looking like a streamlined Tempest II), and wondered if this arrangement would have been the aerodynamically more efficient solution than the bulbous chin radiator of the Tempest V and VI? I decided to integrate this feature into my build, too, even though not as a copy of the real-world arrangement. The whole nose section, even though based on the OOB Mk. V nose, was scratched and re-sculpted with lots of putty. The radiator intake comes from a FROG He 219, with the front end opened and a fan from a Matchbox Fw 190 placed inside, as well as a styrene tube for the new propeller. The latter was scratched, too, from a Matchbox He 70 spinner and single blades from an Italeri F4U, plus a metal axis. The exhaust stubs were taken OOB, but their attachment slits had to be re-engraved into the new and almost massive nose section.
Once the wings and the nose became more concrete, I found that the Tempest’s original rounded tail surfaces would not match with the new, square wings. Therefore I replaced the stabilizers with donations from a Heller F-84G and modified the fin with a new, square tip (from an Intech Fw 190D) and got rid of the fin fillet – both just small modifications, but they change the Tempest’s profile thoroughly.
In order to underline the aircraft’s new, sleek lines, I left away any ordnance – but instead I added some camera fairings: one under the rear fuselage or a pair of vertical/oblique cameras, and another camera window portside for a horizontal camera. The openings were drilled, and, after painting, the kit the camera windows were created with Humbrol Clearfix.
Painting and markings:
Somehow I thought that this aircraft had to carry Indian markings – and I had a set of standard Chakra Wheels from the late Forties period in my stash. The camouflage is, typical for early IAF machines of British origin, RAF standard, with Dark Green and Ocean Grey from above and Medium Sea Grey from below. I just used the more brownish pst-war RAF Dark Green tone (Humbrol 163), coupled with the rather light Ocean Grey from Modelmaster (2057). The underside became Humbrol 165. All interior surfaces were painted with RAF Interior Green, nothing fancy. The only colorful addition is the saffron-colored spinner, in an attempt to match the fin flash’s tone.
As a standard measure, the kit received a black ink wash and some panel post-shading with lighter tones – only subtly, since the machine was not to look too weathered and beaten, just used from its Kashmir involvements.
The national markings come from a Printscale Airspeed Oxford sheet, the tactical code with alternating white and black letters, depending on the underground (the sky fuselage band comes from a Matchbox Brewster Buffalo), was puzzled together from single letters from TL Modellbau – both seen on different contemporary RIAF aircraft.
As another, small individual detail I gave the machine a tactical code letter on the fuselage, and the small tiger emblems under the cockpit were home-printed from the official IAF No. 1 Squadron badge.
Despite the massive modifications this one is a relatively subtle result, all the changes become only visible at a second glance. A sleek aircraft, and from certain angley the Cyclone looks like an A-1 Skyraider on a diet?
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the 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!
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'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:
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 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 on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some Background:
Antanas Gustaitis (March 26, 1898 – October 16, 1941) was an officer in the Lithuanian Armed Forces who modernized the Lithuanian Air Force, which at that time was part of the Lithuanian Army. He was the architect or aeronautical engineer who undertook the task to design and construct several military aircraft before WWII broke out.
Gustaitis was born in the village of Obelinė, in Javaravas county, in the Marijampolė district. He attended high school in Yaroslavl, and from there studied at the Institute of Engineering and School of Artillery in Petrograd. After joining the Lithuanian Army in 1919, he graduated from the School of Military Aviation as a Junior Lieutenant in 1920. Later that year, he saw action in the Polish-Lithuanian War. By 1922 he began to train pilots, and later became the head of the training squadron. He also oversaw the construction of aircraft for Lithuania in Italy and Czechoslovakia. Gustaitis was one of the founding members of the Aero Club of Lithuania, and later its Vice-President. He did much to promote aviation among the young people in Lithuania, especially concerning the sport of gliding. He also won the Lithuanian Chess Championship in 1922.
Between 1925 and 1928, Gustaitis studied aeronautical engineering in Paris. After his graduation he returned to Lithuania and was promoted to deputy Commander-in-Chief of Military Aviation and made chief of the Aviation Workshop (Karo Aviacijos Tiekimo Skyrius) in Kaunas. During this time, he reorganized the workshop and expanded its capability to repair aircraft as well. The aircraft he designed were named ANBO, an acronym for "Antanas Nori Būti Ore", which literally means “Antanas wants to be in the air” in Lithuanian.
Between 1925 and 1939, the ANBO design bureau developed, built and flew several trainers, reconnaissance and even fighter aircraft for the Lithuanian air force. The last projects, the ANBO VIII, a light single-engine reconnaissance bomber, and the ANBO IX, a single-seat fighter, were the most ambitious.
The ANBO IX started in 1935 as a light low-wing design with spatted, fixed landing gear and an open cockpit, powered by a British Bristol Mercury 830 hp (619 kW) 9-cylinder radial engine – a very clean all-metal design, outwardly not unlike the contemporary Japanese Nakajima Ki-27 or the Dutch Fokker D.XXI, but a much more modern construction.
A first prototype had been completed in summer 1936 and it flew for the first time on 1st of August, with good flight characteristics, but Gustaitis was not satisfied with the aircraft anymore. More powerful and aerodynamically more efficient engines had become available, and a retractable landing gear would improve the performance of the ANBO IX even more, so that the aircraft was heavily modified during the rest of the year.
The large Mercury was replaced with a Pratt & Whitney R-1535 Twin Wasp Junior, a two-row 14-cylinder radial engine with 825 hp and a much smaller frontal area that allowed the ANBO IX’s cowling to be wrapped much tighter around the engine than the Mercury’s former Townend ring, leading to a very aerodynamic overall shape. The oil cooler, formerly mounted starboard flank in front of the cockpit, was moved into a mutual fairing with the carburetor intake under the fuselage behind the engine.
The wings had to be modified to accommodate a retractable main landing gear: to make space for suitable wells, the inner wing section in front of the main spar was deepened, resulting in a kinked leading edge of the wing. The landing gear retracted inwards and was initially completely covered. The tail remained fixed, though, even though the former simple tailskid was replaced with a pressurized rubber wheel for better handling on paved runways.
These measures alone improved the ANBO IX’s top speed by 25 mph (40 km/h), and to improve the pilot’s working conditions the originally open cockpit with just a windscreen and a small headrest fairing was covered with a fully closed clear canopy and an enlarged aerodynamic spinal fairing that ended at the fin’s base. This additional space was used to introduce another contemporary novel feature on board: a radio set.
Together with some other refinements on a second prototype (e. g. a smaller diameter of the front fuselage section, an even more streamlined cowling that now also covered two synchronized machine guns above the engine and a recontoured wing/fuselage intersection), which flew in September 1937, top speed rose by another 6 mph (10 km/h) from 460 km/h (285 mph) of the original aircraft to a competitive 510 km/h (317 mph) that put the ANBO IX on a par with many other contemporary European fighter aircraft.
In this form the ANBO IX was cleared for production in early 1938, even though the desired R-1535 Twin Wasp Junior was not cleared for export or license production. With the Manfréd Weiss WM K.14 engine from Hungary, a derivative of the French Gnôme-Rhône 14 K with 900 hp, a similar, even slightly more powerful replacement could be quickly found, even though the adaptation of the airframe to the different powerplant delayed production by four months. Beyond a new engine mount, the machine guns in the fuselage and its synchronization gearbox had to be deleted, but the weapons could be moved into the outer wings, so that a total of four machine guns as main armament was retained. Additionally, a single ventral hardpoint was added that could either carry a single bomb with its respective shackles or – more frequently – a drop tank that extended the fighter’s rather limited range.
The Lithuanian air force ordered fifty of these machines, primarily to replace its Fiat CR.20 biplane fighters, and several regional export customers like Finland, Estonia and Bulgaria showed interest in the modern ANBO IX, too. Due to the complex all-metal airframe and limited workshop capacities, however, production started only slowly.
The first batch of six ANBO IXs arrived at Lithuanian frontline units in November 1939, more were in the ANBO workshops in Kaunas at that time in various stages of assembly. In 1940, the Lithuanian Air Force consisted of eight Air Squadrons, including reconnaissance, fighter, bomber and training units. However, only the 5th fighter squadron had by the time enough ANBO IXs and trained pilots to be fully operational with the new type. Air Force bases had been established in the cities and towns of Kaunas/Žagariškės, Šiauliai /Zokniai (Zokniai airfield), Panevėžys /Pajuostis. In the summertime, airports in the cities of Palanga and Rukla were also used. A total of 117 aircraft and 230 pilots and observers were listed in the books at that time, but less than ten of them were modern ANBO IX fighters, and probably only half of them were actually operational.
Following the Soviet occupation of Lithuania, however, the Lithuanian Air Force was formally disbanded on October 23, 1940. Part of Lithuanian Air Force (77 senior officers, 72 junior officers, 59 privates, 20 aircraft) was reorganized into Red Army's 29th Territorial Rifle Corps Aviation, also referred to as National Squadron (Tautinė eskadrilė). Other planes and equipment were taken over by Red Army's Air Force Bases No. 13 and 213. About third of Tautinė eskadrilė's personnel latter suffered repressions by Soviet authorities, significant share joined June uprising, after the start of German invasion into Soviet Union several pilots of Tautinė eskadrilė and fewer than six planes withdrew with the Soviet army.
General characteristics:
Crew: 1
Length: 7.71 m (25 ft 2¾ in)
Wingspan: 10.22 m (33 ft 5¾ in)
Wing area: 16 m2 (170 sq ft)
Height: 2.62 m (8 ft 7 in)
Empty weight: 2,070 kg (4,564 lb)
Gross weight: 2,520 kg (5,556 lb)
Powerplant:
1× Manfred Weiss WM K.14 (Gnome-Rhône 14Kfrs Mistral-Major) 14-cyinder air-cooled radial
piston engine with 647 kW (900 hp), driving a 3-bladed constant-speed metal propeller
Performance:
Maximum speed: 510 km/h (320 mph, 280 kn)
Minimum control speed: 113 km/h (70 mph, 61 kn)
Range: 730 km (450 mi, 390 nmi) on internal fuel
1.000 km (621 mi, 543 nmi) with 300 l drop tank
Service ceiling: 10.000 m (33,000 ft)
Time to altitude: 4'41" to 5,000 meters
Wing loading: 157,5 kg/m² (32.7 lb/sq ft)
Power/mass: 3.89 kg/kW (6.17 lb/hp)
Take-off run to 8 m (26 ft): 270 m (886 ft)
Landing run from 8 m (26 ft): 340 m (1,115 ft)
Armament:
4x 7.7 mm (0.303 in) fixed forward-firing M1919 Browning machine guns with 500 rpg
in the outer wings
1x ventral hardpoint for a single 250 kg (550 lb) bomb or a 300 l (66 imp gal) drop tank
The kit and its assembly:
This small aircraft model is the result of a spontaneous kitbashing flash, when I dug through the sprue piles and the spares box. It started with a leftover fuselage from a Mistercraft PZL P-7 fighter, and further searches revealed the wings from a PM Model Fokker D.XXI and the sawn-off wings from a Hobby Boss MS.406. The sprue stash came up with other useful parts like small stabilizers and a landing gear – and it turned out to be the rest of the MS.406, which had originally been butchered to be mated with the P-7 wings to become my fictional Polish RWD-24 fighter prototype. So, as a serious recycling project, I decided to accept the challenge and use the remains of the P-7 and the MS.406 to create a “counterpart” to the RWD-24, and it became the fictional ANBO IX.
While the ingredients for a basic airframe were now available, some parts were still missing. Most important: an engine. One option was an early Merlin, left over from a Spitfire, but due to the circular P-7 fuselage I preferred a radial engine. With the cowling from a Japanese Mitsubishi Ha-102 two-row radial (from an Airfix Ki-46 “Dinah”) I found a suitable and very streamlined donor, which received a small three-blade propeller with a scratched spinner on a metal axis inside.
The cockpit and the canopy caused more headaches, because the P-7 has an open cockpit with a rather wide opening. For a fighter with a retractable landing gear this would hardly work anymore and finding a solution as well as a suitable donor piece took a while. I initially wanted to use a kind of bubble canopy (with struts, so that it would not look too modern), but eventually rejected this because the proportions would have looked odd – and the overall style would have been too modern.
So I switched to an early Spitfire canopy, which had a good size for the small aircraft, even though it called for a spinal fairing – the latter became the half from a drop tank (IIRC from an Airfix P-61?).
Lots of PSR was necessary everywhere to blend the disparate parts together. The cockpit opening had to be partly filled and reshaped, blending both canopy and spine into the hull took several layers.
The area in front of the cockpit (originally holding the P-7’s shoulder-mounted wings) had to be re-sculpted and blended into the Ki-46 cowling.
The ventral area between the wings had also to be fully sculpted with putty, and huge gaps along the wing roots on the wings’ upper surfaces had to be filled and formed, too. No wonder that many surface details disappeared along the way… Nevertheless, the effort was worthwhile, because the resulting airframe, esp. the sleek fuselage, looks very aerodynamic, almost like a Thirties air speed record contender?
Painting and markings:
This is where the real trouble came to play. It took a while to find a suitable/authentic paint scheme for a pre-WWII Lithuanian aircraft, and I took inspiration from mid-Thirties Letov S.20 biplane fighters and the real ANBO VIII light bomber prototype. Apparently, a two-tone camouflage in two shades of green were an option, even though the tones appear debatable. The only real-life reference was a b/w picture of an S.20, and it showed a good contrast between the greens, so that my first choice were Humbrol 120 (FS 34227) and 172 (Satin Dark Green). However: 120 turned out to be much too pale, and the 172 had a somewhat grainy consistency. Leaving a horrible finish on the already less-than-perfect PSR mess of the model.
With a heavy heart I eventually decided to remove the initial coat of enamel paint with a two-day bath in foamed oven cleaner, which did the job but also worked on the putty. Disaster struck when one wing came loose while cleaning the model, and the canopy came off, too…
Repairs were possible, but did not improve the model’s surface finish – but I eventually pulled a second coat of paint through, this time with slightly different green tones: a mix of Humbrol 80 (Grass Green) and Revell 360 (fern Green), resulting in a rich but rather yellow-ish tone, and Humbrol 245 (RLM 75, Graugrün), as a subdued contrast. The result, though, reminded a lot of Finnish WWII aircraft, so that I gave the aircraft an NMF cowling (again inspired by the ANBO VIII prototype) and a very light grey (Modelmaster 2077, RLM 63) underside with a low waterline. This gave the model a somewhat Italian touch?
The national markings came from two different Blue Rider decal sheets for modern Lithuanian aircraft, the tactical code and the knight helmet as squadron emblem came from a French Dewoitine D.520 (PrintScale sheet).
After a black ink washing the kit received light panel post-shading to virtually restore some of the missing surface details, some weathering with Tamiya Smoke and silver was done and the model received a final overall coat of matt acrylic varnish.
Well, I am not happy with the outcome – mostly because of the painting mishaps and the resulting collateral damage overall. However, the kitbashed aircraft looks pretty conclusive and plays the role of one of the many European pre-WWII monoplane fighters with modern features like a retractable landing gear and a closed canopy well, it’s a very subtle result.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based 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. ;-)
+++ 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... ;)
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.
+++ 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?