Iron Modeler

“I’ll take ‘Potpourri’ for One-Thousand, Alex…”

Howdy, all…

Summer has once again reached the Greater Upper Midlands Co-Prosperity Sphere—days are topping out near 100° Fahrenheit, with humidity levels to match.  And it’s been buggy—more so than usual.  Every week, I have to clean out the screen in the primary water filter stage, and every week I come back inside with at least a dozen bites.  Oh, well, it comes with the territory...

*****     *****     *****     *****     *****
My 40^th High School Class reunion is coming up in a few weeks.  Somehow, I found myself on the committee, and have been volunteered to organize the volunteers.  How that happened, I have no clue—I volunteered my services to be a Facebook moderator, but here I am.  I’m not complaining, mind you.  Planning for this is much like the planning I have done for any number of scale model shows, so I’m walking familiar ground.

I’m also curious to just how much Ft. Lauderdale has changed since I was last there in 2013.  Nothing is allowed to stand still around there, I know…

Speaking of change, the reunion will give me a change to stop by the Embry-Riddle campus for a little while.  I’ll be interested to see how much it has changed since 2015, the last time I had time to look around.  I think there are now only three structures on campus that were there when I initially moved into what was known then as Dorm 2 (later named McKay Hall, it was bulldozed in 2019) back in August of 1982.  Everything else exists only in photos and memories…

The adage “You can’t go home again” echoes in my head.  We’ll see just how true it is…

*****     *****     *****     *****     *****

My experiment with Mission Models Paint is over.

I will say this—I’m sure it is a great product.  However, I have done trial runs several times using their exact materials and procedures.  In each one, things looked good until I tried to apply a water-slide decal.  A few drops of water caused the paint to run, as if it were a watercolor.  I have followed their instructions to a “T”.  I use their primer, their reducer, their paint, their Poly Intermix, their clear coats.  I maintain the recommended pressures and distance from the surface.  I let things dry/cure per their instructions.  And I get the same result every time.  For me, this is too much fussing about. 

And yeah, I know guys who have tinkered with adding Future, etc., to the mix and have apparently achieved good results, but recent news out of Johnson and Johnson indicated that Future may not be around much longer.  I decided that I have to find a paint that gives near foolproof results without having to chant incantations over the mixing cup every time I use it.

If you recall, this search for new paint has been going on for a while now—since Testors discontinued Acryl.  I have tried several paints in the meantime, including Vallejo.  Now, once I cracked the code on airbrushing Vallejo, I rather liked it.  However, what I have found is that shelf life on bottles that have been partially used is not great—I can go back to a bottle I used tow projects ago, and it is now thick and stringy—and it is a 50/50 chance that some additional thinner can cure the issue.  Note that I *never* return thinned paint to the main container—I learned this in my Polly-S days.  No, if I have an excess of thinned paint, I save it in a separate bottle or jar. 

The other issue with Vallejo is color fidelity.  I’m not one of those who waves his Federal Standard fan deck at every paint and criticizes each for the perceived “inaccuracies” they exhibit, but I do want a bottle of paint that claims to match a particular standard to be at least *close* to that color.  Vallejo is very much hit and miss in that respect.  If I have to mix a paint, I’d like to have one that retains usability for a long time, yields a durable film, and intermiscible with other lines. 

I tried Lifecolor on the Fujimi Sea King.  I liked the way it behaved so much that I bought the colors I will need on my early Air Superiority Blue-painted F-15A.  And it is still in the running for a #2 or #3 tier paint for me.  But availability can be spotty, and it has been known to be temperamental.

The British Phantoms reacquainted me with the GSI/Creos Aqueous line.  I had used this in the past, and for whatever reason my results were only satisfactory, nothing exemplary about them.  Well, I guess 25 years removed, I’ve allowed some things to seep into my head, and found them to be easy to use this time around.  I’d love to adopt them as my #1.  However, their U.S. importer is BlueFin.  Most every reseller of these paints has the colors from H-1 to H-94 or H-96.  So what’s the hang-up?  The modern colors (modern RAL, BS, and FS colors) are in the H-300 and H-400 range.  It seems that BlueFin either cannot or will not import them.  Indeed, the only US-based online retailer who even shows the 300 and 400 ranges is Scalehobbyist, and they show them as “Coming Soon”.  They’ve shown them as “Coming Soon” for some time now.  HobbyLink Japan doesn’t show them. Some of the UK-based shops list them, but again show them as “out of stock”.  I contacted GSI/Creos, and they say they still make the colors in question, but don’t even list them on their website…

I looked at the AK Interactive 3^rd Gen acrylics and Real Color paint, and may well use some of them.  But I’m also looking for something that I might be able to procure locally if I run out—you know, common colors like black, white, red, yellow, etc.  We have one shop close that carries some of the 3^rd Gen line in the gaming colors.  I am not aware of anyone local who carries Real Colors.  So…

I’ve finally come back around to Tamiya Acrylics.  With the demise of Testors, they seem the likely line to assume the crown.  Most hobby shops stock them.  They have a wide range of colors.  They can be mixed with Tamiya’s new Lacquer Paints, Real Color paints, GSI Aqueous Hobby Colors, and GSI’s Mr. Color line.  They can be thinned with water, isopropyl alcohol, or lacquer thinner.  These features are what make them the choice of a great many modelers around the world.

The one drawback?   Lack of “spec” colors.  Even more so than any other line, Tamiya does not offer pre-mixed colors that match any of the standards.  But a friend of mine brought up something interesting: Like artists’ colors, Tamiya offers a range of colors that seem to be almost purposefully designed for mixing.  Tamiya themselves offer mixing ratios in their kit instructions.  And really, mixing colors is not alchemy; it is actually rather easy to do. 

There are several Tamiya mixing charts online.  One of the issues with this is that there are literally a dozen different places to find mixes, and many of them don’t agree with each other.  Now, that’s fine.  Different people have different opinions on the “proper” shade of any given color.  But wouldn’t it be nice if all these recipes could be found in one place?

Some friends and I are going to try to do just that.  Stay tuned.

*****     *****     *****      *****     *****

The latest iteration of the South Carolina Scale Model Mega Show was held on 18 June.  It went well, by most accounts, and the committee will be meeting soon to make some decisions on the next edition.  Again, stay tuned.

*****     *****     *****     *****     *****

One of the Mega Show’s special awards was “Old School”.  The eligibility rules were basically this—use any kit you wish, but any added details had to be made from scratch using raw materials (Evergreen styrene sheet and rod, wire, foil, etc.)—no pre-made detail sets could be used.

At about the same time we announced our award, one of the Hyperscale forums started an Old School Group Build (OSGB).  The moderator on that forum spelled out a bunch of rules—the kit had to be of a certain vintage, the paints used must have been available “back in the day”, hairy stick application was preferred (as opposed to airbrush), etc.  Now, the participants agreed to these rules, and that’s fine.  They can call it “Fred” if they want to—they laid out the rules and agreed to hold to them

However, I think there is a bit of confusion between “Old School” and “Nostalgia”.  In my mind, the Hyperscale group is hosting a Nostalgia build—each participant builds the same kits as they did back in the day, using the same methods and products.    

To me, though, “Old School” modeling is a frame of mind that transcends manufacturers, eras, and products.  What we call “old school" today was called “scratchbuilding” back then, and it was the only way to get added details before the advent of photoetched metal, cast metal, cast resin and prefabricated details like wired distributors.

For instance, I offer up my 1/35^th scale AFV Club Wiesel 1/TOW.  I used Evergreen sheet and wire to cobble up an interior.  That’s “old school”.  There are—or were—resin interiors made for the kit, using them would take the “old school” aspect away from the project. 

I sponsored the Old School award.  I wanted to inspire this generation of modelers to realize that not everything needs to be pre-packaged in order to add it to their models.  I hope the idea stuck with the folks who participated…

*****     *****     *****     *****     *****
That’s all I have for this installment.  As always, be good to one another.  Thanks for reading, and I bid you Peace.

Dispelling the Myths of Scale Modeling--My Take

Howdy, all…

After I’m through working for the day, I have found myself watching some of the online scale model channels on YouTube.  This is a bonus benefit of finally having high-speed fiber optic internet service—that’s right, no more HughesNet dish in the front yard! 

Some are better than others—the channels that bring good model building content (educational content as opposed to ASMR artistry) are the ones I enjoy the most.  However, I see some of the channels still repeat a lot of those modeling myths and misconceptions that have been part of the hobby for many years.  In an effort to dispel some of them, allow me to take a few moments and comment.

Myth #1:  You need great artistic talent to build models.

If this were the case, I’d never get anything completed.  All you really need is time and repetition. 

What is talent, anyway?  Merriam and Webster define it as “a special often athletic, creative, or artistic aptitude”, insinuating that it must be innate, part of a being’s personality.  I understand that different people excel in different things, but to ascribe it completely to luck of the draw in the genetic lottery doesn’t sit well with me.

I think of it in the same vein as TV artist Bob Ross thought of it: “Talent is a pursued interest.”  You are interested in something, and as you pursue that interest your skills and knowledge increase with time.

In the Spring 1982 “Test” issue of FineScale Modeler, ship modeler Les Wilkins outlined a few concepts he used to use to produce great models.  They were:

• Start simple
• Work methodically
• Standardize techniques
• Display effectively

Notice that Les never said that you must be artistically inclined or a master craftsman in order to build models.  Shep Paine, Bob Steinbrunn, Paul Budzik, and many other long-time modelers will tell you—time and practice is all you need.

Myth #2:  In order to produce quality models, you need a workshop full of fancy machinery and precision tools.

For most of my modeling career, I have used nothing more than a #1 handle with a #11 blade, a razor saw, a set of drills and a pin vise, some tweezers, sanding sticks and files, a handful of paint brushes, and  an airbrush.  Oh, I own a motor tool (a Foredom flexible shaft model), but rarely use it. 

This is not to say that those who do possess these tools don’t get great results from them, it just stands that they are not a requirement to building a quality model.  Simple hand tools will get you to the same destination, it just might take longer.

As for the need for expensive “specialized” tools, Master leather carver Jim Linnell said this:  “How much you spend on the tool in your hand doesn’t affect the work you do as much as the amount of experience the hand has using that tool.”

The next few myths have been floating around for decades, yet they still get trotted out as fact.

Myth #3: All acrylic model paints are water-based.
Myth #3a:  All acrylic paints are non-toxic.

There have been volumes written about paint chemistry.  The tl;dr version is this:  There are water-borne acrylics, acrylic enamels, and acrylic lacquers.  Some are soluble in water, alcohol, and lacquer thinner, others are not.  The best bet:  Use the thinner suggested by the paint manufacturer.

I still find it curious that a modeler would spend a lot of money on kits, aftermarket parts, specialized paint, and decals only to then play Home Chemist with the paint thinners.

As for the toxicity of paint, all paints, when sprayed, produce droplets.  Paints contain resins, hardeners, and plasticizers that are designed to create a durable coating.  When those materials enter your lungs, it is no different than when they coat a surface and cure.  Protect your lungs with a respirator (NOT a simple dust mask!) with organic vapor filters and use an exhaust fan, regardless of what you’re spraying.

Myth #4:  Alpha Cyanoacrylate Adhesives (aka CA, ACC, or superglue) give off toxic fumes (cyanide gas) as it cures.

Nope.

If it did, we would all be dead.  Cyanide is not a cumulative poison like arsenic—exposure to cyanide creates an immediate (and usually lethal) reaction from the human body.

While it is not toxic, it can be an irritant.  Work in a well-ventilated space, and use a respirator if the fumes bother you. 

Myth #5:  Resin dust is carcinogenic.

Sanding and grinding cured resin creates a fine dust.  However, studies have shown that polyurethane or epoxy resin dust does not necessarily possess any inherent carcinogenic properties.  In some studies, it is classified as a “nuisance irritant”. 

However, think about this—if you inhale the dust, and it gets deep into your lungs, what problems can it cause?  It is an irritant, yes, and there really haven’t been studies to see what the effect of breathing these dusts has caused over time.  So whether or not it is carcinogenic is still open to debate, but as with the acrylic paint situation, it is best to protect yourself—in this case, with a properly fitted N95 or KN95 dust mask.

Myth #6:  You need to smear putty over every seam and gap. 

Nope.  You certainly can do that, but you would be wasting time and money.

I see this often—rather than sanding the seams when the glue dries, I see folks immediately reach for the tube of putty.  What I do is sand first—get everything dressed and level.  Then, if you see gaps and steps, take some time to figure out what to fill them with.  In some cases, a few more minutes with sandpaper will take care of things.  In other cases, a small chip of Evergreen strip will fill the gap with little work. 

When I need filler “putty”, my tools of choice are epoxy putty (Apoxie Clay or Apoxie Sculpt), Evergreen styrene, Vallejo plastic putty, or CA (aka superglue).  I don’t use any other fillers—I have a half-used tube of the old (original formula) Squadron White Putty on the workbench that I haven’t checked on—it is probably as hard as stone by now.  My tube of Perfect Plastic Putty is likewise starting to solidify.

Oh, and I’d use a dust mask if you sand these fillers dry, too. 

Myth #7:  You need to use a primer under all acrylic paint.

For years, I would paint on to the bare plastic with all types of acrylics and never had an issue.  I never had paint peel, lift, or misbehave.  I would do a good job of cleaning the surface before I painted—a good wipe with Isopropyl Alcohol is all it takes.

These days, I prime more as part of the entire finishing process and use it as much to add depth and tone the finish as I do to unify the surface.

Use of a primer is optional.  One thing that is not optional is having a clean surface.  Before you apply any paint, you need to make sure the surface is clean and free from oils and other contaminants that can affect paint adhesion.  As I said, wipe the model down with alcohol right before you paint, and all should be good.

Myth #8: Future floor finish is garbage and shouldn’t be used.

I hear this a lot, yet over the years many modelers have used this product with no problems.  I have used it for years with only one disappointment that I can ascribe more to the decals than the Future.  However, this argument appears to be moot, since it appears that SC Johnson might be discontinuing the product.

Myth #9:  You don’t need a clear gloss under decals.

Now, there is actually some truth to this. 

All decals really need is a smooth surface, and most of the modern paints—even those labeled “Matte” or “Flat”—do a great job of laying down a smooth finish.  Apply the decals with a good solvent/setting agent, and they should lie down and look like they were painted on.

Back in the day, though, flat paints yielded a very rough surface, even to the naked eye.  So, you needed to take one of the following routes to a smooth surface:  use gloss paint, which back in the day was rather thick or took forever to fully cure; polish the surface; or apply a coat of a clear gloss (it was reasoned that a coat of clear gloss was better than multiple coats of glossy paint). The clear gloss was the option many modelers took, and still take, to get decals to behave.

These days, one of the best arguments out there for using clear gloss over the paint concerns the finish enhancement techniques (“weathering”) modelers use.  What happens when you apply decals to a painted finish, and then use an oil wash over it?  I’ll tell you what happens—the oil wash will stain the paint slightly, but the paint under the decal film is protected, and therefore won’t “take” the wash, and stands out like the proverbial sore thumb.  By protecting the entire surface with the clear gloss, you ensure the wash is absorbed (or repelled) from the paint surface equally.

If you want to forego the clear coat, then do your enhancements (“weathering”) before you apply the decals, and once the decals have dried overnight, go back and apply the same techniques to the decals and you’ll be set.

Myth #10:  Contest judges are (your complaint here).

I find it interesting how many times a contest judge is slammed for some reason or other, especially by people who never bother to help judge a contest.

When you go to a contest, why not step up and volunteer to judge?  You might find that you’ll learn a thing or two, and possibly might get more enjoyment out of the show!

*****     *****     *****     *****     *****     *****     *****

As last year seemed to be The Year of the Phantom, this year is shaping up to be The Year of the Viper…

It started when I pulled the two 1/72^nd scale Hasegawa F-16’s out of the rescue pile.  There are the last two of the kits my friend Rick gave me in 2006 that had been started that were still complete and could be completed.  They’re nothing fancy—the same Hasegawa F-16’s we’ve all known and loved since the mid-1980’s.  I scrounged some decals from the decal stash to build the F-16A as a Block 10 jet from the South Carolina Air National Guard, and the F-16C was built to depict a jet that was based at Shaw AFB and deployed for Operation Desert Storm.

I also tried a new paint.  When Testors began to drop colors from the Acryl range, I started using Vallejo.  Now, Vallejo is good paint, both for airbrush and hairy stick, but I have found that the shelf life isn’t all it is cracked up to be.  And even though I’m no color purist, I’d at least like to start with a color that’s in the ballpark—on some of my last projects with Vallejo, I found I had to do more color tinkering than I am used to just to get the color close to the standard.  I’ll still keep some colors around for the brush work, but decided to search for a new paint line to match the camouflage colors.

I’ll probably tell the story another time, but I tired the soup-to-nuts Mission Models paint line—primer, color, and clears.  I have mixed feelings, but before I make a final decision I need to try it a few more times to make sure it was actually the product and not my technique.  As the TV shows used to say, “Stay Tuned for More”…

The next batch of F-16’s are all F-16C’s—two in 1/48^th scale (using the sublime Tamiya kit, of course!) and one 1/32^nd scale kit from Hasegawa’s veteran release.  Two of the three are for a friend (who also provided the 1/32^nd scale kit) who worked with the Vermont ANG.  His 1/48^th scale model will be shown just after takeoff with the gear in transit.  I have two thirds of the landing gear work complete, and it will be a cool display—if I don’t say so myself…

The other 1/48^th scale model will be added to my collection, also wearing VT ANG colors.  After the two smaller ones are done, I’ll finish the 1/32^nd scale kit in decals my friend provided to build “Lethal Lady” (a Block 25 F-16C).  The actual airframe had over 7,200 hours on the clock when it was retired as a gate guard at Burlington ANGB.  Plans are for the airplane to eventually be handed to the National Air and Space Museum.  Memorializing it in polystyrene is a fair tribute to the airplane, don't you think?

*****     *****     *****     *****     *****     *****     *****
That’s all I have for now.  As always, be good to one another.  I bid you Peace.

Another year in the books…

Howdy!

Is it really the end of January, 2022?  That went quick…

As I write this, I have supper cooking in the air fryer and the 60^th running of the Rolex 24 at Daytona on the TV.  This year, 61 cars across five classes took the green flag—a massive field!  I was swapping Facebook messages with a few friends, and remembered that the last race we saw in person was in 2009.  While I miss the sounds and smells of “being there”, I find that I’m much more comfortable on my couch that I was sitting and freezing in the stands…

With the IMSA/ACO cooperation agreements in place, things are looking different—and will be next year as well.  I like the direction things are headed so far.  The race so far has been close, with a few unfortunate incidents that have taken some cars out of the race, but hey, that’s how it goes.  I just looked—it is right at the time where the sun has retreated to the west and there’s a neat purple-orange glow in the skies, the time when day turns to night.  As the darkness settles in and the blackness envelops the Speedway, all sorts of things could happen.  This is why I love sports car endurance racing.
  
On other fronts, the weather has been goofy here in the Greater Upper Midlands Co-Prosperity Sphere.  Two weeks ago, we were hit with an ice storm.  We only had about a tenth of an inch, but that tenth of an inch caused all sorts of issues.  We were without power for 17 hours that Sunday—I went to bed at 10, couldn’t sleep (it was cold, and I don’t do well all bundled up), and sometime around 11 heard the chain saws as the electric cooperative attended to the problem.  By 1:15 AM on Monday, we had power.  We were some of the lucky ones--some folks didn't get power back until late Monday.

Last weekend, we had snow, about 2 inches’ worth.  Fortunately, it was on a Saturday—as I’ve said before, 2 inches may as well be 20 feet in this neck of the woods.  This morning, we had heavy frost, but as I ventured out to buy groceries I noticed that several areas received a dusting of snow.  Yep.  January in South Carolina…

We’re six months away from my 40^th high school class reunion.  It has been so much fun catching up with people, and even more fun when we see they have bought a ticket to attend.  With that fun comes the sadness when we hear of yet another classmate who is no longer with us.  As I told our reunion chair, it is sad knowing they are gone, but sadder still when we realize many of them passed years ago, and we’re just now finding out.

And, of course, it is sad when a classmate tells us they won’t attend.  Some have valid reasons—a few have cited COVID-19, which I fully understand.  Some will be traveling, some can’t get away from work, and others have kids who are entering college, so they need to be around for that.  And, to be fair, there are some who can’t afford it—which I totally get, too.  Unfortunately, stuff costs what it costs—we’re not making a profit off this, and it is happening in South Florida, on the beach (literally), in July.

Some are still on the fence, so the committee has started to directly contact them to see what’s going on.  Hopefully, we can convince more than a few to come and join us.

On the plastic front, I had cleaned out the “Back Burner” projects except one—a Reheat 120mm figure of Neil Armstrong on the moon.  In the meantime, I have brought the aforementioned 1/72^nd scale A-7 and F-16’s out for completion.  Being 1/72^nd scale kits, I can get them finished in short order if I want to.  And I do want to…

As they sit now, the A-7 has had paint applied, and will get a clear coat in a day or so.  This kit was curious—the wings had been assembled, complete with the pylons, and at one time were attached to the fuselage.  I guess when Rick needed to move, he carefully broke the wings back off so the kit would fit in the box.  Also in the box were a bunch of Mk 82 Snakeyes, a few Shrikes, a couple of TER’s (the center wing pylons had already been fitted with MER’s), and a bunch of Sidewinders.  He had also thrown the elements for a VA-147 A-7A in the box, and a initially considered using them.  On close inspection, I was not sure they would work, so I went looking for different options.  My wife handed me a Hannants’ Xtradecal sheet with an A-7B from VA-155 that she had in her decal cabinet, so that’s where I’m headed.  I had an old Microscale sheet with a similar option, as well as another with a VA-215 “Barn Owls” scheme, but again I had doubts as to whether they would work or fall apart.  I took the safe route…

The two F-16’s were more or less still in kit form.  Rick had painted the cockpits and started to add a photoetch set to the C model. I decided to remove the PE parts and close the canopies on both—honestly, in 1/72^nd scale, you can’t see much anyway and to me the juice isn’t worth the squeeze.  At this moment, the fuselages are assembled and waiting to have the seams dressed. 

The bigger challenge was to figure out what direction Rick was headed with them.  There were no decals or notes, so I wasn’t sure.  I dredged through the decal stash and found some options.  For the F-16A, I settled on a Block 10 aircraft in South Carolina Air National Guard colors.  That led to a decision—the kit is a Block 15 with the enlarged horizontal stabs.  I could cut them down and re-contour them, but in the end I think I’ll avail myself of a set of Quickboost items instead.

Originally, I wanted to do the F-16C as the Aviano jet with the commemorative USAF 50^th Anniversary scheme, and intended to do just that.  However, a little voice in the back of my noggin kept saying “Block number!  Check the Block number, dummy!”  And, sure enough, the Aviano jet was a Block 40 (GE power, etc.), something the Hasegawa kit can’t do.  So, I went back through the decals and found decals for a Shaw AFB-based Block 25 jet attached to the 363^rd TFW.  The decals are from the “not quite crap, but certainly not gems!” period for Microscale, which means I may try to find an alternate—but I figure I’ll make the pair a South Carolina themed mini-collection.

Last time, I told you how I all but emptied the Back Burner cabinet.  Here’s some eye candy for you…

The Aeroclub 1/48th scale Gloster Gamecock.  This was before I added the serials using decals--at this point, all the color you see on the model is paint.  It is built as a machine from the RAF's No. 43 Squadron circa 1926.
Hasegawa's 1/72nd scale F-4N kit with Microscale decals to depict "Old Nick 200" from VF-111 circa 1974.

Another Hasegawa Phantom in 1/72nd scale, this time an F-4B dressed up as the CVW-15 CAG jet from VF-51, the airplane known as the Supersonic Can Opener

This is one of the busts that DML included in their 1/48th scale airplane kits--this is Ernst Udet.

Another 43 Squadron airplane--this is is Fujimi's 1/72nd scale Phantom FG.1.

AFV Club's 1/35th scale Wiesel 1 with TOW missile was built as a group build--the base was provided with the instructions to build a model and landscape the base.

This is a completed Bluejacket Shipcrafters 1/192nd scale kit of the USS Monitor.


Here is another project long in hibernation:  Reheat Model's 120mm U-2/SR-71/Shuttle pilot figure.

Authentic Airliners' 1/144th scale Convair 440 and Vintage Flyer decals were used to build this model on N4826C in her Delta Air Lines delivery colors.  An earlier post I wrote in 2011 has photos of her in 1990...

That's all I have for now.  Thanks for reading.  Be good to one other, and, as always, I bid you Peace.

 

More Hangar Talk, and the so-called "Shelf of Doom"

Howdy, again!

The leaves on the dogwoods are turning, the mornings have become cool and crisp, and that tells me that the seasons are again changing.  I love this time of year.  It was especially nice when I worked in the hangar, as it meant that the sweltering furnace days of summer were once again departing for a while…

*****     *****     *****     *****     *****     *****
About 15 years ago (and it seems like yesterday!), the shop I was working for gained a new technician.  The boss called us all into the office to let us know what was going on.  See, the new technician was a woman.  He wanted to remind us to be on our best behavior.  As the line from the commercial goes, he wanted “no fussin’, no cussin’, and no backtalkin’”...

When she started, I asked her about her experience.  And boy, did she have a lot of aviation experience—I think she held most every certificate that was available.  She held an A&P IA, DME, pilot commercial multi-engine, both land and seaplane, sailplanes, you name it.  She owned her own shop for a while, too.  She was also very cool—she fully realized she was a lady in a man’s world, but that didn’t faze her.  She was put on one of the install teams initially, working on Cessna Citations back in the day when we were retrofitting them to comply with the Reduced Vertical Separations Minimums (RVSM) requirements.  The mods were simple, really—we replaced the air data computers, re-certified the pitot-static systems, and did flight tests after the fact.  Like me when I started at this shop, she had a lot of rust to knock off, but once she did, she was working at the same pace as the rest of us.

All the while, we were careful to mind our p’s and q’s.  We tempered our language—we kept a pretty “clean” shop as it was, but every now and then someone would utter an expletive.  We also tried to mind our manners—no rude noises, etc.  So far, things were going well.

About three or four months into her stint with us, we brought a Citation in for more than just the RVSM mods—we were also going to update the ancient radios with new Garmin units, which meant a lot more work.  Unlike most shops in the region, we removed the old wiring that wasn’t going to be retained (usually, that meant the output wiring to the navigation indicators and the autopilot), and that meant some tedious picking and choosing, looking at wire numbers that were less than 1/16” tall on small gauge (22 American Wire Gauge—AWG), so it takes some time.  At first, you feel as if you are walking in mud, but once you get the hang of it, it moves quicker.

There are pitfalls.  One of the other technicians dared to remove all the bundle ties on a bundle, and then started tugging wires out of it.  That creates some chaos—like putting the toothpaste back in the tube, it sometimes becomes difficult.  Sure, all the wires came out of that bundle, but the bundle was tied on a harness board, so all the wires weren’t necessarily the same length.  He got the bundle re-tied, but in the process, the bundle was shortened.  He did his best to re-connect it to the bulkhead feed-through connector. 

Our new girl started to do the next phase of the work.  She asked us to come and help her find landmarks, and as we were standing there looking at the feed through panel, she noticed the re-tied bundle.  Now, she was all of five-feet nothing, and very quiet and polite.  Until now.  She looked at the bundle (which was tight as a banjo string), looked at each of us in turn, then pointed at it and exclaimed “What in the fuck do you call this?!?”

After that, the gloves were off.  We found out her father was a Marine, and that she could cuss better than all the rest of us combined.  We all got along famously after that.

She became the shop crew chief in 2004, and briefly managed the shop.  I loved working with her, because she worked as hard as we did.  If we were working overtime, she’d be there with us (unlike the manager she replaced, a guy who had no clue what avionics were let alone how they worked).  More times than not, when we were required to work weekends, she would make breakfast for the crew.  When I say she would make breakfast, I mean exactly that—she would cook breakfast in her own kitchen and bring it to us.  No sack of Egg McMuffins or Bojangle’s biscuits would do, not from her…and she would go far over and above.  For four technicians, she’d have pancakes, waffles, fruit, toast, omelets, grits, and some form of juice.  Like my mother, she would make five times as much as she actually needed.

I think the push from upper management created too much stress (I found this to be true when I managed the same shop after she left), so she resigned when the FAA offered her a Safety Inspector position.  She’s been working for the FAA since 2006.

Speaking of ladies in the hangar and rude noises, I’m reminded of a more recent story, which I may tell you at some point…
 

*****    *****     *****     *****     *****     *****
The new job is going swimmingly.  Of course, it has created a need—I need a new computer.  And there is nothing I hate more than buying a new computer.  Why?  Because I know the machine I buy that is state-of-the-art today will be obsolescent in a month…

Like buying a new car, you go into the deal knowing that the model you pay out big bucks for today will not be worth a tenth of that in a week.  Oh, well, it is a necessity, and I think I have found a decent machine that will do what I need.  Of course, I also need to get a couple of large displays to make my life easier, too, and I think I found a pair that fit the bill. 

I’ll probably pull the trigger later this week.  Then comes the joy of configuring it and getting it to gee and haw with the remote desktop

*****     *****     *****     *****     *****     *****
On the model front, the majority of the backlog cabinet is done.  Some call this the "Shelf of Doom" for some odd reason--I simply look at it as a collection of models that needed some time to percolate while I solved problems.  In other cases, they were long-term projects from the start--vac-form kits, especially, tend to need more thought and engineering than a standard injection-molded plastic or cast resin kit.  Rather than push the issue, I merely put them aside to give me time to hash out the details.

*****     *****     *****     *****     *****     *****
The Aeroclub 1/48^th scale Gloster Gamecock is in need of serial numbers, a final clear coat, and some small details.  It was a fun project—my first vac-form kit since 2001, my first rigged airplane since 2000, and my first biplane model since 1995.  Frankly, I wasn’t real happy with it before I rigged it and started adding all the little bits and bobs to add detail.  I’m actually now quite pleased with the result.  Is it accurate?  I don’t know, maybe 97%.  Is it to scale?  Hell, no, but that’s always the way—we make certain trade-offs in order to make a model look right in the end analysis.

*****     *****     *****     *****     *****     *****

Also complete is a Reheat Models 120mm SR-71/U-2 pilot, a figure that was sitting in the display case three-quarters of the way done, has been finished.  Honestly, all I needed to do was add the completed air conditioner pack, some hoses and small details (photoetched bits, some fine wire, and paint), and do some minor touch-ups.  I don’t recall what the hold-up was—perhaps the flag?  That was perhaps the easiest part—I used a decal from an old Liveries Unlimited sheet…

*****     *****     *****     *****     *****     *****
I also dusted off a Bluejacket Shipcrafters’ 1/192^nd scale USS Monitor.  I shelved it a few years ago when the turret did not come out the way I had hoped.  I tried to salvage it, but in the end, I decided to scratchbuild one.  I also used .020” styrene sheet, suitably scribed, to replicate the deck, and will use varying thicknesses of primer to do the same for the hull plates.  I also have some good photos of the actual turret under restoration, so I want to add some of the more prominent details there.

*****     *****     *****     *****     *****     *****  
The 1/12^th scale Ernst Udet bust I started as a face painting demonstration is also finished.  Again, a few hours with some paint, and it was done.  It had been sitting on the bench for several years, and I would pick at it every now and then.  Funny how that works. 

*****     *****     *****     *****     *****     *****
The last one in the queue is a Reheat 120mm figure of Neil Armstrong on the moon.  I had assembled it when I lived in Florida, and it had been sitting ever since.  In the interceding time, I learned of some discrepancies on the figure, especially some of the details of the A7-L suit Neil wore.  The more I looked, the more I found.  Fortunately, they were all fixable

The legs are particularly bad-Reheat modeled four cargo pockets on the suit.  Rather large cargo pockets.  On the Apollo 11 A7-L suits, the shins had no pockets, only reinforcement panels.  The right thigh had a flap that covered the Urine Collection Device and medical ports.  And the left thigh had a flat pouch for checklists.  The fix?  Sand and cut away all the fictitious things and replace them.  In this case, all but the left thigh pockets were sanded flush—I tried to retain as much of the fold/crease detail as I could.  The left thigh pocket was sanded down, but not totally away.  Then, I broke out the Apoxie Scuplt epoxy putty. 

The putty was mixed and rolled thin between sheets of wax paper.  The sheet of epoxy putty was then cut into shapes and placed onto the figure.  Some pressure from my fingers pushed the putty into shape, then a toothpick and a scribe were used to work the various shapes onto the figure and to continue the fold/crease detailing.  Water was used to keep the putty pliable and to prevent it from sticking to the tools.  Once everything was as I liked it, I used a brush and some Aves Safety Solvent to smooth everything out.  After curing overnight, the figure was buffed with a Scotchbrite pad and primed. 

*****     *****     *****     *****     *****     *****
That leaves only one model in work, and it will remain is stasis for the time being.  It is a 1999-issue of the Minicraft Models 1/144^th scale C-32 (Boeing 757-200) that I initially began as part of a decal review.  The more I looked, and the more the airliner modeling community examined the kit, massive issues came to light.  The trailing edges were too thick, the vertical tail was too short, and the wings were misaligned—one sat higher than the other by a not inconsiderable margin.  I had started to thin the trailing edges and figure out a solution to the misalignment when I lost interest in the project.  However, in recent months Zvesda from Ukraine has produced a gorgeous new kit of the airplane, and rather than practice bleed using the Minicraft kit, I will build the Zvesda example.  Whether I use the decals I was initially reviewing is still up in the air, but at this point the Minicraft kit will become a paint mule…

*****     *****     *****     *****     *****     *****

Of course, I still have my buddy Rick’s SIDNA kits (a Fujimi A-7B and a pair of Hasegawa F-16's in 1/72nd scale) that are in various stages of construction, and I have pondered dragging them out after these few remaining kits are checked off the list.  But the fact that my personal backlog is empty (or nearly so) is a big deal—at one point, I counted a dozen projects in work, and this was over and above the projects for the RIPCORD diorama…

That’s all I have for now.  Thanks for reading.  Be good to one another, look after one another, and, as always, I bid you Peace.

Some Insight

Howdy, all!

Last time out, I made a comment that my hobby of scale modeling led to my career/vocation paths.  To refresh your memory, they were (in no particular order) history, aviation, research, writing, and hanging out at the hobby shop.

This is one of those "about me for myself" pieces I talked about last time, but I thought this one might be fun to share.

When my father brought home a Revell 1/32 scale Wildcat model kit, I don't think he realized the vast worlds he was opening up to me. 

I was an early reader.  I've been told that I could read before I was four years old.  As I got older, I loved to read.  I would read pretty much anything I could get my hands on.  When we started building that model, I was only concerned about the three-dimensional puzzle in the box.  However, one night, as I waited for Dad to come to the table for our modeling session, I started to read the side of the box.  Then I noticed that the instruction sheet contained more than just how to get the parts together—the front page had a capsule history of the airplane and its exploits during WWII.  Before I read it, I just thought the little pudgy airplane looked neat, but as I read about how it was the Navy’s front line fighter airplane in the early days of the war, and how it was flying against faster, more maneuverable enemy airplanes, my interest grew.  I looked for books in the school library about the war, and learned about the Battles of the Coral Sea, the Battle of Midway, Wake Island, and the Solomons.  Each new discovery led me to learn more.  I’d find one nugget that would lead me to three more. 

That’s research, kids.  I do a lot of research to this day—most of what I do uses what are known as secondary sources, so it is technically “Research Lite” (Less Filling!  Tastes Great!), although I did start to use primary sources when we were up to our necks in the Fire Support Base RIPCORD project a year or so ago.  What’s the difference?  Primary sources are from either official accounts from the units involved or from the guys who were actually there and participated.  SITREPS, diaries, After Action reports, first hand witnesses—those are all primary source materials.  Secondary sources are what you find on the shelves at the local Barnes and Noble—books written about events where the author may (or may not) have used primary sources.  (As “true” researchers know, you take all secondary sources with a grain of salt…)

As I researched things, I’d write about them.  I wrote a lot of book reports, sure, but sometimes I’d write just for myself.  They were more a collection of notes, but every now and then I would collect those thoughts into an article for the local modeling club newsletter.  I laid off writing for a while, but with the COVID shutdown I’ve managed to get a little of my groove back, and have once again been pumping out modeling articles, and they’re now being published in the national organizations’ magazines. 

The more models I built, the more I wanted to build.  Unfortunately, like most things, it takes money to acquire and build models.  By the time I hit high school, I was at the age where I started to take my modeling more seriously.  A long-time modeler and author, Roscoe Creed, made mention of it when he “wondered where all the cracks went?” in one of his books  a book that I still refer to from time to time. 

I wanted to get rid of the seam lines.  I wanted to make it look like the pictures of the actual item.  As I learned of such things, I began using putty, decal setting solutions, these new-fangled super glues, and an airbrush.  Like the kits themselves, that stuff isn’t free.  More experience led me to discover the then-emerging world of the aftermarket—decals were the first thing I think most modelers encounter from the aftermarket, but later things like photoetched brass details, white metal and resin parts, vac-form kits, and other additions and conversions also became part of my repertoire.

Of course, by doing so, I was honing my skills as a craftsman and, dare I say, artist.  I was learning how to solve problems.  I developed a sense of spatial relationships--how stuff goes together.  It goes without saying that I developed a good eye for small details. 

After I graduated from college, I started to visit the local shop more frequently.  I became a regular, and eventually I was asked if I wanted to do some fill-in work.  Before long, I was a regular part-time employee, and would remain so until I moved out of state.  During a layoff period about 10 years later, I got a job at the local hobby shop here.  I was only there for a few months, but when my next full-time employer picked up and left, I went to work for the shop again. 

What helped me get the job, I think, is that I was familiar with all the stuff one needed to complete a model.  I was also interested in going the extra mile when I built my models, and I knew what that took, so I could guide others when they came looking for hobby stuff.  Many see retail sales as a drag, but I saw it as a chance to get paid while playing with toys.  Hence, my days hanging out at the hobby shop...

Now, how about the aviation thing…

I have no idea what first got me hooked on airplanes.  Perhaps it was the Wildcat model.  More likely, it was reading of the exploits of the men who flew them in the war; the Wildcat model was merely the first step on the path.  For many years, I wasn’t interested in a book if (A) it was not related to aviation; or (B) the word “fiction” was not preceded by “non”.  I have to believe it was that—the more I read, the more I learned, and the more I wanted to be part of that world.  Interestingly, I never really wanted to be a pilot.  I can’t say why, I just never saw that as where I would be.  More on that shortly…

In my day, teachers were almost always matronly ladies in their late 30’s to early 50’s.  However, my fourth grade teacher was an exception.  I guess she was in her late 20’s--I seem to recall she had only recently received her teaching credentials at that time.  She was a pretty, petite, energetic lady, blonde with a deep tan, and was always smiling.  Her name was Miss Gerstle (Nancy, if I recall correctly).  Her last name rhymes with the chocolate company’s name, and we often called her “Miss Nestlé-Gerstle”.  From the little bit I managed to gather on her by listening to her, she lived with a few roommates and they all worked on the weekends as flight attendants (we called them “stewardesses” back in the day) for Mackey Airlines, a small scheduled airline that flew from Ft. Lauderdale to the Bahamas, in order to earn a little extra money. 

I don’t know if she lined it up, but one day we took a field trip to Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport and got to walk around some airplanes.  I seem to recall a Mackey airplane, maybe a DC-6, and it sat next to an Eastern Airlines (IIRC) 727 which was powered up, and we could walk through it.  We spent a few hours walking around the airplanes, asking questions, and talking with the pilots and “stews”.  I loved it.

An interesting tidbit—when I graduated from college and landed my first “adult” job, I worked from that same ramp, by that time occupied by the National Jets/Florida Aircraft Leasing facilities.  Small world, right? 

I don’t know what happened to Miss Gerstle, but wherever she is, I hope she is still smiling brightly and doing well.  She was a breath of fresh air for me…

Later, while going through the steps to earn my Aviation merit badge, somehow I got what we call today a “Discovery Flight”.  We went to the airport bright and early, got the whole briefing, got to do the preflight on the airplane, then we went out for a flight over Ft. Lauderdale.  Sitting in the pilot seat, I couldn’t see over the glareshield! I enjoyed the flight, but decided that while it looked like fun, I wasn't interested in being a pilot. 

As I started high school, I was shunted into what we would call a STEM program—back in those days, it didn’t have a name, but it put me on a track that emphasized math and science.  We only had to take two science and two math classes over four years, but I had four of each.  Somewhere along the line, it was intimated that I should become an aeronautical engineer, but as I related a long time ago, that didn’t work out so well.  But I never abandoned my interest, and eventually went back to school and earned two degrees from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University that said I had what it took to be a genuine wire stringer, smoke wrangler, electron herder, and spark chaser—I became an avionics technician.

For most of my 30+ years chasing sparks, I worked in the world of corporate aviation—Learjets were my bread and butter, along with Hawkers and Citations.  From time to time, I also worked on General Aviation craft—the little Cessna and Piper “puddle jumpers” that you see at your local airport—and business class turboprops like the Beechcraft King Air and Cessna Conquest families.

It was a demanding career, to be sure.  I worked in 100+ degree heat and 20 degree cold.  I worked in the sun, the rain, and sometimes even snow.  Many times, we worked from “can” to “can’t”—we did what we needed to do to keep ‘em flying.  It was hot, dirty, demanding work at times—especially at my last stop, where I was also the airframe electrician.  If something provided electrical power or had a wire or air data line leading to it, it was in my wheelhouse.

I was always acutely aware that if I failed in my job, people could be injured or killed in a most loud and grotesque manner.  I accepted the challenge.  Not everybody is cut out for such a critical job, and as I began to supervise others, that would be my first question to them.  If they were cavalier or flip, I wouldn’t hire them.  If you wanted to work with me, you had to not only be aware of the consequences of your actions, you had to accept that any little deviation, a nanosecond of inattention, and you could possibly kill someone…

Incidentally, I don’t really like to fly.  Maybe it has something to do with the fact that 95% of the flying I have done in my lifetime has been done because I *had* to in the line of duty.  Flying for me was almost a mandatory thing, and much like running on a treadmill—we made a lot of noise and expended a lot of effort to basically go nowhere--it quickly became work. 

For most folks, flying is a way to get from what you know to an unexplored exotic location on the other side of the globe, some sort of personal adventure, and flying is merely a gateway to that adventure.  It is quite different when you know how the sausage is made and have to do it every day.

When the folks I was working for picked up stakes and left in 2016, I stayed put.  I decided that my days of crawling around on hard hangar floors or cramming myself into ever smaller spaces were behind me.  Since I had done a lot of the documentation that aircraft modifications required, I decided to use my writing skills and my avionics knowledge to start down the path to being a Technical Writer.  My mother, who taught Latin, always said that I had technical hands and a liberal arts brain, and this seemed to be the best of both worlds.

And that’s how scale modeling made me who I am today.  A gift from my father awakened an interest in history, and also fed my reading and research habit.  What I learned through my reading led to an interest in aviation, helped along by a teacher and a merit badge.  The technical aspects of the hobby sharpened my problem solving skills, helped me develop good hand-eye coordination and spurred me to develop a keen eye for small details and a sense of craftsmanship and artistry.  The marriage of all this led to where I am right now. 

And it started with a model airplane.

Thanks for reading.  Be good to one another, and look after each other.  As always, I Bid you Peace.

Model Contests Revisited…Again

Howdy, everyone!

Well, the 2021 edition of the South Carolina Scale Model Mega Show is in the books.  As with most larger events, we experienced the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.  In no particular order:

The Good

We developed a new format for the show this year—well, actually we developed it last year when it appeared we would postpone from June until August, but the COVID shutdowns resulted in our show’s cancellation.  Since we had been moving in this direction and eventually wanted to alter the show’s format anyway, we pulled what we had done out of the box and set upon refining it.

I could write a long description and intent piece, but for that, go to the show’s website and read about it:  https://scmegashow.com

Our show format was developed using the best parts of several available show formats, systems, and methodology.  In a nutshell, we combined the field judging and scoring system from AMPS, employed the judging methodology from IPMS for the "big" awards (Class and Best of Show), and coupled it to the exhibition and display format espoused by the Military Miniatures Society of Illinois. 

At the end of the day (a very long day, indeed!), we believe this system has merit.  We had our share of rocks in the road, to be sure, and will work on removing them, and we’ll try it again next year.

The Bad 

Using a new system requires some intense training, more so than a “normal” model show.  As a result of COVID, our ideal method—in-person dry runs—wasn’t possible.  We did host a judges training session and simulcast it via Zoom, but there was much more that needed to be learned outside of the judging method.

As a result, problems began at the registration table, and these problems were transmitted down the line.  A mistake at registration affected the scoring team, which affected the judging teams, which resulted in delays.  Judging was slated to begin at 9:30, but didn’t begin until nearly 11.  By a lot of hard work, that margin—90 minutes—remained more or less steady.  The awards program, scheduled for 3, began right around 4:30, and the venue was cleared by 7—compared to previous shows, this wasn’t too far off what we were accustomed to.

But it may have seemed much longer than 90 minutes—the venue’s HVAC failed, and I don’t think I need to tell anyone what June in Columbia, South Carolina is like.  It was hot.  It was humid.  It was stuffy.  It was something we as the show hosts had zero control over, so we had to no choice but to grin and bear it.

The Ugly

When it comes to model shows, The Ugly usually shows up after the fact.  To wit:

We’ve discovered several anomalies in registration that resulted in some confusing awards packages (the wrong score sheets, etc.)—we’re working to rectify that over the next few days. 

We have seen one case of a person badmouthing the show due to a perceived slight to one of his buddy’s models.  You know the drill—“He was robbed!  It should have won Best in Class AND Best of Show!  This show is shit and the judging is questionable!”

Now, we always take claims of sketchy judging seriously--any model show is only as good as the contest's integrity.  However, we also temper those claims by reviewing our records, and when someone whines about our judging being "questionable" but didn't bother to get up off his fourth point of contact and lend a hand when the calls for judging volunteers went out, we tend to dismiss the claims as sour grapes.

Incidentally, this guy isn’t registering his complaints through any of the show’s official communications channels—we have our website, complete with e-mail and telephone numbers, and a Facebook page where we are able to communicate via Facebook Messenger.  No, he’s on a private Facebook page that is visible only to its members.  He’s been given the opportunity to engage with us privately, so far he has not done so.

I also find it interesting that we have heard nothing from the entrant himself.

Now, was he “robbed”?  If he was, he did it to himself.  See, as the day wore on, people began packing up and heading to the doors.  Several announcements were made, reminding folks that the judging was still in progress, and they should leave their models on the tables.  Can you see where this is going?

Yep, the entrant packed up his model and went home.  The sad part?  The model in question was indeed in the running for Best in Class, and most likely would have taken that award as well as the Best of Show.  Had he heeded the announcements and stuck around, he would have been King of the Show.  But we can’t force people to stick around, and most people who enter model shows understand that if you leave before the show is over, you stand to forfeit any awards your model might earn.

The moral of the story?  Hang around until the bitter end.  Yeah, I know, people want to go home.  I get that.  But if you want to "get what's coming to you", you need to be there, and your model needs to be available throughout the entire judging process.

Yeah, we had some issues.  Tell me about a single large event that doesn’t.  Add into the equation our new, untried, untested format, and yeah, shit happens.  But we will take what we learned on Saturday and learn from our mistakes.  I can assure you that they will all be addressed and rectified before our next show.

So, why use a new format?  Why reinvent the wheel?

If you’ve stuck with me for any length of time, you know that I’m not a fan of what IPMS/USA calls “healthy competition” (which over the years has become closer to a WWE "Hell in a Cell" Hard-Core Death Match than the friendly contest than I have to believe was the original intent) when it comes to scale modeling.  People debate me on whether we engage in art or craft, but we all agree that what we do is fueled by our individual creativity.  How do you say that one person’s creativity is “better” than another person's creativity?

I would much rather host a straight, no-competition, scale model exhibition than a head-to-head contest.  In our new format, the contest is there simply because people seem to have an aversion to showing their work without the ability to take home a big shiny something for their efforts.  We’re trying to give folks the best of both worlds, and with a little refinement we believe it will work.  We’ll face a bit of a challenge next time, as we’ll have to conquer the small amount of “See, we told you that your cockamamie scheme wouldn’t work” sentiment that will be out in the world, but we think we’re on the right track. 

Come by next year and see for yourself.

In other news, I have had not one, but two of my models featured in the IPMS/USA Journal.  One of them is the Sea King, the other is a 1/72^nd scale F-4J(UK) built from the Academy kit.  Coupled with the FSB RIPCORD article, I’ve become quite prolific (he says with a chuckle)…

An article on the Monogram 1/72^nd scale F-82 project will be appearing in a future issue of the Journal, and as long as they ask, I’ll keep providing articles.  Along with my efforts to teach Model Building 101, the articles are my way to “give back” to the hobby, a hobby that has been a major part of my life since I was seven years old, taught me so many life lessons, and introduced me not only to a bunch of super people—including my wife!—but also opened the way to my careers in history, aviation, research, writing, and hanging out at the hobby shop. 

That’s a funny, that last one, in case you were curious…

Along with all the model articles I’ve been batting out, I’ve been engaged in some other writing projects, projects that are for me and me alone.  I’ve been battling a little bit of writer’s block on some “serious” projects, so as a way to get back into the groove I’ve been writing to myself about myself—as they say, if you don’t know what to write, write about what you know.  In this case, it is as much about the part of myself that I know as it is discovering the “me” that I didn’t realize was there. 

Call it a diary, a journal, or a retrospective, I’m finding it to be refreshing, interesting, revealing, embarrassing, sad, funny, and, well, satisfying.  You should try it sometime.

That’s all I have for now.  It has been a while since we saw each other, and I hope all of you are well.  If you are inclined to do so, get vaccinated.  The only way we’re going to get past COVID and back to some semblance of normal is through science…

Until next we meet, be good to one another, and, as always, I bid you Peace.

Scale Modeling—Art or Craft?

Howdy, all…

So, which is it?  Are we artists?  Craftsmen?  Neither?  Both?

Anybody who has skimmed the various online forums has seen this argument before.  A model is featured, and viewers proclaim it as “fine art”.  Others reply that modeling isn’t an art, it is craft.  Who is correct?  Is either correct?  Or is neither one correct?

Let’s see what the dictionary has to say…

Merriam-Webster has several entries for “Art”, but the one that best fits our question is “the conscious use of skill and creative imagination, especially in the production of aesthetic objects.  Also: works so produced.”

As for “Craft”, there are likewise several entries, but the one that interests us is “An occupation or trade requiring manual dexterity or artistic skill.”

Boy, that was helpful, wasn’t it.  Let’s see what that great repository for all Internet knowledge, Wikipedia, has to add…

“Art is a diverse range of human activities involving the creation of visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), which express the creator's imagination, conceptual ideas, or technical skill, intended to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.”

“A craft or trade is a pastime or a profession that requires particular skills and knowledge of skilled work. In a historical sense, particularly the Middle Ages and earlier, the term is usually applied to people occupied in small-scale production of goods, or their maintenance, for example by tinkers. The traditional term craftsman is nowadays often replaced by artisan and by craftsperson.”

Hmm.  Let’s look further…

In the entry for “Art”, Wikipedia goes on the say this:  “Though there is no generally agreed definition of what constitutes art, and ideas have changed over time, general descriptions typically include an idea of imaginative or technical skill stemming from human agency and creation. The nature of art and related concepts, such as creativity and interpretation, are explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics.”

Now we seem to be making headway.

What does the Great and Powerful Wiki say about “Craft”?  “Handicraft is the "traditional" main sector of the crafts, it is a type of work where useful and decorative devices are made completely by hand or by using only simple tools. Usually the term is applied to traditional means of making goods. The individual artisanship of the items is a paramount criterion; such items often have cultural and/or religious significance. Items made by mass production or machines are not handicraft goods. Handicraft goods are made with craft production processes.” 

In case you were wondering and didn’t want to click on the link, Craft production, as defined by Wikipedia, is “manufacturing by hand, with or without the aid of tools. The term ‘craft production’ describes manufacturing techniques that are used in handicraft hobbies and that were the common methods of manufacture – as in the production of pottery – in the pre-industrialized world.”

Hmm…where does *that* leave us?

Perhaps now it is time to use those guidelines and apply them to what we do.  But first, what *do* we do when we build a scale model?  I mean, all it entails is sticking plastic (and sometimes metal and resin and maybe wood) bits together, right?

Right.

As I like to point out in Model Building 101, building models is both.  Preparing and sticking the bits together is no different than building furniture—we remove parts from the runners, clean up the molding flaws, and stick them together.  A woodworker rough cuts their boards and smooths them so they are straight and square (you’ll see it referred to as “S6S”, square on six sides), then cuts them to size and assembles them.  During assembly, all joints are made to be tight, and the piece is measured again and again to ensure it is straight, square, and plumb.  If there are visible joints, they are dressed to eliminate or disguise them.  These steps are handicraft and craft production methods.

We engage in our handicraft using those same craft production methods.  Along the line, we make allowances for the artisanship of the finished model by dealing with flaws—inherent molding flaws, construction flaws, and finish flaws.  We ensure the core of our models—armor and ship hulls, aircraft fuselages, wheeled vehicle chassis—are straight, square, and plumb. These skills are more or less part and parcel of building a model for a skilled model builder.  That is the “craft” of building a model.

Where the art comes into play is with the finishing steps.  Woodworkers sometimes use carved or specially cut and/or finished trim pieces to embellish the piece they are building, and then apply a smooth finish that is complementary to the construction material—sometimes employing a clear finish to highlight the grain and figure of wood, other times using pigmented paint simply as an aesthetic step to make the piece attractive. 

Scale modelers engage in art when they apply the finish to their models, too.  We apply paint to more realistically match the colors of the actual item, or to change the color of the material the model is molded from.  From there, some modelers use various techniques to add wear and tear to the model, and/or adds the markings seen on the original that places it at a certain place and time.  The trick here is to fool the viewers’ eyes into believing that the model they are looking at is an exact copy, in miniature, of the item used as reference (and inspiration) for the process of building the model.

So, we are both “artists” and “craftsman” in my book.

But at the end of the day, does it really matter what we call ourselves?  I am fond of saying this about our hobby—there are as many ways to enjoy it as there are people enjoying it.

You do you.  The Late Al Superczynski, a long time denizen of the rec.models.scale Usenet group, contributor to “Internet Modeler’, and a fine modeler, used to say “Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and above all, have fun."  He was absolutely right. 

*****     *****     *****     *****     *****
I received a few messages on my last post concerning Robert McNamara.

First, I fully realize that there was a *lot* more to the story than what I wrote.  Entire volumes have been written about TFX alone.  This is a blog, not a fully-funded research and reference site, and my posts are aimed at people who didn’t know about these subjects before and those who would take what is there are do some legwork on their own to get the whole story.  That’s the danger with some internet articles—they don’t tell the whole story, or they can be misleading or outright incorrect.

Speaking of being misleading, it was also brought to my attention that I may have been a little unfair to the Navy’s TFX variant, the F-111B.  Perhaps I was.  So, in an attempt to atone…

The issues the Navy had with TFX were said to be that the airplane was too big and too heavy to operate off the decks of the carriers.  But if you read the accounts made during the F-111B’s early sea trials, it doesn’t seem to be the case.  Without trying to re-write what has already been written, I’m going to direct you to Tommy Thomason’s excellent blog, “Tailhook Topics” and his entries on the F-111B, starting with this one:  http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2009/03/f-111b-carrier-trials.html . 

As for the “too big and too heavy”, here’s Tommy’s piece that compares the F-111B and its eventual replacement, the F-14A:  http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/01/f-111b-versus-f-14a-one-more-time.html.

So, it appears that the airplane was capable of the job.  Tommy points out two pertinent points in the second link, however—first, the Hughes radar and missile system development was a few years behind the development of the aircraft, so had the F-111B had gone into full production it would have been initially without the AN/AWG-9 and the Phoenix missiles.  It was another case of desire outstripping technology—similar issues plagued the Convair F-102, a supersonic interceptor that couldn’t break Mach 1.0 in its original form.  It took application of newly formulated aerodynamic data and a redesign of the fuselage to make it barely supersonic.  All the while, the fire control system development was fraught with issues, and these issues led to not only the Convair F-106, but also the McDonnell F-101B interceptor version of the Voodoo.

The second point Tommy makes is that the Navy was wise to unburden itself from TFX, since the airplane they would have received (like the airplane the USAF *did* receive) was compromised by trying to accommodate both the Fleet Air Defense and low-level supersonic interdiction missions with the same airplane—it just so happened that the airplane performed the Air Force’s mission better.  That should have surprised nobody, since TFX started as a USAF project that was being adapted to also fit the Navy’s mission.

While there were deficiencies with the Tomcat as well, there were other facets of the F-14A program that made it a better fit for the Navy.  Plus, it was supported by the Navy’s mid-level commanders, unlike TFX.  In short, TFX suffered in the Navy due to the NIH (Not Invented Here) theory—the Navy had previously held full dominion on the design and production of their weapons systems, and TFX took that away because it was a system dictated to the Navy by the Pentagon and managed by the USAF.

And yeah, I’m sure I probably missed a few items.  Again, if you want to know more, go dig.  The information is out there…

And if you have an interest in the F-111B (or any other Naval Aviation subject, for that matter) and have not read Tommy’s blog, you really should.  In addition to “Tailhook Topics” there is a sister blog, “U.S. Navy Aircraft History”.  Check them both out, won’t you?

*****     *****     *****     *****     *****

As of right now, the South Carolina Scale Model Mega Show will go forward on the weekend of 18/19 June (Friday the 18^th is a set-up day, the show happens on Saturday).  Last week, we added the title of “2021 IPMS/USA Region 12 Regional Convention” to the show, and we’re looking forward to that.

Our contest format this year will be unlike anything IPMS or AMPS has seen on a regular basis.  We decided to move our show to more of a social event and exhibition.  We’ve combined what we think are the best aspects of the Military Miniatures Society of Illinois (MMSI) show and the AMPS scoring system.  Entrants will pay a small fee that will allow them to display as many models as will fit in a ~30 inch square space.  They can designate one of their models for judges’ evaluation and scoring, and they can select their skill level at the same time.  Two teams of two judges will evaluate and score the model, and the score earned will be used to determine if the model earns a medal.  Better still, the score sheet and written judges’ feedback will be returned to the entrant to be used to aid them in becoming a better modeler.  Medalists will be eligible for Class awards (best aircraft, etc.) and Best of Show award.  There will be several Special Awards available, too.  The best part of this format is that there will be chairs behind the displays so that the entrant can sit and talk with folks who are admiring their models, share techniques, and enjoy themselves.  We’re hoping it is a more relaxed environment where modelers can gather and admire models.  After all, that should be what the hobby is about—models not medals.   

If you’re in the area, come on by and spend some time with us.

Thanks for reading.  Until next time, be good to one another, stay safe and healthy, and as always, I bid you Peace.  

Phun with Phantoms

This article is part of a series of articles I've been working on lately.  Again, the Technical Writer in me lives for this sort of thing, so it gets a bit, well, technical... 

This article was previously published in the October 2020 issue of the IPMS/Mid-Carolina Newsflash.  Incidentally, you may view our club's newsletters on our website.

**********************************************

“Never forget that, at the most, the teacher can give you fifteen percent of the art. The rest you have to get for yourself through practice and hard work. I can show you the path but I cannot walk it for you.” -- Kung Fu Master Tan Soh Tin

The Short Form Scale Modeler’s Guide to the F-4 Phantom II

I’ve embarked on several F-4 projects lately.  When I started talking about my plans with some folks, I got a lot of questions about the F-4 in general.  Every question I answered spawned three more questions.  Since there have been dozens (literally!) of volumes written about the F-4, this short guide will serve only to point you in the right direction for your F-4 project.  You are encouraged to use this as a stepping stone for your own research.  And, as always, if you see something in error, leave a comment.  I'm not so proud to admit I make mistakes...

Origins

The McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II (initially the McDonnell XF4H-1) was originally designed as the XAH-1, a single seat attack fighter for the U.S. Navy.  A development of their earlier F3H Demon, the McDonnell Aircraft Company started with an enlarged twin-engine aircraft based on the F3H Demon—Wright J65’s or General Electric J79’s were the proposed powerplants.  At the time, the Navy passed—they had the F9F Cougar and F8U Cutlass fighters, and were starting to use the Douglas A4D Skyhawk in the ground attack role. 

McDonnell redesigned the airplane to be a supersonic fleet defense interceptor.  They chose the J79 afterburning turbojet engines to propel the aircraft.  A second crew member was added, McDonnell correctly surmising that the extra crew member would help shoulder some of the information load that came with modern military aviation.  The Navy ordered two prototypes on 25 July 1955, and the first flight of the XF4H-1 was on 27 May 1958. 

Initially, the type was to be named “Satan” or “Mithras”, keeping with the company’s penchant for using the names of supernatural apparitions for their airplanes (previous examples being the XF-85 Goblin, FH Phantom, F2H Banshee, and F3H Demon).  The proposed names were passed over in favor of “Phantom II”.  When the type initially entered USAF service as the F-110A, it was named “Spectre”, but the name was short-lived.  In 1962, the type was designated F-4 Phantom II under the Tri-Service Designation system.  The USAF’s F-110A became the F-4C after the initial XF4H-1 and F4H-1F’s became F-4A and the later F4H-1’s became the F-4B.

5,195 examples were produced, including 138 license-built aircraft in Japan.  They were used by Australia (24 new F-4E’s on lease while problems with the F-111C were being ironed out), Egypt (ex-USAF F-4E), Germany (new F-4F and RF-4E), Greece (new and ex-USAF F-4E and new RF-4E), Iran (new F-4D, F-4E, and RF-4E), Israel (new and ex-USAF F-4E and new RF-4E), Japan (new F-4EJ, including 138 built by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, and new RF-4E), South Korea (ex-USAF F-4D and new and ex-USAF F-4E), Spain (ex-USAF F-4C and RF-4C), Turkey (new and ex-USAF F-4E and new RF-4E), and the United Kingdom (new F-4K/FG.1, F-4M/FGR.2, and ex-USN/USMC F-4J).

The last St. Louis-built F-4 (an F-4E bound for South Korea) rolled out of McDonnell’s plant in 1979; the last ever Phantom II built (an F-4EJ) came off the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries production line in 1981.  Some are still in limited use today.  How’s that for longevity?

The Phantom Phamily

F-4A:               A retroactive post-1962 designation for the XF4H-1/F4H-1F prototypes.

F-4B:               Initial production model for the USN/USMC, formerly the F4H-1.

F-4C:               Minimum change F-4B for the USAF with 11.5” wide main gear and bulged wing.

F-4D:               F-4C with improved air-to-ground capability.

F-4E:               Added internal M61A1 Vulcan cannon in an elongated nose for the USAF.

F-4EJ:             Lightweight F-4E with simpler avionics for the Japanese Air Self Defense Force.

F-4EJ Kai:      Updated F-4EJ with new avionics and structural upgrades.

F-4F:               Lightweight F-4E for Germany with slatted wings.  No AIM-7 Sparrow capability.

F-4F ICE:        Updated F-4F with AIM-120 AMRAAM capability.

F-4G (USN):   Converted F-4B with datalink carrier autolanding system. 

F-4G (USAF): F-4E modified for the SEAD (“Wild Weasel”) mission (“Wild Weasel V”).

F-4J:               “Navalized” F-4C with the wider wheels/tires and updated avionics.

F-4K:               RR Spey-powered F-4J built for the Royal Navy, designated FG.1.

F-4M:              RR Spey-powered F-4J built for the Royal Air Force, designated FGR.2.

F-4N:               Updated F-4B’s with new avionics and structural changes.

F-4S:               Updated F-4J with new avionics and a slatted wing similar that of the F-4E.

RF-4B:            “Navalized” RF-4C for the USMC.  Most retained thin wheels/wing of the F-4B.

RF-4C:            Reconnaissance version of the F-4C for the USAF.

RF-4E:            Export RF-4 variant; hard-wing F-4E with RF-4C nose.

RF-4EJ Kai:   JASDF recon versions, two distinct aircraft configurations.  See notes. 

THE CHART OF PHANTOM PHEATURES

The major visible distinguishing features of the Phantom subtypes are the main landing gear, the wing, the stabilators, the afterburners, the nose, and aerial refueling method.

Main Landing Gear:  The F-4B, N, and RF-4B used a 7.7” wide main landing gear wheel and tire.  All other F-4 subtypes used an 11.5” wide main wheel and tire, necessitating the addition of a bulge in the inboard wing over and under the main landing gear wells and on the doors.  The F-4B/N and RF-4B wing was known as thin wing airplanes, the rest were called thick- or bulged wing airplanes.  The nose gear struts were different between the ship-based (F-4B/N, RF-4B, F-4J/S, and the FG.1) and land-based versions.  The U.S. ship-based versions could extend 20 inches for launch, while the FG.1 strut could extend 40 inches.

Wing:  Initially, the wing had leading and trailing edge flaps, and was called the “Hard” wing.  Beginning with the Block 48 F-4E’s, the leading edge flaps were deleted and leading edge slats replaced them.  Earlier surviving F-4E’s were retrofitted.  A similar (but not identical!) slatted wing was installed on the F-4S, a conversion of the F-4J.

Stabilators:  The first production stabilators had a solid, cambered leading edge.  The stabilators later received a cambered leading edge with aerodynamic slots that increased pitch authority in the low-speed regimes.  Initially installed on the F-4J as part of an approach speed lift improvement program, the slotted stabilator was used on all further shipboard versions as well as some of the land-based Phantoms.    

Afterburners:  The F-4B/N, RF-4B, RF-4C, and F-4C/D used short exhaust nozzles (J79-GE-8 and -15 engines).  All other J79 powered F-4’s used a longer exhaust (J79-GE-10 and -17).  The British Phantoms (FG.1 and FGR.2) used the Rolls Royce Spey (RB.168 Mk.202) turbofan engine, and had a larger exhaust nozzle that was smooth on the outside.

Nose: The F-4B/N, F-4C/D, F-4J/S, and the British Phantoms had a short nose housing a radar unit.  The F-4B/N and F-4C/D had a fairing for an infrared sensor under the nose.  This fairing was deleted on the F-4J/S and British versions.

The F-4E/EJ/F had an elongated radar nose with an under slung General Electric M61A1 Vulcan rotary 20mm cannon and 640 rounds of ammunition.  There was a gun gas purge scoop in front of the windscreen that was open on the ground and whenever the gun was fired.  The USAF F-4G had the gun removed and a sensor fairing installed where the gun’s muzzle was located as part of the Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD, or “Wild Weasel”) avionics package. 

The reconnaissance variants had an elongated nose full of cameras and other equipment.  There were two common designs for the recon nose—an earlier, flat bottomed angular nose and later, a curved bottom nose.  Consult photographs of the airplane you are interested in to determine which was fitted to that airplane. 

The environmental control system inlets on the long nose and reconnaissance airplanes were different from those on the short nose F-4’s, the earlier ones being smaller and more symmetrical. 

Aerial refueling method:  The USAF versions and their derivatives had a high-speed flying boom refueling receptacle on the spine; all others had a Probe and Drogue aerial refueling system with a retractable refueling probe on the right hand side of the forward fuselage.

Type (Initial Operator)	MLG	Wing	Stab	Exhaust	Nose	Refuel
XF4H-1/F-4A (USN)1	7.7”	Hard	Unslotted1	Short	Short1	Probe
F-4B (USN/USMC)	7.7”	Hard	Unslotted2	Short	Short, IR	Probe
RF-4B (USMC)	7.7”3	Hard	Slotted	Short	Recon	Probe
F-4C (USAF)	11.5”	Hard	Unslotted	Short	Short, IR4	Boom
RF-4C (USAF)	11.5”	Hard	Unslotted	Short	Recon5	Boom
F-4D (USAF)	11.5”	Hard	Unslotted	Short	Short, IR4	Boom
F-4E (USAF)	11.5”	Hard6	Slotted7	Long	Long	Boom8
F-4EJ (JASDF)9	11.5”	Hard	Slotted	Long	Long	None9
F-4EJ Kai* (JASDF)10	11.5”	Hard	Slotted	Long	Long	None
RF-4E (Luftwaffe)	11.5”	Hard11	Slotted	Long	Recon	Boom
RF-4EJ Kai* (JASDF)12	11.5”	Hard	Slotted	Long	Long	Boom
F-4F (Luftwaffe)13	11.5”	Slatted	Unslotted	Long	Long	None13
F-4G* (USN)14	7.7”	Slatted	Unslotted	Short	Short, IR	Probe
F-4G* (USAF)14	11.5”	Slatted	Slotted	Long	Long	Boom
F-4J (USN/USMC)	11.5”	Hard15	Slotted	Long16	Short16	Probe
F-4J(UK)* (RAF)17	11.5”	Hard	Slotted	Long	Short	Probe
F-4K (RN) (as FG.1)18	11.5”	Hard	Slotted	Spey	Short19	Probe
F-4M (RAF) (as FGR.2)	11.5”	Hard	Unslotted	Spey	Short19	Probe
F-4N* (USN/USMC)20	7.7”	Hard	Slotted	Short	Short, IR	Probe
F-4S* (USN/USMC)21	11.5”	Slatted	Slotted	Long	Short	Probe

* = Conversion, no new airframes built

Keyed Notes:

1. The XF4H-1 aircraft had different inlets, intake ramps, stabilators, and noses than the production variants.  Additionally, the early airframes had a flatter canopy profile.
2. Some F-4B’s would be retrofitted with the slotted stabilator late in their service life.
3. The last 10 production RF-4B’s had the wider 11.5” main landing gear and thick wing.  The last three had the rounded reconnaissance nose.
4. The IR sensor was not fitted to the F-4C or F-4D, but the empty fairing remained.
5. Consult photographs to determine which nose was fitted to a particular airplane. 
6. The F-4E received slatted wings with a thicker lower wing skin from Block 48.  Earlier surviving F-4E’s (except the Thunderbirds aircraft) were retrofitted with the slatted wing and a lower wing skin stiffener called a “belly strap”.
7. In 1972, F-4E stabilators had an arrowhead-shaped doubler installed mid-span.  Later, all surviving USAF F-4’s received this modification.  Photos exist of USN F-4’s with these, but it was the exception rather than the norm.
8. Some Israeli F-4E’s had a locally fabricated refueling probe fitted.
9. The F-4EJ was a lightweight version of the F-4E with simpler avionics and no aerial refueling equipment built for the Japan Air Self Defense Force.  All but 2 of the 140 were built in Japan by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.
10. The F-4EJ Kai was an updated F-4EJ, with structural modifications and new avionics.  The biggest visual cue is a series of external stiffeners on the radome. 
11. The RF-4E is basically a hard-wing, slotted stabilator F-4E fitted with an RF-4C nose.  The last two production blocks of the RF-4E for Greece and Turkey had the slatted wing. 
12. There are two distinct aircraft called RF-4EJ Kai.  The first is an upgraded RF-4E; the latter is an F-4EJ (non-Kai) modified to carry reconnaissance pods.
13. The F-4F was a lightweight version of the F-4E built for the West German Luftwaffe.  It lacked aerial refueling and AIM-7 Sparrow capability.  The ICE (Increased Combat Effectivity) program in 1989 upgraded 110 of these aircraft with AIM-120 capability and other improvements including high-speed boom aerial refueling.
14. The original F-4G’s were USN F-4B’s equipped with experimental automatic carrier landing systems.  Once the test period was over, they were converted back to F-4B’s, although some of the equipment remained installed.  The later USAF aircraft designated F-4G were converted F-4E’s optimized for the Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD), or "Wild Weasel", mission under Program WILD WEASEL V.
15. The F-4J had the inboard flap deleted as part of the approach speed lift improvement program that also added the slotted stabilators.  This also added a feature where the ailerons were drooped 16.5° when the landing gear and flaps were extended.
16.  The first F-4J’s were delivered without radar—ballast was installed instead.  They also had the J79-GE-8 engines featuring the shorter exhaust nozzles. The airplanes went to the Blue Angels and would retain the -8 engines for their service life.
17. The F-4J(UK) airplanes were 15 ex-USN/USMC F-4J’s bought by the Royal Air Force in 1984.  These were taken through the same SLEP that converted F-4J’s to F-4S’s with the exception of the slatted wing.  American avionics were removed and British avionics were installed.
18. The FG.1 had a double-extendable nose strut for takeoffs from the shorter decks of the British carrier HMS Ark Royal.  Along with that, a stabilator trim indication quadrant was painted on the left side of the tail for the deck crew to tell if the takeoff trim was set correctly.  As these airplanes transferred to the RAF, this was generally removed, but the double-extendable nose strut remained.
19. The F-4K and F-4M (FG.1 and FGR.2) were aircraft based on the U.S. Navy’s F-4J but built with Rolls Royce Spey afterburning turbofan engines.  As a result, the inlets were wider, the aft fuselage was wider and deeper, and the exhausts were different.  Many would have the belly strap installed at some point in their service life. 
20. The F-4N was an updated F-4B with the aerodynamic approach speed lift improvements of the F-4J and updated avionics.  The inboard leading edge flap was deactivated and locked closed.
21. The F-4S was an upgraded F-4J with updated avionics, a slatted wing and a belly strap similar to that of the early F-4E’s was installed, and other minor changes such as low intensity formation (“slime”) lights.  The outboard slats were not identical to the USAF versions.

Additional Notes, Ephemera, Useless Trivia, and Other Geek Stuff

The ship-based Phantoms (F-4B/N, F-4J/S, RF-4B, and the FG.1/FGR.2) did not have flight controls in the rear cockpit.  There was a pedestal with a radar controller joystick located where a control stick would be.  The right side of the cockpit was a vertical panel—there was no console on the left side of the rear cockpit of the ship-based Phantoms because that area is where the refueling probe well is located.  The console on the left side was abbreviated compared to the land-based F-4’s, too.

Some F-4C’s (in the 1966-1967 time frame) did not have the IR fairing under the radome, these “dorkless” radomes were installed while the original radomes were being modified with the AN/APR-25 RHAW system antennas on the empty IR fairing.  Check your references!

Late in their service lives, the USN/USMC F-4’s received an AN/ALQ-126 Defensive ECM system featuring antenna fairings on the inlet shoulders, under the inlets and under the wings (the B/N inlet fairing cable guides were about twice the length of those on the F-4J/S).  The shoulder fairings remained on the F-4J(UK) but were empty.

Ship-based versions had catapult bridle hooks installed in shallow depressions under the forward fuselage at the wing leading edge.  The land-based versions did not, and a flat panel covered the area.  The F-4J(UK) had the hooks removed but the depressions remained. 

The ship-based airplanes received up-rated main landing gear struts installed.  In the case of the USN/USMC aircraft, the main struts had a long-stroke oleo; the British struts were capable of landing at higher gross weights.  A rounded rectangular clearance blister was installed on top of the wing over the pivot points as a result.  USAF airplanes (and their derivatives) did not have this small blister.

Block 48 and newer F-4E’s were TISEO (Target Instrument System, Electro-Optical) capable.  The Northrop AN/ASX-1 TISEO consisted of a cylindrical fairing on the inboard left wing root that housed a camera used to visually acquire and track targets.  The image was displayed on the WSO’s radar display.  TISEO could also be retrofitted to earlier aircraft. 

There were several styles of gun muzzle fairing for the F-4E that were developed over the years.  The initial muzzle fairing was a short fairing that caused gun gas ingestion problems for the engines.  A longer unit, called MIDAS 4, was the definitive muzzle fairing and became standard with the Block 48 airplanes.

Late in life, some F-4E’s, F-4G’s, and RF-4C’s received the ARN-101 digital avionics modification.  The visual indication was a trapezoidal antenna on the spine of the airplane and a lot of static wicks sprouting from various parts of the airframe.

There was a difference in inboard wing pylons.  The ship-board variants (as well as early F-4C’s, RF-4B’s, and most RF-4C’s) used LAU-17/A’s with adapters; USAF used a MAU-12 rack in the weapons pylon.  You can tell one from another easily—the LAU-17/A has a straight leading edge while the MAU-12 pylon has a curved leading edge.  Either could be fitted with a pair of Aero 3A Sidewinder rail adapters on the sides of the launcher/pylon. 

There were several types of 370-gallon underwing tanks made by McDonnell, Sargent Fletcher, and Royal Jet.  The Sargent Fletcher was the prevalent type used—it can be identified by the single flange on the left side of the tank at the five o’clock position (when viewed from the front).

Royal Jet’s 600-gallon centerline tank could be distinguished by the angled sway brackets aft and the nose-down attitude when fitted.  Later, the USAF (but not the USN/USMC) would adapt the 600-gallon tank used by the F-15 for use on the F-4 centerline station.  It had a single sway bracket aft and was mounted level.  It also caused less of a drag penalty.

Other variants you might see mentioned in your travels:

EF-4B and EF-4J:  ECM aircraft used for training.

EF-4C and EF-4D:  Early SEAD fits under Program WILD WEASEL IV.

F-4 “Agile Eagle”:  Testbeds to explore the use of maneuvering slats for the F-15; the information gained led to the slatted wing modifications for the F-4.

F-4E(S):  Three Israeli hard-wing F-4E’s with an elongated nose housing a General Dynamics HIAC-1 LOROP (LOng Range Oblique Photography) camera with a 66-inch focal length lens for high-speed, high altitude reconnaissance.  Offshoot of the PEACE JACK program.

F-4(FBW)/F-4 PACT/F-4 CCV:  The YRF-4C reconfigured for (variously) fly-by-wire and canard controlled vehicle testing.

DF-4J:  Drone controller aircraft.

F-4X: Highly modified with new inlets, water injection (pre-compression cooling or PCC) conformal tanks, and elongated nose housing the HIAC-1.  Remarkable because the HIAC-1 had previously only been flown aboard USAF RB-57D’s and in bulky centerline pods on RF-4C’s.  Part of the PEACE JACK program.

Super Phantom:  Proposed Boeing-led upgrade to replace the J79’s with PW1120 afterburning turbofans, under-fuselage conformal fuel tank, and new avionics.  Some of these changes were also projected to be used by the Kurnass 2000 program in Israel, but were not.

Kurnass 2000:  Israel modified some of their F-4E’s with new avionics and capability to use the Rafael Popeye (aka the AGM-142) standoff missile.  Some of this same technology would be used to update some of the Turkish F-4E’s as well.

QF-4B/QRF-4C/QF-4E/QF-4G/QF-4N/QF-4S:  Aircraft converted to remotely piloted target drones.

The PEACE JACK, F-4X, and Super Phantom programs were designed to increase the altitude and speed performance of the F-4, and were cancelled because they would either draw sales away from new aircraft (primarily the McAir F-15 and F/A-18) or allow other nations to have reconnaissance capabilities approaching that of the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird.

So, what about kits?

Choosing the “best” model kit of any subject is a minefield.  As with all things related to plastic models, one’s opinion of  the “best” kit of any subject can be highly subjective due to several factors, not the least being price, ease of assembly, and the level and fidelity of detail included.  Because of that, I’ll attempt only to tell you about the kits.  What you see is either a collection of what I’ve collected via as many reviews of a particular kit that I can find or personal experience.  I’ll let you decide which one is the “best” for your personal needs…

For more information on release dates, timelines, and re-boxings, the best resource to use is Scalemates.

1/32 Scale

Tamiya’s lineup of large-scale Phantoms is good, but not totally great.  Starting in 1995 with an F-4C/D, they have also made the F-4J and a hard-wing F-4E.  They represented several maintenance panels as raised panels, and these stand a little bit too proud of the surface, so a touch of sanding is warranted if this bothers you.  The exhausts are also a touch too small, so you might want to secure replacements.  The gun-nose kits include both muzzle fairings.

Starting in 1995, Revell also made new-tool kits of the RF-4E, F-4F, RF-4C, F-4E, and an F-4G.  The newer Revell kits are almost as good as the Tamiya kits--almost.  Revell’s F-4E/F nose is a bit skinny and too pointy (you’ll see this claim again), the nose strut is anemic, and the cockpit detail is not as good as that of the Tamiya kit.  Revell’s long nose versions include a slatted wing.

There is a big difference in price, too—Revell’s kits initially retailed for $30 while Tamiya’s MSRP was around $100.  Only you can decide if the extra dough spent is worth it.

If you want a thin-wing Phantom in 1/32 scale, there have been a few aftermarket conversions available from Real Model, GT Resin, and Cutting Edge.

Revell had kits of the F-4J and F-4E (also released as an RF-4E, F-4F, and RF-4B) in the 1970’s and are best left to the collectors and nostalgia folks.   

1/48 scale

The most recent kits of the F-4 are the Zoukei-Mura kits initially released in 2016.  There’s been some grousing online about an incorrect contour in the aft fuselage at the exhausts, and they aren’t cheap ($75 a pop from most retailers).  But they have been deemed superb kits by all who have built them, and they do represent the state-of-the-art in injection molding.  They’ve done the F-4C/D and F-4J/S so far, and their new F-4E kits are just starting to hit the streets, and early word says the aft fuselage on the F-4E has been corrected.  Z-M has indicated that they want to complete the series, so stay tuned.

Hasegawa’s 1/48 scale Phantom Phamily started hitting the hobby shop shelves in 1982, at the exorbitant (for the time—I remember hearing the wailing and crying!) price of $20 American.  Initially, the kits featured raised panel lines, but through the years, the earlier raised panel line kits (save for the F-4B/N and F-4C/D) have been revised to feature recessed panel lines.  The biggest drawbacks are fiddly fit around the intakes (a common ailment of all Phantom kits) and the lack of underwing stores included in the kits.  You’ll want to dip into your spares box or purchase aftermarket weapons sets.  So far, they are the only manufacturer to produce the entire F-4 series in this scale--Hasegawa offers all of the subtypes, including the slatted-wing F-4E/F and the Spey-powered FG.1 and FGR.2.  . 

Academy’s short-nose (F-4B/N, F-4C/D, and F-4J so far) kits that were released in 2012 aren’t bad—in fact, some folks like them over the Z-M and Hasegawa kits.  A few reviews say the nose and tail near the stabilators have minor shape problems and that the canopy center bridge is too wide, but it certainly looks like a Phantom when completed.  The ECS scoops have shape issues, too; fortunately there are aftermarket fixes for this.  The shape around the aft fuselage at the engine exhausts is deemed to be better than that of the Z-M kit.  Starting in 2014, Eduard re-released the Academy F-4B, F-4C, F-4J, and F-4N plastic in their Limited Edition series with resin (“Brassin”) and etched detail parts with decals designed by Furball Aero Design and printed by Cartograph.

In 1979, Monogram issued an F-4C/D kit, followed in 1981 by a “Black Bunny” F-4J of VX-4.  They have the dreaded “raised panel line” affliction that so many modelers consider deal-breakers, the USAF kits are closer to an F-4C than to an F-4D, and the cockpit isn’t quite correct for the Navy F-4J, but all in all, they were good value for the dollar.  Monogram’s take on the intakes is quite different than the other manufacturers, and it is either the best thing since bottled beer or the worst thing since New Coke, depending on personal circumstances.  The cockpit detailing in these kits is typical Monogram—the instrument panels and consoles feature relief molded details, and the seats feature all the straps and face curtain handles.  In a word, they are superb.  Many a modeler has “borrowed” a Monogram cockpit to detail other kits…

ESCI made 1/48 scale kits as F-4B/J, F-4E/F, and F-4C/D that came out 1980.  While not as detailed as the Monogram kits from about the same time, they can be made into super models without a lot of work, although there are some problems.  For instance, the F-4B/J kit only has the thick wing and slotted stabilators, most likely because the decal options included the striking color scheme for “Vandy 76”, Bureau Number 153088, the VX-4 Bicentennial airplane, which was a conglomeration of an F-4J airframe, an F-4B nose, and—something ESCI missed completely—experimental fixed leading edge maneuvering slats on the wing.  The F-4E/F lacks the slatted wing (meaning you can’t build an F-4F from the kit).  Like their smaller F-4E, this one was the best until Hasegawa’s materialized a few years later—shape-wise, it was better than the Fujimi and Revell kits that preceded it.  The F-4C/D kits were a nice alternative to the Monogram kits—they were only a few bucks more and had recessed panel details.  The cockpits are rather simple, but they are passable under a closed canopy and sitting on a shelf or in a display case.  Italeri has reissued some of them, too, and you’ll see them at shows for cheap.

In addition to these kits, there are a few others in 1/48 scale:

Testors kitted the RF-4C/E and F-4E/F/G in 1980.  Their RF-4C/E didn’t have the forward Sparrow well fairings, the F-4G had some cockpit issues, and overall the detailing generally wasn’t very good.  Italeri reissues these kits from time to time.  The one thing the long nose kit had going for it is the inclusion of the slatted wing, and back in the day this was the only way to get a Photo Phantom.

Aurora (no surprise) was one of the first to market with a kit of the then-F4H-1 in 1961—it is typically Aurora, and best left to the collectors. 

As mentioned in the ESCI commentary, Fujimi (in 1971, also released under the Bachmann/Fujimi and AHM/Fujimi labels) and Revell (1977) each had an F-4E (Revell’s being a slatted wing airplane), but the Revell kit had shape issues (skinny, pointy nose, canopy looks squashed) and the Fujimi kit was closer to 1/50 scale. 

Perhaps the most ambitious kit I can recall of the Phantom was made initially in 1965 by Marusan, and it was later released by UPC, Fuji, Sunny, and, finally, Entex Industries.  It too was in 1/50 scale, and included full interior details (including the engines and fuselage fuel cells), but these were not optional parts—you had to use them or re-engineer a lot of the kit.  The box advertised that you could build it as a B, C, or E version—but regardless of what the box said, it wasn’t accurate for any of them.  Even if you accept the off scale, the quality of the kit was lacking (that’s being kind—“crude” is more like it), as there were knockout pin marks and short shots galore.  I received one of the Entex Industries issues as a Christmas present in the late 1970’s.  It was so full of bad parts that I wound up cannibalizing whatever I could from the kit over the years, eventually tossing the remnants in the garbage when the family moved in 1989.  The only thing that kit had going for it was the illustration on the box: “Old Nick 201” from VF-111.  What kid could resist a shark-mouthed F-4?

1/72 scale

Right now (October 2020), the best F-4 families of Phantom kits in this scale remain the Hasegawa and Fujimi kits.  Hasegawa does them all except the Spey-engined FG.1 and FGR.2.  Fujimi does them all, including the Spey Phantoms.  I mention this simply because some folks like continuity, and different manufacturers do things, well, differently.  If you want uniformity in your collection, these are the kits to use.

Hasegawa’s new tool F-4 kits, which debuted in 1990, have a better cockpit than Fujimi, but neither manufacturer is stellar in that regard—the Hasegawa tub fits a lot better, which is what puts them in the top slot for me (their RF-4B and RF-4C also have more detail to the camera bays).  The seats are basic, so you can either detail them yourself with strips of paper or tape and some wire.  Likewise, all the consoles and instrument panels are represented by decals.

Fujimi’s kits came on the scene in 1984, and the biggest complaint was the ill-fitting cockpit tubs, an issue partially corrected in later issues.  The first issues only included a multi-part open canopy; later issues had only a one-piece closed canopy.  At some point, both canopies were included in some kits.  The control sticks are too long, and the instrument panels sit too far forward.  The same comments about Hasegawa’s cockpit detailing also apply to the Fujimi kits.

Academy released their 1/72 scale F-4J in 2015 in their MCP (Multi-Colored Plastic) line.  They are a hybrid between a press fit and a glue kit—indeed; they suggest you secure the parts with glue.  Honestly, the cockpit tubs are more detailed than either Hasegawa’s or Fujimi’s!  Whether they extend the line or not remains to be seen. 

Monogram shrunk down their 1/48 scale F-4C/D and F-4J kits to 1/72 scale and issued them beginning in 1985.  The same comments I made for their 1/48 scale kits apply here, too.  At one point, they were reissued by Accurate Miniatures.

In 1982, ESCI produced a 1/72 scale line of F-4’s, including an F-4C/J, F-4E/F, F-4S, and an RF-4C/RF-4E kit.  Like their bigger brothers, the F-4C/J is neither/nor, but an attractive model can be built from it—the cockpit is more USAF than USN, and the kit offers the slotted stabilators that were not used on the F-4C or F-4D.  The F-4E was “it” in this scale before the advent of the Hasegawa and Fujimi kits.  If you’re more interested in color schemes than in absolute nut/bolt/rivet accuracy, these might just be the ticket.  Like their larger brethren, they are still generally available in a variety of boxes, most recently Italeri.

Starting in 1997, Revell AG/Revell GmbH (aka “Revell of Germany”) produced a series of long-nose Phantoms, including the RF-4E.  Some of the comments I’ve read state that the nose is too skinny/pointy, just like most of Revell’s—past and present--Phantoms.  The few I’ve seen built seem to bear that out.

Airfix recently (2017 and 2019) released two Spey Phantom kits, an FG.1 and an FGR.2.  While nice, they have some curious omissions.  But they have a more accurate shape than Fujimi’s, and the aftermarket has catered to those who want to fix the goofs that Airfix made.

FineMolds has announced a new tool kit of the F-4EJ and F-4EJ Kai that looks inviting, and should be useable (with a little work) as a hard-wing F-4E, as well.  Perhaps they will also make a slatted wing kit, and eventually follow Z-M’s lead and give us a state-of-the art series of Phantoms in 1/72 scale.  Hey, a guy can dream…

There are others out there in 1/72 scale, but they really aren’t worth the time and effort: 

In 1965, both Revell and Airfix offered 1/72 scale kits, and neither is very good, even looking at them as products of their time.  They have been released as pretty much every variant, with very few changes being made to the actual plastic.

Matchbox did a Spey Phantom kit (as an F-4K/M) in 1975, and to their credit it wasn’t simply a re-boxed F-4J with roundels (as were the Revell, Airfix, and early Hasegawa kits), it actually represented a Spey-powered airplane.  But it was typical Matchbox—heavy panel lines and soft details.  From a shape/proportion standpoint, they were better than the Fujimi kits, but the practice bleeding you’d need to do to bring the rest of the kit up to Fujimi specs isn’t worth the effort, especially with the new Airfix kits available.

Testors followed their 1/48 scale Phantoms with similar versions in 1/72 scale in 1981, and the comments I made about the 1/48 scale kits also apply to the smaller kits.

Hasegawa had older kits of both short and long nose F-4 kits in the early 1970’s, and the F-4E was by far the better of the two.  The short-nose kits had some serious shape issues around the inlets, cockpits, and radome, so back in the day the best way to get a short nose F-4 was to mate the nose from a Revell or Airfix kit to a Hasegawa long nose fuselage and wing, and add the appropriate details parts (exhaust nozzles, pylons, etc.) and decals.  Interestingly, the older Hasegawa kits (particularly the F-4E) have been reissued up until 2010 or so, so you really need to check your scorecard before you purchase a Hasegawa 1/72 F-4.

References?  You want references?

Here are some of the better references on the F-4 (again, judged either by experience or peer review):

The Detail and Scale series, Volume 1 (F-4C/D), Volume 7 (F-4E/G), Volume 12 (USN F-4’s), and Volume 43 (Updated F-4C/D) are decent references to use for the American F-4 variants, but they are, with the exception of Volume 43, a bit dated.  They include a Modeler’s Section with kit reviews as well as nicely done 3-view drawings.

For the USAF variants, there is The Modern Phantom Guide: The F-4 Phantom Exposed by Jake Melampy.  It is currently out of print.

Daco Publications has the Uncovering the US Navy Q/F-4B/J/N/S Phantoms book, and if you’re building a Navy F-4 and need a reference, well, this is it.

Another good reference is Aerospace Publishing’s McDonnell F-4 Phantom: Spirit in the Skies.  A lot of text, a comprehensive listing of Phantom operators through the years, and, in the variants section, there are small drawings that illustrate the differences between the various subtypes of the F-4.  Initially published in 1992, a later revision was published in 2002.

Finally, there is the six-volume (and counting?) Phantom series from Double Ugly!, an associate of AIRdocs Publishing.  They’re available from Shop of Phantoms or on Amazon.

Online, there are a few sources, too.  For USN/USMC Phantoms, there are few better than Tommy Thomason’s Tailspin Topics site.  For a lot of miscellaneous data from a former Phantom Phixer, there is The Phantom Phacts site.  The Box Art Den, up until recently, had a fantastic Reference Gallery, featuring many old, obscure, and out of print reference books.  They've taken it down for various reasons, and the site managers are discussing how and if they will eventually re-establish it.  I do hope they find a way to at least restore some of it...

Incidentally, if you haven’t yet checked out Scalemates and The Box Art Den sites, you owe it to yourselves to do so.  Both sites are treasure troves of information on models, model box art, and references.

As you start to dive into all things Phantom, you’ll start to realize just how great an airplane it was.  Designed as a fleet defense interceptor, it performed that mission, the ground attack, and electronic warfare roles equally as well.  The fact that most NATO allies flew the F-4 in some guise or another at some point in time indicates the type’s usefulness. 

As I said in the opening of this article, what you have just read represents a grain of sand on the beach as far as the F-4 is concerned.  There’s a whole world of more technical information out there—go discover it!

*******************************

Thanks for reading.  Be good to one another, and, as always, I bid you Peace.

Presented To You in Living Color

Howdy…

Here's another article I put together for the IPMS/Mid-Carolina Newsflash a few months ago.  I don't claim to know everything, so if you have something to add, please do...

***************************** 
Its Wayback Machine time again.  Set it for late 1982.  Let’s see if you remember this:                 

                                                                    (Images:  FineScale Modeler, Fall 1982)

That was the first print advertisement I saw for the new Testor Model Master Paint system.  Before the advent of these paints, there were precious few paint lines that were specifically formulated and guaranteed* (note the fine print in the enlargement—you had to stir, not shake the paint to be assured of an “exact match”) to match any of the established color collections, especially the modern ones--in this case, Federal Standard 595A that had been developed by the U.S. Government in the mid-1950’s.  It was a follow-on to the old AN/ANA classification system of colors used during World War II.

Matched Colors

Testors wasn’t the first hobby paint company to attempt to match model paints to known color collections.  Floquil, Pactra (in their Authentic International Colors line), and Polly-S had paints that tried to match several World War I and World War II colors, as well as some modern U.S. colors.  Humbrol developed an “Authentic Color” line, too.  They all tended to be hit and miss—some were close, others were not even in the same neighborhood to what they were supposed to be. 

A lot of study was going into the subject of wartime colors.  Several books had already been published—Thomas Hitchcock’s work on German WWII colors (the Official Monogram Painting Guide to German Aircraft, 1935-1945), and the two volumes on Japanese colors (one title covered the IJA aircraft, the other handled the IJN planes) by Donald Thorpe were eagerly snapped up by “serious” scale modelers.  On the armor side of the coin, Bruce Culver’s three volume Panzer Colors series covered the Wehrmacht’s machines from 1935 through the end of the war.

Pactra offered, at one point, their Pactra Authentic Military Color Mixing Chart, a paper slide-rule type device that showed what paints you needed to mix in order to get a specific color.  I have one lying around here somewhere; it was a neat little guide—if you used Pactra paint.  (I’ve already told the tale of how I discovered Pactra’s Authentic International Colors lines of paint as it was being discontinued.)

If you used any other paint—and in my day, that usually meant Testor square bottle Pla Enamel and Pactra ‘Namel, although you could also find Humbrol locally—you were either using the TLAR (That Looks About Right) method and using them off the shelf, accuracy be damned, or you were matching your paint by mixing them and comparing them to published color chips. 

That, in and of itself, could be a minefield—unless you had an official set of color chips made from the paint itself, you were looking at a mass-printed reference, and colors derived from printing inks at the time could vary widely from the original.  The best one could do was get it “in the ballpark” and move on—which, as we’ll see later, might not be such a bad concept.

Then, in the late 1970’s, Compucolour from the UK became one of the first paint manufacturers to claim their paints were out of the bottle matches (so the sales pitch went) to match to FS595A colors (they also offered WWII colors with similar claims at some point, too).  I never saw them in a shop, only in magazine ads.  At about the same time, a paint line out of New Jersey also promised “Matched to Specs” paint—they were called “Official Paints”, they were mostly matched to the WWII U.S. AN/ANA specifications, and they didn’t last long.  From there, other paint lines jumped on the train and began formulating their paint colors to match official references.  Some, Aeromaster for instance, even included a “scale effect” into their paints.

(The theory of scale effect and scale color is another story for another time.  We’ll go there one day, but it won’t be today.)

Color Standards and Color References

“So”, you ask, “what exactly *is* a ‘color standard’, anyway?  And what is a ‘color collection’?”

In a nutshell, a color standard is how colors are quantified and/or reproduced.  The two most used standards are the Munsell System and the Pantone Matching System.  The former uses a system to quantify hue, chroma, and value; the latter is a color reproduction system usually used by printers.  Munsell color standards were sometimes used to develop paint colors, but in and of itself modelers seldom standard to match colors for their models.

Those color matching systems we modelers think of when we’re looking at colors—Federal Standard, British Standard, U.S. Army Quartermaster, RLM, RAL, ANA, etc. — are merely references, hence the phrase color reference.  Generally speaking, the specified shades of paint are created by the originator (usually some government entity or military service who decides what is required) and applied to a collection of sample chips which are used as controls.  These chips are then distributed to contractors who make the coatings—they match their paint to the standard chip.  Each contractor mixes colors to match the color on the chip, usually employing spectrometers, spectrographs, and other light wavelength measuring tools to get a perfect match in a coating that meets the requirements of the contract.  Of course, these days there are digital system that can replicate color much more accurately than what had been used in “the good old days”, but the principles remain the same.

Most other nations have a color reference similar to FS595.  You’ve no doubt seen references to RLM (German WWII), RAL (modern German equipment), British Standard BS381C, BS2660, BS5252 and BS4800 (modern British equipment), U.S. Army Quartermaster (QM), and so on.  Like FS595A, these color references have been used throughout the globe at various points in time. 

So, if you’re building an RAF Tornado or West German Leopard tank, asking “What FS colors do I need?” might not get you the answers you seek, since those subjects never wore FS colors.  Know your subject, understand the auspices under which it was built and operated, and use the correct specifications and you cannot go wrong.

How FS595 works 

Since the article started with a discussion on the initial Model Master colors, let’s stay on that road.  Federal Standard 595A—properly, FED-STD-595A, later superseded by 595B and then 595C, was the color collection in use from the mid-1950’s through 2017.  In 2017, the General Services Administration transferred STD-595C to SAE International (the former Society for Automotive Engineers).  FED-STD-595C was, in effect, cancelled and re-designated AMS-STD-595.

Every color included in AMS-STD-595 is given a name and a code.  As far as STD-595 is concerned, the name is not official.  The only valid color identification under this system is that 5-digit number.  You could call the color Sam or Fred, and unless you have that 5-digit number it does not matter. 

Let’s look at that 5-digit number

As an example, we’ll use Federal Standard color code FS36118. 

The first number describes the reflectance (think “sheen”) of the finish.  1=gloss, 2=semi gloss, and 3=flat, or lusterless.

The second number is an arbitrary color group that best describes the color.  0=Browns, 1=Reds, 2=Oranges, 3=Yellows, 4=Greens, 5=Blues, 6=Grays, 7=Miscellaneous (whites, blacks, metallics, etc.) and 8=Fluorescents and Day-Glo colors.

The last three digits are the individual color code, unique to each color.

From the information above, the color would be a lusterless (3) gray (6) coded 118.  Simple, yes?

The name bestowed upon this color is Gunship Gray.  The word “Gunship”, by the way, is not a descriptor of the color (they could have easily called it “Dark Engine Gray”).  Instead, it refers to a type of finish that was known as “Gunship quality” paint—there was also a color called Gunship Green, and this group of finishes was intended to be used in several tactical camouflage schemes, European I being perhaps the most well-known.  The Gunship quality paints were polyurethane based with improved sheen and reflectance properties and increased durability, and were initially tightly controlled by the USAF.

Color Tools You Can Use

If you want to be dead-nuts, balls-on accurate, you can buy official AMS-STD-595 paint chips.  A boxed version with 692 (!) individual chips in protective envelopes will set you back a mere $895 American:

https://www.sae.org/servlets/otherProduct?PROD_TYP=RM&PROD_CD=EA-CHIPSET

Individual 3”X5” chips in protective envelopes can be had for $35 each.

If you’re not that picky about having a dead-nuts, balls-on accurate shade of paint but still want an “official” gizmo to compare your colors to so you can be close, a fan deck—consisting of what SAE International calls “representational only” colors--can be bought for the low, low price of $210:

https://www.sae.org/servlets/otherProduct?PROD_TYP=RM&PROD_CD=EA-FANDECK

Yeah, that’s a heap of change.  I bought an FS595A fan deck years ago for around $30 along with the IPMS Color Cross-Reference Guide by David Klaus.  The guide was particularly helpful—it summarized several color reference systems along with an extensive listing of which hobby colors were available for most of the given colors.

With the advent of the internet, there are other ways of getting things in the ballpark.  There are several websites that show all of the colors—but there’s a rub (isn’t there always?).  How well is your monitor calibrated to display colors?  The watchword here is to remember the limitations of your equipment.  And, if all you want is the ballpark, it should be good enough.

http://www.federalstandardcolor.com/

http://ams-std-595-color.com/

For other nations’ color references:  https://www.e-paint.co.uk/chart_options.asp

Hobby Colors and Accuracy

For as closely matched as Testors colors were, things have shifted the other way with paint over the years.  Vallejo, especially, doesn’t seem to pay too much attention to color references although they do print them on the labels of some colors in the form of RAL, RLM, and FS numbers—even though their paint doesn’t necessarily match the spec color.  Part of the answer is that they expect you to follow their “weathering” techniques (including color modulation, zenithal lighting, flood washes, pin washes, chipping, glazing, and the like), so in their mind it is of little consequence that the actual colors in the bottles don’t bear any resemblance to the nominal colors they are supposed to represent.  I use them frequently, and do a spray-out on a white index card.  Once the paint dries for a while (at least two hours, longer is better since some pigments don’t develop their full color until the paint has fully cured—PollyScale was a particular offender, especially with their blues), I’ll compare it to a reference and, in those cases where the color doesn’t match the reference to my liking, I’ll alter the paints using those “Old School” techniques I learned back in the dark ages of the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. 

(And I can already hear some of you asking “What’s color modulation?  Zenithal lighting?  Huh?”  Perhaps this too can be another discussion for another time.)

Tamiya, likewise, has their own color theory, and their kits often show mixing formulas to obtain the “correct” colors.  Some modelers I know have compiled them into complete charts, and they are fairly easy to find on the internet.  You can add GSI/Creos to that list, too—many Hasegawa and Dragon kits show paint mixes using GSI Aqueous and Mr. Color mixes.  Airfix kits rely on Humbrol paint numbers.  And so on.

But how do you know that the color listed is correct?  Use your resources.  Perhaps the two best model color resources I know of online are the following:

https://www.paint4models.com/  has the Ultimate Paint conversion chart, and includes most, if not all, of the available paint brands.  Be advised—it requires Adobe Flash, which is reaching End of Life shortly.  Some browsers won’t even let it load…

Michael Benolkin’s Cybermodeler website has quite a color reference section, too:  https://www.cybermodeler.com/resource6.shtml .  Check it out…

Mixing paint is not as difficult as you might think it is.  The most useful tool you can obtain is a $2 color wheel from Michael’s.  Learn to use it, and pretty soon you’ll be mixing colors like you’ve been doing it your whole life.  You’ll be able to look at a color and determine that it needs a little more gray, or a touch of yellow.  One tip I’ll give you up front:  Mix your color, write down the recipe (use a dropper to count drops of paint), and then do a spray-out on some white card (I use index cards) as outlined above.  Let the paint dry completely before you compare it to your reference, and then adjust as needed.

That’s a lot of work.  Do I really need to go that far?

Like all things in our hobby, what you do and how you do it is not regulated by law.  If you just want something close enough, use your best judgment and go with it.  However, if you want to dig down and make a more accurate* model, these are the things you should do.  It is always your call…

(*Always remember that the subject of “accurate color” is a highly subjective subject, and that IPMS and AMPS judges are specifically told NOT judge accuracy, color included!)

The next question we should ask:  Just how accurate are the actual paints that the contractors supply to the Government?  If I were to go by what a friend of mine (a former corrosion control technician in the Navy) says about Navy aircraft touch up paint, not very.  He could requisition two cans of touch up spray paint from supply, and even two cans from the same manufacturer and same lot may or may not match each other, and they rarely matched what was on the aircraft being touched up.  Why?  Well, in the case of the touch up cans, how they are shaken and prepared before use can alter the color—one guy shakes his can like it owes him money and the other only treats is like a dry martini, and you have slight color differences.  One guy does a better job of cleaning the area to be touched up.  Add to that the fact that the existing paint on the airframe has been in use for an indeterminate time, so it has been exposed to sun, weather, erosion, and other environmental factors plus normal day-to-day maintenance tasks, and it will be subtly different that the original specs, too.  This should now explain why Navy airplanes, in particular, can take on a rather tatty appearance after a cruise. 

So, it all boils down to this—don’t be too uptight about using an absolute “correct” color.  Get something that is close enough to satisfy you.  That’s where paint lines like the Model Master Paints showed their utility—a modeler could simply buy a bottle of color and it would be a close match for what they were looking for.  If they wanted something “more accurate”, they could doctor the color from there.  It saved a lot of mixing just to get common colors, and was a real boon to folks who had difficulty mixing and matching their paints.

After all that, yeah, I said it…get it close and move on.

Putting the Color Where It Belongs

I’ll close with this—once you figure out what colors you need, how do you know where to put them on the model?  Honestly, to me this is the more important aspect of color and camouflage.  So, what’s telling the paint shop how to decorate these machines?

The same way the government describes the colors, they have documents that describe the use of them.  For example, if you model USAF aircraft from the Cold War to the present, the applicable document is called Technical Order 1-1-4.  Follow the link for a little bit of light reading…

http://f4phantom.com/docs/TO_1-1-4.pdf

In addition to T.O. 1-1-4, the USAF has several more T.O.’s covering markings, maintenance placards, paint maintenance, paint removal, etc.

If you want to look at a few more U.S. paint scheme guides including U.S. Army and Navy/Marine Corps aviation, look here:

https://www.daveplattmodels.com/Links/US%20Military%20Markings/Markings.htm

For the WWII U.S. ships, the schemes (known as Measures) and colors are what SHIPS-2 is all about.  Of course, modern ships also have their own finish instructions that are also based on SHIPS-2, revised over the years to accommodate new types of coatings.

An example for the modern armor guys would be the MERDC (Mobility Equipment Research and Development Center), MASSTER, and NATO 3-color scheme specifications as shown n Technical Manual (TM) 43-0139, Technical Bulletin (TB) 43-0147 and TB 43-209.

And lest you auto modelers think this is not pertinent to you, you might reconsider.  If you want to build OEM-correct models, the auto manufacturers have their own paint specs—both color AND application.  The colors were usually contracted out to paint manufacturers such as Sherwin Williams, Ditzler, and DuPont.  When it comes to color, the best bet is to go online and search out the make, manufacturer, and model year—with a little work you’ll be rewarded with sample build sheet specs that call out exterior and interior color combinations for the car in question. 

Back in the day, if you wanted OEM-spec colors on your model cars and used hobby paints, you mixed color—you didn’t have much of a choice unless your car was black or white.  Or, you used a vial of touch-up paint from the auto parts house—if you could find an aerosol, great, but usually you had the vial of brush-on paint and nothing more.  These days, more manufacturers are producing OEM-spec colors that you can use right out of the bottle or spray can—Testors themselves added automotive colors to the Model Master line in the mid-1990’s (and a base coat/clear coat lacquer line in the early 2000’s), and House of Kolor and Model Car World (MCW) had their own lines of colors, including NASCAR specific colors.  Both lines have faded from view, but these days Tru-Color and re-formulated MCW paint lines are now available. You’re always free to go with the TLAR solution, too--and I do this often when I use an off-the-shelf Tamiya spray color on a car body. 

Of course, if you build customs all this is moot…

**********************************************
I’ve once again fed you a 7-course meal through a fire hose—sorry, as a Technical Writer, I live for this kind of thing.  Take some time to digest all that, and we’ll look at some of those other topics I’ve touched on here (scale color, weathering) down the road.

 Thanks for reading!  Be good to one another, and, as always, I bid you Peace.

The IAI Nesher

Howdy, all!

Here's a model I completed not too long ago.  It got started during one of the Saturday build days at the hobby shop before they moved across town, and had been sitting in a state of suspended animation until I got it back in work towards the end of our Project RIPCORD diorama.  This article previously appeared in the September 2020 issue of the IPMS/Mid-Carolina Newsflash.

***************************************************  
The Israeli Defense Force Air Force had employed the Dassault Mirage IIICJ to good effect during their 1967 war with the surrounding nations.  Due to wartime losses and attrition, the Israelis needed to add aircraft to their inventory not only to fill the gaps caused by the lost airplanes, but to also upgrade their fleet.  The Mirage III was a great air-to-air interceptor, but couldn’t do much in the way of ground attack.  Also, its short range made keeping an airborne combat air patrol aloft a challenge.

Enter the Mirage 5.

In the mid-1960’s, the IDF/AF began working with Dassault to develop a new fighter suitable for their needs.  The IDF decided that the Cyrano radar in the Mirage III was good, but not needed, as most combat in the region was withing visual range.  Also, the IDF asked for more fuel to increase the aircraft’s endurance.  So, Dassault started with a Mirage IIIE (a strike version of the Mirage III with additional avionics and fuel in an extended fuselage behind the cockpit), relocated the avionics behind the pilot to a new extended nose, and deleted the radar.  The new aircraft was called the Mirage 5, and the IDF placed an order for 50 of them in 1966.

In 1967, the French government, in a bit of a snit (de Gaulle wasn’t happy that the Israelis started what we call the Six Day War over his objections), enacted an arms embargo against all arms destined for Israel—including the new Mirage 5’s, which were built and ready for delivery in 1968.

At the same time, the French began selling arms to the various Arab forces in the region.  Never one to play favorites, de Gaulle believed all money coming into the country was “good” money.

Here’s where the story gets cloudy, depending on whom you listen to or what you believe.

The common tale among “those in the know” (and the story Israel tells to this day) is that the Israelis tried several times to “reallocate” the airplanes (the Israeli government asked for them to be re-positioned to Corsica so they could continue to train with the airplanes), but the French saw the ploy and took action to stop the effort.  Eventually, the French kept the airplanes, called them Mirage 5F’s, and integrated them into their Armée de l'Air (AdA).  They were said to have kept the Israeli money, to boot.  Because of this, Israel resorted to industrial espionage, obtained the plans for the airplane, and set up shop with Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) to build the airplanes.  The rest, as they say, is history…or is it?

As Paul Harvey would say, here’s “the rest of the story”…

The real story isn’t quite so wrapped up in intrigue.  The French actually refunded the money Israel paid for the Mirage 5’s in 1972.  The airplanes were indeed kept and introduced into French service.

But that’s where the truth in the original story ends, if you believe the other stories. 

In 1968, Rockwell International (probably at the request of the U.S. State Department) approached Dassault with an order for Mirage 5’s for Israel.  The French agreed, but to camouflage the effort, the airplane components supplied to this order were instructed to be those built by subcontractors (Aerospatiale made fuselages, Reims-Cessna built the wings, and SABCA, a Belgian subsidiary of Dassault, built the ATAR 9C engines), crated, and shipped to Israel in crates aboard USAF C-141’s.  The crates were delivered to IAI, and the airplanes were reassembled by Rockwell technicians masquerading as IAI employees.  Israeli avionics were fitted. 

How do we know this?  Gene Salvay, a Rockwell engineer, was there.  He was there assisting the Israelis in fitting the General Electric J79 engine into the Mirage airframe, and became one of the lead engineers to assist in the development of the IAI Kfir.  But that's another story for another time.

Some point to the oft-shown photo from Nesher 01 in the IDF/AF Museum that shows “Mirage 5J” and names of the subcontractors on the various components “clearly only apply to that one single example, and that the others were entirely IAI products.”  But all of Israel’s Neshers were later sold to Argentina, and the parts all had French part numbers and data plates—why would IAI spoof these or use Dassault part numbers on parts supposedly made in Israel?

As an aside, if you’re a fan of the Mirage III/V/IAI Kfir/Atlas Cheetah series, a lot of Kfir and Cheetah components were likewise built in France.

The truth is out there…

In 1/48^th scale, the Mirage 5 was previously represented by kits from ESCI, later re-boxed by Italeri.  Typical ESCI kits, they weren’t too bad for their day.  The type got a big boost when Kinetic Models produced their Mirage IIIE/Mirage 5 kit (Kinetic kit 48052).  Wingman Models, a German group, helped the cause when they bought bagged shots of the Kinetic plastic, added Isra Cast resin, Isra Decals markings, photoetch, and Master Brass parts and sold it as a limited run, full meal deal Super Kit (WMK48013).  It is this last kit we’ll discuss…

First, I will say this—if you have not developed your basic modeling skills, this kit might be difficult to build.  This is certainly not a Tamiya quality model kit, but it is nicely molded and the shapes are pretty much spot-on.  It is certainly a kit that needs you to employ those Model Building 101 skills that I cover in my seminar of the same name.  You will spend a lot of time sanding, fitting, filing, fitting, fettling, and fitting before you even open the glue bottle.  Trust me.  Just trust me…

The kit is full of options.  You can build the Nesher or the Argentinian Dagger/Finger/Mara from the kit—there are resin noses for the Nesher and Dagger/Finger, and the plastic nose is good for the Mara (Argentinean Mirage 5 acquired from Peru).  There is a neat resin cockpit, instrument panel, choice of ejection seats (Martin-Baker Mk.  4 or Mk. 6), and a bit of under wing things (missile rails, Rafael Shafrir 2 missiles), and decals galore—you can pretty do any Nesher you fancy, as the sheet gives you numbers in several styles and the two styles of orange/black ID triangles applied to the Nesher if your airplane carried them.  Oddly, the kit provides two resin 1300 liter under wing ferry tanks, but does not provide the supersonic 500 liter under wing tanks and the 800 liter centerline tank that the Nesher usually sported.  Never fear—if you find you really need them, Wingman offers resin wing tanks in their “FixIT!” line (WMF48014).

I started by test fitting the wings.  No surprise, there was a nice step where the halves came together.  The bottom of the wing is inset into the top, and this step will be a royal bear to remove after assembly—maintaining the proper shape and contour will not be easy.  (And since this was one of those hobby shop build days, I didn't get photos.  You'll just have to trust me...)

You will need to sand the inside of both upper and lower wing halves as well as some of the inner structure to make them fit flush.  There will be a seam to fill on the underside of the wing no matter what you do; just do your best to get everything lined up flush across the outer surface.  I installed the speed brakes in the closed position—not many photos show them open on the ground without a hydraulic mule and someone in the cockpit, although a Mirage fixer has said they do tend to droop.  No matter, I glued mine in the closed position.  You will have to fit, sand, and fit again—this will be the main lesson from this kit.  The wells are beveled, as are the brake panels—but the bevels are different angles!  The brake panels tend to stand proud of the surface if you don’t do some of that test fit-sand-fit again stuff.  However, take a close look at what’s happening—the bevel on the brake panels themselves are what holds the part proud of the wing, so rather than sanding the edges of the brakes, increase the angle of the bevel on their underside.  The former will cause them to be too small, the latter will do a Goldilocks on them—they’ll be “Just Right”…

Likewise, the large aft center section panel needs to be fit and can be added, along with the proper inserts on either side of it.  Hold off on adding the trailing edge control surfaces until the wing is installed on the model.  It may help to add some Evergreen tabs inside the lower wing to help align the insert, too.

Begin the fuselage by cleaning up all the inlet trunk parts.  Kinetic give you inlet trunks all the way back to the engine compressor facing—99% of this is invisible, but you will want to hit the trunks with white paint.  Test fit, sand, and test fit again until the inlet assembly fits into the fuselage, but don’t secure it at this time.

Now, turn your attention to making sure the fuselage halves fit together.  You got it—fit, sand, fit again, repeat until it fits.

Next up: the cockpit.  Remove the parts from the pour stubs.  Be careful—the cockpit tub floor is thin; you don’t want to break through!  I did, but the small area will be hidden under the seat.  Likewise, clean up the nose gear well.  The well will be attached to the underside of the tub, just so you know…and it will need to be fit and sanded in order to properly fit inside the fuselage halves.

As you can see, I indeed cut a hole in the cockpit floor while removing the cockpit from the pour block.  You can also see the resin glareshield in place.

You will need to remove the molded-in plastic glareshield.  I used a combination of saws, files, and a rotary tool.  Try not to remove too much.  Test fit the windscreen to help guide you on the amount you need to remove.  The windscreen will tend to hide some gaps around the edges, but you still want to be careful and not remove too much plastic. 

As you assemble the cockpit tub to the nose gear well, test fit the lot into the fuselage.  I found that the waste side of each could take some sanding to make it fit.  I tacked the tub and well together with a single drop of CA while I did the test fit.  Make sure you fit the lower nose panel at this time, too—if the cockpit is marginally too wide, it can throw the nose off!  Once you are satisfied that it all goes together, secure the tub/well to one half of the fuselage with CA or epoxy.

Assemble the tailpipe.  You can install it at this point.  This is probably the simplest assembly in the kit-a resin tube and a plastic flame holder.  Leave the exhaust nozzle off until the model is finished.

Okay, now the fun begins.  Position the inlet trunk in one fuselage half.  Now, you’ll need to do some sleight of hand to get the other fuselage half into position—it isn’t difficult, but pay attention to where the inlets line up on the outside of the fuselage.  Test fit, adjust, and test fit again until the lot comes together without having to force the issue—I found I had to trim a little bit from the tabs on the inlet trunk assembly at the top as well as trim and sand the sides of the tub/well assembly to get the fuselage to close.  I tacked the fuselage halves with CA and, once I was satisfied with how they were positioned, applied Tamiya Extra Thin to the seam—this “double whammy” locks the fuselage halves in the proper alignment with the CA and welds the seam with the liquid cement.  I added the top fuselage insert at this time after carefully fitting it in place—the fit was less than exact, so get the fit as close as you can and expect to do some sanding/filling/scribing later.  The same goes with the dorsal fin extension, by the way…

You can address the fuselage seams now or wait until the wing is installed.  I decided to wait and tackle all the seams at the same time.  With that established, offer up the wing to the fuselage and check the fit.  I had to install a couple of spreaders in the fuselage to make the wing root seam tight—I chopped lengths off of the kit sprue and cut them to length so they were a push-fit into the fuselage and spread them just a slight bit.  Test fit the wing again, and if the fit is tight, reduce the length of the spreaders until it is a sliding fit—not too tight, not too loose…you know, just another Goldilocks situation.

I had to open up one of the slots on the fuselage wing root face that is supposed to interlock with the tabs molded on the root end of the upper wing.  You will also find out that you’ll need to be thorough in removing the parting lines from the aft section of the lower wing that meets up with the aft fuselage.  You know the drill by now—test fit, adjust fit, repeat as necessary.  Once the wing fits, time for cement—I used a few small tacks of CA, then applied Tamiya Extra Thin along the rest of the seams and allowed it to dry overnight.

The upper inlet parts are next.  Test the fit and trim as needed.  Then offer them up, one at a time, and cement only the aft end.  Let the cement dry completely, then cement the top edge and let that dry.  The final step is to maneuver the inlet into place where it meets the wing, then cement and let dry.  Done in this manner, you shouldn’t have too many fit issues.  I did find where the upper half meets the lower half wasn’t as precise as it could be, but we’ll take care of that when we fill and sand the seams.  I also had some gaps between the upper inlets and the splitter on the trunks; I simply filled these with white glue after everything was assembled.

Once all the cement is dry, let’s look after the seams and gaps.  The fuselage seam isn’t too bad—if you did your fitting correctly, the only thing you should need are a few swipes with sandpaper.  The insert on the upper fuselage aft of the cockpit, however, will need some filler.  I used to use all varieties of putty, but these days I use CA almost exclusively.   I have a length of .015” brass wire shoved into the eraser end of a pencil, and I use this to apply small amounts of thin or medium CA to any gaps and seams.  Work small areas at a time.  Apply the CA, let it cure, then sand.  If the defect is small, I use thin CA; any more than about 1mm gets medium CA.  The ONLY time I use an accelerator is when I have a wide gap that opens into a hollow space—the accelerator arrests the travel of the first application of CA so that you won’t wind up filling the hollow space behind the gap.  Otherwise, I let the CA cure naturally.  The important thing to remember about using CA is to sand it as soon as it is hard enough to sand.  Don’t layer on tons of CA and let it sit overnight—CA gets harder as it cures, and becomes a real bear to sand.   Speaking of sanding, I am not prissy—I started with 220 grit sanding film (3M makes some dandy sanding films and sponges) and worked the bulk of the filler down.  Then I switched to 400 grit Tri-M-Ite wet/dry sandpaper (wet) and removed the 220 grit scratches.  I then used 600 grit wet/dry to further smooth and remove the heavy scratches.  The final polishing was done with a Scotchbrite pad (Squadron markets them as “Finishing Pads” if you can’t find gray Scotchbrite pads at Lowe’s or The Home Depot).  Examine the surface for scratches—if there are any deep scratches; repeat the 400/600/Scotchbrite processes until the surface is smooth.  It you really want to go off the deep end, you can polish the plastic to a mirror shine with a nail buffer—but since we’re using paint (as opposed to an NMF), all you really need is a smooth surface without heavy scratches.

Note the gaps that were filled with CA.  Also note the aggressive sanding—with gaps like this, start with 320 grit!

Now, I can tell you this—you WILL lose some of the panel line detailing.  You can handle it one of three ways: 

•  Ignore it.  Under a coat of paint, it isn’t that noticeable.
• Restore it with a scribing tool—I use a sewing needle chucked into a knife handle and my JLC razor saw.  It isn’t too difficult, just work slowly and carefully.  One tip is to flow some Extra Thin into the restored lines to “soften” them—this helps to blend your work into what Kinetic molded.
• After the paint and decals are on, draw them on with a pencil.

With the wing installed and all the seams addressed and panel detail replaced, you can assemble the control surfaces.  Take care here—the holes are larger than the pins on the hinge fairings, so they tend to float a bit both on the wing and on the control surface.  I tried to get everything assembled with a consistent gap, but had to resort to adding a few .015” shims to several of the surfaces to eliminate a “gap-toothed” look and maintain somewhat even gaps between them. 

Note that the trailing edge doesn’t need to be precisely aligned, i.e., the control surfaces don’t need to describe a straight line—the flaperons and elevons moved independently of each other, and could deflect either direction.  You have the option to depict them in the lowered position, but 99% of the photos I looked at of Mirages and Neshers on the ground showed them in the neutral position, so that’s how I built the model.

The resin nose needs to be test fit carefully—resin can shrink unevenly while curing, so make sure it fits before you commit the glue.  I found that mine fit best if I left it to sit high on top and flush around the rest of the perimeter.  I later sanded the top to match the fuselage contour.

The nose in place and the junction sanded smooth

Mask the canopy and windscreen inside and out.  Paint the frames black (I used Vallejo Panzer Gray Surface Primer in the cockpit—it is a nice scale black).  Trust me on this—you should always paint the inside and out of the cockpit glazing if you intend to pose it open—it looks more realistic.

The time to attach the windscreen has arrived.  As you might suspect, test fitting is a must.  I found that I needed to add a .010” shim under the sides to get it to sit relatively flush up front.  Remove the masking from the inside of the windscreen (I left it on during the test fitting to keep from damaging it), then use CA to attach the windscreen along the sides.  Sand the sides flush, then work your way to the front.  I had to add some filler—another reason to paint the frames first, otherwise the filler shows through the clear parts, a colorful reminder to be more careful next time.  For this, I used Perfect Plastic Putty, primarily because I could apply it and smooth it with a wet finger.  I got it roughly shaped, let it dry, and then gave it a light sanding to do the final shaping.

After that, it was all downhill.  I made one last check to make sure all of the items were in position—I left off the clear lenses, antennas, pitot, exhaust, and ordnance, but all the rest of the doo-dads were installed at this point.  A wipe down with a lint-free paper towel moistened with Isopropyl Alcohol, and the model was ready for paint.

I’ve been playing around with the “black basing” technique lately.  Accordingly, the model was primed using Vallejo’s Panzer Grey Surface Primer.  I allowed this to sit for a few days to fully and completely cure (24 hours is usually sufficient).  Then I applied the camouflage using the appropriate Vallejo Model Air colors.  I carefully applied the colors so they were more concentrated in the centers of individual panels and less so on panel lines and structural landmarks—by doing so, the black “peeks through” and creates a shadow effect.  If the shadow looks too harsh, simply apply another thin—the key to this technique is to build color in thin layers—coat of paint.   As a final step, I will thin the paint into a tint and then mist an even coat over the whole area to “homogenize” the finish.  I repeated this process with each color.  After all four colors were applied; I gave the model a close inspection to see if I needed to make any corrections.  I had to touch a few things up, and then left the paint to cure.


The fuselage, primed and ready for color

With the paint fully cured, it was time for decals.  Now, there is a small (but very vocal) faction of modelers who insist that you do not require a clear coat under decals.  And while this is indeed true, if you plan on doing any sort of weathering you really should use a clear coat.  I use Future, or whatever they’re calling the product named Future these days (at last count, it is going by “Pledge Revive It Multisurface Floor Finish”)-- although I am led to understand the Alclad Aqua Gloss is a great product, too.

The key to using Future as a gloss is to apply it and allow it to fully cure—this takes anywhere between 24 and 36 hours.  Once it is fully cured, you can apply your decals.  The first thing to pay attention to is the water you use—if you know, or even suspect, that your water has a high mineral content, simply use distilled water. 

With modern decals, the easiest way to proceed is to apply one decal, no setting solutions or solvents, and let It sit, face-up, for an hour to see how it behaves.  Modern decal adhesives do a good job of pulling the film down into panel lines, but sometimes you will need to employ a solvent—I start with Solvaset, diluted a bit with distilled water.  If that won’t do it, I’ll reduce the amount of water until I’m using it full-strength—usually, that isn’t necessary with modern decals, but older decals might require repeated applications of full-strength Solvaset.  I divide my decals into four sessions—top, bottom, left, and right, and I will support the model so the decals in question can sit face-up while they do their thing—let gravity help when you can, right?

Another important, yet often overlooked, aspect of decals is this: after they’ve dried overnight, you need to gently remove the residual adhesive from the surface of the model.  If you don’t, you run the risk of having brown spots appear after a few years.  Using a lint-free towel (a microfiber towel is good) and some warm distilled water, carefully clean the model—look at the model after you dampen it, the spots of decal residue will appear as spots on a washed dish.  Gentle scrubbing will remove it.  Allow the model to dry…


Decals on, residue removed, and clear coat applied, ready for weathering.

Now, if you are not going to do any additional “weathering”, apply a clear satin or flat coat.  If, however, you’re planning on a panel line wash, apply a coat of clear gloss over the decals.  You can use a satin finish; however, understand that the washing process will stain the paint.  A glossy surface limits the staining and gives you a bit more control.

I added an oil wash.  I will be the first to tell you that I’m not 100% happy with it, and this is partially due to the colors I used.  My tones leaned towards the red end of the color wheel, and it is a touch too red for my liking.  Now, I left well enough alone, but if you find yourself in a similar predicament, the fix is to overlay the original wash with one more to your liking.  Oils are very forgiving that way—sure, whatever you add will mix with what is already down, but you can always mix oils to accommodate the colors already on the model.  You don’t need to rush; they will stay workable for at least six hours, probably longer if you use odorless turpentine.  If, on the other hand, you use something like Naphtha, they will dry quicker.  I’ve never used anything but odorless thinners, so I have never had to worry about it.

Once the wash does dry, you can apply a clear flat or semi-gloss finish.  Unmask the clear bits, and proceed with final assembly…

Oil wash applied.  Ready for final clear matte or sating and final assembly.

The details were added—the landing gear was installed along with the doors.  The exhaust nozzle was painted in various shades of black and Vallejo Metal Color paints to depict the typical scorched metal colors found on these items.  It was added to the model.

The various antennas were painted and added.  The Angle of Attack sensor, one of those turned brass goodies, was installed.  I used the tip of a new #11 blade to locate the hole, and then drilled the hole with a #76 drill.  A small dab of Canopy Glue secured the AOA sensor in place.  The pitot probe was also installed at this time in the same manner.  I used Vallejo Metal Color to paint the probes after they were installed.

The resin missiles and pylon adapters were painted and installed.  Nothing difficult about this step, although you might want to add some brass wire pins to obtain a more secure bond.  I did not, but hindsight may call my bluff on that one…

Last to go on were the seat and the canopy.  I painted the seat following the color photos included in the instruction sheet, added the photoetch details, and detail painted the lot.  The canopy was cleaned up, the interior frame painted with Vallejo Panzer Gray primer, and the photoetch mirrors were added with Canopy Glue.  I added a rod to the hinge tab of the canopy as a positive means of attachment, and the canopy was installed.

Once everything was added to the model, I made a final inspection and touched up any paint glitches and shiny glue spots. 

I have yet to fashion a base for the model.  I know what I want to do, and I am still planning what the final display will be.  Eventually, I want this to be part of an “Israeli Deltas” display, featuring two Mirage III Shahaks (1967 bare metal and 1973 camouflage), the Nesher, and three Kfirs—a C1, C2, and C7.  Six airplanes—you figure out what the base *might* look like… 

But the model itself is complete.  It took some work, but the modeling skills required are all basics—parts clean-up, test fitting, alignment, and careful construction.

**************************************************
Speaking of the RIPCORD diorama, the FSB RIPCORD Veteran's Association has posted the article from the AMPS Boresight to their website.  I know I've teased with tidbits and photos, so you may as well see the story behind the diorama, too.  Click through it--it runs for about 55 pages on their site. 

Thanks for reading.  Please be safe and stay healthy in this time of COVID.  Be good to one another, and, as always, I bid you Peace.