Iron Modeler: The Plastic Addiction

The Plastic Addiction

02/16/2021

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.

Posted at 03:58 PM in History time, The Plastic Addiction | Permalink | Comments (0)

12/17/2020

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:

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.
Some F-4B’s would be retrofitted with the slotted stabilator late in their service life.
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.
The IR sensor was not fitted to the F-4C or F-4D, but the empty fairing remained.
Consult photographs to determine which nose was fitted to a particular airplane.
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”.
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.
Some Israeli F-4E’s had a locally fabricated refueling probe fitted.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

Posted at 05:21 PM in History time, The Plastic Addiction | Permalink | Comments (0)

12/07/2020

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.

Posted at 03:50 PM in The Plastic Addiction | Permalink | Comments (0)

12/03/2020

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.

Posted at 04:33 PM in History time, The Plastic Addiction | Permalink | Comments (0)

07/21/2020

Game-Changing Moments

Howdy, all…

Set the Wayback Machine. The date: July, 1982. The place: Warrick Custom Hobbies, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

The summer was winding down. I had graduated high school in early June, and we went north for a few weeks to celebrate and visit family. This was my one and only (so far) visit to the Air and Space Museum in Washington, and I literally could have spent a week there alone--as it was, we went twice because one of the other places were wanted to visit was closed. I must have taken a hundred pictures with my new 110 Instamatic. Yeah, I have no idea where any of those photos went. To this day, I haven’t been able to find any of them…

A week or so after we got home, I went to my recently-discovered hobby haven to look at the latest kits. On my previous visit several months before, I had previously spied a few kits that I might want to bring home with me. So, I grabbed the car keys and set out.

I strolled around—I was only beginning to discover the depth of merchandise housed within the store. There wasn't anything in the stacks that grabbed me on that day (I know, right?), so I went to the magazine rack and started looking at the books. The first to call to me was Sheperd Paine’s How to Build Dioramas. Having pored over his diorama sheets from the Monogram kits for a few years, I decided that I probably should pick this up. Back in the day, it was only about 9 dollars American, about the same as one of the Otaki kits of the day. Next to it was Hints and Tips for Plastic Modelers. I flipped through it, and there was quite a lot of information packed into the book. Four bucks—yeah, I can swing it. Then, as I turned the rack, a magazine cover caught my attention:

Image: Kalmbach Publishing

I gave the magazine a quick once-over, verified that I had the extra two and a quarter (plus the 4% for Governor Bob Graham), and took my finds to the counter. The guy at the counter—who had previously saved me from buying a Nichimo Avenger, noting it was nothing more than a re-box of the Marusan 1/50 scale kit, itself a poor copy of the Monogram kit—told me he liked the new magazine, and thought I would, too. I settled my tab--so much for that $20 bill--and drove home.

When I opened the magazine at the house, the following words greeted me:

Image: Kalmbach Publishing

As I scanned the articles, I noticed the editorial in action. Unlike the previous scale modeling magazines I had read in which the articles were text-driven with a few shots (mostly in black and white) of the completed models, the articles in this magazine actually took time to show me what the process looked like. There were detail drawings. Color references. Notes about where to find the stuff they used to build the models. Also unlike the other magazines, the history of the prototypes was mercifully brief—a paragraph or two, tops, but the meat of the article was the model and how the builder made it look that way.

At the time, I was still an airplane geek—sure, I built a few tanks and ships, and more than a few cars—but I found myself reading and re-reading all the articles in the issue. The scratchbuilt 1/76th scale Abrams captivated me—I thought the Abrams was a neat-looking vehicle, and the MERDC color schemes (which I found quite attractive) were just coming into vogue, and were certainly more interesting that straight green. But the color scheme was only the tip of the iceberg—the way Steve Zaloga wrote the article was almost begging me to try to do the same. All along the way, he made it sound like any modeler could do this, and he did it without treating the lesser skilled modelers like imbeciles or idiots. The tone was advanced, but the undertones were inviting everybody to give it a try.

The only article of a subject in my area of interest was Ernie Pazmany’s Fw-190 conversion, and I certainly learned a great deal from his model. The same holds for Richard Stazak’s vacuum-form kit article—I had only seen one vac kit to date back then, and I wondered how you built it. Now I knew. And, true to Bob Hayden’s word, I managed to take something away from every article in the issue, even though I didn’t build armor, or Navy jets, or space ships, or boxed dioramas.

I must have read and re-read that copy a dozen times before I decided that I needed to subscribe. I had to scrounge for the twelve bucks (introductory rate, IIRC—the ad in the first “real” issue said $15) for eight issues, or two years, but to me, it was well worth the price. Twelve dollars would have bought a nice model kit and the paint it needed, but I could buy them any time. As I matured (ha!), I reasoned that it was like the parable about men, fishing, and eating. I could have bought a model that kept me busy for a few days—and yeah, I would have learned something, I’m sure—or I could buy the magazine that would teach me how to build better models for years to come. I would still subscribe to that other magazine, but it paled in comparison to FSM.

Of the early issues, I remember most of the articles, simply because I read them over and over, extracting as much knowledge as I could from each page and every image. To this day, I can still remember the sense of amazement I experienced when I read Boh Boksanski's article on combining a vacuum formed and injection molded kit into a fabulous model of an airplane I had only read snippets about (the B-50D) that was painted with...dope? Pactra Silvaire Aluminum dope? Yep. Dope. Wow.

Or Mike Dario's conversion of a vacuum-formed F-89D to the earlier cannon-nosed F-89C, painted with what to me seemed to be a strange concoction of Floquil's Crystal Cote, Dio-Sol, and Pactra Silver. I would later rely on the recipe and alter it to come up with a home brewed acrylic metal finish paint many years later, a recipe I used until Vallejo's Metal Colors made their debut.

My all-time #1 modeling article of all time is still Bob Steinbrunn's cockpit detailing article from the October (Fall) 1983 issue. My original copy of that issue became so shop-worn and dog-eared that when I found a mint condition copy in the late 1990's, I snapped it up.

To give you an indication of how much I ate this stuff up, my first copy of Shep Paine's book on dioramas that I bought with that Test Issue of FSM was likewise (as they say around here) "slap wore out" by 1984 or 1985...I finally bought a new copy, as well as the Second Edition, in 2000.

I would go off to college shortly after I read that first “Test” issue, but I would look forward to reading the new issues when I would go home for the occasional weekend. Since it was a quarterly back in the day, and since I wasn’t at the house but three or four times a semester, the wait wasn’t too horrible. And once the new issue arrived, I was off to read it from cover to cover, several times.

Through FSM, I learned of IPMS, and of local clubs. After I graduated and came home, I would spend more time at the hobby shop—doubtless looking to buy all those kits I had read about in FSM. I started to meet fellow modelers who said I should start going to the IPMS/Flight 19 meetings. I went to one in late 1989, and as the story goes, was a bit gun shy to bring anything, but I did—I had a Nichimo Ki-43 Oscar in 1/48^th scale that I built a few years earlier. I had dipped my toes into weathering on that one—I used a Tamiya silver marker to check seams, and added a few patches here and there for good measure. I would swab the paint on with the paint marker, and then wipe off the excess with toilet tissue. When I applied my finish colors (Polly-S in those days), I let them dry for a few minutes, then used a tight roll of masking tape to pick off spots of color to reveal the silver underneath. I thought it was merely okay, but by the number of questions I got from the other guys you would have thought I had invented beer.

As I looked at the other models on display, I was impressed by the scope and quality of the work and it seemed like everybody was there to help each other. That was my kind of group, and I was a member from that night in 1989 until I moved away in 2001. For some odd reason, I got roped into serving as the club President from around 1993 until we moved.

A funny story about that first meeting—I knew the guys from the shop, and as I was socializing and meeting the rest of the gang, I bumped into an old high school friend. I hadn’t seen him in seven years, and had no idea he built models. He had, like me, been building since he was a kid. Without clubs, that’s pretty much what model building was in the day…a lone wolf hobby.

Between discovering FSM (and the Kalmbach books) and joining IPMS/Flight 19, I was on the way to being a better model builder. What I learned back then has become the foundation of the skills I use to this day. Further, and I’ve already discussed it, I met people who are friends to this day. For what can be a solitary pastime, that speaks volumes.

* * * * * *

One of the hobby manufacturers who was noted as introducing a line of paints matched to Federal Standards in Mr. Hayden’s editorial was none other than Testors, through their Model Master line. In fact, the ad inside the cover of the next issue was for Model Master products. In the nearly 40 years since then, the Model Master line was expanded to include the Metalizer products (bought from the originator), new colors, acrylic colors, brushes, blades, knives, tools, clear finishes, and a whole raft of modeling “stuff”.

Republic Powdered Metal (now RPM International) had acquired Testors a few years previous, along with Floquil/Polly-S, and were in the process of acquiring Pactra. They also owed or would eventually own Zinser, Bondo, and Rust-Oleum.

Testors got into the airbrush business in 1991 when they first marketed the Aztek airbrush as the “Model Master Airbrush”. I bought one, sight unseen, as soon as Warrick Hobbies could get them in stock, and I used it until the early 2000s. Aztek was a UK-based manufacturer of airbrushes and within a year of Testors marketing the Aztek, RPM (Testors parent company since the early 1980s) would buy Aztek and expand the line.

That 40-year run is coming to an end.

RPM has announced that all Pactra, Floquil, and Model Master Products have been discontinued. Apparently, they are contracting the line back to where it was in 1978—square bottle enamels, their original tube and liquid cements and putties, and the inexpensive brushes. It seems like several big steps backward, but apparently RPM had to answer to the shareholders, so they have moved the focus of their efforts to the craft scene.

There has been a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over this decision, but as I wrote on one of the online forums, there is nothing Testors made or marketed that you cannot obtain replacements for elsewhere. The bite comes when you will have to order it, since the local stores might not carry it.

* * * * * *
In related news, Revell has announced they will be marketing their paints and finishing materials in the U.S., including enamels, acrylics, and spray lacquers. They should be hitting the stores before the end of the year.

* * * * * *

The 2020 AMPS International Convention, initially planned for Harrisburg, PA in May and moved to Danbury, CT for late September, has been cancelled. Given the resurgence of COVID-19 in some states, and the quarantine orders several of the Northeastern Governors have enacted for folks traveling to their states, it came as no surprise that it, too, has been shelved.

* * * * * *
I have a few model-related research projects underway. One is fairly straightforward and will probably become an article on the F-4J(UK), the surplus U.S. Navy Phantoms purchased for the Royal Air Force and put into service by No. 74(F) Squadron in 1984.

The second project is more complicated. From the time I first saw one of the photographs of a 340^th Bombardment Group B-25 buried under ash after the 1944 eruption of Mount Vesuvius, I wanted to recreate it in miniature. The sharper ones out there will see the problem right away: the lack of good, comprehensive documentation of the Twelfth and Fifteenth Air Forces in Italy. It has been a bit of a hidden treasure hunt so far. The books that are out in the world are either rather dated (Kenneth Rust’s books date back to 1975), limited in scope, or are nothing more than picture books. The websites, too, are disjointed and scattered. I even sent one of the webmasters an e-mail suggesting that the various sites join forces, like the old Web Rings.

We’ll see how that pans out...

That's about all for now. Thanks for reading!

Stay safe and healthy!

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

Posted at 07:57 PM in Back in the day, History time, The Plastic Addiction, Well, I don't like to talk about me.... | Permalink | Comments (1)

07/16/2020

Old School Sea King

Howdy, all!

Last time we talked about Fujimi kits, and I promised you a rundown of the Sea King model I built not too long ago. Well. here she be...

Building Fujimi’s 1/72 scale SH-3

In the 1950’s, the Soviet Union began fielding a larger and more potent force of submarines, both to conduct offensive strikes and to deal with enemy shipping. In response, the Department of Defense—specifically, the U.S. Navy—began developing weapons to counter the threat.

Among the equipment in development, Sikorsky began investigating the use of turboshaft engines on helicopters to replace the obsolescent piston engines then in use with the fleet. The helicopter they designed, the Sea King, would serve the Navy until 2006.

Designed around a sealed amphibious hull and twin General Electric T58 turboshaft engines, the Sea King combined the missions of submarine hunting and submarine killing—previously, antisubmarine helicopters were either hunters or killers. Initially designated HSS-2 (H=Helicopter, S=Antisubmarine, S= Sikorsky, 2=second subtype), it would be re-designated SH-3 in 1961. Although the SH-3 had nothing in common with the HSS-1 Seabat—itself a variant of the S-58/H-34 family—other than the manufacturer, in the day, funding for an existing design was easier to obtain than for a clean-sheet design. If they wanted to stick to the HSS nomenclature, it would have more accurately been HS2S-1…

The design would be stretched into the U.S. Air Force’s HH-3E with a rear loading ramp, and eventually Sikorsky would take the basic SH-3 design, stretch it, widen it, and introduce the CH/HH-53 series. While not physically related, the family lineage is apparent.

Over the years, it was upgraded to the SH-3D, SH-3H, and SH-3G variants. A civilian variant, the S-61, was produced and initially used to ferry passengers from downtown Ney Your City and Los Angeles to their respecting international airports, where the passengers could catch their flights—it saved time and trouble dealing with traffic. S-61’s have also been used in aerial firefighting.

Fujimi’s 1/72 scale Sea King kits date back to 1981, and are quite nice, even now. The kit was available in several boxings, depicting U.S. Navy SH-3’s, Japanese HSS-2B’s, and British Sea Kings (HAR.3 and Sea King Mk. 41). Revell Germany also issued the kit as a Sea King Mk.41 (not to be mistaken for Revell’s own new-tool Sea King Mk.41 that appeared in 1998), and the kit also appeared in a Testors box. Currently, Italeri has it in a box commemorating the Apollo 11 recovery featuring “Old 66”. Options included in the box allow you to build it as an early or late Sea King—the short and long sponsons and stabilizers are included, along with a few different interior options. This model was built from one of the JMSDF issues of the kit, a kit I picked up second-hand. By the condition of the decals (and, as I would discover, the brittleness of the plastic), it probably lived most of its life in an unconditioned space. The decals didn’t matter, but I would face several issues relating to the condition of the plastic all throughout the project.

Fujimi’s venerable Sea King kit dates to 1981, but is still pretty good for its age.

Initially, I was going to build one of the CH-3B’s that the United States Air Force used to service the Texas Tower radar platforms, and I began the project with that in mind. I was going to delete the ASW gear in the cabin, so I installed the plugs for the SONAR well. The more I started digging, the more I realized that I had a lot more information to gather for a CH-3B, and rather than let this kit languish, I decided to reverse course.

I still wanted an early Engine Gray (aka Seaplane Gray, FS36081) aircraft. I started digging in my decal stash, and located two sheets that had that as an option: Microscale 72-391 and Cutting Edge Decals CED72008. I opted for the latter, since it had a colorful ship for HS-5 “Night Dippers” off the USS Lake Champlain (CVS-39). As it turns out, I would also use the Microscale sheet for the data—the Fujimi decals were worthless in that regard (remember, it was the JMSDF issue with appropriate Japanese data), and Cutting Edge does not provide it.

Left: CED72008, supplies main scheme Right: Microscale 72-391, supplies data

I took a look at what I had done to that point. Removing the plug from the cabin floor was easy—the SONAR enclosure would hide any ugliness. But the fuselage plug was another issue—when I attempted to remove it (I applied some Tamiya Extra Thin to weaken the earlier bond), part of the fuselage came out with it. I was fully prepared to make the required repairs, but my wife (who also happens to be the Sea King Subject Matter Expert over on the Tailhook Topics website) offered me her Sea King spares box for anything I may need. So, I selected a pair of fuselage halves that would work for me. The port side came from a Sea King Mk. 41 issue, and is molded in green. The starboard side was from one of the USN SH-3 issues, and was molded in white. Parts from the original kit are almost an ivory color. So, in the pictures you will notice that the model looks like Lou Antonio’s “Lokai” character from the “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield” episode of “Star Trek”—there’s the reason why. I also would use sponson stub pylon parts and landing gear from her spares, since the originals were brittle and I managed to break them during construction.

I stuck pretty much to an out of the box build, but several items couldn’t be left alone: the cabin interior was flat and featureless (a quick look inside of a Sea King reveals structural members that are quite visible) other than the optional window cut lines and some ejector pin marks, the main landing gear wells opened up into the interiors of the sponsons, and I wanted to fold the main rotor to save on display space.

I revisited my earlier cabin work and added the ASW consoles and seats, as well as the “broom closet” and SONAR housing. I left the aft web seat out for now. In the cockpit, I added a second collective (the kit only has one), and assembled the rest per the instructions.

Now comes the fun. I filled the window cut lines with a mixture of CA (super glue) and microballoons and sanded them flush once cured. There are quite a few ejection pin marks and sink marks inside the cabin, too, and these also got addressed. The good thing about the CA/microballoons mixture is that it cures fast but does not get as hard as straight CA—it sands and fathers easily.

Next, I took a pencil, and using the rivet lines on the exterior of the fuselage, I drew corresponding lines inside. Using various sizes of Evergreen strip stock, I added the indications of frames and stringers inside the left half—the right side cannot be seen, so I didn’t waste the effort, time, or materials. Simply cut the strip stock to length, and cement it in place with Tamiya Extra Thin. You’ll need to hold the stock in place for a few minutes while the cement grabs.

I also fashioned a cabin overhead from Evergreen sheet. I used the overhead from one of the new Airfix kits to cut a pattern from an index card. I test fit the pattern and adjusted it until the fit was to my liking. I transferred the pattern shape to some .015” sheet, cut the pattern out, and did some final fettling to get it “just right”. I installed some .040” square stock as gluing tabs for the overhead.

Window cut lines filled and structure added—that’s the Airfix overhead I used as a template in the foreground

The widows were cleaned and installed at this time. I used CA—sparingly—and allowed it to wick into the seam. Done carefully, the windows will be installed securely and the seam between the window and fuselage should be sealed. If you want the flush look, add more CA to the outside seam and then sand and polish the windows back to clarity. Once that was done, I masked the windows and painted the interior areas FS36321 Dark Gull Gray. The seat cushions were painted orange, and I added paper seat belts to all of the seats, and used a greenish tan shade for the web seat. The interior was then added to the fuselage halves, and the fuselage was assembled (don't forget to un-mask the insides of the windows!). The fit was quite good, I only needed to add some CA into the seam on the bottom. A quick sanding, making sure to keep the keel sharp, and that was that.

The interior “pan” painted. I didn’t go into a great deal of detail, since 99% of this won’t be seen.

The insides of the fuselage—note that I only added structure where you could see it

The engine inlet face needed to be fitted carefully—there isn’t a lot to positively locate it, so work carefully. I still wound up with some gaps, and rather than use CA as filler, I used Vallejo putty. It is workable with a wet brush, so I applied the putty and smoothed it out. After it dried, a quick touch with sandpaper feathered in any errant edges.

The engine inlet face installed.

The early issues of this kit have an issue with the cockpit windows—the lower horizontal frames are far too wide. My kit had the later corrected version, but forewarned is forearmed and all that. I first cleaned up a rather large scratch with Micro Mesh pads and Novus Polish, and then gave the canopy a dip in Future. Once the Future cured (overnight), I masked and sprayed the inside of the “greenhouse” windows—in the case of early Sea Kings, they were actually blue. I used Tamiya’s Clear Blue for this. Another curing period and the canopy panes were masked with Tamiya Tape, trimmed with a brand new #11 blade. I masked my canopy before I installed it, but you can do it whenever suits your mood.

I used Pacer’s Formula 560 Canopy Glue to secure the canopy. I had to use small tacks of CA in a few spots, since the top of the fuselage tended to bow more than the top of the canopy—gentle pressure on the fuselage, a tack of CA to lock it into position, and then some Canopy Glue to fill the small gaps, and you’re done.

With most of the fuselage together, I dealt with the sponsons. The halves were cleaned up, and then I sized a bit of Evergreen sheet to form the sides of the gear wells. I installed it right over the sockets for the struts, and once the sides of the well were secure, I drilled matching holes. I cut a bit of sheet to act as the well’s roof, and secured it to one side. The sponsons were assembled—don’t forget to install the struts!--and the roof was attached to the other side wall to close it up. I then sized bits of sheet to close off the fore and aft ends of the wells. A bit of sanding to make the sides of the well flush with the bottom of the sponson, and we could check that off the list.

All you need is Evergreen and time. Tell me, which looks better?

When you install the sponsons, do a test first to make sure the support strut will fit okay. Note that there is a normal gap between the sponson’s stub wing and the fuselage on the actual aircraft, so don’t fill it. You should, however clean up the fit of the struts where they meet the fairings.

You can see the gap that needs to be filled where the strut meets the fairing.

The horizontal stabilizer was added, and the gap was filled. The basic carcass is now complete.

The tail rotor was cleaned up of flash, and the hub detail added. I also cleaned up the main rotor parts, assembled and cleaned up the dipping SONAR unit, rescue hoist, pitot masts, main wheels, and the fuel dump. Early Sea Kings didn’t have the ice shield or rotor cap, so those went to the spares box. I ascertained that this helicopter had the split pitot probes—earlier aircraft had them both located on the right side in a vertically staggered arrangement. I left them off for painting; however, since there would be some tight work needed around the engine doghouse, they would have been in the way had I installed them now. I should have left the fuel dump off, too—I wound up breaking it several times.

Everything got a coat of Vallejo’s Panzer Gray Surface Primer. It gives a uniform base of subsequent colors, and acts as a very nice scale black. I masked the lower canopy frames that would remain black (the chin windows and lower windscreen frames) and the flame pads near the engine exhausts. Next, I used Vallejo White Surface Primer on the nose and tail band area—fluorescent and Day-Glo paints don’t do well unless there is a white backing for them. The areas were masked off in preparation for the main color. I looked and looked, and swore I had a bottle of 36081—but all I had was the Testor Acryl modern Engine Gray. I also needed the red-orange paint, so I placed a supplies order. As usual, Sprue Brothers Models was quick to ship…

Primed and ready.

The Seaplane Gray went on without a hitch. I unmasked the white areas and back-masked them for the red-orange. Yes, I could have shot the red-orange on before the gray, but as it was I had two layers of paint—I wasn’t going to chance that the tape would lift any of the paint. The red-orange is from Lifecolour, and I gotta say this—that was some really nice paint! It only needed minimal thinning and it laid down very nicely.

We now have a gray and white model.

Red on the fuselage, Gull Gray on the blades.

The tail rotor tips were masked, and the white was sprayed on the tips. When dry, the white areas were masked and the red added. It was unmasked and set aside for later.

Tail rotor, ready to go.

The main rotors’ undersides were masked, and the tops given a coat of FS36440 Light Gull Gray (I used some of the last of my Acryl paint on this). The yellow bands and tips were masked and painted. Once they were dry, I assembled the blades to the rotor head.

The main rotor assembled in the unstowed position.

“But wait a minute—you were going to fold the rotor, right?” Patience pays here. It is easier to assemble the main rotor, and then cut four of the five blades off. Using my JLC razor saw, I cut the blades from the hub just outside the main rotor head collars—this is a wee bit longer than the lap joint on the blades reaches, so I trued everything up with a sanding block. Keep track of which blade goes where, too—I merely set them on my bench in the order they were removed around the head.

Four of the five blades cut from the head.

To replace the material lost in the cutting, I added pads of .010” Evergreen sheet stock to both the blades and the rotor head. Now, comes the fun. The rigid blade is #1, therefore I needed to fold the #2 and #5 blades aft. I added a small section of Evergreen angle stock, sanded it until it was thinner and matched the angles I needed—I didn’t measure the angles, I merely eyeballed things until they looked like the reference photos I was using. I used CA here, since it grabs fast and I can lock it if I need to with some accelerator. Once they were secure, I filled the angle a bit with more CA, and sanded everything smooth.

Added the styrene pad, angle stock, and…done. Now, one more of these…

For the #3 and #4 blades, they not only fold back, but also down and lie almost flat to the fuselage. Again, I added angle stock and placed it to orient the blades where they needed to be. Again, I assembled everything with CA to get a solid bond. If you look closely, it won’t make sense, but it is the appearance that counts here. I was satisfied with the look of the rotor, and that’s what matters.

Now, were folded.

I took care of the rotor while the decals went on the rest of the model. As I said earlier, I used the Cutting Edge markings and the Microscale data. Everything went on easily, although I did make a goof—I’ll let you guys and gals have a look and see if you can tell. I’m not sayin’ a word…I can live with it. Good thing, too—fixing it would require a ton of work (and another set of decals!) that I’d rather not do…

I apply decals over a model that’s had a clear gloss applied. I use Future, thinned 50-50 with Isopropyl Alcohol, for this task. You can apply it straight if you wish, I find that the alcohol yields a thinner coat and a smooth but not too shiny finish.

Decal time. I do one side at a time, and let gravity help pull them tight.

By the bye, there is a small (but very vocal) faction of modelers online who claim you don’t need it, that as long as the paint is smooth, you’re good to go. And largely, this is true—decals only need a smooth surface to adhere to without silvering. But if you weather with washes, you will find that the untreated paint will stain differently than the paint protected by the decal film—the work-around(s): Remove all the clear film from your decals OR paint on all your markings OR apply a clear gloss. I’ve been doing the Microscale System for so long that it is ingrained in the way I build models, and it works, so I’ll stick to it. If your mileage varies, that’s cool—far be it to me to tell you how to build your models. The decals settled down nicely, for the most part, but around some of the rivets they needed some help—a bit of Solvaset did the trick. Once dry, the model was wiped down with a moist (with distilled water--I use distilled water for all phases of the decal application) microfiber towel—this removes the excess decal glue and solvent residue and prevents these areas from turning brown months or years later.

Another coat of Future, again cut 50-50 with Isopropyl Alcohol, was applied. I allowed it to dry, and then stripped off the masking from the clear parts. A few licks of paint to color details—the antennas (Panzer Gray primer), the tips of the pitot tubes and landing lights (Molotov chrome marker—next time, I’ll use MV lenses for the landing lights), the engine inlet bullets (Vallejo Mediterranean Blue and White mixed to match the blue of the checkerboard decals), and the inlet rings (Panzer Gray primer) were brush painted in the relevant colors. As the last paint operations, I masked off the wheel wells and painted them white, made a mask for the two oval antennas on the forward belly and painted them with Desert Tan Surface Primer, and masked the stainless panels around the exhausts and painted them Vallejo Metal Color Dark Aluminum.

Ready for final assembly.

A close shot of the front end. You can see a lot in the photo—the exhausts and inlets are painted, the pitot masts are installed, the engine spinners are painted, and the position light on the sponson is complete.

I had sanded the tail beacon off during construction. I made a new one from a drop of Canopy Glue. I also removed the lower beacon (I sanded off of the chin fairing), and replaced it in the same manner. I cut the molded position lights on the sponsons off, and small dabs of Canopy Glue replaced them. When the glue drops were dry, the lights were painted in the relevant colors using Tamiya Clear Red and Clear Green. A clear position light was added to the aft end of the tail.

The remaining parts were installed with Canopy Glue. The benefit of using Canopy Glue is that the bond breaks before the part does, so if the model gets bumped, you can easily repair anything that pops loose. Any shiny glue spots were addressed with either Future or Matt Varnish, as the situation warranted.

The main rotor still needed work. As it was, the tips of the blades stuck straight out. I used a small section of .040” square stock to raise the forward edge of the rotor head—this dropped the blades to where they looked like the reference photos I used. As a final detail, I made the rotor tie-downs from paper and thread. I slid the bags over the ends of the rotors and secured the “ropes” to the tail wheel as shown in photos. This will put some tension on the blades and get them to curve down a bit. There was no “one” way these were secured—look at your photos and build what you see.

A little stock to get the right “sit” on the rotor head, then some paper and thread will tie down the main rotor.

All models need a base—it is literally a frame for your model. Simple bases for aircraft models are easy—they are usually a flat base covered with either turf, pavement, or, in the case of ships, a deck (either wood or steel). I had a craft-store plaque lying around that I inherited from someone who simply left them at the hobby shop as freebies. It wasn’t in the greatest shape—it had scratches and dings on it. I sanded it as smooth as I could, filled the dings and divots, and gave it a few coats of Matt Black using a craft acrylic. Once the paint was dry, I shot on a few coats of Future—I have an older bottle that was turning yellow, and I had added some food coloring to create a tint.

I created the deck using a piece of mat board I bought as part of a package of off-cuts from the crafts store. I measured the base, cut the mat board to size, and then used a pencil and a straightedge to simulate the deck planks. I had a good photo of the Champ’s deck, and I followed it as closely as I could—Essex-class carrier decks were planks set side to side. About every eight planks, there was a steel frame with tie-down cleats. In the case of my base, I didn’t bother with the cleats, since the deck was so dark. Once the planks were embossed, I painted the mat board with Vallejo Tire Black. Once dry, I masked and painted the stripes and helipad location. A coat of matt clear finished the job.

A simple base sets your model off. This took about an hour and used common materials found in craft shops.

I glued small squares of felt to the corners of the bottom of the plaque, and attached the deck to the top side, all with Tacky Glue. I whipped up a quick placard in PowerPoint and printed it on card stock, trimmed it to size, and attached it to the deck with Spray Mount.

The final step was to attach the helicopter to the deck with a few dabs of Canopy Glue. With that, another model is ready for the display cabinet.

A dab or two of glue, a placard, and we’re done.

From the top. The folded rotor adds some visual interest and saves on display space.

So there you have it. All told, this took maybe 10 nights of work, about three hours per night--give or take. You can plow a lot more work into one of these kits--detailing the cockpit, detailing the rotor heads, adding small details to the exterior--but I only added what I considered the bare minimum required to make it look good on the shelf.

I'm happy with the end result, but not satisfied--the model is quite attractive, sure, but as the "father" of the finished model, I cannot help cringe when I see my boo-boos. In the end, it gives me an excuse to build another...and another. By doing, you learn. By practicing, you become a master. Isn't that what it is all about?

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

Posted at 02:59 PM in History time, The Plastic Addiction | Permalink | Comments (0)

07/10/2020

Fujimi, Fujimi, wherefore art thou, Fujimi? (With apologies to The Bard)

Howdy, all…

I’ve been reading a lot of back issues of modeling magazines lately—way, way back issues, from the early 1980’s. I was reading FineScale Modeler, to be precise (and if you are a fan of the magazine and haven’t yet bought their 25 years, 1982-2007 and 10 years, 2008-2018 DVD’s, what are you waiting for?), especially the early issues between the initial Test Issue in 1982 until around 1987 just to look back and remember how it used to be. Incidentally, a lot of tools and products that modelers today seem to think are “new” actually date back to pre-FSM days. (I’ll cover the early days of FSM in a later post—I’ve been trying to write it for several weeks now, but always find something lacking.)

When the magazine first came out, I was a 1/48 scale WWII airplane modeler. If it did not fit that collection, I wasn’t interested. A few years later, my tastes changed—well, they didn’t change, per se, I just grew my areas of interest. In the Fall of 1986, I embarked on a 1/48^th F-111 using the Monogram rework of the Aurora F-111A kit. I had recently discovered the Detail and Scale series, too, and after reading the reviews, looking at the photos, and comparing them to the actual plastic, I saw nothing but a major fight with the kit. I was at a crossroads. While at one of the Daytona hobby shops (most likely Sky, Ltd.—HobbyCraft Junction had closed, and Ace RC had only a small selection), I spied the Monogram 1/72 F-105G. Having been a fan of the Thud since I saw a picture in the family’s Collier’s Encyclopedia (again, this was when most families actually owned an encyclopedia set), and having built the Monogram 1/48^th scale kit in 1983, I was intrigued. I bought the kit, and quickly liked the idea of jets in 1/72 scale. (I gave the ‘Vark to a college friend, who finished it respectably, showing that it *could* be done—and if you wanted a 1/48^th scale F-111, this was the only way at the time.)

I reasoned that a 1/48^th F-105 is almost the same length as a 1/48^th B-25, and I realized that doing jets in the smaller scale did two things: saved display space—well, it didn’t really “save” space, since there were now more kits to build, the smaller kits just allowed for more models to be shown in the same space—and opened up a vast variety of subjects to my collection.

Sticking with the 1/72 scale theme, I would buy and build the Monogram EF-111A in the Spring of 1987, a Hasegawa F9F-2 Panther in the Fall of 1987, and a Monogram F-4D in the Spring of 1988, rounding out my years at “The Harvard of the Sky”. Later, after I graduated and joined the real world, I would build Fujimi’s AH-1J, and ESCI’s F-104C and Mirage F.1. As I started building for other people, I would build several copies of the Heller C-118, Hasegawa’s F-14, S-3, and F-16A+; Monogram’s F-4J and F-105G; and Revell’s F-89D. My journey to the “Dark Side” was complete—almost. I still build WWII fighters in 1/48^th scale.

At about the same time, I also started to shrink my WWII bombers to 1/72 scale, and for the same reasons. I would find the Italeri B-25’s, Airfix A-26 and B-26, Revell’s A-20, B-24, and PBY, and Hasegawa’s B-17’s while I was in college…

Of course, I had also begun dabbling in ships, cars, armor, and miniatures (“figures”) by then, too…

(I once had a fairly convoluted collection breakdown. As I’ve progessed in years, I have started to re-think a lot of things, and am slowly going through a “fleet rationalization”. But that’s another story for another time…)

Anyway, I need to steer us back on track…

In the early to mid-1980’s, Fujimi and Hasegawa were leading the pack in 1/72 scale with a new generation of kits. Sure, the Italian firms of ESCI and Italeri had a few new goodies, and the Koreans were ramping up some kits of their own, but the folks from Shizuoka were standing head and shoulders above everyone else, including U.S. domestic stalwarts Revell and Monogram.

Fujimi, in particular, began releasing “families” of kits based on a common tool with inserts and optional parts to get as much mileage (read: as many variants of the type) from a mold as possible. Among this new series of 1/72^nd scale kit families, we had:

A-4 Skyhawk (from the A4D-1 on, including the TA-4’s and some of the export versions)
A-6 Intruder (including the KA-6D)
A-7 Corsair II (all single-seat variants from A-7A to A-7E)
F-4 Phantom II (eventually the F-4B through the F-4S, including the RF-4B and C and the Spey-powered British Phantoms)
F-86 Sabre (the F-86F family, including the F-40 and RF-86)
F7U “Cutlass”
Ju-87 Stuka (D, G, and R variants)
D3A “Val”
B6N “Jill”
D4Y “Judy”
B7A “Grace”
Ki-36 “Ida”
Ki-15 “Babs”
F1M “Pete”
A5M “Claude”
CH-46 Sea Knight
H-60 Blackhawk

Later in the 1980’s and into the 1990’s, Fujimi continued with a 1/72 F-14A, F-16 series, MiG-21 series, and F/A-18 series that were on the same level as the contemporary releases of the same subjects from Hasegawa. In addition, they offered a 1/72^nd scale Ki-43 Oscar series, the J1N1 “Irving”, some late marque Spitfires (they only managed to do the XIVc and FR.19, according to Scalemates), and also got into 1/144 scale with a series of B-29 kits. Later, they would add Japanese WWII fighters to the 1/144 collection, and after Nitto went bankrupt, they would add some of their military vehicles to the Fujimi catalog.

If you built modern subjects, when you add to these their earlier SH-3 Sea King, E-2 Hawkeye, Kaman Seaspite, Bell UH-1N, Westland Lynx, CH/HH-53, and AH-1J Sea/Sand Cobras, there was a lot to choose from. And, when you coupled Fujimi’s jets and helicopters to the Hasegawa kits of the day (F-14, F-15, F-16, S-2, S-3, etc.), you could amass quite a collection of modern airplanes.

The WWII guys had a lot to choose from, too, especially stuff that had either not been made before as an injection molded kit, or the only kits available were older, less accurate and less detailed kits, some of which were in odd scales.

Now, I had already purchased and perused (and stashed) the older Fujimi 1/48^th scale Bf-110C/D, late Bf-109G/K, the Aichi D3A “Val”, the 1/50^th Fw-190D-9; and had actually built their 1/50^th Spitfire Vb in 1983. The fact that some of their kits were in “odd” scales (1/50 and 1/70) for their earlier kits didn’t really bother me at the time, and by the time I was getting into the smaller scale, the kits that interested me were in the more common scales. Even the older kits were nicely done from a molding quality standpoint, only the accuracy and detailing needed better execution. Still, most were the only games in town at the time—for example, the Dora was “it” in anything near 1/48^th scale unless you converted the Monogram kit with Bill Koster’s excellent vac-form conversion. We had to wait until 1987 for Trimaster to put a state-of-the-art injection molded 1/48^th scale Fw-190D-9 kit on the shelves.

Even in 1/48^th scale, they had a few older kits of modern subjects, including an F-14A, an F-15, the Mitsubishi F-1 and T-2, and a 1/50^th F-5B that also masqueraded as a “White Mosquito” T-38.

But these new tool kits in 1/72 scale were something else. Petite recessed detail, good fit, fairly decent details, and they were not astronomically priced. I believe Testors had the U.S. market distributorship agreement back then, which kept the pricing fairly low. Some of these would also appear in Testors boxes along the way.

And then, they were gone. It seemed as though Fujimi kits on hobby shop shelves had evaporated overnight. When you could find them, the prices had soared. What happened?

Apparently--and I’m going by what I know about the plastic model industry from my days working at hobby shops here, since most Japanese model manufacturers keep a close lid on their internal goings-on--is that when Testors’ importer agreement with Fujimi ended, for whatever reason, no other importer picked them up OR Fujimi decided not to replace Testors as their importer into the U.S. Or, perhaps things weren’t as rosy as we had hoped—after all, with all these superb kits coming out, it was a virtual license to print money, right? We couldn’t keep their kits on the shelves for a while. Did the Testors re-boxings divert money? Were they not hot sellers elsewhere in the world? And it wasn’t as if all Fujimi had going for them were these airplane kits—they made cars in 1/24 (Porsches, the Ford GT-40 series, racing Ferraris), waterline series ships in 1/700 scale, military vehicles in 1/72 and 1/76, and recently, they produced some 1/350 scale ship kits, too.

Whatever happened, Fujimi is still around. Their website shows 232 airplane kits in the aircraft line—most of which are marked as “sold out”. Recently, they offered kits of the F-22A and the F-35B (VTOL version). As you run through the line, you’ll see just how extensive the Fujimi catalog is. The fact that there is no U.S. importer means that instead of going to the local shop, you need to go online. Hobbylink Japan, Hobbylinc, PlazaJapan, and HobbySearch all carry the line.

If you’ve never had the pleasure, get a modern (post-1982) Fujimi kit and build it. I’m sure you’ll enjoy the ride. As I promised last time, I’ll document the construction of one of Fujimi’s Sea Kings in the next post. The Fujimi Sea King kit pre-dates the others by a few years (it appeared in 1980), but it was marketed as a “family”, including the SH-3D/G/H, JSDF HSS-2B, and RAF Sea King HAR.3). It was a good indication of what was to come from Fujimi Mokei.

* * * * * * * * * *

Here in the Greater Upper Midlands Co-Prosperity Sphere, things are going as well as can be expected. Both model clubs (AMPS and IPMS) have gone to Zoom meetings, since both clubs normally meet in county libraries that have been closed since March. Zoom meetings work fairly well for those who join them, but some of the folks just don’t have the technical know-how and equipment to participate. Several people have offered alternative meeting locations, but they aren’t big enough to practice social distancing, so we’ll stick with Zoom for now. It isn’t a perfect solution, but it works well enough.

Of the model show “casualties” of COVID-19, our June show had been postponed until August, but last week the committee decided to cancel it. There were many reasons, all of them valid, but the cherry on the sundae was the Governor’s Executive Order than limited the number of people allowed in any government facility to no more than 50. Since that would barely accommodate the show staff and vendors, we were left with no other choice.

Of course, IPMS/USA cancelled their 2020 National Convention in San Marcos, Texas as the number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 spiked in that state. The San Marcos crew was awarded the 2023 convention after IPMS/USA renegotiated the deal with the venue there. It was the right thing to do, especially when it has come to light that a convention hall close to the venue has been opened as an overflow hospital.

The only show that is still “Go!” (for now, at least) is the rescheduled (from May) and moved (from Harrisburg, PA to Danbury, CT) AMPS International Convention, although given the traveler quarantines in place in the Northeast, I expect it to be cancelled in the upcoming weeks.

* * * * * * *

Speaking of AMPS, our Chapter’s long-term project for the South Carolina Confederate Relic Room and Military Museum was moved into place and completed in March. The museum has an announcement, and the Facebook page we established has now been opened to the public.

We kept things under wraps during construction, but since it is now on full display, here’s a thumbnail:

The 8’X12’X5’ diorama represents Fire Support Base RIPCORD circa mid- to late June, 1970. RIPCORD was a pivotal battle during Operation TEXAS STAR, yet another attempt to shut down the movement of men and material down the Ho Chi Minh Trail. It was for all intents and purposes under siege from 1 July 1970 until it was “closed” and evacuated on 23 July. It was the last battle led and fought primarily by U.S. troops.

If you want to know more, check out the RIPCORD Association website.

We built the diorama in 1/72 scale, with a good 95% of it being bespoke—only a relative few items (helicopters, howitzers) were built from kits. It is located in the atrium between the South Carolina State Museum’s ticket desk and the Relic Room; to view it costs nothing. It is supposed to remain in place for at least two years. If you are an AMPS national member, Part One of a three-part article appeared in the latest issue of the AMPS magazine “Boresight”.

* * * * * * *

That’s all I have for now. Thanks for reading. Stay safe and stay well, and, as always, be good to one another. I bid you Peace.

Posted at 06:12 PM in Back in the day, The Plastic Addiction | Permalink | Comments (0)

04/09/2020

Interesting things you find online...

Howdy, all!

I trust this finds all of you well and healthy. The COVID-19 pandemic has affected all of us in one form or another—family gatherings are on hold, all sorts of shows have been cancelled or postponed, meetings have been cancelled or gone online, stores have closed, and many are either working from home or not working…

Please be safe. COVID-19 strikes in many forms, and it is a matter of chance if you get a mild or severe case, should you contract it. Take precautions, follow the latest reliable news and directives, and we'll get through this together.

Personally, I’m using the down time to work on models. I have finished the Special Hobby Macchi C.200 (the article on the project was recently posted to Internet Modeler), our diorama project for the museum is completed and delivered (but not unveiled--the COVID-19 shut down meant the museum had to postpone the event), and I’ve done a little more work on the Aeroclub Gamecock. I’ve also started work on what I hope is a quick project—converting Fujimi’s classic 1981-vinatge 1/72 scale HSS-2B/SH-3H to a U.S. Nave SH-3A from HS-5 using the Cutting Edge “Sea Kings #1” decals.

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

In the “The More Things Change” files, I found this while searching online for some information on Challenge Publications' Scale Modeler magazine. It was posted, with commentary, to one of the many modeling forums (sorry, I forgot which one!) on the internet these days. I have removed the original poster’s comments and added my own—some things had changed since he initially posted it a few years ago.

What is it? In October 1966, the magazine printed a survey—you know, one of those “What kits do you want to see?” surveys. They printed the results in the March 1967 issue, and I present them here. I’ve left the original as it was, so the spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors are not mine.

I thought it might be interesting to see what was going on back then, and compare it to what we see online these days.

My comments are in [RED]:

The Readers Speak - Results Of Our Modeler’s Survey

The letters continue to pour in but out of the chaos that five thousand plus survey returns can produce, Scale Modeler [S/M] has been able to draw several significant and far reaching conclusions.

First and foremost, is the informed caliber of today’s modeler. As we have pointed out before, he [It was, after all, 1966/1967—how many girls were building models back in the day?] is neither twelve years old nor is he gullible. On the contrary, his knowledge of what he is modeling is usually extensive. [And thus began the never ending quest for better, more accurate, more intricately detailed models.]

He is discriminating in his purchases and, if the kit warrants it, he is willing to spend quite a bit more to get something extra. Quality impresses him and he is quick to spot the hackneyed and the inferior. [Might this be the advent of “unbuildable” kits and “rivet counters”, maybe?] For this reason, the manufacturing of scale model kits has become a very competitive as well as hazardous business. Guess wrong or underestimate the modeler’s selectivity and a firm, even a big one, can go out of business fast.

Although our survey is only some six weeks along as this is written and we still are receiving letters at the rate of five hundred per week, a consensus has been building and it has taken the following form.

Fully half of those who replied to our questionnaire opted to write letters, going far beyond our brief listing. We appreciated this and we read them all. Preliminary among the comments after the perennial one that the survey was a good idea, was the thought expressed in many ways, that his was the first time the modeler had been asked about what he though and wanted and that it was hoped the manufactures would take heed.

We would like to reassure our readers that several companies, all of which well known, have already expressed interest in what they though and want to see the results of our survey as soon as it is completed. Two have already begun tooling up their plants for the production of models which, heretofore, they never realized were so wanted by the modeling public.

In addition to getting their thoughts of their chests, many readers also took the time to both praise and criticize some of the features in Scale Modeler. A few issues back, we told you that S/M was to be your magazine, and you lost no time making your opinions known. We must add however, that the majority of your points were well taken and although you got us right in the ego, we will try to adopt as many of your ideas as possible.

Getting back to your kit selections . . . we found the following comments particularly noteworthy. In fact they were voiced so often that we feel there is a definite trend to the thing of our readers.

1. Most modelers are tired of the same old standbys. Unless the kits are superdetailed, much larger, or depict a different model previously unavailable, they would rather say bye bye to Mustangs and Zeros et. al. [Where have we heard this? Yep, on pretty much every modeling forum or Facebook modeling page when Company X decides to release a new kit of the Me109, P-51, or Spitfire. However, many these days ignore the caveat listed--it isn't that modelers don't necessarily want these kits, it is that the new kit needs to be better--measurably better--then the extant examples. And, with each new release, that goal becomes more difficult, given the talent of some of the modern kit manufacturers.]

2. Every modeler who wrote to us generally admitted that he would be willing to pay a little more to get a little more. All would rather have one or two well done plane, car, ship or armor kits than a hose of inaccurate, poorly researched models. [How much is too much? People clamored for these better, more detailed, well-fitting kits, but when the price point became too much, the screaming began. Hey, quality costs money, gang!]

3. Almost everyone evinced a keen interest in the neglected between-the-wars plastics which encompass the period 1920 to 1940, and include military, civilian and racing planes. [Some of what the modelers are asking for already existed in 1966/1967-- this seems to be a repeating thread in this survey. On the civil side, Pyro released a 1/32 Gee Bee in 1953; Williams Brothers would release their 1/32 racer kits in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. ITC’s 1/32 Staggerwing appeared in 1960; AMT graced us with a 1/48 kit in 1977. So, there were kits available at the time—I will make the assumption that the respondents merely wanted more and better.]

4. Our readers also wanted to see a section devoted to readers’ submissions, a feature we begun with our sixth issue and intend to sustain.

Before going into the selections chosen by you, one more market reaction was noted, possibly the most important one.

Every reader took the survey seriously. Many wrote us that they had tried repeatedly in the past to promote several kits that they wanted especially to see. Some have even gone so far as organize clubs for the purpose. Unfortunately, their requests have been ignored or turned down with a polite reply. That is until now.

We at Scale Modeler take great pleasure in announcing that many of your requests will soon be in the works. The model industry is waking up. Competition from overseas has been a major spur [The emphasis is mine—Airfix, Revell Japan, Tamiya, Hasegawa, FROG, and other foreign kits were making an influx into the United States; this was also about the time frame when the West started seeing more and more kits from the likes of Czechoslovakia and other Eastern Bloc countries.], but the resounding response from readers like yourselves has made the big difference.

For too many years scale modeling was thought to be in the same category with “hobby toys”, particularly by the manufacturers themselves. It is only now that many manufacturers have learned that scale modelers are serious people. With the emphasis away from pleasing the kids and focused instead on building an authentic replica, we can expect to see great strides made in accuracy, quality and the range of models available. [Indeed, it was around this time that Monogram started deleting the working features from their kits, and when Revell decided to get serious with 1/72 scale.] If Scale Modeler has done anything to further this trend, it would be gratifying indeed.

[For those not familiar, S/M was the best American modeling magazine we had—they started in 1965, and were all most of us had (Sure, there were a few European magazines, but out of reach for most kids back then!) until 1981/1982, when Kalmbach started FineScale Modeler. S/M would hang on until the mid-1990’s before it ended publication, but it was many modelers’ first taste of seeing other people’s work. I know what I saw on the pages of S/M certainly opened my eyes! Putty? Airbrush? What is this Solvaset they keep talking about? Microscale system? Huh? They were my source for what was going on in the model world, the place where I learned there was more than just Revell, Monogram, MPC, and AMT—in my early days, Airfix kits were exotic!]

[A few notes. For those of you who have never heard the terms “quarter-inch scale”, “quarter scale”, or “1/4 inch scale”, they’re talking about what we know as 1/48 scale—1/4 inch to the foot. Some people get torqued around the axle when you use “quarter scale” in conjunction with a 1/48 scale model—they say that “quarter scale” is one fourth the actual size, a common RC scale. The term probably originated as a slurred version of “quarter inch scale”. My answer to them is that they are just as lazy, claiming that ONE-quarter scale and “quarter scale” are the same thing. It doesn’t just apply to scale models—“quarter scale” also comes from the dollhouse builders—1/48 scale is one-quarter the size of the standard 1/12 dollhouse scale.]

And now the results of the survey in order of preference:

AIRCRAFT

[Note the depth and detail--such as it is--that this portion of the survey gets in to.]

A Kingfisher by Monogram in ¼ inch will be reviewed in next issue of S/M [June 1967].

First Place: Tie between Vought Sikorsky Kingfisher and Douglas TBD Devestator. The former will be out within a few months in 1/32 scale [A typo?], the model, an OS2U-3 type was made from a three-view drawing appearing in our sister publication Air Classics. Meanwhile, preliminary work is underway on a model of the later. [It appears both were close to market. Monogram’s 1/48 kit was released in late 1966; Airfix produced their 1/72 OS2U in 1967. Airfix’s 1/72 TBD would debut in 1968; Monogram’s 1/48 kit was released in 1974.]

Second Place: Martin B-10. A fine aircraft ignored by manufacturers, no plans are in the works for its production, bet we have made contact with a forward looking firm which is giving the matter strong consideration. [Were they referring to Williams Brothers, perhaps? So far, they’re the only game in 1/72 scale with their 1974-vintage kit. In 1/48, Lone Star Models did a 1/48 kit originally produced in the late 1990’s/early 2000’s. Special Hobby has made noise about a new tool kit in 1/72, nothing yet.]

Third Place: Savoia Marchetti 79. We knew this one was in production [Artiplast of Italy was on the verge of releasing a 1/50 scale kit; Airfix would follow suit with their 1/72 kit around the same time] when we ran our survey and therefore omitted it. However, we got so many requests for it, we thought we would include it to prove that not all manufacturers are stuck on the same kits.

Fourth Place: Seversky P-35, another of the forgotten classics of the thirties, which many wanted super-detailed in 1/4” scale. [Williams Brothers would release their 1/32 kit in 1970;) fans of 1/48 scale would get a vacuum-form from Aeroform in the mid-1970’s, but had to wait until 1993 for Hobbycraft to release their injection molded kit.]

Fifth Place: Curtis C-46 Commando, virtually submerged by the Goony bird’s publicity, this World War II workhorse was the biggest non-combat vote getter. [Williams Brothers released their 1/72 scale kit in 1976.]

Sixth Place: Waco 10. All respondents wanted a big, super-detailed model of this bird with moveable controls ala Monograms F3F and Gulfhawk. [The world still waits for this one.]

Seventh Place: Bell Airacuda, also in quarter inch scale, although collectors of many models complained that 1/72 was the only to keep models from taking over the entire house. [RarePlanes released their 1/72 vacuum formed kit in 1971; Valom released their injection molded kit in 2006. Other than limited run and obscure kits, nothing in any other scale. Also note that in many surveys today, the pendulum has swung the other way, towards larger subjects and bigger kits.]

Eight Place: Tie among Mitsubishi Ki 21 Type 97 “Sally,” Mitsubishi G4M “Betty” and Kawanishi H3K1 flying boat “Emily.” The first two will eventually be brought out by L/S, the Japanese firm which did the Peggy that appeared in the issue Number 6 [L/S’s Peggy kits were closer to 1/75 scale]. Since L/S and Nichimo are perhaps the two finest companies in Japan, these should be winners. [Funnily enough, L/S didn’t release kits of either the Sally or Betty, and Nichimo didn’t kit any of them. The 1/72 Sally was released first by Revell Japan in 1975; MPM released theirs initially in 2001 followed by an improved reissue the following year. The Betty was released in 1/72 scale by Lindberg in 1970. Still no injection molded 1/48 scale Sally, but Tamiya came through with a 1/48 scale G4M1 in 1996. Hasegawa did a 1/72 Emily in 1967; L/S did one on 1/144 scale in 1980.]

Ninth Place: Heinkel He 177 Grief. Aircraft will be out next year by Faller, a German Maker, but may be hard to come by. [Scalemates doesn’t list a Faller He177 at all—most of their models were in 1/100 scale, anyway. Oddly enough, Airfix released a 1/72 He 177 in 1967. How S/M missed it is still a mystery. Revell (Germany) released a superb 1/72 kit in 2000.]

Tenth Place: Curtis Shrike. Again the call was for a super detailed model and readers called for extra parts to make model variations with, thus giving them a wider range of types, and were willing to pay more for same. [The question in my mind is which “Curtiss Shrike”? Curtiss used the “Shrike” name for different models of airplanes they built for the Army, from the A-8 to the A-25 (the USAAF version of the SB2C Helldiver—incidentally, the name “Helldiver” was also a common name Curtiss used on their airplanes delivered to the U.S. Navy). RarePlanes gave us a 1/72 vacuum-formed A-8 in 1969 and an A-12 in 1987; Czech Models released 1/48 scale kits of the A-8 and A-12 in the early 2000’s. Monogram’s original 1/48 scale SB2C kit came along in 1961; Airfix put out a 1/72 SB2C in 1967 and Matchbox released a 1/72 SB2C in 1973. In more recent times, ProModeler (Revell-Monogram) made a new-toll SB2C in 1997; in 1/72 scale, Sword (2001) and Academy (2005) are the most recent.]

Eleventh Place: Tie among Boeing F4B, P-12, P-26 all in quarter inch scale. It was felt the models now on the market of these ships were just too inadequate. Again super-detailing and size was the big feature, with lots of accessory parts for variation and prime attention paid to exacting detail. It was also found that in conjunction with these inter-war ship types Monogram’s treatment of the Grumman F3F should be extended to these classics also. [Aurora’s 1/48-ish scale kits were released in 1955 for the P-26, and 1958 for the F4B-4 and P-12E. They were okay for their day, which is probably why the respondents to the survey wanted newer and better kits. Again, sound familiar? It wasn’t until the 1990’s that we saw modern kits of all three—Classic Airframes released their P-12/F4B series in 1999, and Hobbycraft’s P-26 came along in 1994.]

Twelfth Place: Lavochkin LA-5, included with these votes was the comment that most Russian WWII aircraft have been ignored by the manufacturers. [In the larger scales, this is still somewhat true. Things are getting better with the new Ukrainian companies. There were vacuum formed 1/48 scale kits of the La-5 by Falcon in 1980 followed in 1991 by Hobbycraft’s rather lukewarm injection molded kit. In 1/72 scale, the Russian/Soviet types were gaining notice--Airfix released the Yak 9D in 1963, Ilyushin Il-2 in 1964, Petlyakov Pe-2 in 1968. FROG released the Tupolev SB-2 in 1969, and had a Lavochkin La-7 planned for 1977, but the firm went insolvent before it could be released. Italeri’s La-5 came along in 1971.]

ARMOR

[Note the general lack of detail when it came to armor kits. Aircraft were then, I suspect, as much a "majority" subject as they are now. Plus, reviewing scalemates.com, it became apparent that even though Revell, Adams, Aurora, and other domestic companies were making armor models, it wasn't until Monogram's 1/32 kits and the Tamiya 1/35 scale invasion a few years later that the field really got going. The smaller scales were dominated by, at first, Airfix's HO/OO (1/76) kits until the Japanese firms started producing 1/72 armor. By the time ESCI got into the 1/72 armor game, they were producing superb kits in the smaller scale.]

First Place: General Stuart M3A1 light tank used by British in western desert and christened “Honey”. [Tamiya’s classic Stuart kit in 1/35 arrived in 1974. Hasegawa’s Braille scale kit in 1/72 arrived the previous year. Since then, we’ve had more modern kits.]

Second Place: General Grant with 75 mm gun also mainstay in western desert, early phase. [Tamiya’s 1/35 scale Grant and Lee kits came along in 1974; like the Stuart, Hasegawa issued 1/72 kits in 1973. Better kits have come along in recent years.]

Third Place: German half track armored personnel carrier . . . sd.Kfz 250/1. [How odd is this? One of the most-used German half-tracks wasn’t kitted in 1/72 until ESCI’s 1974 kit; a 1/76 scale kit came from Eidai in 1972; and Nitto gave us the first 1/35 scale kit in 1968.]

Fourth Place: American M-10 Tank destroyer with 76 mm gun. [Academy had a 1/35 kit out in the 1970’s; the smaller scales seemed to have had nothing until the early 2000’s.]

Fifth Place: British Mk.I “Mother,” variation which first appeared on the Somme in 1916. [Airfix 1/72 scale in 1996; still nothing in 1/35.]

Sixth Place: Renault FT tank WWI. [Nothing until the mid-1990’s MB resin 1/35 kits and the early 2000’s 1/72 kits from RPM.]

Seventh Place: Christie T3 Tank, pioneer of the early thirties and forerunner of Russian designs. [Still not thick on the ground—conversions exist in 1/35 scale, and Kora did one in 1/72 scale—all in the 2000’s.]

Eight Place: Russian T/34 76. Only model of this type tank is T/34 85 mm gun model by Revell which is no longer in production. [Tamiya’s original 1/35 scale kit came out in 1965.]

Many requests for Japanese tanks were received but these are now available from Japan in any store that stocks Japanese kits. [I wish they would have elaborated which Japanese tanks. As an example, Tamiya did a 1/35 Chi-Ha in 1975, Aurora kitted a 1/48 Chi-Ha in 1964, Fujimi released a 1/72 kit in 1974, and Airfix did a 1/76 kit in ’74 as well. Nothing I’ve seen in 1966/1967 time frame.]

SHIPS

[I'm sure there were more ship requests back in the day. The Waterline Series wouldn't appear for a few years, but certainly there were holes.]

First Place: RMS Titanic. The famous liner won by ratio of nearly three to one over its nearest competitor. Rumor has it that the Cunard White Star Lines would take dim view of a model being produced, as it would revive unpleasant memories. This seems a bit much when you consider the movies and bestselling books written about this historic steamship. At any rate, two firms are definitely interested in this project, as a group of modelers who form the Titanic Enthusiasts of America (that’s the name) have collected all the photos etc. needed to do a comprehensive job. Model would be made in the three ft. overall class. [G-Mark released a 1/350 scale kit in 1975; Revell did a box scale (1/570) kit in 1970. In the 1990's, Academy released their kits in various scales.]]

Second Place: German WW I sub (U-9), Kapitainleutnant Otto Weddigen commanding. Early sub sank three British battlecruisers in first weeks of WWI. Readers asked for clear plastic hull-half to reveal detailed interior. One firm has already undertaken the project. [Nothing yet.]

Third Place: Carrier Enterprise Big “E” a scratch built model of which appeared in previous issue of Modeler. Kit will appear early next year. [Assuming they’re talking about CV-6, Tamiya had a Waterline Series 1/700 scale kit out in 1974, and Aurora had their ~1/600 kit out in 1959. If they mean CVN-65, Revell had a 1/720 kit out in 1969; Aurora’s 1/400 kit was out in 1961.]

AUTOMOBILES

[Once again, note the quick take that gets done with autos. Perhaps it was (and is), as the article states, that cars were well catered for. Perhaps, but why is the automotive world still waiting for some of the classic musclecars and cars of the 1950's and 1960's?]

Of the thousands of questionnaires received all but a handful checked Hitler’s Mercedes Touring Car which was the biggest single vote getter in any category. Of all the models available the car manufacturers offer the widest range. Therefore, many classics ignored in other fields are already available in the car category. However, in addition to the Mercedes, numerous requests were made for Craig Breedlove’s “Spirit of America”. [ICM did the Mercedes a few years ago in 1/35 scale. Only a 1/43 Spirit of America from several manufacturers was ever released. Part of the reason cars had a wide range in the States comes from the promos and annual kits being produced by AMT, SMT, Jo-Han, and MPC.]

In closing, we wish to thank all those who took the time to write to us. Time and space do not allow us to reduce all your requests and it must be noted that particular aircraft such as the McDonnell Moonbat and Japan’s Rita, a four engine bomber, will probably never appear except as scratch built projects. [Funny they said that, since a 1/72 G8N1 arrived later in 1967 from Hasegawa. The XP-67 kits released in both 1/72 and 1/48 are vacuum form or resin, and came along much later.]

However, many fine models which are out were requested by readers who in all probably, did not know that they were available. We are speaking of the Douglas A-20 Havoc, the Me. 410 (reviewed in last issue) [November 1966] and now the Arado 196. [How can this be? How can fans of certain subjects not know kits exist of their favorites? For starters, we only had magazines—monthly, bimonthly, or quarterly—and word of mouth, either through clubs or the guy at the local hobby shop to go by in the day.] Others will be coming out shortly and if your local hobby store does not carry them, write to any of the specialist outfits which advertise in S/M; chances are they’ll have what you want. [I love the shameless plug--Syd Chivers was never one to miss an opportunity, nor was Ed Schnepf. These guys were the powers-that-be at Challenge.]

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

So there you have it. We've come a long way, for sure, since the late 1960's...

Thanks for reading.

Please stay safe. Check up on your neighbors, won't you, especially elderly neighbors.

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

Posted at 03:55 PM in Back in the day, The Plastic Addiction | Permalink | Comments (0)

02/14/2020

The Ideal Hobby Shop

“At Warrick Custom Hobbies in Fort Lauderdale, kids who peek in the window of a sidewalk display often will be surprised -- the staff inside will turn on the train shown there to amuse them. ‘We have a lot of regulars who like to come in and have a cup of coffee and chew the rag,’ Warrick manager Bob Fivey says. ‘That's a very important part of a hobby -- it wouldn't be a hobby if you couldn't share it with someone.’” -- Ft. Lauderdale News and Sun Sentinel, 24 January 1987

Howdy, all, and Happy New Year!

The quote above was from a former manager of the hobby shop I would visit most often when I lived in Ft. Lauderdale, the shop I would later work for. I never worked for Bob Fivey--he had retired or moved on by the time I went to work for Peter Warrick (not the football player!)--but I did meet him several times over the years.

I couldn’t have put it any better than Bob did. As I’ve said time and again, the hobby shop of my youth was more than a place to satisfy my modeling needs—it was a place to meet other hobbyists, talk about what we were working on, and to show off our latest works. I extend those sentiments to model clubs, too, for the same reasons—they are outlets for the same social aspects of what is otherwise a lone-wolf hobby.

Unfortunately, those days are well behind us now, but I remember my first visits to the local shops in Ft. Lauderdale. None of them were very large—then again, that was true for almost every hobby shop in the day. What I do recall:

Warrick Custom Hobbies had an enclosure out front of the store in the middle of the covered sidewalk—that was where the train the story talks about was located. Inside, it was cramped—and crammed. If memory serves, the shop was maybe 15’X30’. As you walked in the door, to the right was the cash register and counter space, and to the left the models were stacked like cordwood—the area was partly next to a stairway up to the mezzanine that served as the office space for the store, but on the wall next to the stairs, there was always product on sale on pegs. I distinctly recall seeing some 1/48 scale New Hope Designs metal figures among the pegs, but since they were expensive and lacked detail, I never bought any. Later, I recall my friend Rick calling them "No Hope Designs", so I'm glad I passed on them...

As you ventured further into the store, the paint racks were next to the models. Pactra, Testors, Polly-S, Floquil, Scalecoat, Humbrol, and the remnants of an IR paint rack—they were all there. As you went further still towards the back of the store—past the book and magazine racks--you were firmly in the land of model railroading. Trains and train accessories took up perhaps a good portion of the store. As you reached the back of the store, there was the RC counter. At times, the store actually filled part of the space in the next storefront to the right—the owner would sell car stereos, scooters, or other goods out of the front of the space next door, and the hobby shop would occupy the back half. This was usually where the items such as doll houses were—in my years going to the store, I rarely ventured past the paint racks, but I do recall how packed that little store was!

My other part-time haunt (although less and less after I discovered Warrick) was Universal Hobbies in Plantation. Much like Warrick, it was small and packed full of goods. Universal had a showcase up front where they displayed people’s models, and I still remember seeing the Hawk U-2 in 1/48 scale, resplendent in the PAVE ONYX “Sabre” camouflage scheme, residing there. Universal seemed to have less of a plastics selection than Warrick, and didn’t have as many paint lines. But they were still a good stop every now and then, just to see what they might have.

One thing the two stores had in common (and I’ve waxed on about it before) is what I call “the hobby shop smell”. Old school hobby shops had a peculiar smell, a mix of volatile organic chemicals—mostly paint thinner, glow fuel, dope, and Castor oil--and musty, moldy, mildewy wood and cardboard. Once you smelled it, you never forgot it.

Over the years, Warrick would move “out West” from Davie Boulevard in Ft. Lauderdale to Griffin Road in Davie, and later to University Drive in Plantation. With each move, the stock would change a bit—it would grow to fit the new (larger) store space, and would change with customers’ (or owner’s) tastes. Over the years, in addition to model railroading, plastic models, and radio control, the store sold doll houses, cameras, and collectible ceramic villages. In their final location, they added paintball, too. The one thing they couldn’t move was the “hobby shop smell”. Each move would diminish the smell until it was no longer a feature of any visit to the shop.

Universal, too, would see change. They would eventually add the adjacent store front to their space before changing hands and moving to Lauderdale-By-The-Sea in the mid-1990’s.

Both would open second stores in the 1980’s, Warrick in Coconut Creek and Universal in Coral Springs. Neither was particularly long-lived—if memory serves, they opened in 1984 or thereabouts, and by 1987 or 1988 both were closed and everything reverted to the “Mother Ships”.

There were other, smaller shops in Broward County, and when I was in the neighborhood, of course, I would visit them. East Acre Hobbies (Plantation), Gateway Hobbies (Ft. Lauderdale), and, when it opened, RC Hobbies (Tamarac) would be on the rotation. There were numerous smaller (if you can believe it) stores, too, whose names are long forgotten.

Of course, once I graduated college and was back in the area on a full time basis, I would visit Orange Blossom Hobbies. I shared my memories of “OB” a few years ago.

In those days, you could also buy models at Discount Stores and 5-and-10 stores (Woolco, Zayre, Ben Franklin, K-Mart, The Treasury), toy stores (Lionel Playworld, Toys R Us, Toy King in Daytona Beach), arts and crafts stores (Pearl Art and Craft, Zak’s, Michaels), convenience stores (7-11, U-Tote-Em, Little General), and a curious hobby store called The Hobby Box—these stores opened in Florida in the mid-1980’s and pretty much all of them same the Sunrise and Coral Springs locations were closed by 1989. But none of those places offered the refuge a hobby shop did—they were retail establishments and nothing more.

While I was in Daytona Beach for college, I had a few favorites there, too. HobbyCraft Junction was an odd little store with an eclectic mix of stuff. No trains or radio control to speak of; mostly models and crafts. Ace RC was the radio control headquarters for the area—if Lou didn’t have it, it wasn’t made or you didn’t need it. Dunn Toy and Hobby was the second floor of Dunn Hardware during my years in Daytona, and they tried to have the latest and greatest in stock. The last shop, Sky Ltd., opened in ’83 or ’84 and carried a nice assortment of kits.

They’re all gone now. Whether one sees them as victims of the Internet or of changing tastes, it is a shame.

I face the same issues here in South Carolina. When I moved here nearly twenty years ago, there were several shops and we used to frequent most of them. Now, there are really only one or two shops I would consider patronizing out of the shops that are within driving distance.

A few months ago, a few modeling friends and I started to talk about the state of the local shops. The HobbyTown that I used to work for has gone pretty much entirely to radio control cars and trucks—they share space with an indoor race track, so it follows they would do heavy business in that particular hobby. However, they have all but ignored the scale modelers, model railroaders, and radio control flyers. As the discussion progressed, the question was asked—“What would you do if you owned a hobby shop?”

My suggestions:

Start with the employees:

If you are the owner, your job is that business. In other words, you need to be present at the store pretty much all the time. When you aren't at the store, you need to be doing something to promote the store, whether it means you go to Chamber of Commerce meetings, hobby club events, or trade shows.

You can't sit at home and wait for the bucks to roll in through the door. I suppose I learned from one of the best. Pete started several businesses, and he was ALWAYS involved with them. When he wasn't at the hobby shop, he was at one of his other businesses, and, rest assured, he knew exactly what was going on at each of them. He hired the right people, and he expected them to do their jobs.
Have a knowledgeable staff. When I went to work for Pete in the mid-1990’s, I was told I needed to know more than just plastic models (and more to the point, I needed to know more than just Monogram airplane kits). My years of building scale models of all types, and a working knowledge of model railroading helped me get “in the door”. The other guys in the shop, likewise, could converse in several different areas.

When I first went to work at HobbyTown, the owner liked the fact that I knew how to solder, understood batteries and electronics, and was mechanically inclined. He figured that I could figure out radio control items that would come in for repair. While I never really enjoyed RC repairs (especially nitro-fueled stuff), I did it because I could. I’d much rather have been building a model instead of tearing down a near-totaled RC truck.

This brings up another point about tribal knowledge—make sure you have more than one person in the store that has similar knowledge. Hearing, “Well, our only model guy is only here on Saturday” does the customer no good if they come in on Tuesday.

Finally, having a staff that knows multiple hobbies saves you from having to send business to your competition. That’s akin to throwing money out the window.
Be friendly and greet everyone who walks into the store—acknowledge their presence and remind them that you are there to answer questions. The staff should also be paying attention to the customers instead of chatting among themselves, other customers, or constantly scanning their smart phones. This is not to say the staff shouldn’t be involved, but they should have enough foresight to break off their conversation when another customer needs help.

A word on the “Hard-Sell”. Personally, I don’t like it when a salesman follows me around like a puppy, trying to sell me everything that I touch. Greet me at the door, ask me what I’m looking for, point me to those items, and let me browse. If I have questions, I will find you. I have bought more stuff at a hobby shop by simply wandering the aisles without a salesman in tow. In fact, if I feel that I’m being given the hard-sell, more times than not I will walk out and buy nothing.
Be clean and well groomed. Nothing turns customers off more than a smelly and disheveled salesman. Pete went so far as to have a personal appearance standard—he wouldn’t allow men to wear beards, and, truth be told, I think he really didn’t like facial hair at all.

Get shirts for your employees--there are several online shops that can work with you and produce custom shirts at great prices. Make sure your employees keep them clean and wear them.

Have a dress code. The standard uniform at Warrick was a store shirt (we had nice button-down oxfords embroidered with the store logo) and slacks (navy, black, or khaki) or clean blue jeans (with a preference for slacks).

At HobbyTown, we had polo shirts and were allowed to wear shorts on any day where the daily high temperature was forecast to be above 70 degrees.
Your staff needs to be punctual. A good rule of thumb is to arrive 20 minutes prior to opening or start of shift. In those 20 minutes before opening, the staff needs to go through the store and clean/straighten the merchandise. This is an ongoing process, and needs to be done several times a day, every day.

Merchandise in general:
Stock as many paint, tool, and finishing product lines as you can, and make sure they remain full. Nothing chases a potential customer away like half-filled paint, Evergreen, and K+S racks. Likewise, keep the glues and chemicals—glues, dopes, oils, fuels, etc.—stocked.
If you cater to model railroaders, have staple items in stock—sectional track, spikes, road bed, ballast, rail joiners, etc. are things all model railroaders will need at one time or another. Stick to the common scales/gauges—HO, N, and O—unless you have a large clientele who are active with G, Z, or S scale/gauge.
A landscaping selection is also helpful, and to more than just the railroader. Scale modelers use the same products when they landscape a display base.
The RC car and truck guys will want spare parts, wheels, tires, tools, and bodies, at the very least. Having the latest hop-up parts is a plus.
If you have a magazine and book rack, keep it organized. Older issues get removed and returned for credit, not put on deep discount because someone “forgot” to fill out the form. Make sure people understand to handle the books carefully—they aren’t cheap, and people generally don’t buy books with creased or torn pages and covers. See item #4.
Other items should be dictated by the local market. If you sell five paint-by-number sets in two days, perhaps you ought to stock more. If, however, you’re sitting on the same pair of gaming dice after a year, sell them at cost and find another line.

Now, for the scale modeling specific items:
Keep up with the new kits, at the very least. You don’t need to buy a case of every new kit that comes out, but at least bring one or two into the store.

If you know you can move it, keep up with the aftermarket, too. The same caveat listed in point #10 should dictate whether or not you do aftermarket as a regular stock item.

If you need to open new accounts with new distributors to get merchandise, DO IT.
Keep a good selection on hand of the older kits (staple items like Sherman and Panther/Tiger tanks, P-51 Mustangs, Corvettes, etc.), and don’t forget to have some of the simpler kits for newbies (snap and easy assembly kits).
Unless it is a particularly odd item with limited appeal or a big bucks item that you’re not comfortable bringing into the store on speculation, refrain from telling your clientele that you are “happy to special order anything they want.” They can already do that from the comfort of their homes. Oddball and high priced items should be paid special order items, but if you’ve paid attention, much of the store inventory should be easy to order when you follow point #14 below.

A good shop can always sell one or two of most anything. We never gave a second thought to ordering a pair of the latest Tamiya, Academy, or Revell kits into the shop. We would also get one each of the more expensive Trumpeter, Meng, and Eduard items in the store, unless customer demand dictated we order more.

Dealing with your clientele:
Maintain ties with the local clubs, and cultivate relationships with your regular customers, whether they are club members or not. In order to figure out what to bring in (see #11, #12, and #13), you need to hear from the people who are most likely to buy those products.

If they have a show, sponsor it.
Have a soda machine and a coffee pot. Let the customers hang out and, as Bob Fivey put it, “chew the rag”. However, remember point #2 listed above.
Offer classes and seminars. In the scale model arena, airbrushing, working with photoetched brass or resin, basic scratch building, all are good subjects. Better still, allow the clubs to have a day in the shop where THEY can offer the classes. This becomes a win-win—the club or group can use the event as a recruiting session, and the increased traffic should result in increased sales IF you have paid attention to keeping the shelves full.
Get to know your customers—find out what they buy and why they buy it. Let them know that their input is appreciated. Ask them if there is anything they’d like to see in the store. Tell them (better yet, show them—see #18) how much you appreciate their business.
Offer a discount to your regulars. It need not be huge (usually 10%, but I’ve seen some stores offer 15%). Within reason, this should negate the need to price match every item in the store. Part of that comes with how you buy and price your merchandise, so you need to be vigilant. Most people know that the online retailers also have wholesale operations, and we used to work the pricing so that someone could buy a kit in the store for about the same price as they could online. The benefit of buying in the store is that the customer has the product in their hot little hands and doesn’t have to pay shipping or wait for the item.

If you don’t at least try to match online prices, guess what? They’ll buy online.
If you say you will do something, DO IT!

People in the know have an additional suggestion. They'll say, "Want to make a small fortune in the hobby business? Start with a large one..."

In other words, it ain't easy to become a hobby tycoon. But a conscientious person can make a go of a hobby shop IF they work hard and treat it like any other business venture.

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

Posted at 06:07 PM in Back in the day, The Plastic Addiction | Permalink | Comments (1)

09/25/2019

Teen Debutantes

Howdy, everyone!

I've been spending time at the workbench lately. Our AMPS Chapter is involved with a display for a museum, and that has eaten up quite a bit of our collective time over the past year. We're still not finished, but every week gets us one step closer. My part of the project was to handle the aerial assets (read: helicopters), where I painted four that were constructed by some of the other members of the club, and I built and painted another pair, one of which will remain in my collection.

In addition, I wanted to finish some of the half-completed models I had in the queue, including one that featured in my Model Building 101 seminar. As a result, I managed three completions (two helicopters plus a Revell 1/72 F-101B) in the space of a few weeks. I'll publish Voodoo pictures later, and the photos of the display will have to wait until it is officially unveiled at the museum sometime in the early parts of 2020.

While I was on a roll, I kept moving. I had started a new-tool (2014) Airfix Spitfire Vb during our HobbyTown Saturday build days. It got stalled, but I picked it up and am not too far from the finish line. It is an interesting kit--I'm sure you can find in-depth reviews of it on the Interwebs--and for all the griping over some of the decisions Airfix made, it is a far shade better than their old 1977 kit, that's for sure. Is it better than the 1993 Hasegawa or Tamiya kits? I can't say--while I have copies of the Japanese kits in the stash, I have never built one. I will go out on a limb and say that they all have their plusses and minuses, so there is a kit for everyone...

The only issue I had with the Spitfire was finding markings. I settled on an old Ministry of Small Aircraft Production set, 4814 "USAAF Spitfires" to decorate my model as "Lobo"/HL-M from the 308th Fighter Squadron, 31st Fighter Group based on Sicily in 1943. The price tag on the sheet shows I bought it in early 2000, and I was curious to see how well they worked. Well, the results were rather mixed--they looked good on the sheet, but didn't respond well to solvents. I used Solvaset for most of them, and even diluted the solvent caused the blue in the insignia to run a little. Eventually (and with a little help), they laid down into and around the details, but I had to babysit them in order to get them to behave. I applied the clear gloss overcoat to them last night. I noted some rough patches that I'll polish out with a 3200 grit Micro Mesh pad, then do the toning/"weathering" before flat coat. The only concerns I have from here on out are the landing gear leg attachments--a half-lap joint where the leg meets the knuckle that others have wailed loud and long about. We'll see how it goes...

Again, pictures at 11...but here are a few from the first decal. You can see how the blue ink ran a wee bit and the disc is slightly discolored. I'm not going to worry about it, since it will look okay by the time I get through with the toning and shading. You can also see how they are on the thick-ish side and didn't quite suck down all the way into the panel lines. A sharp #11 blade persuaded them otherwise...

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

While the Spitfire winds through the finishing phases, I have picked back up on the Wingman/Kinetic IAI Nesher in 1/48th scale, also started during the HobbyTown Saturday sessions. These kits, while nice, are not for the faint of heart. A lot if sanding, filing, trimming, test fitting, sanding, filing, trimming...

When it is complete, I'm sure it will be an impressive model. The journey from kit to model will be fun, and will definitely exercise those Model Building 101 skills!

I also intend to get back to finishing the camouflage scheme and construction on the long-suffering Special Hobby Macchi C.200 that I've been chipping away at for ten (!) years now. There's still that 1/700 scale USS Cowpens (CVL-25) in work. The Aerolcub 1/48th Gloster Gamecock needs some love, too; and, since it is so close to the finish line, the 9-year StuG IV project might just get finished before the end of the year, too. In the desire to clean out the backlog, I want to get all of these done before I tackle something else.

Wish me luck.

In the meantime, how about a piece I wrote on some older kits?

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

At the recent IPMS/USA National Convention in Chattanooga, I picked up a couple of kits from my childhood—Revell’s 1/72 scale F-15A (kit H-257) from 1974 and F-16A (kit H-222) from 1976. Why, with all the up to date kits of these airplanes available, would I buy these dinosaurs?

Nostalgia.

There was a summer in the mid-1970’s—probably 1977—when my brother and the other neighborhood kids virtually emptied the shelves at the local SuperX Drug Store of plastic models. One of the trips yielded the aforementioned kits. I can’t recall who built what—I seem to recall building the F-16, but I could be mistaken. Anyway, these were pretty nice kits for their day, and honestly, they still stand up today if you consider what they are and what they aren’t.

What they are: Affordable, quality Revell kits from the mid-1970’s, they were based on early information from the USAF and manufacturers, and served as a few hours of fun time. They were available in more stores than just hobby shops.

What they aren’t: Expensive, super-detailed Uber kits with every nut, bolt, and rivet correctly portrayed, available only in a hobby shop. However, they are good in outline, so they’re also not garbage, as some have labeled them.

These kits are products of their time. With a few hours’ work, maybe a little aftermarket, and you will have a couple of handsome models on the shelf.

Why would anyone build one of these? My answer—color. We see tons of current configuration F-15’s and F-16’s in their multiple shades of gray, but very seldom seen are the early pre-production and prototypes in their colorful roll-out and test schemes, which brings me to the point of this article…

Let’s take a look at each—we’ll see what we need to do, we’ll take a look at what is available to do it, and we’ll take a look at photos.

Starting with the F-15A, here’s what we need to know:

The F-15, like the F-14, didn’t have any “true” prototypes that wore an XF- or YF- designation—from the first airframe to the last, they were all F-15’s. The plan was that any changes could be made on the production line; therefore the first airframes would serve as the Flight Test articles; they are often designated as pre-production or Full Scale Development aircraft.
The early F-15A’s could be identified by their squared-off wingtips, un-notched horizontal stabilators, short speed brake, and the installation of the Douglas IC-7 ESCAPAC ejection seat.

Now, looking at the Revell kit, here’s what we have:

Fairly nicely done exterior with recessed panel lines, for the most part.
Simple interior, it lends opportunity to scratchbuilding some of the smaller details. Actually, you could do a lot of good simply by installing an aftermarket Douglas IC-7 ESCAPAC ejection seat.
It represents the early aircraft with square wingtips, short speed brake, and the notch in the stabilators.

The first thing you must ascertain is whether or not the airplane you want to build had these features. Early in testing, engineers noted a problem with wing buffeting, and their “fix” was simple—they (literally) cut the wingtips off at about a 30 degree angle from wing tip at the leading edge to the aileron break on the trailing edge, giving the production Eagles their characteristic raked wingtips.

The short speed brake remained through the first 12 production Eagles. It was extendable through a 66 degree angle, and this caused some rearward visibility issues for the pilots as well as some buffeting. The cure was to extend the length of the speed brake, allowing the same braking action with a smaller extension angle. The early “long” (aka production) speed brakes had an external stiffener that was later removed.

Revell’s kit correctly depicts the short speed brake. One important item of note: There is no “well” into which the speed brake—either short or production—closes into. There are streamlining plates that stand perhaps ¼” off the skin of the airplane, but the brake closes flat onto the skin of the upper fuselage. The only well is for the actuator. Most kits of the F-15 still depict a recessed well, however. The fix? Build the airplane with the brake closed…

The final item is the notch, or dogtooth, on the horizontal stabilizer. Flight testing revealed a slight flutter problem, and adding the notch solved the problem (this was the opposite of the later F-18, where McAir engineers removed the dogtooth from the stabs on that airplane for the same reason). Revell gives you stabs with the dogtooth, but the first Eagle flights were flown with stabilizers without the snag. The fix? Square off the notch, insert a piece of properly sized Evergreen, and sand to shape.

Add a test boom (brass or Evergreen rod) to the nose and the appropriate paint and markings, and there you go. If it bothers you, source a set of early F-15A wheels, as they were different from the later F-15C versions.

The early airplanes wore either Air Superiority Blue (FS15450/FS35450) or gloss white with various trim colors. The first Eagle, Serial 71-0280, wore Day-Glo red panels over the ASB, while some others wore International Orange or Gloss Blue. As for decals, you’re in luck—Caracal Decals has produced a decal sheet dedicated to the early F-15’s.

Incidentally, you can source Air Superiority Blue from Life Colour (UA 37), MRP (240), Hataka Red Line, Tru-Color (TCP-1229), Mr. Hobby (C074), K Color, and True North Precision Paint. Many of these are gloss, which is fine—the scheme consisted of a mix of gloss (15450) and matte (35450) Air Superiority Blue.

Some other miscellaneous items—the main landing gear of the F-15A, when viewed from directly forward or aft, cants outward, so make sure you position yours accordingly. The early flight test aircraft lacked the gun, so take note if your kit has the opening in the left wing leading edge glove. If you feel the need to replace the exhaust cans, make sure you use one with the “Turkey Feathers” installed.

If you want to work with a more modern kit in any scale, you will have to backdate them on your own. The easiest route to the early speed brake is to assemble the model with the brake closed, fill the seams with CA, and re-scribe the outline to depict the original speed brake.

To square off the wings, do what the engineers did in reverse—add a triangular piece of styrene sheet to the wingtip. The wingtip is the reference point.

Add the ESCAPAC seat, eliminate the gun, fill the notches in the stabs (as described above), and get Caracal’s early F-15 decal sheet. It is available in both 1/72^nd and 1/48^th scales.

In 1/32^nd scale, you’re on your own, but it is not difficult. The hardest thing will be the markings since no decals exist.

Some good photos of the first Eagle in flight show the original wingtips and stabilators (Photos: USAF). They also show the lack of a gun, and that the main wheel doors remained open after the gear was extended (Photos: USAF):

Now, moving on to the F-16…

Unlike the Tomcat and Eagle, the F-16 program began with the General Dynamics Model 401 in a fly-off against the Northrop P-600 Cobra. Accordingly, both manufacturers produced two flight test prototypes, the YF-16 (Serial Numbers 72-1567 and 72-1568) and YF-17 (72-1569 and 79-1570). None of these airframes was considered a full-spec version of the eventual aircraft, they were merely test articles, hence the YF- designations.

The eventual winner was the YF-16. Following the two YF’s, there were seven Full-Scale Development F-16A’s produced, five single-seaters (Serial Numbers 75-0745 through 75-0750) and two two-seaters (Serial Numbers 75-0751 and 75-0752). For all intents and purposes for scale modeling, the FSD aircraft were virtually production airframes with the smaller horizontal stabilators. They were fitted with the Stencel SIIIS ejection seats, too.

The Revell kit is a pretty good representation of the FSD F-16A. A replacement seat might be worthwhile, and you’ll want to replace the forked pitot tube of the YF-16 with a straight one made from tube or Evergreen rod, otherwise you get a decent model of the FSD airplanes. If you want to do some additional detailing, the main gear retraction jacks are missing, but are easily added with some scraps of Evergreen.

The kit came with markings for the first FSD airplane in the “Bicentennial” red, white, and blue scheme also worn by the two YF-16’s, but for some reason they got the serial number wrong.

At one time, Vingtour Decals offered a decal sheet for the early Vipers, but it seems to be out of print and hard to find. If the decals in the Revell kit are in good condition, simply replace the kit-provided serial number with white numbers to depict “50745”. Note that the “flag panel” was not always present, and sometimes included an Israeli or an Iranian flag, depending on who G-D was trying to sell the airplane to at the time.

The FSD F-16’s were a colorful bunch of airplanes. Some wore overall single-color gray schemes, others wore experimental “Cloud” and two-tone grays, others were painted in the initial Compass Ghost Gray schemes. One of the two-seat F-16B’s wore a “Lizard” scheme similar to the A-10’s Euro-1 scheme of two greens and dark gray.

These airplanes had multiple roles, as well. They tested the extended tail housing, heavy ordnance carriage, special flight regimes (AFTI F-16), Wild Weasel systems, and alternate engines (in addition to the DFE, one of the two-seat F-16B’s was fitted with a General Electric J79 as used in the F-4, in hopes that smaller air forces would acquire the type without having to do the dance with the DoD to gain access to the F100-powered airplanes before President Reagan relaxed the export rules). Two would be converted to F-16XL SCAMP configuration and used by NASA after the USAF was through with them.

75-0745 was the aircraft retrofitted with the General Electric F101 Derivative Fighter Engine (DFE), and when it received the new engine the tail logo read “F-16/101”.

To do this with a more up-to-date kit, start with an early F-16A with the small stabs. In 1/72, try to find a Hasegawa F-16A+ kit and source some small stabs, or start with the Italeri kit—it ain’t great, but it is a good starting place. In 1/48^th scale, Tamiya and Monogram both offered fairly decent kits of early F-16’s, you may want to try to find one. There are some goofs you’ll want to fix—both have the early split nose gear doors, for instance—but a little work will yield a nice model. Replace the ACES II seat with the Stencel type, delete the position lights on the inlets, rearrange the antennas, and apply the appropriate markings. This should satisfy all but the most dedicated Viper fan.

Here are a few shots of the #1 FSD ship. The second photo is after it received the DFE and is sitting next to a production-standard F-16A. Note the longer test boom on the nose of the engine testbed, too (Photos: USAF)…