Author: Iron Modeler

The Florida Air National Guard, aka The FANG

(Author’s note: This information was originally published in the IPMS/USA Flight 19 Chapter newsletter, The Debrief, way back in the dark ages, sometime around 1997 or so. It has been updated–more than a few times–since the original publication.)

I remember the first time I saw an aircraft from the Florida Air Guard in flight–Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, AFROTC Det 157 Pass In Review, Fall semester 1982. Two FANG F-106's zoomed over the formation a few times. Since then, I was on a mission to research the colors and markings of the airplanes that served the Florida Air Guard through the years.

The 159 FS, 125 FG can trace its origins to the 352FG of the 353FG from World War II. During the war, the group was equipped first with P-47's, then P-51's. At the close of hostilities, the Group was disestablished and allotted to the National Guard. The unit was federally recognized on 9 Feb 1947 as the 159 Fighter Squadron (Single Engine), and was originally equipped with F-51D’s. The unit called the Thomas Cole Municipal Airport in Jacksonville, FL home. In only its second year of existence, the Florida Air National Guard became one of the first jet-equipped ANG units when it transitioned into the Lockheed P-80C. The unit was re-designated the 159FS (Jet) on 1 Aug 1948, but did not become fully operational as such until the following January.

_{The FANG's hangar at T. I. Cole Municipal airport with P-51 Mustangs all in a row}

_{The FANG's flight line with early P-80s adorned with the "Florida Rockets" demonstration team insignia}

During the Korean War, the unit was called to active duty. On 10 Oct 1950, the 159FS joined two other ANG units to form the 116 Fighter Bomber Group at George AFB, CA. The unit also received new equipment in the form of Republic F-84Es. Transferred to Misawa AB, Japan, the unit provided air defense and saw combat duty over the Korean Peninsula. The unit was released from active duty on 9 July 1952. One of the notable achievements while on active duty was the unit’s participation in Operation High Tide, the first practical use of air-to-air refueling in a combat zone.

_{FANG F-84's in Japan, 1951}

^{KB-29 refuelling an F-84 over Korea in 1952}

Returning to Jacksonville, the unit was again re-designated, this time as an interceptor unit, the 159FIS (now an asset of the Air Defense Command) re-equipped with the North American F-51H. It retained the Mustangs until 1954, although at one time plans were to re-equip with F-86A’s. The unit received only four Sabres, and the Lockheed F-80C-10-LO (re-manufactured F-80B’s and C’s) became the mission aircraft in 1954.

_{FANG F-51H Mustangs in flight}

_{A late-model FANG F-80C-10-LO circa 1955. Look at those tip tanks.}

The Florida Air National Guard reached group strength on 1 July 1955 and was federally recognized as the 125FIG (AD). The unit has remained an air defense unit, operating with F-86D’s from August 1956, converting to F-86L’s in June 1959, then operating F-102A’s (July 1960), F-106A’s (Fall 1974), F-16A (ADF) (April 1990, coinciding with the unit becoming TAC-gained), and finally, the F-15A/B in late 1996. The unit currently flies the F-15C/D Eagle as its primary mission aircraft.

_{A FANG DogSabre}

_{A FANG Deuce pops the 'chute as the mains touch down. I can almost smell the rubber burning…}

_{The most colorful F-106A of them all, the FANG's Bicentennial "City of Jacksonville"}

_{A FANG F-16A–not an ADF, though!– at Wright-Patterson AFB, 1987}

_{A FANG F-15 flies over the Space Shuttle Endeavour prior to mission STS-108}

The unit has been a part of Air Combat Command since the inactivation of the Tactical Air Command in 1992. The unit now flies out of the Jacksonville International Airport, having moved there in 1968.

From a modeler’s standpoint, you will need to model the following aircraft: F-51D, F-80C, F-84E, F-51H, F-80C-10-LO, F-86D, F-86L, F-102, F-106, F-16A, F-16ADF, F-15A, and F-15C. Fortunately, all of these aircraft are available as kits in one form or another. I prefer 1/48 scale, and for those models, I recommend the following:

F-51D: Tamiya or Hasegawa, with a nod to the Tamiya kit as being slightly easier to build.

F-80C: Monogram, since you don’t have a choice. You may want to see if you can beg, borrow, or steal the January 1989 issue of FineScale Modeler, in which Bob Steinbrunn converted this kit to the YP-80. A lot of the details are different, but there is a lot of information in there that you can use on the F-80C.

F-84E: The best result can be had by simply buying the Revell issue of the kit–it is a proper F-84E. Your other two viable choices would be the Tamiya or ProModeler F-84G kits. If I understand correctly, the ProModeler kit is closer in shape and detail to an F-84E. You’ll need to fill the slipway door for the refueling probe on the wing and the engine suck-in doors on the fuselage sides on the Tamiya or ProModeler kit. If you use the Tamiya kit, you’ll also need to scratchbuild refueling probes for the tip tanks. There are other differences as well.

F-51H: Classic Airframes or HiPM. Personally, I am going to kit bash the two, taking the best parts from each. The CA kit is more accurate shape-wise. (Of course, if you are into such things, Collect-Aire makes/made a resin kit…)

F-80C-10-LO: Monogram again, only replace the tip tanks with those from a Hobbycraft or Testor’s T-33.

F-86D: Get the Revell of Germany issue of the Dog Sabre, because it has the proper braking parachute fairing on the tail. Wow, an out of box build!

F-86L: Use the Revell of Germany F-86D and swap wings with a Hasegawa F-86F-40, or be adventurous and extend the wings yourself. You’ll need to make other additions such as the SAGE antenna yourself, but it is no big deal. One thing to keep in mind–Hasegawa’s F-86F-40 does not include extended wing slats.

F-102A: Monogram and ProModeler. FANG flew both Case X and Case XX winged Deuces, so it is best to have both kits. For the adventurous, C&H Aero Miniatures also make a TF-102 conversion set. Now, c’mon–you really, really want a Tub, dontcha?

F-106A: Monogram. Again, no choice here, but it is a stellar kit. I am in the midst of re-scribing one as we speak–no mean feat, but worth the effort in my book. Airwaves does a conversion to the F-106B that is pretty comprehensive. C&H also do one, but I have not seen it, so will not comment other than to say if it is like their Tub, it is worth the asking price.

F-16A and F-16A(ADF): Hasegawa’s F-16A, either out of box (for the F-16A) or suitably modified with the spotlight on the nose, data link antennae forward of the windscreen, and bulge on the tail (for the ADF). At one point, someone was supposed to do an Air Defense Variant update set, but it never saw the light of day. Revell supposedly did an ADF kit, but you’d be best to start with the Hasegawa kit and go from there. Now, if Tamiya were to include Block 15 jets in their superb F-16 family, go with them.

F-15A and F-15C: Monogram. Believe it or not, this oldie is still the most accurate F-15A on the market. If you can, get the kit released as a C model–it isn’t truly a Charlie, but close enough–, that version has crude representations of the turkey feather-less exhaust cans. With a little sheet and rod, you can do the rest (and I know you can!)…if you must have an engraved panel line F-15, go with Hasegawa’s kit. It is mostly a Charlie model, however, so you’ll have to backdate it to an Alpha yourself. Either that or break out the scriber…

Now, if you build in 1/72, here are the ones to use:

F-51D: Probably Hasegawa’s, but Tamiya just shrunk its quarter-scale kit…

F-80C: Airfix, or Sword.

F-84E: Tamiya or Academy. Same comments as the 1/48 models, although I haven’t really looked at the Academy kit. Again, surf over to the F-84 Thunderjet website.

F-51H: Beech-Nut did one a few years back, and it wasn’t great. If memory serves, didn’t MPM do one recently? If so, I’d probably start with that one, having seen the Beech-Nut kit…

F-80C-10-LO: Again, Airfix or Sword, with Hasegawa T-33 tip tanks.

F-86D: Hasegawa. Make sure you get the release with the parachute pack. You can use an Airfix kit, but why?

F-86L: Hasegawa–try to find the JASDF kit, as it may already have the extended span wing.

F-102A: Hasegawa, no choice.

F-106A: Ditto.

F-16A and F-16A(ADF): Hasegawa, suitably modified. Revell of Germany recently produced an F-16 Mlu kit that may work, too–you may need to bash an F-16A kit and this one to get the correct combination of parts…

F-15A/F-15C: Probably Hasegawa, although the old Revell or Monogram kit may be just as good.

As far as other types go, you can get the T-33 (1/48 Hobbycraft or Testor, 1/72 Hasegawa), and there are two-seat F-106B conversions (Airwaves or Falcon in 1/72 for the Hasegawa kit, Airwaves and C&H Aero Miniatures in 1/48 for the Monogram kit). The only TF-102 conversion that is still available is the C&H Aero Miniatures in 1/48 for the Monogram kit. Airmodel did a crude vac conversion in 1/72, if you can find it…

If you are bent on having an F-86A in your FANG collection, good news! Cutting Edge has both 1/72 and 1/48 conversion sets! Or, you can follow Paul Boyer’s lead and convert one yourself!

As far as goes support aircraft, FANG employed various types through the years such as C-45's, C-47's, T-6G’s, C-130's and C-26 Metroliners. If it feels good, do it!

Decals are out there for FANG birds, too! Experts’ Choice has a few sheets for the F-16, F-84, and F-106, and SuperScale had several sheets featuring FANG F-16's. Both Scalemaster and Archer’s Fine Transfers offered the Bicentennial “City of Jacksonville” markings, SM in 1/72 and Archer in 1/48–they are hard to find, but are really striking! The good news in 1/72 is that Hasegawa just re-issued the F-106 with these decals included. Get them while you can, though, as this is limited run. Also, TwoBobs did a run of FANG F-15's, but they may be gone by now.

Fortunately, the rest aren’t hard to come up with using black letter/number sheets and the Experts’ Choice ANG crests. Trust me, would I steer you wrong? Don’t answer that just yet…

My personal take on building the models–I am in the process of re-scribing a Monogram F-106, and recommend it only for those strong heart, pure of spirit, and only after purging your mind of all impure thoughts! It is quite nerve-wracking, but I feel that it looks better. If I were doing this in 1/72, I might want to update and detail the F-102 and F-106 from Hasegawa. Fortunately, I believe Eduard have released photoetched brass sets for most of the aircraft you’ll be building. While this will tart up the cockpits, the weapons bay on both the Deuce and the Six need help! It is easiest to build the models with the weapons bays shut, but if you must have them open, get thee to copies of the relevan
t Detail and Scale volumes.

If you use the Academy 1/48 F-16, get a replacement seat at the very least. The kit seat looks somewhat akin to a La-Z-Boy. The kit isn't all that accurate, but to those who find it acceptable, go for it.

Otherwise, build your models as you normally would. Paint schemes vary from highly weathered to pristine–the early equipment was second-and third-hand, and it showed! Ghosts of the “U.S. Air Force” titles were visible on the bare-metal aircraft, and the bare metal wasn’t polished to a showroom shine.

The F-102's in the ADC Gray scheme were clean, but the Deuces in the SEA camouflage tended to weather a bit. The F-106's were very well kept. The F-16's and F-15's are well kept, too, so I would refrain from weathering any of them much. Perhaps a slight fade to an SEA camo’d F-102, but not much more.

Check your references as pertain to cockpit and gear well colors, as they vary from interior green, chromate yellow, black, gray, and white.

As I close this installment, a word on research is in order. A frequent question is “How did you find that out?” Well, in the days before the Internet, you pretty much had to scrounge for every bit you could find. To a large extent, that is still true, but the Internet has made a lot more information available. However, just because you read it on the Internet (or in print, for that matter) does not necessarily mean you should take that information as the Gospel truth.

Most of my research on this subject was done pre-Interwebs, and it was actually fun. The challenge wasn't so much the basic information itself (i.e., aircraft types and dates they were assigned), as there are a few good books out there that cover the U. S. Air National Guard. The challeneg back then was finding photograhs of the airplanes. Various books, magazines, interviews, and other sources yielded most of what I needed. The rest sort of fell into place through various friends in the hobby and the aviation industry. Today, a Google search and a trip through Wikimedia Commons will turn up more photos in a minutes than I was able to get in ten years. Count your blessings. It wasn't always this easy.

Thanks for reading. From time to time, I'll do posts of this sort, as I have a few favorite Squadrons that I research.

Be good to one another. I bid you Peace.

March 2, 2011
Two pioneers in plastic modeling and a game changing manufacturer pass into history

This morning, while surfing my usual haunts on the Interwebs, I came across a post that announced the passing of Robert Reder, founder of Monogram Models. My modeling career may have started with a Revell kit, but it most certainly was honed on Monogram's products. From the Snap-Tite kit of the L'il Red Baron, to the actual Red Baron show car, and through their line of 1/48 scale World War Two aircraft kits, Monogram Models kept me occupied for many an hour as a youngster.

Another recent passing that I've learned of is that of George Toteff, long time employee of Aluminum Model Toys (you know them as AMT) and later as the founder of Model Products Corporation (MPC). One of George's lasting contributions to the hobby is slide molding, since a car body could be molded in one piece. Before that, bodies were multiple pieces that had to be assembled–fine for kits, but for promotionals, not so much.

And, while not confirmed per se, another thread has announced that Accurate Miniatures is again gone. When the first iteration of AM hit the scene, their new kits of previously kitted subjects (SBD Dauntless, TBF/M Avenger, early B-25 Mitchell, all in 1/48 scale) were head and shoulders above the previous kits of those subjects, and they also introduced new kits of others (Allison-engined P-51's in 1/48 scale, McLaren M8B, and Grand Sport Corvettes in 1/25 scale). While there were issues–mainly releases of kits many months or years after they were initially announced–the kits were then and continue to be quite good. The original company, according to the Wikipedia article, ran into some trouble and became insolvent. The company was bought and while high hopes spread, the simple fact is that nothing truly new was produced. They released the SB2U Vindicators that the original firm had done the tooling for, and they also released some Monogram kits (1/72 scale P6E, P-51, P-40, and F-4C and F-4J; 1/48 SB2C Helldiver), none of the new owner's announced new tool kits–or even modifications of the existing kits–came to fruition. What a shame…although someone will probably pick up the pieces and start again.

Thanks for reading. Save a thought for the Reder and Toteff families and the employees of Accurate Miniatures, be good to one another, and as always, I bid you Peace.

February 27, 2011
Musical diversions and sidetrips

I've tried to compose this post several times, and every time I'd get further and further off on tangents. Let's see if I can keep it 'tween the ditches this time…

I've reached an age where, when I hear any particular song from my past on the radio, I'm immediately reminded of when I was younger and heard the same song. Yesterday's instance was Al Stewart's "Year of the Cat"–the radio station we listen to at work played it in the morning, and I was reminded of 1976/1977 all over again. The funny thing with me is that not only will I remember a particular time, I usually remember which model I was building at the time. For instance, there was one summer where I had the Styx albums "Grand Illusion" and "Pieces of Eight" in heavy rotation on the old 8-Track (Yes, I had an 8-Track as a kid, and I kept the format until long past when most people had abandoned it. In fact, the stereo up in our workshop still has an 8-Track player!) , and that same summer was when I built Monogram's 1/48 scale B-24J kit. Styx also accompanied a near-all night build of Monogram's 1/48 scale Me-262. Ted Nugent's "Dog Eat Dog" and "Double Live Gonzo" were the soundtracks to several builds, and Jethro Tull was an almost constant companion through many models.

When I was young, I didn't really appreciate music. I don't know why, but that changed when I was in Third or Fourth grade. The music teacher at my school had a way of making me listen to what I was hearing, rather than just letting the various notes rattle around in my coconut a few times before going out the other ear. I even took some piano lessons, learned to play recorder in Fifth grade, and we also had a piano lab in Middle school that I enjoyed. But, save for those few experiences on the performing side, my interest since then has simply been as a consumer–although there have been times I wished I had learned how to play an instrument. And, of course, I wouldn't want to take piano lessons, or guitar lessons–nope, I'd want to learn something eclectic and out in left field, perhaps the mandolin…

Speaking of eclectic, my tastes in music are certainly that. Over the years, I've been a fan of many artists and many genres of music. The aforementioned artists (Styx, The Nuge, and Tull) were the tip of the iceberg. The funny thing is that I wasn't really a big follower of some of the artists that I listen to these days–they were then simply background sounds that accompanied a favorite activity. My main interest in music then–as now–was Jethro Tull, and I can't put a definitive answer as to "why". Between the lyrics, the theme, and the fact that you can listen to early Tull and hear jazz/blues based music, while later iterations are flavored by folk, electronic, and the exotic, well, you can get anything you want. I also went through my Black Sabbath/Ozzy and Hendrix phases…and still listen to some of their off-the beaten-path stuff, too. Then, to be really eclectic, there's always that 8-Track of the "Moving Waves" album by Focus. Want some fun? Put on "Hocus Pocus", and if that doesn't mellow you out, nothing–not even the strongest of pharmaceuticals or alcoholic beverages–will.

Today, though, listening to either the "Oldies" channel or the "we play music from the '70's. '80's, and today" (still don't have an XM radio–remember, I held on to 8-Track tapes into the early 1980's), I hear a lot of songs I heard as a kid, which brings me back to Al Stewart, Smokey Robinson and the Miracles, America, Bread…never really a fan when I was younger, but I've come to appreciate the work as I've *ahem* matured. You can only listen to AC/DC for so long before you start to think that while they're still good, there has to be something better. Unfortunately, today's music–a good deal of it, at least–is the Shop-Vac of s-u-c-k. Sure, every era has some clunkers, but the modern trend towards people who are famous for being famous, drunk, or out of control means that I have little tolerance for it. Exceptions include Kelly Clarkson (that girl has a set of pipes that won't quit), Katy Perry (she's got a sense of humor, and a lot of her music would have been right at home during the New Wave), Sara Bareilles, and, as corny as it sounds, Michael Bublé. That leaves acts of years gone by, many of which are still performing, still recording, albeit to smaller audiences.

And, when I'm feeling nostalgic for my college days, nothing cures those blues like putting in one of the CD's from Rhino Record's "Like, Omigod! The 80's Pop Culture Box (Totally!)". If Missing Persons, Bow Wow Wow, Haircut 100, or Donny Iris can't fix what ails ya, nothing can.

We won't go into the discussion on MTV and whether or not the music industry was ruined when MTV debuted. Not yet, at least…

Be good to one another. I bid you Peace.

February 25, 2011
A quick in-the-box look at Kinetic’s 1/72 scale F-16I

I've been putting something together in my head for a few days now–namely, a review of a kit that doesn't seem to have been reviewed anywhere else. I'm usually hesitant to do reviews–what might be okay to me isn't to you, and what you find acceptable is glaringly bad to me. Also, I've already told you that unless I see something badly out of whack on a model when compared to a photo of the 1:1, I won't lose sleep over it. Others, though, can't live unless every panel line and rivet is an exact 1/72 scale copy of the original. All I am really looking for in a review is what the kit has, what it doesn't have, and what I need to do to fix it. I'll decide from there.

Anyway, here goes:

I picked up a copy of the Kinetic 1/72 F-16I "Sufa" (Kit 72001) recently. We'll cover The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly…

The Good: It is a 1/72 Sufa, complete with a selection of ordnance for the low, low price of about $30 US Dollars–and if you shop around, you can find it cheaper. Previous rumblings on the Interwebs about their 1/48 scale F-16's indicated that the nose drooped excessively, but the 1/72 scale kit didn't seem to have this problem when I compared it to a built-up Hasegawa Barak.

The Bad: It is based heavily on Hasegawa's decades-old F-16 kit. The cockpit, like Hasegawa's kits, is rather basic with the same anemic ACES II seats. Also, Kinetic must not have realized that the Sufa was based on the Block 52 airframe and repeated what most of the other kit manufacturers have done in the past by not including the heavyweight landing gear–the Block 40/42 and Block 50/52 airframes all have this. Some of the detail is also on the soft side, including some of the characteristic lumps and bumps that make it a Sufa.

The Ugly: I think I know where the Matchbox trench digger is now. The panel lines aren't quite as wide and deep as Matchbox's kits used to have, but again, for a kit tooled in 2010 they should be sharper and more petite. Actually, the same goes for the rest of the detailing, a lot of which is on the soft side. The static dischargers look like tree branches. There were also a few ejection towers inside the parts that need to be trimmed away.

Bottom line: Yeah, it's a Sufa, but it will take some of that modeling work to bring it up to snuff. Hasegawa also has a 1/72 Sufa kit, bit it too is based on their long-in-the-tooth F-16 molds. At $40 MSRP, you'll still have to pony up more cash for the Skunk Works Models IDF Weapons sets.

For me, I can deal with the soft detail–yeah, for $30 I shouldn't have to, but I knew going in that it was a Kinetic kit and the "Some Modeling Experience Helpful" label appeared in my head. The fact that it includes ordnance for $10 less that Hasegawa's kit goes a long way with me–I can do an awful lot of detailing and panel line filling for that $10 (plus whatever you have to shell out for the additional ordnance kit). The lack of the heavyweight landing gear is, to me, inexcusable–the Block 40 airframes have been out for some time now, so it isn't as if Lockheed Martin just decided to retrofit the fleet yesterday. You can't really fake it, either, as there is the attendant bulge that goes along with the gear. Hasegawa, in the past, has thrown in some struts, wheels, and bulged doors but in reality the bulge continues onto the fuselage. That's where this kit really falls down–lack of research and originality. Again, will the cost differential tilt your decision? A bit of epoxy putty should fix the bulge issue, but nobody has yet given the 1/72 scale modeler the proper heavyweight gear parts…

Someone mentioned that they hoped Revell AG would do the Sufa trick with their two-holer F-16 kit, but that kit represents a Bravo model. They'd have to do a Delta model, then add the spine, lumps, bumps, and CFT's before they could get a Sufa. And Revell, add the heavyweight gear when you do…

Until someone tools up an up-to-date 1/72 F-16 series (Tamiya? They got the one-holers from Block 25-up covered in 1/48 scale, and the way those kits are broken down should make the station wagon an easy jump–then all they'd need to do is put it in the same shrinking machine they've used on their 1/48 P-51's, Corsairs, and a few of their other kits), we're left to choose between Kinetic and Hasegawa. And I'll probably get the Hasegawa kit at some point to compare and contrast with Kinetic's kit…either should make a nice companion to my Hasegawa Barak.

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

February 22, 2011
A refreshing win

Today's Daytona 500 win by the Wood Brothers and driver Trevor Bayne was a great ending to a so-so race. Seeing a red and white car with a gold #21 on the side brought back memories of when David Pearson accomplished the same feat in 1976. Enjoy your win, gang!

I can't get thrilled over the two-car drafting at Daytona or Talladega. The result was a lot of bent sheet metal and some bent feelings, I'm sure. But, it is what it is…

Next year, though, will be Tony Stewart's year. I can sense it…

Be good to one another. I bid you Peace…

February 20, 2011
“Undoubdetly, this is one of the toughest announcements I’ve personally had to make…”

Ten years. That's how long it has been since NASCAR lost a legend on the final turn of the final lap of the sport's premier event, the Daytona 500. Looking back, at times it seems like yesterday; other times it seems like a lifetime ago…

NASCAR is like the FAA–they are accused of changing the rules "in the name of safety" only after people get killed (critics of the FAA call it "Tombstone Legislation"). How many NASCAR drivers had died on the track? There was "Little Joe" Weatherly, killed at Riverside when his head struck the retaining wall. There was Bobby Myers (father of long-time Earnhardt gas man Danny "Chocolate" Myers"), who died at Darlington when his car flipped. Billy Wade got killed during a tire test, when his car kit the wall head-on and he slid beneath the lap belts, crushing major organs. Then there is probably the most well known, Glenn "Fireball" Roberts, who died as a result of burns suffered when his car backed into the wall, ruptured the fuel tank, and burst into flame at the Charlotte Motor Speedway. Safety innovations sprung from each of these wrecks–window nets, 5-point harnesses, and rupture resistant fuel cells.

In the 12 months prior to Dale Earnhardt's fatal accident at Daytona, three other Winston Cup drivers had died: Adam Petty, son of Kyle, grandson of Richard (The King), and great-grandson of Lee had died in an accident at New Hampshire Motor Speedway, after his accelerator reportedly stuck wide open. Kenny Irwin, Jr, another up-and-coming driver who came from the ranks of the dirt track circuits, died at the same speedway mere weeks after Adam died–and the same cause was suspected. Later that year, Tony Roper died at a Craftsman Truck Series race at Texas Motor Speedway. The common denominator in the mechanics of their deaths was a phenomenon known as basal skull fracture.

But those guys were all rookies. They must have made a mistake that led to their accidents–Roper was killed when he swerved to try and evade another truck. Petty and Irwin had stuck throttles. So, the reasoning went, we have a case of a Rookie driver making a Rookie mistake and two cases of mechanical failure. Put a kill switch on the car, throw a restrictor plate on the engines when racing at New Hampshire, and all will be well, NASCAR said.

Dale Earnhardt's accident didn't look bad–in fact, earlier that same day the proverbial "Big One" occurred and it appeared that someone was certainly killed when Robby Gordon and Ward Burton got into each other. The memorable thing about that was watching Tony Stewart's #20 Home Depot Pontiac flip down the backstretch, winding up on his teammate Bobby Labonte's hood. No, Dale had walked away from far worse wrecks. There was the time he wound up with the car on it's roof, then getting T-Boned. There was the wreck he had with Ernie Irvan (ironically, a survivor of a basal skull fracture suffered at Michigan International Speedway in 1994), where he hit the wall nearly head-on. No, this was a minor fender bender, and surely Dale would hop out of the car, clear the cobwebs, and start goofing around with Kenny Schrader, whose car had also been caught up in the wreck.

Not this time. Kenny climbed out of his car. He walked over the the black #3 Goodwrench Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS. He dropped the window net. He recoiled away from the car as if there were snakes inside, and started to gesture for the rescue crew to hurry up. As they worked, the TV coverage was divided between Victory Lane, where Michael Waltrip, previously 0-for-462, had won the race–his first race driving for Dale Earnhardt Incorporated.

Meanwhile, back at Turn 4, the ambulance bypassed the stop at the Infield Car Center and worked its way to Halifax Medical Center. A blue tarp–later to be synonymous with FEMA-supplied temporary roofs–was draped over the black #3. The tow truck winched the car onto the rollback and slowly headed to the garage area.

In Victory Lane, the media frenzy was still going on–"Mike, what's it like to finally win?" The party wouldn't last. On a day where the underdog finally won, his celebration would be cut short.

Later investigation would point out many things–perhaps the seat harness wasn't installed correctly. No, it was fine. But wait, the lap belt was cut. No, the rescue crew did that. Maybe not. He hit the steering wheel. He hit the windshield. The final verdict? Basal Skull Fracture had killed Dale Earnhardt.

The fallout was immediate and far-reaching. Fellow driver Sterling Marlin was getting death threats, since it was his car that tapped the back bumper of the Goodwrench machine, sending the black car towards the wall. It wasn't until Earnhardt's son Dale Jr. and Michael Waltrip publicly made statements to the fact that Sterling wasn't to blame that the threats stopped. Bill Simpson, the man behind Simpson Performance Products, resigned when NASCAR alleged that the seatbelt had failed and he too began receiving death threats. NASCAR mandated the use of full face helmets and one of two head restraint systems–the HANS Device or the Hutchens Device–that would restrain the driver's head from snapping forward violently in the event of a crash (eventually, the series would settle on the HANS Device). Another safety feature was to be retrofitted to all NASCAR-approved tracks–the SAFER (Steel And Foam Energy Reduction) Barrier, a foam and steel energy-absorbing layer was installed on the corners of the tracks.

Some of these mandates came a little late. Later that year, Steve Park (another of Dale Earnhardt, Incorporated's drivers) was competing at Darlington in a Busch Series race when the steering wheel came off during a caution period. The car veered to the left, and another car T-Boned Park. The same scene slowly played out–the extended caution, the rescue workers removing the car's roof, the blue tarp…it was somewhat surreal. Park suffered a severe closed head injury and to many experts has never recovered from those injuries. He was not wearing either a HANS or Hutchens device.

These days, when you see a driver hit the wall–hard–you can be certain that Dale Earnhardt saved their life. Ask Elliot Sadler. Or Carl Edwards. Or any number of drivers who would not be here were it not for the fact that NASCAR finally mandated new safety devices only after their icon had been killed. Despite the fact that these innovations were available long before the accident that claimed Earnhardt (Smokey Yunick had come up with an early version of so-called "soft walls" in the 1970's, and F1, the NHRA, and the Indy Racing League had encouraged use of the HANS Device since the mid-1990's), it took four dead drivers to finally convince the powers-that-be that it was time for NASCAR to get serious about driver safety–again.

Remember that when you watch this weekend's coverage of "The Great American Race". Let us all hope it is a safe race.

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

February 18, 2011
Modeling Memories

I remember my first model. My father bought home a Revell 1/32 scale F4F Wildcat kit. He had built models as a kid–he contracted Rheumatic Fever as was pretty much bedridden for a year. As a diversion, he built balsa wood models. He wanted me to enjoy the hobby, too, I guess, so he bought the Wildcat. He and I read the instruction sheet a few times, and he explained to me that in order to build the model correctly, I had to follow the directions in order. We started to build the model–he had bought some paints, too (if memory serves, one of the Testor's PLA Enamel sets), so we painted the cockpit parts in colors close to what the instructions called out. What's Chromate Green? Well, we had a green color, so that worked. The first night, we painted the parts, then set everything aside to dry overnight. Actually, I think we put the kit and supplies on top of the refrigerator…

We would build a little bit each night. With each step completed, I could see an airplane start to emerge from that bunch of plastic parts. Some steps I could do myself; others I would get Dad to help me with. After about a week–I'm not quite sure, as I was young at the time–we had a nearly finishe model. We couldn't find the hole in the wing where the pitot tube was supposed to go, so Dad took the tip of the hobby knife and made one. When everything was glued together, we set the model aside, again, to dry.

The next night was paint night. I helped paint the model to match the pictures on the box. Dad explained to me that it was better to apply a thin coat of paint, let it dry, then apply another coat. Above all, he said, we needed to let it dry overnight…

The following evening we applied the decals, and "my" first model was finished. The model was placed on the bookshelf for all to see and admire. To this day, though, I don't remember what became of the model–we moved not too long after, so I suppose it must have been damaged in the move. No matter, it wouldn't be my last model…

There's something refreshing about that story–I built a model, spent time with my Dad, and wasn't worried if the final product wasn't perfect. Later, as we got older, Dad helped my brother and I each purchase a Guillow's balsa wood kit (I think I got the Cessna 170 and my brother got the Piper Cherokee) and he assisted us in building–well, almost building–them. He would remind us that the balsa wood kits were his kind of modeling, and that we had it easy with those plastic kits to which I, for one, had become addicted. I don't think either of those Guillow's kits got built, but he'd go on about the plastic kits we'd build, telling us that if we were real model builders we'd tackle a wood kit–yet to anyone who would listen, we were the family's artistes-in-waiting.

Later on, I would buy and build Guillow's 3/4" scale Spitfire (it didn't fly, I built it as a static model), and my brother built a Dumas boat kit, which was waiting for a motor and radio control gear when he discovered BMX and Daisy's contribution to settling the Old West .

Dad's gone now. I don't think my brother has touched a plastic model kit since about ten years ago when we (my brother, my wife, my nephew, and I) got together and built (what else?) Snap-Tite kits. My nephew was seven or eight at the time, and I don't think he's taken up the hobby (habit?)–he's been exposed to it, so he knows what it is about. Each of us has seen and participated in the hobby, even of that time was brief.

We will always have those memories of how we were each introduced to the hobby.

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

February 16, 2011
On accuracy

After last night's post, my mind wandered back to the way I built models in the 1980's. I had, by then, developed my skills to the point where I was getting pretty consistent results regardless of the kit I built. Of course, back then I didn't worry too much about the one thing that seems to be the #1, most important thing to a modeler these days:

Is it accurate?

Mr. Webster, a little help?

accurate (adj \ˈa-kyə-rət, ˈa-k(ə-)rət\): 1: free from error especially as the result of care <an accurate diagnosis>; 2: conforming exactly to truth or to a standard : exact <providing accurate color>; 3: able to give an accurate result <an accurate gauge>

— ac·cu·rate·ly \ˈa-kyə-rət-lē, ˈa-k(ə-)rət-, ˈa-k(y)ərt-\ adverb

— ac·cu·rate·ness \-kyə-rət-nəs, -k(ə-)rət-nəs\ noun

I also find it interesting that the online version of Websters gives this example: "The model is accurate down to the tiniest details."

We'll take the second definition, since it seems to be closest to what we think about when we think accurate. Are there any 100%, "conforming exactly to truth [or a 1:1 scale protoype?–me] or to a standard" model kits out there? Yes? No? And remember, I'm talking kits here, not models. Models are what happens when you build a kit…

I'd wager no. Sure, there are some kits that are pretty darn close. But 100%? In order to be 100% accurate, a kit would have to be derived from a 1:1 article that was put into Rick Moranis' "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids" machine. A truly accurate kit would be extremely fragile, and would probably not compare well when viewed alongside the prototype. Subtle shape changes would be lost in the reduced version. For the sake of discussion, let's say that the shrunken version may be an exact reduced size reproduction of the original, but in the process a lot gets lost in translation.

So, let's put that item into the Re-Big-U-Lator and move on.

Unless a model manufacturer making a 1/32 scale kit, for example, decides that he wants to make each part exactly 1/32 the size of the original in length, width, thickness, gauge, etc., there can be no 100% accurate kits–the kits would be so fragile you'd never get them built. Unless the manufacturer wants to go to the point of including all of the internal doo-dads of the prototype, there can be no 100% accurate kits. The parts need to have a draft angle incorporated so they'll pop out of the molds–making the kit not quite 100% faithful to the original. Again, kits, not models.

So, what are we debating here? Simply this–there are many kits that are faithful in shape to the originals. There are many kits that are close, and there are many kits where you want to find the guy who did the master and ask him just what brand of crack was he smoking when he came up with a master that makes a mold that translates into a waste of innocent styrene. It is what we, the modelers, do with those kits that determines how accurate the model will be.

I'm no superdetailer. Sure, I can add details to a kit–scratchbuilt cockpits, rescribed panel lines, new landing gear–but I don't go bolt for bolt, rivet for rivet when I do so. I admire those modelers who do want to replicate every nut, bolt, rivet, wire harness, oil line, and the like. But to me, I look at a kit and assess it on the following criteria: Does it look like what it is supposed to be? Is the basic shape correct? Are the relationships between the constituent parts correct, i.e., is the wing where it should be? Are the proportions in harmony? I'll study photos, and I'll consult references. But in the end, the aesthetics of the kit is most important to me. I can take a basic shape and add the details until the moo-cows come home…

A lot of people will drag out their "scale drawings" when a new kit comes out, compare the model to the drawings, and make a proclamation. Problem is, the scale drawings aren't always accurate, either. "But the drawings I have a are official blueprints of the actual airplane", you say. I ask what you paid for them, and then tell you that someone ripped you off. Airplanes, for instance, usually don't have a "blueprint", the closest thing you're likely to get is what they call a "General Arrangement" diagram. If you dig through the maintenance manual, you might find some things that will get you close–Station, Waterline, and Buttock Line diagrams, for starters–but even they are an approximation. The only drawing that reflects the actual shape of any partof the airplane are the engineering drawings for that particular part. So, in order to have a set of "factory blueprints" you're going to need a bigger house. There are thousands of parts on an airplane, each one with an official engineering document that tells you not only the shape of the part, but which materials and processes are used to make it. You'd have to take those drawings and derive your own set of "accurate drawings".

Another way to get "accurate drawings" would be to extensively measure the original. Easier said than done, but it can (and has) been done–Charles Neely's P-51 drawings, for example, have been heralded as the best drawings of the mustang in existence. You'll need all sorts of measuring equipment, but it can be done. In truth, a good many models were done exactly in this manner, and the care taken while measuring is reflected in the final kit. Those subjects that were measured carefully yield great kits. Those subjects that were measured with a length of rope and a yardstick don't. Simple, yes?

Me? I'll take a couple of decent photos and do a visual comparison. If I can't see a huge discrepancy between the photos of the prototype and the kit, I don't squawk. If details are missing, so what? I can add them easily enough. What I don't want to have to do it recontour a fuselage or scratchbuild a wing to make the model approximate the shapes I see in the photos. To me, that's too much risk for too little reward. And I'll still admire the modelers who can take a good, basic kit and make it into a model that comes close to being a 100% accurate model.

Be good to one another. I bid you Peace.

February 14, 2011
Not a lot of free time lately…but let’s talk models

Well, I finally was able to eke out a few minutes–let's see if I can put something coherent together…

I was reading one of the online modeling forums today, and after reading and responding to some questions of a "How do I…" nature, I was reminded yet again that this generation of modelers doesn't remember when you didn't have answers to your questions immediately. Now, don't get me wrong, the Internet is a wonderful thing, and I only wish that I had something like this when I was coming up. But the flip side of that coin is that today's modelers can't know how it feels to try something that works after several tries.

When I first started modeling, I had nothing to guide me except what my father told me and what I as able to figure out on my own or with the help of the other neighborhood kids. I managed to do a creditable job in spite of myself. Then, we were enrolled in the Young Model Builder's club, where I learned a bit more. When I finally discovered Challenge Publications Scale Modeler magazine in 1978, I realized I didn't know what I didn't know. Through reading that magazine, I started to develop better skills and build better models. Granted, there was still a lot of trial and error going on…

In 1980 or thereabouts, Kalmbach Publications did two things–publish Sheperd Paine's first book, "How to Build Dioramas" (I had already collected all of the aircraft diorama brochures he did for Monogram Models) and began quarterly publication of FineScale Modeler magazine, which stood head and shoulders above the other magazines available in the States. There was still a lot of cut-and-try going on, but here were two guides telling me how to best do something.

Then, came my association with IPMS/USA and their Flight 19 Chapter in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Some of my fondest modeling moments came while I was associated with that club, and I met some of my best friends while a member. Believe me, friends, if you think modeling is a lone-wolf type of activity, get out to the local club meeting. I speak from experience, as there was a ten year gap from the time I left Florida (and the club) until I started attending the IPMS/Mid-Carolina Swamp Fox club meetings up here–I forgot just how much I missed the monthly gatherings to talk plastic. If you think you're a good modeler now, the club will help you become a better modeler, and that goes for everyone from the babe-in-the-woods noob to the guy who has a display case full of beautiful models and trophies to his credit. And don't limit yourself to IPMS clubs, either–there are car clubs, ship clubs, and armor clubs (AMPS, and in my case the Central South Carolina Wildcats Chapter) that are every bit as good as IPMS. Think of IPMS as an MD who is the local family doctor, and the others as the specialists.

I guess the Internet has become to this generation what Paine and FineScale Modeler was to me–a guide through the darkness. What today's modelers might not understand is that while you can now ask a question and get a dozen equally correct answers within minutes rather than months, weeks, or hours, the results still come through experimentation. That takes time. And who says you have to rush a model?

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

February 13, 2011
A trip to the hobby shop, Part 2

In Part 1, I told you how I discovered the hobby shop and all of the riches contained within. By the time I graduated from college, I had been roped in to the hobby, lock, stock, and #11 blade (Who am I kidding–I was deeply hooked long before then). Between the hobby shops in Daytona Beach and Ft. Lauderdale as well as some mail order places, I was able to feed my habit. By the way, do you remember mail order? Quaint notion–you filled out a form, wrote a check, put it all in an envelope, stuck a stamp on it (Remember those? The stamps you had to lick, not those self adhesive ones we have now) and put it in the mail. In about two weeks, a friendly employee of the USPS had a package for you. The aftermarket was just starting to get a good foothold back in the '80's, and the only way to get it was to either have a well-stocked local shop or through the mail. Newer kits from Japan were also making their debut–I recall when a new Japanese upstart company called TriMaster first released their 1/48 scale FW-190D-9 kit–it sold for a whopping $42. Compare that to the $10-$15 that the Hasegawa, Fujimi, and Tamiya kits were going for, and that's a fair chunk of change. I finally bought it, using up two or three weeks' worth of disposable income…

Anyhow, I was hooked, bad. Every week I'd make the trip to the hobby shop to get the plastic fix. New kits were hitting the shelves fast and furious–and of course, they were subjects I had longed for and in my preferred scale. That all adds up to the fact that I "needed" them. Lest you think I'm jesting, it was (and still is, to an extent) an addiction. Substitute plastic models for dope and hobby shop for dealer, and you're close to the mark. Well, I would hang out at the hobby shop for hours on end and shoot the bull with the local club guys every Sunday. We'd all usually arrive at 11:00 or Noon, and hang around for the afternoon. This went on for quite a while…

Warrick Hobbies had by this time moved from their store in the Twin Oaks Center on Davie Blvd. (I still miss the train layout in the enclosure in front of the store) to a similarly sized store at the corner of Griffin Road and University Drive. By the time I became a regular, talk was that the owner was looking to move again, this time to a store in the old Best Plaza at University Drive and Peters Road. Talk became reality, and the store moved sometime in 1991. Well, moving the store closer to home didn't help matters much. I would spend Sundays at the store, talking shop and seeing all the new stuff available, as well as seeing what everyone was building when they brought their models in to show.

I guess it was around 1992 or 1993 when the then-manager was going to get married and take some time off. He asked me if I thought I could fill in for him for the weekend. It didn't take me long to answer, and that started what was to become a working relationship that would last until 2001, when I moved to South Carolina. From my first visit to the store out on Davie Blvd., I remembered that the stock was a good, solid foundation of kits with some good aftermarket products beginning to appear. As the years passed, we would add product lines as the customers would want the new stuff, both kits and aftermarket. New companies would come along with newer products–decals, once the territory of Microscale, were being produced by a half-dozen firms now. The new decals were sharper, better researched, and included basic histories and color instructions. New lines of brass were available–a little Czech company called Eduard were popping out new sets weekly, it seemed, and they were giving Airwaves a run for their money.

As we would add lines, we would gain customers. Actually, we didn't see them as customers–we had friends that we sold hobby stuff to. The local club would hold their unofficial meeting-away-from-the-meeting at the store, on Sundays (I guess the few of us that started hanging out on Sundays started a trend). We'd go have dinner together at the local pizza joint (3 Guys from Italy, University Drive and I-595 next to the IHOP–don't bother, it closed and became a taco bar) or the then-new Applebee's that opened across the parking lot from the store. As an aside, if you work in the food service industry, here's a tip–if you take care of your customers (as the staff at the Applebee's did throughout the years), the customers will take care of you. I think we collectively put a few of the wait staff AND their kids through college….

By about 1996, things were really humming like a well-oiled machine. Sure, one or two of the guys would move away–one moved away, then came back, then moved away again right about the time we moved to SC. Then, the manager moved. A few years later, the Third Musketeer in the department also moved. A few of our good, core customers also moved about a year after that. There was a great disturbance in the Force, but the shop didn't seem to notice–business was still good. The period from around 1985 until maybe 2002 was a Golden Age in Plastic modeling–a subject that I'll cover that sometime later–as the product was selling itself. In 1999, I met the woman who I was destined to marry, and by 2001 I had decided to move away. Consider that some of the folks who were instrumental in the shop were also wheels with the local club, and both institutions were feeling the loss…

In the meantime, down the road in Miami, Orange Blossom Hobbies had enjoyed the same period of success that we had at Warrick. They would be packed on the Saturdays that I decided to ride down and check things out. It seems that the guys who stopped in at Warrick on Sundays also congregated at OB on Saturdays, too…

To me, it all seemed to fall apart after the September 11th attacks–now, I'm not trying to say that the attacks affected the hobby industry that profoundly, but things took on a new focus in the country. Consider this–I resigned my position at Warrick in late 2000 and moved away in September 2001. By the end of the year, Orange Blossom was closed, bankrupt. They liquidated their merchandise–some of it wound up at the Pearl Art and Craft on Oakland Park Blvd., as my wife and I found out while on a visit that December. Warrick had moved again, and while things seemed to be doing well with the new staff in "my" department, it never seemed to be the same. By 2005, the department was being "downsized". The last time I was there in December 2007, the plastics "department" consisted of a few kits. All of the aftermarket, all of those interesting decals sheets, all of the books, gone, blown out.

To this day, it still makes me shudder to think of what became of the vast stocks of decals–some long out of print–that both Orange Blossom and Warrick used to have tucked in their file cabinets. I also am saddened to think of all those aftermarket sets we bought for the benefit of the locals that got sold off for pennies on the dollar. I guess the lesson is this, kids–Support your local hobby shop if you are lucky enough to have one. If you don't, you'll find yourself in the position that a few friends of mine are in–everything they buy for the hobby (and I mean everything–glue, paint, putty, etc.) must be mail ordered. Of course, mail order these days is easy enough–a few clicks of the mouse, and *poof*, the order is on the way. But suppose you're trying to finish a project and run out of paint? Good luck finding FS35622 in the stocks at Office Depot. With gasoline creeping back up to around $3 a galon around these parts, that 80-mile drive migt not be on the slate this week…

I hope you enjoy my ramblings–thanks for taking the time to walk down memory lane with me. I'll have Part 3 ready in the near future.

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

February 4, 2011