Iron Modeler

Author: Iron Modeler

  • “I Can’t”

    Howdy, all!

    I’m going to discuss something I have noticed more and more over the past few years.  My discussion (as usual) will pertain to the hobby of scale modeling, but I see it elsewhere, too.

    It usually begins like this—someone displays their model at a club meeting, online, or at a show.  As people file by and look at the work, I hear the comments: “I could never do that.”

    Why is that?  What is preventing anyone from doing similar work?

    For the tl;dr crowd, my reaction towards this attitude can be summed up thusly:  When you say “I can’t”, it usually translates to “I won’t”.

    Let’s get back to the discussion.  In many cases, the answer comes down to curiosity, time, budget, and the desire to do what it takes.

    Lets look at several categories:

    “I do not have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to do that.”  There’s no crime in this.  Take the time you need to learn the techniques and skills to “do that”, whatever “that” is.  Learn basic scratchbuilding.  Take time to perfect your assembly skills.  Practice using the airbrush wherever you can.  Be curious.  Be willing to try new stuff.

    “I don’t want to spend the time it takes to do that.”  Fair enough.  I know a good many modelers who simply do not want to fool around with advanced techniques, and most of them are happy to knock kits together in a few nights, apply basic paint jobs, and use the kit decals.  That’s fine.  The issue I have comes when someone verbalizes their desire to make their models better but refuses to acknowledge that it does take additional time, both practicing the technique and applying it to the model.

    “I don’t want to spend the money to do that.”  Again, this is a fair comment.  Some modelers lack the financial wherewithal to go and buy ready-made detail sets.  However, there’s always a way.  When I started adding details to my models, the materials came from stuff lying around the house.  My mother’s sewing box provided thread and other “soft” materials.  Dad’s workbench provided scraps of wood and metal.  Packaging provided thin plastic sheet.  When the Bell South guys did work on the lines, we could usually talk them out of scrap wire.  Add to these paper clips, staples, foil pie pans, and other stuff that was usually thrown away, and you have a trove of stuff to make details from.  The garden provided dirt and gravel for groundwork (for as often as I did groundwork—which was almost never).  So, you don’t have to dump a ton of dough on special stuff—look around.

    When it comes to assembly materials, instead of buying dedicated “hobby” putty, there are alternatives.  I learned early that I could use Hot Stuff (our standby CA back in the day) and baking soda as filler.  In fact, I still use CA—but not the baking soda.  Instead of forking over a few bucks for a 2 oz tube of Squadron Green Putty, for a few dollars more I could buy a tube of automotive scratch filler that was twice the size for a buck more.  I could buy those little tubes of Krazy Glue for a buck, and it worked the same as Hot Stuff.

    The two areas I didn’t skimp on were paint and cement.  I would be wise in what I bought–$2 for a 2oz bottle of Plastic Weld vs. $1.98 for 1oz of Micro Weld—and I would do my best to make sure it didn’t get wasted.

    Oh yeah—if I wanted something, I’d save my money.  I knew that there was no such thing as instant gratification.  My parents would chip in from time to time, but only to an extent.  So, yeah, I learned to plan and budget.

    “I don’t want to be criticized/shown up/embarrassed.”  Aha!  Now we’re getting closer to the truth.

    I have only once in 45 years witnessed someone belittling someone else’s work.  Modelers are generally helpful people.  Ask a dozen modelers a question; you are likely to receive a dozen equally valid answers to that question.  We all want to be told we’ve done a good job.  We all want acceptance.  But with that territory comes being counseled.  Most modelers I know want to help you, and my best advice is to listen.  If you ask a question, listen, then take the advice to heart and try the techniques you’ve been taught.  That’s how we learn.  Making mistakes is part and parcel of everything we do…how we deal with those mistakes is what can encourage or discourage.

    “I don’t want to.”  The truth for a lot of this is that some folks simply do not want to vary their routine or get out of their personal rut.  They love looking at the results of these techniques on other people’s models, but they don’t want to make the investment in time, practice, and learning to apply it to theirs.  Which is fine—again, there are as many ways to enjoy the hobby as there are people enjoying it.

    Notice I said “investment”—that’s what one needs to make in any endeavor.  Decide what it is you want to do, take some time to learn and practice until you get where you want to be.  As you achieve each goal, find new goals.  They need not be huge goals—in fact, small steps are more desirable than major goals.  Write them down.  And know this—some of these goals will take some time to achieve and may stretch over several projects.

    Perhaps the one goal I cannot stress enough—Finish the model you are working on.  Don’t worry that there are issues with it.  Why?  Finishing a project is a goal in and of itself.  And honestly, many of the issues you know exists on the model will probably not be seen by most other modelers.  I’ve seen several instances of someone going back and forth on one model for years, reworking minor issues so many times that they become large issues.  Do your best, and move on.  Do better on the next project.

    By all means, if (more like “when”—I make mistakes on my models all the time) you make a mistake, take some time to analyze what went wrong, what you need to do to fix it, and make an attempt at rectifying the problem.  Tossing a model into the wastebasket teaches you nothing.  Yes, there are times when the solution to the problem is to bin the model and start fresh.  But don’t automatically think that is the solution.  Set the model aside.  Let it sit for a week.  Then take a look at the model.  You might be surprised at how easy the fix is.

    As I tell folks in Model Building 101, there isn’t a whole lot you can mess up that cannot be fixed.  You simply need to be willing to be patient and spend the time it takes to do the job.  There are no secrets—most techniques you will learn are out there in the world, in magazines, books, online articles, YouTube videos, at the local hobby shop (if you are fortunate enough to have a good one), and at club meetings.

    Most of what we do—in any endeavor—is fairly simple.  It just takes a little curiosity, small investments in time and money, and the desire to make it happen.

    ~~~~~     ~~~~~     ~~~~~     ~~~~~
    Work continues on the F-16’s.  I’ve spent the last few weeks working on the 1/32nd Hasegawa kit.  It has some issues—most of them stem from the fact that the basic molds date back to 1978.  The cockpit tub is probably the worst example of the kit’s problems—the consoles are way too short, and short of replacing the cockpit, you have to deal with what you get.  Going back to what I said earlier, I used scrap plastic to fix things to the best of my availability without having to resort to a complete re-build.

    I also cut out the trailing edge flaps so they can be shown in the lowered position, and cut the leading edge flaps to show them in the +2° position as shown in F-16’s on the ground.

    Some of the small bits were missing, and some weren’t provided.  I scratchbuilt the beer can antennas on the leading edge of the wing and the two antenna fairings on the nose from scraps of Evergreen styrene.  I also reconfigured the gun covers to better match photos.  I also had to revise the way the gun barrels got installed—revising the covers required the rework.  I think I got everything looking good…

    The kit canopy was missing the aft fixed portion, and someone had thrown in a spare Tamiya canopy (at least I think it is Tamiya).  I did a little work to revise the hinge area and fit the Tamiya parts to the Hasegawa kit.  The result will be a lot better than the original kit canopy.  It is another one of those areas Hasegawa didn’t quite get right back in the late 1970’s.

    Next up will be revising the bomb’s fuses.  The kit parts look like they have the transport suspension plugs installed.  I think some Evergreen rod and sheet will fill that bill.  Photos are out there, and I think I can do a creditable job.

    The two 1/48th scale F-16’s are ready for paint, and the 1/32nd scale kit will be to that point soon.

    I’m still trying to figure out if the decals I have for the 1/32nd scale kit will be viable, or if I should finally pull the trigger on a plotter/cutter and design paint masks.

    Stay tuned.

    ~~~~~     ~~~~~     ~~~~~     ~~~~~

    The shadows and the sun’s angle in the sky are changing.  The temperatures are starting to moderate.  I believe autumn has arrived.  I’ve always loved this time of year.  I can’t explain why—maybe the change of temperature, I dunno.  But I’m enjoying it.

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

  • Dispelling the Myths of Scale Modeling–My Take

    Howdy, all…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Nope.

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

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

    Myth #5:  Resin dust is carcinogenic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Now, there is actually some truth to this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • On Reunions, Friends, and Families (and an introduction, for those who arrived late to the party)

    My 40th high school reunion is coming up next year.

    That means two things—I get to hear (and tell) stories from the good old days, and I’m really getting old.

    I missed my other reunions—combinations of finances (usually lack thereof) and those “life things” got in the way.  This time, I am going to do my best to attend.  In the build-up, my nostalgia rush—bad enough of late when left on its own—went into overdrive, and the memories came pouring back.  What can I say?  I guess that’s why I like history, too—I like looking back and analyzing the past.

    So, here’s to old friends!

    Somebody once made a comment about what it means to be friends, and how you can’t truly be friends if you never interacted in person.  And they probably have a point, but let’s consider what Messrs. Merriam and Webster have to say.

    Friend: One attached to another by affection or esteem: “She’s my best friend.”

    So, the definition seems to indeed indicate that yes, friends should be closely associated.  But then there is this word listed as an alternate:

    Acquaintance, or “a person whom one knows but who is not a particularly close friend.”

    So, in the “according to Hoyle” sense, one can be a friend without being particularly close.

    One of our reunion organizers has made the case that we are family.  I have agreed and said we share a kinship, or fellowship.  So, let’s flip through the ol’ dictionary again…

    Family:  A group of people united by certain convictions or a common affiliation.

     Affiliate:  Associate as a member (of a group).

    Fellowship:  Community of interest, activity, feeling, or experience.

    And there we have it.  We share a fellowship.  We are associated as a member of our high school class, which is a community of interest.

    We are indeed a family.  But we didn’t need to go through all those research steps to figure that out.  I did the research because I enjoy it.  I’m weird.  I admit it.

    Of course, high school classmates aren’t the only extended families we have.  There are fraternities, sororities, military and police and fire units, trade groups, unions, civic organizations, Scouts, religious groups, and others.

    But a high school family is special to most of us because of when it happens in our lives.  We are close to each other at what can be an awkward time in our lives, that time of transition from child to teenager to young adult.  Piled on top of the usual adolescent angst is the societal expectations placed upon us—this is the time when we are supposed to figure out what we want to be when we grow up, and this time it is for real.  Or so we’re told. Like several others among my classmates, I am still trying to answer that age-old question.

    Add into the mix that wonderful time in every child’s life when we experience that first girlfriend-boyfriend relationship, and first kiss, and possibly a first intimate encounter, and boy, we had a lot on our plates.  We literally watched each other grow up and navigated adolescence together.  Some experienced broken hearts as they found, and then lost, what was thought to be true love—somehow they managed to pick up the pieces and move on.  Others found soul mates sitting in the desk in the next row, and have been married for many years.

    My extended family contains people from all walks of life: doctors and other medical professionals; lawyers, judges and other legal professionals; civil and military veterans; musicians, actors, and other entertainment professionals who worked to bring us the music, movies, and television shows that entertain us; service industry hosts, waiters, chefs, and salespeople who provide the food we eat, the stuff we buy, and manage the places we go when we want to get away; and any number of blue-collar “nine-to-five ham-and-eggers” who keep the world moving.  They are moms and dads, aunts and uncles, stepmoms and stepdads, and grandmoms and granddads.

    Tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor, rich man, poor man, beggar man, thief,

    Or what about a cowboy, policeman, jailer, engine driver, or a pirate chief?

    Or what about a ploughman or a keeper at the zoo,

    Or what about a circus man who lets the people through?

    Or the man who takes the pennies on the roundabouts and swings,

    Or the man who plays the organ or the other man who sings?

    Or what about the rabbit man with rabbits in his pockets

    And what about a rocket man who’s always making rockets?

    Oh it’s such a lot of things there are and such a lot to be

    That there’s always lots of cherries on my little cherry tree.                                                     

               — Now We Are Six, A.A. Milne

    Alas, my extended family has also mourned the loss of too many of our brothers and sisters.  Whether by disease, malfeasance, or (sadly) by their own hand, each loss was profoundly felt, and they are missed.

    We celebrate together, we mourn together, and we are, at times, dysfunctional.  We also have our fair share of crazy aunts and uncles.

    If that’s not family, I don’t know what is.  And I can’t wait to reconnect with my long lost family.

    *****     *****     *****

    For my new readers, I hope you take some time to have a look around.  Admittedly, the blog that I started in late 2010 as a cornucopia of various topics has fallen into an aviation research and scale modeling rut lately, but, as Samuel L. Jackson’s Jules Winnfield says to the guy robbing the diner in “Pulp Fiction”, “I’m tryin’ Ringo.  I’m tryin’ *real* hard…”

    If you like what you’ve read, there are several teachers to thank, starting with my dear departed mother—she was the Latin teacher at St. Thomas Aquinas High School for 30+ years between 1980 and 2012.  I inherited the liberal arts part of my personality from her.

    You can then add Ralph Bucci, Sam Rogers, Hope Reinfeld, and Gloria Warrick, my English teachers at Boyd H. Anderson High School.  They taught me everything I know about grammar, spelling, sentence structure, and proper creative and technical writing.  A hat tip also goes to the late Cecilia Carballo, my high school Spanish teacher, who saw that I had some aptitude in several other languages, most of which I am sadly no longer fluent.  She became a special mentor to me in school, and I was saddened to hear of her passing several years ago.

    I am also guided by my best critic, a college-level journalism professor and book author who also happens to be my wife.  While she doesn’t proof everything I write, I see her cringe when I break some obscure style rule.  When she does, I always imagine her as Miss Shields, the teacher in “A Christmas Story”:

    “You call this a paragraph?  Margins!  Margins!  ‘F’!

     My life’s work, down the drain. 

     A semicolon, you dolt!  A period!  ‘F’!

    Oh, I should weep if I have to read one more ‘F’!”

    Incidentally, she’s seen this piece, and she gave me an A++++++++++++.  So I have that going for me–which is nice.  I already had the Red Ryder air rifle…

    The research thing comes naturally to me—I was an inquisitive child—but I was pointed in the right direction by a good many enthusiasts, historians, and researchers whose skills far outstrip mine.  I got my technical aptitude from my dad, and my technical writing skills come as a by-product of 30+ years working on corporate jets as an avionics technician.  It’s also what I get paid to do these days.

    For my regulars, rest assured that I’ll continue to do regular updates on my normal irregular schedule.  Keep checking back…

    Thanks for reading, all of you.  As always, be good to one another and look after each other.  Until next time, I bid you Peace.

  • Some Insight

    Howdy, all!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Now, how about the aviation thing…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And it started with a model airplane.

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

  • 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?

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

  • The McNamara Effect

    Howdy, all, and Happy New Year!

    When I have no paying work to do, most of my day is spent doing research on personal projects.  Along the way, as I gather information, I’m reminded of things that lurk in the far back corners of my mind.  Recently, I made an anniversary post on Facebook for the selection of the A-10 as the winner of the A-X competition, and as I dug, an interesting aspect of the program was brought back to mind, a smaller part of a larger theme, so to speak: the influence, either directly or indirectly, that Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara had on almost every tactical aircraft used by the U.S. military from 1961 onward.  Don’t believe me?

    First, it was McNamara who pushed the USAF to adopt the Navy’s F4H-1/F-4B Phantom II made by McDonnell (later McDonnell Douglas).  McNamara was a statistician, and was obsessed with the costs of the various military programs in work when he was tapped to serve as John F. Kennedy’s Secretary of Defense.  Formerly the President of the Ford Motor Company, he had degrees in economics and an MBA.  He was one of the so-called “Whiz Kids” Kennedy brought into his Cabinet.  So, to McNamara, when the Air Force was looking for a modern fighter bomber, the fact that the Navy had an airplane he believed was suitable was enough for him.

    As it turned out, the F-4 was a good fit with the USAF.  Since the F-4 was originally designed as an attack airplane (the McDonnell AH-1), it was large enough to carry a fairly large ordnance load.  Since it was overseen by the Navy, the airplane possessed all those aspects of Naval aircraft—small, light enough to operate from a flight deck, good low-speed and high-speed performance, etc.—that made it work aboard the carriers.  With minimal changes, it was good for the Air Force, too.  In essence, it was what both services needed at the time.  Combat in Southeast Asia would eventually reveal shortcomings, but they were addressed as they became evident.

    However, McNamara got lucky.  His next move wouldn’t be so good…

    The Navy had been looking to add a new Fleet Air Defense (FAD) airplane to their inventory in the 1950’s.  They required an airplane with a powerful search and tracking radar that was fast and fairly maneuverable.  Given the state of aviation—especially Naval aviation—in the 1950’s, such an airplane was not in the cards.  The Navy decided, then, to have a subsonic aircraft that had enough range to fly out from the fleet and loiter, using the radar to locate potential threats and  long-range guided missiles to shoot the enemy aircraft out of the sky.  The program resulted in the proposed Douglas F6D Missileer, an aircraft similar in appearance to an enlarged F3D Skyknight, equipped with a Westinghouse AN/APQ-81 pulse-Doppler radar and carrying six Bendix AAM-N-10 Eagle missiles.   The program did not progress, the Kennedy administration cut funding for the missile and the Navy eventually lost interest in the concept—but not in a fleet defense aircraft.

    Enter TFX, the Tactical Fighter, Experimental program.  The Air Force was looking for a new high-speed, low-level, all-weather interdiction/strike aircraft, and had issued General Operations Specifications for such an airplane.  McNamara believed the Navy could use the same basic airplane for their FAD needs, too—their mission had changed from the Missileer concept to a high-speed maneuverable airplane with a search/track radar system similar to that proposed by the Missilee and the Air Force’s cancelled North American XF-108 Rapier interceptor program.  Indeed, a lot of the technology proposed for the F6D and XF-108 did wind up in the TFX program—the Pratt and Whitney TF30 turbofan engine from the Missileer was modified with an afterburner, the Hughes AN/ASG-18 radar from the XF-108 was developed into the AN/AWG-9 system, and the AAM-N-11 was improved and became the AAM-N-11, later AIM-54 Phoenix, missile.

    The difference between the successful integration of the F-4 into the Air Force and the development of a single airplane intended to accomplish the disparate missions TFX was supposed to undertake was that the TFX program was initiated by and administered by the Air Force, who tended to place their preferences ahead of those of the Navy.   Anybody who has studied aviation for even a little while knows that the Navy’s requirements are much more stringent that anyone else’s—the airframe needs to be beefier, lighter, and smaller in order to operate off the carrier decks.  Other factors came into play, too.  The strike fighter didn’t need a large radar array in the nose, but the FAD did.  The size of the radar was reduced, but it was still rather large for the USAF’s liking.  In turn, the reduced size of the array reduced the effective range of the set, which didn’t please the Navy.  In short, it should have come as no surprise that the resulting TFX variant (the F-111B) for the Navy was unsuitable for carrier duty—the basic design wouldn’t allow it.

    McNamara, now fully obsessed with the concept of “commonality”, had heavily invested himself in TFX, which became apparent when he unilaterally overruled the selection committee (who chose Boeing’s design) and named General Dynamics’ design the winner based solely on the “commonality” factor—Boeing’s designs were 20% common while General Dynamics was closer to 85% common—and cost.  He believed Boeing misestimated the cost aspects of their design.  When the program ran into trouble early on, he burrowed himself deeper into it, at one time suggesting that he should be the program manager.   Because he was schooled on flow charts and statistics and not aerodynamics and tactics, he missed the bigger point—this design was not, and would never be, suitable for both roles.  In effect, the Navy toiled for nearly a decade before they were able to extract themselves from the TFX program in late 1968.

    In the end, the results of the TFX program resulted in no airplanes for the Navy, and a compromised, less capable airplane for the Air Force.  It also resulted in a very expensive program that yielded five subtypes for the USAF—the F-111A, F-111D, F-111E, F-111F, and the strategic FB-111A (that was produced to replace the Convair B-58 Hustler, which McNamara ordered the USAF to retire in 1965); and the F-111C for the Royal Australian Air Force.  Each of these subtypes was different enough from the others to be less than 15% common across the fleet.  Flaws pointed out early in the program took time and resources to rectify, and rather that looking at them as a fleet-wide issue, they were addressed differently on each subtype—each had slightly different inlets, and the avionics systems varied widely between each type.  At the end of the day, the airplane the USAF received could have been so much better had it not had to make concessions for the Navy’s F-111B.

    Now, some of this wasn’t directly McNamara’s fault.  The F-111 would be the first production aircraft employing a variable geometry wing, and the first to be powered by an afterburning turbofan engine.  Electronics technology, too, had been rapidly changing, so what worked one week was obsolete the next.  That’s a lot of new stuff to be placed in one package, and problems cropped up during development.  And, had he left the Air Force to develop TFX and allowed the Navy to pursue their FAD in a separate program, perhaps the results would have been different.  Without having to deal with not only the gestational issues and the inter-service requirements, who knows what would have come to pass.

    Once the Navy was allowed to develop their airplane, they did succeed.  Grumman, the Navy’s contractor in the TFX program, developed their Model 303, and after they got out from under TFX, the airplane (the VFAX, later VFX, program) was developed into the F-14A Tomcat, the airplane the Navy wanted all along—more or less.  It could have been in service much earlier had Grumman not been saddled by TFX. Grumman skipped the prototype phase (no XF- or YF-14’s were built), the first examples serving as full scale development (FSD) airframes. Several aspects of the Missileer and TFX were held over and used on the F-14, those being a variable geometry wing, TF30 engines, AN/AWG-9, and Phoenix missile armament.  The radar and missile became the key parts of the Tomcat program, but the engines would plague the Tomcat throughout its life span.  Eventually, the F-14A+ (later F-14B) and F-14D received new powerplants late in the type’s service life, but for the most part, they soldiered on with the TF-30.

    Incidentally, the Pratt and Whitney TF30, the bane of both the F-111 and F-14, also powered the early version of the A-7 (albeit without an afterburner)—it wasn’t until the Air Force was told to adopt the A-7 that the engine was replaced with the Allison TF41, a license built copy of the Rolls-Royce Spey.

    Those are the well-know items McNamara was responsible for.  But there are more…

    The USAF found out a hard, cold fact in the Vietnam War—their pointy-nosed, fast, and sexy jets were no good for close air support.  In an effort to field an airplane better suited to protecting troops in contact and fly cover for rescue missions, they were more or less obliged to refurbish Douglas A-1 Skyraiders that the Navy had retired.  Because these airplanes had already been declared obsolescent, the USAF went looking for a better solution.  McNamara wanted them to adopt either the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk or the Vought A-7 Corsair II, both in service with the Navy.  They weren’t happy—they had already had their arms twisted into operating the F-4 (which had some deficiencies that came to light in combat, notably the lack of an internal gun), they had adopted the Skyraider, and they really didn’t want another Navy airplane forced down their throats.

    The USAF wanted a light attack airplane that was speedier that the A-1, A-4, or A-7 (they still hadn’t learned the lesson that speed wasn’t the end-all and be-all in the CAS mission), and could defend itself.  They began looking at the Northrop F-5 as a solution, but McNamara, with more than a little pressure from the Army (whom the Air Force forbade from fielding a fixed-wing CAS airplane of their own and only grudgingly allowed them to develop attack helicopters), told the Air Force to choose—the A-4, the A-7, or the Army got to develop their own.

    “Well, since you put it that way…”

    The USAF adopted the A-7.

    Since the F-111 was a compromise, and because early issues weren’t exactly shining a favorable light on the airplane, and regardless of the “F-for-fighter” designation, the F-111 could do one thing well—deliver ordnance on a target at low level and high speed, and because the air-to air-prowess of the Phantom wasn’t all it could be (even with the advent of the cannon armed F-4E), the USAF looked towards fielding a new fighter.

    Experience in Vietnam dictated a dogfighter—a fast, maneuverable, light aircraft capable of yanking and banking with the best the bad guys could send.  The program, called F-X (embodied as the McDonnell Douglas F-15), started with promise, but as the program progressed, mission creep set in.  The airplane, initially proposed with no radar, gained a system that had “look down-shoot-down” capabilities that could guide the latest air-to-air missiles the USAF had—these changes were made due to the appearance of the Soviet MiG-25.  More stuff in the airplane means the airplane weighs more.  More weight needs (prompt Tim Taylor grunts) more power, so a second engine was installed.  Another engine means more fuel.  More fuel needs more airplane to carry it, which means more weight…

    Like the Tomcat, there were no XF- or YF-15’s, the program going straight to the FSD stage with the initial airframes.

    A small group of men (dubbed “The Fighter Mafia”), including USAF Major John Boyd, were upset at what F-X had become, and set upon making things right.  Boyd was a Korean War F-86 pilot whose claim to fame came not on the battlefield but in the realm of energy management and aerodynamics.  He developed the “Energy-Maneuverability” Theory (or E-M), and reasoned that a pure dogfighter needed to be very light, very maneuverable, and possess an excess of power.  The Air Force brass—most of them, anyway—weren’t pleased.  They saw this new design as a threat to F-X, since there were not funds for two programs.

    However, a small number of Air Force officers and Pentagon officials were watching the price tag of F-X climb higher and higher, and realized that there was no economical way for the Air Force to completely equip with the type.  They liked the idea of a “high-low mix”, where the force was mostly equipped by a smaller, lighter, and cheaper airplane, with fewer of the more expensive F-15.  The resulting offshoot was initially called F-XX, later changed to the Lightweight Fighter (LWF) program.

    The LWF program resulted in two designs—the General Dynamics YF-16 and the Northrop YF-17.  After a fly-off, the YF-16 was declared the USAF’s lightweight fighter.   Of course, by the time it reached squadron service, it was made larger, with a radar, and all sorts of ordnance carriage provisions—which made it also more expensive.  So, that “high-low mix” became a “really high—sort of high” mix, but the airplane has been a global success.

    The Navy was not unaffected.  The F-4 needed to be replaced in the fleet, and the F-14 wasn’t getting any younger.  Also looking for a high-low mix, the Navy evaluated the LWF contenders and chose the Northrop design, re-designated F-18, but only after it was “navalized”.  McDonnell Douglas was chosen as the partner contractor to develop the fleet F-18 (as the F/A-18, for “Fighter/Attack”, since the airplane was intended to perform the Phantom’s air-to-ground duties with the USMC) while the modified YF-17 land-based derivative was Northrop’s to sell as the F-18L.  Yeah, that deal didn’t work out too well.  Northrop sued McAir when the latter sold the F/A-18 to landlocked countries instead of recommended the F-18L.  In response, McAir sued Northrop for illegally using F/A-18 technology in their F-20 Tigershark (a single engine F-5 variant), and in the end, the cases were settled.  Northrop would be cut out of the program and McDonnell Douglas would produce the F/A-18A/B/C/D and the derivative F/A-18E and F before they merged with Boeing in 1997.

    One last knock-on effect of McNamara was the USAF requirement to acquire a new CAS airplane to replace the A-7.  The USAF found that while the A-7D did well as a light attack airplane, it lacked survivability in the CAS mission.  They wanted something more suited to slugging it out down in the weeds amidst enemy ground fire.  The A-X program was set up and resulted in the Fairchild-Republic A-10A, a twin-engine, low wing airplane with a monster 30mm cannon in the nose that fired a round containing a depleted uranium (DU) spike, used for its density to punch holes in Soviet armor.  And, true to form, the DoD resisted, even putting the A-10 through another fly-off against the A-7 to “prove” that the USAF *really* needed the new airplane.  The A-10A wasn’t fast and sexy and, for a long time, it received no respect.

    So, how have these weapons systems fared?  Despite some of the difficulties McNamara caused, these aircraft have performed their duties admirably.

    The F-111 eventually solved its teething problems.  The F-111A, after a horrible debut in COMBAT LANCER, went back to Southeast Asia and performed admirably.  The best performer of the family was the F-111F, with a better digital avionics system and more powerful and reliable TF30-P-100 engines.  They would become a major force during Operation DESERT STORM.

    In an interesting twist of fate, when the USAF went looking for an electronic warfare airplane, they decided to convert 40 or so F-111A’s to fill the role as the EF-111A.  They partnered with Grumman based on two factors—Grumman was intimately familiar with the electronic warfare suite intended for the Raven (as the new variant was officially named, called “Spark Vark” by the troops), being similar to the versions installed on Grumman’s EA-6A and EA-6B; and Grumman’s experience on the F-111B.  In this case, the program was a smooth as the TFX had been rocky for Grumman.
    The F-111’s began to be retired in 1992 after Operation DESERT STORM, the final EF-111A retired in 1998.  The RAAF finally retired their F-111C’s in 2010.  Called “Aardvark” for most of its life, the name was officially bestowed upon the type on the day the F-111F was retired.

    The F-14 Tomcat served as the Navy’s fleet defense aircraft from 1975 until it was retired in 2006.  It was, without a doubt, one of the finest interceptors ever designed.  Limited numbers are still in service in Iran, the only other nation to fly the type.  They bought 80 (and received 79) in the late 1970’s before the fall of the Shah.

    The F-15 Eagle is still in service with the USAF in multiple roles.  Air Superiority, interceptor and low level interdiction (in the form of the F-15E Strike Eagle, replacing the remaining F-4’s and the F-111’s), it does the jobs well.  The fighter variants are getting long in the tooth, and in an interesting twist, the latest F-15EX variants are forming the “low” portion of a “high-low mix” with the Lockheed F-35  Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter.

    The F-16 Fighting Falcon (nobody calls them that, though—Viper seems to be the most common nickname) has become the backbone of the USAF’s fighter force, and is predicted to serve for another 20 years.  It also has formed the nucleus of many allied air arms, replacing the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter in many of those air arms.  The F-16 was license built in several NATO nations, and continues to serve around the world.

    The F/A-18 Hornet, likewise, is still serving the Navy, Marine Corps, and several allies.  The older A through D models (the “Legacy Hornets”) have been phased out of the fleet, and are being replaced with the F/A-18E and F/A-18F Super Hornet as a lower cost option to a navalized Lockheed F-22 Raptor.  A specialized EW version, the EA-18G Growler, is taking the role of the long retired EA-6B in the fleet.  The Marine Corps still operates the Legacy Hornets, but will replace them (and their McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harriers) with the F-35B V/STOL version of the JSF.

    The A-7 Corsair II remained with the fleet until the last two squadrons were stood down in 1991, at the end of hostilities in DESERT STORM.  The USAF sent their remaining active duty airplanes to the Air National Guard at the same time, and the ANG retired the type in 1993.  The last active A-7’s served with the Hellenic Air Force in Greece, and were retired in 2014.

    The A-10A Thunderbolt II (the troops call it “Warthog”, “Hawg” for short), the Rodney Dangerfield of the USAF, finally earned respect after DESERT STORM.  On the verge of being retired in 1991, it was given a new lease on life.  Another pending retirement in 2000, and again in 2014, have been averted, and the airplane has belatedly been given several avionics upgrades to continue to fight.  A re-winging program recently concluded, and the A-10 may well serve another 15 to 20 years.

    Some noise has been made about the F-35 replacing both the F-16 and the A-10.  DESERT STORM proved the F-16 was a poor CAS airplane, and apparently the USAF brass has forgotten the lesson they learned when they had to swallow first the piston-engined A-1 and then the A-7 because their fast, pointy-nosed and sexy wonder airplanes couldn’t do the job.  Ask any A-10 pilot, and they’ll tell you—only an A-10 can replace an A-10.

    Speaking of the JSF, why don’t we take a look at that program as compared to TFX?

    In short, the JSF, rather than being one airplane with many jobs, it became more of a family of closely related airframes—something that the F/A-18 and F-18L were envisioned to be.  The land-based F-35A, the V/STOL F-35B, and ship-based F-35C look alike from a distance, but closer examination shows them to be different in key areas.  Whether or not the program is a success remains to be seen, but any other comparisons to TFX would be misguided.

    More than any other Secretary of Defense, McNamara loomed large for several decades after his retirement in 1968.  Of course, he wasn’t the only SecDef to have their fingerprints on military programs that weren’t what they were advertised to be—several of his predecessors were in charge of programs like the advanced manned interceptor programs that resulted in the Convair F-102 and F-106, and McDonnell F-101B.  Technology played a large role in these difficulties, and, like the Missileer and TFX, they depended on a lot of new technology not only working properly, but working together at the same time.

    There are modern versions of this story, too—take a look at the Rockwell B-1B as but one of those stories.  But those are different stories for another day.

    Thanks for reading.  Stay healthy, wear a mask, and be good to one another.  As always, I bid you Peace.

  • Phun with Phantoms

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

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

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

    Origins

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

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

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

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

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

    The Phantom Phamily

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    THE CHART OF PHANTOM PHEATURES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    * = Conversion, no new airframes built

    Keyed Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Other variants you might see mentioned in your travels:

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

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

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

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

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

    DF-4J:  Drone controller aircraft.

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

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

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

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

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

    So, what about kits?

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

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

    1/32 Scale

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

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

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

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

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

    1/48 scale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1/72 scale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    References?  You want references?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Christmas memories

    Howdy, all!

    As Christmas draws near, I get nostalgic.  I've waxed on about my occasional bouts of nostalgia, and they get especially strong in December.  My memories, in no particular order:

    Going to the hobby shop.  I've told you several times that Christmas was about the only time we'd go to a real live hobby shop back in the day, with the purpose of buying a grass mat for under the tree.  Sometimes, we would pick up a little something for the train layout, too–a new structure kit, or a piece of rolling stock in addition to rail joiners and other required parts.  As my brother and I got older, we would get each other's gifts there, too.  It wasn't much of a surprise–we'd each pick something, hand it over to the other, who would buy and wrap it.  We tried to be surprised on Christmas morning…

    Playing with the trains when we were little, and setting them up as we got older.  I still have both the Lionel O-Gauge set my parents bought in 1971 (our first Christmas in Florida) and the HO-gauge train set our Grandmother gave us in the late 1970's.  Perhaps I should find a place to put them up?  Of course, our Feline Justice Units will probably have something to say about that…

    Slot cars.  After we moved from the apartment we rented when we first moved to Florida into a house, Santa Claus gifted us a genuine AFX by Aurora race track (you know, the ones Jackie Stewart used to advertise), and a few years later my brother got a Tyco TCR (Total Control Racing) set for Christmas.  I can't be sure, but I think my brother still has the TCR set, and maybe the AFX set, too.

    Decorating the house.  We had what my Mom called "pixies" (some call them "elves") that were Elf on the Shelf before EOTS was even thought of.  We'd place them wherever they'd fit, and invariably forget one when we took the decorations down.  It wasn't uncommon for us to find one hanging out as late as Easter.

    Decorating the house, part 2.  As kids, we'd watch Dad hang the lights on the house.  When we got older, we got to do it.  After a while, my brother took over the duties, and he could teach Clark Griswold a thing or two about external illumination.

    Decorating the house, part 3.  Setting up the tree(s).  We had a large artificial tree and several smaller ones of various construction.  Mom made a ceramic tree in the early 1970's that we'd put in the Family Room, and my parents had this vacuum-formed translucent plastic tree with colored lights inside that randomly flashed.  It was definitely a product of the 1960's.  Eventually, I would be tapped to do the lights on the big tree, and we would all do icicle duty–until the family had a cat.  We stopped doing icicles for the most part when one year we noticed Samantha, the family cat, tearing through the living room with a shiny streamer coming from her hind quarters…

    Getting the annual visit from our Grandmother.  Both of my paternal grandparents died before I was born, and my maternal grandfather died when I was six.  My grandmother would come to visit every other year or so, but after she married her sister's husband (her sister passed away from cancer in the early 1970's), she and my uncle would come down and spend a few weeks with us.  I had to give up my bedroom, but as I got older I learned to appreciate the time I could spend with them.  (Before I went off to college, between mid-December and late February I might get the use of my bedroom for maybe two weeks–as soon as my grandmother and uncle left, my father's sister and her husband–the Marine I built the models for–would arrive.  Again, I treasured every moment with them, although a younger me wasn't happy sleeping on the couch for the better part of two months every year!) 

    Shopping.  Back in the day, it was slower paced and more relaxing.  During my college years, it was fun to be able to come home and cruise through the town to see what had changed.  It was always fun to listen to my grandmother joking about going to the mall to "push and shove" every year, too, especially knowing that she and my mother had finished their shopping.  It was usually an excuse to take us to lunch. 

    Food.  My mother made cookies by the dozen (Toll House, Quaker Oats' "Vanishing Oatmeal Cookies", and Spritz), and cranberry nut breads by the pound.  Along with those, there were meringue cookies, and what we called "Five Cup Salad" (one cup each pineapple chunks, mandarin orange slices, miniature marshmallows, shredded coconut, and sour cream–add a garnish of halved maraschino cherries, nuts are optional).  One year, my grandmother and uncle decided they wanted to make pecan pies, and we must have made a half dozen pies, all from different recipes, between 20 December and just after New Year's Day.

    Of course, once Mother Butler Pies became established in South Florida, they got our pie money and we moved on to other things.  It was truly a sad day when they went away…

    One of the strangest items we made one year was a coconut pie that was as simple as tossing a bunch of ingredients into a blender, whirling them up for a minute, then pouring the result into a greased pie pan and baking it.  Sounds strange, but the pie was rather tasty. 

    Eventually, once my mother bought a pizzelle iron, she added those to her repertoire, although she waged a constant campaign to get someone else to make them for her…

    And when I say cookies you might think, "What's so hard about that?  The recipes are on the bag/container!"  You obviously never met my mother.  She would routinely add nuts and raisins to both the chocolate chip AND oatmeal cookies (she would have added them to the Spritz, but then the dough wouldn't pass through the cookie press!), and anything else she thought they'd go with (hence the nuts in the Five Cup Salad).  She'd always use walnuts, too.  She'd also play around with spices–she'd add cinnamon, nutmeg, ground ginger, ground cloves, and ground mace to the cookie dough.  Those cinnamon-scented gewgaws you see in the stores these days had nothing on what our house smelled like during Christmas cookie season… 

    These days, as I've chronicled a few times, I'll bake the Big Three cookies, pizzelles, and cheesecakes.  On occasion, I'll add more different types of cookies to the mix, and I really need to pester my cousins again.  My Aunt Madeline made spectacular Italian treats, and I want recipes!  The shame of it was that I didn't get them when she was still alive and visiting us every year…  

    Christmas dinner was usually a ham.  Back before places like Honey Baked Ham arrived on the scene, Mom prepared it the old-fashioned way–pineapple slices, cherries, brown sugar, and Ginger Ale for the glaze, throw it into the oven, and let 'er rip.  We'd have turkey some years–a lot depended on what we did for Thanksgiving.  The sides–aside from stuffing and smashed potatoes, which tended to be turkey-only deals–were pretty much standard.  Baked macaroni and cheese, green beans almondine, cheesy broccoli, and some form of rolls were constants.  Dessert was pies, cookies, the aforementioned Five Cup Salad (a friend of the family called it "Three Prong Salad"), and whatever else Mom and Dad had received as gifts at work.  Of course, dinner was preceded by the snack trays–pepperoni, cheese, crackers, olives (green and ripe) and pickles (dill and sweet).  Yeah, it was a pretty big feast.  

    After I moved up here, Christmas is different, but I actually prefer the way my wife's family does it.  Biscuits, country ham, sausage patties, bacon, chips and dips, sausage pinwheels, pigs in blankets, all served buffet style, and everyone helps themselves when they're hungry.  After we arrive, my cookies get added to the feast, too (but not the cheesecakes–they're whisked off to undisclosed locations as soon as they're delivered–and if you believe that…).  It's a fun time, and everything is easy to prepare.  No fuss, no muss…

    Mom was a teacher, so she would always get food gifts.  Cookies and candy were common, although one year she got a rum cake–and the final glaze was more like a dunk in a vat of rum–you'd blow a 3.3 on the breathalyzer and get a DUI by just standing next to the tin!

    A couple of the people Dad worked for would give out Christmas baskets, and, working in the insurance industry, he'd also get booze–this was before the days of corporate rules against such behavior.  I still remember the year he got this huge bottle of Amaretto in a wrought iron tilting pouring stand.  He'd get several bottles each year, and by the time my brother and I were old enough and in school, a bottle would usually go back to school with each of us.  One year, I recall a bottle of Cutty Sark (my folks, when they did take a drink, preferred bourbon or rum) that came to Daytona Beach with me.  I later came home for a weekend in February, and when I got back to the apartment that Sunday evening, I noticed that the bottle was empty.  Dry.  My roommate gave me some cock and bull story about some masked man who knocked on the door, told them he smelled Scotch, and held them at gunpoint and wouldn't leave until he watched my roommate pour the bottle out on the ground.  (I knew better.  The masked man held them at shot-glass point and made them drink the stuff!  I know this because I knew my roomie wouldn't waste free Scotch, even the blended variety…)

    Christmas SWAG.  Oh, the stuff we would get.  From Life Savers Story Books (every year, you could bet on it!), to clothes, models, toys, and other stuff, we were fortunate.  Some years were leaner than others, but we never went without.  I recently came across a picture of our back yard, with two brand-new tents airing out.  One year, we received air rifles–but not Daisy's OfficialRedRyder200shotrepeatingactionrangemodelairriflewithacompassinthestockandthisthingthattellstime (my Mother- and Father-In-Law did, however, give all their young'uns each a shiny new Red Ryder a few years ago).  Nope, these were original, genuine pump action Crosman Model 760 pellet rifles!  Yes, sir, the Big Time!  Another year, we got Marksman air pistols that could shoot darts–you know the guns, the ones that look like .45 automatics and where you can literally watch the BB dribble out the muzzle.  We got pretty good at tuning them up.

    Spending time with friends.  We had a family friend who we knew from Scouting.  He and his father had bought a house on Lake Istokpoga after their wife/mother passed away, and we'd head there with them on weekends.  Often, we would go  go to each other's place for a while over the holidays, too.  When his father died,  Bob would come and visit us at the house.  One year, we (Bob, me, and my brother) took a ride out to the then-new Markham Park range.  We spent the afternoon punching holes in paper and trying to educate the pair of young Hispanic gentlemen in the lane next to us how to feed and care for their veritable armory's worth of small arms–they go so bad that the Range Master had to show them the gate.  The funny part of the day came later, when we were cleaning the firearms.  We had some PVC-framed furniture on the patio, and the webbing on the chair I was sitting in failed–voom, and I went from looking across the table to staring at the bottom of the table.  Bob thought that was hilarious, and as he was laughing his ass off, his chair followed suit.  Yeah, who's laughing now…

    When we were younger, we would visit a couple of other families we got to know through Scouting.  Both families were Jewish, and it was interesting to see how they celebrated their holidays.  One of the mothers was raised Catholic, so their family celebrated both.  We used to joke about whether it was a Christmas tree or a Hanukkah bush.  We lot touch with one of the families in the early 1980's, but the other family has kept touch with ours throughout the years. 
     
    Spending time with family.  Yeah, as kids that was a given.  But as we got older and moved away, it was great to come home again.  My immediate family now is my brother and sister-in-law, whom I have seen once (f
    or a few hours, tops) about six years ago.  My extended family (cousins, aunts, uncles, etc.), I haven't seen in a loooong time (my Grandmother dies in 1992, so it has been that long or longer!). 

    I haven't even seen my in-laws (who live an hour away) since last Christmas. 

    Once COVID-19 gets tamed, I'll have to change that.  Because without family and friends to celebrate with, Christmas just isn't Christmas, is it?

    Thanks for reading.  I want to wish each and every one of you a safe, happy, and healthy holiday season.  As the old-timers say, Season's Greetings to all of you!

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

     

  • Presented To You in Living Color

    Howdy…

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

    *****************************
    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.

     

  • 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:

    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:

     
    (Images:  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 1/48th 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.

    *     *     *     *     *     *
    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 340th 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.