Iron Modeler

Category: History time

  • The Hows and Whys of Post-War United States Military Air Power

    Howdy, all!  Today (28 March 2024, to be exact) is a rare day–I’m making multiple posts on the same day for your reading enjoyment.  Sit back, relax, and enjoy…
    ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
    Today, let’s examine how the creation of the United States Air Force as a separate branch of the military created the military’s air power structure. This is a much larger brief than I had planned, but it answers a friend’s questions of “Why doesn’t the Army or Marines operate the A-10” and “How did the military air power structure get the way it is?”

    Several names to remember—these acts of Congress, conferences, memorandums, and agreements shaped the United States’ post-WWII air power doctrine:

    • The National Security Act of 1947
    • The Key West Agreement of 1948
    • The Pace-Finletter Memorandum of Understanding of 1952
    • The Howze Board of 1961
    • The Johnson-McConnell Agreement of 1966

    It is a tangled tale, and if you really want to start at the start, it goes back to 1907.

    The U. S. Army got into the aviation business during the Civil War, actually, but things began in earnest when the Aeronautical Division, U. S. Army Signal Corps was formed in 1907. The Aeronautical Division began acquiring aircraft in 1908, purchasing one nonrigid airship and one Wright Model A airplane from the Wright Brothers. The dirigible was delivered in July 1908, and the airplane came along in September. It was this airplane that also caused the first military fatality related to the new machines, when, on 17 September 1908, a propeller split, severed a guy wire, causing the airplane to crash. Killed in the crash was LT Thomas E. Selfridge, one of the early officers of the Division…

    As the years went by, the Aeronautical Division would be replaced with the Air Division, which became the Aviation Section of the U. S. Signal Corps, which was in turn replaced by the U. S. Army Air Service in the World War I years. In 1926, the Army’s aviation group became the U. S. Army Air Corps, a title it would maintain until 1941, when it was changed to the U. S. Army Air Forces. The Air Corps still would exist in the army, relegated to battlefield observation and liaison duties, while the USAAF would handle the ever evolving concept of strategic and tactical air power.

    Things got interesting. Since the early 1920’s, there had always been a faction of the USAAC/USAAF who believed that the service should be separate and independent from the Army. In 1947, the National Security Act did just that—in among many items that discussed intelligence gathering, a National Military Establishment, and security, President Truman ordered the creation of a United States Air Force as an independent branch of a revamped Department of Defense. In part, the duties were broadly outlined:

    “In general, the United States Air Force shall include aviation forces both combat and service not otherwise assigned. It shall be organized, trained, and equipped primarily for prompt and sustained offensive and defensive air operations. The Air Force shall be responsible for the preparation of the air forces necessary for the effective prosecution of war except as otherwise assigned and, in accordance with integrated joint mobilization plans, for the expansion of the peacetime components of the Air Force to meet the needs of war.”

    At the same time, the U. S. Navy realized the importance of aviation, and began to develop their own organic air arm for the Fleet, as well as for the United States Marine Corps. Indeed, through the better part of two World Wars, the Navy’s investment in aviation paid off, much to the chagrin of long-time “Black-Shoe” officers. As aircraft became more capable, they would replace the big guns of the Navy’s battleships and cruisers. They became the eyes and ears of the Fleet, and they employed it quite effectively. The one drawback to post-war Navy aviation was that the early jets caused some issues. They were slow, thirsty, and early jet engines’ performance made them less than ideal from operations from a carrier deck.

    At the end of the war, the United States possessed nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons of the day were large, and required large aircraft to deliver them—aircraft that were in the USAF inventory. Naval aircraft, operating off carrier decks, could not carry and deliver the nukes of the period. As a bit of a sop to the Navy, Truman promised the Navy that they could build their “supercarrier”, the USS United States (CVA-58), and allowed them to maintain an aviation wing of their own—for tactical, not strategic functions.

    As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions…

    In March 1947, the service chiefs met in Key West, Florida to come up with specified duties for each branch of the United States armed forces. The documents that resulted from these meetings have been collectively called the “Key West Agreement of 1948”, formally Functions of the Armed Forces and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The largest outcome of the meetings was an outline on how air assets would be deployed. The aforementioned Supercarrier and Naval Air Arm were indeed part of the discussion, but the largest discussion concerned the new USAF. Because they felt they were in the strategic airpower business, the USAF wanted to be the sole branch to conduct strategic aerial warfare. The truth be told, Curtis LeMay, USAF Chief of Staff, thought the USAF should be the sole service branch to operate any form of aircraft—or, as he put it, the Air Force should operate “everything that flies, right down the last puddle jumper.”

    In the end, the Key West Agreement specified that the Navy (and by extension, the Marines) needed to have their own tactical (but not strategic) air power, and were permitted to develop the same. The Army was sort of left out in the cold in all these talks, and the aviation duties left within the Army structure at the time of the National Security Act were more or less kept as-is. The Air Force’s specific areas of operation were kept a bit vague at the time the Agreement was signed.

    The papers, and the resulting memorandum, was sent to the Joint Chiefs in March 1948. A few months later, the Agreement was amended, and specific duties for the USAF were outlined:

    • Gain/maintain air superiority
    • Air defense of the United States
    • Strategic air warfare
    • Interdiction of enemy land power and communications
    • Close combat and logistical air support
    • Intelligence (including tactical intelligence) and aerial photography
    • Airlift, air transport and resupply, and support for airborne and amphibious operations
    • Interdict enemy sea power
    • Antisubmarine warfare and shipping protection
    • Aerial mine-laying

    At the end of the day, the Army got to say their piece. The Agreement was said to bind the Armed Forces together into an “efficient team of land, naval, and air forces”. The USAF was to provide CAS, airlift, resupply, reconnaissance, and infrastructure interdiction. The Navy was given responsibility for developing and maintaining a tactical air arm. The Army could retain aviation assets for battlefield reconnaissance and medical evacuation (Medevac).

    In 1948, this arrangement worked given the equipment then being fielded. However, time and technology stand still for no man…

    In 1952, a memorandum of understanding was drafted and signed by then-Secretary of the Air Force Thomas K. Finletter and then-Secretary of the Army Frank Pace. Called the Pace-Finletter Memorandum of Understanding, it accomplished two objectives.

    The first objective was removing the gross weight capacity of the Army’s rotary wing aircraft. As helicopters developed and could carry more and do more than simple battlefield observation and short-distance medevac tasks, the Army would find ways to use them to their advantage. The Pace-Finletter MOU codified these changes, to a certain extent, by allowing the Army to operate larger helicopters to serve their combat needs.

    At the same time, the MOU imposed a 5,000-lb. empty gross weight restriction on the Army’s fixed-wing assets. This limited the types of aircraft the Army could use, mostly directed at the liaison and administrative types in use.

    This MOU also placed limits on what the USAF could do with their own helicopters. They could be used for airlift and medevac purposes to support combat operations using either fixed- OR rotary-wing aircraft.

    It also stated the following:

    “Army organic aviation will consist of aircraft primarily utilized by the Army within the Army combat zone as an integral part of its components for the purpose of expediting and improving ground combat and logistical procedures, subject, however, to the limitation that such aircraft will not duplicate the functions of the U.S. Air Force in providing the Army, by fixed-wing and rotary-wing type aircraft, close combat support, assault transport and other troop carrier airlift, aerial photography, tactical reconnaissance and interdiction of enemy land power and communications.”

    But wait, there’s more!

    By the early 1960’s, the Army (and, to some extent, the Marines) were developing what would become known as the Airmobile concept. One of the tenets of this new way of thinking was that the Army would use specialized helicopters to provide organic Close Air Support to their troops in the field. The war in Southeast Asia was beginning to create a lot of friction between the Army and Air Force. The Air Force pointed to the Key West Agreement and the Pace-Finletter MOU and bluntly told the Army to:

    A. Stop using armed helicopters for CAS

    B. Stop arming the new Grumman OV-1 Mohawk Battlefield Surveillance airplane

    C. Terminate the AC-1 Caribou program.

    As discussed, LeMay firmly believed that the USAF should be the only service branch to operate any type of aircraft. And, to LeMay, that meant strategic air warfare doctrine developed around the deployment and use of nuclear weapons. However, the Key West Agreement and Pace-Finletter MOU challenged that notion.

    Enter the Howze Board. And enter more fuel to the fire.

    The Howze Board was convened at the behest of Secretary of Defense McNamara to discuss a working plan for integrating helicopters into a coherent unit. It also wanted to explore the use of helicopters as Close Air Support aircraft, something the Air Force was vehemently against. After all, one of the tenets of both the Key West Agreement and the Pace-Finletter MOU was establishing the USAF’s responsibility for fielding CAS assets, and the stipulation that the Army should not develop aircraft in parallel to the Air Force for the same mission.

    Tangent: For those who want to point at the USMC’s use of their own CAS (from the use of F4U Corsairs in Korea to AV-8B Harriers in modern times), recall that the Key West Agreement allowed the Navy and Marines to develop and field “tactical” aviation assets. Loophole? Yeah. But the fact that the Air Force was split off from the Army as a separate, mature force was much different than the way the Marines were always a paired service with the Navy, and developed their own air arms together.

    The result of the Howze Board was the formation of the 11th Air Assault Division (Test) in 1963 at Fort Benning, Georgia. The subordinate units of the 11th Air Assault Division planned and tested various concepts until they found a workable formula. In 1965, the 11th Air Assault Division (Test) was merged with the 10th Air Transport Brigade and the 2nd Infantry Division. The Division was then inactivated and the personnel and materiel were assigned to the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile). They were sent to Vietnam in July, 1965, and began to prove the Airmobile concept to the Army leadership. The Army was satisfied that organic Army units could indeed carry out any mission that the situation called for.

    This is where what would be “another story for another time” needs to be told now. The AC-1 (later CV-2) Caribou was a deHavilland Canada cargo airplane designed at the request of the U. S. Army capable of short field operations. The Army saw these aircraft as ideal for carrying troops and cargo into the battlefield. The Air Force, however, insisted that the Fairchild C-123 could carry more for a longer distance. What rankled the USAF was that, with the acquisition of the Caribou and the OV-1, the Army was building an organic tactical air arm.

    Incidentally, the Caribou proved to be a better aircraft in theater, but the USAF was still not happy. So…

    In 1966, Army Chief of Staff Harold K. Johnson and USAF Chief of Staff John P. McConnell came to an agreement, called the Johnson-McConnell agreement of 1966. The result: The Army agreed to give up the Caribou, which were transferred to the USAF in 1967 under Operation RED LEAF and re-designated as C-7. The agreement stated that the USAF was required to maintain the C-7 and were required to confer with the Army before replacing or retiring the type.

    The Army was allowed to retain the OV-1. They continued to arm them, much to the chagrin of the USAF.

    At the same time, this agreement made the USAF relinquish all rotary wing aircraft used for intra-theater transport and other Army-related missions. This was specifically aimed at the USAF use of the Sikorsky CH-3A as transports. The USAF’s use of these aircraft were to be limited to Special Air Warfare and Search and Rescue use.

    And the Air Force adopted the Navy’s Vought A-7 (as the A-7D) for the close air support mission.  After evaluating that aircraft’s combat performance in the skies over Vietnam, they began the A-X program, which resulted in the selection of the Fairchild-Republic A-10 as the USAF’s next CAS aircraft.  It boggles the mind that the final example of the 715 A-10’s built left Fairchild’s Hagerstown, Maryland facility in 1984–40 years ago.  The venerable Hawg, the airplane the generals didn’t want (until it proved itself, then they only wanted it when it was convenient because it wasn’t a sexy, pointy-nosed, speed demon of an airplane) is now in the twilight of its career, sadly, but as I’ve said before, technology and time stand still for no man…

    When the Army developed the Hughes Helicopters AH-64 Apache beginning in the early 1970’s (to replace the Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne cancelled in part to free up funding for the A-10 and AV-8 Harrier), there was some growling from the Air Force, but by then the Army was going to do what was good for the Army, Air Force arguments and the patchwork of inter-service agreements and memorandums be damned.

    So, here we are. What did we learn? Intra-service rivalries are not exactly a good thing…even though the various agreements specified no overlap of assets, this is what happens. It is expensive. But is there an alternative?

    In one of those “chew the rag” sessions at the hobby shop, a discussion about the various military forces around the globe started. One thing led to another, and the conversation shifted to something along the lines of, “What would happen in the U.S. if the individual branches of the military were combined into a unified force (such as the unified armed forces of Canada)?”

    But that truly is another story for another time.

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

    Sorry to be so long, but it is a story that few people even know about. And again, if I got some of the details not quite correct, let me know.

    Thanks for reading.  As always, be good to one another, and I bid you Peace.

  • New Year, New Stuff

    New Year, New Stuff

    Howdy, all! I trust you all had a safe, healthy, and happy holiday.

    We’re looking forward to the New Year. With a New Year comes new promise, new adventures, and new things to get done.

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

    Speaking of getting things done, I am on the closing stretch on the trio of Vermont ANG F-16C’s. The paint is done, the decals are on, and I’ve begin final assembly. I still need to do the bases, and the in-flight model will take a little more work than normal since I have configured the landing gear to be shown in-transit. It should be a cool display…

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

    On the “New Toy” front, I finally pulled the trigger and bought a Silhouette Cameo 4 at the beginning of December. I should have some time soon to get the beast set up and running. The intended purpose of the machine is to cut paint masks and stencils, but it can do so much more–creating styrene parts (one reason I opted for the Cameo over the Portrait), making vinyl stickers for displays, etc. Stay tuned…

    ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
    Speaking of New Stuff, here’s something I’ve been meaning to share for a while. Once the F-16’s are done, I’ll be starting a new project, and I thought it would be fun if I shared how I plan my projects. Not all of them go into this depth of research, but this should give you an idea how I do things (note, this is how I do things—your mileage may vary). Without further fanfare, here’s the dope…

    Subject: A-10A, S/N 73-1669, C/N A10-0006
    Time/Date: 8 June 1978
    Place: Edwards AFB

    The project will be to replicate the ejection of then-MAJ Francis C. “Rusty” Gideon, Jr. from the sixth preproduction A-10A when a gun propellant test caused a double engine flameout after a secondary gun gas ignition event robbed them of oxygen.

    I want to show the airplane in flight, the canopy jettisoned, and the seat just starting to come out of the cockpit. So, that means that I won’t have to worry about detailing the landing gear wells or the cockpit.

    So, where would you start?

    I usually begin with the subject and drill down into the data. The basics usually result in the brief summation I started with above—What, Where, and When, and what configuration I want to display.

    Next, I start to drill down into the available references. What are the particulars of the subject? Is this something I can do with an existing kit or kits, or will I need to do some scratchbuilding? If it can be done from a kit, which kit best fills the need? What modifications do I need to make to show it in the configuration I want to display? What about additional details? What do I need to know about the colors and markings?

    Let’s look at these one at a time. We’ll start with the particulars…

    First, you should note that several well-traveled internet sites refer to the preproduction A-10A’s (serial numbers 73-1663 through 73-1669) as a YA-10’s. This is incorrect—there were only two YA-10’s built, 71-1369 and 71-1370. These were the two airplanes that were in the “fly-off” for the A-X contract against the Northrop (note spelling—there’s no “u” in that word!) YA-9’s. These two also participated in the later “fly-off’ between the A-7 and the A-10. The two YA-10’s were quite a bit different from both the preproduction and production A-10A’s.

    Here are the key things to consider:

    • Ejection Seat: The A-10 was originally built with the Douglas 1E9 ESCAPAC ejection seat. Incidentally, events such as this one hastened the conversion from ESCAPAC to ACES II across the A-10 fleet.
    • Leading edge slats, Ventral Strakes, and Trailing Edge Fairing: The YA-10’s had some issues with wing buffeting at high angles of attack (AoA, or “alpha”), particularly when the gun was fired. To combat this, leading edge slats were installed on the inboard section of the wings between the fuselage and landing gear sponsons, ventral strakes were added to the fuselage where the wing joined the fuselage, and a wing-to-fuselage fairing at the trailing edge junction. All the preproduction airplanes were so fitted.
    • Flap guides: The original design for the YA-10 allowed the flaps to extend 40 degrees. The flap travel was later limited to 30 degrees on the preproduction ships, and finally limited to a maximum of 20 degrees on the production aircraft. The flap guides—those rails on the underside of the wings at the ends of the flaps—were altered accordingly. 73-1669, being a preproduction aircraft, was limited to 30 degrees.
    • Gun: The YA-10’s were initially fitted with an M61 20mm Vulcan cannon because the GAU-8/A Avenger was still being developed. All the preproduction airframes had the Avenger from the outset, with the perforated sleeve at the muzzle end. The aft facing scoops covering the gun gas purge slots and fan were not present on the preproduction airplanes.
    • Chaff/Flare dispensers: Chaff and flare dispensers were not initially fitted to the preproduction or early production airframes (think early DM or MB A-10’s in the various camouflage schemes before Euro I was standardized), they used pods instead. The production aircraft were fitted with streamlined boxes under the wingtip turndowns and the underside of the aft end of the landing gear sponsons. 73-1669 did not have the dispensers at the time of the incident.

    The first thing most modelers consider are “which kit?” and “what scale?” Seems logical, right? In order to do this, let’s look at the data. We know we want to build a preproduction A-10A. Are there any kits out there that fill this bill?

    The answer is yes: Monogram and Hasegawa in 1/72nd scale, and Tamiya and Revell in 1/48th scale.

    They’re all older kits. Monogram’s dates back to 1977, as does Tamiya’s kit. Revell’s kit originated in 1979, and was later “retired” in favor of Monogram’s plastic (circa 1986) when Revell and Monogram merged. The easy way to tell them apart is to look at the box top—if the box top shows a photograph of a built-up model, it is the original Revell plastic. If it shows box art, it is Monogram plastic.

    Hasegawa’s is the youngest of the quartet, arriving in 1982.

    The pros and cons: In 1/72nd scale, Monogram’s kit is nicely done except for the engine nacelles—they’re egg-shaped. You can fix them, graft nacelles from another kit onto the Monogram fuselage, or built it as is and be happy. The pilot figure in Monogram’s kit is superb. While we’re speaking of such things, it appears that Gideon was wearing the blaze orange CWU-1/P or K-2B flight suit, as opposed to the sage green standard issue suits of the day.

    The initial issue of Hasegawa’s 1/72nd scale kit did not feature the chaff and flare boxes under the wingtips and sponsons, but all subsequent reissues had them. Removing them is a rather easy task, so don’t sweat it. Hasegawa kits issued in 2014 or later have started to add the additional bits (or modified parts) to depict the LASTE and more modern configurations, so these are more bits you will have to delete.

    In 1/48th scale, both Tamiya and Revell’s kits are great kits for their time. The nose of the landing gear sponsons on the Tamiya kit are a little square. Also, in subsequent reissues, Tamiya added the chaff and flare dispensers, so if you get a later issue of the kit you’ll need to remove these.

    The engine fans on the Revell kit sit too close to the inlet and the compressor blades turn the wrong way. I would think that any of the available resin fan sets would be a good start—they probably won’t be an exact fit, so you’ll have to exercise your modeling skills. Frankly, I wouldn’t worry about it…

    If you don’t like “ancient plastic”, you certainly could backdate any of the currently available kits—any production A-10 kit can be backdated to preproduction configuration, if you want to do the work. Depending on the kit, you may need to remove the LASTE humps and bumps, use an ESCAPAC seat, and delete the scoops over the gun purge slots, delete the modern antenna fits, and installing the earlier pattern bits.

    If you work in 1/32nd scale, you have one choice: Trumpeter’s 2001-vintage kit, and it will need to be backdated.

    Now, let’s look at some photos. The entire ejection sequence was caught on film by the chase aircraft, so we can determine a lot from stills taken from the recordings. As with all A-10’s, the aileron trim tabs were deflected a bit (both the fixed and adjustable tabs), so a little cutting and repositioning will be in order. Also, the flaps seem to be extended to some extent, so again, you’ll need to break out the razor saw and cut the flaps loose. Unfortunately, I know of no aftermarket flap sets for the A-10 in any scale. I’ll be happy to be proven wrong on this point.

    As mentioned earlier, there is really no need to go hog wild on detailing the cockpit or gear wells. So save those photoetched and resin doo-dads for a project where they will be seen.

    Ordnance, too, is no concern, as the airplane wasn’t carrying any. The wing pylons on Stations 1 through 4 and 8 through 11 were fitted, but I have yet to see a good photo of the underside of the fuselage, so I’ll assume the pylons were fitted to Stations 5, 6, and 7 as well. The PAVE PENNY pylon was not installed, the photos and videos clearly show this.

    Colors and markings are interesting. This was one of the early experimental paint schemes that featured a black undercoat with varying numbers of coats of white paint on top. As the white paint eroded, it resulted in a mottled gray finish. The rudders and wingtips were red.

    When it comes to decals, there are a few options. In 1/48th scale, the Tamiya kit features the basic markings for 73-1669, but the camouflage color notes are vague. Microscale (the OLD Microscale) offered sheet 48-69 back in the day that featured 73-1669 and most of the other preproduction airframes.

    In 1/72nd scale, Microscale’s sheet 72-313 will take care of you. You’re on your own in 1/32nd scale…

    As far as goes a good guide to the interesting minefield that is early A-10A camouflage, I can’t recommend a better reference than Dana Bell’s Colors and Markings of the A-10 Warthog (C&M Vol. 24) from the folks at Detail and Scale (ISBN 0890242247). A real good photo of 1669 appears on page 7, showing how the scheme looked before the white was allowed to erode, exposing more of the black undercoat.

    Likewise, Dana’s A-10 Warthog In Detail and Scale (D&S Vol. 19, ISBN 0816850305) is a good source for information.

    The last consideration that needs to be made concerns the display itself. How will the airplane be suspended “in flight”? For the VTANG F-16C, I plan to use a length of acrylic rod inserted into the tailpipe of the jet and plugged into a hole in a display base. Given the airplane was depicted just taking off, this was an easy choice. But the A-10 was at 2,000 feet AGL when MAJ Gideon pulled the handles, so the acrylic rod plugged into the base might not work. I’m still in the “thinking” phase on this one.

    That’s where I am on the project to date. I don’t plan to start this project until the VTANG F-16’s are complete, but I thought it would be interesting if I shared some of my methods with you.

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

    That’s all I have at the moment. Take care of yourselves, and be good to one another. 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.

  • 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.

     

  • Teen Debutantes

    Howdy, everyone!

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

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

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

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

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

    70002283_1111186009092731_6540460654585708544_n
    70002283_1111186009092731_6540460654585708544_n

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

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

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

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

    Wish me luck.

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

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

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

    Nostalgia. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    F-15A_first_prototype_1
    F-15A_first_prototype_1

    Now, moving on to the F-16…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Fsd f16
    Fsd f16

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

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

  • In the days of yore…

    (Or:  Hey, Grandpa, tell us a story…)

    As the Cajun Chef Justin Wilson would say, "How y'all are?  I'm so glad for you to see me some more!" 

    Since we last crossed paths, a lot has happened.  Our Mesa Project is over, ended prematurely by our customer.  So, no more treks cross-continent–which is a good thing and a bad thing, because as long as it wasn't in the summer months, I enjoyed the time I spent in Arizona.  This also means that I've been between projects since January, which means I have time on my hands–and time that isn't always spent in the best of manners. 

    I guess that's why I volunteered to "un-retire" and ask the guys in the local IPMS Chapter to trust me to run the club for a few years.  "I wanted a mission, and for my sins, they gave me one…"

    So, having time on my hands and something that I need to spend time on has got me writing articles for our club newsletter.  I've done a few so far, and I have two or three more lurking out there amongst my research materials on projects near and dear to me.  The first I wrote was a short piece on the various Army missile sites situated in and around South Florida during the aftermath of the Cuban Missile crisis and how those spots look today.  Since we're in South Carolina, and I have never seen anyone in the club do so, I also did a two-part history of the 169 Fighter Wing, the flying unit of the South Carolina Air National Guard.  Waiting in the wings?  I'd like to do a short piece on the 321st and 340th Bombardment Groups, two units that were assembled and trained here at what is now the Columbia Metropolitan Airport.  I've also been refining my "Model Building 101" seminar that I first presented at the 2016 IPMS/USA National Convention.  And, while all this has been fun, it has caused me to do some digging in back issues of old magazines–where I'm greeted almost every time with some sort of "Blast from the Past"…

    The first thing I recalled were the Alpha Cyanoacrylate Cements (ACC, also known as CA, "Super Glue", "Krazy Glue", and a host of other trade and nicknames) that we had available to us in the day.  Dad would usually have one of the syrette-type tubes of Krazy Glue hanging around, and every now and then he'd bring home an expired bottle of Eastman 910, the great-granddaddy of all ACCs from work–he worked at a bio-medical company for a while and they paid strict attention to dates.  The glue was still perfectly fine, except the date on the container said it couldn't be used. 

    A few years later, I found Satellite City's "Hot Stuff"–the original bottles were flat-topped and used the little piece of Teflon tubing as an applicator nozzle.  And, boy, did it work!  I first discovered it when my brother was building a Dumas tunnel-hull radio control boat.  I happened to be building my one and only "real" model (according to Dad), a Guillows large scale Spitfire.  I used Titebond for most of the construction–I wasn't concerned with weight, since I was building it as a shelf sitter–but when I needed to lock something into place NOW, I'd hit it with Hot Stuff, and pow, it was secured.  I tried it on some of the plastic models I built later on, and found that it worked fairly well on them, but that I was still a bit lacking in my technique–so what I usually wound up with was a misaligned bit of model that took a while to sort out.  But it was good stuff, and it is actually still available.  In the years since, I've used the Pacer "Zap" line of ACC, Carl Goldberg's "Jet", the "Krazy Glue" formulations, and the Bob Smith Industries products, but if it was still as readily available as it was in the early 1980's, I'd probably still be using Hot Stuff…these days, Bob Smith is what is usually available, so it is what I use…

    Another product from days gone by are fillers.  Back in my formative years, there was only one readily available hobby filler worth using, and that was good, old, Squadron Green Putty.  And boy, did I use it by the metric ton.  I'd glue the parts together, and once the glue was dry I'd smear a nice bead of putty on every seam.  I guess I liked sanding for weeks back then, I dunno.  As my technique improved, and as I realized that I didn't need to use the whole tube on just one model, I started to use less.  At some point, I used Duratite putty, and later tried the Dr. Microtools' red putty–nice stuff, but if you are painting something white, it was a huge pain in the hinder.  About the same time, Squadron introduced their White Putty.  I've used it ever since, at least as far as solvent-based putties go.  I've added a few to my arsenal–namely, CA, Deluxe Products' Perfect Plastic Putty, and Apoxie Sculp.  That last one reminded me that I originally used Duro's E-Pox-E Ribbon–you probably remember it if you used it, it has a blue and a yellow component, and when it cured it was this garish green color.  Once I discovered Milliput, thought, I switched.  And, when Apoxie Sculp debuted and I could get it easier than Milliput, I switched.

    But of all the products I look back on, the one that I always come to is paint.  In my kid days building models in the neighborhood, you were either a Testors fan or a Pactra kid–a lot depended on where you shopped for paint.  It seems to me that the drug store closest to the house (as well as the local K-Mart and Treasury discount store) carried the Testors Pla Enamels, and the drug store across the street carried Pactra 'Namel.  Back then, we only knew we needed paint, we weren't particular, but I was always under the impression that the Testors bottles held more paint that the jewel-faceted 'Namel jars did.  I used the Testors Flats, mostly, and continued to use them when I transitioned from using the hairy stick to using the airbrush for my final finishes.  That is, until about 1981…

    Remember my stories of the Otaki Corsair, and how it became my Great White Whale, and how I so thoroughly botched my first attempt that I had to wait until the shop got another kit?  Between those two, I built the Otaki Hellcat, and since I had already bought the paint for the Corsairs, I'd simply use them on the Hellcat, too.  These were different–these were the square bottles of Pactra's Authentic International Colors.  And boy, how I loved that paint.  I had discovered that using Aero Gloss Dope thinner really cut the Testors flat enamel paint and made it lay down well and flash quickly, and it held no surprises when I did the same with the Pactra stuff.  Of course, my luck being what it is, a few months after I discovered the stuff, it was being discontinued.  No matter, as I was in for a change anyway…

    When I started college, I was trying to be considerate to my roommates, so I tried the original Polly-S.  For those of you younger than 30, this was the original hobby "acrylic"–actually, it was latex paint.  It hand brushed very nicely, but to airbrush it was a bit of a crap shoot.  See, you could thin it with water or alcohol, neither of which was 100% reliable with any given bottle of paint.  Some bottles would do well with either, other bottles would only work well with water, and some bottles would curdle into a tight little ball if you tried alcohol.  I got real good at troubleshooting paint in those days, and I used it until it, too, was starting to pass from the scenes.  When I couldn't get colors like RLM02 and Non-Spec Sea Blue, it was telling me that I needed to find a new paint.  It actually found me…

    About the same time Polly-S was sinking, the gang at Floquil had begun to produce the "re-formulated" military colors, in the form of their "new" (for 1992-ish) line.  Now, I was quite content to use Polly-S (as well as the Tamya and Gunze/GSI acrylics), but given the range of colors, I just had to try the new Floquil line.  I did.  I liked it.  I used it.  Well, until the advent of PollyScale…

    There were other acrylics that I tried back in the day, too.  I liked the original Tamiya acrylics.  They were an absolute joy to use.  They then started to fiddle with the chemistry of their paints, and for several years I simply could not get it to work, come Hell or high water.  I also liked the Gunze Aqueous line to an extent, but I found that it didn't give as good a coverage as the others did.  Along the way, I also tried the Testor Model Master Acrylics (the line that preceded the Acryl colors we have now), and found them to be the most useless model paint I ever encountered.  The experience I had with them colored my opinion of the later Acryl line until I tried them. 

    Then there was "Niche"/"Red Paint".  They came out in the early 1990's with these supposed hyper-accurate paints formulated for late war Luftwaffe and Soviet colors.  I have actually had good results with the one bottle of "Soviet Dielectric Green" I bought (check out the MiG-21 I built–the antennas are all done with this paint), and wish I had bought more when it was available.  

    I tried the ProModeler paints once, too–the less said, the better.  They weren't as useless as the Testor Model Master Acrylics, but they came pretty close.

    Coming full circle, one of the last of the "others" that I really liked were the Pactra Acrylics.  And, as my luck runs, it wasn't around long once I discovered it.

    Back to PollyScale.  Bar none, this is the best acrylic I have ever used, before or since.  I liked it so much that I simply gave away all my Floquil enamels.  If this stuff was still around, I'd be using it.  No question.  But, as we have seen from RPM (the parent company of Testors, Bondo, and Rust-Oleum) a few times, well, they just couldn't bear having "sister company" (as Floquil was at the time) show up the Home Team.  Yep, they discontinued the PollyScale colors in favor of the Acryls…

    Since PollyScale went away, I have re-learned how to use Tamiya colors, I have liked the Acryls, and I have adopted a new favorite in the form of Vallejo Model Air.  Sure, it isn't PollyScale, but as I have been experimenting and getting used to it, I like the stuff.  I've been able to pull off some pretty nice paint jobs–see the Hasegawa F-111F, the pair of Corsairs, and the ER-2 as proof.  They make the best, to my mind, acrylic metallic colors, too, as the MiG-21 proves.  So, while my winding road through the world of hobby paint has been long and slightly tortured, I think I'm where I need to be.

    ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

    And this doesn't even scratch the surface of the list of the kit manufacturers we had back in the day.  We had Otaki and Nichimo, neither of which are around any more, although Arii picked up the Otaki line for a while–it is now marketed by Micro Ace in Japan.  We had Fujimi, kits from whom have only recently started to hit these shores again.  We had Life-Like, Inpact, ESCI, SMER, VEB/Plasticart–none of which have survived to today. 

    And, the latest additions to the list:  Monogram and Revell.  They were victims of the Hobbico bankruptcy.  Hopefully, the new owners of Revell Germany–who now own the entire Revell and Monogram catalog–will re-establish some sort of U.S. branch, but I'm not holding my breath.

    On the other hand, due to the efforts of Round 2 Models, the likes of AMT, MPC, Lindberg, Hawk, and Polar Lights…

    Perhaps next time, we'll take a look at those manufacturers.

    Until then, thanks for reading.  Be good to one another, and I bid you Peace.

     

  • #historyiscool

    Howdy…

    I was on the road again for the past two weeks.  The phrase "It's said the West is nice this time of year" is certainly true–nighttime lows in the high 50's, daytime highs in the mid- to high 80's…

    ————————————————————————————————————————-

    I had occasion to speak with a high school classmate a few weekends ago.  That 20-minute phone call stirred up such a rush of nostalgia that it prompted me to bat out a six-page missive that was originally intended to be posted here as a follow-on to my last post.  The more I wrote, the more I decided that the piece was more for me than it was for anyone else, and has been filed away in my folder called "Personal Musings". 

    In effect, it was an essay on history–my history.  And I think it is good to go back and visit history, whether it is your personal history (either through memory or some sort of journal), as well as events that shaped the world around you.

     

    I grew up in a small suburb of Ft. Lauderdale called Lauderhill.  The family moved there in August of 1971.  At the time,  Lauderhill was only starting to grow on the west side of the Florida Turnpike, and we were there to see the beginnings of it.  Now, I didn't know squat about history then–I wouldn't take an interest in history for another year or two.  All I knew was that the folks on the East side of Lauderhill had been there for a while, while most of us on the West side had only recently arrived–from other areas of the city, from other areas of the county, and, like us, from out of state.

    I had a lot to learn.

    As time marched on, I started to be aware of the events around me.  My first real knowledge of a historic event had to have been the 1972 Munich Olympics hostage crisis.  I didn't fully understand what was happening, but I know the story I was seeing captivated me.  I didn't really understand the significance of the events until I was a few years older, then it took on a whole different meaning to me.

    The next event I recall would have been the 1973 Yom Kippur War.  Why?  The Oil Crisis.  It was a direct result of the war.  Again, I still didn't understand the strife between the Arabs and Israelis back then.  I soon would, and again, my mind was opened up to the vast amount of history that I did not yet know.  1974 saw Watergate and the Nixon resignation.  1975, the evacuation of Saigon.  And so on…

    It was about then that I started to make a conscious effort to learn history.  On my own, no prompting.  I read books.  Lots of books.  Fiction?  Nope, don't need it.  I wanted the straight dope, the real stuff.  For some unknown reason, my interests focused initially on the Second World War.  More specifically, they focused on the air war from 1935 until 1945.  I ate the stories up.  I read all the books I could.  I asked for–and received–Edward Jablonski's massive tome "Airwar" one Christmas, and read it from cover to cover over Christmas break.  (If you've never heard of it, it was initially a four-volume set.  The version I received was all four volumes bound into one book.  It is a big book!) 

    All of this, of course, fed my interest in making models of all those airplanes I read about.  When NBC started airing the show "Baa Baa Black Sheep", I wouldn't miss an episode.  I had seen a photo of the F4U Corsair earlier and thought it was the coolest airplane I had ever seen.  Those of you who sat through my "Every Model Tells A Story" seminar at the 2016 IPMS/USA National Convention know that finding the "best" model kit of a Corsair became my Great White Whale until about 1981, when I finally laid hands on the Otaki 1/48 scale kit…

    Growing up, I was fairly good in school.  I had the good fortune of being able to suck up information like a sponge and manage to retain it for quite some time.  I was especially good at the Liberal Arts stuff–writing, social studies, history–and I was good working with my hands.  On the pure science and math side of the ledger, I did okay, but if you'll recall my post of a few years ago titled "1984", it couldn't quite carry me through Aeronautical Engineering.  At a crossroads, my mother reminded me of something that I will never forget.  She told me, "Your dilemma is that you have Technical hands and a Liberal Arts mind." 

    She was, of course, correct.  As I considered my path forward, I thought of switching to a History major.  But, here's Mom again, reminding me that History majors do one of two things:  Teach or work at museums.  For peanuts.  (My wife, whose undergrad degree is in History, has also reminded me of these facts…)

    As much as a career as an historian intrigued me, I fell back on my Technical hands and studied avionics, earned my degrees, and have worked in the industry pretty much ever since.  Even when I got laid off in 2009, while I poked around looking at Master's courses in history, I knew that the Siren named aviation would come to me, calling me back into the fold… 

    Then came last year.  Actually, August of 2015–the time we were told that the company was moving the shop from Columbia, and that we could move with it if we wanted to, with everything that entailed.  And once again, I began poking around, looking at Master's programs in History.  This time, I came to the conclusion that should I head down that road, I'd be 70 years old before I paid off the loans, and would be thrown right back to the bottom of the employment totem pole, making peanuts.  Every now and then I still think it would be a cool thing to do, but the mortgage and light bills pull me back to reality.

    By the way, my selected field, had I actually enrolled?  Middle Eastern History of the 20th Century.  It fascinates me.

    Instead, I'm exercising my Liberal Arts mind in another way, writing technical documents to support avionics modifications programs.  That's what has seen me traveling back and forth to Arizona.  That's what's paying my bills.

    But I still have that undying curiosity for all things history.  It is, to this day, reflected in the books I like to read, in the models that I build, and the places I go.  I've written before how I was on an aviation museum kick back in 2012/2013.  My last post spoke about how I finally paid a return visit to the Pima Air and Space Museum in Tucson.  For those of you who follow me on Facebook, you see it in my posts–most of them have some historical tidbit that I toss out to people, hoping they'll bite on the nugget and go read further.  

    Why?

    I just find it, well, cool.

    What frustrates me is that I don't see a whole lot of young folks who have the same curiosity.  For anything, let alone history.  It came as a breath of fresh air when a Facebook friend posted that her son wanted to teach history. 

    There is hope for us yet.

    —————————————————————————————————————————-

    While in Mesa, I was able to catch a few hours of ModelZona 2017 at the Commemorative Air Force's Falcon Field location.  I thought it funny when I started to bump into people I know, one after the other, within minutes of entering the venue…I was having a difficult time trying to see the show itself!

    I thought it was a nice show–not having been there for the whole show, what I did see was well-run.  There was a lot of great work on the tables, too many for me to recall right now.  Probably the most interesting model I saw was a scratchbuilt 1/48 C-54.

    All in all, it was an enjoyable break from work.  Thanks and congratulations to the Craig Hewitt chapter of IPMS/USA for putting on such a fine event.

    —————————————————————————————————————————–

    Speaking of model shows, mark your calendars now for the South Carolina Scale Model Mega Show, to be held on Saturday, 23 June 2018, at the Bluff Road Armory in Columbia.  It will be a jointly-hosted show between the AMPS Central South Carolina Wildcats and the IPMS/USA Mid-Carolina Swamp Fox Modelers.  Details to come…

    —————————————————————————————————————————–

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

     

  • Another one of “those anniversaries”…

    24 April is another one of "those anniversaries" that are vivid in my memory.  I'll elaborate the "why" later, but first let's cover the "what"…

    In late 1979, the Ayatollahs came to power in Iran, sparking what was then called a "student uprising".  During that uprising, the Shah, a man put into power in the early 1950's by a U.S.-led coup, fled the country.  He was, during his reign, a tyrant–he would do his best to keep the common Iranian down while also doing his best to see that the rich Iranians got richer.  At the time he left the country, he was also ill–he was suffering from cancer, a malady that would take his life soon after.

    During all the demonstrations, the insurgents demonstrated outside the Embassies of the Western powers.  To this day, I can still vividly remember the chants, "Death to Carter, Death to the Shah!", referring, of course, to President Jimmy Carter and the now-deposed Shah.  At some point, the American embassy was stormed and the workers taken captive.  Ultimately, 52 Americans would be held for 444 days, gaining their release just after President Ronald Reagan was inaugurated in January 1981. 

    However, in 1980 President Carter wanted to do more than negotiate, and had formulated plans for a massive rescue mission.  That mission would be called Operation Eagle Claw.  It involved assets from all branches of the military–Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.  It was a complicated plan, too:  An advance mission on 1 April transported one Air Force Combat Air Controller went into Iran and selected the first landing site, called Desert One.  He installed infrared landing lights and took soil samples–he reported back that the site was hard-packed sand.  Three weeks later, the surface had accumulated a layer of fine, powdery sand, unknown to mission planners.

    The mission as planned:  Three USAF EC-130E's (call signs Republic 4, 5, and 6) would carry the members of the Army's new elite Delta Force and some 6,000 gallons of jet fuel in collapsible bladders to refuel the Navy helicopters.  Three USAF MC-130E Combat Talon aircraft (call signs Dragon 1, 2, and 3) would carry logistical support equipment.  Eight RH-53D Sea Stallion helicopters from the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (call signs Bluebeard 1 through 8, located in the Persian Gulf, would rendezvous with the C-130's at Desert One.  Once at Desert One, the Delta Force would embark on the RH-53's and be flown to another remote landing site, Desert Two.  There they would spend the next day.  Come nightfall, Delta Force would drive into Tehran in trucks brought to Desert Two by CIA operatives.  The helicopters would reposition to a nearby football stadium and wait.  Delta force would storm the Embassy and any other holding sites, neutralize the Iranian guards, and free the Americans.  Other members of the ground combat force would destroy power stations to keep the Iranians pinned down.  USAF AC-130 gunships would be orbiting over the area to add close air support, and Army Rangers were to neutralize and capture the nearby Manzariyeh Air Base, where USAF C-141 Starlifters would land.  The ground forces and freed hostages would rendezvous with the helicopters and the football stadium and would be flown to the air base.  They would then board the C-141's and be flown to safety.

    That's the mission in theory.  Here's how reality played out…

    24 April 1980:  All the aircraft departed from their bases as scheduled.  The MC-130s and EC-130s were able to locate Desert One and land–Dragon 1 was the first in, and sustained damage upon landing.  It was able to offload personnel and equipment and was able to fly out, but would require extensive maintenance afterwards to repair the damage. 

    Meanwhile, the RH-53s began to have problems.  Bluebeard 6 had to land in the desert because the crew were getting a warning light that pointed to a cracked rotor blade.  The crew abandoned the aircraft and were recovered by Bluebeard 8.  The rest of the helicopter group was overcome by a haboob, a sudden and severe dust storm frequent to the region.  Bluebeard 5 returned to Nimitz when its flight instruments malfunctioned.  The remaining helicopters arrived at Desert One.  When Bluebeard 2, the last to arrive, landed, they were a full 90 minutes behind schedule.  To make matters worse, Bluebeard 2 had a malfunctioning hydraulic system, leaving only a single system to operate the aircraft.

    In the meantime, Army Rangers intercepted and destroyed a truck smuggling gasoline.  This was both bad and good:  the fires lit up the night, but also provided a visual beacon for the helicopter force.  Later, a bus carrying some 44 civilians was stopped and the passengers detained on Republic 3.

    With all the aircraft that would arrive on scene, COL Charlie Beckwith (commander of Delta Force) was at a dilemma:  Mission plans clearly stated that if there were any fewer than six helicopters, the mission was to be aborted.  The Navy flight crews, all too well aware of what a total loss of hydraulic pressure would do to a Sea Stallion, decided that Bluebeard 2 was to be shut down and taken off the mission.  This left five helicopters to continue, one less than the plan called for.  Discussions between commanders on scene and in Washington led to the decision to abort the mission.  Bluebeard 2 was to be left, and the aircraft were to return to base.  The civilians from the bus were released, but the bus was disabled.

    And this wasn't the bad news.

    The helicopters needed to be refueled from the EC-130's.  Republic 4 was also low on fuel, and had already transferred its bladder fuel to the helicopters.  It was now at a point where it needed to depart immediately if it had any hope of getting home.  In order to do so, the aircraft needed to be re-arranged.  Since the ground had that ankle-deep layer of powder, the easiest way to move the helicopters was to air taxi them.  Bluebeard 3 had to be moved in order to get Republic 4 and Bluebeard 4 repositioned–Republic 4 to depart and Bluebeard 4 to refuel from another EC-130.  A USAF Combat Air Controller began to marshal Bluebeard 3 away from Republic 4, but as the helicopter became airborne it caused a huge dust cloud to form and also caused the CAC to start to move away from the helicopter.  Being the helicopter pilot's only visual reference, he tried to maintain a constant distance from the CAC, not knowing that the CAC was being blown over by the rotor wash.  Shortly, the main rotor of Bluebeard 3 contacted the tail surfaces of Republic 4.  Both aircraft caught fire.  Republic 4 still had residual fuel in the bladder tanks.  The flames spread quickly.  Eight American servicemen were killed that night on the Iranian desert, five airman from Republic 4 and three Marines from Bluebeard 3.  Along with the loss of life, we lost many classified documents on the RH-53s that were abandoned when all hell broke loose.

    It was a debacle.  There is no other word for it.

    So, why do I recall the events to this day?  One, I had the day off from school–it was a teacher workday, I think–and remember waking up to the news.  As a kid of 16, I couldn't understand how my country could fail this miserably.  I was old enough to recall the Vietnam War, and the trials and tribulations attached to it.  I thought that was bad enough, but now here we were again, embarrassed in the eyes of the whole world.

    As I got older and started to become more worldly (in other words, I not only got older, I got wiser as well), I came to learn that there were outside circumstances that were attached to our involvement in Iran.  The moral of the story is as Jack Ryan told Captain Ramius in "The Hunt for Red October": "It is good to know a little about one's adversary, don't you think?"

    In the years following Eagle Claw, the military revised procedures for their anti-terrorist and Special Forces.  Procedures were put into place for better inter-service cooperation and better intra-branch cooperation.  Better equipment was devised and purchased.  Better training was implemented.  The culmination of all this was evident during Operation Desert Storm…

    If you want some homework, I'd suggest trying to find a copy of Steven Kinzer's "All The Shah's Men".  The book covers the ouster of Mohammed Mossadegh and the return of the Shah to power.  Also, The Atlantic published a good article on Operation Eagle Claw.  Educate yourself on the history of our world, you might be surprised what you learn.

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