Iron Modeler

Category: The Plastic Addiction

  • Some Insight

    Howdy, all!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Now, how about the aviation thing…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And it started with a model airplane.

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

  • Scale Modeling—Art or Craft?

    Howdy, all…

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

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

    Let’s see what the dictionary has to say…

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

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

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

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

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

    Hmm.  Let’s look further…

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

    Now we seem to be making headway.

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

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

    Hmm…where does *that* leave us?

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

    Right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

  • Presented To You in Living Color

    Howdy…

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

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

    (Images:  FineScale Modeler, Fall 1982)

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

    Matched Colors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Color Standards and Color References

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

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

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

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

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

    How FS595 works

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

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

    Let’s look at that 5-digit number

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Color Tools You Can Use

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    http://www.federalstandardcolor.com/

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

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

    Hobby Colors and Accuracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Putting the Color Where It Belongs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

  • Game-Changing Moments

    Howdy, all…

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

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

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

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

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

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

     
    (Images:  Kalmbach Publishing)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    *     *     *     *     *     *

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

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

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

    That 40-year run is coming to an end.

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

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

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

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

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

    We’ll see how that pans out…

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

    Stay safe and healthy!

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

     

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

    Howdy, all…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Anyway, I need to steer us back on track…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    *    *    *    *    *    *   *   *   *   *

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

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

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

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

    *    *    *    *    *    *    *

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

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

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

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

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

    *    *    *    *    *    *   *

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

  • The Ideal Hobby Shop

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

    Howdy, all, and Happy New Year!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    My suggestions:

    Start with the employees:

    1. If you are the owner, your job is that business.  In other words, you need to be present at the store pretty much all the time.
      • When you aren’t at the store, you need to be doing something to promote the store, whether it means you go to Chamber of Commerce meetings, hobby club events, or trade shows.  You can’t sit at home and wait for the bucks to roll in through the door.
      • I suppose I learned from one of the best.  Pete started several businesses, and he was ALWAYS involved with them.  When he wasn’t at the hobby shop, he was at one of his other businesses, and, rest assured, he knew exactly what was going on at each of them.  He hired the right people, and he expected them to do their jobs.
    1. Have a knowledgeable staff. When I went to work for Pete in the mid-1990’s, I was told I needed to know more than just plastic models (and more to the point, I needed to know more than just Monogram airplane kits).  My years of building scale models of all types, and a working knowledge of model railroading helped me get “in the door”.  The other guys in the shop, likewise, could converse in several different areas.
      • When I first went to work at HobbyTown, the owner liked the fact that I knew how to solder, understood batteries and electronics, and was mechanically inclined.  He figured that I could figure out radio control items that would come in for repair.  While I never really enjoyed RC repairs (especially nitro-fueled stuff), I did it because I could.  I’d much rather have been building a model instead of tearing down a near-totaled RC truck.
      • This brings up another point about tribal knowledge—make sure you have more than one person in the store that has similar knowledge.  Hearing, “Well, our only model guy is only here on Saturday” does the customer no good if they come in on Tuesday.
      • Finally, having a staff that knows multiple hobbies saves you from having to send business to your competition.  That’s akin to throwing money out the window.
    1. Be friendly and greet everyone who walks into the store.
      • Acknowledge their presence and remind them that you are there to answer questions.
      • The staff should also be paying attention to the customers instead of chatting among themselves, other customers, or constantly scanning their smart phones. This is not to say the staff shouldn’t be involved, but they should have enough foresight to break off their conversation when another customer needs help.
      • A word on the “Hard-Sell”.  Personally, I don’t like it when a salesman follows me around like a puppy, trying to sell me everything that I touch.  Greet me at the door, ask me what I’m looking for, point me to those items, and let me browse.  If I have questions, I will find you.  I have bought more stuff at a hobby shop by simply wandering the aisles without a salesman in tow.  In fact, if I feel that I’m being given the hard-sell, more times than not I will walk out and buy nothing.
    1. Be clean and well groomed. Nothing turns customers off more than a smelly and disheveled salesman.
      • Pete went so far as to have a personal appearance standard—he wouldn’t allow men to wear beards, and, truth be told, I think he really didn’t like facial hair at all.
    1. Have a dress code.
      • Get shirts for your employees–there are several online shops that can work with you and produce custom shirts at great prices.  Make sure your employees keep them clean and wear them.
      • The standard uniform at Warrick was a store shirt (we had nice button-down oxfords embroidered with the store logo) and slacks (navy, black, or khaki) or clean blue jeans (with a preference for slacks).
      • At HobbyTown, we had polo shirts and were allowed to wear shorts on any day where the daily high temperature was forecast to be above 70 degrees.
    1. Your staff needs to be punctual. A good rule of thumb is to arrive 20 minutes prior to opening or start of shift.  In those 20 minutes before opening, the staff needs to go through the store and clean/straighten the merchandise.  This is an ongoing process, and needs to be done several times a day, every day.

      Merchandise in general:

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

    Now, for the scale modeling specific items:

    1. Keep up with the new kits, at the very least.
      • You don’t need to buy a case of every new kit that comes out, but at least bring one or two into the store.
    1. If you know you can move it, keep up with the aftermarket, too.
      • The same caveat listed in point #13 should dictate whether or not you do aftermarket as a regular stock item.
    1. If you need to open new accounts with new distributors to get merchandise, DO IT.
    2. Keep a good selection on hand of staple items
      • Sherman and Panther/Tiger tanks, P-51 Mustangs, Corvettes, etc.
      • Don’t forget to have some of the simpler kits for newbies (snap and easy assembly kits).
      • Unless it is a particularly odd item with limited appeal or a big bucks item that you’re not comfortable bringing into the store on speculation, refrain from telling your clientele that you are “happy to special order anything they want.” They can already do that from the comfort of their homes.
      • Oddball and high priced items should be paid special order items, but if you’ve paid attention, much of the store inventory should be easy to order when you follow point #21 below.
    1. A good shop can always sell one or two of most anything.  We never gave a second thought to ordering a pair of the latest Tamiya, Academy, or Revell kits into the shop.  We would also get one each of the more expensive Trumpeter, Meng, and Eduard items in the store, unless customer demand dictated we order more.

      Dealing with your clientele:

    2. Maintain ties with the local clubs, and cultivate relationships with your regular customers, whether they are club members or not. In order to figure out what to bring in, you need to hear from the people who are most likely to buy those products.
      • If they have a show, sponsor it.
    1. Have a soda machine and a coffee pot. Let the customers hang out and, as Bob Fivey put it, “chew the rag”. However, remember point #3 listed above.
    2. Offer classes and seminars.
      • In the scale model arena, airbrushing, working with photoetched brass or resin, basic scratch building, all are good subjects.
      • Better still, allow the clubs to have a day in the shop where THEY can offer the classes.  This becomes a win-win—the club or group can use the event as a recruiting session, and the increased traffic should result in increased sales IF you have paid attention to keeping the shelves full.
    1. Get to know your customers—find out what they buy and why they buy it.
      • Let them know that their input is appreciated. Ask them if there is anything they’d like to see in the store.
      • Tell them (better yet, show them) how much you appreciate their business.
    1. Offer a discount to your regulars. It need not be huge (usually 10%, but I’ve seen some stores offer 15%).
      • Within reason, this should negate the need to price match every item in the store.  Part of that comes with how you buy and price your merchandise, so you need to be vigilant.
      • Most people know that the online retailers also have wholesale operations, and we used to work the pricing so that someone could buy a kit in the store for about the same price as they could online.
      • The benefit of buying in the store is that the customer has the product in their hot little hands and doesn’t have to pay shipping or wait for the item.
      • If you don’t at least try to match online prices, guess what?  They’ll buy online.
    1. If you say you will do something, DO IT!
    2. People in the know have an additional suggestion.  They’ll say, “Want to make a small fortune in the hobby business?  Start with a large one…”

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

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

  • 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.

  • Another IPMS/USA National Convention

    (Note:  I am publishing this more or less simultaneously on the Iron Modeler blog and in the IPMS/Mid-Carolina Newsflash.  The local guys may wonder why I add identifiers to folks they know well—there’s why!)

    Howdy, All!

    This year’s IPMS/USA National Convention is in the books, and all I can say is that the folks of the Chattanooga crew are to be congratulated on what was a superb event.  From the time I arrived at 1PM on Wednesday until I departed on Saturday around 5PM, I had a thoroughly enjoyable time.  The things to see, the people to meet…

    If you’ve never been, you simply must go to at least one.  Why?  Well, here’s a recap of my extended weekend…

    Wednesday, 7 August:

    I arrived a bit after 1PM.  I went inside the huge Chattanooga Convention Center, and walked down to the Pre-Registration room.  Yes, they had a small room to handle the task, which worked a treat, since there were no long lines and crowding in the corridor.  From the time I said “Hello” to Ann Strandberg until I walked back out into the corridor took about 30 seconds.  Seriously.  This was the quickest I was ever in and out of Pre-Registration out of the five IPMS/USA Conventions I have attended.

    By the way, Ann is a HUGE asset to these shows—she is a First Class organizer, and I learned from our experience in Columbia that she’s very good at what she does.  She and her husband Bill seem to be omnipresent at these shows.  Bill and I spent more than a few minutes sharing ideas and catching up during the show.  Bill and Ann, it was great seeing both of you!

    After that, I went back to the car to retrieve my Display Only models.  I think I’ve told you all before that my competition days are behind me, but when someone offers display only space, I’m on it.  I had a few models that will be covered in their own right in a later installment, and I found a table and set the models out.  I took the containers back to the car, and then ventured back to the model room.  The display tables seemed to be filling up rather quickly—a good sign, to be sure!  IPMS/USA hasn’t been very big on Display Only up until maybe 10 years ago, and interest didn’t seem to be there.  I believe this year may change some minds—if future conventions continue this trend, it will be a good thing, indeed!  Mike Moore and the whole Chattanooga crew are to be commended for making this one of their focus items.

    I checked out some of the Display Only tables.  Rich VanZant of Mississippi had four tables full of his 1/48 scale airplanes.  Mark Deliduka of SoCal had some 750 armor pieces on display.  Gil Hodges had several tables full of resin and vacuum-formed models.  Dave Maher, Bob Kerfonta, and the IPMS/Charlotte crew was setting up their Corsair display…

    I took a quick sweep through the contest tables, and, as usual, was impressed by the quality of work on the tables.  Several collections caught my eye.  The IPMS/Race City Modelers had a group of 1/48 scale P-51’s built from the available kits, each one perched on a base featuring the box are for the kit from which the model was constructed.  Very nice, and from my standpoint it simply proved to me that “older” doesn’t automatically equal “unbuildable” or “obsolete”.  There was also a group of Afrika Corps armor, a chronology of 20mm weapons, a U-Boat pen in what I can describe as a semi-boxed scene, and more.

    Since it was early days and the models were still rolling in, I stepped into the World’s Largest Mobile Hobby Shop, aka the vendor room.  As I walked the aisles, I was amazed by several new products…

    Wingnut Wings had several of their 1/32 Lancaster proofs on display.  Wow.  Too big for me, but they have a solution in the works for those looking for a large Lancaster but don’t have the space—they will offer the forward fuselage (from the wing leading edge forward) as a separate kit at some point next year.  If you like Lanc Nose Art, this may be your ticket.  A Fokker Dr.I was being shown along with shots of their upcoming Handley-Page O/400 and O/100—the latter was a bit of a surprise.  They were already doing a brisk business, selling kits…

    Tamiya were there with their display kits including the 1/24 Toyota TS-050 Hybrid (gotta get one of these!) and, of course, their new P-38F/G.  One of the benefits of Pre-Registration?  Tamiya provided 300 pre-release copies of the kit to the convention to do with as they wished with the proceeds going to the show.  The organizers decided to include a green ticket in the Goody Bag that worked as a sort of raffle—they would draw numbers throughout the event, and if your number was called, you had the opportunity to purchase one of the kits.

    Eduard was at the show with around 400 of their new P-51D-5 “Chattanooga Choo-Choo” kits in 1/48th scale.  I understand that the lines at the Eduard stand were out the door when the vendor room opened on Wednesday, people were so geeked up to get a copy or two of the kit!  I perused the parts trees, and this one looks to be a winner.  I already have a herd of Mustangs in the stash—Hasegawa, Tamiya, and one of the new Airfix kits—but I will probably buy the Eduard kit, too.  I just didn’t buy one at the show…

    Speaking of Airfix, I spoke to the Hornby’s representatives at the Squadron table.  I got to run my hands over the new 1/25 F6F-5 Hellcat kit—rather large for my tastes, but it is a spectacular kit.  We talked a bit on upcoming releases.  I believe if they can tie down their financial woes, Airfix will continue to be a strong player in the hobby.

    Thursday, 8 August:

    I was up with the chickens, since I was going to present “Model Building 101” at 9 AM.  I went downstairs (I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express a few miles away—best cinnamon rolls around!), grabbed some eats, and headed out.  The seminar went well—I had 17 or 18 people in attendance, and I believe everybody learned something.  It wasn’t as well-attended as the same seminar at our show in Columbia, but it was also early in the show—I wasn’t worried.  I got the right 17 or 18 people—people who wanted to be there.

    After the seminar, I stashed the laptop and laser pointer, and headed to the vendor room.  I made a few purchases—I had been waiting for the Special Hobby 1/72 scale SAAB Viggen for a while, and I was surprised to see that they not only had the JA-37 kit as a single, but also had a dual kit (Duo-Kit) with the AJ-37 and the SK-37 two-seater along with a reference book.  The single kit cost $30, the Duo cost $64—in effect, I either paid $2 more per kit and got a free book, or I got a great book for $4.  Win-win, either way.

    I was also under orders to see the guys at the fündekals table, which I did.  Jonathan Strickland was there with some product, as well as some renderings of the stuff they are working on, and all I can say is you need to check them out if you haven’t yet:  http://www.fundekals.com/

    As I wandered, I started to bump into people I know, or had met years ago and hadn’t seen since.  This continued throughout the weekend and I suppose I should thank all of them for saving me money by keeping me away from the vendor tables.  Seriously—by the time you’ve been to a few of these, it happens. 

    In the words of Phil Collins and Genesis, “I can show you some of the people in my life”:

    Paul Boyer and I first met at the 1999 convention in Orlando.  He was the Senior Editor for FineScale Modeler back then, and I attended a seminar he was leading.  We had corresponded a few times, and I’m a member of the 72nd U.S. MilAir Yahoo group, but we seldom physically cross paths.  Well, I was under orders—he and my wife are working on a joint project, and when she couldn’t attend I was told I needed to go by and chat with Paul.  Paul, I loved your USN Jets display, and I enjoyed speaking with you.  I hope it isn’t another 10 or so years before we have the chance again.

    Bert Kinzey is the face behind Detail and Scale, and I have sent him a few model photos for the D&S Facebook page over the past year or so.  One of the photos I posted piqued his interest, so he told me to stop by the D&S table and see him.  We had a short but enjoyable conversation as he started to photograph the models in the display room.  I left him to conduct his business, and I would bump into Bert and Rock Roszak a few more times during the show.  Bert and Rock, it was a pleasure meeting you both.  I wish I could have met Haagen Klaus (he and I crossed paths in Columbia in 2016, but we were both rather busy at the time) and Chris Sakal as well, but sometimes there are more important things than models.

    When I was the Seminars Coordinator for the 2016 Columbia Nationals, my wife asked me if I had approached Tommy Thomason to see if he wanted to present anything.  She’s his SH-3 Subject Matter Expert, so she asked and he agreed to present “Revolt of the Admirals”.  I found him this year in the vendor room with a table full of his Ginter Books titles.  Tommy does a great job with his research on U.S. Navy subjects, and I was glad to see him again.

    Gil Hodges is someone who I bump into every now and then, but we never seem to talk for very long.  We have some mutual friends, and in this case it allowed a discussion that ran for longer than a minute or two.  For those who have no idea who Gil is, he used to write for the defunct Scale Modeler back in the day, and has written for FineScale Modeler and the late, lamented Aerospace Modeler Magazine.  Gil often builds large scale resin and vacuum-formed kits, and it seems that he fears naught in his approach to them.  Gil, I’m glad I could see some of your work up close again.

    Jerry Wells and I met via a mutual friend in the run-up to the 1999 Convention in Orlando—in fact, we were roomies for that Convention.  He is a great modeler—he had reworked the Revell 1/72 80’ Elco PT Boat into (IIRC) PT-165 for the show.  It was a wee bit dusty and missing a rudder, and before I arrived in Orlando he had secured another kit, robbed the rudder, painted it, attached it, and was in the process of dusting it.  Now, one would seem to think that a dusty, broken model—regardless of the fact that it had been repaired and cleaned—wouldn’t stand a chance.  Even Jerry had misgivings, yet it did indeed win a First Place.  Jerry and I seldom communicate on a regular basis—nothing nefarious or anything, we just travel in different circles—and I enjoy catching up with him when I see him at the various Conventions.  Jerry, enjoy your retirement!  You need to come up to the Columbia show next June…

    Bill Bosworth and I became acquaintances in the run-up to the 2016 Columbia show.  Like Tommy, he was a seminar presenter.  But the best thing about Bill is that he doesn’t just talk models.  He had some of his scratchbuilt aircraft on display, but as we were talking about them, he would tell stories from his life as an Ad Man.  Bill, like so many people I’ve met in the hobby, is good people and I enjoy the short time I spent chatting with him at these shows.

    Gordon and Brandon Kwan were at the Sprue Brothers Models table.  I had an e-mail coupon to redeem—a spin of the wheel—and I won a Verlinden book on the Hawker Hurricane.  I chatted with Gordon about the Convention, how his business was doing, and basically caught up with what was going on between the Columbia show and now.  Gordon runs a great webstore, and if I have to buy online, his is the first site I check.  If you’ve never heard of them, what rock have you been living under?  Check them out at http://spruebrothers.com/.

    Steve and Amanda Nelson and I finally found more than two seconds to chat on Friday.  I first “met” Mandie on the old ARC Forums through the AIM Chat.  We finally met face to face at the 2005 Atlanta Convention—by that time, she and Steve had married, and my wife and I had been together for almost six years.  I always like to spend time with them, because they are simply good people.  Guys, I’m sorry our time was short.  I told the wife that you were asking after her.  She was sad she had to miss the convention, and I think every time I told her, “Oh, by the way, so-and-so says ‘Hey!’”, she got sadder that work got in the way of this one…

    Peter Frearson, Jeff East, Butch Bryant, and the whole IPMS/Flight 19 Gang and I bumped into each other several times.  Y’all are my old home boys from back in the SoFla, and I miss those meetings from back in the day.  Jeff, we’ll always be on the Presidents for Life rolls—and thanks for trying to slap me back into reality, but yeah, I’m a Chapter President again.  What can I say?  Talking with the guys, the club is in good hands, and I hope to get down there for your ModelFest one of these years.

    Phil Perry and I met maybe 25 years ago, and I immediately learned that he was a great modeler and a fine human being.  We would chat from time to time until I moved to SC and we lost touch for a while.  But I still see him at the Conventions, and we usually chat for a bit at every one.  I feel a wee bit bad because at the NCC meeting Phil and I found ourselves on the opposite sides of an issue.  Phil, I meant no disrespect, and I hope there aren’t any bent feelings.  After all, we all share the common goal of building models, no matter how a group of judges looks at them or how an organization plans the awards…

    Danny and Mindy Vazquez bumped into me at the Columbia show, and again in Chattanooga.  I know I’m getting old when I’m told their daughters are 28 and 31, with kids and the whole shebang.  It seems like it was not too long ago that they were wee little girls, talking about Beanie Babies.  Guys, I’m glad I got to spend some time with you.  It is always a pleasure to catch up and to look at Danny’s spectacular models. 

    Ed Okun and I crossed paths for about five minutes.  I spied some 1/32 IDF airplane models that looked awful Okun-esque, and indeed they were Ed’s.   Ed, it was fun chatting with you.  Enjoy your retirement and the grandkids, and keep building those impeccable models!

    Rick Geisler and I first met back in the early to mid-1980’s at the Twin Oaks location of the now defunct Warrick Custom Hobbies—he was my first Plastic Guru, offering inspiration with each model he would build and bring to the shop.  I saw Rick last at a show in Winston, NC some 10 years or so ago, so it was nice to be able to get together and talk about the “Old Days”, when Flight 19 was a much different group.  Rick, I’m sorry I got called away—but we’ll have to find a mutually agreeable show and meet again soon.  Oh, and I’m glad your phone finally charged!

    Mike Idacavage is usually the Contest Coordinator for the conventions whenever it is in this area.  Mike met my wife long before he met me, but he’s been a great friend to both of us.  We couldn’t talk long—he had “convention stuff” to do (and I know that all too well!), but he did complement my Special Hobby ER-2.  Thanks, Mike, I’m glad you liked it.  I hope we will see you in a few weeks at the Atlanta Airliners Collectibles Show!

    Patrick Cook, like Mike Idacavage, is another good friend in the Atlanta area.  Patrick was wandering the vendor room when we first bumped into each other, but we had a chance to chat for a while taking a load off in the comfy chairs in the hallway.  The same wish for Mike holds for you, Patrick—I hope you’ll be at the Museum in October…

    Jim Kiker, aka Yoda, is from up the road in Charlotte, he’s a great model builder, and has probably the best outlook on the hobby f all my model building friends (I mean, he’s nicknamed Yoda for a reason).  Jim, we missed seeing you this year in Columbia, but we’re doing it again in June next year.  Head on down and have some fun with us!

    My friends Trevor Edwards and Mike Roof arrived on Thursday afternoon—Mike was giving a seminar on Friday, so we wandered the model room, vendor room, and throughout the afternoon I continued to bump into people…

    I made a few more purchases—I got a few Liveries Unlimited decal sheets from fündekals that my wife was looking for, along with their 1/48 scale Spitfire Part 2 sheet– and later we got together with Tony Abbot and Rebecca Hettmansperger (they of HQ72 Resin Products) and had some supper upstairs at the Table South attached to the Marriott.  I don’t know about them, but my feet were sore, my friend Arthur Itis was showing himself, and I was tired…

    Friday, 9 August:

    Mike, Trevor, and I met downstairs for breakfast in the hotel (cinnamon rolls…mmmm), and then headed out to the Convention.  We spent the morning doing the convention thing.  We wandered the model room; we perused the vendor tables: and basically enjoyed the show.  I sat in on Dana Bell’s Cruiser and Battleship aviation units seminar, and then went to see Bob Steinbrunn’s talk on the Bluejacket PT boat.  Both of these guys have provided numerous hours of inspiration and guidance through their books and articles throughout the years, and I was grateful to see Dana again (he graciously presented a seminar for us in 2016), and to meet Bob.

    I snuck into Mike’s Photoetch seminar that was by now in progress (what can I say—I really wanted to meet Bob and hear him speak on his PT Boat model), and the room was full.  I’ve seen this presentation a few times, so I spent my time gauging the folks who were seeing it live and in person for the first time.    It was interesting—every time Mike changed slides, the smart phones all went up in the air and everyone snapped a photo, almost in unison.  Mike has a certain analytical method to things, and I think once he can lay out the procedures for any task, the light bulb goes on with many people. 

    Incidentally, Trevor is in his early 20’s, and is a great model builder in his own right—all that I said about Mike?  Yeah, Trevor is a student, and his quality has improved markedly under the tutelage of Mike and a few of the other local IPMS and AMPS members.  With Mike as one of your teachers, you are steps ahead.

    Friday afternoon was when, if you have been at the show since it opened, you tend to start wandering on autopilot.  I had to check some raffle tickets, both my own and from a friend who had to leave early—I won a Tamiya 1/24 Mercedes AMG on Wednesday afternoon, but nothing else all weekend.  I then remembered I had a Green Ticket in my pocket.  What the hell—let’s go check…hey, there’s the number!  I go across the corridor to the table, present the ticket, and after handing over Fifty Dollars American, I am the proud owner of a pre-release Tamiya 1/48 P-38F/G kit!  After giving it a quick once over—I had already seen the sprues on Hyperscale, at the Tamiya table, and at the Sprue Brothers Models table—I believe this one may have to get bumped to the head of the line…

    We all met again for supper, and packed it in for the night.

    Saturday, 10 August:

    We met at the hotel for breakfast—yep, more cinnamon rolls!  Mike’s and Trevor’s fun meters were pegged, so they left for home.  I wanted to hang around, since Rick would be getting there early in the day.  So, I made a sweep of the model room—judging took place the night before, and this was the earliest I could get a look at all the great work that was on the tables, both contest and display only.  Every time I come to a National Convention, I am awed by the models I see.  Lots and lots of great work was out for folks to marvel at this year.  I believe the count was over 2,500 contest models and a further 1,750 on the Display Only tables.

    Then I made a final sweep of the vendor room.  One more check of the raffle tickets—skunked again!  Then Squadron started calling their raffle—you guessed it.  Nada.  But it was fun, and I finally nailed down Squadron’s Chief Modeler, Jef Verswyvel, and exchanged pleasantries.  Jef doesn’t recall that we met years ago, when he and Willy Peeters initially set up Kendall Model Corporation (KMC) back in the early 1990’s…

    As I strolled by the Rare Plane Detective table, a few kits caught my eye—Revell’s 1974 and 1976 issues of their 1/72 F-15A and (as determined later) FSD F-16.  They take me back to one summer, probably 1977 or so, when my brother and I would ride our bicycles to the local SupeRx Drugs and buy model kits.  On one visit, we got these kits—I cannot remember who got what, but for some reason I think I got the F-16.  I recall the F-16 kit as being the epitome of cool, with all that ordnance, the engine dolly, and the tug included.  Of course, they cost a wee bit more than the buck and a half or so that we paid back then—but I bought them.  At some point, I will build them, too…

    The rest of the day was eaten up by the NCC meeting I was asked to attend.  I was initially going to depart at noon or 1PM, but I decided to stick around.  About a half hour before the meeting, I retrieved my containers from the car and loaded up my models.  I returned them to the car—a covered parking garage is a great thing, coupled with a rather mild day in Chattanooga, so I wasn’t worried they would get damaged.  I found a cool drink, and walked to the meeting rooms.  Since it was an IPMS Committee meeting, I cannot comment on it other than it was a three and a half hour long meeting …

    After the meeting, I made final rounds—everyone was packing up in the vendor room, and the Display Only folks were likewise packing their models.  Everyone was either leaving or getting ready for the dessert reception before the awards ceremony.

    I found Rick sitting in one of the comfy chairs—his phone charger wasn’t working on his trip, so he borrowed mine, and needed a wall outlet.  We chatted for a few more minutes, and, since each of us had a five hour drive to look forward to, we headed to the exits. 

    With that, another IPMS/USA Convention was over for me.

    Now, I’m a bit biased—I think the Columbia convention, regardless of the numbers, was the best show ever.  But I gotta tell you, Chattanooga put on an awesome show!  Was it better than ours?  I dunno—by numbers, yes, I think it was.  The intangibles—Columbia was our show, so that sense of ownership will always color my feelings—might favor the Chattanooga crew, too.  Does it matter?

    In the end, no, it doesn’t matter.  It was an awesome show.  I got to meet some super people, I got to catch up with other great people who I hadn’t seen in one, or three, or five, or ten years.  I got to look at a room full of spectacular models.  I got to talk with people from around the world who shared my hobby.  I shared ideas and information.  I had fun. 

    I had a chance to turn a lone wolf hobby into a social event.  That, right there, makes it worth the trip.

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

    We took a vote last month, and yes, Virginia, there will be a 3rd Annual South Carolina Scale Model Mega Show.  Watch the show's website for details.

    *********

    With that, I'm done for this installment.  Thanks for reading.  As always, be good to one another, and I bid you Peace.

  • Game Changers

    Howdy, all!

    There have been several times along the way in my scale modeling adventures where I have learned or discovered something that changed the way I built models.  The short list:

    • Monogram Models diorama sheets.  These diorama sheets were written by a guy named Sheperd Paine.  I had never heard of him, but the dioramas he built were stunning.  He laid the path that eventually I would attempt to follow.  The models were unlike any I had ever seen.  It whetted my appetite to know more.
    • Challenge Publications’ “Scale Modeler” magazine.  Before I saw that March 1978 issue at the local Albertson’s, I had no idea that magazines like this existed!  The models I was looking at and reading about were superb.  The authors spoke of things I had never known about–liquid cement, filler putty, decal solvents, airbrushes–and I figured if I was going to get better, I needed them.  I also saw ads for exotic kits from exotic lands, aftermarket decals to decorate the model differently that the kit manufacturers specified, specialty paints that matched any one of a dozen heretofore unknown to me “standards”, and doo-dads to detail models.  Until this time, I had seen their mention in passing in the Paine diorama sheets in the Monogram Models kits.
    • Warrick Custom Hobbies, Orange Blossom Hobbies, and Universal Hobbies.  It was inside the walls of these establishments where I could actually see the things I had been reading about.  As a bonus, I could see completed models that matched or exceeded the work I saw in the magazines.    I’ve written about these shops before since I started this blog, so I won’t re-take old ground.  Suffice to say that had I not had good hobby shops in the area when I was growing up, my pursuit of the hobby may have been very different, indeed.
    • Kalmbach Publications’ “FineScale Modeler” magazine and their modeling books.  I discovered FSM at the same time I saw Paine’s “How To Build Dioramas” book and the “Hints and Tips For Plastic Modeling” book right next to it.  Between the covers of these pubs, I uncovered even more superb work.  I was still a relative neophyte, looking back, and still had a lot to learn.  My skills had improved, but I still had a lot to learn.
    • Joining the IPMS/Flight 19 Chapter.  Joining a club put me in touch with like minded folks who shared my passion for little plastic airplanes, tanks, ships, cars, and the like.  That was reinforced when I took a break after moving to South Carolina–after nine years, I dipped my toes back into the club scene when I joined the IPMS/Mid-Carolina Swamp Fox Modelers and the AMPS Central South Carolina Wildcats, and haven’t looked back.

    As I have presented “Model Building 101”, I tell the stories of lessons learned.  For instance, when I get to the section on using fillers, I relate how a younger me would smear Squadron Green Putty over every glue seam as soon as the cement dried–and not in a thin layer, either.  I would squeeze out a blob of putty on my right forefinger and smear putty over every seam to bury them–and spend the next day sanding it all down.  I relate how I began using CA as a filler more frequently in my dotage–my previous attempts didn’t quite end in disaster, but they didn’t exactly win any awards.  I learned, in time, that it wasn’t what I was using, the problem with the CA (like the Green Putty) was the how much.  I was simply relying on gobs of putty or a river of CA when, had I done my prep work better, I would have needed a small smear or a few drops.  Yeah, I’m hard-headed, what can I say…

    The same thing goes for all the techniques I use today.  As I tell the folks who attend the seminar, most of the techniques I use were learned over the years.  Some of them I use exactly as I was taught, others are variations on the theme that I developed to work for me.  Which brings me to the most important thing I try to teach–model building is as individual as those who pursue it.

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

    If you want to see “Model Building 101” in person, come to the 2019 IPMS/USA National Convention in Chattanooga.  I’ll be presenting it there, tentatively on the schedule for Thursday morning at 9 AM.

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

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