What Came Before, Return of The Relief Tube, A Couple of Shooting Stars, Another V-Thing, A Connie, Yet Another Zipper, Yet Another Spad, and a Request

When We Were Kids

I've been working on a P-40 these days. It's a Big 'Un---the 1/32nd scale Hasegawa P-40N---and this morning (it's Sunday right now, although it won't be when this finally publishes) I was adding some of the larger pieces to it prior to painting when it struck me that some things never change. There's the obvious, of course; I'm pushing the age when I can begin drawing Social Security, and I'm still building plastic model airplanes. That probably means I've never really managed to grow up which is, in my world, A Very Good Thing.

Not growing up isn't what this is about, though, but more about how we all got here, or more specifically how us Boomers got here. That, of course, ties us to that Aurora P-40, although an Aurora P-40 wasn't my first kit and, truth be known, we aren't really going to talk about that particular assemblage of plastic. We are going to talk about models for a minute, though.

First thing in my very own plastic world was an un-named (although I strongly suspect it was a primordial Airfix kit) plastic-bagged Messerschmitt Bf109-more-or-less-F-or-G that my mom bought for me in Blair's Supermarket in Canton, Georgia back during the mid-50s. It was molded in black plastic and it was pretty small, perfectly suited for a 5-year-old. It also turned purple anyplace a small child might apply an overabundance of cement, which meant that mine was mostly purple---purple and black make for neat camouflage if you're of the right mind set, you know. It got built, got played with, and ultimately got destroyed by the aforementioned playing, but it was a start; a Beginning, as it were.

After that one of my teenage cousins (Jerry Smith) built a Revell F-94 for me and then, after his return from a remote tour at Chitose, my dad managed to successfully struggle through the viscitudes (I think that's a real word) of assembling a Revell H-19 that he let me have. That was it. I was hooked.

All the birthdays and Christmases to follow were filled with polystyrene, and I'll bet that I built almost everything that Revell, Aurora, Hawk, Comet, and Monogram had to offer during those years including---you guessed it---a bunch of Aurora P-40s. None of 'em looked like much by the time I was finished with them, but they got me firmly interested in plastic modeling and now, some 56 years later, I'm still hooked. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure I still build to the same standard as I did way back then, but that's how it goes and, in all likelihood, constitutes a story for another day. The point is, I still get a kick out of the hobby.

That takes us (finally!) to the point of this ramble. I've loved plastic modeling from the time I saw my very first built kit at my cousin Jerry's house way back in the 50s, and I still love it. It's been a life-long hobby that's educated me every step of the way and taught me patience, motor skills, and a desire to learn everything I can about the stuff I'm interested in. It hasn't been a bad ride, all in all, and I'm figuring there are still quite a few years to go before age/creeping senility/whatever cause me to stop doing it. It's been a great little hobby for me, and I hope you've enjoyed your time with it as well. We could all do a whole lot worse.

Well, Why Not?

Way back when we first came together with this thing I mentioned that I needed to reinstate a section from the original Replica in Scale called "The Relief Tube" but that I wasn't going to because some other pub (electronic or print; I really can't remember) had cribbed it. A recent e-mail from friend and Replica co-founder Jim Wogstad went a long way towards changing my mind about that particular thing, so here, right now, on these very pages (or electrons, or whatever you want to call it), is a re-birth of sorts. Yep, you guessed it; it's the Return of the Relief Tube. As before, it's going to be a place for corrections, additions, and stuff that just doesn't fit anyplace else. For me it's a Welcome Back sort of deal. You'll find the kickoff edition appearing at some point real soon. It's the Right Thing to Do.

I Really Want a State-of-the-Art Kit!

We've got the Lockheed F-80 in two different scales now, and in quarter-scale too if you count the old Monogram kit. The Monogram offering is a good one, but is definitely showing its age and I'm thinking it's time for somebody to pony up and give us a decent 1/48th kit of same. Here are a couple of photos to show why:

Here's a teaser from the 49th TFW for you, probably from the 8th TFS and most likely taken at Taegu (K-2) during the Late Korean Unpleasantness. The C-47A (43-48003) is probably from the 21st TCS/374th TCD. USAF via AMC History Office via M. Morgan

The Navy operated the F-80 as the TO-1, although they used it as a trainer rather than a first-line fighter. Here's 33841 (AF 47-1388, actually an F-80C) to illustrate the type. Mark Morgan sent both of these photos and provided the information attached; this bird is probably from the Naval Reserve Component at Moffet Field, although it could also have been taken at NAS Whidbey or Sand Point as well.  USAF via AMC History Office via M. Morgan

So how about it, somebody! Please give us a kit!

The Return of the V-Thing

Just when you thought it was safe to come out, John Kerr sent us another V-prefixed NAVRES bird from the late 1940s:

A "Beast" by any other name. Here's a NAVRES Curtiss SBW-4E of an unknown New York unit and yep, it's carrying a V-prefixed BuNo (V60166). Note the weathering on the national insignia; the rest of the airplane appears to be pristine! Naval Aviation Museum via Kerr.


That Douglas Tulsa Shot Revisited.

If you're following this thing with any degree of regularity, you probably remember that ramp shot from Douglas Tulsa that I ran a few installments ago. You remember, it was the one with the "Connie" in it. Mark Morgan checked his archives and came up with a far better shot of the airplane, so let's have a look:

(Re) the Douglas/Tulsa ramp shot, I'm 99.99% sure that Connie in the background was one of the three JC-121Cs: 51-3841 (ex-RC-121C/TC-121C), 54-0160 or 54-0178. See the attached; amazingly enough, I pulled this photo out of the AMC archives. Didn't have a date or location listed but I'd say it's an airshow at a reserve base, what with the C-119s in the background; the only marking on the back was "US Army." Apparently the Army and Air Force used the three birds for airborne electronics test. AMC via M. Morgan

You May Well Be Sick of Them, But I Can Never Get Enough of the Zipper

That said, here are two more photos of same, taken by Stephen Miller and forwarded by Don Jay. Enjoy!

Stephen Miller's caption pretty much says it all. I like this shot because it shows the F-104's leading edge covers in place, something you rarely see on photographs. Miller via Jay

And a JF-104A for your consideration. Note the "Snoopy" cartoon above the "U.S. Air Force" legend, and the striped pitot boom. There appears to be a yaw van attached to that boom---the Devil's in the details! Miller via Jay

Sometimes Something Reminds You of a Time and a Place

That's how it was for Don Jay after we ran those VNAF spAD photos last time. He sent a shot along for us to look and, and provided a better caption than I could've to boot:

Phil, Enjoyed the last article and liked seeing the VNAF A-1. Here is one that I took flying out of NKP-it belongs to the 602SOS. Our friend Jim Sullivan made a model of this. I like this photo especially as it shows the wear and tear of the a/c. Note the pilot has the sliding hatch moved back-only thing missing is his scarf in the breeze! dj Note the application of the aircraft name on the nose, and the weapons load of Mk 82s and rocket pods. The centerline fuel tank is overall 34079 with a black tip. Don Gay


The Relief Tube, The Very First One

By now it must be abundantly clear that I get by with a little help from my friends, which results in some really cool photography to grace these electronic pages. You'll notice the same names appearing beneath the photos I've been running, and you need to know I'm always looking for more material. That leads us to a crass request for you to share any photos you might have if they fit into what passes for a format around here. If you're interested, please scan the material and e-mail it to replicainscale@yahoo.com . I'm a lot more interested in original photography than anything else, and will give an appropriate credit line for any photo published. (And no; I don't buy photography. This blog is 100% a labor of love and there's no money involved. I don't make any so you don't get to either! Seems fair to me...

Friend and author Frank Emmett is looking for photographs of 58th FG aircraft during WW2 and Korea for use in a book he's preparing. I've seen the manuscript and can attest that it's going to be the history on the group when it's done. Frank's asked me for pictures, but I really don't have anything. If you do, and if you'd like to help The Cause, please forward them to me at the usual address and I'll send 'em on to Frank. All photos will be properly credited, etc., etc.

And a Final Word on that "Nate" piece. David Aiken sent this along, and it helps clarify the undersurface color of the model to a great extent:

Aloha Y'All,


According to the Japanese maintenance/erection manual via JACAR (shown below) the "official color" of the Nakajima Type 97 Fighter was:

「機体の外面は灰緑色塗料を塗施す」 or

"Fuselage exterior paint coating is gray-green"

灰緑色 = Hairyokushoku = ash-green color, hence "gray-green."

The second attachment is the Hess-Ives paint mix document found by K. Owaki a few years back showing the Japanese Army aircraft colors. Using the original numbers given these RGB values were posted in 2006 at:

http://japaneseaircraft.multiply.com/photos/album/50/IJA_Colors

AFTER posting, we began the comparison to other "knowns". Nick Millman and Ken Glass determined that some of the colors were flawed...due that the Hess-Ives Color System RGB notation used by the Japanese Army/Navy had changed since World War II. Cheers,

David Aiken, a Director: Pearl Harbor History Associates, Inc. http://www.pearlharbor-history.org/

Meanwhile, Hubert Pieitzmeier, of F-104 web sight fame, has provided the following correction to one of the myriad "Zipper" photo captions we've run lately: Regarding "This Zipper's a Tub", The 69th TFTS operated the TF-104G while training German pilots to fly the "Zipper". This one's AF61-3076 in all her BiCi glory. Of interest are the white-painted upper wings and the similarly-painted underwing tanks. Don Jay  Hubert's correction is as follows:  It is SUU-21 practice bomb dispenser. The TF-104G had to carry it on a pylon (as on the centerline for the F-104G) because of the wiring.

And that's what I know. Be good to your neighbor and I'll try real hard to publish again in a week or so!
phil

A Blast From The Past and Some Colorful Canucks

A Little Bit of Color for the Big Bang

Those of you who remember Replica from before, when it was printed on real paper and was published every once-in-a-while (we somewhat, but only somewhat, called it an occasionodical, although we really did try to do it quarterly), may have fond memories of a piece we did on United States aviation ordnance (aka "The Bomb Issue"). I don't think anybody's ever done anything that was substantially better than that piece, which was the brainchild of Jim Wogstad, and we considered it groundbreaking way back then. I helped with the piece but it was really Jim's baby, and as far as I know he's still gathering material for the ultimate US aviation ordnance book, a much-needed reference work that I sincerely hope he publishes some day. I promise it'll be worth the wait when it gets here. 

Anyway, our original article offered a few photographs, drawings, and color notes, but no actual color reproductions 'cause we just couldn't afford the process! Color was relatively expensive to put in a magazine back in the early 70s and we made the decision to abstain, even though a whole bunch of our photography was originally that way. It was everybody's loss.

Fast-forward to Right Now. The world is computerized, mostly, and everything that was originally in color can be in color now, no extra charge! Just push that Magic Twanger, Froggy, and watch it all happen. It's about danged time, too! That takes us to todays lead piece, which consists primarily of the relevant color pages from TM 9-1900 (June, 1945), which is entitled "Ammunition, General", and covers all the conventional ordnance the Army was using at that time. We aren't interested in artillery rounds at the moment, or mortar shells, or mines, but we are somewhat interested in the bombs, or at least we should be after reading all those letters to the various internet scale modeling boards asking what color American bombs really were way back during The Big One. What follows is three pages of illustrations that are relevant to that line of questioning; two on bombs and one, a topic of which we didn't address in that article of Long Ago, on machine-gun ammunition. And yes, I know machine-gun ammunition isn't a bomb, but the stuff is found aboard Second World War airplanes in great abundance and some of you detail the belted ammunition when you build in the larger scales---consider this a fringe benefit of sorts, ok? Also, you'll probably notice that we don't do anything with Navy ordnance today, which means no yellow bombs or depth charges. (The AAF used yellow bombs too, early in the war. Go back to Yesterday's Thrilling Episode and take another look at that photograph of the B-26 at Port Moresby; those bombs are yellow, my friends, but TM 9-1900 was published in 1945, long after any remaining yellow bombs had been expended, so there are no yellow bombs here today. Sorry, gang!

You'll notice that the bombs are illustrated in two colors: OD and gray. Explosive and incendiary bombs were painted OD, while chemical weapons (rarely if ever seen in the field) were gray. Practice bombs were blue. Further, the HE bombs were defined by yellow bands around the nose and tail, while incendiary bombs got purple bands, chemical weapns got green ones,  and drill or inert weapons were striped in black. HE bombs had two stripes at the nose and tail if the filler (explosive) material was Composition B (Comp B), while Tritonal-filled bombs got three stripes. That's the Quick and Dirty of it and it doesn't cover all the various permutations; digging deeper is in order!  There's lots of stuff on aviation weapons in that spiffy little tech manual and we'll continue to run a page or two from time to time. Stay tuned on that one---we aren't through with this topic yet!

Anyway, enough of this rambling. Here are the pages as promised:

Basic bombs. You'll notice there are no fins or fuses present; these are just the colors of the bomb casings. The heavy bands you see around the diameter of the weapons were for handling and storage and were removed before the bombs were loaded into the aircraft. Fins were generally installed before winching the bomb into (or, in the case of tactical aircraft, beneath) the aircraft. For safety reasons fuzing was done once the bomb was secured to the airplane. In this illustration the purple bands indicate an incendiary weapon, the green bands define chemical weapons (the number of stripes, along with stencilling, identify the kind of gas contained in the bomb), while the yellow stripes tell us the weapon is filled with high explosives.

Special-purpose bombs. Note that there is a bomb type identified as "drill"; that one's for use for ground training and is not dropped from an aircraft---the blue practice bomb is used for that sort of thing. The single yellow band around the smoke bomb indicates a filler of white phosphorus; two stripes would indicate thermite. The 4-lb incendiary at the bottom of the illustration was unpainted and is the one you see dumping in clusters from B-29s over Japan.

And finally, machine gun ammunition. We're not going to say much here; this illustration is provided so you'll have some idea how to paint things if you're modeling an aircraft with a turret or free gun. Just remember that ammunition belts usually contained a mixture of ball and tracer ammunition, mixed in with armor piercing from time to time. You're going to have to do your own research to figure out your loads.

A Progression of Colorful Canadians

Ask anybody who knows me and they'll tell you I'm a sucker for the F-104. Everybody has a favorite this-airplane or that-airplane and the Zipper is my favorite jet, period. Nothing else even comes close in my very own personal world. Canada built and operated the F-104 (as the CF-104G) for a number of years, providing NATO with additional tactical nuclear strike capability. Their 104s are long-gone but most assuredly not forgotten. Here's a selection of photographs illustrating the progression from natural metal finish to the riotous color of the Zip's final days in Canadian service. Enjoy!

Yee-haa! That's gotta be fun! A CF-104 launches a pod of CRV-7 rockets over Primrose Range at CFB Cold Lake in 1974. Of particular interest are the red stripe around the inlet and the red horizontal stab; the horizontal stab was painted that way to help find the aircraft if it was forced down while the intake stripe is indicative of service with the AETE. The Zip was primarily used for nuclear weapons delivery by the CAF. The aircraft went into service sans guns, which were installed when the aircraft went back to the conventional strike role later in its career.  Canadian Armed Forces  AEC-74-130

I would call this the "RAF" scheme, or maybe the "NATO" scheme, although its official name was "variegated camouflage". It was intended to hide the aircraft on the ground and at the low (and we mean low here, folks!) altitudes where the 104 hung out in Europe. This shot was taken at CFB Baden on 20 November, 1985.  Canadian Armed Forces  BAC85-3775

The "RAF" scheme evolved from an overall olive green, which was the original tactical scheme for the CF-104. This 439 Sqdn machine wears it well as it cruises over the picturesque German countryside during the mid-1980s.  Canadian Armed Forces

Every once in a while you have to show a little color; Wild Bill Hickock said that, I think. This 417 Sqdn Starfighter was painted in a special momemorative scheme in 1983 and is seen in flight over CFB Cold Lake. Note that this aircraft still has provision for the M-61. This is a Clean Machine!                       Canadian Armed Forces  AEC83-942

In 1982 421 Sqdn had been around for 40 years and in Europe for 30, and commemorated those events with this spectacularly-painted Starfighter. Manfred von R would've been proud of those guys, I think!     Canadian Armed Forces  ISC82-2209

104838 of 439 Sqdn wakes up the inhabitants of Hohenzollern Castle in June of 1977. If memory serves this particular aircraft is wearing its Tiger Meet colors and must have presented quite a sight (and sound!) to anyone near the place; note that the Zipper is actually below the roofline of the castle, which sits on a hill. Noise abatement? What noise abatement?   Canadian Armed Forces  PCN77-510

A four-ship from 441 Sqdn over Lake Constance, Germany, in July of 1979. Both types of CAF tactical camouflage are shown to advantage in this shot. Of particular interest is the tight formation being held; the F-104 predated fly-by-wire technology by a number of years, and this sort of form work is a testimony to the airmanship of the CAF. Flaps and slats appear to be slightly deployed, presumably to keep pace with the photo ship. Camouflage it ain't, but Lead is flying a really pretty airplane nontheless.                           Canadian Armed Forces PCN80-28

A trio of commemorative F-104s in flight near CAF Baden in 1986. If there's such a thing as ghosts there were probably a lot of Great War-era German aviators cheering for these guys that day---what a riot of color, what a display of airmanship, and a fitting shot with which to end this photo essay.  Canadian Armed Forces  BAC86-745

And that's about it for today. We'll talk again soon.
phil

The Zipper in The Nav

Anybody who knows me well knows I've got a thing for the Lockheed F-104. My dad gave me a primordial Revell Starfighter kit for Christmas one year (along with the other jets in Revell's "Century Series" gift set) and that planted the seed. A little later, in 1959 to be exact, a flight of F-104As (probably out of Webb AFB, but they could've been from Mars that day) howled their way over our playground at Sheppard AFB during afternoon recess. I'm here to tell you right here and right now that nothing, and I mean nothing, sounds like an F-104 at low speed with the blown flaps and slats in action. It's a primal sound that I may well take to the grave; there's just nothing like it. Talk about leaving an impression on a little kid!

Anyway, so much for why I love the Zipper. Everybody knows all about them, right? They were useless because they used too much gas, didn't have much in the way of weaponry, couldn't turn, didn't have a decent radar, had a killer (literally) ejection seat, and the list goes on and on. All those things are common knowledge and, to one extent or another, all of them are wrong. Take that range thing, for example. The Zip had a greater unrefueled range than the F-4 based on internal fuel only, and presuming the '104 driver could stay out of afterburner after takeoff. The early models were slim on weaponry, it's true, but the advent of the F-104G substantially changed that scenario, and the Canadians operated their CF-104s in the tactical nuclear strike role for years in Northern Europe (and thankfully for all concerned never had to actually use the aircraft in anger). The G also improved the radar and avionics suite beyond recognition, thus adressing that particular bugaboo. The airplane could out-turn almost anything at the supersonic speeds it was originally designed to fight at; that particular capability was a mistake on the part of the designers, but in that one, design-specific environment the F-104 was a world-beater. The downward-firing seat was replaced early in the airplane's production, after the death of a number of pilots proved the notion of a downward-firing seat to be a truly Bad Idea, paticularly when viewed from the perspective that most F-104 accidents occured while the aircraft was low and slow. At the end of the day, though, and with or without qualifiers or apologies, the F-104 was the wrong airplane for the United States Air Force of the day. Lockheed's later development of the airframe, Project Lancer, might have provided the blue suiters with the right airplane but that program was stillborn, an apparent victim of the politics of the day, so we'll never know.

One thing the F-104 could do, though, and could do in spades, was go very fast, which brings us to the purpose of this piece. In the mid-1950s the United States Navy was hip-deep in the development of supersonic fighters for the Fleet, and it went without question that those aircraft would all carry the then-new AIM-9 series of air-to-air missles. Both the F8U Crusader and F4H Phantom II were slated to use the "Sidewinder", but neither airframe was quite ready for service use and the Navy needed a platform with which to acquire experience with supersonic AIM-9 operations. That requirement led directly to the F-104 which had the speed, was already configured for AIM-9 use (with one missile on each wingtip in the air defense role), and was available for test use since it was proving to be a marginal platform for its intended role as an Air Force air superiority fighter and interceptor.

That's how the Navy came to operate the F-104. In 1959 the Air Force bailed a YF-104A (55-2956) and two F-104As (56-0740 and 56-0757) to the Navy Weapons Test Center at China Lake. The aircraft were crewed by USAF pilots on TDY from the 83rd FIS, since they were already trained on the airframe and weapons delivery and were, in theory at least, familiar with the airplane's quirks and coffin corners. Most of the testing took place during 1960 and 1961. Of the three aircraft, only the YF-104A survived the test program (and later became a QF-104A drone); 56-0740 crashed to destruction on 22 September 1960, followed in short order by 56-0757 on 7 April 1961.

The loss of two-thirds of the test force in accidents was perhaps indicative of the service career of the early F-104s, but the program was a success in that the Navy was able to obtain the first-hand data they required for high-Mach operations with the AIM-9. The Starfighter experience made things a little easier when first the F8U, and then the F-4H, were introduced to the Fleet.

The photographs you see before you are all of the aircraft assigned to the test program. All still carry their Air Force serial numbers, but note that they've been reconfigured to reflect Navy practice of the era (including a BuNo presentation on the rear fuselage in the case of 0740, and probably the other two as well). Paint is standard for the F-104A right down to the white upper wing surfaces, but with certain anomalies; note the ejection seat panel on 0740 and the way the fuselage stripe on 0757 abutts the painted panel in front of it. Note that the photography only documents the two F-104As; to date I've been unable to locate an operational photograph of 55-2956 as bailed to the Navy. All photographs were supplied by the NWTC, and their kindness is gratefully acknowledged.

As for modeling, my personal choice of a kit would be the recent Hasegawa 1/48th scale offering, although I'd fill in every one of those "rivets" that they chose to sprinkle liberally all over the model. Said rivets may well prove to be one of the great mysteries of our time, since the real aircraft isn't covered with golf ball-sized divots, which is about how things work out in scale. Just when you thought you'd gotten away from that whole putty and sand thing! I'd also be careful not to accidentally push those tiny position indicator lights into the fuselage during sanding (if you've got the kit you know what I'm talking about).

At any rate, the Navy's sojourn with the Zipper gives us the opportunity to build a unique model of a really spiffy airplane. You can't ask for more than that.

So Where Are The Drawings?

Nobody's asked, but sooner or later they will; where are all those drawings that made the original Replica in Scale such a neat publication? Well, folks, the truth is that I was the modeler, the editor, the primary writer, re-writer, and ghost writer, and caption writer too, but never the artist. Bottom line, no drawings this time around. On the other hand I do have a fairly extensive photo library that will be shared as we go along. Let's hope that will suffice, at least for a while.

So, howsabout we build something when we convene again? Sounds like a deal to me!

See you next time,
phil