Facebook insanity

 Many of you enjoy my eBay insanity posts, so now it’s time to expand these lighthearted observations to what I’ll call Facebook insanity. These won’t have anything to do with selling models, rather people’s comments to photos or posts. Like this one.

You’ve probably seen this photo of an F-4S Phantom II with two bombs mounted backward on the inboard pylons. It’s pretty obvious to most observers that it was a joke that the ordnance guys played on each other or the pilot and WSO. But when someone posted the photo to a Facebook group, the responses were more amusing than the ordinance. I mean…ordnance.

One guy asked, tongue-in-cheek, “Are you referring to the really dumb, dumb bombs or the poor guy being eaten by the landing gear?” To which another responded, “I think he’s referring to the bombs.” Yeah, no shit Sherlock.

A former Marine wrote, “Must be Air Force.” Two guys responded, both clearly lacking a sense of humor that exists in inter-service rivalry, responded, “Air Force never used that paint scheme. Try again.” And, “Don’t be a dick.”

Speaking of no sense of humor, another member of the group wrote, “There has to be an explanation for this.”

One guy, who we’ll call Captain Obvious, wrote, “The bombs are mounted backward.” Mind you, this was after all of the other comments.

There's hope in humanity, because some guys got the joke and played along, one writing, “This is for those 90 degree nose-high deliveries.” Another, “Just turn the jet around.” And another, “It’s for bombing things behind you as you pass overhead.”

The next time you get bummed out on Facebook -- for any of the many reasons we get bummed out on Facebook -- click into your favorite group and read the comments.

Let’s talk about Top Gun: Maverick

Paramount dropped the second trailer for Top Gun: Maverick this morning, and odds are very good that you’ve watched it. Maybe even two or three times like me.

Paramount’s Facebook post includes 11,000 comments, most of them summed up with, “I’ve been waiting 30 years for this!” But it’s the comments from friends who are aviation enthusiasts that have amused me the most.

"I expect high grade cheese, but it should still be a good time."
"I want to hate this but…."
"But I'll still go see it...Sadly."

I share these sentiments. I loved the original movie, but I was just a stupid teenager then. I like to think I have more refined tastes now, and in fairness I’ve become less inclined to watch action movies in my 50s, because, well…they all seem the same to me.

Nonetheless, why all the apprehension around Maverick? Here are a few theories.

Is it Tom Cruise? A lot of aviation enthusiasts aren’t fans. Even though he's quite the eccentric, he does some cool stuff. He looks great at 57 and has dated beautiful women. He flies his own P-51D Mustang, which he used to arrive to the set of Maverick, and appears in the movie. Are we jealous? I couldn't fault you for that.

Is it the flying? This latest trailer shows an extraordinarily risky stunt, an F/A-18 shooting up precariously close between two other Hornets. Enthusiasts know these types of moves are unrealistic, so it takes away from the reality of the movie. We’re also wondering why there’s an F-14 in the trailer. How they incorporate it into the plot might be the most intriguing part of the movie.

Is it the plot? I imagine the trailer has been edited to appeal to the movie’s original fans, but we see the same, smug Pete “Maverick” Mitchell, now a captain, as well as him racing his motorcycle against a jet taking off, singing in a bar, a volleyball game on the beach, a fight, and a funeral. As I remarked on one Facebook thread, “I’ve seen his movie before.” Did the producers and writers have to include these tropes in Part 2? Probably, if only to ensure that Maverick is familiar and will appeal to the masses.

Is it the characters? There’s an Iceman lookalike, all sweaty as if he’d just come out of that volleyball game, and a Goose lookalike, whose image appears with the chilling line, “…or death.” And a beautiful brunette who we ultimately see on the back of Maverick’s motorcycle. There's an inevitable nod to the aviation community today, with a female fighter pilot.

Here’s the thing. Maverick wasn’t made for the aviation enthusiast. We all know that, but we seem to want something more from the movie. We’ll find out in a few months, because we’re all going to see it.

F-16 nose art of the 56th TTW

Nose art has been seen on many aircraft types over the years, but less so on the F-16 for some reason. True, there was the flurry of art we saw during the Gulf War on Vipers from the 17th TFS, and a decade later a few Vipers of the 389th FS sported some very elaborate art upon their deployment to the war in Afghanistan. But compared to other aircraft types, the F-16 hasn’t been a canvas for much art.

Thanks to my membership in a Facebook group, I discovered nose art on an F-16 from the 56th TTW in 1990. These drawings were added to F-16C 87-0256 when it was assigned to the 61st TFTS during a TDY deployment to Tyndall AFB. (This particular airframe served at the 56th’s “Wing King,” which you can see in this image on Flikr.) What I find interesting is this artwork was added literally to the nose of the aircraft; the artwork added to the 17th and 389th aircraft was added below and behind the canopy.

I reached out to JC Berlan, the aircraft’s assistant crew chief during the deployment, and he told me that this first version of the artwork — depicting a rooster doing something terribly inappropriate to a dog — was allegedly drawn by someone from the 19th TFS. The F-16s from MacDill shared the flightline with the 19th just long enough for someone to add the risqué artwork when no one was looking.

Aviation enthusiasts and patch collectors will recall that a rooster is seen on the emblem of the 19th TFS. The dog represents the iconic bulldog on the 61st TFTS emblem, an image that goes back to the 56th FG during World War Two.

After the artwork was discovered, JC modified it by erasing everything except the eyes of the dog and replacing it with image of the shark about to consume an F-15, an aircraft in service at the time with Tyndall’s 325th TTW. By this point, he said, the 19th had returned to Shaw AFB, so presumably there was no reason to throw shade back in their direction. “Panama City 1990” commemorates the team’s brief deployment to Tyndall, and "Shark Bite" was a term the crew got from Club La Vela on Panama City Beach.

JC said the commander allowed the aircraft to return to MacDill with the artwork. It was quickly removed when they landed, because the aircraft was nominated for, and won, Proud Falcon, a program that recognized the Crew Chief of the Month.

Leave it to pilots and their maintainers to have a good time taking jabs at each other!

My thanks to JC Berlan for the information and to Rob Seibert for the photos. The 19th and 61st squadron patches are from my own collection.

Fencecheck is no more

One of my favorite web sites for modern military aviation has long been Fencecheck. It was a hangout for aviation photographers — amateur and professional alike — and was a valuable repository for us modelers. Unfortunately, I learned over the weekend that the owner of the site has shut it down.

The good news is that many Fencecheck participants are now collaborating and sharing photos in a new group on Flickr, aptly named Re-Check, which is fine for new photos going forward, but what about all the photos that had been posted on Fencecheck?

All is not completely lost. Although there’s no way to view the old discussion threads (they’re not accessible via the Wayback Machine), you can find many of the photos using Google. Here’s how.

Let’s say you’re looking for photos of T-38Cs for your upcoming build of the Trumpeter kit. Go to Google Images and enter this search query:

“T 38C" site:fencecheck.com/forums/

Most — but not all — of the resulting photos should be accessible. Simply click on an image, click the View Image button, and enjoy the photograph.

You can search for photos of any other aircraft, base, exercise, or unit by replacing T-38C as appropriate, for example Red Flag. And if it’s not obvious, you can use the same search strategy to find photos from other web sites; simply replace fence check.com/forums/ with the URL of the web site of interest.

Happy searching!

The sexiest aircraft ever produced

It’s Valentines Day, but before you cozy up to your wife or significant other, take a moment to think about the sexiest aircraft to ever take to the sky.

Learjet

From the Learjet 23 introduced in 1963 to the Learjet 75, every model of this aircraft from Bombardier suggests speed and class. If you were to ever sell your stash of unbuilt kits and buy your own private jet, this would be your first choice.

P-51D Mustang

The P-51D was arguably the first truly "world class" fighter ever produced, and there’s no denying its visual appeal nor its success.

Spitfire

The Spitfire was the British equivalent of the P-51, as beautiful as it was agile. And my British friends would kill me if I didn’t include it.

F-104 Starfighter

No other aircraft design suggests speed more than the F-104. The Starfighter is part airplane, part spaceship, the stuff of boys’ dreams in the 1950s.

F-16 Viper

Few aircraft have been as versatile over its life nor seen as much service around the world. There seems to be no role that this aircraft can't fill. The F-16 is probably your first choice if you're likely to find yourself in a dogfight. (F-35 pilots might disagree.)

Your first flight

Do you remember your first flight in a small aircraft?

My first time was through an orientation flight as a Civil Air Patrol cadet in the early 1980s. It was amazing, and I knew immediately that I wanted to learn about aircraft and flying. I eventually took flying lessons later in high school thanks to a modest CAP scholarship, and soloed after 13 hours of flying time, one of the top five moments of my life to be sure. Sadly, my lessons stopped soon after that when I found that my $3.60/hour job bagging groceries would be insufficient for the expense of the more time-consuming training and flying that was to follow. I never became an Air Force pilot either, for reasons too complicated to explain right now, but I always take advantage of every opportunity I can to fly, even if it's in the aisle seat of an Airbus A320.

You probably remember your first flight as well, which is why I enjoyed this video so much. The kid's smile is priceless as the plane leaves the ground at the 2:11 point. You can see the magic of the moment, and you know he’ll never forget his first flight either.

By the way, in case you aren't aware of his videos, Mr. Aviation 101 is Josh Flowers, a 20 year-old commercial pilot, flight instructor, and YouTube sensation. He’s an excellent pilot with a rare ability to clearly explain what he’s doing in the cockpit. He's uploaded dozens of videos, each providing an in-depth look into flying that we non-pilots don’t often see. I think you’ll enjoy them. Yet another fun way to waste time away from the workbench!

Why we build what we build

Why do you build what you build? It’s easy to answer, “Because I like German fighters from the Second World War,” or whatever it is that drives your interests, but dig deeper and ask yourself that question again.

A friend and I recently had a conversation about what kits in our respective stashes we’d be willing to sell if, for some reason, we absolutely had to. Or, put another way, which kits would you most definitely keep if you had to downsize?

My strongest interest is Cold War military aviation, if only because those are the aircraft I saw growing up in the 80s. I build older and newer subject matter as well, but mostly for a change of pace. A guy can paint only so much European One schemes before getting bored! For me that in-person experience with those aircraft is what created an affinity for building scale models of them. If I haven’t seen an aircraft in-the-flesh, it probably won’t be a favorite subject when I make a purchase or think about my next project. I wrote about the Ryan Navion last month, but there are other examples.

As I look back over 30-40 years of interest in aviation, I understand now why certain models in my stash will never be the victim of a downsizing.

I saw my first F-16 in 1982 at an open house at MacDill AFB. The 56th Tactical Training Wing was transitioning from the F-4 Phantom to this new airplane, so it holds a special place in my mind. That one of my high school friends became an F-16 pilot 10 years later only reinforces my interest in the jet.

An F-16 of the 56th TTW.

Several years later I spent a week at a Tyndall AFB Civil Air Patrol summer encampment. The organizers paired each cadet for an afternoon with active duty personnel who were performing the jobs we were interested in. They didn’t have pilots available, so I spent the afternoon with an F-106 crew chief with the now-inactive Air Defense Weapons Center. That aircraft isn’t the most interesting modeling subject, but it’s one that I intend to build sooner than later. (I started the Monogram kit that summer, but some construction mistakes on my part doomed the project.)

I’ve always liked the B-25. One was stored at a nearby airport for a number of years, and I had the chance to fly in one when I was 13 or 14. I have two Hasegawa kits in the stash, and I’ve been tempted on more than one occasion to buy the 1/32 HK Models kit. Some day….

That's me, just before my flight!

I love the UH-1. Going back to my high school days again, I flew in a UH-1P several times thanks to orientation flights offered by the 56th TTW. If there’s one “ultimate” model I’d like to build in my lifetime, it’s a super-detailed 1/32 UH-1P.

That's me, the skinny kid in the flight suit behind the crew chief.

Fast-forward a few years and you’ll find me a young buck serving a four-year enlistment in the Air Force…flying a desk. The unit I was assigned to supported, among others, the F-15E System Program Office, the organization responsible for the overall procurement and management of the F-15E. It’s no surprise then, that the Strike Eagle is special to me, too. That and a high school friend was a crew chief on the C model with the 33rd TFW around the same time.

Hasegawa 1/72 F-15E in my stash.

These connections to aircraft, armor, ships, and vehicles — no matter how tenuous — are what give passion to the models we build. When I see modelers posting to the forums telling us they’re burnt out or don’t know what to build, my response is always the same: Build what excites you the most. Look back what inspired you from the beginning and pick up where you left off.

Interview with a 747 pilot

Slate hosts an podcast called Working, which consists of a series of 30-60 minute interviews with people have interesting jobs. You’ll find interviews with people who run a Japanese supermarket, manage a funeral home, and work as a bail bondsman, to share just a few examples.

Of interest to my readers is an interview with a 747 pilot last summer. When I see articles or podcasts about aviation in the general media I usually skip them, because more often than not they’re intended for an audience that that little knowledge of aircraft, so the conversation tends to be dumbed down. This podcast is an exception. The 45 minute interview -- most of it recorded in the cockpit of the airplane -- is very interesting, and I think you’ll enjoy it, too. Although I could’ve used a little more detail here and there, I learned quite a lot about the experience of flying the 747.

Of course now I want to build a model of a 747!

Paint it black and close it up

Like many of you I have a lot of models in my stash. More than I can build in my lifetime. Well, maybe....

What if we could speed up our builds, go from building five models a year to 10. Or if you're already building 10 a year then to increase your output to 15 or 20? We still may be be able to build all of the models in our respective stashes, but we'd build considerably more by the time we go to that big hobby shop in the sky, right?

I've had a few ideas, and I've wanted to test and write about them. This one is a bit of a success story, so I thought I'd share it, if only to prove that I practice what I preach...and that sometimes my suggestions are actually viable!

Last summer I saw an F4F Wildcat fly at The World War Two Weekend in Reading, Pennsylvania. I'd never seen one in the air before and was struck by its speed relative to the other aircraft. Who knew that a reciprocating engine could propel a rocketship! I knew I had to build one eventually. Fast-forward a couple of months, and I stumbled upon an Academy 1/72 F4F Wildcat on sale at the LHS. It was cheap, so I bought it.

I took it off the shelf recently to build it but immediately saw how crude it is. The cockpit is barely better than those provided in the old Matchbox kits of the 1970s, and the engine is about as simple a representation of a radial engine you will see while still being identifiable as an engine. I briefly looked for a resin replacements for both, found what I needed on eBay, and put them into my watch list. Then I thought to myself, "Self, as cool as the airplane is, you're not really a huge fan of the Wildcat. Why do you want to put a great deal of money and time into this particular model when there are so many others in the stash that excite you more?"

I wondered how I could build a $5 model without investing $40 of resin and 40 hours time into it. And do so relatively quickly. What if I build the cockpit using only the parts provided in the kit but paint it completely black. It's a small cockpit and the single-piece canopy can't be positioned open, so black would hide the nonexistent detail and allow me to quickly proceed through assembly and to painting and weathering, which is what I most enjoy. Could I do the same for the engine? Sure.

So I committed to building the model as quickly as possible so that I could focus my time and effort on the finish, which is what I enjoy most. A quick application of black paint on the appropriate parts and I was ready for assembly within 30 minutes of opening the box.

Assembly was fairly quick, and after filling seams and rescribing a few panel lines I had the airplane ready for painting.

That's where I spent most of my time with the model, painting it. I used my typical custom-mixed Tamiya paint, matched by eye to photos of Wildcat models I studied on Hyperscale and ARC, and weathered it with some post-shading, pastels, and artist pencils. I'm happy with the result considering how quickly it went together (even if my photography skills leave a lot to be desired). It looks good in my display case, where the black hole of a cockpit detracts little from the overall look of the model.

In fairness, painting a cockpit black may not work for everyone. Some cockpits are quite large and visible (such as an A-37), or you may simply enjoy painting and detailing cockpits. I do, too, but looking forward I can see myself doing this again, if only to increase my annual output by one or two models a year, which could amount to my ultimately completing 50-60 models more than I would otherwise.

Try it. You might like it!

Jerrie who?

I wrote this article about two months ago after learning about Jerrie Mock but was holding onto it for a "rainy day," when I was desperate for something new. This morning I learned that Jerrie died yesterday. She's one of the more obscure characters in aviation history, so today is as good a time as any to learn about her contributions.

Do you know the name Jerrie Mock? I didn't, until I ran across this article about her on My Flight Blog. She was the first woman to fly solo around the world. I won't re-state what's in the article, so I'll just provide the linkage and let you explore.

I was surprised to find that Mock's granddaughter has a Pinterest page with more pictures of her. You see what you can discover when you play with the Google machine!

And here's her bio from the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum.

P.S Her airplane, The Spirit of Columbus, hangs in the Udvar-Hazy Center, which should be among your favorite aviation destinations!

The hubub over the Kinetic F-16XL

Earlier this week Kinetic announced its next release, a 1/48 F-16XL. Like most of my reactions to life these days, I had mixed emotions. First I said to myself, "Cool!" Then I was all like, "Whatever." It seems that the modeling community shares my feelings.

Some modelers are not impressed. On Britmodeller, many readers expressed their disappointment.

"Leaves me stone-cold."

"Why waste research and plastic on this when there are so many other classic and contemporary subjects begging for a decent kit?"

"Not really looking forward to this release."

Others in the discussion were more positive. One pointed out that Kinetic, Hobby Boss, and Kitty Hawk are making greater contributions to the hobby than the older, more established companies such as Hasegawa and Tamiya. I think he's right. Although quality has been hit-or-miss, these newer manufacturers are giving us some very interesting models.

As insightful as these conversations have been, to this announcement as well as other releases as they've been announced, one important point is often missed. In the case of the F-16XL, let's remember that this is not Kinetic's final release! Even if you, like me, think there could've been better choices, we're going to see many more releases from Kinetic and the other manufacturers before they go the way of the dodo. For example, I'd really like to see a new-tool Su-22, and if I were at the helm at Kinetic or Kitty Hawk you'd all have one on your bench (or more likely, in your stash) by now. But I have to believe that an Su-22 is on someone's radar and we'll see one sooner or later.

As modelers we know the value of patience when building a model. Let's remember to apply it to the release of new models as well.

In the mood for: Seaplanes

"Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul...I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can. There is magic in it."

---

Herman Melville understood the allure of the sea and explained it beautifully within the first paragraphs of Moby Dick. Ishmael, our hero and Real Man by anyone's standards, chooses to go to sea not as a passenger, he tells us, but as a sailor. Men for hundreds of years have followed Ishmael's lead and joined the great (and not-so-great) navies of the world either for the pure air and exercise that Ishmael sought or for the money, which he didn't fail to mention either.

Aviators, though their eyes are usually turned skyward, are not immune to this longing for the sea, and many have chosen to fly aircraft off aircraft carriers -- and even from cruisers and battleships when naval aviation was new back in the 1930s and 40s -- rather than concrete runways. Those  pioneers saw the practical and tactical value of flying aircraft directly off the sea, and they modified aircraft with pontoons and other technologies to exploit those capabilities. I'm fascinated by function over form, so it shouldn't be strange that I've been enticed to build models of seaplanes recently.

Over the last year or so I've purchased quite a few seaplanes, which are far from my usual interest in modern jet aircraft. How did this happen? Is the same longing for the sea that Melville wrote about applicable to scale modeling? Is it just a matter of time before I start buying ships?

My fascination with sea planes might have been sparked watching Kermit Weeks's in-cockpit "Kermie Cam" videos of his Sikorsky S-39, flying it off the lake on his Fantasy of Flight property in Central Florida.

Or maybe it was photographs of exceptional scale models of seaplanes, such as this scratchbuilt 1/72 Loening C-2H Air Yacht 1928 by Flikr user Franclab.

I know for sure why I bought an Eastern Express 1/144 Be-200. It was just after stumbling upon this video of a Be-200 performing at the Gelendzhik Hydro Air Show in Russia and being smitten by its unique, head-on profile.

To be fair, I've had a few seaplanes in my stash going back to my high school days. A couple of years ago, writing about the challenges of rigging, I mentioned my Williams Brothers 1/72 Douglas World Cruiser, which as some of you know can be built with either wheels or pontoons. I've also had an LS 1/144 Emily for nearly the same 30 years, which has called its siren song to me now and then.

More recently I've picked up an Airfix 1/144 Boeing 314 Clipper at Mosquitocon back in April, a fugly Amodel 1/144 Be-12NH, and a Sword 1/72 SO3C Seamew during my last visit to my LHS just last week. There are a few more on my informal wish list, so don't be surprised if you see one or two under my arm at the IPMS Nats next week.

I suppose it doesn't matter why we like what we like. What can we do but embrace these whims and see where they take us? I think they offer a pleasant distraction from building, in my case, yet another Hasegawa F-4 or Trumpeter F-105. An opportunity to stretch our skills, use different colors, and try new weathering techniques. In the meantime, if anyone has a Sword 1/72 JRF Goose they'd like to sell, give me a shout. I'll provide the water.

Great flying in the movies

There's a fun thread over on ARC asking about favorite flying scene from the movies. My first thought always turns to Iron Eagle, where Doug, flying Cessna 150 Aerobat, races Knotcher, riding a motorcycle. As I said in my response to the thread, seeing an F-14 go vertical or P-51s dogfight is almost not a big deal considering they're designed to do that, but watching that Cessna being pushed to the edge of its capabilities -- and probably beyond -- is aviation magic. That the pilot behind the controls was the late Art Scholl shouldn't be surprising.

Some trivia: from what I can tell that same airplane, N9828J, is still flying, owned by Albatros Corporation near Oxnard, California.

This clip makes the venerable old Cessna 150 looks downright exciting! Enjoy.

Flying is magic

Last month I wrote about the Brony craze and the suggestion that BronyCon might just make us modelers feel a little better about ourselves. And now there's more to the story. Maybe.

U.S. Air Force pilots have a wicked sense of humor, which is evident when you see the patch of UPT Class 14-05 from Vance AFB.

"Situational awareness" is of vital importance to fighter pilots, and apparently it extends to popular culture. Either that or there's a Brony in north-central Oklahoma. I can't wait to see their graduation video on YouTube!

What in the world is that?

I've been an aviation enthusiast for 30 years, so it's always a surprise to find an aircraft that I've never seen before. Well, at least an American aircraft; there are plenty of British, French, Soviet, etc. aircraft that I couldn't name if my life depended on it.

That's what happened to me this week when someone posted a photo of a Naval Aircraft Factory TDN-1, a so-called "assault drone," on the Warbird Information Exchange forum. It might be considered a predecessor of the Predator, Reaper, and other UAVs that have become prominent in recent years.

The TDN-1 is an intriguing aircraft. I found this video (no audio) of them testing in 1943, including great footage launching from the USS Sable.

Enjoy!

The Corvette, the F-16, and America

Last weekend GM unveiled the seventh generation Corvette and it got me thinking that there are a handful of cars and aircraft that epitomize American design. The Corvette and Ford Mustang are the best examples of that aesthetic in the automotive world, and the P-51, C-47, and F-16 in aviation.

So it's fitting to point out that on this day in 1974 the F-16 flew for the first time by test pilot Phil Oestricher.

In case you missed it, Britmodeller user Vingtor posted an in-progress thread of a 1/72 YF-16 last year, and you can see his stunning, finished model here.

Vingtor Aviation History and Research produces decals of the early F-16s in 1/72 and 1/48 scale. I recently acquired a set and can say they're beautiful. They include markings for red,white, and blue YF-16s 72-01567 and 72-01568, the two-tone grey F-16A 75-0745, and the F-16B (75-0752) used to test the J79 engine. Great stuff all around!

My first experience with the F-16 was sometime around 1980, when as a member of the Civil Air Patrol, I went to an open house at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida. The 56th TFW was transitioning from the F-4D to the F-16 at the time, and everyone was excited to see this tiny, new fighter. I still have a couple of the promotional prints handed out at the event. In the years that followed I flew with the 56th on three occasions. Every year they flew one of their UH-1P Hueys to my local airport and gave orientation flights to the members of the high school's AFJROTC squadron, of which I was a member. Those days are among my most treasured experiences of my life (particularly considering I never became a pilot myself).

More TR-1 videos

A couple of months ago I posted a video of a TR-1 flying the pattern around Beale AFB, so here are two more that I think you'll enjoy.

I don't know what it is about the U-2 and TR-1 that I find so intriguing, but these videos are absolutely stunning, especially if you can watch it on a large monitor in high-definition.

This first video was produced by Airman First Class Andrew Buchanan. I don't know him, but I have to believe he's somewhere between 18 and 22. He did an incredible job bringing together all of the elements of this short film for such a young man. Well done!

The second video gives the perspective of the pilots in the Pontiac G8 chase car that follows the TR-1 upon landing. The amazingly short takeoff of the TR-1 confirm what one of the pilots implied in the first video, that the airplane likes to fly. In fact, when I meet someone who's afraid to fly I always tell them that airplanes "want to fly." That's what they're designed to do, and as any pilot will tell you, landing is the hardest part, whether you're in a TR-1 or a Cessna 152.

Now which model will I build first? I have three kits of the U-2 in the stash as well as the Special Hobby TR-1 and the U-2S/ER-2. And I've slowly (very slowly) been collecting those rare Cutting Edge aftermarket parts for the Testors 1/48 TR-1. This U-2S build by Dave Aungst on Hyperscale is my inspiration!

The air war over Libya, in print and in decals

Sandy is gone, power has been restored, and I'm blogging again!

As John "Hannibal" Smith used to say on The A Team (the original series, not the crappy 2010 re-pop), "I love it when a plan comes together."

And so it is for us modern jet models these last few months. The military action over Libya have given rise to an outstanding new book that you may have missed and an outstanding decal sheet from a new decal manufacturer.

If you were at the IPMS Nats this summer you probably spend at least an hour looking over the books from Casemate Publishing. They had a wide selection of military titles for both the aviation and armor modeler with topics ranging from early medieval history to contemporary  topics. When I got home I was browsing their web site and found a new book on the Libyan air war, Guerre Aerienne En Libye by Jean-Marc Tanguy, available here on the web site.

If you're into modern French aircraft you really need to buy this book. Although it's in French, the photographs alone are worth the price. You'll find pictures of the Rafale B with the GBU-12; the Rafale C configured for reconnaissance operations with the Thales and Damocles pods; more Rafale Cs configured for air-to-ground operations with the GBU-12 and for air-to-air operations with six MICA missiles.

It's interesting to see the Mirage F1 still on frontline duty, also used for reconnaissance (with the Astac pod) and for air-to-ground ops with the GBU-12 and the larger GBU-22. The book also illustrates use of the Mirage 2000, configured in various ways with the Damocles pod, GBU-12, GBU-24, and Magic missile.

Also knew to the market is a new, multi-subject sheet from Combat Decals. It features two A5 decal sheets and markings for eight aircraft that saw action over Libya.

• An RAF Tornado GR.4 in grey.
• A Qatari Mirage 2000 5DDA in a two-tone grey scheme.
• A French Mirage 2000D in the typical wraparound green/grey scheme.
• A French Rafale B in the standard grey scheme.
• An RAF Typhoon FGR.4 with some cool mission markings.
• A CAF CF-188A with mission markings.
• A Libyan Air Force Mirage F1ED
• A USAF F-15E from the 48th FW in the typical gunship grey scheme.

I have to admit, I'm a huge fan of decals that offer multiple subjects. (Hell, I'm a fan of all decal sheets!) What sets these decals apart from others is the comprehensive coverage they provide. Stencils are provided for each aircraft and they're extensive! Look for stencils for the pods and pylons for the Tornado, decals for the GBU-12 carried on the Mirage 2000D, two tiny decals for the interior of the Typhoon intake, and decals for the Hornet's false canopy that are pre-cut to fit on and around the nose landing gear. And as you might guess, the instructions are as good as any you'll find from the better 48th scale aftermarket folks such as Afterburner Decals. Truly great stuff.

By the way, Combat Decals is the child of David Little. He started the range earlier this year when he was looking for Kuwaiti markings for a Tucano. He's since worked with John Freeman, who I think did much of the decals for Model Alliance, to produce the artwork for David's first three sheets. If you're a 48th scale modeler, keep an eye on David's site as he hopes to release these decals in your scale next year.

Finally, if you're interested in learning more about the air war over Libya, be sure to check out David Cenciotti's blog, The Aviationist. He provided some great photographic coverage of the aircraft employed in Odyssey Dawn.

Now I have to get building!

Special thanks to Casemate Publishing for the review copy of Guerre Aerienne En Libye.

Reality and interpretation

I recently came across Rolf B. Basle’s build of a Ju-88C-6 on 72nd Scale Aircraft and found that his approach to modeling is similar to mine, and I thought it would be interesting to discuss it here on Scale Model Soup.

Many moons ago someone (I don’t remember who) told me this maxim, “Representation, not duplication.” What he was trying to say in that concise statement is that as modelers we generally don’t try to duplicate each and every detail in our models. We try to merely represent the actual aircraft or vehicle in miniature. This is important for several reasons.

First, there are technological limitations in the kits we build. For example, we’ll probably never see a canopy produced in actual scale thickness in anything below 1/32 scale.

Second, as I’ve come to learn each of us participates in the hobby with the talent and skills we are blessed with (or not blessed with, as the case may be). You may not have the skills to superdetail a cockpit in 1/72 like a Derek Brown or Ken Belisle, so you do the best you can with imperfect results.

Finally, as Rolf found in his Ju-88 project, there are likely limitations to the information available to us. Rarely do we have access to enough documentation to make definitive statements in the way a particular airplane was painted or configured at any specific point in time. Those of us who build modern subject matter have more information than others in the hobby, but those of you who spend your time in older genres know the inherent challenges of building a model that is 100 percent accurate.

Having entered and judged many contests over the years I’ve often been annoyed at the prospect of asking modelers to document their models in order to justify the paint scheme or explain the loadout he chose. Maybe you’ve heard me screaming, “It’s just a stupid model contest, not a doctoral thesis defense!”
That said, I think we can learn something from academics, who often have to make a more or less definitive statement and defend it with evidence or prove it with a series of logical arguments. That’s exactly what Rolf did. He reviewed the reference material he had, found some of it speculative, and drew his own conclusions based on (what seems to me) to be sound logic. The result is a model that is a solid representation of a Ju-88 of V/KG 40.

At the end of the day I hate to think that any of us is withholding a project because we don’t believe we have definitive information to proceed. I encourage you to use your head for something other than a hat rack (as my drill instructor told me in 1986). Don’t be afraid to study the documentation you have and draw your own conclusions.

And by the way, Rolf’s execution of the paint scheme on the Ju-88 is outstanding as well! What a great looking model!

(Thanks to Rolf for the use of his photograph.)

Something for the true Phantom phanatic

You're an aviation enthusiast, right? You claim to be a "Phantom phanatic?" Okay then, put your money where you mouth is and buy this F-4 engine cover I noticed on eBay this morning.

You have a day and half to bid as I write this. I'd love to buy it, but I don't have any good ideas on what to do with it. Maybe build a circular frame for it and display it on a wall? What do you think?