F-104C Starfighter "Blue Jay Four" by Egilman - Minicraft/Hasegawa - 1/32nd Scale

[Egilman]

13 hours ago, Canute said:

The Zipper had a General Electric J-79 turbojet engine. Probably the most responsive jet engine of the day. Push the throttle(s) up and the engine gave you what you wanted, more thrust. The other fighters of the day (F-100, F105, F-106) had Pratt engines. Pushing the throttle up in those was, as one former Thud pilot told me, like sending signals to the engine room on a seagoing vessel. You asked the engine for thrust and eventually you'd get it. Once you got it they were pretty quick jets, but if you were in aerial combat, you wanted thrust immediately, not eventually. Had something to do with the afterburner nozzles and how fast they programmed closed for the requested thrust.

 

The plastic in those early Hasegawas was kind of brittle, so cut the part free from the sprues. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but we need to be reminded occasionally. I just picked up an A-7D/E and there's a story coming, but I need some additional paint and a Furball decal set. 😁

Hi Ken, the J-79 was a revolution in axial flow tech, the reason was that most jets had centrifugical flow compressors, axial flow engines had a bad habit of compressor stalling at rapid demands for power (more flow) this would happen at high angles of attack also. And, to add to the problem, they needed a heavy flow of compressed air to light them up... (they were not air startable) Very risky in a combat aircraft. The J-79 solved most of those problems. It's main advantage was it's variable pitch stators in the compressor section, the first such engine so equipped. (a perfect example of what the Wright Brothers learned about airfoils carried into modern engineering) by being able to change the pitch of the stator blades in the compressor they relieved the back pressure that the airfoil shaped blades caused when forcing more air through it... This eliminated compressor stall in all but the most edge of the flight envelope environments. It also allowed the engine to be re-started in flight by allowing the airstream to push the compressor into spinning faster... a side effect of this was that the engine  could accelerate at will without losing compression of the fuel air mix.... Instant acceleration was the calling card of these engines... and any pilot that ever flew one would usually recite that one fact first when describing what he liked about the aircraft..... with the turbine boost function added to the fuel system, (thank you for pointing that out) any aircraft using them became gone in 5 seconds aircraft.... (leaving gone in 60 seconds smelling fumes) 

 

Yeah I cut my teeth modeling with that silver formulation of styrene, brittle is the word. you have to be careful with the fiddly parts....

 

EG

[Egilman]

11 hours ago, Old Collingwood said:

And those wing leading edges  (yep I felt one up close in a museum - they are sharp  and need covers).

 

OC.

Oh yes while on the ground they had foam covers to put over them while doing maintenance, you could get a nasty gash brushing up against one when not being careful....

[mtaylor]

20 minutes ago, Egilman said:

Oh yes while on the ground they had foam covers to put over them while doing maintenance, you could get a nasty gash brushing up against one when not being careful....

I have memories of visiting the AF Museum and they had the foam on the wings but not for long.  They quickly ground down the leading edge as most of their A/C's back then were outside where people touched, climbed on them and generally didn't think about sharp edges.

[Egilman]

11 hours ago, Roger Pellett said:

If My understanding is correct, the F104 was developed as a fighter/ interceptor, and had limited range.  From the information included above, Captain Tofferi was lost on a bombing mission.  Why did the Air Force use these difficult to fly planes in this role when fighter bombers were available?

 

Roger

Hi Roger, Following the history of Fighter planes you find that ALL of them eventually get turned into fighter-bombers.... Yes the Starfighter was designed as an interceptor and the first models were used by the Air Force in that capacity simply cause it could get to the target faster than anything else out there. and when your going to use a nuclear tipped air to air missile to destroy whole bomber formations getting there fast was the main concern. That being said it soon became readily apparent that at top speed the F-104 got nowhere real fast... like 500 mile range...  when they were dealing with WWII/Korean war era propellor engined bombers that was still only barely sufficient. But with the advent of jet bombers and improvements in radar tracking entirely inadequate for nuclear air defense.... so you ask the manufacturer to improve the basic airframe to do two things increase range and weapons capability. and once better more capable aircraft were designed for that role you send these aircraft back to be upgraded and with the increase in weapons capability use them as tactical fighters...

 

They still had a very low weapons capability even then... but in the hands of a capable pilot could do the job very well as the 1962 William Tell film I posted above demonstrates. the F-104 was sent to vietnam to fly Migcap mission which were their primary function cause the Migs were killing the F-100's wholesale. Within two months, the F-104's sent eliminated the migs as a threat to the bombers. so they really didn't have an active mission after the migs stopped coming... They did have a strike capability (as limited as it was) so they used it.... And using it they were very effective to the limits they could be used... But that was pilot training more than the airplane... then Lockheed made the deal of the century with the Luftwaffe and got them to accept a much improved Starfighter originally known as the Super Starfighter (F-104G) and allowed them to be license built all over the world, (the Germans owned and flew more Starfighters that the US Air Force ever had in it's inventory) At one point almost all of Nato's strike fighter capacity was Starfighter based... But it still had it habits and needed a very experienced pilot to fly it staying within it's flight envelope. There was no room for error flying a Starfighter.

[Egilman]

8 hours ago, lmagna said:

Yes there are several aircraft missing from that list from countries all over the world  that can fly supersonic for protracted times. some with and some without afterburner. While the 104 set a number of speed, altitude, and climb records, I still think, (Without research) that the 104 was not able to go supersonic without the use of afterburner in level flight. If someone knows otherwise please let me know. 

 

I do not know where the Kelly Johnson definition came from or how it would apply to the 104. The air force definition I believe originally was 20 minutes of sustained mach 1+ without regard to efficiency or regards to afterburner use. It is clear that under this definition the 104 could "supercruise" but at a severe range penalty, both from exceeding MACH 1, and from using the afterburner. The present day use of "Supercruise" seems to be the ability of exceeding MACH 1 without afterburner, but all presently existent aircraft are still exceeding their "most efficient operating speed" when doing this, even the F22. Just the act of exceeding the MACH 1 barrier with existent airframes seems to have negative aerodynamic reproductions.  

 

I don't know much about the other aircraft mentioned but the B-58 was another "Favorite" of mine back in my "aircraft" days. I was always impressed by it's looks and mission envelope. Kind of like the Mosquito of the jet age, able to out fly it's potential enemies. But there again it's "Cruise speed" was MACH .91 with a burst speed at 50,000 feet over the target of excess MACH 2, and return of MACH .91. I believe it is considered that it's main survival was that it flew the majority of it's mission close to the ground where most missiles could not hit it and almost no fighters were fast enough at that altitude. This was also for the most part considered to be below minimal radar tracking altitude of the time and visual tracking would be almost the only way to follow the aircraft from the ground. I once read that the B-58 was able to go from one horizon to the other in something like 5 seconds giving very little time to intercept it with a normal SAM. 

 

I am nothing but an interested novice in these matters, only reading up on planes of interest over the years and then only sporadically when I ran across something on my way to somewhere else. I would be extremely interested in any input by others who have more knowledge.

 

Like you say, on with the build. 

No the F-104 could not do it without afterburner absolutely correct there brother. Johnson's definition comes from my memory of an article of his that I read a long time ago about airplane design in general and how he applied it to the F-104 those were the basic factors that he considered essential to get sustainable supersonic flight..... The Air Force definition you cite reads more like a design requirement specification than a standard of performance. (most military standards read like that) and the term "Super-Cruise" didn't come into wide spread usage until the marketing campaign to get the F-22 accepted as the next US fighter plane.... A marketing slogan doesn't make accurate engineering or military standards of performance unfortunately.. But it sounds nice for the evening news broadcast. All aircraft when pushed too far have negative aerodynamic consequences, the F-104 eliminated the ones they were dealing with from conventional aircraft design.... It was revolutionary.....

 

The Hustler is also a favorite of mine, from the time of being a kid in fact. Got to see one do a flyover at a fourth of july celebration and has captivated me ever since, it's a damned shame that I can't find one in 1/32nd scale... {chuckle} That will have to wait till I need a new ceiling in the model room.... I'm a novice also, no real experience with these from any aspect except reading as much as I can... so any one with REAL experience with these aircraft Please! by all means, come and educate us...

 

Yes sir, On with the Build, well said sir...

 

Thank You Lou,

 

EG

[Egilman]

6 hours ago, Canute said:

The F-104 was designed with a downward firing ejection seat, for it's interceptor role. A high altitude arena. When we sold these jets overseas, they made fighter bombers out of them and flew them at low altitude. If the pilot had to eject for whatever reason, ....  The jets were eventually retrofitted with conventional upward firing ejection seats. With those tiny wings, there wasn't much lift generated, so landing speeds were very high. Could have been a problem for an inexperienced pilot.

 

I didn't think the USAF did much bombing with the F-104. They were used in combat as fighter bomber escorts and combat air patrols in Viet Nam.

The F-104A/B was the only ones with downward firing ejection seats, one of the first thing the Airforce mandated when writing the specifications for the "C/D" models was a standard ejection seat.... they became a fighter bomber before they were sold overseas. and the F-104G/H were designed to a West German Luftwaffe specification and they were the initial purchasers eventually buying/converting/manufacturing over 900 of them the other european airforces (except for France's) went with it as well through Germany's push and insistence on Nato interoperability.... (the whole fiasco with it is one of the cited results of France pulling out of Nato btw France was coming out with the Mirage at the time, a completely more capable aircraft, but the politics of Nato prevented them from choosing it. Lockheeds sale of the F-104 to Germany and hence Nato is known in military aircraft sales circles as "The Deal of the Century")

 

When they ran out of migcap missions they certainly did use them as fighter-bombers, in fact that is what finally got them sent home, not their tac capability, more their insufficient weapon loadout...

 

Thank You Ken...

 

EG

[Roger Pellett]

Thanks for your explanation, EG.  I just finished reading MIG Alley about air combat in Korea.  At that time the Air Force was still dominated by the strategic bombing guys who believed that the way to defeat North Korea was by high level bombing of industrial targets.  As a result, they lost a lot of B-29’s and crews, accomplished relatively little, and failed to provide ground support of UN troops.  Fortunately this was furnished by Navy and particularly Marine air.  When it finally dawned on the Air Force Brass that more than high level bombing was required they repurposed some of the early jet fighters as fighter bombers.

 

Roger

[Egilman]

Yep, there really wasn't much to bomb in North Korea and CAS was the rule of the day.....  It took the AF a year to get around to giving it serious consideration... The whole ideal for the F-104 came from the pilots that were flying the early jets (F-80's & 86's) in Korea against the Mig-15. even with a 10 to 1 kill ratio, the pilots didn't like the fact that overall the Mig-15 was a superior aircraft....... Their WWII experience made up for the airplanes.... But they wanted more. Kelly Johnson learned this in several tours he made of the front line fighter units and conversation about what they wanted in the next fighter plane..... Almost to a man they said more power, altitude and rate of climb..... They did not like dogfighting with the Mig-15, they wanted to boom and zoom using ingrained air superiority tactics like they did over Germany... Kelly went back and on his own initiative started the design of the 104........

 

They got more boom and zoom than many pilots could handle....

 

The airforce was in it's SAC days, it was being run by the biggest Strategic Bombing acolyte WWII produced, Curtis Lemay would regularly tell people that we wouldn't have won WWII without the precision daylight bombing campaign, hell they even made movies about it.... Used Jimmy Stewart for all he was worth..... (when the war was over) It took the B-29 losses to convince him that his judgment was a little off..... But on the other hand, his push gave us the B-52... a lot of people do not know how many lives were lost getting us that airplane..... Or how one man was a huge factor in it... The total war concept is dead, it has to be if we are to survive as a specie...

 

[Canute]

Precision daylight bombing was a pipedream with the quality of the gear in a/c back then. The AF never really wanted to get into close air support (CAS). The A-7 and later the A-10 were the sop thrown towards the Army every time the Army started grumbling about getting more of this type support. The AF still shoots at it, slowly developing a light attack jet for foreign sales. But with the current crop of precision guided munitions and standoff capabilities, do we need to hazard high value manned jets in the CAS role. Maybe drones are the wave of the future in CAS? Enough of this mud moving talk. Air to air for me! Back to the Zipper.

[Egilman]

All Right, I need to get on with this... first step is the Cockpit, the base color called out in the instructions is FS 36231 light grey.... Actually this is Model Masters Flat Dark Gull Grey....  but I have a problem....

 

It is clear that the cockpit is grey base color from this B&W shot....

But that don't look like dark Gull Grey to me more closer to light gull grey.... But then, look at this shot....

The Two color shots are of the same aircraft, the C model at the US Air Force Museum....  and under different light conditions the grey changes color... this is not gull grey at all. more like plain ol' US airforce aircraft grey.... it shows as dead light grey in medium yellow light and tinged blue in white light... (same issue as my Bandit trailer) So I think I"m going to have to decide between lightened ghost grey or plain old aircraft grey...

More pics...

So yeah that looks more like aircraft grey the more I look at it... 

 

What do you guys think...

[Canute]

Aircraft gray for me. I looked at it long enough. Panels black, surrounds medium gray. 36260, I think, or 36270. Like the color ADC painted their interceptors, etc., except a flat color.

[mtaylor]

6 hours ago, Canute said:

Precision daylight bombing was a pipedream with the quality of the gear in a/c back then. The AF never really wanted to get into close air support (CAS). The A-7 and later the A-10 were the sop thrown towards the Army every time the Army started grumbling about getting more of this type support. The AF still shoots at it, slowly developing a light attack jet for foreign sales. But with the current crop of precision guided munitions and standoff capabilities, do we need to hazard high value manned jets in the CAS role. Maybe drones are the wave of the future in CAS? Enough of this mud moving talk. Air to air for me! Back to the Zipper.

I think the AF has begrudgedly and slowly accepting they have to do CAS. The ghost of LeMay is still around.  There's still a lot of missile men, bomber men, and wannabee aces running things.  And, if it weren't for Congress and pressure from the Marines and Army, the A-10 would be history.  I read something where the Army/Marines offered to take the A-10 off the AF's hands and all hell broke loose as the AF just wanted to junk them.  Saner minds have prevailed, IMO.

[Egilman]

Well back then the AF brass had real big ones, they managed to get all air to ground delivery declared as their sole purveyance!!!! Yeah, the Air Force was declared the only service that could deliver air to ground ordnance!!!

Both the Army rebelled especially about helicopters, (read about the Howze Board and it's determinations), and the Navy about aircraft carriers and missile carrying submarines. (look up the Revolt of the Admirals) 

The Repercussions of that is still being felt in our weapons systems acquisition and development process today, 60 years later.....

 

The Airforce was going to win all wars with nuclear weapons...... Talk about some big brass ones.... and convinced McNamara that they would....

[Egilman]

3 hours ago, Canute said:

Aircraft gray for me. I looked at it long enough. Panels black, surrounds medium gray. 36260, I think, or 36270. Like the color ADC painted their interceptors, etc., except a flat color.

Yep FS 36270 USAF Medium Grey a shade darker than aircraft grey which is a half shade darker than Mr Paint Sky Grey FS 36473.... (a bit more bluish imho)

 

The sad thing is I can only seem to find Aircraft Grey flat in rattle can....

[mtaylor]

37 minutes ago, Egilman said:

Well back then the AF brass had real big ones, they managed to get all air to ground delivery declared as their sole purveyance!!!! Yeah, the Air Force was declared the only service that could deliver air to ground ordnance!!!

Both the Army rebelled especially about helicopters, (read about the Howze Board and it's determinations), and the Navy about aircraft carriers and missile carrying submarines. (look up the Revolt of the Admirals) 

The Repercussions of that is still being felt in our weapons systems acquisition and development process today, 60 years later.....

 

The Airforce was going to win all wars with nuclear weapons...... Talk about some big brass ones.... and convinced McNamara that they would....

 

I've read about the Navy and the Marines fighting the AF.  Luckily cooler heads have mostly prevailed.  I'm wondering is this history will repeat itself with the starting up of Space Force where the AF will claim they can hit any ground target with a magical space weapon. <snark off>

[Egilman]

Ok My first real problem, kinda.....

 

The cockpit floor....

Back in the day this would be considered nice, sufficient for a modeler to do a decent impression of a cockpit, today's world is another story. The only thing accurate is the throttle quadrant at the upper left and the shape and angles of the side consoles, the seat base is a lump in the center and all those lines and nubbins are nothing. Not even close to what was actually in the cockpit... The instrument panel is closer, it actually looks like an F-104 instrument panel but more like an "A" model than a "C" model..... No one makes a resin and etch cockpit for any model other than a "G" model.

 

At this scale it does make a difference.....

 

So I think if I am going to have a slightly "OFF" cockpit I want to to be the nicest slightly off cockpit I can produce...  Of course no one is really going to know the difference and that is if they get close enough to actually look in the cockpit....  So, I'm in the middle of a quandary right now, do I want to fork over as much as the kit is worth to bring it up to today's standards or do I just give it the best I can do with the limited, inaccurate details the kit offers.... I've already bought resin replacement wheels and tires, cause the kit tires and wheels are for a "G" model and the difference will stick out like a hammer mashed thumb....

 

The real problem is my brain and what it wants to do vs my common sense and what I should be doing.....

 

Gimmie a bit and I'll get it sorted... (probably build it as is)

 

EG

[Canute]

Did Eduard make a Zoom set for that? They're colored instrument panels and such. Check Scalemates: they show several sets. You'll have to check on availability. You might even find an ejection seat for the Zipper.

[Egilman]

Yeah, I know, I think I mentioned something about spending more for the AM than the kit is worth.. well I just broke down, got the cockpit set, the cloth seatbelt/harness set, the C2 ejection seat and the canopy masks from Kitlinks, (cheaper than Sprue Bros still three times as much as I paid for the kit) 

 

They are made for the Italieri series of kits so there will probably need to be some surgical scheduling in my future.....

 

Like I said, there is no AM for this 45 year old Hasegawa kit so I'll have to make due...

 

So much for Common Sense.... 

[Canute]

Tell me about it. I've been looking for a discontinued Eduard set, checked ebay for nought and found it somewhere in Germany. Shipping was as much as the set cost. Common Sense bailed out  days ago.

[Egilman]

1 hour ago, Canute said:

Common Sense bailed out days ago.

Well I'm learning this, I just got back into the hobby about a year ago, and it has changed so much it is almost unrecognizable..... now it is not just the kit and supplies, it's extra, better parts and better supplies..... It has expanded the hobby so much that you almost can't build without them now....

 

And forces you to expand your skills if you want to stay up on the presentation level... I mean you can still build OOB and do it very well, but the level of detailed info available today make OOB building almost passe'....

 

WE used to have the brain tell us that hey it looks like the real thing, and our imaginings would fill in that we couldn't replicate, today that window of imagining is much much smaller than it was when I started...

[lmagna]

I think you did the right thing for what it is worth. I have no idea how much cockpit will be visible when you are finished but in my humble opinion the extra detail will probably outweigh the actual accuracy of the model series.

 

I was forced to use the Eduard PE detail parts for a "C" model for my "D/H" model Huey if I wanted the additional detail. No one makes a detail set in 1/35th for any other version. This may change when Kitty Hawk comes out with their "H" version but that could be several years down the road. Admittedly the difference may not be as noticeable as in your model, (I would personally not know what the differences would be in either case anyway) but so far no one has made any comments about accuracy of my Huey cockpit other than some painting options.

 

I am beginning to think that for any plastic model you wish to build these days just figure on doubling the cost of the model or more in after market additions or corrections.  

[CDW]

Going to be a very interesting build to follow EG. Looking forward to the build and your additions of aftermarket. 

[Tigerdvr]

This log has offered up more, varied information on a plethora of subjects all of which ring a series of bells recounting my very long (70) exposer to model building.

Two pages of great stuff in such a short time could be some type of record. I have enjoyed it all. Thanks to all those contributors.

The kit manufacturers should have to put a warning label on the boxes describing the possibility of addiction to aftermarket options etc.

That would be helpful to those of us in the "___years since I built a model" gang. Common sense--out the window after the first new era kit.

This 104 project will serve as an inspiration and guide as to a great approach to model building for new and experienced (returning) modelers should be IMHO.

Following closely, Harley

[Old Collingwood]

So well said by Harley 👍

 

OC.

[Egilman]

1 hour ago, lmagna said:

I am beginning to think that for any plastic model you wish to build these days just figure on doubling the cost of the model or more in after market additions or corrections.  

I agree Lou, it is a bit pricier than I remember.... but then we are getting subjects that would have never seen the light of day without it. New kit production was stagnating. Photoetch and a new round of manufacturers have rejuvenated the hobby... So it's not all bad....

[Egilman]

1 hour ago, CDW said:

Going to be a very interesting build to follow EG. Looking forward to the build and your additions of aftermarket. 

Thank you for joining in Craig, I only hope I don't flub it....

[Egilman]

1 hour ago, Tigerdvr said:

This log has offered up more, varied information on a plethora of subjects all of which ring a series of bells recounting my very long (70) exposer to model building.

Two pages of great stuff in such a short time could be some type of record. I have enjoyed it all. Thanks to all those contributors.

The kit manufacturers should have to put a warning label on the boxes describing the possibility of addiction to aftermarket options etc.

That would be helpful to those of us in the "___years since I built a model" gang. Common sense--out the window after the first new era kit.

This 104 project will serve as an inspiration and guide as to a great approach to model building for new and experienced (returning) modelers should be IMHO.

Following closely, Harley

Where's my pin? Anyone seen my pin? I need it to deflate this huge ballooning ego here...  {chuckle}

 

That is one heck of a compliment Harley, given the level of knowledge and experience around here, I hope I can live up to it.... (being nothing more than a plastic hacker is hard work)

 

It is greatly appreciated.... 

 

Welcome aboard and I sincerely hope I don't let the newcomers down....

 

Thank you....

[Canute]

There is a name for this; it's Advanced Modelers Syndrome (AMS), although that might be the politically correct version.  Since this is a family-friendly site, I'll say no more. 😉

 

My 2 cents; take it for what it's worth. Are we gilding the lily or painting a pig. Ask yourself, will this aftermarket part really enhance your model. Paint masks fall into that category. Some of us need help painting circles or keeping clean canopies (that's me).  Cockpit enhancements fall into the category of do I really need it. In 1/72 scale, it can be very hard to see. In 1/48th, more visible and in 1/32, really visible. Are the costs worth the enhancement? Only the builder can make the call.

 

Something that will help is to scour the work for reviews and builds (research). I found out that an F-111 I want to build builds up pretty heavy, so this one reviewer said the metal landing gear available as aftermarket would be a wise purchase.  And if you need to keep within a budget, keep it. Do not tick off the Admiral. We want to keep all our members on this board.

[Egilman]

Well said Ken, and a sage piece of advice....

[Old Collingwood]

I dont want to deflect EG's  post  but my 10pence worth  - Ken  I have built two versions of the AardVark  an E version  but also  the SparkVark, both 1/72 scale  Hasegawa kits I think.

 

Sorry for the interuption EG.

 

OC.