Pellsons Perceivings

[63cpe]

Hehhehheh, i like this Fred.....

[zenrat]

My notes on the Hasegawa MiG 25 say "Very simplified kit. Fit of upper and lower rear fuselage panels is poor.  Raised detail.  Not worth building unless it is really cheap (this one was $5).  Possibly good as a parts donor.  Even the missiles are simplified."

The markers the caps are from are big fat chisel tip ones BTW.

[Dizzyfugu]

IIRC, Revell recently did a re-boxed MiG-25, too, which goes pretty cheap around here. It's the ICM kit. And the new Hasegawa MiG-25 is the ICM kit, too!

[Nick]

Scalemates is your friend here.
Zhengdefu, Hobbycraft and Kitech are all the same kit. https://www.scalemates.com/kits/zhengdefu-df313-mig-25--1350085

ICM, Revell, Dukmodell and Hasegawa are the good kits. https://www.scalemates.com/kits/revell-03878-mikoyan-mig-25-rbt--1182736

[Pellson]

Scalemates is your friend here.
Zhengdefu, Hobbycraft and Kitech are all the same kit. https://www.scalemates.com/kits/zhengdefu-df313-mig-25--1350085

ICM, Revell, Dukmodell and Hasegawa are the good kits. https://www.scalemates.com/kits/revell-03878-mikoyan-mig-25-rbt--1182736

There are two Hasegawa kits; the original interceptor, released in 1978 and the ex-ICM tooling, originally released in 2018 and by Hasegawa in 2019. However, only ICM (so far) does any other variant of this tooling than the MiG-25RBT recce bird.

I got an original Hasegawa MiG-25P from my dad back around 1980. It sure was a hot kit back then, and I still have it, in Russian "uniform". From what I can recall, it wasn't that bad, but then again, compared to Airfix of those days, I think I wasn't quite as spoilt as these days. And I think it does look like a Foxbat, alright.
Anyway - going down memory lane with one of those isn't really a bad option even if the ICM kits for sure are better, and I can buy two for less money than one ICM. But I have time to mull on that.

In the mean time, I've dug out another old monster, the original Revell MiG-31. This one is in the scrap/spares bin already, but I thought I would play around a bit to see if the absolutely unbuildable Zhengdefu kit could be bashed into something more interesting by using parts and designs from the Revell Foxhound. Maybe something along the lines of a "missing link". We'll see - I can't say that anything seems just to fall together, but then again, the long smooth nose of the Foxbat is so much sexier than the road cone variant fitted to the Foxhound.

I also think I need to tweak the NATO backstory a little bit, just to make more room for evolution. Bear with me - I'll let you know here when it's time to revisit.

[PR19_Kit]

I've got the original Hasegawa Foxbat, and I built it OOB too. But recently I got the Pavla conversion for the recce nose etc and I was thinking about 'updating' it.

Maybe....

[zenrat]

I have a Condor MiG 25 (Zvezda & Eastern Express also used the moulds) with a Pavla detail/conversion set including cockpit. recce nose, and vac form canopy (sorely needed).
Also a Trumpeter MiG 31 with a BFO missile to sling under it.

[rickshaw]

I use a Zengdefu  Mig-25 with 1/48 Mirage wings to fashion a Mach 3 Mirage:

[PR19_Kit]

VERY good Brian, I like that a lot. 

[Pellson]

I use a Zengdefu  Mig-25 with 1/48 Mirage wings to fashion a Mach 3 Mirage:

Extremely well built, Fred. I looked at that conversion, but chickened out and got the Sharkit resin Mirage. Can't say I regret that decision, tbh.. 

I have a Condor MiG 25 (Zvezda & Eastern Express also used the moulds) with a Pavla detail/conversion set including cockpit. recce nose, and vac form canopy (sorely needed).
Also a Trumpeter MiG 31 with a BFO missile to sling under it.

I'm also eyeing that MiG-31, but then I'll need a second one too.. Choices...

[63cpe]

Owwwww, I Like that mach 3 Mirage a lot! great work!



David aka 63CPE

[Pellson]

The >background< for the NATO MiG's (and, coming in due course, Sukhoi's) have been tweaked a little bit.

Other than that, I've been producing and attaching new pitots to a Flogger and a Starfighter, no's 5 and 4 respectively. Whereas I'm getting pretty proficient in whipping up pitots, it's nothing compared to my skill when breaking and losing them..

Also considering how to keep the pretty awful F-84F in European service into the eighties as it was a pig to fly, an even worse pig to take off and land with, and yet, it actually had something going for it, such as actually being a decent weapons platform. Maybe adding a dogtooth and widening the outer wing chord a la later Hunters would do something for the behaviour once airborne? It could certainly do with a bit more engine, but I'd rather not mess with the nose, so sticking to approximately the same airflow as the J65 would be good. Maybe just a later/oomphier version? The Sapphire was after all pushed from ca 7000 lbf to 11000 lbf.
We'll, we have to think a bit more on that, haven't we?

[zenrat]

...Also considering how to keep the pretty awful F-84F in European service into the eighties as it was a pig to fly, an even worse pig to take off and land with, and yet, it actually had something going for it, such as actually being a decent weapons platform. Maybe adding a dogtooth and widening the outer wing chord a la later Hunters would do something for the behaviour once airborne?...

Maybe it needs wing fences?

[Pellson]

...Also considering how to keep the pretty awful F-84F in European service into the eighties as it was a pig to fly, an even worse pig to take off and land with, and yet, it actually had something going for it, such as actually being a decent weapons platform. Maybe adding a dogtooth and widening the outer wing chord a la later Hunters would do something for the behaviour once airborne?...

Maybe it needs wing fences?

Fences were used on the recce near sister, the RF-84F. That, however, was an earlier redesign, and I'm thinking that in the mid 1960's, aircraft design hade mostly bypassed fences as, generally, much the same vortex effect can be reached with a dogtooth. That said, fences are still used in some applications despite producing slightly higher drag, as they have slightly different properties in guiding the airstream over the wing. So, in conclusion, not ruling fences out, methinks. Easier to model too..

For now staying with the dogteeth(!), this could be a draft backstory, perhaps:

The F-84F Thunderstreak in continued NATO service

The F-84F Thunderstreak was widely used throughout NATO, and almost half of the 2711 units built were transferred to Europe for service within the allied air forces there. France was the first country to receive Thunderstreaks in 1955, but within a few years, also the air forces of Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, West Germany, Greece and Turkey also flew these sturdy fighterbombers.
Aeronautical evolution went fast at that time, and already in the early 1960's, most of the European F-84F's were being replaced with the new and more than twice as fast F-104G Starfighter. While the F-84F's had had their limitations, in particular regarding high-speed operations at low altitude and general high-altitude performance, the F-104G was a beast, and in particular in Germany, the Luftwaffe experienced substantial losses, 44 aircraft crashing within two years. To solve this, in 1966, the Luftwaffe temporarily halted all low-level Starfighter operations, restricting them to medium and high-altitude interception duties. To fill the gap, the venerable F-84F was brought out of storage.

Not knowing for how long they would have to rely on the Thunderstreak, the Germans however took the opportunity to try to remedy some of the worst vices of the aircraft. The german company Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm was lended an airframe for rebuild and trials, and within seven months, the prototype was flying. The changes were substantial but visually mostly hard to detect from a distance. The original American J65 engines were replaced with British AS Sapphires giving about 20% more thrust. While this didn't improve the top speed, it significantly improved climbing and maneuvering and guaranteed a take-off roll with full load shorter than 2000 m under normal European circumstances, a significant improvement in its own. Adding a chord extension to the outer wing, also providing a vortex inducing dogtooth to the leading edge, much improved low-level, high-speed performance, and as a bonus, significantly improved stall characteristics, making the aircraft much easier to fly safely close to its limits. The four 0,5 cal guns in the nose were replaced with two 20 mm Hispanos, improving efficacy against armoured targets. Improved navigation and communication systems were integrated together with a laser ranger and marked target seeker (LRMTS), located behind transparent sections in the intake splitter wall, replacing the old gunranging radar.
Altogether, this produced a surprisingly effective strike and close air support aircraft, and during two years from 1967, more than 250 German Thunderstreaks were taken in hand for conversion and redelivered to the Bundeswehr, adding a third squadron to five fighterbomber wings (Jagdbombergeschwadern, or JaboG in German terminology), and fully equipping all three sqns of JaboG 35. The Dutch Air Force (Koninklijke Luchmacht), the Belgian Forces Aeriennes Belge and the Italian Aeronautica Militare followed suit, each upgrading their remaining fleets.

However, already in 1968, improved training, both of pilots and ground crew, had significantly impacted the flight safety record of the Starfighters throughout Europe, and the much higher attack speed of the F-104 was seen as imperative in dealing with Soviet air defence systems, in particular in the nuclear penetration role. Accordingly, Thunderstreak operations were again wound down and many airframes stored. All four air forces however kept some numbers flying, partly as they were better suited for close air support than the lightning-fast Starfighters, but also to keep older pilots rotating out of Starfighter assignments active on a less demanding but still useful asset. They were also used to maintain air trim in reservist pilots. While only about a third of the upgraded airframes were in active use at any given time, the aircraft were rotated between storage and active duty, evening out wear and tear.
In Germany, JaboG 35 was renumbered JaboG 38 in 1975, concentrating the Luftwaffe Thunderstreaks to one wing with four squadrons. Maintaining the CAS role together with the LeKG's (light fighterbomber wings) operating Fiat G.91R's, the wing was kept active until 1983 when it finally phased out its old F-84F's and reverted to training Tornado crews as an operational conversion unit. At this time, some of the F-84F's had been repainted in the new all green wraparound Norm 83 scheme.

In 1969, Belgium and the Netherlands formed a joint wing at Weelde Air Base, just on the Belgian side of the border. Here, they operated two squadrons each, the Belgian 6th and 12th sqns and the Dutch 704th and 705th sqns. As in Germany, this wing kept only a small active cadre, mainly filling its ranks with reservists.
The Belgian aircraft flew in US SEA camouflage, and the Dutch in the same grey/green scheme as applied to NF-5A's. Pilots from both countries regularly flew each other's mounts as the aircraft were kept and maintained on a fully shared basis. Both countries ceased operations and the wing disbanded in 1981.

The Italians flew their final F-84F's on the regular roster with no 50 sqn at Piacenza. When that sqn finally got its Starfighters, as the final F-104 sqn in the Aeronautica Militare Italiano, also Italy chose to allocate a separate reservist sqn, selecting the no 52 Stormo, a number with proud traditions from WW2. The Stormo stayed at Piacenza in parallel with the Starfighters until 1985 when finally disbanding. The Italian Thunderstreaks followed the Starfighters changes in camouflage, ending up in a grey/green over bare metal scheme in the late seventies.

France however chose to retire its Thunderstreaks unmodified, instead flying Super Sabres and later Jaguars in the close air support role.


Works, yeah?

[Rheged]

It works exceedingly well!  A well reasoned and credible account.