North American AF-82/A-11 --- Finished (now with pics)

[jcf]

Reading all this rather confusing info perhaps explains why the RAF and numerous other air forces give their aircraft official names.

The US does as well, and has for decades, the USN made it official policy as of October 1941.

Is Role-Type number_model suffix, Name really any more confusing than the Brit Name, Role (if specified), Mark?

Especially seeing as in the latter system role can be a single letter or multiple letters with periods between,
as to the mark numbers the Roman numeral versions can be unwieldy and confusing, which is why they were
dropped was it not?

It's all what one is familiar with and any system can be learned, even pre-1962 USN and the IJN systems,
they have a logical breakdown by role and manufacturer, unlike IJA Ki- numbers and RLM numbers, which
are sequential and don't indicate role. At least the RLM designations indicate manufacturer, the IJA numbers
do not.

[jcf]

IF I understand correctly, this aircraft was brought back into service.  I would think to keep the numbering straight they would go with something like AF82 or FA82.  This would not interfere with the new numbering system.

Following the official designation system it would be AF-82, as any letter code indicating a special purpose
is added as a prefix to the existing role designator i.e. K for Tanker, thus KC-135, KC-10, KA-6D etc.

[zenrat]

... the other RP launchers you see there, it's those 'bazooka' styled ones with six launch tubes...

These...

...are SUU-14a submunition dispensers.  The triangular cap goes at the front and the submunitions come out the back as the plane flies over the target.
They are frequently seen mounted back to front on models and even on museum exhibits.

[kitnut617]

Cheers Fred, good to know --- 

Works even better for the scenario I have in mind.

[NARSES2]

Reading all this rather confusing info perhaps explains why the RAF and numerous other air forces give their aircraft official names.

The US does as well, and has for decades, the USN made it official policy as of October 1941.

Ah, live and learn. I thought the US system was an unofficial one. Cheers Jon 

[NARSES2]

It's all what one is familiar with and any system can be learned, even pre-1962 USN and the IJN systems,
they have a logical breakdown by role and manufacturer,

Very much so Jon. I even got to understand the BS Steel Standards System after about 20 years 

I've often wondered where you had such different systems in the same country (Japan for instance) what the manufacturer thought about this rivalry ?

[jcf]

It's all what one is familiar with and any system can be learned, even pre-1962 USN and the IJN systems,
they have a logical breakdown by role and manufacturer,

Very much so Jon. I even got to understand the BS Steel Standards System after about 20 years 

I've often wondered where you had such different systems in the same country (Japan for instance) what the manufacturer thought about this rivalry ?

It's not really important to manufacturers as they all use their own internal model designation schemes,
the customers can call them whatever they like.

[NARSES2]

It's not really important to manufacturers as they all use their own internal model designation schemes,
the customers can call them whatever they like.

As long as they pay on time, eh ? 

[kitnut617]

A major step today, I've got the cowlings cast up. Yesterday I made the mould and did the casting today. They've not turn out too bad, the first one has a couple of small bubbles showing but the second one came out alright. I might make another to see if I can get two cowlings without the bubbles showing.



I was able to mould the prop shaft hole in for about 20mm which will help when drilling the rest of it out. Here you can see inside the mould.



Here's the result, the one on the right I've cut the pour block off and drilled the hole out all the way to the rear end. I'll counter-bore the hole so I can get a retaining cap on the end of the prop shaft.



Quite please with the results ----- the air intake under the spinner came out quite crisp too ---

[kitnut617]

I've been delving into what markings to use on this, and I've found just what I need.  I've got an Italeri B-26K Invader kit in the stash so looked in the box to see what decals are in there. There's options for five/six aircraft, three which are USAF markings. But there's not very many, there's no national stars & bars, or any walkway markings, just some fin markings of the serial number and the last three numbers of the serial which then goes on the nose gear bay doors. There is some nose art too which I'm going to use.

So the next thing I did was to see what serial numbers I have on the various F-82 kits in the stash (I've got Monogram, Revell and Modelcraft kits). There's a selection of six different serials between the kits, so I went on Joe Baugher's USAF serial number website. Checking through the groups of  F-82 serials I found one group that had numbers very similar, one of the schemes for the B-26K's has 64-646 and on the serial website I found there was an F-82 with a serial of 46-466 ----- convenient eh!

[kitnut617]

The modifications I've got planned have started, so here's a few pics of where it's at.

[kitnut617]

The plan has always been to have it up-gunned, to give it more punch. The idea is the six .5's were deleted, and a M61 Vulcan cannon was used. However, the diameter of the six barrels grouped together is about the same as the depth of the main spar so the cannon can't go in the gun bay like the .5's did. So the idea is to mount the M61 under the wing where the breach and feed mechanism would just protrude through the bottom of the wing into the gun bay. Then the whole gun bay and associated ammo storage areas become one big ammo bin.

First thing I did was study a bunch of photos of the SUU-23 pod to find out where the breach and the feed mechanism are, then I shorten the pod accordingly.



At first I was going to carve the top of the pod off so it matched the bottom of the wing chord, but then realized it would be much easier if I just cut a hole in the wing instead.



Then it was just a case of setting at the right distance away from the bottom of the spar. There's a mounting bracket on the gun right where the barrels exit the breach so this is how the gun is mounted to the wing. Using the pod frame as a fairing makes it much easier.

[kitnut617]

Now I've got to decide what prop to use. I'm using some Shackleton props and I had previously cut down one set of props so the diameter was the same as the P-51H/F-82 props, because of what I'm going to do for another project. But having only one gun on the centerline, I can use the Shackleton prop not shortened. Not decided which way to go yet.

The standard prop diameter



And the shortened prop diameter one

[Rick Lowe]

Why aren't the pics showing? 

[kitnut617]

Why aren't the pics showing? 

Um,  I can see them ---    Can anyone else see the pics ?