Mirage F1P

[PR19_Kit]

The F1P is done. Hooray! 

Here's a bunch of pics of many aspects of the F1P, showing the specialised PR and weapons fit carried by them.

The backstory's being written when my hands stop shaking after a zillion attempts to glue the blasted gear doors on! 



Starboard side showing the AAR probe offset in front of the canopy, the Magic 2 missile on the wing tip rail, the Barracuda ECM pod and the starboard wing tank.




Port side, almost the same apart from a Phimat chaff dispenser on the outboard wing rail.




Nose view showing the Etendard IVP developed nose PR camera bay.




Top view, with la total ack of a zillion stencils. Against the blue colour they'd never be seen so I didn't bother.




Underside showing all the weapons, and both camera bays. The mid-fuselage bay can be replaced with a hose reel for tanker duties.




An important view as it shows The Hook!  Also the Iraqi dorsal fin used because of the extended nose.

Currently the aircraft is still finished in all-over Klear varnish, which is very gloss to my eyes, and I'm wondering if I should give it a coat of semi-matt.

All opinions will be welcome please.

[Tophe]

Great! 

[Weaver]

Lovely job - it looks great!

Not so much a what-if as a nearly-was: Dassault desperately wanted to sell the Navy F1s. In an world where the decision was only made on military grounds, not political/industrial ones, it would have made a lot of sense, since the F1 airframe could be configured for fighter, strike, naval strike (Iraqi F1Ps had Agave+Exocets) and recce. The Aeronavale could have had one-type carriers in the 1970s instead of the 2010s...

I say give it a coat of semi-matt: the gloss might be right for a full-size naval aircraft, but the reflections spoil the illusion in 1/72nd.



Re gear doors, I can't speak for the F1, but I did see some research about this with regard to the Mirage III and I suspect that the same applies to a lot of other aircraft.

Basically, the answer to the question, "Should all the doors be open, or should some of them be closed, when the aircraft is on the ground?"

Appears to be, "Yes."

Allow me to explain: when you lower the undercarriage to land all of the doors open, but then the ones that can close again do so, in order to reduce drag and turbulence. However, these doors remain unlatched because the latches only activate when the legs are fully retracted: when the legs are down, they're only held closed by hydraulic pressure in the pistons. When you land and taxi, the doors stay closed, but when you switch everything off and go home for the night the pressure in the hydraulic system bleeds off and the doors gradually drop open. Then, when you fire the plane up again in the morning and the hydraulics come online, the doors close again.

For modelling purposes, I'd say the rules of thumb are:

1. If it's got a pilot in it the implication is that it's powered-up, so the doors should be closed.

2. If it hasn't got a pilot in it the implication is that it's powered-down, so the doors should be open.

3. Do research: there may be other specific-to-type kinks that I don't know about.

[zenrat]

Lovely job - it looks great!

Not so much a what-if as a nearly-was: Dassault desperately wanted to sell the Navy F1s. In an world where the decision was only made on military grounds, not political/industrial ones, it would have made a lot of sense, since the F1 airframe could be configured for fighter, strike, naval strike (Iraqi F1Ps had Agave+Exocets) and recce. The Aeronavale could have had one-type carriers in the 1970s instead of the 2010s...

I say give it a coat of semi-matt: the gloss might be right for a full-size naval aircraft, but the reflections spoil the illusion in 1/72nd.



Re gear doors, I can't speak for the F1, but I did see some research about this with regard to the Mirage III and I suspect that the same applies to a lot of other aircraft.

Basically, the answer to the question, "Should all the doors be open, or should some of them be closed, when the aircraft is on the ground?"

Appears to be, "Yes."

Allow me to explain: when you lower the undercarriage to land all of the doors open, but then the ones that can close again do so, in order to reduce drag and turbulence. However, these doors remain unlatched because the latches only activate when the legs are fully retracted: when the legs are down, they're only held closed by hydraulic pressure in the pistons. When you land and taxi, the doors stay closed, but when you switch everything off and go home for the night the pressure in the hydraulic system bleeds off and the doors gradually drop open. Then, when you fire the plane up again in the morning and the hydraulics come online, the doors close again.

For modelling purposes, I'd say the rules of thumb are:

1. If it's got a pilot in it the implication is that it's powered-up, so the doors should be closed.

2. If it hasn't got a pilot in it the implication is that it's powered-down, so the doors should be open.

3. Do research: there may be other specific-to-type kinks that I don't know about.

And if you glue the doors on crooked then you've modelled it some time after it was parked up and the doors are in the process of drooping.
I meant to look at my Fanta Can F1C to see if I built it with the doors open or closed (pics don't show clearly).
But I forgot.

Good build Kit.  Looks like a bought one.


If there are visible brush marks, then satin clear it.  If not, leave it shiny.

[rickshaw]

 

[PR19_Kit]

Not so much a what-if as a nearly-was: Dassault desperately wanted to sell the Navy F1s. In an world where the decision was only made on military grounds, not political/industrial ones, it would have made a lot of sense, since the F1 airframe could be configured for fighter, strike, naval strike (Iraqi F1Ps had Agave+Exocets) and recce. The Aeronavale could have had one-type carriers in the 1970s instead of the 2010s...

Have you snuck into my laptop H?

That's pretty much what my backstory says already. 

[ChernayaAkula]

Jolly nice build!  Mirage F.1s are alwas pretty. And the recce nose doesn't spoil its good looks.

<...> the F1 airframe could be configured for fighter, strike, naval strike (Iraqi F1Ps had Agave+Exocets) and recce. The Aeronavale could have had one-type carriers in the 1970s instead of the 2010s... <...>

Electronic warfare, too. The Iraqis used a French-designed stand-off jammer to good effect.

[NARSES2]

That's come out really well Kit 

[PR19_Kit]

And now, the backstory. 

https://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php?topic=47758.new#new

[DogfighterZen]

Jolly nice build!  Mirage F.1s are alwas pretty. And the recce nose doesn't spoil its good looks.

Second that, it's gorgeous!
And the back story is very good stuff, too! 

[Hobbes]

Very nice, well done 

[Old Wombat]

Nicely done, Kit! Great job!

[PR19_Kit]

After looking at its glossiness for some time I thought 'It's a bit too Motor Show to me' so I gave the whole thing a coat off Satincite.

It looks a but more realistic now. 

[Tophe]

more realistic now. 

Are you sure this is a quality for a what-if model?

[PR19_Kit]

more realistic now. 

Are you sure this is a quality for a what-if model?

OK, it looks more 'serviceable'.

How's that?