A ship almoust directly for the box...

USS Missoury was the Battleship were peace was signed. About 25 years ago i made the kit from Revell, without modifications. A kit 1/1200 is good for a base in work, and in the last century it seems nice to begin a primitive water illusion in a old board. The result was at least 3 more models: Yamato, Enterprise and Wisconsin. All are still in the box. For some day...

The model was easy to make. More difficult to do was the seccond battery of 127mm guns, that were always broke. I used revell glue and revell tools for the first time. For a few years the kit was made with no paint or decals. In the 90s i make the second level.

 I used the 1944 schematic because was not only beautiful but also one that doesn't had the number at the prow and the name on the aft (time destroyed the decals). Several guns, one catapult and winch were also lost and i rebuild them (all colours were from Revell). Then the base.

I used a basic wooden board. The paint was made direct into the wood. Waves were made with modeling clay and foam with cotton. I like the result and after this experience i made more two ships with the bases: Hms Hood and Bismarck (This time i used card in the top of the wood. better to  paint and work).

In recent years i work in the base and also at the model for only exposition purposes. Hewed the wood, painted the water with revell acrylic and oils from Winton. A piece of cotton with the hull give's the idea of foam caused by the progress of the ship at the ocean. 

The work in USS Missouri was only limited to a oil blue wash from Pebeo in the upper deck. I replace some of the missing guns and i use the masted to make the experience of laying tst cables for other ships. The radar was also scracht with plastic and streched plastic. 

I liked the result. Not a model for an exhibition but a fine ship for my house colection. And another target was to make an ancient Revell construction capable to dust and time conditions resist. After all it is a vintage  assembly and it deserves to be preserved. And with the "baggage" of this USS Missouri when in future i do the USS Wisconsin probably i will scracht to the reactivation in the 80's.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Missouri_(BB-63)

https://ussmissouri.org/ 

http://thediplomat.com/2015/09/why-did-imperial-japan-surrender-on-the-uss-missouri/

http://pearl-harbor.com/missouri/missouri.html

The last Mustang: Cavalier Mustang/ Turbo Mustang and Enforcer

Fig.1 - Original Mustangs escorting bombers in European skies.

Everyone knows the Mustang. An american icon from World War II, the fighter that defeated Hitler and an important CAS and atacker in Koreia. But if after the war many were sold across the world some of them were re-build or even new build by Cavalier in the 60's and 70's. We are talking about the Cavalier Mustang I,  II, III and the Piper Enforcer.

Fig.2 - Cavalier Munstang was a civil project. Few were build but lead to military Cavalier Mustangs.

All started with the idea of the publisher David Lindsay to transform old P/F51 in executive bussiness aircraft. The Trans Florida Executive Mustang (renamed Cavalier Mustang) were build in 1958 and if is true that only a few were sold to public, it is undeniable that caught the attention. First between 1964/65 with the IRAN inspection of 30 F51D por Dominican Republic. Then with the contract that the US Department of Defense made with Trans Florida to improve the civilian Cavalier to a ground Attack Fighter. The Cavalier F51D Mustang I. 

Fig. 3 - One of the Cavalier Mustang (F51D) sold to US Army. Is preserved in the Air Force Armament Museum in Englin, 

Seven Single Control (F51D) and two Dual-Control (TF51D) were made and give to Bolivia under the program Peace Condor and two with Tip tanks were sold to Us Army for use as Chase Aircraft. They were used in the AH56 Comanche Program with original F51Ds (the last one was retired in 1978, and was the last Mustang operated by the United States Military) like this one: http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b400/EDWMatt/f5004.jpg

Fig.4- The TF-51D Cavalier Mustang. A Dual-Control Mustang give to Dominican Republic. Now back to USA. 

In 1967 Cavalier developed the Cavalier Mustang II for Closer Air Support (CAS) and Counter Insurgency (CI). The main faitures were four aditional hardpoints in the wing, structural improvements in the wing, new avionics and a Merlin V1650 motor. Two batches were build: For El Salvador and Indonesia. Both had a difference: The group for El Salvador had the wingtip fuel tanks and the others make to Indonésia no, because US restrictions.  

Fig. 5 - Cavalier Mustang II from El Salvador. This one was used in the 1969 Soccer War.

El Salvador used in war.  Indonesian is not clear about the Cavalier Mustang II but (F51Ds here later upgraded to Cavalier Mustangs II locally) the F51Ds were used against CIA flights and in a coup attempt against Suharto president in the 60s.

In war Cavalier Mustangs II have lack of maneuverability and for that reason the wingtip fuel tanks were removed (http://crazyhorseap.be/Mustangs/Mustangs/SE-BIL%20It's%20About%20Time/SE-BIL.htm). It is true that FAS had some problems deal with the fleet, like lack of fuel, trained pilots and the eventuality of wire mercenarys, but Munstangs were never a very good CAS plane. In Koreia it was available in large number and it was a recent plane but the weight of bombs, fuel and rockets give him a performance quite different from the fighter of WWII. 

Fig.6 - Cavalier Mustang II from Indonésia. No wingtips fuel tanks because were not allowed by US (this plane was probably a upgraded Cavalier Mustang from original Mustan F-51D). The famous 338 maybe was after all the 361. The original 338 who shoot down a CIA A26 Invader it must have been lost in a acident http://www.swissmustangs.ch/40492/44592.html ) 

Most likely the FAS experience with the Cavalier Mustang II conducted to the turboprop Cavalier Mustang III. The Rolls Royce Dart 510 radically encrease the Mustang performance in CAS/COIN missions. The result was good enough to the company purchased the Us military or foreign operators to buy the plane. Thinking that the correct path was continuing to develop the turboprop Mustang, they sold the prototype to the much bigger Piper. With that the Piper Enforcer was born.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-48_Enforcer

Fig.7 - Cavalier Mustang III with a turboprop R&R Dart 510. The good performance lead to Piper Enforcer

The Enforcer were the last Mustang but also the best Mustang. With the Lycoming T55-y9, the  first two planes in 1971 and the others two in 1984 performed well. It is true that only 10% of the last one build have something to do with original Mustangs, but the main reason for USAF not to purchase the aircraft is that was to late for Enforcer. I explain: If the turboprop Mustang was made when the Cavalier II and III were build, most likely were enter in service in USAF, because Vietnam War. But in 1971 lots of aircraft similar were in service with South Vietnamese Air Force and USAF. By 1984 USAF simply did not belive that a turboprop will survive in a moder war. By this days, with Super Tucano build in Florida for Afghanistan still do not belive (the A10 is a Jet, a veteran for more than 4 war and USAF want to send him to AMARC) .  

Fig.8 - Piper Enforcer from 1971.

http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=ForumsPro&file=viewtopic&t=10373&view=previous

Fig.9 - Cavalier Mustang III fully armed. If this Coin/Cas plane were made in 1968, probably this one or the Enforcer were a reallity in Usaf or other nations that fight a guerrilla war. For example for Portugal in Africa conflit  were the best plane to replace T6.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalier_Mustang

Fig.10 - Piper Enforcer of 1984 were fine aircraft in FAC/COIN/CAS missions. The problem was that in this time USAF didn't belive in turboprop in modern warfare. The Mohawk and Bronco, less than 10 years after were in Amarc. Afghanistan and Iraq, are only to exemples how they were wrong. After Super Tucano and At-6, USAF is testing again cheap COIN/CAS aircraft like OV10. Maybe the OV1 or the Pa48 in future are considered. After all USAF would like a substitute to A10, and ISIL continues to advance in Syria, Libia and Iraq. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-48_Enforcer

Fig.11 - Piper Enforcer was a great plane. The lack of experiênce was another reason for the publisher David Lindsay not have done the attempt of have developed the Pa-48 like an armed training double seat aircraft. In 1984 the T6 from Beachcraft was not in service. Tucano and later CAS/COIN Super Tucano proved  this concept was right. 

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2000/01/stuff_eng_p51late.htm

Video 1 - It is a little crazy that today Cavalier Mustangs were seen all around USA, in single or double seat models. After all the concept was righ, but maybe once again at the wrong time.

http://technewz.co/p/p-51-mustang-variants-cavalier-mustangsmustangscom.html

Fig.12 - This is a Cavalier Mustang II not a World War Mustang. Today at least six of them are in fly conditions in USA. In air race and in particular, most likely there are more.

http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/survivors/Cavalier

A Vintage Model: The P51D Mustang

The Mustag Kit is an old one. Is from Revell but this was a re-release from the Matchbox kit of a P51D,  from 1973 with two options: British or American colours.

http://scale-models.nl/matchbox-mustang.html

The fighter was "Made from the Box" and only the cockpit interior and some few external parts were added. Was my first metal paint. And was with a brush. Made 25 years ago was very good, and the assembly was a pice of art, without slots or paint grains. A proud Mustang in that time.

I used also Revell enamel paints. The base was made from plaster with grass from HQ. No aging was made in that time or today. Is a pure model like was made in that time. Love it.

 The decals sheet was perfect. Without Microscale and Microsol they joined to fuselage magnificently. Fine for a vintage old model. Great result. 

  

Some effects were made like the smoke from the guns or the black of the engine leaks. A little oil escape was done and it was only. In that time was only the things i knew. 

In conclusion a fine kit from 1973. No problems in the process, great final result for a model made in the 90s of the XX century. Still is one of my favorite in the exhibitor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_P-51_Mustang

Is F-35 a Problem? Yes, thanks to LM and USAF...

First of all, USAF do not need the fighter. The F22 is much better and for conflits that are 90% of  post second world war clashes, they have the F15, F16 and A10. Are the best ones against ISIL, or in a "Dream War" against China, Russia or North Koreia. And there's lots of fighters and other planes in AMARG.

Fig.1 - USAF is trying put out of service for several years the A10. Today the CAS plane is a super star against ISIL in Iraq and Syria. Here it is a fly by a F15E for more a target.

For the Navy, a naval version of the F22 was the best option. Since F8 Crusader all the fighter are made with two engines for more safety in fly over the sea. The USMC is a different case. Like they have the AV8 Harrier, the F35B was acceptable but not more than 10 by a ship like USS Wasp. The rest of the air wing, Harriers and a AEW version of Osprey. Instead will have only F35 B and helicopters. Hum, what about Falklands War teachings? Not for US Navy or USMC...

Fig.2 - The Naval version of the F22 was the best option for Us Navy, to convencional carriers, of course. Today all the F35 Program is much expensive, and the fighter is half of the F22 in all aspects. And the assembly line is now close.  

As i said  the USMC needed a better fighter, not only for fleet protection but also for air strikes in save distance and without the IR problems, subsonic velocity and weapons and fuel limitations of the Harrier. Today, F35B is better in all aspects than harrier. And so is the only F35 declared operational. So, why i think the Harrier it's needed? Much cheaper operational costs, "arrives and spares" for Afghanistan and if theres an atack like 2012 in Camp Bastion were Marines lost 8 Harrier, the budget with F35B will be much high. 

Fig.3 - The Taliban atack at Camp Bastion. If instead of 8 Harriers the loss were 8 F35B the budget was "only" Us$ 832M (not including the engine).

Back to F35 A and C, the  result for now is not what LM and USAF said: a Multi-Mission fighter. The truth is that F35 is an interceptor like F106 Delta Dart was in air to air missions, and a long distance atacker in air-surface missions. Why? Let's go to the common sense:  The F35 is a stealth fighter but when we talk abou IR it not makes the same effort. like we can see in the exaustor. So, when all the fighters today have a IR detector with a range of 30 Km, F35 will lose the advantage of a weak radar signal. The same in a surface atack, with aggravating that a save altitude always will be above 6000 meters because of MPADS.

Fig.4 - Exaustor of F35 is like the ones in a F15 or a F16. In a dogfight the fighter loses the advantage of Stealth, because IR is detectable by IR Sensors. Maybe someone should ask LM and USAF why they say that F35 could make CAS like an A10 or AIR to AIR missions like F15 and F16.

   

F35 need all new tactis, after de several problems solved, of course. F35 will always be a complement to other fighters and atack planes.  Maybe will be after the righ corrections the new F4 Phantom II. But today is a fighter under development with lots of mistakes from LM and USAF. They need to sell so the F35 is better than all the others in everything. Its´s a lie. Israel that is one of the main nation in all the F35 process, explain: 

Fig.5 - Israel plans to buy 33 F35 but only LM talks that IAF will replace the F15 and F16. But how 33 fighters will replace 158? Israel talk a complete different language: The IDF will make an upgrade to F15I and F16. And the country still talks about 24 F22. So, F35 is not so good after all. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/israel-plans-to-buy-over-100-f35s-02381/


For Israel the F35 will give to their air force things that today they don´t have:  A stealth fighter, a longe range plane in air to air and atack missions and a complement to other fighters and atack planes.  IAF only last year retired their A4 Skyhawk, and F15 and F16 are in use since de 70/80 (in  recent news the hipothesis of Israel not buy the F35 is advanced by "air cosmos" because LM refuses to give IAF the fighter codes http://www.air-cosmos.com/israel-pourrait-reconsiderer-l-acquisition-de-f-35-64389 ). But of course, LM and USAF have also some questions to response to tax payers: If F35 is so good why is USAF testing other cheap and FAC/CAS options like Ov-10 Bronco? And they say that A10 is obsolent? Yes, Ov10 is a much more modern aircraft, lol.

 Fig.6 - Ov-10D was the most advanced of the Bronco. USAF never had this model that was from the USMC. After members of USAF and USMC  protested when the Ov-10 was withdraw from active service, the USAF several years after, is testing the aircraft for a cheap FAC/CAS. To the Afghanistan air Force the US bought the Super Tucano, made in Florida. 

But, let's go for another way. For example Netherland was a budget for 35 F35, and today have 2 in Edwards AFB. The defence minister say that F35 will replace F16. Ok, all NATO nations make Baltic Air Police Missions, and supose that in 2022 the 322 sqd of RNAF with the F35 block 3f is in that mission. If the fighter was lose in dogfight simulations with an F16, what about the Su27/33/34/35 etc, that are regular opponets in baltic skies? Hum, that should be interesting...

 Fig.7 - If F35 is no match for vintage F16 how will be with Migs and Sukois for example in dogfight maneuvers? 

And is the F35 a flying wreck? No, is a fighter in a development process. The starting point was different from the F22, and the inicial budget was much lower. In time the amount of money increased and the level of sophistication has became much higher. But some mistakes were from the design, the sarting point and the need of the Navy and Usaf to have a stealth fighter with the idea of replace F16 an F18. Today the original plan is the same. But how if the price is so high (acquisition and operational costs) and the aircraft is not so good in some missions? LM and USAF think that costs will fall down after the problems be solved. The F4 was like this in the 60s and in the end was one of the best airplanes in the wold.  It is possible, but how many millions are need? The F35 is a "fat plane", a mach 1,6 fighter and with a large exaustor exit. Correct this will keep the stealth characteristics? All are challenge to LM, USAF and other users.

Fig.8 - The F35 versus F16 was a confusion. After the explanations  of the test pilot, LM and USAF came with words that not prove anything (http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/can-the-f-35-beat-the-f-16-after-all/ ). Equipment, Paint, Software? In a dogfight? And the HOTAS was invented why? The bigger level of information in the Hud? The reason is know: when a pilot is in a dogfight the hands shoul be in the commandos and the look forward. BVR is a diferent story, and theres a huge advantage for  F35 if properly used.

But F35, beyond the problems, is a victim of a disastrous strategy from LM and USAF. One proof? Look how for example the Norwegians explain the operation and new tactics need for the F35 for example in a dogfight (http://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/). Make a comparison with what LM and USAF say and write, and the explanations about this and others situations about the fighter (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3148585/Pentagon-say-reason-expensive-fighter-jet-F35-lost-dogfight-F16-40-years-ago-did-not-special-coat-stealth-paint.html). And the "fan club" of the F35 doesn't help at all (http://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-f-16-article-garbage/). If we read the inicial article and the words of the test pilot, the true and best response came from Norway, not USA, USAF LM or some US Military. And that is the real problem (https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875#.9y992qvtc).

Fig.9 -  F35 is fighter with potential. It needs time to correct the problems, make the necessary changes and become a great fighter. With so much money spent is the only way. But is necessary prudence. Arrow and Tsr were also great and never see the day light.

After all, the A10 is in USAF for more 6 years. F16 and F15 will be upgraded and F35B is now operational. Israel is doing the same. The Navy have more EF18 and there's a Super Tucano build in the USA (were the USAF tested a cheap CAS/FAC). Maybe the pressure to have a fighter that is still under development is smaller thanks to these situations and there's time to make the necessary changes in the F35 to make him a great fighter in the best traditions of F4 or F14. And time is what F35 need righ now. It will help a lot if LM and USAF shut up (and work to resolve the problems of the plane instead of sending sand to the eyes of the taxpayers). The other NATO costumers, well, that's a subject for another article.

Fig.10 - The manufacturing line of the F35. Cancellation of the all process it would be catastrophic to LM, USAF an NATO partners. The fear of all is that Congress or US governement cancel all by pressure of the taxpayer or some political tendencies. But the hurry to make the F35 operational may be a biggest mistake if the fighter continue to collect mistakes. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II