-Neu- Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 (edited) Hey Guys This is actually going to be a christmas gift for a former Starfighter Pilot friend of mine. Alf knows him, but I won't put his name up for privacy reasons... but I built a CF-18 For him last christmas. This is going to be a pretty quick build... I think it will only be three or four posts. I'm going to use the Hasegawa CF-104/F-104J kit. Its one of the best kits they ever produce, even 20 years later: cockpit has excellent details, including raised buttons and an IP with a reasonably correct set of details. The seat is a bit clunky, so I'll use the Pavla LCII ejection seat, which will be the only real piece of aftermarket used....save for the decals which are from Belcher. (edit... that's not true, I will give it a turned brass pitot tube.) His aircraft is from 441 Squadron. I've recently built another CF-104, using the same kit. It was more of a test/learning kit... so I wasn't too worried that it did not come out perfectly: The big issue is getting the centre fuselage around the intakes all lined up correctly. I was warned by some of you before, so I basically did a quick build of this 410 Squadron bird to identify any potential issues. Looking at it on my desk, its bothered me a bit that I think the fuselage is perhaps bent by like 1 or 2 degrees at that seam. Its perceptible... but only just. So... away we go. Cockpit: As I said, pretty good... just needed a bit of weathering and the seat. I don't have my macro lens set up yet, so I can't get better detail photos. IT looks a little blurry, but I think in position it does the trick. Next is marrying up the fuselage... the trickiest part. This is where I differed from the instructions. They call for the intakes to be added before you glue the front and rear halves of the fuselage together. That actually was the cause in my mind of a lot of the troubles with getting them flush. So I let them off and glued the front and rear halves together first. It actually worked pretty well.... because it also allowed me to get the halves puttied correctly, which could be easily described as well. So then I added the wings.... looks pretty good IMO. So then I primed it with Gunze's MR Surfacer finishing primer. ITs great, because its black so it can show any imperfections and serve as a pre-shading base too. So I found some more problem areas around the main seam line between the two fuselage halves that required more sanding to get it nice and smooth. I also masked off the canopy and filled in a small gap between the centre and rear piece with some white glue. Next I started painting with Gunze Mr Color. First with Grey And finally did some with the green. So there I am... I'm going to have to fix some overspray issues and give the paint demarcation a bit more of an edge. Then I'll do the bottom, and add some details. Edited December 11, 2014 by -Neu- Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ALF18 Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 Nice tribute build, Neu! You're putting in a good effort on the fuselage seam - definitely a drawback to this kit. It's hard to tell from the pics, but it looks like the seat is black? It should be a medium grey colour, like the rest of the cockpit. You are rivaling the Phantom for speed of building. Good to see you on board with this GB; it was thanks to your generosity that I have some 1/48 Starfighters to build! ALF Quote Link to post Share on other sites
-Neu- Posted December 12, 2014 Author Share Posted December 12, 2014 Poopy... well, that's not good. I'll have to pop it out later and re-paint it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
-Neu- Posted December 16, 2014 Author Share Posted December 16, 2014 Not a big update... finished painting a few days ago, gloss coated it last night and then I did a bit of Decalling. And here it is with the belcher bits decals I'm going to use. Should get most of them on tonight.... Thanks for looking! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
-Neu- Posted December 17, 2014 Author Share Posted December 17, 2014 (edited) Sooo quick question. I'm trying to determine what is the red mark on the intake below the CANADA in the aircraft's photo: Its barely visible, but there is definitely something there. I thought It might be the squadron's seal, but there is no apparent white in the photo... and 441's checkerboard would be black and white... I looked at this youtube video of 441 during this time and it doesn't have a mark. Any thoughts? Edited December 17, 2014 by -Neu- Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ALF18 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I don't know, Neu... but that aircraft was not assigned to a squadron, it belonged to AETE in Cold Lake. Here is a pic of the same one I found, in the variegated scheme, with no red mark evident. Looks like it must have been some kind of temporary marking. The interesting thing about this aircraft was it was the only CF-104 to be fitted with formation lights. You can make out where the emplacement of the light on the left forward fuselage is now a blanking plate in the picture below. When it wore the formation lights, it was in the natural metal scheme, and was painted camo afterwards of course. ALF Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Snowbird3a Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 (edited) Sooo quick question. I'm trying to determine what is the red mark on the intake below the CANADA in the aircraft's photo: Its barely visible, but there is definitely something there. I thought It might be the squadron's seal, but there is no apparent white in the photo... and 441's checkerboard would be black and white... I looked at this youtube video of 441 during this time and it doesn't have a mark. Any thoughts? It's probably a 417 sqn crest, as the aircraft isn't equipped with the RAWR gear. They weren't on 417 machines. EDIT; I have a pic in the 417 Sqn book of 104731 in Cold Lake with 417 sqn. Cheers, Tony Edited December 17, 2014 by Snowbird3a Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Snowbird3a Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 (edited) I don't know, Neu... but that aircraft was not assigned to a squadron, it belonged to AETE in Cold Lake. Here is a pic of the same one I found, in the variegated scheme, with no red mark evident. Looks like it must have been some kind of temporary marking. The interesting thing about this aircraft was it was the only CF-104 to be fitted with formation lights. You can make out where the emplacement of the light on the left forward fuselage is now a blanking plate in the picture below. When it wore the formation lights, it was in the natural metal scheme, and was painted camo afterwards of course. ALF That pic was taken outside in Comox at the museum airpark. Well after retirement. Tony Edited December 17, 2014 by Snowbird3a Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CF104 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 The red marking is definitely a 417 crest. 104731 spent it's entire life at CFB Cold Lake. It was assigned at different times to AETE and 417 squadron. Here's a photo of 731 whiles assigned to 417 just before getting the variegated camo. Note that it is equipped with the rear RWR antennas. 104731 Cheers, John Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Snowbird3a Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 page 70 of Larry Milberry's Canada's Air Force Today has a pic of 104731 and it is captioned 'a 417 Starfighter' photographed at North Bay Sept. '81. It has a 417 crest for sure on it's intake(a low viz example). Cheers, Tony Quote Link to post Share on other sites
-Neu- Posted December 18, 2014 Author Share Posted December 18, 2014 (edited) Thanks guys. I think I've been given the wrong photo by my friend. I thought it was his from 441. Now its clear that it is not. I have another photo of his, with him in it and the 441 scheme. however its slightly off the nose, so its tough to make out the number conclusively, but it seems to be 883. Anybody have any thoughts? Was 883 in the squadron? Did plots get assigned long term to an aircraft, or did they use whatever was serviceable? Edited December 18, 2014 by -Neu- Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Snowbird3a Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 Thanks guys. Was 883 in the squadron? Did plots get assigned long term to an aircraft, or did they use whatever was serviceable? Baden squadrons got their A/C from the 1 AMS so they would serve a length of time, be rotated in for maintenance and be possibly assigned to another squadron (439, 421) after that. Pilots were not assigned particular airframes, Canada didn't have the luxury of ramps full of aircraft for that. 883 is quite a good possibility as the number, it served right up until retirement. Cheers, Tony Quote Link to post Share on other sites
-Neu- Posted December 18, 2014 Author Share Posted December 18, 2014 Baden squadrons got their A/C from the 1 AMS so they would serve a length of time, be rotated in for maintenance and be possibly assigned to another squadron (439, 421) after that. Pilots were not assigned particular airframes, Canada didn't have the luxury of ramps full of aircraft for that. 883 is quite a good possibility as the number, it served right up until retirement. Cheers, Tony Thanks Tony! Couple more questions... would 441 104s have a squadron mark on them? Also, I want to put BL755 cluster bombs on the model... was that at all regularly carried? Were there practice rounds? What sort of stripes were on them? OR would it be at all likely that they trained with a live round somewhere in Europe? Thanks again... this is frankly awesome. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Snowbird3a Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 Thanks Tony! Couple more questions... would 441 104s have a squadron mark on them? Thanks again... this is frankly awesome. Very doubtful that there was any squadron marking on the 104s at that time. As to the armament questions, well that's not my area of expertise, sorry. Cheers, Tony Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Snowbird3a Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 If this helps, this is a pic of the various stores a '104 did carry: Cheers, Tony Quote Link to post Share on other sites
-Neu- Posted December 18, 2014 Author Share Posted December 18, 2014 Awesome Tony this is fantastic. Thank you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Snowbird3a Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 (edited) a couple bits of inspiration; Cheers, Tony Edited December 18, 2014 by Snowbird3a Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ALF18 Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 For armament, Neu, the most likely was the practice bomb dispenser on the centreline. They sometimes carried 4 cluster bombs (BL-755 or Mk 20), but rarely in flight. They often loaded these for exercises, as a force-generation exercise and proof they could do it within a certain time frame. A load with two underwing tanks and a centreline practice bomb dispenser was not uncommon either, or just empty wing pylons sometimes. The ones in Europe rarely dropped live weapons, but lots of practice weapons. Many European ranges did not allow live weapons. I remember my father telling me the first time he shot the "new" (at the time) CRV-7 rockets from the pods. They released them at the standard 3,000 to 4,000 feet slant range, and the motors were still burning when they hit. They made a huge impact at the range, and they got kicked off the range for having fired live warheads. They had to explain that they were dummy (depleted uranium) warheads, and eventually shot them from further out (about 6,000 feet slant range) so that the rockets were burnt out. ALF Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ALF18 Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 For armament, Neu, the most likely was the practice bomb dispenser on the centreline. They sometimes carried 4 cluster bombs (BL-755 or Mk 20), but rarely in flight. They often loaded these for exercises, as a force-generation exercise and proof they could do it within a certain time frame. A load with two underwing tanks and a centreline practice bomb dispenser was not uncommon either, or just empty wing pylons sometimes. The ones in Europe rarely dropped live weapons, but lots of practice weapons. Many European ranges did not allow live weapons. I remember my father telling me the first time he shot the "new" (at the time) CRV-7 rockets from the pods. They released them at the standard 3,000 to 4,000 feet slant range, and the motors were still burning when they hit. They made a huge impact at the range, and they got kicked off the range for having fired live warheads. They had to explain that they were dummy (depleted uranium) warheads, and eventually shot them from further out (about 6,000 feet slant range) so that the rockets were burnt out. ALF Quote Link to post Share on other sites
-Neu- Posted December 22, 2014 Author Share Posted December 22, 2014 (edited) Thanks Alf. I still don't know what I will do with the stores... which is a problem since I want to finish this tomorrow so I can send it express post. I've got the final gloss coat down, next its oil wash, then a final coat, with details added. Here are probably the final few photos before I finish it up... Thanks for looking... Edited December 22, 2014 by -Neu- Quote Link to post Share on other sites
-Neu- Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 A quick update. So I'm nearly done. I built some BL755s... They aren't totally accurate: I had to improvise some white decals from different sets to get the stripes on the bottom. Then I hit the entire thing with some Alclad Flat: After which I attached the Bombs. I''ll need to put the formation lights on and colour the tail detectors... and then I'll be done. Hopefully I will have a sunny day before I send it of to its actual pilot. Thanks for looking. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
-Neu- Posted January 20, 2015 Author Share Posted January 20, 2015 Well I'm done. I'm terrible with photos... I need to find a setup that works. Focus is kinda off on some of the photos too. Anyways. One of the big things is that I couldn't break the canopy to get the seat out to repaint it. So its not accurate, but its not too noticeable. Anyways... thank you all for helping me with this. I really really appreciate it. I'm going to send this on wed to its new owner. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ALF18 Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Looking nice, Neu. You're right about the seat - it doesn't show much at all with the canopy closed. Having the canopy closed is best also, for prevention of damage while shipping, and long-term as well. I like the variation in tones of the camouflage. The recipient will undoubtedly be happy! ALF Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.