Jump to content

Need Color Help for CF-5A


Recommended Posts

Getting ready to start building the recent Kinetic 1/48 CF-5A kit and plan on using the provided decals for the 434 Sq Red "65". Kinetic list the camo colors as FS 35237, 36307, & 36251 and these match with the Belcher Bits 1/48 decal instructions and the list in Anthony Stachiw's book "Canadair CF-5 Freedom Fighter". The problem is the color photo of Red 05 in the book (and others on the www) and this photo for Red 63 right before 434 Sq stood down show the 35237 color as being much bluer which I like better. Any help in clearing the discrepancies would be appreciated as I just don't see how the blue color can be FS 35237.

Thanks

Jim Barr

 

Northrop_(Canadair)_CF-116A_(CL-219),_Ca

Link to post
Share on other sites

The colours you listed are correct. Could be light changes, printing changes on the photo. Also, note, in THIS photo, the port wing tank has standard Green and Dark grey from the basic everyday non aggressor scheme. But of course there is nothing to say you can not add just a little more blue to your model.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I am sure the listed colors are what the Official documents call for, was just wondering if maybe someone one got a little loose with the "translation". As mentioned the colors for Red 05 from the 419th Sq in Stachiw's book has the same blue cast for 35237.

Regards

Jim Barr

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony, yes I am aware that "5" indicates it is in the blue range, but if you look at other FS chips in the "5" Blue section, yes  it has just a slight hint of blue but there is more gray there than blue. Looking at all the pictures of CF-5s that I have come across that are in the "Ghost" scheme the the color that is in the 35237 places is way more blue, now that the shade of blue is al over the place but still not close to the 35237 chip. I have found in some of those same photos colors that do come very close to the other Ghost colors of 36251, 36307, just not 35237.

 

Regards

Jim Barr

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim,

 

I would think that when the ghost scheme was applied it was the darker colour. More than likely the lighter colours you see are because the paint faded. I believe soon after the ghost scheme was applied the CF-5 fleet was retired and Stored.

 

Cheers

Emil

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just saw 116763 on the news as it sits at the National Museum in Ottawa. Its REALLY faded now. Clean, but faded.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2022 at 7:47 PM, Jim Barr said:

The problem is the color photo of Red 05 in the book (and others on the www) and this photo for Red 63 right before 434 Sq stood down show the 35237 color as being much bluer which I like better. Any help in clearing the discrepancies would be appreciated as I just don't see how the blue color can be FS 35237.

 

 

I was with 419 in the early 1990's and some of the aircraft still retained these earlier schemes. Yes they were VERY faded. Depending at what stage in the aircraft's life you want to depict, you may want to tone down the colours. Here is my photo of 705 from the early '90s with 419 and a few years earlier still in 434 Bluenose markings. Film type, time of day lighting of course will play into colours. Don't worry about non-matching external stores like pylons, tanks and noses, they were changed regularly and ABSOLUTELY no preference was given as to the colours worn by the aircraft when installed by the technicians.

 

img034.jpg

img033.jpg

 

If you have any CF-5 questions I can try and give you some guidance.

Edited by Craig Baldwin
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Craig, thanks so much for posting the photos, which does show the effect I have been struggling with of the blue tone of the 35237 color. Great comment about the non-matching nose, pylons, and stores which answered another question I had.

 

Another question; in both photos the aircraft seem to be "chocked" with heavy rope, or is that just the "pull rope wrapped around and hiding the chocks

 

Best Regards

Jim Barr

Edited by Jim Barr
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Jim Barr said:

Another question; in both photos the aircraft seem to be "chocked" with heavy rope, or is that just the "pull rope wrapped around and hiding the chocks.

 

In both photos heavy rope was indeed used. We would use this type on up to CF-18 size aircraft. Late 1980's thru the end of the Canadian Forces use of the aircraft. Not to say at other bases they may have had wood chocks.

 

As I said I will try and answer what you may wonder about. One small technical issue always annoys me with the Kinetic A model. The nose landing gear should angle forward a few degrees. Find a good side view and you will see how much to correct it. The 2 seater nose gear was more straight up and down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well, since you are in a question answering mood; in Stachinw's book there are illustrations on the different stores that shows the center-line drop tank and the under wing drop tanks as both being 125 Imp gallons and except for no top rear fin on the CL tank, being the same size and shape. In the Kinetic kit there is a noticeable difference in size and shape between the CL tank and the two under wing tanks. So was there in fact two different tanks in use, your photo with the 434 markings seem to be the same tanks (minus the top fin on the CL tank). Yes I know that Kinetic does give you two different styles of CL tanks but I am not talking about the "round" nose one.

 

On your point about the nose gear, Kinetic does give you two different nose gear struts, one being longer, that I think is meant to let you angle the strut forward; although the number called out for the CF-5 is the shorter one. Not having gotten that far into the build, really don't know if the second strut will cure the problem.

 

Thanks

Jim Barr

Edited by Jim Barr
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim, 

 

I'm  not an expert but I think the tanks all had the same volume. As for the nose gear, nobody will notice the short gear is fine.

 

Cheers

Emil

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jim Barr said:

Well, since you are in a question answering mood....

 

On your point about the nose gear, Kinetic does give you two different nose gear struts, one being longer, that I think is meant to let you angle the strut forward; although the number called out for the CF-5 is the shorter one.

 

The CL and wing tanks (Station 85's) were identical except for the vertical fin on the Station 85's. Not having owned the Kinetic, I cannot speak to any accuracy. The fins did sometimes crack so it would not be unusual to see a tank with non-matching paint.

 

The nose oleo could be extended on the A model on take-off roll to allow for increased angle of attack.  My course books are long gone and I can't recall exactly how the system functioned but I never saw the nose oleo extended otherwise and never remembered a problem with it.

 

The A and D model nose gear were two entirely different components with the A model oleo scissors at the rear and the D in front of the oleo.

👍

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well I did a closer look at the two nose gear struts and I was wrong, they are not different length, just slightly different configurations so they will not help the forward lean problem.

 

Regards

Jim Barr

Edited by Jim Barr
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/13/2022 at 7:16 PM, phantom said:

The colours you listed are correct. Could be light changes, printing changes on the photo. Also, note, in THIS photo, the port wing tank has standard Green and Dark grey from the basic everyday non aggressor scheme. But of course there is nothing to say you can not add just a little more blue to your model.

 


Nose radome is also the early green scheme. Happened often when the nose radome was swapped back and forth with the recce nose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...