Ingo Degenhardt Posted March 24, 2020 Share Posted March 24, 2020 (edited) Hi, I have here eduards Shahak kit in 1/48 and would like to built the above aircraft that participated in Operation Rimon20 in 1970. No. 152 (52) of 101 Squadron is the only one I am sure about that it was among the Shahaks used in this Operation. I was only able to find a single picture in a book showing only the front part oft the aircraft with '52' painted on the nose wheel front cover - plus a side-view drawing that shows the aircraft as 152 on the vertical stabilizer. Questions: Does anybody know if '152' is correct and wether the aircraft had the Atar 9B or had already been modified to the 9C? If anyone has clear information about any other aircraft from Rimon20 that would be very helpful as well. I am not 'fixed' on No. 52, but it's the only one I know about. Edited March 24, 2020 by Ingo Degenhardt spelling corrected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jure Miljevic Posted March 24, 2020 Share Posted March 24, 2020 Hello Ingo I have not found much about Mirage III CJ no. 52, but the following on 119 (Bat) Squadron Mirages might be of some use. Two aircraft from this unit, nos. 68 and 78 are usually listed as participants in this operation. In his book Israeli Mirage and Nesher aces (Osprey) Shlomo Alomi attributes one MiG-21 victory on 30th July 1970 to no. 78, flown by Avraham Salmon, who also shared another one with with Yiftach Spector. In Tayeset 119 - Ha'Atalef - the Bat squadron (AirDoc) book the same author lists one victory as credited to Asher Snir and one and a half victory to Avraham Salmon. Somewhat confusingly, mount of both pilots is given as no. 68. Obviously, this is impossible so one of the aircraft may well have been no. 78. In the same book there is a photo of Mirage III CJ no 78, inspected on 25th July 1969, after she had been hit in error and slightly damaged by AIM-9 B missile, fired by 101 Sqn. Mirage III. The aircraft is already painted in three colour post-Six days war scheme and is marked with no. 78 on the nose undercarriage doors and no. 778 tail number. Incidentally, fuselage type markings bellow cockpit read Mirage III C and not Mirage III CJ. In the photo caption it is also stated that this aircraft had already been modified with Snemca Atar 9C engine which, due to different tail silhouette, may have contributed to the friendly fire incident. Unfortunately, I was not able to find this photo on the web. Cheers Jure 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingo Degenhardt Posted March 25, 2020 Author Share Posted March 25, 2020 Hi Jure, thank you very much for your investigations. This is interesting because the eduard kit includes a marking option for '778' (Atar 9C) but with 101 Squadron in 1972 and already marked with eight kill markings (four above and four below the 'Mirage IIIC' stencil (which I think was standard, not 'CJ'). It is my impression that the IAF changed aircraft between Squadrons quite a lot. Would you be so nice to have a look at your photo again how many kill markings are on that aircraft? This might be an option because 119 Squadron markings are also included in the kit. Thnaks again, Ingo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jure Miljevic Posted March 25, 2020 Share Posted March 25, 2020 Hello Ingo 119 Sqn Mirages had been transferred to other units in October 1970, as the Bat squadron had been re-equipped with Phantoms. According to Alomi's books no 78 went to 101 Sqn, and 68 went to 117 Squadron. Unfortunately, the photo of no 78 I mentioned in my previous post shows the aircraft's starboard side so there are no victory markings visible. There is another post-Six days war photo of this aircraft, still in NM and presumably still equipped with ATAR 9B engine, which shows her port side. Its caption says she carries five victory markings, although only three roundels above Mirage III C type marking are visible, the rest being obscured by one of the ground crews. Again, browsing the web for the photo yielded no result. As no 78's first (and the only) War of attrition victories had been achieved on 30th July 1970, I would use the previously mentioned photo as a guide and put three EAF victory markings above and two below Mirage III C nose marking. Admittedly, this is a speculative assumption, as other sources credit no 78 with different number of victories. Amos Dor in his booklet The Mirage IIIC Shakak (The IAF aircraft series) claims no 78 shot down five aircraft altogether, but Alomi credits her with six victories during Six days war only. And, of course, even Alomi's own books contradicts each other on this question. Cheers Jure 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingo Degenhardt Posted March 25, 2020 Author Share Posted March 25, 2020 Thank you again for your extensive information (It seems I have the wrong books...and too few) So I might go with 778, Atar 9C and five kill markings - so far. As starting the kit is only in the near future, something might still come up. If not, I only have to decide between 152 and 778. Your answers were very helpful, Jure. Thanks for that. Ingo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBC Posted March 27, 2020 Share Posted March 27, 2020 There is really no way to know if it ever did carry a three-digit tail number unless a photo pops up, and a side profile/drawing isn't proof. It most certainly carried only the two-digit 52 when it was in natural metal and there are photos to prove that. There are also photos showing 101 squadron companion aircraft sporting three-digit tail numbers at the same time. I was told the whole two-digit, three-digit thing was to give a false impression of actual aircraft quantities, but I've never actually read that anywhere. It makes sense though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingo Degenhardt Posted March 27, 2020 Author Share Posted March 27, 2020 Right - a side profile is no proof. I have heard or read that too - the digit number differences served to confuse about the real number of existing aircraft. Looks like this system is still working - only that it is us now who are confused.😉 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now