F-111F Aardvark ***FINISHED***

[PeterB]

Makes sense Pappy - I can "hide" the Italeri ones on the inner shoulder mounting. 12 tanks to "plink" sounds much more like it! I will have to have a closer look at the available pics to see if they did carry multiples, unless somebody else knows for sure. However as I was typing this Benner agrees with Chris that they carried only one per pylon so maybe they did only have a  2000lb bombload after all! Sounds rather light but I guess they would not want to be hanging around too long picking off individual tanks. Perhaps I will go with 4 GBU-10 after all. I am still trying to remember which plane I used the two missing Hasegawa GBU-10's on - must go up in my roof and check the ones stored up there.

 

Pete

Edited February 8, 2021 by PeterB

[Benner]

here's a pic of a F-111F with GBU-12, I've seen a better version of this pic where you can make out the bomb more easily.   Also seen front view pics of F-111F with 4 GBU-12

 

On the bomb cart behind the plane is more GBU-12s to be loaded 

 

 

Edited February 9, 2021 by Benner

[The Rib Man]

Pete,

 

There are great pics of F-111F on the website of the National Museum of the USAF including on the "virtual tour" section (near the end of the cold war gallery).

 

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil

 

The pictures for the F-111F display show a plane with LGB and sidewinders on the outer pylons.  If you do the virtual tour (you should because it's awesome), there is an F-111F on display with a bunch of laser guided bombs and target designators.  There is also an F-111A in the SEA portion of the virtual tour with 6 mk 82 snakes on the outer pylons BTW.

 

The last bit of the cold war gallery section of the virtual tour seems designed for this group build!

 

RB

[Jabba]

7 hours ago, PeterB said:

Makes sense Pappy - I can "hide" the Italeri ones on the inner shoulder mounting. 12 tanks to "plink" sounds much more like it! I will have to have a closer look at the available pics to see if they did carry multiples, unless somebody else knows for sure. However as I was typing this Benner agrees with Chris that they carried only one per pylon so maybe they did only have a  2000lb bombload after all! Sounds rather light but I guess they would not want to be hanging around too long picking off individual tanks. Perhaps I will go with 4 GBU-10 after all. I am still trying to remember which plane I used the two missing Hasegawa GBU-10's on - must go up in my roof and check the ones stored up there.

 

Pete

They only carried one bomb per pylon.

[PeterB]

So, with the Buccaneer waiting for some decent weather to take pics for the Gallery, I thought I had better make a start in this.

I have painted the seats on the basis of a colour pic of the FB-111A cockpit but they may be wrong. I have since touched up the seat belts to make them a little more visible! Being my usual clumsy self I managed to break the top off the right hand control column and the carpet monster has swallowed it - it may turn up later!

Not exactly up to Tamiya standards but the fit is not too bad - nothing a little PPP can't fix. I am not sure exactly why Hasegawa have moulded the access panel in the nose seperately as there is nothing inside, at least in this version. I would have preferred it if they had moulded it in place but there we are.

 

So a bit more heavily abbreviated background.

The variable intakes were initially of a type know as Triple Plough 1 and had a prominent splitter plate, as seen on this pic of my old Revell F-111A.

There were problems with the engines and to try and solve the problem of compressor stall, a revised intake without the plate and with the “bullet” moved even further out from the fuselage was introduced on some later models and was the Triple Plough 2. The avionic fit was good for the day, but with analogue displays. The TFR system could maintain height automatically down to a minimum clearance of 200ft and with wings fully swept the plane was very fast lowdown, over Mach 1 I believe. 159 A models were built. There were 2 export versions, the C built for Australia and the K which was ordered for the RAF when the TSR-2 was cancelled, but then cancelled also. Components from the part built K models would be used in the 76 FB-111A rushed into service by SAC to replace the B-58 Hustler and some early B-52 as they were showing fatigue problems, but I will not go into that here.

 

The F-111D was meant to be a completely modernised version of the A, with TF30-P-9 engines giving 20800lb thrust with reheat, the revised Triple Plough 2 intakes, and a completely new set of avionics with a “glass cockpit”, but it was beset by problems with the electronics and was deemed a failure according to some sources, the 96 planes produced spending most of their time on the ground being debugged apparently, so a more basic upgrade resulted in the 94 E versions which actually entered service before the D. These had the revised intakes of the D but kept the same engine as the A, and the same basic avionics although they were upgraded somewhat. The final strike version and probably the best was the F, with the new intakes feeding TF30-P-100, later -109 engines generating over 25000lb thrust wet, and a strengthened wing box. It used a modified version of avionics from the FB-111A, F-111E and various other upgrades, and had a much higher performance, being described as almost capable of supercruise (Mach 1 without afterburners) and could reach Mach 1.4 “in the weeds”. In the early 1980's it began to be fitted with the Pave Tack FLIR and Laser designator pod under the bomb bay. 106 were produced.

 

Cheers

 

Pete

[Pappy]

The reason for the separate panel in front of the windscreen is because the FB-111A/F-111G had a raised fairing for the astrotracker. Hasegawa include a different panel with the astrotracker in their FB/G boxings.

 

Early seat cushions were red but on the F the seat cushions should be khaki green. If you want to be clever you can add the grey piping along the edges of the seat cushions.

RAAF seat cushions were fitted with black sheepskin covers. Seat belts were black with black stitching. The headrests are red but these would fade to a dull reddish brown.

 

Hasegawa provide a different part that includes the fairing in their FB/G boxings

 

cheers,

 

Pappy

 

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by Pappy

[PeterB]

ThanksPappy,

 

That explains it - seats are now green!

 

Pete

[Jabba]

That fwd fuselage has gone together well.

[PeterB]

Oh dear, this is where it starts to get complicated it appears. Pappy's fuselage seems to have gone together well, as indeed did the front part of mine, but the rear is another story.

When I glued in the "engine front" panel and the intakes, it was apparent that there was a bit of a gap and a dry fit confirmed that the upper and lower halves do not mate at all well, the lower part being "splayed out" up to 3mm in places. I don't know if this is a moulding problem or perhaps something to do with the way I have stored it for over 20 years as the parts are a very tight fit in the box, and I may have put them back in the wrong sequence!

 

Whatever the case, I am going to have to glue it a section at a time and use tape and clamps to line it up. I should be able to do that but I am concerned that there might be a knock-on effect on the alignment of the intakes which are a little complicated. Time will no doubt tell but I suspect a good deal of filing and filling may be involved unfortunately!

 

Cheers

 

Pete

[PeterB]

Amazing what the scientific application of brute force can do!

The fit is not too bad but I hope it stays glued together! Had the lower part not been warped it would have been quite a good fit I think. I will leave that to dry overnight then start cleaning it up, but I might add the two "fillets" that go on either side at the rear where the horizontal tail goes on. Not sure why they are seperate parts but I guess that another version has something different, as with the panel on top of the nose.

 

Cheers

 

Pete

[modelling minion]

Coming along very nicely Pete, certainly looks like an F-111 to me.

[Pappy]

52 minutes ago, PeterB said:

Amazing what the scientific application of brute force can do!

The fit is not too bad but I hope it stays glued together! Had the lower part not been warped it would have been quite a good fit I think. I will leave that to dry overnight then start cleaning it up, but I might add the two "fillets" that go on either side at the rear where the horizontal tail goes on. Not sure why they are seperate parts but I guess that another version has something different, as with the panel on top of the nose.

 

Cheers

 

Pete

You prevailed in the end!

 

The aft fillets are separate because this area is a different shape on the EF-111A. You will will have some filling and sanding to match the contours of the fairing between the engine exhausts to the aft fuselage. Nothing serious but you may have a small step

 

It is looking good

 

Pappy

[PeterB]

Thanks Pappy,

 

I have actually jumped a bit ahead of the instructions and fitted both the fillets and the fairing you mentioned and they are pretty good, as it happens. A small wipe of PPP should sort them. The only bits I am not 100% sure about are the small triangular glove parts B19 and B20 as the instruction drawing is a little ambiguous but I believe they actually glue on to the forward tip of the swivelling glove vane on what will be the underside? Still debating whether to go for slats open and flaps drooped and follow your guidance on drooping tail surfaces as well - probably will. As you say, it adds a bit of colour!

 

Cheers,

 

Pete

 

[Pappy]

G'day Pete,

 

Correct, the two small conical parts attach to the front underside of the rotating gloves. The instructions indicate that the small door that opens (D3.D2) needs to have the forward portions cut off. I didn't do this. I believe that this is only required if you intend to fit the wings swept back and the rotating glove in the streamlined position? My parts fit just fine unmodified in any case.

 

Fitting the slats and flaps retracted is undoubtedly more work, but that is how the jet looks best, wings pinned back and going flat out

 

cheers,

 

Pappy

[PeterB]

Thanks Pappy,

 

I will be doing it on the ground so wings forward I expect. As expected, the distortion of the fuselage means the the fit of the intakes is not perfect, but nothing a little filler can't fix.

I have just checked it against my old Revell F-111A and the length is virtually the same, the only difference being the slightly longer rounded ends of the tail "booms" on the old kit, plus of course the different engine "cans" so all credit to Revell given that they were modelling what was essentially a prototype.

 

Cheers

 

Pete

[Jabba]

Even though it has been a bit of a struggle you are certainly getting there. I think that I have had similar problems with the rear fuselage on the 3 that I have built, but the patience that you have shown has paid dividends.

[PeterB]

First coat of primer on to check the joints.

Considering the fun and games I had they are actually pretty good though I will do just a little more filling. At least the multi coloured camo will be less revealing than a single light colour as on the Buccaneer. I am debating whether to paint the undersides in normal black as I usually do, or if the slightly greyish Nato Black would be better. Any thoughts?

 

Cheers

Pete

[Pappy]

Right way up now!

 

G'day Pete,

 

I don't know what 'norma'l black is?

 

NATO black is good for a faded black but as it is on the underside I would tend to go for 'normal' black myself. The USAF birds were high value assets and when at their home lived in shelters. Even in the relatively exposed conditions of DS, I doubt they would have faded too much in two months, especially since the black was on the undersides.

 

To provide variety, use the NATO black for the instrument coaming, tyres and semi-gloss black for the radome, that way you will have the tonal contrast indicative of different materials

 

P

Edited February 20, 2021 by Pappy

[PeterB]

Well. I have made a start brushing on thin coats of the camo colours.

Probably take a couple more together with some correcting of the pattern. As I found when I did 3 in this scheme in the Vietnam GB, the darker of the greens does not cover very well over grey primer.

 

Pete

[Pappy]

I take my hat off to anyone who brush paints an entire model.

 

I don't use a hairy stick on anything bigger than the nail of my pinky finger!

 

Pappy

[desert falcon]

Have to agree with Pappy, that’s some very nice brush painting! 

[PeterB]

Thanks Guys,

 

Sometime it works, sometimes not. This type of camo is a problem as I cannot use the really wide, thin, flat brush I prefer, so I have to use a smaller one and it can build up ridges. The trick is to apply thin coats and work them out well. When dry I sometimes have to sand down to get rid of any build up and it can be a slow process, but I can't do much airbrushing at the moment due to the weather. My original garden shed was fine and I could heat it up, but the current one is nowhere near as solidly built and anyway my wife has taken it over as a potting shed so not an idea environment to be air brushing at this time of year. I can sometimes work indoors but again it has been difficult during lockdown as my wife and son are both under my feet rarther more than usual. 

 

If it works out as well as this pair I will be happy - same paint, same technique.

 

Cheers

 

Pete

[PeterB]

Each engine exhaust consists of 9 parts, and I have no idea what they are called, so I will say one long pipe that goes into the fuselage, one short"internal can" that goes on the end of it, 6 "spacers" which fit on the outside of it, and one external "can" that fits over the spacers.

There are two different versions of all bar the long pipe, one for the D and the above are for the F.

 

Cheers

 

Pete

Edited February 24, 2021 by PeterB

[PeterB]

There is still some tidying up to do but the fuselage painting is almost finished.

Next I will finish painting the exhausts and canopy and get them on, and re-mask and paint the nose. After that I think I will try and get the undercarriage on. I have primed the wings and horizontal tail ready for painting, but I suspect I will put the decs on the fuselage before I go any further with the wings as it will be easier to get in. Once the fuselage is complete then there is not really that much more to do, though the flaps and slats could be slightly tricky - we will see. Still not decided on payload but it will either be 4 x 500lb LGB or 4 x 2000lb LGB. I know they used the former in the later stages of the war for "tank plinking" but suspect the latter were used more often in th earlier stages when there were sufficient high value targets available to justify their use.

 

Cheers

 

Pete

Edited February 26, 2021 by PeterB

[PeterB]

Bit more done.

I have taped the cockpit canopy down so that might make it fit a little better once the glue dries, and I still have to finish touching up and maybe do a bit of weathering on the tailpipes, but it is beginning to look like an Aardvark!

 

I have been doing a bit of reading up on this conflict and discovered a few things I was unaware of (assuming of course the books are correct). It seems that in some respects the war came at a slightly awkward time for the allied air forces, who for many years had been geared up for a conflict in Europe against the heavy missile defences of the Soviet bloc. To deal with that before the advent of Stealth, it was expected that any Western aircraft would either use stand off weapons and/or go in very low and fast, assuming of course that it did not go nuclear. The move towards expensive precision guided weapons for important targets had started towards the end of the war in Vietnam but was only just beginning to become accepted on a wider basis, and so as I said in my Buccaneer build, the RAF Tornados did not at that time have anything to guide LGB for themselves, and it was a while before the TIALD pod arrived. In the meantime, when the low level attacks with JP233 and the like began to prove costly they had to draft in some Buccs to "buddy lase" for them at medium altitude as I guess most of us know.

 

However, I did not realise that the USAF had similar problems with the intended replacement for the F-111, the F-15E Strike Eagle, which at the start of the Gulf War was apparently only certified for "iron bombs". This was resolved by rushing a supply of LANTIRN pods to the Gulf, whilst the F-15E crews were trained by the crews of F-111F on how to use them it seems. If my source is correct, they did not in fact start using LGB until after the fighting had actually started, and it was perhaps to cover that delay that the F-111F from the UK (together with some F-111E as well) were drafted in, as originally it was intended to use the F-111D units from the States until it was realised that they also could not lase for LGB whereas the F models could with the Pave Tack pod fitted. Incidentally, I also read that the limit of 1 LGB per pylon even for the small GBU-12 was another hangover from the pre Gulf War period and was later changed to allow multiple bombs after the success of the F-111F in "Tank Plinking"showed how ridiculous it was to limit the load to just 2000lb per plane! One final thing I found was that when the B-1B replaced the FB-111A in SAC, it was only fitted to carry nuclear weapons and was only just being converted to a conventional role, but due to that and some engine problems the "Heavy Mud Moving" had to be done by the B-52 in the First Gulf War, though that of course changed by the time of the Second Gulf conflict. So, I suppose that if the war had started a year later, perhaps the F-111, the Buccaneer and the B-52 might have been involved - who knows?

 

So, time to start thinking sbout the undercarriage I guess.

 

Cheers

 

Pete

 

 

 

.

Edited February 26, 2021 by PeterB