Correct Weapons Loadout of Showtime 100?

Eddie,

Thanks for the kind words. Research is something I always do before starting a model. I have been familar with the story behind Showtime 100 for years. This is my third Monogram kit of that plane (first one ruined by vicious ex-wife, second one gave away) but, I never built them the way I am building this one. I still have pictures of my first Showtime 100. This is one model I have always enjoyed building and will definately build again.

Bill, (Bondo)

Your idea for showing off Showtime 100 at the various stages of it's MIG kills is a very good idea! Why dont you and a few others that also posted here get some 1/48 F-4J's and come over to my Mig Killers GB and join. No need for any diorama, You guys can do inflight builds with weapons load outs showing Kill 3, Kill 4, and Kill 5 without the centerline tank.

Whay say you?

Agreed!

It just struck me, and Yardbird hit it OTN(my head), that when we focus on a thing like a DAY in the life, esp. the way THAT one ended for the a/c; crew ejected and rescued, its better than the TV show 24, it's the real deal, and there is NO better way to tell the story than in 3D.

I'm no diorama guy, but I can imagine a scenario where three models: before during and after would be a very powerful display. On a base say 12" deep by a couple of feet wide, A to B to C.

Oh, I gave it away: I'm a Museum graphic designer. But not a diorama designer. Those people actually know what they are doing.

Gents-I'd propose that what was a fair amount of unfortunate vitriol abt the pilot (both pro and con) reflects the depth of the experience.

I model a/c mostly from the point of the technology, and I don't do much warfare because I abhor it for my own reasons. But, let's celebrate the story.

Bill

On the bench:

C-54 Goose Bay 1954 but the SAC GB seems to have been abondoned.

F-82 Twin Mustang same GB

Great thread Rand! I'll give 5 stars for doing your homework. Now, I want to see Dogfights again that deals with this story to see if the plane they depict has the right load out during this incident.

   Eddie  

chopperfan wrote:

Consider them put back.

Thanks Randie, I do appreciate it!

The 1/48 figures that I have are from Hasegawa.

Fujimi produced 2 sets in 1/72. One included a deck tractor and the other had some extra figures and a fire fighting vehicle. These are the only one's I know of, except for Verlinden.

They produce or produced a fire fighting vehicle in 1/48 with a couple of figures but, they were to pricey for my wallet. The Hase figures worked just fine.

chopperfan wrote:

Hey, Rand.  If you are going to do a carrier deck diorama, let me know. I've got a bunch a little 1/48 deck crew members in various action poses. You're welcome to 'em.

Randie,

Yes, I would be interested but right now I have no room to work on a diorama much less any where to display it. Every model I've built in the last year or so after getting back into model building gets hung from the cieling. It wouldnt be something I can work on now. It would have to wait til I have moved to Kentucky next year and have my own spare room I'll be turning into a workshop.

Why dont you hang onto them for me and put them away cause I have no idea when I can do a diorama for it and I'll let you know when I am ready if thats OK with you.

Thanks for the offer!

Hey, Rand.  If you are going to do a carrier deck diorama, let me know. I've got a bunch a little 1/48 deck crew members in various action poses. You're welcome to 'em. 

Gents,

Before I let this thread go away and with honor, I want to thank everyone that posted and helped me out on this. You guys are Da Bomb!

BIG THANKS to you all!

Bondo, I dont think I am going to go that far and make a carrier deck diorama for it, just gear down and armed for its mission. Although your suggestion IS something for me to consider later down the road.  

Thanks!

Air Master Modeler wrote:

yardbird78 wrote: One question that has not been addressed in this thread is:  "At what point in the mission are you depicting for the model?"  Configuration at launch would be with all weapons as Berny listed.  Configuration after the 3rd Mig was shot down would be with the centerline tank, empty inboard pylons and the two Sparrows.  It has been a long time since I have read the blow by blow account of the fight, but IIRC, Lt Cunningham stated that he did not punch off the empty centerline tank because he was transonic when it started and they had historically had trouble with the centerline striking the aft fuselage when jettisoned at that speed.  During the rest of the fight, he was too busy to worry about getting rid of the tank. Darwin, O.F. Yard, I am planning weapons load out at launch so, it will be fully armed minus sparrows on forward recesses. I cant see doing it any other way to show what stages they flammed MIG's. Fully armed is the only way I can see building it.

Thanks Yardbird, I was going there.

Sure, any other scenario you'd need a crew, gear up, various surfaces doing their thing, a hot exhaust section. 

You'll want a carrier deck and a bunch of RBF tags.

I'm not an inflight modeler, but it raises a bunch of possibilities given the information now available, like Pardo's Push...

yardbird78 wrote:

One question that has not been addressed in this thread is:  "At what point in the mission are you depicting for the model?"  Configuration at launch would be with all weapons as Berny listed.  Configuration after the 3rd Mig was shot down would be with the centerline tank, empty inboard pylons and the two Sparrows.  It has been a long time since I have read the blow by blow account of the fight, but IIRC, Lt Cunningham stated that he did not punch off the empty centerline tank because he was transonic when it started and they had historically had trouble with the centerline striking the aft fuselage when jettisoned at that speed.  During the rest of the fight, he was too busy to worry about getting rid of the tank. Darwin, O.F.

Yard, I am planning weapons load out at launch so, it will be fully armed minus sparrows on forward recesses. I cant see doing it any other way to show what stages they flammed MIG's. Fully armed is the only way I can see building it.

yardbird78 wrote:

One question that has not been addressed in this thread is:  "At what point in the mission are you depicting for the model?"  Configuration at launch would be with all weapons as Berny listed.  Configuration after the 3rd Mig was shot down would be with the centerline tank, empty inboard pylons and the two Sparrows.  It has been a long time since I have read the blow by blow account of the fight, but IIRC, Lt Cunningham stated that he did not punch off the empty centerline tank because he was transonic when it started and they had historically had trouble with the centerline striking the aft fuselage when jettisoned at that speed.  During the rest of the fight, he was too busy to worry about getting rid of the tank. Darwin, O.F.

The first and second kill was made with the centerline tank still onboard.  He did jettison the tank prior to the third engagement because of going vertical against the MIG-17.  With the tank installed, the aircraft is limited to certain maneuvers and G forces.  He had to get rid of the tank to maneuver against the MIG.  Most of the fight was in the vertical and zoom, pulling a lot of G forces.

yardbird78 wrote:

One question that has not been addressed in this thread is:  "At what point in the mission are you depicting for the model?"

That's a really good question. I've always thought an in-flight diorama of the plane after it got hit would make a very dramatic display. If I recall correctly, Cunningham was able to nurse the stricken plane for quite a ways before the crew had to eject.

Regards, 

Air Master Modeler wrote:

berny13 wrote:  Air Master Modeler wrote: Glad I was able to help.  William or Bill wouldn't be such a bad name for a boy, not a girl.    Just don't give him a middle name of Clinton.  Gotcha!

Ack! Now who's getting into politics!

One question that has not been addressed in this thread is:  "At what point in the mission are you depicting for the model?"  Configuration at launch would be with all weapons as Berny listed.  Configuration after the 3rd Mig was shot down would be with the centerline tank, empty inboard pylons and the two Sparrows.  It has been a long time since I have read the blow by blow account of the fight, but IIRC, Lt Cunningham stated that he did not punch off the empty centerline tank because he was transonic when it started and they had historically had trouble with the centerline striking the aft fuselage when jettisoned at that speed.  During the rest of the fight, he was too busy to worry about getting rid of the tank.

Darwin, O.F.

bondoman wrote:

Very interesting thread- I did not know anything of this story but that is the beauty of it, forums I mean. If I understand it correctly, this aircraft was lost in the 3-kill mission(?). So are you modeling a very brief window between the bombing and the crash? Very interesting... Bondoman

Yes Bondo, A SAM got the aircraft but Duke and Irish managed to keep the plane in the air just long enough to get over the water in the Gulf of Tonkin. They punched out and were rescued.

RedCorvette wrote:

Air Master Modeler wrote: Mark, Regarless of what Randy Cunningham did after he left the service is irrelevent here and it's of no concern of mine. I would prefer to remember him as a good fighter pilot and Top Gun instructor than a corrupt, greedy congressman. He took the best the attributes of the Phantom and won an air battle with honor. For that alone he deserves the honor of being a one of the best modern fighter pilots. That's all that matters to me. For everyone else, I would prefer that we do not turn this into some heated debate over what Randy Cunningham did or didnt do as a congressmen. It has no bearing on the topic and would be a waste of time better spent working on our models. Thanks you. No heated debate from me.  I was just pointing out that Cunningham's troubles are criminal, not political as you stated.  I think that is a very important distinction. To be fair, reading about Cunningham and Driscoll's exploits in Naval Aviation News helped to influence my decision to apply to AOCS when I was in college in '74. We'll just leave things at that. Mark

Fair enough.

Thank you Mark.

Air Master Modeler wrote:

Mark, Regarless of what Randy Cunningham did after he left the service is irrelevent here and it's of no concern of mine. I would prefer to remember him as a good fighter pilot and Top Gun instructor than a corrupt, greedy congressman. He took the best the attributes of the Phantom and won an air battle with honor. For that alone he deserves the honor of being a one of the best modern fighter pilots. That's all that matters to me. For everyone else, I would prefer that we do not turn this into some heated debate over what Randy Cunningham did or didnt do as a congressmen. It has no bearing on the topic and would be a waste of time better spent working on our models. Thanks you.

No heated debate from me.  I was just pointing out that Cunningham's troubles are criminal, not political as you stated.  I think that is a very important distinction.

To be fair, reading about Cunningham and Driscoll's exploits in Naval Aviation News helped to influence my decision to apply to AOCS when I was in college in '74.

We'll just leave things at that.

Mark

Very interesting thread- I did not know anything of this story but that is the beauty of it, forums I mean.

If I understand it correctly, this aircraft was lost in the 3-kill mission(?).

So are you modeling a very brief window between the bombing and the crash?

Very interesting...

Bondoman 

berny13 wrote:

Air Master Modeler wrote: Glad I was able to help.  William or Bill wouldn't be such a bad name for a boy, not a girl.    Just don't give him a middle name of Clinton.

Gotcha!

Air Master Modeler wrote:

Berny, I bow before you , The Ali Babba Of Phabulous Phantom Goodness . Again you have come through with superior Guru-ness. . I will name my first grand child after you! . LOL THANK YOU VERY MUCH Berny! This is the info I really needed. What Choppper said!

Glad I was able to help.  William or Bill wouldn't be such a bad name for a boy, not a girl.    Just don't give him a middle name of Clinton. 

Air Master Modeler wrote:

Mark, Regarless of what Randy Cunningham did after he left the service is irrelevent here and it's of no concern of mine. I would prefer to remember him as a good fighter pilot and Top Gun instructor than a corrupt, greedy congressman. He took the best the attributes of the Phantom and won an air battle with honor. For that alone he deserves the honor of being a one of the best modern fighter pilots. That's all that matters to me. For everyone else, I would prefer that we do not turn this into some heated debate over what Randy Cunningham did or didnt do as a congressmen. It has no bearing on the topic and would be a waste of time better spent working on our models. Thanks you.

I agree with you 100%.  I had the pleasure (Yes, pleasure) of talking with him at the 1976 Boise Idaho, IPMS show.  This is where I got the information on the loadout of the aircraft. 

After looking at the profiles of Showtime 100 again, I noticed profile number two has the black stripe on the AIM-7 missile forward wings.  That is not correct.  The stripe was used on the AIM-7F only, not the AIM-7E.  The AIM-7E was carried by Showtime 100.  Only one unit carried the AIM-7F in combat, the 33 TFW, 58 TFS.  We had the only aircraft modified to carry the F model (two circuit breakers and one relay). 

The missile radome was also different.  The AIM-7E was more pointed and had a buff colored (three parts flat white, one part flat radome tan) radome.  The AIM-7F had a radome that wasn't as pointed, much longer, and was a darker buff color (two parts flat white, one part flat radome tan).  Later AIM-7E remanufactured to AIM-7F standards had a flat white radome and black stripe on the wings. 

Mark,

Regarless of what Randy Cunningham did after he left the service is irrelevent here and it's of no concern of mine. I would prefer to remember him as a good fighter pilot and Top Gun instructor than a corrupt, greedy congressman. He took the best the attributes of the Phantom and won an air battle with honor. For that alone he deserves the honor of being a one of the best modern fighter pilots.

That's all that matters to me.

For everyone else, I would prefer that we do not turn this into some heated debate over what Randy Cunningham did or didnt do as a congressmen. It has no bearing on the topic and would be a waste of time better spent working on our models.

Thanks you.

Air Master Modeler wrote:

Hawkeye, Politics and Models do not mix, so lets keep politics out of it. My reason for building this kit is because on that day Duke and Irish became Aces they proved that the F-4 could out proform any MiG. They used its strengths and their training and proved that even a gunless fighter aircraft can beat a MiG when flown right. I am building it because it of what they proved not because they flew it.

Randy Cunningham's fall from grace has nothing to do with politics, just arrogance, corruption and greed.

Mark   

Berny,

I bow before you , The Ali Babba Of Phabulous Phantom Goodness . Again you have come through with superior Guru-ness. . I will name my first grand child after you! . LOL

THANK YOU VERY MUCH Berny! This is the info I really needed.

What Choppper said!