[V.Narayan]

Northrop F-5E :: American Light Fighter :: Hobby Master, 1:72, Diecast
Length ~8 inches; Wingspan ~4 inches

This was a private effort by Northrop to develop a simple light fighter for America’s allies who did not necessarily need or want a heavier more complex F-4 Phantom or F-104 Starfighter or F-8 Crusader. It was meant to be simpler and cheaper to operate and maintain. Over the years it was developed in avionics and weapons to become a formidable fighter and attack machine. First flown in 1959, it entered service in 1962 and stayed in production for a creditable 28 years till 1987. Eventually it was flown by dozens of Air Forces and is still in service with ~14 including the Aggressor squadron of the USAF which is used to train pilots of frontline squadrons to combat with smaller more nimble opponents. In an era where American aircraft were becoming bigger, more powerful, more complex and less maneuverable the F-5 reversed the trend.

The MiG-21 and the F-5 were contemporaries and both were built on the simple light fighter philosophy. It is tempting to ask which was more maneuverable. Hard to say. In terms of visual detection the F-5 was the harder to spot having a smaller frontal and side profile than a MiG-21. However in terms of wing loading at clean weight the figures are 85 lbs/sq foot for the F-5E vs 77 lbs/sq foot for the MiG-21bis {lower wing loading = better maneuverability}. In terms of power loading the comparable figures are 0.64 for the F-5E vs 0.81 for the MiG-21bis both at clean weight {with two AAMs} and full reheat. In the hands of equally skilled pilots the MiG-21 I suspect will take the lead.

Length: 48’2”

Wingspan: 26’8”

Wing Area: 186 sq feet

MTOW: 11,200 kgs

Fuel: 2540 litres internal & 3 drop tanks of 1040 litres each

Engines: Two GE J85 after burning turbojets; 16kN each dry and 22kN each at reheat

Top Speed: 1740 kmph clean at 36,000’

Initial Climb: ~34,000 feet per minute at sea level in clean configuration

Range: 220 kms armed with 2400 kgs or air-to-ground munitions, 2

Sidewinders and 5 minutes of full power combat at sea level.

Weapons: 2 x 20mm cannons with 280 rpg; 7 pylons for 3200 kgs of ordnance with the two wing tip pylons only for Sidewinder AAMs. Other weapons -- AGM-65 Maverick air-to-ground precision guided missile, Paveway Laser guided bombs, various air-to-ground rockets.

[directinjection]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Northrop F-5E :: American Light Fighter ::

The plane was called Freedom Fighter if I remember correctly. Curiously, it wasn't used against the MiG 21s during Vietnam war. It is said that the Americans had a tough time flying their Phantoms against the nimble MiG 21s and that the lessons so learnt led to the creation of the agile F-16. Things might have been different had they used F-5 or may be not since the 21 was probably better in air-to-air role!

In the early 1980s, an improved version was offered to India which was quite curious since India was firmly in the Soviet camp and Pakistan was being given F-16; so we predictably declined the offer.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by directinjection

The plane was called Freedom Fighter if I remember correctly. Curiously, it wasn't used against the MiG 21s during Vietnam war. It is said that the Americans had a tough time flying their Phantoms against the nimble MiG 21s and that the lessons so learnt led to the creation of the agile F-16. Things might have been different had they used F-5 or may be not since the 21 was probably better in air-to-air role!

In the early 1980s, an improved version was offered to India which was quite curious since India was firmly in the Soviet camp and Pakistan was being given F-16; so we predictably declined the offer.

The USAF never bought the F-5 for its regular use. It instead bought a modified trainer version called T-38 Talon for advanced training. So there were none to serve in Vietnam. Also the USAF considered these small light fighters as not up to its standards of big and powerful. Those days USAF priorities were -Mach 2.0, big AAMs, radar guided munitions. guns are for kittens, attack with tactical nukes and so on. A convention slogging ground attack hard turning dog fight they thought was obsolete till they met the MiG-17 and MiG-21 over North Vietnam. One reason they didn't adopt the F-5 even then was the short radius of the earlier versions of the F-5.

The F-4 is gone. The F-5 soldiers on in several Air Forces :-)

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Northrop F-5E :: American Light Fighter :: Hobby Master, 1:72, Diecast

The MiG-21 and the F-5 were contemporaries and both were built on the simple light fighter philosophy.

Another excellent model in your collection I'm not able identify which air force the plane belongs to, is it the Saudi Air Force?

Interesting point you bring up about it being the contemporary of the Mig-21. In the Middle East the Mig-21 is seen to have a poor combat record. But if the Israeli Air Force was equipped with F-5s and its adversaries with Mig-29s (contemporary of the F-16) and Su-27s (contemporary of the F-15) I doubt it would have any better performance than the Mig-21.

Some information I just found on the F-5 in the Vietnam War:
"41 F-5s were captured by the People's Army of Vietnam when they defeated South Vietnam on 30 April 1975; of the captured equipment, the Soviets took delivery of a complete F-5E, along with various spare parts and support equipment; aircraft would arrive in Poland and Russia for study of U.S. aviation technology, while others were decommissioned and put on display at museums in Vietnam."

[V.Narayan]

Embraer E-190 :: Regional Jet airliner :: 1:200 Plastic, Maker unknown
Wingspan ~6 inches; Length ~7 inches

Embraer family of 190 and 170 wing mounted regional jets have trounced the world markets for the fast growing regional jet market. More than regional they are for thin routes of 65 to 100 pax be it short hops of 150 nautical miles or even 2500 nautical miles. Starting in the late 1960s with a small un-pressurized turboprop Embraer has grown step by step into the third biggest and most capable contender in the aviation market. They did it by not being overly ambitious and not going for grandiose political projects. From point of view of a customer and vendor, Embraer was a joy to deal with - free of both hassles and arrogance compared to Bombardier or Gulfstream. I dealt with all three both as a customer ie one who bought the aircraft and a vendor ie a supplier to the OEM and got to see the many faces of the OEM!!! I also had the pleasure of working with the E-190 for two European operators. A very fine and reliable aircraft. The 4-seat configuration was adopted to present a narrower frontal drag as compared to the 5-seat abreast of the Fokker F.100, BAe 146, McDD DC-9/MD-80 family. The decision paid off. A grand total of 76 airlines operate or have operated or have ordered this robust handsome family.

Airbus A220 (ex-Bombardier) vs E-190. I'll bet on the latter - less complex, more reliable.

Collection of regional jets from the 1950s to today. Clockwise from one o'çlock - Boeing 737-100, BAe 1-11, Caravelle, MD-87 {standing in for the DC-9 :-) } E-190

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Foxbat

Another excellent model in your collection I'm not able identify which air force the plane belongs to, is it the Saudi Air Force?

Interesting point you bring up about it being the contemporary of the Mig-21. In the Middle East the Mig-21 is seen to have a poor combat record. But if the Israeli Air Force was equipped with F-5s and its adversaries with Mig-29s (contemporary of the F-16) and Su-27s (contemporary of the F-15) I doubt it would have any better performance than the Mig-21.

Thanks Foxbat. Yes it is Saudia AF. Did not quite get your point here (bold)

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Embraer E-190 :: Regional Jet airliner :: 1:200 Plastic, Maker unknown
Wingspan ~6 inches; Length ~7 inches

Thanks Foxbat. Yes it is Saudia AF. Did not quite get your point here (bold)

Another interesting one in your collection. I flew on one of these recently for a short 45-50 minute flight from San Jose to Los Angles California. It had a small business class section with an interesting 1, 2 seating configuration. I wonder whats the advantage of operating a jet aircraft on such a small distance rather than a turboprop like an ATR-72?



I have a matching Mandarin Airlines 737-800, I think your model must be from the same manufacturer.



The point I was trying to make regarding the comparison of the F-5 and the Mig-21 is that the Mig-21 has a poor combat record in the middle east because it was against newer, more expensive and more capable aircraft. If the F-5 was under the same circumstances it would also have a poor combat record.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

I wonder whats the advantage of operating a jet aircraft on such a small distance rather than a turboprop like an ATR-72?

Adding an extra aircraft type to your fleet adds disproportionately to costs because other than some ground handling crew, the flight planning teams and head office functions there is no commonality. At the operating end ie the big end it is like creating a second airline within your company - pilots, cabin crew, engineers, spares, training & certification etc. So if an aircraft type can serve a shorter lighter route that is a lot cheaper than employing a few smaller shorter leg aircraft for those routes. Also depends of fuel costs in that region. In India the fuel costs are exceptionally high. In the Middle East or USA its very low. Lower the fuel costs less attractive will be the ATR. The same logic will apply to a ATR dominant fleet. Where for a few longer routes it may not make sense to bring in a E-190 though it usually works better scaling down than scaling up. Hope this helps.

Yes the make is the same. Have you shared your B737 earlier or will we have to live with the sneak preview?

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Adding an extra aircraft type to your fleet adds disproportionately to costs because other than some ground handling crew, the flight planning teams and head office functions there is no commonality. At the operating end ie the big end it is like creating a second airline within your company - pilots, cabin crew, engineers, spares, training & certification etc. So if an aircraft type can serve a shorter lighter route that is a lot cheaper than employing a few smaller shorter leg aircraft for those routes. Also depends of fuel costs in that region. In India the fuel costs are exceptionally high. In the Middle East or USA its very low. Lower the fuel costs less attractive will be the ATR. The same logic will apply to a ATR dominant fleet. Where for a few longer routes it may not make sense to bring in a E-190 though it usually works better scaling down than scaling up. Hope this helps.

Yes the make is the same. Have you shared your B737 earlier or will we have to live with the sneak preview?

Thanks Narayan for the detailed explanation. The Mandarin Airlines 737-800 was shared almost two years ago:

Originally Posted by Foxbat

Added two 1:200 Hogan 737s to the collection.

Mandarin Airlines 737-800
Attachment 1761176

It also came fully assembled with landing gear attached.
Attachment 1761178

The Boeing 737-800 fleet. Note to myself: no more 737s, although one is waiting to be delivered which will be the best of this collection
Attachment 1761180

Also it seems your model has been posted also before:

Originally Posted by FrozeninTime

Thank you Foxbat and Narayan Sir for such a valuable inputs you both have given me.

Mandrain Airlines ERJ 190 1:200
Attachment 1883575

Attachment 1883576

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Northrop F-5E :: American Light Fighter :: Hobby Master, 1:72, Diecast
Length ~8 inches; Wingspan ~4 inches

To quote Goose - MiG-28! No one's been this close before! .

Great looking Tigereye sir. Congratulations

Originally Posted by directinjection

The plane was called Freedom Fighter if I remember correctly.

The F-5's A & B variants were named as Freedom Fighter (Canadair built CF-5A/CF-116 too had the same name). The C variant called the "Skoshi Tiger", equipped with a refueling probe, flew with the USAF in the Vietnam War mainly in the CAS & light strike role(later transferred to the VNAF and later captured by the VPAF along with F-5A/Bs of the VNAF). THe F-5's E & F variants were called Tiger II.

Originally Posted by directinjection

In the early 1980s, an improved version was offered to India which was quite curious since India was firmly in the Soviet camp and Pakistan was being given F-16; so we predictably declined the offer.

It was offered to the Pakistanis too. In fact, to wean the PAF away from the F-16, they had even offered the far more capable evolution of the F-5 - the F-20 Tigershark. But the Pakistanis were adamant on the F-16, which they got eventually.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

The F-4 is gone. The F-5 soldiers on in several Air Forces :-)

Ironically, the F-5 earned laurels flying with the IRIAF, scoring air to air kills against Iraqi MiGs and a probable Iraqi MiG-25 kill.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Embraer E-190 :: Regional Jet airliner :: 1:200 Plastic, Maker unknown

Congratulations. I believe this is Hogan brand. That stand is a dead giveaway

Originally Posted by Foxbat

DBjets I assume is the source.

Yes, DBJets. All three were pre-booked by him on my behalf.

Originally Posted by Foxbat

3 Flankers! I'm still looking for my first one (and hoping a MKI shoots down some PAF F-16s soon ). A picture of all 3 would be great. I like your Su-35 the best.

Yes, the HM Su-35 is a class apart. Hopefully I will be adding a Su-27SK once we tide over this CoVid19 mess.












Tried my IAF Su-30 stand on the Su-27UB and it woks perfectly.
Inflight - Speedbrake deployed

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by skanchan95

To quote Goose - MiG-28! No one's been this close before! .Yes, the HM Su-35 is a class apart. Hopefully I will be adding a Su-27SK once we tide over this CoVid19 mess.
Tried my IAF Su-30 stand on the Su-27UB and it woks perfectly.
Inflight - Speedbrake deployed

Congratulations on acquiring a very well crafted beautiful model. I loved that picture with the garden in the background. What is the difference between th e-30MKI and -35.

[V.Narayan]

Airbus A300B4 :: Indian Airlines VT-EHD :: 1:400 diecast
Wingspan ~4 inches; Length ~5 inches

The aircraft that built Airbus. 871 produced over a production run spanning three and a half decades. skanchan95 has wriiten about the A300 in his excellent post #1150. I won't repeat the contents. This is the same model posted by skanchan95. Korean Airlines was the first Airline, from outside the countries participating in the Airbus Industrie project, to order the A300 . In 1975 Indian Airlines became the first all domestic airline to order it - a real forward looking action for the time. As a passenger I'd say it had great seat pitch in the Indian Airline configuration. Business class was 7 abreast (not 6).

Two design features were firsts - (i) the ability to shift fuel across tanks to maintain CoG. (ii) use of composites for the first time in a commercial jet airliner. The very concept of a wide body, big turbofan, two jet was in itself unique for that era.

I recall news magazines such as Time carrying full page adverts of A300 explaining the benefits - no pax more than one seat away from the aisle, full cargo pallets in the underfloor hold plus 266 pax on the main deck and ability to climb on one engine only (I think this was a first). The fact was the initial B2 was good only for thick & short (sub-2500 kms) routes and the future of A300 was in no way certain till as late as 1979 by when only 81 had been ordered.

In the 1980s I used to look longingly at the front business section which seemed so hallowed and so completely out of reach.

A beautiful well proportioned design. Its fuselage diameter became standard across A310, A330, A340.

At the bottom three of my fleet of 1:400s - IL-96, An-124 and the new pet A300B4

[V.Narayan]

Who am I.

• Though a standard squadron front line fighter I was once used to set the world speed record.
• Though I first entered squadron service in 1954 I remained in front line service with at least one European AF till 1993 and finally retired from military service only in 2014!
• My two seat version was developed to serve as the instrument conversion trainer for one of the two most advanced strike aircraft of its time in the 1960s. Later my two seat version was used as a lead in trainer for a V/STOL jet.
• I am the only fighter of any kind ever to be used to perform a whopping 22-ship formation flying aerobatic display.
• My aerodynamics are so stable that I am the only jet fighter in the world that was routinely used for spin recovery training.

[sagarpadaki]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Who am I.

• Though a standard squadron front line fighter I was once used to set the world speed record.
• Though I first entered squadron service in 1954 I remained in front line service with at least one European AF till 1993 and finally retired from military service only in 2014!
• My two seat version was developed to serve as the instrument conversion trainer for one of the two most advanced strike aircraft of its time in the 1960s. Later my two seat version was used as a lead in trainer for a V/STOL jet.
• I am the only fighter of any kind ever to be used to perform a whopping 22-ship formation flying aerobatic display.
• My aerodynamics are so stable that I am the only jet fighter in the world that was routinely used for spin recovery training.

The Hawker Hunter with the Black arrows.

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Congratulations on acquiring a very well crafted beautiful model. I loved that picture with the garden in the background. What is the difference between th e-30MKI and -35.

Well, the differences are many but here are a few that immediately come to mind
1.The Su-35, which is an evolution of the Su-27, is single seater while the Su-30,which is an evolution of the Su-27UB, is a twin seater with the Guy in the back being a dedicated Weapon Systems Officer(WSO) or Wizzo.
2. The Su-35 does not have a dorsal airbrake, while the Su-30 has it.
3. The Su-35 is powered by AL-41 engines while the Su-30 is powered by AL-31 engines
4. Some Su-30 variants like the MKI, MKA, MKM, SM has have canards and thrust vectoring engine nozzles
5. The Su-35 has N035 Irbis PESA radar while most Su-30s have an older radar.

Also, the IAF Su-30 model that we have is not an actual Su-30MKI Flanker-H model. The Su-30MKI has canards and lacks the antenna immediately aft of the WSO's cockpit. Our model is actually represents an early IAF Su-30MK Flanker-C( all of which were returned to Russia and some or most of which are now in service with the Angolan Air Force).

JC Wings screwed up big time by labelling the IAF SU-30 model as a Su-30MKI. They did another blunder by including a twin wheel nose gear attachment in the model. Our early Su-30K/MKs had a single wheel nose gear while the Su-30MKI has twin wheel nose gear.
Su-30K/MK nose landing gear - notice the single wheel on it.



The Su-30MKI has two wheels in the front landing gear:


I ended up correcting it by using the nose gear from my Russian Su-27UB Enjoy the pics of an accurate IAF Su-30MK with the correct single wheel nose gear

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Airbus A300B4 :: Indian Airlines VT-EHD :: 1:400 diecast
Wingspan ~4 inches; Length ~5 inches

At the bottom three of my fleet of 1:400s - IL-96, An-124 and the new pet A300B4

Lovely pics sir. The Aeroclassics IC A300 is a fantastic and highly detailed model. I believe an AI A310 in AI's new colours from Aeroclassics is due soon.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

Who am I.

Can't wait to see your pics

[V.Narayan]

Hawker Hunter T.Mk7 RAF:: Corgi, 1:72 :: Diecast
Wingspan just under 6 inches; Length just under 8 inches

The most beautiful jet fighter to be built. A close competitor was the Hawker Seahawk that preceded it. Both designed by the legendary Sir Sydney Camm, who also went on to design the Harrier. Every reader of this thread knows the Hunter. Fast, balanced & lethal for its time and yes graceful. There is so much to write about the Hunter that I wouldn't know where to start. I'll let the photos do the talking.

Fifth photo with another Hawker all time great , the Sea Fury. Sixth photo with another British aircraft of the era, the Vickers Valiant bomber. Military aircraft of an era have similar design looks driven by technology, materials and knowledge of aerodynamics of that time. :-)

This aircraft exists as a museum piece in a private collection.