The model is the old Monogram one built pretty much OOB with the exception of rescribing, bending the prop and dropping the elevators. Decals were done on my ALPs. The figure required a pretty significant amount of rework. It took parts from a total of 3 figures to make this one and the surgery was gruesome!

The base is a piece of 1-12" pine with the center routed out (about 1/4" deep). I painted it with some textured Rustoleum black spray paint. It was filled with celluclay, and painted about 4 different "dirt colors" when dry. I drilled several hundred holes and inserted sprigs (secured with white glue) of two different colors of Woodland Scenics "Field Grass" into the holes to simulate stands of taller stuff. When complete, the rest of the ground was covered with cut up pieces of the field grass, also held in place by dilute white glue that was applied with a 1/2" wide paintbrush.

The small plaque was made on the computer and glued to a piece of styrene sheet with some 3M spray adhesive

Nice job on capturing a historical event Scott....

Only thing that really hits me is Gabby...

Looks like he needs a little more hip surgery. Seems his right hip joint is bent at a very low axis, making his torso look too long.

Did you repo that leg? Maybe a little more upper thigh could be removed to get a more realistic bend.

If Gabby were still with us he would be happy to see he is a tad taller and has lost some pudgeyness! ( I say that in jest, there is only so much one can do with figures!)

Lots of fun with an old kit! Nice prop strike too BTW..

It took me a while, then I noticed the hip joint to, at first it looked like his pants were full, then I seen the hip.

The one thing I notice is on these models is the kill emblems, I believe there should be some with just a few, other wise the war would of been over in a couple weeks instead of years, like it was, somebody needs to cut them back a little.

When you hear about the real truth, that, they were great to have 3 or 4 kills, but here this one has half his plane covered with them.

The one thing I notice is on these models is the kill emblems, I believe there should be some with just a few, other wise the war would of been over in a couple weeks instead of years, like it was, somebody needs to cut them back a little.

These are NOT kill markings. They are mission markings (for the most part) some MAY be kill markings but not necessarily for other aircraft. An aircraft type like this, had as it's primary mission, Ground-Attack. This means, that according to the data on the gun cameras, the pilot could be credited with destroying (for example) a truck or an AFV. Each mission was also given a marking as well...

Please, if you are going to criticize, start with some knowledge of the subject....Jim

Yo Jim: Down boy! :-) :-)

Scott:
The landing seems to have been soft, i.e. there appears to have been little or no damage to the aircraft barring the prop, and the strip behind the aircraft a bit too uniform - where is the damage to the field brought about by the prop and bouncing undercarriage and wings?
The field appears to be a wheat field. From experience on wheat fields these tend to be dry-ish, thus dones of dust - there doesn't appear to be much dust on the aircraft (even the canopy is clean).
I don't see the cable that normally runs between the antenna mast and the tail...

p.s. I don't in anyway pretend to know the history of this particular scene or be an aircraft expert, thus I can only compare to what I have seen in photo's of similar.

awsome diorama, different too, which is good, i think the plane's weathering is good. only thing i noticed is the 'landing' mark from the plane, i've never seen a plane crash land but i think that the weight of the plane and its speed would make a deeper mark, also depends on the angle of the plane too..but i cant tell what the angle of it was. With the propellors, would they be bent forward some from them hitting the ground while the plane is still moving?

(Then) Lt Col Gabreski had 28 air to air kills when he crashed his aircraft 20 Jul 44. He was the leading US ace in the ETO.

Actually, the trauma of the crash caused Gabby to soil his britches, accounting for their "full" look (just kidding)

You are absolutely right about the hip. Since this photo was taken, I have removed his leg and repositioned it. Gruesome, but not as gruesome as the surgery it took to make that figure!!!

There is an excellent account of this crash in his biography "A Fighter Pilot's Life"

The damage to the aircraft was minimal, externally at least. They fuselage bent, making it difficult to open the canopy. There is only one photo of the crash and it is a small one, it can be found at:

http://www.njipms.org/Features/Gabreski/panel_03.htm

How good is your Polish???

Scott,

I love the concept of the dio. Without re-hashing the figure points the only other things I focused on was the frame work of the canopee and glass. Woulden't that be painted the same color as the rest of the plane? I'm not sure.

Obviously this plane belly landed in but it dosen't give the viewer an apparent reason why. If memory serves (wich it hasen't lately) Gabby go shot up on this particular incedent. Unless it's on the other side, there is no battle damage. The ground matieriel on the wings is an excellent touch, you rellay hit the mark on that one.

The ground work could have been more torn up from the plane skiding in but that is a personal call.

Hi Jim,

Beg to differ. These are ONLY aircraft kill markings. Above each flag was stenciled the type of vanquished aircraft. See Squadron's ACES OF THE EIGHTH, pg. 20 for a nice, tight photo of Gabreski in a razorback jug. Four rows labled F.W.190, ME.109, ME.110 and ME.410. He shows three FWs, with two pending, four -109s and four -110s, and two -410s.

See also pg. 149 of AMERICA AT WAR IN COLOR, another clear, focused color publicity shot of armorers loading Gabby's guns. His 28 kill flags are clearly seen, again with the type of plane destroyed.

Bob Johnson, another 56th F.G. ace, also so notated his kill symbols.

True, many emblems were used to denote various events, e.g., missions flown, type of missions, aerial kills, ground kills (and types). But I am not aware of aircraft kill markings being used to denote tank kills, ships sunk, fighter sweeps flown, etc.

The subject of showing aircraft killed while stafing is confusing. Some units allowed it, sometimes a command did,, sometimes not; further complicating this is the period of the war; when air-to-air was frequent, ground kills were not considered; as the Luftwaffe began cowering in its revetments behind curtains of flak, and it became probably more hazardous to bust them on the ground than in the air, strafing kills began to be allowed.

Jim & Straightedge, et al,

Just checked my Osprey Elite book on the 56th FG.

Gabreski's 28th kill (Bf-109) was July 5. He bellied in on the 20th. There is a good shot of him egressing his acft after an escort mission on the 15th. All 28 kills are on the plane.

Interestingly for me, as I intend to build his bird, is the camo. The gray behind the cockpit is amaturishly sprayed in random streaks about the width of a spraygun's pattern, making a large area without all the lines connecting into a solid patch. Obviously , they did not care about the accuracy and authenticity modelers require--I certainly would not award Gabby's plane anything at the next model show. :-) :-) :-)

Just looked on the bookshelves and discovered the same book . It did actually surprise me (at that point in the war) that anyone could amass so many 'Kills' which is why I assumed (until I saw the little pic) that they were could have been a mixture... Thanks for that quite useful little correction...

Going back to the dio., personally, I think it works - one of those nice little historical pieces which we all too rarely see.Thanks for sharing it with us Scott!...Jim

Hi Scott,

Just occured to me that I never really commented on your work.

One of the first things I noticed (other than the leg/hip) was the ailerons were neutral. I suggest that unless an ACFT is displayed on the ramp with control locks engaged, that the control surfaces shopuld be repositioned, if even ever so slightly.

But then I viewed the German photo of Gabby's plane on the belly, and HEY!, the ailerons were nuetral! Excel;lent job of researching that!

As for futrther damaging the airframe, I don't think you have to. Nicking the ground with a prop will inflict fatal damage to the engine but not neccessarily catastrophic damage. Many photos of planes bellied in show little damage beyond the props bent. And the wheat can hide the scrapped and crumpled belly.

Now, as to whether the furough should be deeper, I've seen them deep with sod piled high in the cowling, and I've seen grass barely matted. But I think a furough is more interesting!

All in all a wonderful job!

Hi Guys,

Aces, their kills, their frequency--one of my favorite topics. Jim and Straightedge commented on the number of kills in reference to a period of time. Yes, this subject can be amazing! I am not around my source material and running from memory, but I am certain of the general facts even though I can't always provide specifics.

Aside from comparisons, I shall not consider the German or the Japanese Experten, rather US and RAF pilots.

In Horrido! by Toliver and Constable, the chronicle of the Luftwaffe aces, the scores of the super aces were put into perspective. They noted that W. Molders, the first pilot with 100 kills, scored fewer kills per sortie than Gabreski and Johnson. That is despite flying in France, Battle of Britain, and Russia. Gabby's 28 kills included a triple and several double kills. I think the 56th's first mission was May '43. He went down 20 July, '44, with 300 hours of fighter missions. Gabby downed more than Molders per mission flown. His kills were against experienced pilots flying arguably better fighters with all the home-drome advantages, while tied to the bombers on escort duty. It is extrapolated that had Gabby flown as many sorties as Molders, his score would have surpassed the Luftwaffe legend. BTW, bomber crews' tours were by missions, fighter tours were by hours, 200/tour; I think only actual combat missions were counted. Gabby was on a second tour or voluntary extension. Ace of Aces Eric Hartman didn't fly his first mission until early 1943. The Star of Afrika, Hans-Jochim Marseille, Ace of Aces in the West, was a slow starter. In the Battle of Britain he downed 7, but lost 6 Bf-109s himself; he flew many missions in Afrika before his next kill, before he 'got his shooting eye.'

I've compared aces' kills with their total sorties and sorties that engaged in combat. Some only got a kill every 10-20 engagements, but flew hundreds of sorties. Others killed in every fight but only made contact a couple of times.

Consider Yeager. He got his 15 kills in only 5-7 fights, yet he flew dozens of missions during two tours. The US Navy's top ace David McCampbell got about 3/4 of his kills were in several multi-kill fights. Fifth Air Force P-47 ace Neale Kirby, the same. Pappy Boyington got his 22 Black Sheep kills in about two months in the big fights around and over Bougainville and Rabual. As did for Tommy Blackburn, Bob Hanson, and Ira Kepford.

In the RAF (of which I am familiar, not well-versed) we have Douglas Badder, who slew about a score of Nazis in several months during, and after, the Battle of Britain. Stanford Tuck, about the same. And let's recall "Killer" Clive Caldwell, top P-40 ace, who greased about two dozen over Egypt in obsolescent P-40s. Then there is the unofficial Western Ace of Aces, RAF's South African Paddle. He is believed to have downed some 50 Luftwaffe and Regina Aeronautica foes over Greece in 1941.

Consider this USAAF statistic from the Pacific: 65% of the Japanese shot down were killed by 15% of the fighter pilots. Like a former fighter jock once summed it up, "There are those who shoot, and those who are shot at!"

The factors in kills scored are many. I believe I have sifted out the main three as 1. Opportunity, 2. exposure, and 3. placement.

First, the 56th was in the thick of it from the beginning, when the Luftwaffe was still numerous and active. They broke its back from summer '43 until summer '44. After that, the LW was neutralized. Sure, they could and did occasionally put up tough fights, but they'd get pounded and have to hide in the revetments to reconstitute their ranks and stockpile dwindling fuel supplies. And in the autumn and early winter of '44, Galland was hoarding his strength for his planned Big Blow. Yeager and Bud Anderson flew their final sortie together. Considering they'd been months without seeing a German, they decided to take a joyride around Europe; they got back to base to find they had missed the biggest dogfight of the Western Front!

The second factor that leads directly to opportunity was missions flown. Obviously. Yet, turns out that most of our 8th AF fighter pilots flew their entire tour without ever contacting an enemy.

Third factor, placement, was the period of the war, or the area the fighting was in. Consider the Corsair/Hellcat debate! The F6F shot down three times the number the F4U did, even though the Corsair was technically slightly better. Why? Because the Corsair was ruled unfit for carrier ops and regulated to ground-based USN and Marine squadrons. Thus, in the big fights after the Solomons campaign, mid-'43 to mid '45 the Corsair was not where the air-to-air was taking place, when about 3/4 of all Japanese planes were shot down. Where F4U's did meet the Japanese, they did as well or better than F6F units. Thus the Corsair is a perfect example of all three factors.

Joe Foss, USMC, personifies this. He arrived at Guadalcanal in October '42 and blazed his way through 25 kills in about six weeks flying obsolescent Wildcats from most primitive conditions against the best that Japan had. Boyington, Kepford, Hanson, James Sweatt and several USN Hellcat aces ran up their big scores in just a few weeks, or battles.

And then they were sent home to train others, or ended in tragedy.

In short, nothing odd about big scoreboards in short (relatively) periods. We can only speculate about Allied pilots' scores if they were kept in near continual combat (exposure, placement) like their foes, or if the foes had the ability to field the vast numbers of aircraft that we did (opportunity).

Nope the framework was still natural metal. And the area under the canopy was unpainted too, this camouflage was field applied. Gabby did not get shot up on this one. His prop struck the ground on a strafing run, ruining it and the engine> when it became apparent they thing was going to shake itself apart he crashlanded it.

The sole photo of this crash really shows no damage to the aircraft and minimal damage to the ground.

Beautiful...I was thinking the same thing! :-) :-) :-)

This sort of thing happened...even in the heat of combat. I had a Wildcat pilot tell me it happened to him. hehehehe Talk about historical accuracy!

It's a great Dio...I love it! The only critical comment I might have is ( and this based without seeing a photo of the crash site) that I would expect the soil behind the aircraft to be a bit tilled up from the underside and the prop baldes dragging across it. Other than that...what's not to like?

The only photo I know of (and the one I used as inspiration) can be found at http://www.njipms.org/Features/Gabreski/panel_03.htm