The Dwindling Number Of Private Pilots

This article, written by Prof. E.M. Beck and published in www.avweb.com's vol. 21 number 49A issue on December 1, 2014, fully explains the decline in the number of private pilots in the USA but equally applies to many other countries. As a baby boomer, I too have been affected by the factors mentioned in the article. Obviously I am envious of Prof. Beck who still logs a hundred hours a year in his own Cardinal helping out in conservation. Prof Beck writes.... GA's Difficult Climb Back I am a 68 year-old Baby Boomer who got his private certificate in 1975 with the University of Michigan Flyers at the Ann Arbor, Michigan Airport. At that time, the Flyers had five Cessna 150s, a Skyhawk, a Piper Arrow, and a Citabria. Within a few months, a twin was added to the fleet—which continued to grow. There were some 200 University students, and some faculty, involved and most of the Club instructors were students at the U. There was an excitement about aviation. Every fall, club members taxied one of the Cessna 150s, with a police escort, into the center of Ann Arbor in the middle of the night and displayed it on the "Diag" for a few days to advertise the flying club. Students joined by the dozens. Today the Flyers has five planes and a hundred members. The club is doing well, partially due to its relationship with the U of M aero engineering program. Elsewhere the situation is not so encouraging. Population Shrinkage The shrinkage in the private pilot population is real and has been dramatic: There were 357,479 people with private pilot certificates in 1980, the greatest number ever; yet by 2012 that had collapsed by almost half (47.4 percent) to the lowest its been since 1964. The decline was essentially linear over the 1980-2012 years. Between 1960 and 1979 there was an average growth of 11,481 private certificates per year. Between 1980 and 2012, there was a steady average loss of 4,457 per year.  Another way to view the situation is to consider the number of private certificates relative to the prime age group of potential pilots, 18-64 year olds. In 1970 that rate was 267.6 private pilot certificates per 100,000 persons 18-64 years old. By 2012, the rate had deteriorated to a mere 97.3 per 100,000—that's a whopping 63.4% decline in the age-adjusted rate of private pilot certificates over four decades. In fact, today's rate is significantly lower than it was in 1960. Recently I read where some politician was preaching the feel-good line that if only the government would get off the back of aviation, private aviation would flourish. He speculated that the decline in the numbers of pilots was due to governmental over-regulation and bureaucracy. While that position may be the "politically correct" spin in some circles, it is naive and oblivious to the more salient issues that private aviation faces. Such simple-think ignores the importance of history, economics, demography, and cultural change, and how they are interacting to decimate private aviation as we knew it. Mortality Among World War II Era Pilots. The downturn in private pilot certificates that started in 1980 was likely initiated when many of the World War II and early Post-World War II era pilots began entering their late 50s and early 60s. That generation of pilots grew up during the Great Depression suffering the stresses of hard times and then a world war, and had lower life expectancy as well as lower survival rates (the percent surviving at a given age) than the more recently born. Rise of the Boomers and the Allure of Aviation. The explosion of babies born between 1946 and 1964 had transformative effects on the U.S. Between 1960 and 1980 the percent of the population between 15 and 34 years old grew from 26.1% to over 35%, but has been declining since and is now down to only 27.4 percent, the lowest it has been in 40 years. The abundance of these young Boomers formed much of the foundation for the expansion of private aviation in the 1970s and early 1980s, as did the World War II generation in the 1950s. The Boomers are now our aging pilots and ex-pilots and there is no comparable cohort of young persons to fill their shoes. The decline in the U.S. birthrate has meant that the population is aging and that there are relatively fewer young persons in the demographic pipeline. But it is not simply about numbers alone. Like almost all my boyhood friends, I was fascinated with airplanes and the fantasy of buzzing around the sky mimicking John Wayne in The High and The Mighty, or leading a flight of B-17s to Berlin as in 12 0'Clock High. We were mesmerized by the 1957 production of the Spirit of St. Louis and inspired by the courage of Charles Lindbergh facing the Atlantic alone. The weekly episodes of Sky King ripping up the western skies in "Songbird" portended the adventures a pilot could expect. Homer Hickham's West Virginian Rocket Boys weren't the only Boomers who turned their dreams to rocketry, astronauts, and space travel. Even commercial aviation was a glamorous voyage romanticized by Hollywood and the airlines. That was then. Although I don't have the data at hand to prove the point, I'll bet that the sales of model airplane kits, aviation magazines, the frequency of and attendance at air shows, membership in aviation organizations, or other low-cost indicators of aviation interest have either fallen in absolute numbers over the past four decades, or not kept up with the growth of the population. In short, I argue that younger Americans, by and large, don't see aviation through the same rose-colored goggles the Boomers did when they were younger. Relatedly, I suspect that the relative lack of Post-Boomer enthusiasm for aviation is matched by their lack of interest in automobiles and car culture—something that was a core interest to many Boomers. Simply put, the interests of today's younger Americans don't parallel those of the Boomers when they were younger. Times have changed and there's no reason to expect the culture that was unique to mid-to-late Twentieth Century will return in the Twenty-first Century. Economics I: Affordability. Virtually every time someone asks about the cost of getting a license and owning or renting a plane, after I finish explaining the realistic costs the typical reaction is the incredulous eye-roll and simultaneous jaw drop. To say that aviation is a hard sell would be a monumental understatement, even to those who might have some latent interest. It is quite reasonable to argue that the most recent 160 h.p. Cessna 172R, at $274,900, is a vastly superior plane to a 1967 Skyhawk which retailed for $12,750. However, that misses the essential question of affordability; in other words, the price of an airplane relative to prevailing incomes. Between 1967 and 1980, the price of a new Cessna Skyhawk averaged 162% of median white household income. In 2012 that $274,900 Skyhawk was 512% of median white household income. While airplane prices have soared, median white household income has grown since 1967 by only 20% in inflation-adjusted dollars—the big growth in income has been experienced only by the most affluent 5% whose real income has almost doubled since '67. If we use the average income for all households rather than just white households, the affordability comparisons are even more striking. It doesn't appear this has been lost on general aviation manufacturers: there's more profit in selling a few very expensive airplanes, made with a significantly smaller workforce, to the very richest and status-conscious persons and corporations than trying to sell many planes to a population with relatively stagnant income. Furthermore, the recent unprecedented and breath-taking hike in the costs of Cessna factory replacement parts would seem to signal an unwillingness to maintain legacy aircraft, or at least supply parts only to the most desperate and well-heeled aircraft owners. Certainly FAA requirements since 1950 for improved seat belts and shoulder straps, transponders, altitude encoders, ELTs, Part 23 Certification standards, myriad ADs on engines, airframes, and accessories, requirements for flight reviews, etc., and most recently the ADS-B mandate, have all driven up the cost of private aviation. Those requirements have been largely incremental over a long period of time and would seem to be insufficient by themselves to explain the steep increase in aircraft prices since the 1980s. In addition to the FAA other favorite whipping-boys of aviation pundits include engine, avionics, and airframe manufacturers, liability lawyers, the courts, petroleum and insurance companies, and FBOs and repair shops. Clearly all have had a role in the escalating costs of private aviation. It has been suggested that simplifying Part 23 Certification standards could promote innovation and yield significantly lower costs without reducing safety. Possibly, but it is not known what those changes would be, how airframe, engine, and accessory manufacturers will react, and in any regard, any rule changes are a long way off. Further, even if such changes reduce costs to the manufacturer, where's the guarantee that those will be passed along to the end user and not remain in-house as additional profit. Economics II: Competing Expenditures. Obviously acquiring a pilot's license and buying or renting an airplane has to compete against all other possible uses of disposable income. Consider just two of the many changes that have impacted that allocation of income: first, many Boomers (perhaps most) worked for employers who offered guaranteed benefit pensions and bore much of the cost of health insurance. That is rarely the case these days. Many (perhaps most) non-Boomers work for companies that don't offer that traditional pension and comprehensive health care coverage, so they are having to squirrel away money for retirement in 401k's as well as making more significant contributions to health insurance. Second, the escalating cost of higher education for one's children can't be ignored since most state colleges and universities have been forced to shift their revenue stream from state government support to tuition paid by parents. When one is worried about medical costs, retirement, the kids' education, and other high priority concerns, thoughts of private aviation have all the substance of a wispy pipe dream. Bottom Line The halcyon days of general aviation in the 1970's were the result of historically unique factors coming together: a relatively strong economy with a large share of well-paying jobs and a swell in the percentage of the population of young adults—many of whom came of age in an era when aviation, including military, commercial and private aviation, was adventurous, exciting, romantic, and very cool. Those days are past, and they are not coming back despite political speeches and wishful thinking otherwise. Demographics and economics rule. Given the very low U.S. birthrate, which is at or below replacement rate, the population will continue to age unless there is a dramatic increase in immigration (most immigrants are younger), and given the widespread hostility toward immigration, it's hard to see that happening. On the economic side, to increase the affordability of airplanes two things would have to happen simultaneously: (1) airframe, engine, avionics, and accessory manufacturers would have to make large price cuts in their products and services, and (2) prevailing wage levels for a large proportion of working Americans would have to increase to levels significantly higher in real, inflation-adjusted dollars than those of the 1970s in order to compensate for today's greater share of disposable income going for retirement, health care, and education. And lastly, on the cultural side, there would need to be a transformation causing young persons to change their attitude toward aviation and become as "hooked" as did many of the Baby Boomer generation. It is very difficult to envision, at least to me, those kinds of fundamental changes in demography, economics, and culture taking place, and so what can be said about the future? As the aging Boomer pilot population becomes less able or interested in flying, either because of health or dwindling economic resources in retirement, the number of private pilots will continue to decline, possibly even more steeply over the next ten years. The big "die-off" of the Boomers will begin around 2025, and continue for more than a decade but most will stop flying long before then. One of the less obvious negative impacts of fewer older pilots will be on public interest flying such as animal rescue flights, angel flights, and conservation flights. The current over-supply of used airplanes will expand further, and this trend will be exacerbated when private pilots realize the full costs of implementing the new ADS-B requirement. This will further depress the price of older airplanes although that possibly will make some of them more affordable; however, the continued high cost of operation and ownership may offset any reduction in the cost of acquisition. The EAA and AOPA are adamant about the FAA either dropping or radically modifying the Third Class Medical requirement in a desperate attempt to cling onto their aging Boomer pilot membership. If this happens some pilots will continue to be active, at least in the short term, but the LSA market will be a casualty since one of its selling points was that a pilot could fly without a medical certificate. If the medical requirement disappears, what will be the comparative advantage of LSA's? It is certainly not their price or utility. Over the longer term, changes in the Third Class Medical will have no significant impact because its cost is negligible—roughly the cost of 15 gallons of av fuel every two years for us older pilots. General and commercial aviation are heavily subsidized by the Federal Government and the airline lobby has argued that GA has not paid its fair share of the costs given the proportion of ATC services GA uses. For the past several years there has been a shortfall in the Aviation and Airways Trust Fund—which is supposed to pay for all FAA activities and is funded by aviation fuel taxes—and Congress has had to appropriate $2-$3 billion to cover the gap between fuel tax revenues and expenditures. Given that there is much public sentiment for a smaller, less expensive Federal government, and pressures from the airline industry for GA to pay more of the FAA bill, user fees will become a reality within ten years, or even possibly a more expensive privatized non-governmental system like Canada has had since 1996. In sum, private aviation has a future but it's not the return-to-the-1970s and 1980s future that many pilots pine for. There will continue to be a trickle of aviation enthusiasts but outside the relative few who can afford to own and operate a $700,000 single-engine twin-turbo gas guzzler, the rest of private aviation will likely look more like Europe does today with small numbers of persons owing their own older aircraft, others co-owing planes in flying clubs, and a smaller segment of hobbyists that build their own bird. Personally, I feel fortunate to have been part of mid-Twentieth century boom in private aviation. Had I been born more recently, it is unlikely that I would have had that opportunity. E.M. "Woody" Beck is a semi-retired professor at the Uniiversity of Georgia with 1900 flight hours who currently flies about 100 hours per year in his 1978 Cessna Cardinal. Much of it is public benefit flying with Pilots 'n Paws animal rescue and SouthWings, a conservation organization.

Building The Spitfire Mk24 Plastic Model (Plasmo)

This is my second plasmo build after the Italieri F-86F Sabre build posted elsewhere on this blog. It is also on a 1/32 scale making it my third 1/32 collection including the Me262. The manufacturer is Revell Germany and although Germans are known for precision, I found this kit very difficult to build as many parts did not fit properly. My earlier Italieri F-86F build was a breeze by comparison.

The model depicts the Mk24 version of the Spit which was built after the war and served with the RAF's No. 80 Squadron based in Kai Tak, Hong Kong. It was the first version that had a 24-volt electrical system. The powerplant was a 12-cylinder Rolls Royce Griffon 61 producing 2,050hp and capable of reaching 726km/h. The aircraft was armed with 4 Hispano 20mm cannons and could carry bombs and rockets under the wings.

As always, it is difficult to find the exact colours of the full scale aircraft for the model, so I searched in the local hobby stores for the nearest colours and blended them where required based on the instructions in the booklet.

The box is not what I would prefer as it opens at one end, so I moved all the contents to an Italieri box which has a top cover instead.

.

The instructions are in black and white and in a loose booklet.

The parts are on 5 sprews enclosed in separate clear plastic bags with a smaller bag that contains the clear parts.

I started by building and painting the Rolls Royce Griffon 61 engine.

The pilot and his seat came next.

I then installed the seatback bulkhead, instrument panel and flight controls into the port fuselage half after painting them all. I did not use the supplied decal for the instrument panel as it would look toyish, InsteadI painted the panel blak and touched the raised parts with aluminium. There was some difficulty inserting the seat into the cockpit. Some seat back parts came loose after I forced the seat onto the cockpit floor and I had to reassemble and repaint them before reinsertion. Even then, the seat is now slightly skewed to one side.

The starboard fuselage half was then glued onto the port half. Thinking that I would need a sense antenna linking the top of the vertical stabiliser to the back of the cockpit, I inserted a black thread before gluing the two halves.

The joined two fuselage halves had misalignments and gaps along most of the joint line. I had to insert putty, file them down and sand the joined surfaces.

Next, the two lower wing halves were glued onto the mid-fuselage bottom. Here again I had to fill the gaps but this time I did not use putty. I had by then learned from the net that a mixture of talcum powder and Future floor finish would do the job better and at much lower cost. I had bought Future earlier to make the F-86F's canopy crystal clear, to protect the paintwork when adding on an oil wash for weathering, to gloss a matt paint and to seal the paintwork when finished. There was only one store in the whole city that sold Future and the product is sold as Pledge in this market. I picked up the last bottle still sitting on the shelves. It was expensive but it's a big bottle that will last years. It will come useful later.

The Future-talcum compound is adaptable to both small and big gaps. The more talcum is added the harder the compound becomes, which is ideal for filling the large gaps. As the compound takes a longer time to dry, it is easy to wipe off any excess with a cloth. Cleaning up is also a breeze as the compound dissolves in any window cleaning liquid e.g Windex.

The fuselage was then mounted on to the bottom wing halves followed by mounting the engine on to the firewall. The exhaust pipes protrude through the slots in the arms that cradle the engine and are anchored to the firewall at the rear and the engine's front plate in front. 

The Hispano 20mm cannons and ammunition were installed in the top wing halves, which were in turn glued onto the lower wing halves.The curved wing roots were then inserted between the edges of the top wing halves and the fuselage sides. Gaps were aplenty and much Future-talcum compound had to be added.

I then did some painting of the small parts such as the canopy and frames, undercarriage legs, undercarriage doors, underwing scoops, cannon barrels and the cockpit door.

Deciding to discard the starboard engine cowlings, I started to mount the port ones but this operation was the worst that I came across. The combined width of the upper and lower port cowlings was insufficient to cover the area required. A lot of Future-talcum compound had to be applied to fill the wide gap at the bottom end. At the same time the recess of the upper cowling was too narrow to accommodate the exhaust pipes. Much cutting of the upper cowling was done until the two cowling parts could be glued together.

After painting the whole aircraft's underside, the three air scoops were added on to them. The underwing air scoops were too wide to fit the recesses meant for them. I had to file away the sides until they fitted and then repaint the scoops.

The top surfaces were then painted with the camouflage scheme of No. 80 Squadron.

Decals were applied before the cannon barrels, undercarriage legs and doors and pitot tube were mounted onto the wings. The canopy had a visible scratch, so I wrongly assumed that a 2000 grit sandpaper would remove it. It was a big mistake as the canopy became a useless piece of frosty plastic. Again turning to the net, I learned that one had to continue sanding the plastic with progressively finer grit sandpapers as each finer grit smoothens away the scratches made by the previous coarser grit sandpaper. I ordered four pieces each of the 4000 grit and 6000 grit Micro Mesh sanding cloths from Rockler of USA and started to use them with water.  They worked and the result was a fairly clear canopy. Again the net taught me that Brasso is yet a finer abrasive, so I polished the canopy with it and the plastic became much clearer. Finally, dipping the whole canopy into a bowl of Future resulted in a shining clear canopy as if it just came from the factory.

One excellent feature of the model is that the clear rear canopy is mounted onto a frame and the assembly can be detached or placed at any desired position along the grooves below both sides of the cockpit sill.

The Three Whom I Admire And Respect

There are great statesmen, great thinkers, great scientists and so on. Add to them the following....Reginald Mitchell, Kelly Johnson and Burt Rutan.

Building The F-86-F Sabre Plastic Model (Plasmo)

The F-86 Sabre jet fighter was built by North American Aviation in the late forties. In the Korean War (1950 - 1953) it was claimed to have shot down Mig15s with a kill ratio of 1.8 to1.  My interest in the aircraft started when in the late fifties the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) based two squadrons of the Australian-built version of the type at the air base next to my school in Butterworth . I saw the aircraft flying in, out of and around the school daily. On its base leg, the distance from a Sabre to me sitting in my classroom is so close that it fills up almost half the window. I could see the pilot turning his head in the half open cockpit. The interior of the sun-heated bubble cockpit was so hot that he slid back his canopy to let in some cool air. On one of the arranged school visits to the base, I was shown the cockpit controls and instruments. The memory lives on.

Fifty years later, I saw an Italieri plasmo kit in a hobby shop and decided that I must build one. The 1/32 scale was perfect as I already had a similar-scaled ready-built Messerschmitt Me262 Swallow in my "hangar". The two aircraft would make good size comparison. Below is a brief history of the construction process.

The last time I had built a plasmo was probably more than ten years ago. It was a 1/48 scale Airfix Panavia Tornado GR1 but I broke it when moving house. Brushes, paints and other equipment had long been disposed off, so I had to start buying afresh.

I opted for the F-86F-30 version depicting the aircraft known as "The Huff" flown by Lt. James Thompson of 39th Squadron operating in Suwon, Korea in 1953. A large dragon was painted on the right fuselage of his aircraft after he had shot down a MiG-15 which had a dragon painted on it.

THE BOX

THE INSTRUCTION BOOKLET

THE JET INTAKE TUNNEL

The right and left halves of the jetpipe were glued together, joint lines filled with putty and sanded smooth to hide the line.

UNDERWING FITTINGS AFTER PAINTING

FUSELAGE & ENGINE ATTACHMENTS

EJECTION SEAT & NOSE WEIGHT INSTALLED

Forty grams of nose weight are recommended

THE INSTRUMENT PANEL, JOYSTICK & RUDDER PEDALS ADDED

Note the weathering done on the seat and floor.

JETPIPE, WHEELS, MACHINE GUNS, ENGINE PARTS & SIDE CONSOLES PAINTED

The right and left halves of the jet exhaust pipe and compressor housing were glued together, the gaps filled with putty, sanded down to hide the line and painted. I had snipped off the axle for the nosewheel which I mistakenly thought was an injection channel, so now I had to glue the lower part of the nosewheel leg directly onto the side of the nosewheel with the hope that the assembly will later be able to take the aircraft's forward weight.

 THREE STARBOARD SIDE O.50" BROWNING M2 MACHINE GUNS

The pins behind the machine guns did not match the holes in the side panel. I had to truncate the rear part of the machine gun butts to align them.

PORT SIDE PANEL WITH THROTTLE LEVER

BOTH SIDE PANELS INSTALLED & INTAKE PIPE PAINTED

THE J47-GE-27 TURBOJET

FRONT VIEW OF THE ENGINE

CLOSE UP OF THE COMPRESSORS & COMBUSTION CHAMBERS

TOP & BOTTOM HALVES OF WINGS CEMENTED

I forgot to install the navigation lights in the wingtips, so I had to prise apart the two halves later on, inserted the nav lights and re-cement them.

RIGHT & LEFT REAR FUSELAGE HALVES CEMENTED

The inside surfaces were painted prior to joining. The joint line was filled with putty and sanded down to hide the line.

RIGHT & LEFT FORWARD FUSELAGE SHELLS CEMENTED

The joint line was filled with putty and sanded down to hide it. 

NOSE RING, SIDEWINDERS & TAILPLANES PAINTED

THE WING ASSEMBLY PRIOR TO PAINTING

The top and bottom wing halves were not properly aligned by me when cementing them together, causing obvious unevenness in the edges. I had to fill in the gaps and open ends with putty and then sand them down into smooth edges that leave no evidence of the joined halves. I left the flaps out at this stage to avoid them being detached accidentally when continuing to work on the wings.

NOSE INTAKE

After installing the nose ring, there were wide gaps in the joint and the inner wall of the nose was wider than the ring at the front. I used a lot of putty to smoothen the inside wall of the nose. Applying putty and then sanding down the wall was a difficult task due the restricted room available

.  FLAPS & DROP TANKS

The flaps and underwing drop tanks came in upper and lower halves. These were cemented, the gaps filled with putty and then sanded down to hide the joint lines.

THE SCRIBER

Because the sanding of the various surfaces had also removed the factory-engraved panel lines, I had to put the lines back by rescribing. There are many manufacturers of this tool. I bought mine from RB Productions in Ireland. 

PANEL LINES RESCRIBED

RIVET TOOL

Sanding down the model's surface also removes the rivets that hold aircraft skin panels in place. To put back these rivets onto the model, a rivet tool is used. It is just a wheel with sharp teeth on the edge that mark holes as the wheel is dragged in a line.

RIVET HOLES CREATED BY A RIVET TOOL

A poor job was done by me in restoring the rivet holes across the nose.

SIDEWINDERS & DROP TANKS WITH DECALS ON

SETTER & SOFTER

I have never tried the above products before, so it was a discovery indeed. The setter is applied on the surface where the decal will go. This is supposed to eliminate bubbles under the decal and also make the surface "suck" onto the botom of the decal. The softer is applied on top of the decal and softens it so that it will cling to the model's surface especially where there are indentations, protrusions, bends and corners. the result is that the decal will appear as if it was painted on rather than stuck on. When the softer is first applied, the decal will wrinkle considerably but after ten minutes or so it will shrink tight and blend with the surface.

To make the model appear more realistic, I decided to paint the aluminium panels in two different colours as seen below.

PAINTING THE CANOPY FRAME

THE MONTEX MASK INSTRUCTION SHEET

To paint the canopy frame in aluminium, I purchased a set of masks made specially for this model from A2Zee Models in UK. The self-adhesive masks are stuck onto the inner and outer surfaces of the canopy blocking the clear areas of the canopy from being painted on.

PAINTING THE INSIDE OF THE LEFT SPEED BRAKE COMPARTMENT

AND THE RIGHT

THE CANOPY & TURTLEDECK TOP PAINTED

REAR FUSELAGE DOLLY

The model comes with an option of separating the rear section for maintenance purposes. This requires that the section be mounted on a dolly. The dolly's parts are rather pliable, so I assembled them into two halves to achieve rigidity before painting and joining them together.

THE REAR SECTION WITH DECALS AFFIXED SITTING ON ITS DOLLY

The tailplanes' tabs were too thick for insertion into the slots on the fuselage. Having broken both in the process, I had to glue the tailplanes' inner edges flush with the fuselage sides, which then resulted in the dihedral angles being less than symmetrical. 

REAR VIEW OF EMPENNAGE

ANOTHER VIEW OF THE REAR SECTION

THE FRONT BULKHEAD OF THE REAR SECTION

OVERLAPPING DECALS

The wings were painted in different aluminium colours for realism. The yellow bands on the wings are decals that are too long. I failed to trim them to fit the wing chord as a result of which the ends overlap. Painting the black ends yellow did not work as the paint was of a darker yellow.

PATCHED YELLOW BAND

Patching the overlapping black area with parts of a decal meant for an alternative livery was the next best solution.

SIMILAR OVERLAP ON RIGHT WING

OVERLAP COVERED WITH PORTION OF SPARE DECAL 

"THE HUFF" DECAL APPLIED TO LEFT FUSELAGE

One thing I learned from this project is that it is better to cut long decals into short parts and apply them separately. The long ones tend to roll up into a mess or just tear off at the narrowest part when wet.

 DECALS APPLIED ON THE RIGHT FUSELAGE

UNDERWING DECALS & ATTACHMENTS

The underwing decals were applied before joining the wings to the fuselage. After that the flaps were installed and painted. Decals on the flaps were affixed and then the undercarriage were installed followed by the Sidewinders and drop tanks.

THE FUSELAGE YELLOW BAND

The yellow band circling the mid-fuselage actually straddles both the front and rear sections. The band decal however came in only one piece, unlike the speed brake decals which came in two parts for each side. I had to cut the decal into three sections - one for the front fuselage and two for the rear fuselage. It was not precisely done by me ending with the rear fuselage portions being not symmetrical. The cockpit canopy is now in place.

THE REAR ENDS OF THE FUSELAGE YELLOW BAND APPLIED

REAR VIEW OF THE FORWARD SECTION

CLOSEUP OF THE GUN COMPARTMENT WITH ITS COVER ON THE GROUND

CLOSEUP OF THE RIGHT MAIN UNDERCARRIAGE

CLOSEUP OF THE NOSE UNDERCARRIAGE

THE DRAGON, SIDEWINDER & DROP TANK ON THE LEFT SIDE

VIEW OF THE AIRCRAFT & ENGINE IN THE HANGAR

- END -