Grey, temporary white wrap around RAF, Norwegian deployment.
I've been trying to think of minor shape revisions to Anglicise it. This one may get built from the 1/72 RevGerm kit. :thumbsup:
Daryl J.
The VTOL Hawker P.1126 pretty much resembled the Draken, except it had two cruise engines & twelve lift engines.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FHawkerP1126.jpg&hash=f6af2bb3ea20f7adf7b40a9ee3bd95ce7de18b20)
Hopefully this will help with some inspiration, can't wait to see it!
Don't forget, the new Hasegawa 48th version comes out in a month or so...
I have been thinking of a post J versin (Drake 2000? K?) with conformal tanks á la F-16E, wingtip Sidewinders and perhaps a new engine or Gripen nose
hey arc and everybody. here is a draken i just whipped up:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd8%2Fytownpenguin%2Fdraken2000concept.jpg&hash=01911e18be12a66dd7eefce9f3a809ed8c15e9cb)
basically, what i did is take the nose from an F-15 and the canopy/cockpit from an F-15D and trimmed to fit. the tailfin is a modified F-16 fin.
Love this super Drakken very much :wub:
Like the Super Draken as well but that coockpit makes the aircraft look a lot smaller
ok. here is another proposal: what if they re-engine and use GE F404s. they ditch the wing root intakes and use standard side intakes (in red), and therefore modify the wing (also in red). the nozzle is from an F/A-18. what do you think? possible?(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd8%2Fytownpenguin%2Fdraken3.jpg&hash=46f110774c267a4e5874b013ccf65ab2adac10fc)
QuoteThe VTOL Hawker P.1126 pretty much resembled the Draken, except it had two cruise engines & twelve lift engines.
Having discussed about the similar Mirage IIIV...... I'd figure that the number of liftjets would probably have been reduced for maintainability.
Which one do you think is more likely for a navalized Draken? CATOBAR or STOVL?
CATOBAR. the draken already has a tailhook (at least that's what i think that bulge at the back bottom is), and they would not have to do much with the landing gear.
The bulge under the tail is actually a small twin tailwheel for takeoff & landing if the aircraft over-rotated.
oh, THAT's what it is. it looked like a tailhook housing.
Canards a la Rafale, NMF/Arctic Red/White and one has the Alaskan Rural Security Patrol.
Ogival wing tips at the double delta for a RAF Draken
Modified ground attack with the nose changed along the order of the MiG-23 ---> MiG-27 as a F-104 alternative.
Daryl J.
Well, the Draken was designed to be 50% more advanced than any other fighter aircraft in the world when it came out, and it still looks more advanced than a lot of later birds! I think the only way to really up date the plane is to fit new avionics + glass cockpit, and a new engine - it is an interceptor, so why not an Olympus 593 (over 37,000 lbs thrust with reheat!) But would it fit??
1. Rolls Royce's Rb.106 isn't cancelled, so it goes into the Draken (it was interchangeable with an Avon).
2. Intakes changed for F-105-style variable ones.
3. With all this extra power, the front end can be "Sea-Harrierised", i.e raise the cockpit floor, add a bubble canopy and a bigger radome.
4. Rather than fit a bigger fin to compensate for the side area of 3., fit twin fin units in-between the inner and outer wing panels. The fins would extend beneath the wing as far as possible and the rudders would have highly-swept trailing edges and hinge lines, the idea being to retain directional stability/control at high AoA.
5. Sell them to somebody who'll actually use them.......
wasn't it the only time when the drug dealers in Firebirds had a couple the Draken saw action ?
Quote from: ytown2010 on December 10, 2007, 09:29:35 PM
hey arc and everybody. here is a draken i just whipped up:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi225.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd8%2Fytownpenguin%2Fdraken2000concept.jpg&hash=01911e18be12a66dd7eefce9f3a809ed8c15e9cb)
basically, what i did is take the nose from an F-15 and the canopy/cockpit from an F-15D and trimmed to fit. the tailfin is a modified F-16 fin.
High quality job indeed :wub: :thumbsup: :wub:
Quote from: r16 on April 28, 2008, 12:39:09 AM
wasn't it the only time when the drug dealers in Firebirds had a couple the Draken saw action ?
Uh-huh: can't remember the title of the film, but it was drug-dealer's Draken again the good guys' Apaches: I was rooting for the Draken.....
That Draken, by the way, is (or was) owned by a guy called Mr. Merzian, who runs a couple of interesting businesses. One does flight test drop work for aerospace companies (dropping dummy ordinance off old Skyhawks and filming it, basically), and his other one restores wooden structures. These two came together beautifully when he got a call from the Swedish airforce museum, asking for help in restoring their Mosquito. Funnily enough, he'd been looking around for a supersonic test ship, so by the end of the day, they'd cut a deal..... (why don't deals like that drop into my lap :unsure:)
Getting the Draken certified in the States was a serious nightmare, but he managed it and it ended up earning it's keep as a test-ship and as an occasional movie star, and in-between times being his personal transport... (where's a green smiley when you need one?)
(All based on a article I read quite a few years ago, so don't shoot me if things have changed since, okay?)
Speaking of Drakens, check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hax3rhqGJcQ
Regards,
Greg
Here's another outfit in the states using Drakens for flight testing:
http://www.flightresearch.com/Aircraft/Draken.htm
Here's a good article about Drakens, which has a plan view of the never-built JA-35 advanced version, with bigger outer wings and small canards:
http://www.vectorsite.net/avj35.html
Lastly, the maneuver in that video is called a "superstall": something to do with the aircraft "settling" between the stall points of the inner and outer wings. There's a damned good article about this somewhere on the web, written IIRC, by an instructor at the US test pilot's school, but I can't find it to save my life..... :banghead:
Drakkens rocks! I likethe upgrade variant at Goebels website :wub:
Hmmm... a Canadian variant instead of CF-104.
J-79, small canards, dogtooth, a cockpit similar to the Draken 2000 show above, fly-by-wire system salvaged from the CF-105 Arrow...
It would really make an interesting alt-history...
QuoteIt would really make an interesting alt-history...
Maybe there is already one in draft :rolleyes:...
Profiles anyone??? PM me please.
Regards,
Greg
Quote from: Weaver on April 28, 2008, 08:39:04 PM
Here's a good article about Drakens, which has a plan view of the never-built JA-35 advanced version, with bigger outer wings and small canards:
http://www.vectorsite.net/avj35.html
PMSL - just realised that's GTX aka Mr. Goebel's own website ;D ;D :banghead:
knew I'd seen the name before....
Ahem - nice website Greg: been looking at it for years...... I'm new here: does it show?
...
Posting here for 27 months and 5000+ posts and I just understand that
GTX = Goebel = Air vectors
:drink: :drink:
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
QuoteAhem - nice website Greg: been looking at it for years......
can't agree more
Same as Archie, in everything :banghead: :thumbsup:
:huh: :huh: :huh:
Regards,
Greg
Hang on with the :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:, I now suspect I've read something the wrong way and got the wrong end of the stick here...
Ok, lets ask the question clearly.
GTX, are you the same person as Craig Goebel, author of Air Vectors (which is, btw, a fascinating website) ?
If the answer is "no" forget all the above...
The answer is no!
;D :lol:
Regards,
Greg
Okay, I will be changing my name to "Gaff" just as soon as I can figure out how to work this brain thingy.....
Sorry Greg
Sorry ysi_maniac
Sorry Archibald
Sorry Everyone
What a mess !!!! Don't apologize, I had fun with that... :thumbsup:
you had fun - I'm still chuffed! ;D :lol:
Regards,
Greg
Chuffed - file 404 on this word - What does it mean ?
Very happy/pleased. :)
To forgive all the above (where are the Men In Black when you need them ? :rolleyes:)
Here's the story of Maple Leaf Drakens
The year was 1958. While Canada struggled to finance the outstanding but very expensive Arrow, Sweden quietly developed the single-engine, more modest Draken.
Early Drakens J35A were a bit underpowered as RM6A lacked thrust. The RM6C was late...
Then came the black Friday, 20th February 1959. The day the Arrow was cancelled and replaced by BOMARC missiles.
The RCAF still had a need for a strike fighter. Many aircrafts were considered, among them the CF-104 was the main contender. Canadair already planned to build them in Montréal.
But that was not to be the case.
After the Arrow cancellation a reduced Avro team under leadership of Jim C. Floyd had toured Europe and the USA to try selling the Arrow program, prototypes or at least some advanced technology to a foreign customer. Rolls Royce had declined any interest in the Iroquois, but France and Sweden had.
At the time SAAB was a bit worry about Draken flying characteristics due to its double-delta wing. What was worrying was also the lack of power of the RM-6A turbojets, limiting J-35A to mach 1.8.
Floyd proposed to build a RM6A / Iroquois hybrid. The PS.13 was much bigger and would never fit within Draken rear body. But both engines were more or less RR Avon derivatives, using advanced technologies.
In the end a deal was struck between Orenda and Svenska Flygmotor on one hand, Avro Canada and SAAB
The aim was to turn the Swedish machine into a high-tech strike fighter, by salvaging as much technology as possible from the Arrow program.
Result was the Super Draken. The PS-6C was really a cross between the RM-6B and a scaled-down PS.13 Iroquois. By using high-tech from the Iroquois and Swedish knowledge in afterburners, the resulting engine was rather similar to the earlier, cancelled RR RB-106.
At 16 000 Ibs its dry thrust was superior to the afterburning RM-6B while afterburning thrust rose to 22 000Ibs. This was possible thanks to massive amounts of titanium in the engine.
Another great achievement of the program was the FBW system borrowed from the Arrow.
The system also controlled the small canards which had been added to improve performances at take off.
Store pylons were also added to carry A2G weapons, as the machine was now optimised for low-level strike. It was then found that having a single seat machine was not desirable for strike not long-range interception. As a consequence the Super Draken was based on the Sk35C two seats variant. As the canopy was too limited it was replaced by a TF-104 unit which looked better. A Cyrano II multirole radar was in the nose.
Arrow RL-204 barely avoided scrapping and was send to Sweden were it received Flygvapnet roundels. In exchange a J35A was send to Canada and received Maple Leaf roundels.
The result was the best strike fighter in the world. It was produced in large numbers for Sweden, Canada Switzerland and Denmark.
These are taken from the Japanese anime "Konpeki no Kantai".
Afterlife Germany modified the design for CATOBAR use on their aircraft carriers. Unfortunately, in order to establish Japan as the only competent nationality in the anime, German pilots ended up being portrayed as too stupid to shoot straight or use missiles, allowing Japanese to easily slaughter them with modified Hawker Hunters. :banghead:
The issue of IAPJ that had the in-dpth coverage on the Draken included a whole page on studied but never built vesions, complete with lots of drawings. Can some one scan those in and post them here? There were a number of interesting ones. Me, I'm tempted to start with the J79-powered one, replace the J79 with a F404/F414/RM12 and add Fieri inlets, ala' F-105, and see what other improvements I can make (a blown, frameless windscreen sounds like a good start). Now that I've got full data on the basic Draken's stores capacity, thanks to that sales brochure I picked up off eBay, I can look at "interesting" loadouts.
Air Vector states that J-35, as a delta-winged aircraft, has a long takeoff run.
Would it have mattered for any possible navalized version if the aircraft was to be launched off a catapult?
Quote from: dy031101 on August 22, 2008, 11:47:02 PM
Air Vector states that J-35, as a delta-winged aircraft, has a long takeoff run.
Would it have mattered for any possible navalized version if the aircraft was to be launched off a catapult?
Probably wouldn't have mattered. They flew the F7U and F4D off carriers and both of them are tailless designs.
Ed
Quote from: Ed S on August 23, 2008, 07:22:58 AM
Probably wouldn't have mattered. They flew the F7U and F4D off carriers and both of them are tailless designs.
I take it that both have a long takeoff run, too?
Come to think about it, any navalized J-35 could also have been modified with an extensible nose undercarriage leg like the one on F-4K......
So to imagine a navalized version, can I get away with just giving the land-based Draken folding outer delta, extensible nose gear leg, one centerline pylon instead of two to represent weight-saving necessiated by airframe strengthening, and arrestor hook instead of the tailwheels? Or should I really incorporate some of the features posted by other thread participants?
Well, the Draken, as designed, has both a centerline and two other fuselage hardpoints, each rated for 500 kg carriage. The outboard wing segments can also handle one 500kg stores carriage or three 100kg stores (gotta love the official brochure for checking these things). For a carrier version, I'd suggeset twin nosewheels with the extendable nose wheel leg, and the catapult link on the gear rather than using a catapult bridle for each launch.
Oh how I love the Draken. One thing I worry about with a navalised version is the length of the main undercarriage legs - how much clearance is there once a store (or more likely, fuel tanks) is carried?
RP1
Any interesting (and not to serious) discussion about "Super Draken", it is in Swedish but has nice pics
http://forum.soldf.com/index.php?showtopic=36581
Picture from above
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi48.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ff224%2Farc3371%2FSdraken.jpg&hash=19de6bef04af62efafdd1c610c1ca709b0a1273c)
Quote from: elmayerle on August 24, 2008, 12:04:57 AM
Well, the Draken, as designed, has both a centerline and two other fuselage hardpoints, each rated for 500 kg carriage. The outboard wing segments can also handle one 500kg stores carriage or three 100kg stores (gotta love the official brochure for checking these things). For a carrier version, I'd suggeset twin nosewheels with the extendable nose wheel leg, and the catapult link on the gear rather than using a catapult bridle for each launch.
Danish ones and later Swedish ones had a pylon under each intake as well.
Quote from: Weaver on August 26, 2008, 04:29:01 AM
Quote from: elmayerle on August 24, 2008, 12:04:57 AM
Well, the Draken, as designed, has both a centerline and two other fuselage hardpoints, each rated for 500 kg carriage.
Danish ones and later Swedish ones had a pylon under each intake as well.
I'm thinking one based on either David or Filip, the versions with two side-by-side centreline hardpoints and an uprated engine. I'm under the impression that reverting to the single centreline hardpoint scheme of Adam through Ceasar could save the weight of that extra pylon and its plumbing......
If the machine came along in parallel with their real life land-based counterparts, birdle would probably have been more likely than the then-new tow bar scheme.
If the official brochure is anything to go by, David and Filip also had provissions for the centerline store. I don't think there's space to carry on all three at once but the structure, plumbing, and wiring are there.
Quote from: Arc3371 on August 24, 2008, 05:48:20 PM
Any interesting (and not to serious) discussion about "Super Draken", it is in Swedish but has nice pics
http://forum.soldf.com/index.php?showtopic=36581
Picture from above
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi48.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ff224%2Farc3371%2FSdraken.jpg&hash=19de6bef04af62efafdd1c610c1ca709b0a1273c)
Oh, this was posted when I was on holidays. Love it!
Playing around and inspired by the recent posting of the Swedish Carrier with Naval Draken, I wondered how to make a Draken Carrier suitable and came up with this (Note practicality played no part in this):
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2FDrakenN.jpg&hash=fd7d1a089da0b06b05dde3ebe260c8f9a3fa7ce4)
Regards,
Greg
^ Awesome - practical or not! :thumbsup:
Along with other nations (the USA and USSR being the most prominent), Sweden investigated the benefits of FSW wings in the '80s using a modified Draken:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2FDrakenFSW.jpg&hash=47f93591308f52af4b4c22f20c6a22faf131f2aa)
Regards,
Greg
Dangit Greg them 1/48 Drakens cost like 50 bucks now I gotta buy 2 more :banghead:
I'm not sure if I love or hate that swinger! :wub: >:( :unsure: :unsure: :unsure:
I've wondered what a so-called Super Draken would look like, built in the spirit of the Mitsubishi F-2A/F-16A.
Daryl J.
Quote from: sotoolslinger on November 02, 2008, 02:14:23 AM
Dangit Greg them 1/48 Drakens cost like 50 bucks now I gotta buy 2 more :banghead:
My thoughts exactly! :thumbsup: good thing I build 1/72. :lol:
Quote from: sotoolslinger on November 02, 2008, 02:14:23 AM
Dangit Greg them 1/48 Drakens cost like 50 bucks now I gotta buy 2 more :banghead:
How many more?
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2Fdrakenwtm.jpg&hash=58861038444df060ce75a5686e32a1e71da41a4d)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2Fdraken05.jpg&hash=eb7692b32952b36065cb891b0a8587495151e7fe)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stickergiant.com%2FMerchant2%2Fimgs%2F450%2Facd890_450.jpeg&hash=18a559d94f2b1405d634bf5a9589e197beca763f)
Regards,
Greg
You will need at least 2 for this Super Draken:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2Fsupedraken.jpg&hash=75d3c758cc301613e6eda0189b1362676037b368)
With conventional alongside for comparison:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2Fh016.jpg&hash=d7ed629d53fd17015c479063996a14806ff0880b)
regards,
Greg
Quote from: GTX on November 01, 2008, 09:33:18 PM
Playing around and inspired by the recent posting of the Swedish Carrier with Naval Draken, I wondered how to make a Draken Carrier suitable and came up with this (Note practicality played no part in this):
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2FDrakenN.jpg&hash=fd7d1a089da0b06b05dde3ebe260c8f9a3fa7ce4)
Regards,
Greg
Funny you should do that - I've been looking thoughtfully at a spare 1/72nd Draken and various 1/144th or 1/100th swingers....
Thought I'd be in! How to make an unusual aircraft look quite ordinary:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FSaabDrakenConventionalWings.jpg&hash=b2338a2555b228a71e42b7cc5f3dbb8a7847508a)
:wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
^^^^ Absolutely gorgeous!
I have been thinking in this kind of modification but with more modern wings and tail plane: those of Mirage F1 :thumbsup:
I went with F-105 style wings because it was largely contemporary to the Draken & the intakes extended into the wing in a similar way. I kind of intended it at as a natural follow on from the Lansen.
Hmm, I tried looking at putting a Mirage F1 wing on the Draken but ran into trouble. The problem is that the intakes are pretty much integral to the fuselage on the F1, but are bolted onto the fuselage on the Draken. If you wanted to put a more modern high-wing on the Draken, maybe the Jaguar & it's intakes would be easier, especially from a modelling point of view?
Quote from: GTX on November 03, 2008, 01:57:14 AM
How many more? <...>
:banghead: Those wing-tip launchers look great! Combined with the Super Draken concept from page 1 of this thread..... :wub:
Just so you know I have been thinking about this for too long, I had to start it
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi253.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh50%2Fsotoolslinger%2FStingray%2FUntitled-1copy-3.jpg&hash=c3c474ec0743b20da8e3bba1c0ffdf74eba49c83)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi253.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh50%2Fsotoolslinger%2FStingray%2FIMG_2340.jpg&hash=50b64df5ad3e75c801d8a7dec26d8f794c2dfec8)
I will probably leave of the canards ;D
^ Insanely cool! :wacko: :thumbsup:
Thank you sir please check Current and Finished Projects for official thread ;D
So, now that you boys have had your fun with Westernized Super Draken concepts... I've got one to sound off around your skulls, and here it goes.
I'm soon to be getting my hands on a Hase Draken, through a contact of mine. I sat and thought to myself, how would I whif a Draken - Drakens already are pretty damn cool, to me, but I want to ramp it out. I came to a thought, a slightly piratical/socialist/capitalist thought:
Finland, in the 90's, sees the Soviets collapsing in the economy. Knowing they need to improve their fighter fleet, they decide to start investing in their old trading partner again, and help revive the economy, while getting things on the cheap. Dealing with Mikoyan Gurevich, they procure modernizations for their MiG-21 fleet, but they go through Sukhoi for an additional modernization, the J35-95, nicknamed Super Draken. Mounting a Saturn-Alyukin AL-31 Engine in the engine mounting, they improve not only thrust and speed, but range, with the improved fuel efficiency of a Turbofan over the original Turbojet engine. Installing IRST and a new radar package, and glass cockpit, they improve the fighter's operational capacity.
Questions and thoughts I am posing with this concept:
AL-31 Engine fit - possible? Would it fit? How much putty-fu would I need to commit to make it believable?
Nosejob - Fulcrum nose or Su-47 nose are the forerunners, housing the new radar package. IRST is inclusive.
Wings - Rebuilding the outer wing is a thought I've entertained, but not sure where I'll go with that right now. Thoughts?
Canards - I have Su-34 and Su-47 canards on hand, can apply bash-fu to mount them, I could also carve my own. I recall reading that the concept Saab entertained for their canard mountings was In Front of the intakes, but outside the intakes is equally a thought.
Other Thoughts to add to this are welcome.
Not sure of the exact dimensions, though I believe the AL-31 is quite a bit bigger than an Avon.
Regards,
Greg
It would be cool to see the Super Draken with a mig-29 nose.
(It would be cool too if it were possible to mix more of the mig-29 with the Draken as I would be interested in any of the results, especially with the double-delta wing.)
the AL-31 was the first thought off the top of my head - second would be an RD-33, at which point this would be a MiG/Valmet Co-development. I'm entertaining thoughts currently.
Anything is possible with enough putty
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi253.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh50%2Fsotoolslinger%2FStingray%2FIMG_2684.jpg&hash=b4b4aa5f7d4e6316bdbcdd2a5485568208d9c448)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi253.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh50%2Fsotoolslinger%2FStingray%2FIMG_2683.jpg&hash=33087ba2cd506f6ebc690f8527ef6c96bddda184)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi253.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh50%2Fsotoolslinger%2FStingray%2FIMG_2681.jpg&hash=72a2186dbb33a76dc388eb057d7e2f215b158355)
Yes, this is true, anything is workable with enough putty-fu. It's just a matter of how it'll look really, and what I'll have to do to it to make the AL-31 fit in place, really.
Hi folks,
I was considering the Draken the other day (as is my want to do at times...) and wondered if it would make the good basis for a Stealthy/ow Observable platform. Mayby remove the vertical tail (we can use computers to satisfy that need), slightly cut back/modify the intakes, gold tint the canopy, somehow give it an internal weapons bay, do something about the rear nozzle and apply a liberal dash of suitble re-scribing of panel lines...
Regards,
Greg
Quote from: GTX on January 15, 2010, 10:47:01 AM
I was considering the Draken the other day (as is my want to do at times...) and wondered if it would make the good basis for a Stealthy/ow Observable platform. Mayby remove the vertical tail (we can use computers to satisfy that need), slightly cut back/modify the intakes, gold tint the canopy, somehow give it an internal weapons bay, do something about the rear nozzle and apply a liberal dash of suitble re-scribing of panel lines...
Consider two smaller, canted fins with the intake trunks modified to be made from composites with RAM as one, or more, of the layers and a "flow straightener/radar absorber" after the inlets come together (much like what Boeing was proposing in front of the engine front face on the X/F-32) as a starting point. Blend where the other wings and the inner wings come together to avoid a high-reflectance corner and go with an updated turbofan engine (F404 or F414 would be my first choice) with a LOAN nozzle (you might want to also incorporate AVEN features for improved manueverability). You'd probably need to redo the wing tips to reduce radar spikes, too. It's a heavy redesign, but doable.
Quote from: Sauragnmon on January 07, 2009, 01:24:51 AM
the AL-31 was the first thought off the top of my head - second would be an RD-33 ...
RM6C*: length: 3200 mm, diameter: 907 mm (max), weight: 1310 kg (dry)
None of the Russian engines would be easy replacements for RM6 Avons. If it is just a question of supply, the MiG-21's R-11 turbojet's diameter matches the Avon perfectly. Is back-dating the Finnish Drakens an option?
R-11F: length: 4600 mm, diameter: 906 mm, weight: 1124 kg (dry)
AL-31: length: 4990 mm, diameter: 1280 mm (max), weight: 1570 kg (dry)
RD-93: length: 4250 mm, diameter: 1040 mm (max), weight: 1055 kg (dry)
RD-33: length: 4230 mm, diameter: 1040 mm (max), weight: 1055 kg (dry)
* Volvo Flygmotor version of Avon 300
For a stealthy Draken, could you cut back the outer edges of the intakes to match the angle of the outer wing leading edge, sort of like an inside-out F-105 intake? That would send the intake lip return off at the same "spike angle" as the outer wings.
The RB106 model that was looked at for the Draken was the 16,000/23,000lb model (which also would have powered the initial Avro Arrow batch) until it was canned. There was also a growth version of this engine the RB.122 which probably would have been to big for the Draken and was in the 30,000lb reheat regime and would have made a good option for ongoing Avro Arrow versions.
As for a modern rebuild I go for the increased thrust version EJ200 as RR previously did a study on Spey and Avon replacements with this engine to work out the best way to do it regards balance/fitting/fillers etc. (the AMX was the first to be formally offered the swap). Also the Eurojet has 3D TVC on offer and there is growth in the engine for 17,000lb+ dry and 27,000lb reheat (even the standard engine in war mode is good for 15,000lb+ dry and 23,000lb reheat) and it is lighter than the F414 family.
May's Aeroplane magazine has a big article on the Draken, which includes a list of countries to whom sales attempts were made, but failed:
Switzerland (got as far as a J35H (H for Helvetica) demonstrator in 1959, Mirage III chosen instead)
Venezuela (F-5 selected instead, 1971)
Argentina
Australia
Belgium
Chile
West Germany
Malaysia
Norway
Singapore
Tunisia
Got to be some inspiration for whiffy colour schemes in there......
I wouldn't mind doing one of Hasegawa's new 1/48 J-35 Drakens in RAAF Mirage IIIO colours:
Either Standard camo or ARDU Fanta Can:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn-www.airliners.net%2Faviation-photos%2Fphotos%2F1%2F9%2F6%2F0291691.jpg&hash=a44d1afa5859d580a54d4659c6c3c94daa156c7e)
Maybe I should do both?
Regards,
Greg
Hi GTX, I tried to do both the Viggen & Draken in those colours last year (standard & ARDU) but couldn't get any decals from the 2 aftermarket manufacturers (Hawkeye & Roo). Know where there's a decal guy who actually answers customer orders ??
GTX,
I really like your Draken with the raked inlets...
I've heard people talk for ages about a Draken painted in a trial splinter camouflage but say there's no evidence to back it up. Well, I found it on Airliners.net. Could be old news, but it's new to me! I've seen a model of it at the Nationals, always assumed it was semi-speculative.
Original pic here:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Sweden---Air/Saab-J35B-Draken/1594296/L/&sid=7e4614d91f925115514fd510a7ef9a95 (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Sweden---Air/Saab-J35B-Draken/1594296/L/&sid=7e4614d91f925115514fd510a7ef9a95)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FSaabDrakenSplinterScheme-1.jpg&hash=2b9aa5f5e8ab1838613126db425e92018dbcb003)
Thinking in this project in service: nose intake Draken.
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,25922.msg389153.html#msg389153
Would it have evolved like MiG-21 in case a better/bigger radar installed? A bigger protruding nose cone?
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,29716.msg484412.html#msg484412
What do you think?
The original intake configuration for the Saab 210 L'il Draken would look pretty good scaled up to the full size version to my mind. And not that difficult to model either...........
(Oh hell, here we go for yet ANOTHER project!)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg121.imageshack.us%2Fimg121%2F9867%2Fsaab210lilldraken.jpg&hash=dda26a1b756149ffbe295b72a10131f95d6b6dda)
Good on yer Kit.
If anyone can do it, you can. :wacko:
Jim
Quote from: PR19_Kit on May 25, 2011, 11:18:49 AM
The original intake configuration for the Saab 210 L'il Draken would look pretty good scaled up to the full size version to my mind. And not that difficult to model either...........
Do it with the F-105 intakes! :lol:
Also, I admit I had not seen this thread with the Thudtakes when i came up with mine, but clearly the design just screams to be done - and even for the same reason, evolving off the Lansen's look. Though I put a MiG-21 tail on mine...
Super-Draken - The Saab 36 Nidhögg (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,37074.msg599394/highlight,saab+draken.html#msg599394).
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimageshack.us%2Fa%2Fimg842%2F3948%2F1001927w.jpg&hash=cc0ad22d841d47e0b084c292b235dcafaa2d7dff)
Quote from: Mossie on June 08, 2010, 02:34:05 PM
I've heard people talk for ages about a Draken painted in a trial splinter camouflage but say there's no evidence to back it up. Well, I found it on Airliners.net. Could be old news, but it's new to me! I've seen a model of it at the Nationals, always assumed it was semi-speculative.
Original pic here:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Sweden---Air/Saab-J35B-Draken/1594296/L/&sid=7e4614d91f925115514fd510a7ef9a95 (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Sweden---Air/Saab-J35B-Draken/1594296/L/&sid=7e4614d91f925115514fd510a7ef9a95)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FSaabDrakenSplinterScheme-1.jpg&hash=2b9aa5f5e8ab1838613126db425e92018dbcb003)
AFAIK, this one has been a one-of-a-kind and an instructional airframe, not a service aircraft. But it suits the Draken well.
Quote from: Dizzyfugu on May 07, 2013, 11:40:47 PM
AFAIK, this one has been a one-of-a-kind and an instructional airframe, not a service aircraft. But it suits the Draken well.
Not quite.
Two airframes (both J35B) were repainted in the then brand new splinter camouflage and flown operationally for about a year. The objective was to test the very theoretically researched camo pattern in field operations before applying allover the fleet. This was ca 1975 and as the results from the tests were that while it definitely was seen as a better camouflage than the existing bluegrey/olivegreen scheme, the cost to repaint all Drakens was deemed excessive and thus, they and also the remaining SAAB 32 Lansen (mainly recce S32C and target/ECM J32D/E) were left in their respective previous schemes. Interestingly enough, also the SAAB 105 trainers that always had a second operational role as recce/strike a/c, were left in their existing schemes despite the fact that they have survived until this day.
The brand new SAAB AJ37 Viggens, however, until then left in bare metal, were rapidly coloured up in accordance with the new scheme. Also, the Swedish Army and Navy subsequently recamoed their respective equipment, the navy's colours however being slightly more grey-brownish as that fitted better in the rocky archipelagean terrain where they should hide. See pic below
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tugboatlars.se%2FR142.jpg&hash=fbfd5f7c70c884aad5c6387704db771dc508a8c3)
Army equipment initially used exactly the same scheme as the air force. However, later on, it was found that the brown patches really werent needed as mud and dirt rapidly delivered as much brown on the operational vehicles as ever wanted and thus, for reason of simplification, the brown was omitted leaving green/dark green/black in the pattern.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-JZnu5pece7c%2FUKvzI3p8koI%2FAAAAAAAAA1c%2Fr0RSjQ8y-yk%2Fs1600%2FSTRV122B3.jpg&hash=8fc2de1b7969d53d71e8776c051dd174a5ab8cf1)
Ah - just ask the experts! That's really helpful, busting a personal myth. Thanks a lot, pellson :thumbsup:
Quote from: Dizzyfugu on May 08, 2013, 07:14:25 AM
Ah - just ask the experts! That's really helpful, busting a personal myth. Thanks a lot, pellson :thumbsup:
NP. I learn something from someone almost every visit I make.. :thumbsup:
Just looking at Drakens and this modest proposal occured to me.
One of the problems with the Draken was it's small forward fuselage, giving a tight cockpit and a small radar. The fuselage tapers from the point where the intakes join it, which roughly corresponds to the cockpit pressure bulkhead, where I presume there's a major joint in the fuselage. It therefore seems reasonable to me to rebuild a Draken with a new cockpit section with parallel sides, thus giving more cockpit space and a larger front pressure bulkhead, which would allow a larger radar to be fitted.
The seat may well have to be raised and the cockpit bulged to maintain vision over a longer nose during landing, but that would have the benefit of improving all-round vision for air combat. The increased side area would need more fin area to compensate, but there's already a solution for that: the two-seaters had a pair of ventral fins fitted under the outer wing section. That would seem to have preculded the use of outer wing pylons, however I see no reason why similar, or even larger fins couldn't be fitted under the inner wing section, aft of the undercarriage bays.
Here's a rough version, with a regular Draken at the top to compare:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi35.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd165%2Fhws5mp%2FThe%2520Whiffery%2Fprofiles%2FDraken%2520nose%2520mod.png&hash=f034e1b207fb3e8242e8f6d0305afade9a5b3eec) (http://s35.photobucket.com/user/hws5mp/media/The%20Whiffery/profiles/Draken%20nose%20mod.png.html)
The biggest What If regarding the Draken is What If I could find one in the one true scale.
They're like rocking horse poo.
That's a very subtle mod H. Probably fool a few pickers of nits and counters of rivets.
Cheers.
There are other things you could do in combination with it. A multi-petal afterburner (with or without a more modern engine) would be one possibility, as would a Viggen-style ejector intake, possibly with a thrust-reverser.
An alternative engine which needed more mass flow would be problematic due to the way the intakes are blended into the wing. Making them bigger would involve a lot more redesign than it did for say, the Mirage/Kfir conversion.
As an alternative to the ventral fins, slim fairings could be fitted between the inner and outer wings with dorsal and/or ventral fins on the back end of them. These could be either fixed fins used in conjunction with the existing central fin, or more radically, they could be much bigger and equipped with rudders to replace the central fin entirely. The result would be rather like the Rockwell HiMAT test aircraft, and would give much better effectiveness at high AoA. The front of the booms could house ECM equipment, or alternatively, MiG-25-style CW illuminators for SARH missiles.
Quote from: Weaver on March 29, 2016, 06:46:15 PM
One of the problems with the Draken was it's small forward fuselage, giving a tight cockpit and a small radar. ...
The seat may well have to be raised and the cockpit bulged to maintain vision over a longer nose during landing...
I've been in a Draken simulator cockpit, and it wasn't roomy ;)
I recall they were pretty particular about the size of the pilots: too long thigh bones, and everything below the knees gets left behind on an ejection.
A bigger nose would also be taller top to bottom.
Quote from: perttime on March 30, 2016, 08:27:50 AM
I recall they were pretty particular about the size of the pilots: too long thigh bones, and everything below the knees gets left behind on an ejection.
That's always been a memory I've held about a BBC programme on RAF Fast Jet Pilot training from years ago. One of the first tasks at Pilot Selection (then at Biggin Hill) was to sit the guys in a tin bath. If they didn't fit, then "sorry lads, no fast jets for you. Transports suit ?" Apparently it was exactly the right size.
I was lucky enough to be able to sit in the front seat of a Tornado GR4 once, and it was a tight squeeze for me at 6'1".
There was NO way I could have ejected from it without leaving my kneecaps behind under the panel! :o
Saab Jagare (destroyer in Swedish)
(https://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/SaabJagare.jpeg) (https://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/SaabJagare.jpeg.html)
Has anyone thought of a modernized and/or Stealth Draken?
Quote from: Jesse220 on April 23, 2020, 02:06:06 PM
Has anyone thought of a modernized and/or Stealth Draken?
Funny you should ask: I found this today:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DfWtEFlX0AAzwNF?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)
Posted on Twitter here: https://twitter.com/Motocar_cutaway/status/1005900474384617473?s=20 by @Motocar_cutaway
(The original is much bigger if you want a hi-res version)
Motocar Cutaway are well worth following since he/they do lots of these modified what-if cutaways.
Looking at that fat-nosed Draken profile I did back in 2016, I decided to do side views of it to see what it looks like.
There are two side views: the first treats the new forward fuselage as a pure body-of-rotation, just like the real-life one, while the second has the radar bulkhead lowered relative to the cockpit in the manner of a Mirage, which gives a better view over the nose, but would possibly be harder to build as a model. I swear that the radome is a symmetrical body-of-rotation in both cases: the impression that it's upturned is just an optical illusion! (Makes me wonder now if I've been unfair to the Swift all these years...)
The real life Sk-35C trainer had ventral fins that are, I suspect, just bolted to the outer wing main hardpoints, which is fine since it had no operational role, but won't do for the single-seater. I've therefore moved the fins on my version inboard and further back. You could probably make them bigger, but I was worried about them getting a battering from turbulence generated by the inner wing pylon/stores and open undercarriage doors in front of them.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49811236713_4067b398fd_o.png)
Quote from: Weaver on April 23, 2020, 04:57:02 PM
Quote from: Jesse220 on April 23, 2020, 02:06:06 PM
Has anyone thought of a modernized and/or Stealth Draken?
Funny you should ask: I found this today:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DfWtEFlX0AAzwNF?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)
Posted on Twitter here: https://twitter.com/Motocar_cutaway/status/1005900474384617473?s=20 by @Motocar_cutaway
(The original is much bigger if you want a hi-res version)
Motocar Cutaway are well worth following since he/they do lots of these modified what-if cutaways.
Nice man. But it could use twin tails.
Quote from: Jesse220 on April 27, 2020, 06:36:12 PM
Nice man. But it could use twin tails.
Wouldn't be hard to do with the Draken either. You could unbolt the outer wings and insert a fin in the gap. It could extend both above and below the wing: the latter wouldn't be good for stealth, but it would be good for high AoA maneuverability.
The biggest problem with stealthifying the Draken would be the intakes: they're dead square-on to a radar ahead of the plane, and they're part of the wing structure, so any change gets complicated real quick. The 'diverterless' bumps in the picture wouldn't do much: the engine face is already shielded pretty well: it's the intake lips that are the problem.
Quote from: Weaver on April 27, 2020, 07:15:22 PM
Quote from: Jesse220 on April 27, 2020, 06:36:12 PM
Nice man. But it could use twin tails.
Wouldn't be hard to do with the Draken either. You could unbolt the outer wings and insert a fin in the gap. It could extend both above and below the wing: the latter wouldn't be good for stealth, but it would be good for high AoA maneuverability.
The biggest problem with stealthifying the Draken would be the intakes: they're dead square-on to a radar ahead of the plane, and they're part of the wing structure, so any change gets complicated real quick. The 'diverterless' bumps in the picture wouldn't do much: the engine face is already shielded pretty well: it's the intake lips that are the problem.
Ok.
How about fitting a proper Ferri intake as well as the DSI?
Quote from: PR19_Kit on April 28, 2020, 06:17:31 AM
How about fitting a proper Ferri intake as well as the DSI?
Just creates an internal corner which is a great radar reflector. The best reshape might be to slice them the other way, at the same angle as the outer wing leading edges, thus concentrating the radar return into a few 'spikes' as possible in unhelpful directions. Good luck reprofiling the wing and intake lips though: it'd be doable on a clean sheet of paper design, but then you wouldn't be starting from a Draken in the first place if you were doing that...
Of course, if you don't care about stealth 'cos it's the '60s and you just want to go faster and look cool, then Ferris would be the go-to option for giving a Draken variable intakes... ;) :mellow: :thumbsup:
The F-35 has sort of Ferri intakes.............
F-35-ish diverter-less intakes would look good on the Draken. :thumbsup:
Ever thought of a modernized Drakken?
Quote from: PR19_Kit on April 28, 2020, 10:56:08 AM
The F-35 has sort of Ferri intakes.............
That's a fair point. I guess if they line up with all the angles then you get the 'spike' effect.
Quote from: Jesse220 on May 02, 2020, 10:59:40 AM
Ever thought of a modernized Drakken?
Oh yeah. Saab had a project for it called the J-35X which had retractable canards in the leading edges of the inner wing, a bit like the ones in the nose of the Dassault Milan Mirage.
There's not much avionics space in a Draken, although you might usefully free some up by exchanging the 1950s stuff for smaller solid-state equivalents. Alternatively you could go for that big-forward-fuselage scheme I posted. A less thirsty engine would be good too. IAI used to offer the Volvo RM-12 (Gripen engine) for the Mirage/Kfir airframe, so it seems only reasonable that Saab could offer it for the Draken. Had there been more export customers for the Draken, that might have been a viable scheme, although the US origin of the engine (it's basically a GE F-404 with a Volvo afterburner) would have given the US a veto over any sales.
Quote from: Weaver on May 02, 2020, 12:52:57 PM
Quote from: Jesse220 on May 02, 2020, 10:59:40 AM
Ever thought of a modernized Drakken?
Oh yeah. Saab had a project for it called the J-35X which had retractable canards in the leading edges of the inner wing, a bit like the ones in the nose of the Dassault Milan Mirage.
There's not much avionics space in a Draken, although you might usefully free some up by exchanging the 1950s stuff for smaller solid-state equivalents. Alternatively you could go for that big-forward-fuselage scheme I posted. A less thirsty engine would be good too. IAI used to offer the Volvo RM-12 (Gripen engine) for the Mirage/Kfir airframe, so it seems only reasonable that Saab could offer it for the Draken. Had there been more export customers for the Draken, that might have been a viable scheme, although the US origin of the engine (it's basically a GE F-404 with a Volvo afterburner) would have given the US a veto over any sales.
Nice. Maybe they could build a stealth Vtol Fighter and call it the Drakken II.
An F-35 with a double delta wing, then. Could look very good. :wub:
Quote from: ChernayaAkula on May 07, 2020, 08:44:59 AM
An F-35 with a double delta wing, then. Could look very good. :wub:
Yeah!
Quote from: Weaver on April 27, 2020, 07:15:22 PM
The biggest problem with stealthifying the Draken would be the intakes: they're dead square-on to a radar ahead of the plane, and they're part of the wing structure, so any change gets complicated real quick. The 'diverterless' bumps in the picture wouldn't do much: the engine face is already shielded pretty well: it's the intake lips that are the problem.
And that's where materials changes come in, including composite intake lips and intakes with RAM baked in as part of the composite.
Nothing new here, just a glorious picture :wub: :
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaBuvFTUcAE5hRw?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Posted on Twitter here: https://twitter.com/violetpilot1/status/1305454494252060674?s=20
Add a couple of engines (ramjets?) at the wing break, similar to one of the earlier
configurations of the SAAB 36 bomber project.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Saab_1300-71D_Vindtunnelmodell.jpg/640px-Saab_1300-71D_Vindtunnelmodell.jpg)
Quote from: Jesse220 on May 05, 2020, 09:22:31 PM
Nice. Maybe they could build a stealth Vtol Fighter and call it the Drakken II.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EiWSA3RXgAgZjk0?format=jpg)
https://twitter.com/BurkhardDomke/status/1307611844106878977?s=20
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52134729368_4f18c1f720_o.jpg)
Love this! :thumbsup:
Would a Draken be able to have a 360 degree bubble canopy with a cut down fuselage & twin vertical tails & canard foreplanes?
Quote from: thundereagle1997 on August 26, 2023, 03:24:03 AMWould a Draken be able to have a 360 degree bubble canopy with a cut down fuselage & twin vertical tails & canard foreplanes?
I don't think you can cut down the fuselage behind the cockpit. I suppose you could raise the cockpit or make a completely new forward fuselage.
Twin tails at the break in the double delta might work
Canards in the nose would surely disturb airflow into the intakes. Perhaps somewhere on the inner section of the delta wing?
Why not make an unmanned variant of the Drakken?
Quote from: perttime on August 26, 2023, 03:59:49 AMQuote from: thundereagle1997 on August 26, 2023, 03:24:03 AMWould a Draken be able to have a 360 degree bubble canopy with a cut down fuselage & twin vertical tails & canard foreplanes?
I don't think you can cut down the fuselage behind the cockpit. I suppose you could raise the cockpit or make a completely new forward fuselage.
Twin tails at the break in the double delta might work
Canards in the nose would surely disturb airflow into the intakes. Perhaps somewhere on the inner section of the delta wing?
One of the proposals (35 MOD Nivå 4) for an updated Draken did include minuscule retractable canards - vortex generators really - in the intake sides.
Booble canopy for 1 or 2 seats Draken
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/SaabJ35_booble-draken_tc9kUGxQJrFj5zpxpu1RDm.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/SaabJ35_booble-draken_tc9kUGxQJrFj5zpxpu1RDm.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds)
Looks a lot better than standard! :thumbsup:
Quote from: perttime on August 26, 2023, 03:59:49 AMQuote from: thundereagle1997 on August 26, 2023, 03:24:03 AMWould a Draken be able to have a 360 degree bubble canopy with a cut down fuselage & twin vertical tails & canard foreplanes?
I don't think you can cut down the fuselage behind the cockpit. I suppose you could raise the cockpit or make a completely new forward fuselage.
Twin tails at the break in the double delta might work
Canards in the nose would surely disturb airflow into the intakes. Perhaps somewhere on the inner section of the delta wing?
Two-seat Drakens had small ventral fins at mid-wing:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/10/43/eb/1043eb55546ea1884f6b830b701d08be.jpg)
Something similar (maybe a little larger) could be used to allow a deeped single-seat forward fuselage with a bubble canopy, something akin ot the F-11 Tiger forward fuselage.
https://youtu.be/HbjiQ7vvQH0?si=pJTXBt4oEn_HdBrc
I have GOT to have one of those!! ;D . Although the "real" aeroplane was launched from a ramp, I'm assuming it would have a conventional undercarriage for landing so, once I get a suitable kit, that's how I will proceed.
Quote from: Beermonster58 on October 10, 2023, 04:09:57 AMhttps://youtu.be/HbjiQ7vvQH0?si=pJTXBt4oEn_HdBrc
I have GOT to have one of those!! ;D . Although the "real" aeroplane was launched from a ramp, I'm assuming it would have a conventional undercarriage for landing so, once I get a suitable kit, that's how I will proceed.
Hmmm... a Thunderbirds Draken :thumbsup:
thunderbirds draken.jpg
Quote from: perttime on October 10, 2023, 04:18:30 AMQuote from: Beermonster58 on October 10, 2023, 04:09:57 AMhttps://youtu.be/HbjiQ7vvQH0?si=pJTXBt4oEn_HdBrc
I have GOT to have one of those!! ;D . Although the "real" aeroplane was launched from a ramp, I'm assuming it would have a conventional undercarriage for landing so, once I get a suitable kit, that's how I will proceed.
Hmmm... a Thunderbirds Draken :thumbsup:
Looks good, doesn't it ;D
thunderbirds draken.jpg
Quote from: Beermonster58 on October 10, 2023, 08:41:32 PMQuote from: perttime on October 10, 2023, 04:18:30 AMQuote from: Beermonster58 on October 10, 2023, 04:09:57 AMhttps://youtu.be/HbjiQ7vvQH0?si=pJTXBt4oEn_HdBrc
I have GOT to have one of those!! ;D . Although the "real" aeroplane was launched from a ramp, I'm assuming it would have a conventional undercarriage for landing so, once I get a suitable kit, that's how I will proceed.
Hmmm... a Thunderbirds Draken :thumbsup:
Looks good, doesn't it ;D
thunderbirds draken.jpg
A set of Lindburg 1/128 scale engines and your in!!
Quote from: Weaver on October 09, 2023, 11:11:47 PMTwo-seat Drakens had small ventral fins at mid-wing:
Not the Danish TF-35's. I haven't been able to find out why, though, as both Swedish and Finnish trainer Drakens did.