What Whiffs on De Havillands early twin boomers & the DH.108 Swallow?
The Vampire & Venom are largely forgotten when it comes to modelling, which is strange since between the two types there were over 4,500 built. The Swallow has probably been reasonably kitted for an experimental aircraft, there are a few around.
Ideas:
Venom with a DH.108 wing, a further addition to the family.
FICON style Vampire, mounted on a Vulcan in a cut out in the bomb bay. Simillar way to the Gnat proposal, but maybe an earlier version on the B.1?
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FAvroVulcanGnatParasite.jpg&hash=cf929e4d38df257f5827aac6b7f5ffcc2d94178b)
DH.116 Super Venom, a real proposal that used the cockpit of the Venom mated to a conventional fuselage & DH.108 wing. The RN were initially interested, but plumped for the twin engined Sea Vixen instead.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FDeHavillandDH-116-1.png&hash=b66207b2c683d79e151cc22f7d64431266d04207)
Funnily enough, I was fondling a Frog Sea Venom last night and thinking about the DH.116. I don't think it's a DH.108 wing though is it? The latter had a longer span and less sweep IIRC. The DH.116 wing is more like a scaled-down Sea-Vixen.
How about tandem-seat trainer and night-fighter versions of the Vampire, Venom and/or Sea Vixen? You'd have to compensate for the extended fuselages somehow: longer booms with some equipment/fuel in them? For the night-fighter, you could move weight backwards by removing the cannons and replacing them with rocket pods on the wingtips (not a "good" idea of course, but very 1950s....).
The Vampire's enormous wing (lower wing loading than a Spitfire :blink:) was conditioned by the high-altitude intercept condition, yet ironically, it spent most of it's time as a fighter bomber, so here's a subtle one for the JMNs:
Take a Vampire, crop a goodly chunk of wingtip off, replace it with Venom-style tip tanks and add more RPs or bigger bombs under the wings than a regular Vampire could carry. Then paint it up in an authentic-looking test-aircraft scheme and present it as an early FBA-style prototype that was superceded by the Venom.... :wacko:
Think you're right about DH.116 & DH.108 wing. I've heard both the Sea Vixen & DH.116 described as having a DH.108 like wing, more to do with the rough characteristics then being exactly the same.
An enlarged Vampire/Venom is a good idea, wether for a tandem cockpit or just more fuel/equipment or bigger engines. The booms are pretty skinny, there'd be no problem fleshing them out a bit & adding some fuel, or even maybe extend them forward & add rocket pods?
Like the anti-JMN version too! Like you mention, the Vampire had large wing for it's size & a decent ceiling. You could do the opposite of the anti-JMN & extend the wingtips & delete the armament for a PR variant. This rings a bell somwhere in the back of mind, it could be a real project or someone might have already done it.
Wasn't there a bizjet proposal for the Vampire/Venom?
I'm sure I've seen photos of a four seater version somewhere, like a T11 but with an extended nose. Not pretty in the slightest but an interesting device.
With some sort of ECM fit and an ALAARM or two it could even have been an RAF EA-6B look alike........ :)
Quote from: PR19_Kit on January 08, 2009, 08:46:29 AM
Wasn't there a bizjet proposal for the Vampire/Venom?
I'm sure I've seen photos of a four seater version somewhere, like a T11 but with an extended nose. Not pretty in the slightest but an interesting device.
With some sort of ECM fit and an ALAARM or two it could even have been an RAF EA-6B look alike........ :)
There were two actually: Jetcraft in the States and someone who's name I can't recall in the UK.
Picture of the Jetcraft here (page 2):
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,21396.15.html
Mossie: you had to mention PR and extended wings didn't you? Look who turned up........ :rolleyes: :wacko: ;D
Simon, I've been thinking of whiffing the DH-108 kit I have, my plan is remove the rear fuselage aft of the wings, add a Venom tailpipe and then make up some booms similar to the Sea Vixen. Sort of a scaled down 'proof-of-concept' prototype of the Sea Vixen, I think it works out at nearly half-scale but I've not done the math yet. I'll use everything forward of the wing trailing edge
Quick n' Dirty Sea Venom with DH 108 type wings.
Similar to what is described as a DH.116 Sea Venom Development in 'De Havilland Aircraft since 1909', A J Jackson, 1978 edition, Putnam.
" ... basic Venom fuselage was to have been slightly modified to house more modern radar and mated to a new thin section swept wing."
Perhaps Jackson was describing a predecessor to the Super Venom?
Jon
Do a wing swap between a Vampire and a Sea Hawk. The Vampire becomes an attack version as already described, whilst the Sea Hawk becomes a Navy high-altitude recce version (two fold lines scribed on each wing....).
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on January 08, 2009, 10:15:04 AM
Quick n' Dirty Sea Venom with DH 108 type wings.
Similar to what is described as a DH.116 Sea Venom Development in 'De Havilland Aircraft since 1909', A J Jackson, 1978 edition, Putnam.
" ... basic Venom fuselage was to have been slightly modified to house more modern radar and mated to a new thin section swept wing."
Perhaps Jackson was describing a predecessor to the Super Venom?
Jon
Something like that Jon, only I was thinking the later DH-108 forward fuselage and single seat version
Quote from: Weaver on January 08, 2009, 09:37:12 AM
Mossie: you had to mention PR and extended wings didn't you? Look who turned up........ :rolleyes: :wacko: ;D
Who? Me? ? ? :)
That Mystery Jet looks even LESS pretty than the UK one I was thinking of. Have they never heard of the 'What Looks Right Flies Right' mantra? Mind you, I have a bucket of Frog Sea Venoms in The Loft, and not a few Heller Vampires too, hmmmmmmmmmmmm........
Quote
So, what about a COIN Vampire rebuild with a PT6 pusher?
Kind of like a turboprop Sud-Ouest SO 8000 Narval:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aviastar.org%2Fpictures%2Ffrance%2Fso_narval.gif&hash=b32fb954a6aaa75a78e7c97db2cd37ea5ad6ff00)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airwar.ru%2Fimage%2Fidop%2Fxplane%2Fso8000%2Fso8000-1.jpg&hash=8924032c51cd66ed5f40676097d90bacd8c3d6d7)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airwar.ru%2Fimage%2Fidop%2Fxplane%2Fso8000%2Fso8000-4.jpg&hash=1c8c8f03df0906ecdd308ee22c2e9f99aafbae0b)
regards,
Greg
Regarding pusher Vampires, remember this?
http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/allies/gb/ranvamp.htm
Jon, the Venom with DH.108 wing looks great. The Sea Venom was a good choice, the exhaust fairing makes for a very pleasant form in plan, resembling the Ho.229.
Robert, I like your take on it, look forward to seeing some pics.
Greg, there was a planned turbojet version of the Narval too, the 8010. There's a speculative drawing of it on Secret Projects, resembles a Vampire with a longer fuselage:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,441.msg6153/highlight,8010.html#msg6153 (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,441.msg6153/highlight,8010.html#msg6153)
Weave, I hadn't seen that pusher Vampire, nice find!
Quote from: Mossie on January 09, 2009, 04:18:14 AM
Jon, the Venom with DH.108 wing looks great. The Sea Venom was a good choice, the exhaust fairing makes for a very pleasant form in plan, resembling the Ho.229.
'Tis good isn't it? A good candidate for an alternative Batplane too.... ;D
Here's a mad one: VSTOL. :blink:
Replace the Vampire/Venom's engine with a Pegasus-style turbofan (you know, just like that... :rolleyes:). You might want to make the intakes a tad bigger..... The single hot nozzle exhausts in the usual place, but has a 90 deg. thrust deflector, for which the Sea Venom's tail fairing is useful. The cold nozzles go out to clang boxes in much-enlarged booms. For normal flight, they exhaust backwards through the boom, but for VTOL, they go forwards to vertical nozzles in the extended tips of the booms.
^ Now that looks cool! :bow:
Oh, and in regards to the bizjet conversion:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Jetcraft%20Mystery%20Jet/0196893/L/&width=1000&height=693&sok=WHERE__(aircraft_generic_%3D_%27Jetcraft_Mystery_Jet%27)_&sort=_order_by_photo_id_DESC_&photo_nr=1&prev_id=&next_id=NEXTID
It's my understanding that, though built from a real Vampire, it's only a mock-up.
Just had a thought on RP's in the booms. The booms are in line with the intake edges, so you wouldn't be able to fit them without either redesigning the intake or moving the booms outboard. Might be a possibility for the Venom/Swallow hybrid if the designers were willing to fiddle with the design. Another option would to be replace the cannon with retractable housings for the RP's, in a similar way to the Sea Vixen.
Quote from: Mossie on January 10, 2009, 10:22:02 AM
Just had a thought on RP's in the booms. The booms are in line with the intake edges, so you wouldn't be able to fit them without either redesigning the intake or moving the booms outboard. Might be a possibility for the Venom/Swallow hybrid if the designers were willing to fiddle with the design. Another option would to be replace the cannon with retractable housings for the RP's, in a similar way to the Sea Vixen.
RPs?
Naah, go for the 4.5" recoilless guns as on the Gloster P.272 concept drawing. ;D
Jon
Now that'd give an FB version some wallop!
FOUR 4.5" guns? ? ? ?
Strewth, that's more firepower than a Type 42 destroyer! :blink:
I gather from the diagram that it's one shot per barrel? So it's probably not quite as formidable as it looks, the Supermarine 508 in BSP Fighters carries seven rounds for one rifle.
The MoD seemed quite keen on this weapon, there are a few designs kicking around that used. This weapon would have been the largest calibre gun used on an aircraft IIRC. 4.5" is just over 114mm, a touch larger than the 105mm Howitzer used on later AC-130's. :o
QuoteThis weapon would have been the largest calibre gun used on an aircraft IIRC. 4.5" is just over 114mm, a touch larger than the 105mm Howitzer used on later AC-130's. Shocked
Not even close:
280 mm recoiless cannon:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg249.imageshack.us%2Fimg249%2F5189%2Fju288cannone261sk1.jpg&hash=39f74525f0f8015a3fd33a3f34942ca74ad292f3)
or better yet a 356 mm Gerät 104 Münchhausen:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg402.imageshack.us%2Fimg402%2F7595%2Findexek7.jpg&hash=8248d3a7fc700668c721f3228d8cbed3886b9d5a)
Regards,
Greg
The Germans struggled mightily to protect the carrier aircraft from the back-blast of these weapons with angled venturi tubes passing though the aircraft at odd angles, thick skin plating etc..., and yet never seemed to latch onto the twin-boom layout as a solution. That gets you back to the De Havilland twin-boomers of course, which is many respects would be ideal RR carriers.
Chuffin' Nora! :o :o :o
Yep, the flying 'Big Berthe' concepts are amusing but, like many 'napkinwaffe' concepts,
a waste of time and energy as the thing would have been useless in combat.
Tie up a valuable twin-engine bomber airframe for a one-shot cannon?
To fire a single shot that would most likely miss? :banghead: :banghead:
Jon
I can see why they were researched, in an era when guided weapons & rockets were in their infancy. A weapon that could easily kill a tank or small to medium surface vessel, & more accurate than a bomb might be useful, even if you could only launch a handful. That depends on it being succesful, of course.
http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal7/6301-6400/gal6325-Viper-Drake/00.shtm was flagged up on this forum in June 2007. Fits the Venom/Vampire/Swallow whif thread, I think.
This thread reminded me of the odd claims in cyberspace that the Vampire was based upon captured German technology, specifically the FW Flitzer. Patent nonsense as we all know, but it has inspired a cunning plan.
Take one Revell 'Flitzer' and remove forward fuselage. Add old dH Hornet forward fuselage left over from last year's Gloster Mercury and modified Airfix Canadian Chipmunk canopy (the Hornet one was missing from the box). Leave to dry and then add some wing tip tanks to Venomise it a bit. I may take some old and unused Merlin (aaaaaarrrrrrgghhh!!!!!) Vampire NF10 intakes and replace the kit items.
Paint in high altitude Medium Sea Grey/PRU Blue scheme, add 504 Sqn markings and (hopefully) admire from a distance!
Might not work, but there's no harm in trying.
;D ;D
Pre-war, Fokker seemed to be getting interested in twin booms (G.1 & D.XXIII) and push-pull engines (D.XXIII). These configureations favour early jets and mixed power, so had WWII not spoilt the party (say in Patchwork World) you might have seen a twin-boom Fokker with a round fuselage, a tractor prop and a pusher jet.
You can get something like this using an old Frog/Novo Sea Venom and an Airfix Zero, of all things. Replace the Sea Venom's radome with the Zero's engine (the fuselage diameter's too small for a bigger one), plate over the sides of the cockpit and fit the Zero's canopy which, with it's multi-framed flat panels, looks "Fokkerish" and it's no more anachronistic than the Meteor NF.11's greenhouse. (if you've built the Matchbox/Extrakit Meatbox as an NF.14 you'll have a spare NF.11 canopy of course, which would be interesting....). It would probably need bigger fins too: you could use the Zero's tailplanes, but triangular Me-262 ones would again be more Fokkerish.
Not sure about prop clearance: might need longer gear.
Miles proposed something like this as a long-range escort fighter: small piston engine for max range, big jet for max combat speed.
or like this little puppy:
Quote from: Daryl J. on February 20, 2009, 03:54:46 PM
How about a canopy free Venom UAV?
Daryl J.
Ask and yea shall receive - in Swedish markings no less:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2F348b39bb.jpg&hash=f9edc05c1be798ba9ab520fff6a4e98ac0c124c5)
Regards,
Greg
A reality based question: What are decent references for the twin tailed D.H. aircraft?
And back into whiffland...
Sea Venom used for air to ground in Vietnam, USAF
Sea Venom with rounded bits replaced with ogival pointed bits
Sea Venom racer sponsored by Uncle Bob's Trucking ( can you tell I do not like that windscreen???)
Single seat Venom based on the FB.4 in overall gloss sea blue with folding wings, USMC
Any Vampire, Venom in Raspberry Ripple
Quote from: Daryl J. on February 21, 2009, 09:48:48 AM
A reality based question: What are decent references for the twin tailed D.H. aircraft?
There's a book I've got called 'de Havillland Twin Booms- Vampire, Venom and Sea Vixen' written by Adrian Balch, Airlife Publishing Ltd, ISBN 1-84037-250-8. It was aound GBP 13 when I bought it. This book is filled with colour photos of all these aircraft and though isn't a comprehensive history, it does go into it a bit. Then there's the Putman book, De Havilland since 1909 by A.J.Jackson.
A drawing from the interweb modified to show my plans for the CA Sea Venom.
Image printed and modified to show the ogival nose, pointed fuel tanks, pointed shroud over the tailpipe, and pointed bullet fairings on the tail. Plans are to paint the machine white and use hi-viz markings. Unit is to be determined.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi179.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw293%2FDentistDaryl%2FIMG_0009.jpg&hash=7d7e5ecda70e83dec13c12d785f380554ba2f2e9)
Credit to whom credit is due for the initial line drawings.
As I have no whiteout, the FB.1 Venom still has its canopy although the contour line is drawn in for the canopy removal and fairing on the Venom FB.UAV (or whatever designation it gets).
:cheers:
Daryl J.
What was the capacity of the Sea Venom as compared to the Cessna Tweet?
In other words, is it possible to reasonably make a Sea Venom into a reasonable, light ground pounder.
TIA,
Daryl J., itching to get the CA Sea Venom in hand
Quote from: Daryl J. on February 28, 2009, 10:59:47 AM
In other words, is it possible to reasonably make a Sea Venom into a reasonable, light ground pounder.
Daryl,
A Sea Venom, or an ordinary Venom even, would make a reasonable
heavy ground pounder. :)
It weighed just about twice as much as a T-37!
There were Fighter Bomber variants of the Venom. The Sea Venom, although primarily a fighter, carried out a ground pounding role in Suez. It had four pylons & could carry a reasonable amount of ordnance. Pics I've seen of bombed up Venoms seem to show a lighter load then those you see carried by the A-37. I think the T-37 was capable of carrying 2x 500lb bombs. Wiki lists the Venoms armament as 2x 1000lb bombs or 8x 60lb rockets (although in pics it often seen carrying just four).
Would a wing extension on the Vampire result in it being able to fly higher? Aerodynamic laws are foreign to me, but the discussion above regarding a PR variant got me wondering a bit about it. The Vampire specifically in mind is the CA T.11 kit with wing extensions and winglets with some under wing pods either for fuel or sensing equipment and enlarged, powered control surfaces.
So is that a reasonable whiffer? It's just too expensive to make into a flying easter egg. :blink: :blink:
:cheers:
Daryl J.
Daryl,
That sounds perfectly feasable, and why not, this IS Whiffland after all. :) And any a/c looks better with longer wings. (That's 'Kit's Rule of Whiffing #1' BTW.....)
Mind you, a Vampire of any mark with winglets boggles the mind, that's about a 60 year technology time warp you're proposing there........
Vampire TG278 had extended wing tips & attained the then world altitude record of over 59,000ft. It never went into production. It was an F.1 with the extended tips, a metal main canopy & a slightly enlarged engine bay to take a Ghost engine (used in the Venom). I imagine that with the Canberra's exceptional ceiling, the RAF didn't feel the need for a PR Vampire.
You could do a standard Vampire with TG278's wing, or if you really wanted to create an operational variant of TG278, you could go the whole hog & fit a Venom body to a Vampire wing, even adding larger tanks for extended loiter time.
There's some more on Secret Projects:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,6073.0/highlight,vampire.html (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,6073.0/highlight,vampire.html)
Article on the Flight archive:
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1948/1948%20-%200198.html (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1948/1948%20-%200198.html)
Pics here:
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/2911.htm (http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/2911.htm)
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/2913.htm (http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/2913.htm)
TG278 had a four foot extension to each wing tip, and on March 23rd 1948 established a new absolute altitude record of 59,446 ft.
It did have one slight problem when it landed, one of the main u/c oleos was frozen in the extended position. I have a free DVD that was given with Aeroplane Monthly some time ago with film footage of her taxying in with a very lopsided stance.
Here is a photo of her in flight, scanned from the Putnam book, De Havilland aircraft, since 1909, by A J Jackson.
I've just picked up the Crowood book on the Vampire, Venom & Sea Vixen, a quick flick through has brought up a few snippets. Sea Venoms were instrumental in the first trials for IR missile guidance systems & later, three Sea Venoms were fitted for Blue Jay/Firestreak. The guidance equipment took the place of the guns & pylons were mounted just inside of the wing fold. Apparantley they acquitted themselves well, the missiles were destined it's big sister, the Sea Vixen.
There were a few potential operators too:
Ceylon: Five Vampire T.55's were delivered to the Royal Ceylon Air Force, although the base commander thought the aircraft were too ambitious & they were returned to the UK having never left their crates.
Portugal: Portugal obtained two Vampire T.55's for evaluation. They decided to order the T-33 instead, but kept the two Vampires for eight years. So they did operate the type, but it didn't figure in military planning.
Profile: http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww3/f/169/11/0 (http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww3/f/169/11/0)
Katanga: At the end of their life, the two Portugeuse Vampires were passed to Katanga. They were in such poor condition that they never flew & were kept out in the open. They were destroyed when strafed by Indian Canberra's as part of the UN action.
Japan: The JASDF took a single Vampire T.55 for evaluation. Similar to Portugal, they kept the evaluation aircraft, but the type was not ordered (the JASDF also took the T-33). It's apparentley displayed at Hammamatsu were it was operated.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jasdf_vampire_trainer.JPG (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jasdf_vampire_trainer.JPG)
Saudi Arabia: Was given a number of Vampire FB.52's by Egypt as a good-will gesture between the two countries. This gave the RSAF chance to familiarise with turbojet aircraft until they received T-33's & F-86's a year later when they stopped operating the Vampire, probably due to lack of spares.
Profile: http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww3/f/169/25/0/1 (http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww3/f/169/25/0/1)
Here's a thought: the Swiss built some photo-recce single-seat Venoms that carried their cameras in the noses of two underwing fuel tanks. Not a bad solution for a space-challenged single seater, but it's draggy and you can't drop the tanks without losing the cameras too.
So as an alternative, how about a photo-recce Sea Venom? It could carry the cameras in the nose in place of the radar (loads of room) and the nose cone could actually be more pointed and aerodynamic. It could also have a Sea-Vixen-style offset canopy over the pilot's seat to reduce drag (no Nav), and range-increasing pure drop tanks that could actually be dropped.
Jackson's De Havilland Aircraft since 1909 mentions a plan for Fiat to build the Venom F.B. Mk. 50 as the G.81,
the scheme was shelved and the Italian Air Force only received two British-built machines.
Jon
Would like to have seen Rhodesian, New Zealand or Australian Venoms
New Zealand borrowed some for a while for use in Malaya, they were operated by 14 Sqn, never went into full service though. Can't find a pic but there's one on the box lid of CMK's kit.
http://modelingmadness.com/scotts/korean/preview/cmr/cmr188.htm (http://modelingmadness.com/scotts/korean/preview/cmr/cmr188.htm)
A Model have just released a Vampire F.1 & a Swiss FB.6. Just what I've been after for a while! :party:
Hmm, maybe I'll get two F.1's, one in SEAC markings for Nev's Operation Coronet build for Telford, one to cross kit with a Frogspawn Sea Venom to create the PR version mentioned earlier in the thread?
Cheaper to use a Frog/Novo Vampire for a cross kit project. The plastic is much thicker and will withstand the sanding more. They're not that difficult to get either - I picked up a bagged one for a quid at 'uddersfield in January. And a Frog Sea Venom for the same price!
Alternately, try and get a wreck of a Heller or Frog Vampire or just denavalise the Sea Venom and fit the cameras in the radar nose.
My Vampire PR.1 would have the cameras where the cannons are, the film magazines should fit nicely into the space vacated by the ammo tanks.
Tandem seat Venom NF
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2FTandemvixenNF.jpg&hash=094b6284c19d20a018d5dc11636963d103c83043)
Regards,
Greg
Sure that's not a four-seater Greg? If it were a two-seat in tandem, the canopy edges would be moved more towards the centreline of the fuse.
Regards,
Mav
Mav, it was an initial concept prototype for what eventually became the Grumman Prowler. Few know that the 4 seat arrangement was a British idea, Scottish actually as they have been the origin of Most Things.
:cheers:,
Daryl J., totally full of it.
Ooooooo that Venom is NICE! :wub:
A thought though, how about a bigger tail? :wacko:
Quote from: Maverick on December 11, 2010, 06:11:51 PM
Sure that's not a four-seater Greg? If it were a two-seat in tandem, the canopy edges would be moved more towards the centreline of the fuse.
Regards,
Mav
Err, how do you know the cockpit isn't offset for better visibility.
Regards,
Greg
Beyond the Sea Vixen, I can't think of many aircraft that have an offset canopy for any good reason.
Regards,
Mav
Quote from: Maverick on December 11, 2010, 09:46:12 PM
Beyond the Sea Vixen, I can't think of many aircraft that have an offset canopy for any good reason.
Regards,
Mav
Canberra B(I)8/PR9?
Once again, the same idea, pilot on the left & other crewman on the right. In each case it's a single seat cockpit offset. Others that aren't are like the B-57, centred on the fuselage.
Regards,
Mav
Maybe this version was equipped with the 4.5" recoilless gun in the stbd fuselage?
Quote from: Maverick on December 11, 2010, 10:26:24 PM
Once again, the same idea, pilot on the left & other crewman on the right. In each case it's a single seat cockpit offset. Others that aren't are like the B-57, centred on the fuselage.
Regards,
Mav
Ah, but the B-57 required a completely redesigned nose to move the pilot and observer/navigator onto the centreline. In the B(I)8/PR9 they simply elevated the pilot's seat and gave him a fighter-like canopy. That way the amount of redesign was kept to a minimum and they didn't have to change the aircraft drastically. IMO, that counts as a "good reason" to do it that way.
Having sat in the cockpit of a Sea Vixen, all I can say is I hope that there's nothing important happening below the starboard quarter.
Regards,
Mav
Quote from: rickshaw on December 12, 2010, 12:14:00 AM
In the B(I)8/PR9 they simply elevated the pilot's seat and gave him a fighter-like canopy. That way the amount of redesign was kept to a minimum and they didn't have to change the aircraft drastically.
Actually they didn't move the pilot's position at all on the two 'fighter cockpit' Canberra's.
The surrounding upper fuselage structure was lowered a little, improving the pilot's 'over the shoulder' view, and they fitted the new canopy. On the B(I)8 the nav/bomb aimer still sat behind and a tad below the pilot, and on the PR9 the poor soul was relegated to the 'coal hole' in the nose.
Heinkel He 70?
Quote from: Maverick on December 11, 2010, 09:46:12 PM
Beyond the Sea Vixen, I can't think of many aircraft that have an offset canopy for any good reason.
See a discussion here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9957.0/all.html (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9957.0/all.html).
Quote from: Maverick on December 12, 2010, 12:39:00 AM
Having sat in the cockpit of a Sea Vixen, all I can say is I hope that there's nothing important happening below the starboard quarter.
Regards,
Mav
The nav did have a small window in the fuse so it was possible for someone to see in that area, if not ideal. The reason for the offset canopy was the AI.18 radar sets were not bright & required total darkness to operate. The same set was used in the Gloster Javelin FAW.1 (AI.17, same radar just different manufacturer), were they flitted between this & the AN/APG-43 in different marks. I
think part of the reason for this was the bright light in the conventional cockpit of the Javelin. Overall, the Sea Vixen is usually regarded as the better of the two aircraft.
Certainly the better looking, the Javelin is an ugly monstrosity. They should have went with the Vixen...
Yeah, but it didn't help when the prototype DH.110's wings folded up during the Farnborough Airshow flying demonstration (crashing into the crowd and killing about 80 people IIRC) and right at decision time when choosing which one to go with
Quote from: PR19_Kit on December 12, 2010, 01:10:05 AM
Quote from: rickshaw on December 12, 2010, 12:14:00 AM
In the B(I)8/PR9 they simply elevated the pilot's seat and gave him a fighter-like canopy. That way the amount of redesign was kept to a minimum and they didn't have to change the aircraft drastically.
Actually they didn't move the pilot's position at all on the two 'fighter cockpit' Canberra's.
The surrounding upper fuselage structure was lowered a little, improving the pilot's 'over the shoulder' view, and they fitted the new canopy. On the B(I)8 the nav/bomb aimer still sat behind and a tad below the pilot, and on the PR9 the poor soul was relegated to the 'coal hole' in the nose.
Interesting. As far as I can tell, the fuselage height appears the same between the "fish bowl" and the "fighter" cockpit variants. I wouldn't have thought there was all that much room to lower the upper fuselage decking and still have the navigator enough height to sit upright.
On the B(I)8 and PR9 it starts to slope down immediately in front of the Nav's position in one sweep down to the nose cone. On the bubble canopy versions the slope is steeper and doesn't start till some way past the canopy itself. It's pretty subtle but it's there.
I've been having a few more musings about a PR Vampire & found that there was a lesser known PR variant used by the Indian Air Force. Six (some sources say five) Vampire T.55's were converted into PR.55's.
I also found I'd missed some of the pics in the Crowood book on the Vampire, Venom & Sea Vixen. There's a caption next to an early pic of TG278 (the Vampire modified for high altitude flight) saying it was for development of a PR variant, but no other info. The main text only mentions the record attempt & suggests that the reason TG278 was fitted with a Ghost was that it suited development of that engine. There are two distinct phases of development of TG278, early with extended wingtips & in camouflage & later with the Ghost engine & in patchy NMF, then later an all over pale shade of paint (B&W photo, could be sky & might fit the recce role but could to be anything to be honest).
This pic from Bharat Rakshak shows the PR.55 with camera windows in the nose. The windows are smaller than I was thinking, it would probably be possible to fit a camera in the nose of single seater without much modification. Space is tight in front of the bulkhead, but probably just enough for a camera. Oblique cameras could go in the spaces left by the magazines as Lee previously postulated, or even the cannon.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FDeHavillandVampirePR-55IndianAirForce.jpg&hash=4c333e3c03fd7de9b58f8efe5948f93d877bf186)
If the Hunter FR10/PR11 (a few of the latter were converted from the GA11) could take a pair of cameras, you *might* be able to squidge one into a Vampire nose, possibly with a bulge to accomodate the magazine.
I still think one with the cameras in the ammo bays would be better.
I was thinking of the forward looking camera in the nose as well as the ammo bay cameras. They actually managed to shove three cameras in the FR.10/PR.11 nose, one forward, two oblique.
The third one replaced the radar range finder.
I tried to find a pic of the Hunter FR.10/PR.11 nose installation & lucked out, but I found a pic of the FGR.9's recce pod. I'll compare the Hunters nose & drop tanks to the Vampire nose when I get home tonight, although I've had a quick look at some drawings scaled on-screen & it looks possible. My thought before had been to modify a fairing along the lines of the Swiss FB.6 nose, might be able to get away with a locallised bulge.
Hunter recce pod, second pic from bottom: http://www.spyflight.co.uk/fr10.htm (http://www.spyflight.co.uk/fr10.htm)
If you've got the A-Model Vampire FB6, it comes with both the normal RAF and Swiss noses. Or modify a Hornet NF21 nose?
Now that gives me an idea...
No, I've got the Heller/Airfix FB.5 that was sent to me by Kit. He also sent me a Frog Sea Venom fuse for the Ghost, but I think it might be easier to cut & plug the Vampire fuse as the Sea Venom has the added structure & fairing for the tail-hook which would need removing & re-profiling.
What are the A-Model kits like?
Its nice, Haven't done any test fitting yet but will later. I'm not likely to use the Swiss nose - you want it?
Venom - one of my longer term plans is to drop the Aeroclub fuselage pod into rubber as a conversion for the Frog Sea Venom. I've a Merlin 2 seat Vampire pod I was planning on doing something similar with, as I need it for the DH116 Super Venom project.
Lee, I've had a look at the nose of the Vampire & it's quite similar to the Meteor, although I'm not sure how much extra gubbins would go with the cameras as they extended the nose of the FR.9/PR.10 slightly. On that note, I'll take up your offer of the FB.6 nose.
Ta! PM coming.
Can any one tell me what the differences were between the Sea Vampire T.22 and Vampire T.11? I know the T.22 wasn't carrier capable, but all I can find on the net is "minor modifications", no specifics. Thinking of turning the Airfix kit into a squiddy one.
I think it was only a radio fit, so the T11 kit should suit perfectly.
In the latest issue of Air-Britain Aeromilitaria (March 2013) there's a photo of a Vampire NF.10, serial WP240, which has an elongated and very pointed nose cone. Like a Sea Vixen's nose, not the Swiss nose type. It was operated by the TFU Defford and looks like an interesting conversion and simple conversion to do.
Coincidently, there just happens to be an article on the DH.116 in the issue too, with a 3-View and artist impression drawings. It's a neat looking T-Tail ---
Quote from: The Wooksta! on February 14, 2011, 08:30:01 AM
I've a Merlin 2 seat Vampire pod I was planning on doing something similar with, as I need it for the DH116 Super Venom project.
The article I've just read says it was based on a Sea Venom forward fuselage Lee, what do you plan on using to do the rest of it ?
Bob, I honestly cannot remember. It's just the fuselage pod anyway. Don't know or - given how abysmally cack the vast majority of Merlin kits were - even care where the rest of it went.
What I meant Lee was what do you plan on using to make the rest of the DH.116 --- the wings look very similar to the outer wings of the Sea Vixen and the rear fuselage looks like an early Hunter, so along with the Sea Venom forward fuselage you've got most of it covered. If I was to build one I think I'd use all the middle and rear fusealge of a Hunter T.7 and then modify it a bit.
IIRC, I looked at using some or all of a Matchbox Hunter fuselage and I have plenty of Frog/Novo Sea Vixen wings in the spares box. I did blow up the three view from the BSP Fighters book and played around with bits but didn't get much further than that - some of my projects are glacially slow and it's only four years since I had the idea for a Lancaster/Lincoln/Shackleton hybrid, the Avro Lanchester, that I've actually done any real work on it.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on April 19, 2013, 06:32:43 AM
I think it was only a radio fit, so the T11 kit should suit perfectly.
Thanks Kit! :thumbsup:
Huge article here, with loads of pics, about the Jetcraft business jet project which was based on the Vampire:
http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNews/Stories/tabid/116/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/444/language/fr-FR/Vampires-of-Las-Vegas.aspx
Dodgy as hell, but interesting and full of whiff-fodder in both the idea and the back story.
Hi
Couple of questions for the more experienced and knowledgeable amongst you (or those that just want to wade in as well ......) ;D
1) Does anyone have suggestions on the best / easiest way to manufacture the 'elephant ears' on the F.2 or FB.Mk.30 Is there an after market conversion?
2) The FB.9 has a different intake arrangement on one side because of the air conditioning unit (?) Can anyone point me in the way of a clear photograph of this?
thanks
Kevin
Port side
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/5715/BdO2gp.jpg)
Starboard side
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/3797/MM5LW5.jpg)
You can see the difference in the length of the intake diverter in both views. The extra bit on the starboard side seems to have been added on over the top of a standard intake.
I'd file the extra intakes from a couple of pieces of sprue I reckon. I don't know of anyone doing a conversion though.
Hi Kit
Those photos for the Mk.9 are brilliant thanks - nice and clear and obvious - just the way I like them! ;D
The concave curve extending forward from the intake would be interesting to replicate, but at least I now know what it looks like
The conversion option was more in regards to the Mk.2 / Mk.30 'elephant ears' For some reason I've a (possibly imaginary!) memory of one of the Australian after-market companies doing one?
Quote from: Knightflyer on May 23, 2020, 08:08:39 AM
For some reason I've a (possibly imaginary!) memory of one of the Australian after-market companies doing one?
Yes indeed, High Planes did as an addition to one of their earlier kits, the F4U-5N Corsair, which had the parts for an "Elephant ears Vampire" as an extra.
I used them to make my Vampire T-35C.
The thread is on the forum way back however the original photos are with Botophucket, but here are some to show you what I am talking about.
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/9072/ig1Gkc.jpg)
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/9297/Cognv3.jpg)
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/8071/Z5q2y2.jpg)
The Highplanes conversion kit is what your looking for probably.
See here: https://www.hpmhobbies.com/high-planes-plus-dehavilland-dh-100-vampire-fb-31-conversion-1-72/
I'm assuming your working in 1/72?
Regards
Keith
You can get away with using a pair of Spitfire mk 9 intakes and grinding back the exhaust a bit. A mate is bang into Aussie stuff and that's what he did.
Thanks Gents for your help.
Wooksta - I did think they looked like something else - I shall have to see if anything in the spares box is good enough for Government work! ;D
Jim, that's one EVIL looking Vampire! :-\
Not to be met on a dark night, that's for sure!
Quote from: Knightflyer on May 23, 2020, 10:09:48 AM
Thanks Gents for your help.
Wooksta - I did think they looked like something else - I shall have to see if anything in the spares box is good enough for Government work! ;D
The large Aerovee intakes or the ones from underneath the Heller 16 are ideal.
A simple conversion would to use the major parts from the Heller Mistral for the Nene and swap the intakes and main wheels from the Vampire. Add the elephant ears as Lee mentioned.
That would be a bit easier. And Mistrals aren't that difficult to find either.
I think there's two different placings. Early ones had them underneath, the later ones had them on top - or is it early top, late bottom? And I think there's a Sperry autopilot bulge ahead of the windscreen too.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adf-gallery.com.au%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2FDH-Vampire-A78-2%2FVampire_A78_2_as_TX807_Photo_APMA.sized.jpg&hash=33f6cdceaf512aaf821bac3b5cae7564a136756e)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adf-gallery.com.au%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2FDH-Vampire-A79-1%2FVampire_A79_1_1949_a.jpg&hash=6e745153f71fbf1627944534c7e9ab8d06bcbbf7)
I'm wrong, as going off those photos Griffon intakes look to be the correct shape.
Sperry autopilot blister
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adf-gallery.com.au%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2FDH-Vampire-A79-1%2FME_2A79_1.jpg&hash=cb263b0937310504a847fe1f7886629019fca56a)
Possibly reshape the strike camera blister from the Beaufighter?
Useful list of serials for RAAF Vampires
Useful photos too
http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/DH-Vampire-A79-1
Oh, I was right about the intakes being underneath too:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adf-gallery.com.au%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2FDH-Vampire-A79-215%2FVampire_A79_215.jpg&hash=9321bb4a340b7dfb56de67d320682cc66d1cec42)
You also need to fill the holes on the airbrakes on the Heller Mistral and replace the bang seat in it with something closer to a Vampire bucket seat. A Spitfire one would suffice at a push.
ANd the RAAF had long and clipped wings too:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adf-gallery.com.au%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2FDH-Vampire-A79-215%2F21_Squadron_Laverton_c_1954_D_H_100_Vampire_Mk_30_A79_215_Mk_31_A79_467_climbing_after_take_off.jpg&hash=e8fe3b05597d7f34f3ec2340d26ace5654e82c61)
Steal the spares from the Special Hobby/Revell/Xtrakit vampire and do that as an FB5.
Quote from: kitnut617 on April 20, 2013, 02:35:57 PM
What I meant Lee was what do you plan on using to make the rest of the DH.116 --- the wings look very similar to the outer wings of the Sea Vixen and the rear fuselage looks like an early Hunter, so along with the Sea Venom forward fuselage you've got most of it covered. If I was to build one I think I'd use all the middle and rear fusealge of a Hunter T.7 and then modify it a bit.
Quote from: The Wooksta! on April 20, 2013, 03:46:07 PM
IIRC, I looked at using some or all of a Matchbox Hunter fuselage and I have plenty of Frog/Novo Sea Vixen wings in the spares box. I did blow up the three view from the BSP Fighters book and played around with bits but didn't get much further than that - some of my projects are glacially slow and it's only four years since I had the idea for a Lancaster/Lincoln/Shackleton hybrid, the Avro Lanchester, that I've actually done any real work on it.
I'd recently remembered I'd considered this build. I think I'd planned on using the Vampire T11 for the front as it matched the blown up drawings from the first BSP volume. May start looking at it again when I get the decks cleared of other things.
However, I may start with the abortive Blackbear Hawker P.1067 fuselage (few gash ones as the mould never worked), said Vampire pod, plastic card for the intakes and wing roots and possibly a reshaped Ho 229 for the wing. If that's done right with splices and wedges and that, it could well fit. I'd have to think further as there's a few other options for the wing - a Matchbox Hunter one reshaped could work as the intake shape is similar and the plastic is thick enough to withstand some judicious sanding. I was also reminded that I'd planned on doing a Hawker P.1030 Super Fury, and I do have all the bits sitting there to do it. And I know that's an easier build.
Quote from: The Wooksta! on May 23, 2020, 03:54:51 PM
early top, late bottom?
Yep. I'm sure I read somewhere that the lower intakes were adopted after it was found the upper ones could be occluded at certain angles of attack resulting in several accidents. Can't find my reference though.
Quote from: The Wooksta! on May 23, 2020, 03:54:51 PM
ANd the RAAF had long and clipped wings too:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adf-gallery.com.au%2Fgallery%2Falbums%2FDH-Vampire-A79-215%2F21_Squadron_Laverton_c_1954_D_H_100_Vampire_Mk_30_A79_215_Mk_31_A79_467_climbing_after_take_off.jpg&hash=e8fe3b05597d7f34f3ec2340d26ace5654e82c61)
The long wings were F.30's, the clipped FB.31's. They also took some Goblin
Avon FB.9's from the RAF for use in Malaysia. Two aircraft were trialed with larger intakes and ejection seats similar to the Mistral. This would have been the FB.32, but it wasn't adopted.
Mistral in RAAF Markings with standard Vampire wheels (fill the airbrakes) and an MB mk 2 bang seat. In service mk 32. Simples.
Avons in a Vampire? :o :o
I've never heard of that before, I bet they went like stink!
They didn't have Avons did they? only various versions of Goblins ? Nene's in the Mark.II ?
Whoops, been thinking too much about post war aircraft recently. Mind said Goblin, fingers said Avon! :angel:
Quote from: Mossie on May 24, 2020, 07:07:04 AM
Whoops, been thinking too much about post war aircraft recently. Mind said Goblin, fingers said Avon! :angel:
There's a teas-made / make-up joke in there somewhere, but it's tenuous and I'd don't know how many would get the references ;D
Quote from: Mossie on May 24, 2020, 07:07:04 AM
Whoops, been thinking too much about post war aircraft recently. Mind said Goblin, fingers said Avon! :angel:
Phew, thank goodness for that, I thought I'd had a memory lapse. ;D
Assuming that you could fit it in, an Avon would certainly make a Vampire travel very rapidly. See Wiki data below.
Goblin:-
General characteristics
Type: turbojet engine
Length: 107 in (2,700 mm)
Diameter: 50 in (1,300 mm)
Dry weight: 1,550 lb (700 kg)
Thrust :3,000 lbf (13.34 kN) at 10,200 rpm at sea level
Avon:-
General characteristics
Type: turbojet
Length: 126 in (3,200 mm)
Diameter: 35.7 in (907 mm)
Dry weight: 2,890 lb (1,310 kg)
Thrust:-12,690 lbf (56.4 kN) dry, 16,360 lbf (72.8 kN) with reheat
FOUR times the thrust! I'd be in for that. ;D :thumbsup:
My brain's already mixing an Airfix T11 fuselage with the rear end of a Revell Hunter. ;)
Well, maybe a FROG or M'box Hunter, the Revell one's too good for that much butchery.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on May 24, 2020, 07:56:42 AM
FOUR times the thrust! I'd be in for that. ;D :thumbsup:
My brain's already mixing an Airfix T11 fuselage with the rear end of a Revell Hunter. ;)
Well, maybe a FROG or M'box Hunter, the Revell one's too good for that much butchery.
Mmmmm.....add a t-tail and you'd start looking at something similar to the Super Venom ? (adding the Hunter wings (or Sea Vixen outer wings))
Good to see a mistake made on the last post before bed can have so much legs!
If you kept the twin boom and single seat it's half a Sea Vixen.
Quote from: Mossie on May 24, 2020, 11:26:43 AM
Good to see a mistake made on the last post before bed can have so much legs!
If you kept the twin boom and single seat it's half a Sea Vixen.
Half a Sea Vixen ...Great Idea ...You ought to put it on your Se Vi (think about it, think about it!) ;D :banghead: (this post was written under the influence of 2/3 of a bottle of wine...forgive me!) ;D
Quote from: Knightflyer on May 24, 2020, 12:29:53 PM
Quote from: Mossie on May 24, 2020, 11:26:43 AM
Good to see a mistake made on the last post before bed can have so much legs!
If you kept the twin boom and single seat it's half a Sea Vixen.
Half a Sea Vixen ...Great Idea ...You ought to put it on your Se Vi (think about it, think about it!) ;D :banghead: (this post was written under the influence of 2/3 of a bottle of wine...forgive me!) ;D
Scroll down this item :-https://falkeeinsgreatplanes.blogspot.com/2019/07/fleet-air-arm-1962-sea-vixen-flight.html (https://falkeeinsgreatplanes.blogspot.com/2019/07/fleet-air-arm-1962-sea-vixen-flight.html) and see the Sea Vixenettes at the Royal Tournament (but you probably already know about these)
Quote from: Rheged on May 24, 2020, 12:41:39 PM
Quote from: Knightflyer on May 24, 2020, 12:29:53 PM
Quote from: Mossie on May 24, 2020, 11:26:43 AM
Good to see a mistake made on the last post before bed can have so much legs!
If you kept the twin boom and single seat it's half a Sea Vixen.
Half a Sea Vixen ...Great Idea ...You ought to put it on your Se Vi (think about it, think about it!) ;D :banghead: (this post was written under the influence of 2/3 of a bottle of wine...forgive me!) ;D
Scroll down this item :-https://falkeeinsgreatplanes.blogspot.com/2019/07/fleet-air-arm-1962-sea-vixen-flight.html (https://falkeeinsgreatplanes.blogspot.com/2019/07/fleet-air-arm-1962-sea-vixen-flight.html) and see the Sea Vixenettes at the Royal Tournament (but you probably already know about these)
I had come across them, and had to double-check against pictures of real Sea Vixens. You could do a halfway house Vixenette - new nose, new outer wings, high tail-plane. The Sea Venom on it's way to becoming a Vixenette!
Quote from: Rheged on May 24, 2020, 12:41:39 PM
Scroll down this item :-https://falkeeinsgreatplanes.blogspot.com/2019/07/fleet-air-arm-1962-sea-vixen-flight.html (https://falkeeinsgreatplanes.blogspot.com/2019/07/fleet-air-arm-1962-sea-vixen-flight.html) and see the Sea Vixenettes at the Royal Tournament (but you probably already know about these)
That's most impressive. I've heard about them before but never seen a vid of it actually happening. Someone put in a lot of work on those Sea Venoms foor sure, the 'twin engines' are very realistic etc. but did they actually move under power from their Ghosts?
The Avon thrust figures quoted are for a later one. The early ones, such as in the Canberra, were putting out about 6,500 to 7,500lb, which is a much more sensible power-upgrade for a Vampire.
Two sticking points concern me:
1. Vampires were notoriously near to the ground, so I wonder if a 20 -inch fuselage stretch to accomodate the Avon is going to result in scraped jetpipes.
2. Vampire air intakes do a pretty sharp swerve inboard in a short distance. That's okay for the Goblin because centrifugals are quite tolerant of poor intake geometry (look at the gyrations that air has to go through to get into a Nene!) but axials are more finicky and the early Avon quite a bit so.
Having had a look at the DH.116 Super Venom, I'm coming to the conclusion that the wings are more like the initial Hunter wings - the original 1067 with the nose intake - and without the streamwise tips.
I really need to find the drawings I'd blown up - I'm sure I know where they are, it's just getting to them - because I'm now thinking of a cross between a Vampire T11 (the Merlin abortion), a Blackbeard P.1067, Hunter tailplanes and a lot of plastic card and P.38.
Quote from: The Wooksta! on May 25, 2020, 05:44:22 AM
Having had a look at the DH.116 Super Venom, I'm coming to the conclusion that the wings are more like the initial Hunter wings - the original 1067 with the nose intake - and without the streamwise tips.
I really need to find the drawings I'd blown up - I'm sure I know where they are, it's just getting to them - because I'm now thinking of a cross between a Vampire T11 (the Merlin abortion), a Blackbeard P.1067, Hunter tailplanes and a lot of plastic card and P.38.
Not a Walther P38 I hope! ;D (your reply is they should be issued with Unicraft kits! )
Halfords P38 car body filler. It's an epoxy resin substance that's as good as if not better than milliput - it'll cure quicker if you add more catalyst, will polish up as smooth as glass and best of all, if you time it right whilst it's curing you can cut it as easily as soft cheese. The only real downside is that it stinks to high heaven.