Folks:
Given all the chatter about the VG wings from Freightdog and Weaver's comment about new wings, I thought I would come out of the closet.
This one has been slowly evolving. The reason d'etre for the HF.2A is to intercept the Beriev S-13. We know the Lightning could zoom-climb to 60,000+ feet but it was a ballistic trajectory.
So what-if we added the appropriate wings to allow a stately cruise at altitude?
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1139.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn547%2FCF-101B%2FModelling%25202015%2FIMG_2472.jpg&hash=8fc4f2692f17d03d14a41116b21cfcb04ae42d90)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1139.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn547%2FCF-101B%2FModelling%25202015%2FIMG_2470.jpg&hash=d91bcd6b1bb20b13bbe211739ce085dbc31c090d)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1139.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn547%2FCF-101B%2FModelling%25202015%2FIMG_2471.jpg&hash=0f5f1a96a56052d9fb9a013804962a64f383e58e)
Wings are from the Revell 1/100 Carvelle. I had to remove the fuselage ridges to get a flush fit.
Question for the experts: My vertical stabilizer is warped. I need to straighten it out About 2-3mm. I heard boiling water will fix this but my efforts with this have been less that stellar. What is the technique to NOT melt the plastic which is what I end up doing
DON'T use boiling water! As you've discovered, that way lies disaster.
Warm water does the job, and if the temperature is OK you can try bending the part with your hands in the water without scalding yourself.
As for the model, it's the BUSINESS! I can't wait to see how it comes out, right up my street. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Thanks Kit.
Now comes the question of landing gear placement. We have had discussions on this issue before.
The Caravelle gear is pretty much the same distance away from the fuselage as the regular gear.
I thinking of throw away pogos and reinforced skids like the U-2.
Sounds good to me, but the while the Lightning will have enough room for the single main gear leg at the front end of the belly tank, or in the missile/gun bay, the tailwheel may be difficult to position. Maybe where the hook goes at the rear of the tank, if you're using the tank of course?
That is wicked ! Love the look of it.
For a tailwheel you could use the Airfi GR.7/9 Harrier 'in flight' option wing wheel. That would work.
:cheers:
I just came back from my 10 KM walk. It includes a 3 KM portion along an abandoned railway line. It is here where I clear my mind by counting every railway tie. :wacko:
How about swapping the main gear (port to starboard and starboard to port) so it retracts inward so I now have a wider wheel base. I have much thicker wing to work with so I can use thicker wheels.
@Kit: I 'm going to keep the ventral tank and add 450 Gal or larger drop tanks. The bigger/thicker wing will increase fuel consumption.
And Colin if you are reading this, thanks for building the conversion kits. In harmony withe new Airfix kits, you have taken the Lightning from obscurity (fighter only) to whole new world of potential. I have 8 kits/ideas where each one will be unique.
Keep those conversions coming.
Carl, great project ---
as for the u/c, A-7 or F-16 (maybe 1/48) and modify the belly tank to accept them, then extend the belly tank forward as in the real world projects
A 1/72 scale F-16 main gear would be pretty puny for a Lightning, specially for one with massive wings. I used one for my Hawker P.1086, the one based on a Snark, and I almost rejected it as it was so small.
Might be better with the Grumman Viking gear then ---
Quote from: PR19_Kit on October 17, 2015, 04:55:58 AM
DON'T use boiling water! As you've discovered, that way lies disaster.
Warm water does the job, and if the temperature is OK you can try bending the part with your hands in the water without scalding yourself.
As for the model, it's the BUSINESS! I can't wait to see how it comes out, right up my street. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Complete agreement. I tend to use hotish warm water, fix the warp to my liking, 'splint' it, then stick it in the freezer to shock the molecules. I've found this stops the part rewarping over time (doesn't always happen but worth doing).
Quote from: Librarian on October 17, 2015, 10:51:13 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on October 17, 2015, 04:55:58 AM
DON'T use boiling water! As you've discovered, that way lies disaster.
Warm water does the job, and if the temperature is OK you can try bending the part with your hands in the water without scalding yourself.
As for the model, it's the BUSINESS! I can't wait to see how it comes out, right up my street. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Complete agreement. I tend to use hotish warm water, fix the warp to my liking, 'splint' it, then stick it in the freezer to shock the molecules. I've found this stops the part rewarping over time (doesn't always happen but worth doing).
When bending rod for exhausts or roll cages I jam an old kettle into the op position and use steam to heat the plastic. This might also work for removing warps.
Thanks all for the "no boiling water tip".
@PR19_Kit and @kitnut617, I have some S-3 donor kits and the MK.1 eyeball tells me that the S-3 wheel wells could be removed intact from the S-3 and installed/replace part of the ventral fuel tank. I would then make the original main gear outriggers using smaller wheels. Need to think about this some more .....
You have S-3 kits in the PLURAL? :o
Quote from: PR19_Kit on October 18, 2015, 05:10:46 AM
You have S-3 kits in the PLURAL? :o
Yup. I needed 4 TF-34 engines for another build so I have two engineless S-3s.
Gorgeous. Absolutely gorgeous.
Nice! How about a tandem landing gear with small outriggers (Harrier style)? Even if a tricycle landing gear retracts into the fuselage, the track is pretty narrow... ground handling must be rather wobbly and hazardous?
Anyway, the idea is cool, and I am curious about the paint scheme. An all-grey low-viz livery?
The B-47 type landing gear arrangement could be used.
I love this idea!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: Can't wait to see where you go with it! I liked what you used for the main wing, mach easier than trying to make big wings!
If you had the room in the rear section a tandem main gear setup would be the way to go with outriggers, but judging the fuselage you won't have that much room. Other idea would be to copy what they did with a couple of the Soviet passenger jets and fit a pod to each wing into which the main gear can fold back into. That way each main gear truck can have 4 smaller wheels, will leave the wings nice and smooth, plus you have the forward section of the pods free for sensors etc!
Quote from: The Big Gimper on October 18, 2015, 05:39:29 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on October 18, 2015, 05:10:46 AM
You have S-3 kits in the PLURAL? :o
Yup. I needed 4 TF-34 engines for another build so I have two engineless S-3s.
Have a look here Carl, there might be something you could use instead (under engines)
http://www.contrailsmodels.com/Engines.html
Quote from: trickyrich on October 19, 2015, 02:12:09 AM
I love this idea!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: Can't wait to see where you go with it! I liked what you used for the main wing, mach easier than trying to make big wings!
If you had the room in the rear section a tandem main gear setup would be the way to go with outriggers, but judging the fuselage you won't have that much room. Other idea would be to copy what they did with a couple of the Soviet passenger jets and fit a pod to each wing into which the main gear can fold back into. That way each main gear truck can have 4 smaller wheels, will leave the wings nice and smooth, plus you have the forward section of the pods free for sensors etc!
@TrickyRick: Those pods (which are cool BTW) are Anti-shock body's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-shock_body) also known as Whitcomb body or Küchemann carrot. Anti-shock bodies, apparently developed in TsAGI and serving dual purpose as undercarriage bogie fairings, were first applied to Tupolev Tu-16 ''Badger'', that flew for the first time in April 1952, and were to remain a unique feature of the company's products up to and including the Tu-154.
I like the look of them and will into the feasibility of using them.
@Dizzyfugu: The finish will be either NMF or all-grey low-viz livery. It depends on when I want to the in-service date.
Quote from: The Big Gimper on October 19, 2015, 03:57:27 AM
Quote from: trickyrich on October 19, 2015, 02:12:09 AM
I love this idea!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: Can't wait to see where you go with it! I liked what you used for the main wing, mach easier than trying to make big wings!
If you had the room in the rear section a tandem main gear setup would be the way to go with outriggers, but judging the fuselage you won't have that much room. Other idea would be to copy what they did with a couple of the Soviet passenger jets and fit a pod to each wing into which the main gear can fold back into. That way each main gear truck can have 4 smaller wheels, will leave the wings nice and smooth, plus you have the forward section of the pods free for sensors etc!
@TrickyRick: Those pods (which are cool BTW) are Anti-shock body's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-shock_body) also known as Whitcomb body or Küchemann carrot. Anti-shock bodies, apparently developed in TsAGI and serving dual purpose as undercarriage bogie fairings, were first applied to Tupolev Tu-16 ''Badger'', that flew for the first time in April 1952, and were to remain a unique feature of the company's products up to and including the Tu-154.
I like the look of them and will into the feasibility of using them.
@Dizzyfugu: The finish will be either NMF or all-grey low-viz livery. It depends on when I want to the in-service date.
Arr I just learnt something, thanks. The more I think about them the more I like the idea, pity I don't have a project to use this idea for!!
This looks great - nice project! :thumbsup:
I agree with the Küchemann Carrot solution to the undercarriage: gives optimum wing structure to take a LOT of stress adds area-ruling and gives a decent undercarriage track.
Colour-wise, how about some variation on PRU blue for the undersides at least, or maybe a darker blue to hide it against the sky as seen at high altitude?