Does anyone know what the blisters on the nose of late Swiss Hunters are for?
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.swisshunters.info%2Fimages15%2F4114-4147%2520at%2520Meiringen.jpg&hash=1e0a0ec72ac244330112066355ff7a337308cb8c)
There's similar blisters around the bullet fairing aft of the tailplanes. Note also the revised sabrinas with the chaff dispensers.
I've got the relevant bits in the Revell kit, I just want to know what they are!
I believe it's part of the AN/APR-39 Radar warning receiver fitted along with the revised Sabrinas, as part of the
Hunter 80 update program.
This link might help with the lumps and bumps; https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/an-apr-39.htm
Regards
Keith
Was this a Swiss only programme or did HSA/BAe doe the work?
I ask as I'm doing a Hunter with the revised Sabrinas and wondering if I'll have to fit the lumps and bumps too. I can explain it as the aircraft had low airframe hours and were purchased back from the Swiss by BAe and issued back to the RAF/RAuxAF. But if HSA did the work for Swiss Hunters, they could have done similar for the RAF/RAuxAF...
This site has some fantastic info on the Swiss Hunters:
http://www.swisshunters.info/#4208
One photo has me thinking of a retirement scheme display aircraft in the early 1990s.
I believe that it was a Swiss only program and it also added AGM-65 Maverick capability to the Hunter as well.
Not sure if any of my references would be any help either. Unfortunately I'm no were near them for the rest of this week.
Still there's nothing stopping you from having HSA/BAe use the idea of extended Sabrinas or come up with something similar?
Regards
Keith
It would certainly be an interesting upgrade set. Is is done as an aftermarket product?
As an aside. Did Sidewinder carrying Hunter's need any particular special modification?
Can't help feeling that if Hunters in RAF service got upgraded with RWRs then they'd be a Harrier-style setup, with a chisel fairing halfway up the leading edge of the fin, and something similar blended into the back end of the tailplane bullet. However if it was done for the Swiss first and then bought back, then it'd be whatever the Swiss specified.
Quote from: Knightflyer on May 21, 2020, 12:27:34 AM
It would certainly be an interesting upgrade set. Is is done as an aftermarket product?
As an aside. Did Sidewinder carrying Hunter's need any particular special modification?
The bits are all in the original Revell FGA9. The current release doesn't have that sprue.
Quote from: The Wooksta! on May 21, 2020, 01:27:59 AM
Quote from: Knightflyer on May 21, 2020, 12:27:34 AM
It would certainly be an interesting upgrade set. Is is done as an aftermarket product?
As an aside. Did Sidewinder carrying Hunter's need any particular special modification?
The bits are all in the original Revell FGA9. The current release doesn't have that sprue.
So taking them from those kits (I have a couple!) they could be used on say the F.6?
I'm only asking because of the Alternative History book
"Easy Grace" by Phil Moncur in which following a non-nuclear reaction to a US Cuban invasion the Soviet Union responds with a series of regional wars on the NATO fringes, this leads to the UK facing a Battle of Britain type situation with Soviet attacks from occupied Norway. Lightnings are our main defenders, but Hunters are upgraded to 'F.6A' with Sidewinders.
I do like the idea of a 'Swiss' upgrade to Hunters, and Weavers point about a Harrier style RWR fit, the Hawk 200 had similar didn't it? So would make sense?
Sidewinders have been fitted to Hunters by a number of air forces in a number of different ways, including by the Rhodesian Air Force, who didn't exactly have huge resources and support to work with, so it can't be that difficult. One of the reasons early Sidewinder was so successful was that it was so easy to integrate.
Don't see why not, both releases of the FGA9 and the F6 are basically the same base kit with additional sprues for specific variants. The 'winders are in the original release F6 kit for the Dutch option, and you only get a pair. I'll need two F6 kits plus an FGA9 to do the full weapons fit for my ADV version.
This photo of a Singapore Hunter is one of my current inspirations.
(https://plamogeek.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/dsc00424.jpg?w=616)
But there's lots more here:
https://plamogeek.wordpress.com/2016/08/24/hawker-hunter-fga-9-walk-around/
I particularly like the centreline bomb rack.
Quote from: The Wooksta! on May 21, 2020, 05:02:22 AM
Don't see why not, both releases of the FGA9 and the F6 are basically the same base kit with additional sprues for specific variants. The 'winders are in the original release F6 kit for the Dutch option, and you only get a pair. I'll need two F6 kits plus an FGA9 to do the full weapons fit for my ADV version.
This photo of a Singapore Hunter is one of my current inspirations.
(https://plamogeek.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/dsc00424.jpg?w=616)
But there's lots more here:
https://plamogeek.wordpress.com/2016/08/24/hawker-hunter-fga-9-walk-around/
I particularly like the centreline bomb rack.
Wouldn't mind doing one of them either Lee, it would look so unusual to most folk with that bomb rack and the winders where they are.
Gondor
Quote from: The Wooksta! on May 21, 2020, 05:02:22 AM
(https://plamogeek.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/dsc00424.jpg?w=616)
So the inboard Sidewinder is on an additional pylon (to the two 'usual' pylons)? I'm presuming they could get twin-rail launchers like Sea Harriers got.
A centre-line store is different, I'd not realised that about the Singaporean Hunters.
I'm seeing a FGA.9 further developed with Swiss/Singapore bolt-ons, and a force-multiplier fighter with 4+ Sidewinders similar to how the Hawk T.1A was produced.
What's the possible weapon loaded further out along the wing? Didn't they used to have rockets (a la Typhoon) hung at that point? Or did that replace the outer pylon? Could you square the wing-tips off (a la Hawk this time) for additional Sidewinders?
There are attachement points for four rocket rails under the outer wings which can be replaced by one outer pylon on most aircraft. The Rhodesians exploited these extra mounting points to put their Sidewinders on an extra pylon located between the standard inner and outer pylons.
The Swiss used Oerlikon rockets on their Hunters which were carried on odd-looking 'Christmas Tree' launch rails. They could be fitted between the main wing pylons (like the Rhodesian Sidewinders) AND in front of the undercarriage bays (like the Singaporean Sidewinders). I don't see any reason in principle why you couldn't have both the Rhodesian AND Singaporean Sidewinder rails, thus giving you four missiles AND four wet pylons for drop tanks and/or ordnance.
In the UK, some trials were done with Sidewinders mounted on the sides of an F.4's gun pack, in an installation analogous to the missile carriage on a Lightning. Nothing came of it of course, and I can see difficulties with missile exhaust going into the intakes. Not sure how far it got: I've got a couple of pics, but no info.
Quote from: Weaver on May 21, 2020, 07:27:18 AM
There are attachement points for four rocket rails under the outer wings which can be replaced by one outer pylon on most aircraft. The Rhodesians exploited these extra mounting points to put their Sidewinders on an extra pylon located between the standard inner and outer pylons.
The Swiss used Oerlikon rockets on their Hunters which were carried on odd-looking 'Christmas Tree' launch rails. They could be fitted between the main wing pylons (like the Rhodesian Sidewinders) AND in front of the undercarriage bays (like the Singaporean Sidewinders). I don't see any reason in principle why you couldn't have both the Rhodesian AND Singaporean Sidewinder rails, thus giving you four missiles AND four wet pylons for drop tanks and/or ordnance.
In the UK, some trials were done with Sidewinders mounted on the sides of an F.4's gun pack, in an installation analogous to the missile carriage on a Lightning. Nothing came of it of course, and I can see difficulties with missile exhaust going into the intakes. Not sure how far it got: I've got a couple of pics, but no info.
Talk about loaded for Bear! ;D
Nice find there Lee. That has given me some good ideas for the hunters I have :thumbsup:
Chris
Quote from: Knightflyer on May 21, 2020, 06:40:29 AM
Quote from: The Wooksta! on May 21, 2020, 05:02:22 AM
(https://plamogeek.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/dsc00424.jpg?w=616)
So the inboard Sidewinder is on an additional pylon (to the two 'usual' pylons)? I'm presuming they could get twin-rail launchers like Sea Harriers got.
A centre-line store is different, I'd not realised that about the Singaporean Hunters.
I'm seeing a FGA.9 further developed with Swiss/Singapore bolt-ons, and a force-multiplier fighter with 4+ Sidewinders similar to how the Hawk T.1A was produced.
What's the possible weapon loaded further out along the wing? Didn't they used to have rockets (a la Typhoon) hung at that point? Or did that replace the outer pylon? Could you square the wing-tips off (a la Hawk this time) for additional Sidewinders?
The outer "normal" pylons on this display aircraft have sidewinders on them in addition to the "new" pylon in front of the undercarriage. You can just see to the right a pair of low drag bombs that are additionally carried on the underside of the fuselage but I can't remember off the top of my head if there were more carried elsewhere on the fuselage.
Gondor
Found this photo on the site I linked to for Swiss Hunters:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.swisshunters.info%2Fimages8%2F4206-1Lewis.jpg&hash=04a940f9ba30963e5f3fbe2852cb6d1ac33adcf4)
And it's giving me an idea for a final flight special scheme for 607s Hunters.
With regard to tip pylons, Hawker did test tip-tanks on an F.4, but they caused more aerodynamic problems than they were worth, so I'd guess that they'd be wary of wingtip missile rails.
That's a bit odd, because they were continually coming up with tip tanks on advance Hunter projects after those tests.
Missile rails might be a tad different.
Sorry, my bad: it was an F.6 that tested tip tanks, not an F.4. Apparently the problem was buffeting. Tip tanks/rails are also more likely to be problematic on a swept wing than a straight or delta one due to aeroelastic issues.
Apparently the Singaporean centreline pylon was done with help from Lockheed. It looks to me like they reinforced the skins locally, then fitted pylon hardware directly to the airframe, thus allowing a triple-ejector-rack to be fitted with only two bombs on it.
Quote from: The Wooksta! on May 21, 2020, 03:37:52 PM
Found this photo on the site I linked to for Swiss Hunters:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.swisshunters.info%2Fimages8%2F4206-1Lewis.jpg&hash=04a940f9ba30963e5f3fbe2852cb6d1ac33adcf4)
And it's giving me an idea for a final flight special scheme for 607s Hunters.
The mind boggles :o
607s Sqn. Colours were yellow and mauve....
Regards
Keith
Here's the Rhodesian AIM-9B fit. Apparently they also used South African V3 Kukris as well:
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VCEzPjXt9_I/WFX4v9Z_P9I/AAAAAAAAI4U/z8fZK6sig-AT1wYjDxgYGgPDwdWRfsVZgCLcB/s1600/rhodesian%2Bhunter%2BNEW%2BNEW.jpg)
Yes, that does appear to be South African roundel on the aircraft, and no, I don't know why. South Africa didn't use Hunters, so my guess is that a Rhodesian one was in SA for the integration work and they put an SAAF roundel on it to make it less conspicuous to a casual observer.
Would HSA have known about that mod? Could it have been applied to UK Hunters giving the FGA9 a measure of extra protection/offensive capability? I mean, big ferry tanks, 'winders and Matra pods would be rather handy if Breznev's forces start rumbling past the east German border.
Quote from: The Wooksta! on May 21, 2020, 03:37:52 PM
Found this photo on the site I linked to for Swiss Hunters:
(img)
And it's giving me an idea for a final flight special scheme for 607s Hunters.
A bit of searching found quite a few photos. Airliners.net, and others. And:
"""
In 2001 the aeroplane was acquired by the Hunter Flying Group in Altenrhein and registered as HB-RVV. The aircraft was painted as ´Tiger Hunter´ in 2009, following the original ´Tiger-look´ Hunter J-4053 from Staffel 11 at Meiringen, that was wearing such livery in 1973."""
http://afterburner.com.pl/north-american-p-51d-mustang-and-hawker-hunter-t-mk-68/
Quote from: The Wooksta! on May 22, 2020, 05:42:47 AM
Would HSA have known about that mod? Could it have been applied to UK Hunters giving the FGA9 a measure of extra protection/offensive capability? I mean, big ferry tanks, 'winders and Matra pods would be rather handy if Breznev's forces start rumbling past the east German border.
Good question - don't know. It's entirely credible that they'd work it out for themselves though: if somebody tells you they want four Sidewinders and four drop tanks on a Hunter, there's only so many things you can do, and the rocket-rail mounting are there anyway, so...
All this reminds me of the time I was looking at Hunter cutaways and profiles and had the 'original' realization that if it was okay for the two-seater to be longer than the single-seater without a fin or rear-fuselage stretch, then that meant you could stretch the forward fuselage of a single-seater to get more fuel in. Then I did some more reading, and discovered that the Central Fighter Establishment proposed exactly that in the late 1950s :rolleyes:. The CFE Hunter proposal also featured two ADENs with 300 rounds each instead of four with 150 rounds each, a non-afterburning Avon 301 of 12,650lb thrust and Sidewinders. All eminently sensible, but never acted on, of course...
Quote from: Weaver on May 22, 2020, 07:02:07 AM
Quote from: The Wooksta! on May 22, 2020, 05:42:47 AM
Would HSA have known about that mod? Could it have been applied to UK Hunters giving the FGA9 a measure of extra protection/offensive capability? I mean, big ferry tanks, 'winders and Matra pods would be rather handy if Breznev's forces start rumbling past the east German border.
Good question - don't know. It's entirely credible that they'd work it out for themselves though: if somebody tells you they want four Sidewinders and four drop tanks on a Hunter, there's only so many things you can do, and the rocket-rail mounting are there anyway, so...
All this reminds me of the time I was looking at Hunter cutaways and profiles and had the 'original' realization that if it was okay for the two-seater to be longer than the single-seater without a fin or rear-fuselage stretch, then that meant you could stretch the forward fuselage of a single-seater to get more fuel in. Then I did some more reading, and discovered that the Central Fighter Establishment proposed exactly that in the late 1950s :rolleyes:. The CFE Hunter proposal also featured two ADENs with 300 rounds each instead of four with 150 rounds each, a non-afterburning Avon 301 of 12,650lb thrust and Sidewinders. All eminently sensible, but never acted on, of course...
Mmmmm......do you think Colin (Freightdog) might be able to create that one for us? ;D
TBH, it's doable from two Hunters anyway - you have a leftover forward fuselage after you've converted one to the tandem seat trainer with Colin's conversion, so trim it down a bit, remove the cockpit section from a second Hunter and use it as a fuselage extension.
I know what I mean, I'm just finding it hard to describe!
And if you bollocks it up, well, just get another tandem seat conversion.
A Canadian company called Northern Lights has quite a few of those Swiss Hunters.
Quote from: The Wooksta! on May 22, 2020, 07:17:04 AM
TBH, it's doable from two Hunters anyway - you have a leftover forward fuselage after you've converted one to the tandem seat trainer with Colin's conversion, so trim it down a bit, remove the cockpit section from a second Hunter and use it as a fuselage extension.
I know what I mean, I'm just finding it hard to describe!
And if you bollocks it up, well, just get another tandem seat conversion.
Oh I agree, but the "everything in one package" with less fettling (for those of of us that don't fettle so much) is attractive ;D
Fettling is much more fun.
Besides which, if you can handle the saw cuts to do one mod, a few more and some strips of plastic card to stiffen the interior isn't that hard to do.