Tell me, does that name stink?
I'm planning a what if based around the premise that the single engined EE P.6 adaptation of the Lighning was built and flown and recognised to have great potential as a fighter ( just like EE always wanted).
What I'm planning is therefore a later mark of the fighter version, a single (Gyron or Olympus maybe?) engined aircraft made out of the fuselage of an Su-9 Fishpot mated with the wings, tail, fuselage spine and cockpit, belly tank and nose intake (if it fits) of a Lightning F.6.
Has anyone done anything similar who can advise me on this?
I'm thinking four missiles with two on the wingtips and two on shallow pylons on the inboard portion of the wing, similar to the installation seen with sidewinders on some F-86's. I don't know whether to try and find some red tops or use sidewinders and sparrows (2 each). I'm also thinking of making it circa 1972 with camouflage and roundels as used on the Phantom and Bucc when they first entered service as this variant would be of that vintage.
I like the idea of the developed and trouble free Olympus powering a single engined interceptor to go alongside my TSR.2's that I'm waiting for.
what do you think?
A rose by any other name...
Seriously, build her and the name will come. Besides, the names you've chosen are not bad at all in the first place. And the concept is rather cool.
Cheers wooksta, I'm afraid I can't get hold of two Su-9's so thats what led me to thinking about a 'mk.4' P.106, explaining the bulged rear fuselage accomodating a bigger engine :D At least I think the Olympus is bigger than the RB.106.
I suppose what I was really looking for was confirmation about the Su-9 size from someone who I consider would really know about this stuff and you've given me that, thanks.
I was concerned about the longer tapering nose of the Su-9 but the drawings I have seen of the P.6 suggest a similar, if shorter, shape anyway. I'm thinking I may get away with it but I am thinking of maybe cutting it down if necessary, I have to wait for my ebay Lightning to arrive to go for a test fit.
One plus point I've noticed about the Su-9 is that the wing roots are not indented on the inside of the fuselage so removing them will be a doddle.
Yes, I am using the F.6 tank too, thanks.
If you tyhink of anything else, anyone, I'm all ears.
Anything involving the Lightning is cool... B)
You might want to check out my Storm Lightning (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/air/ndunn/nevlww.htm)
I like the name Thunder. It goes right alongside Lightning.
That storm lightning is great! Thanks for that link. I'm waiting to see how the model actually looks before I settle on a name, thats why it will be a Lightning F.9 if it looks like it merits the name or the Thunder F.4 if it looks different enough once finished.
Right I've made a tentative start on this. The Spine and belly tank came off the Lightning and cleaned up OK, I may have to shorten the spine at the rear slightly and also shorten the Lightning fin a little from the bottom as it looks too big.
I shortened the Su-9 nose until it was the same diameter as the lightning intake, which is good as I was worried the nose was too long in the first place, it now looks right (so far anyway) against the drawings of the P.6
I was a bit flippant when I said removing the Su-9 wing roots would be a doddle. Flaming hell, what sort of Plastic do Kopro use? It took ages of hacking and sanding to get them off.
I now have a box of bits that appear to be capable of being built up into my Olympus-Lightning/Thunder.
Oh gawd, I'm feeling nervous now, I haven't built anything for two years, and that was a comeback model!
So you havn't built anything for two years and you comeback by hacking something up :o
Braver man then me Gunga Din :D
Best of luck - I'm looking forward to the results
Chris
QuoteSo you havn't built anything for two years and you comeback by hacking something up :o
Braver man then me Gunga Din :D
Best of luck - I'm looking forward to the results
Chris
Actually Chris , it isn't as daunting as you may think, Waynos obviously knows the craft just he hasn't been active for a bit. The key to modelling i find is the inspiration. If you want to build something then and know how it will work in your head then you'll find you can probably do it.
So go for it Waynos, and good luck with the kit bashing as the BAC Thunder sounds rather tasty.
G B)
Thanks for the kind words, I've also discovered that my reason for keeping the bulged rear fuselage (a bigger engine) is bogus because the engine, as I suspected all along, isn't mounted at he back at all, its in the middle between the wings!
No matter though! For I see that two years after the P.6 was first schemed English Electric was drawing another derivative of the Lightning design, the P.8, with an area ruled rear fuselage! Whatsmore, Blackburns drawings for the Buccaneer from about the same time show the trademark 'coke bottle' shape to its rear fuselage to be missing completely!
Hey presto! When the P.6 was selected for development therefpore clearly EE bulged the rear fuselage slightly to incorporate a degree of area rule! My Su-7 fuselage is OK after all, yippee! :lol:
Quote[Actually Chris , it isn't as daunting as you may think, Waynos obviously knows the craft just he hasn't been active for a bit. The key to modelling i find is the inspiration. If you want to build something then and know how it will work in your head then you'll find you can probably do it.
So go for it Waynos, and good luck with the kit bashing as the BAC Thunder sounds rather tasty.
G B)
Your'e right there Geoff. Inspiration is the key. My Strike Gannet concept was inspired by seeing the size of the real things bombay at MAM, followed up by a conversation with you. This has now moved on to what I hope will be a post SMW attempt to produce a version of the Fairey O22/44 design from the sketch and company model in British Secret Projects. Looks doable and will be my first serious kit bash since I was a teenager, which is why it will be a post SMW project so I can give it the time it deserves.
Chris
I don't know if anyones following this but here's an update;
the fuselage is coming along nicely as you can see here, the spine fitted perfectly (hope the canopy does!) but the belly tank will need a bit of filler when the glue is dry, no real problem. If anyone else is thinking of using the Kopro Su-9 beware that constructing the cockpit tub is a matter of guesswork as the instructions are of very little use and once it is constructed it is a bit too wide for the fuselage, so nothing much to worry about there then.
In my haste to get it together I forgot to weight the nose (doh!) :dum: but fortunately the main gear will be quite far aft and at least I got some weight into the front of the belly tank before it went on!
I left the fin its original size as I figure this MAY allow me to get away without using the ventral fins, but no firm decision on that yet.
The only other thing I've done is to glue the wings together and carve out the roots so that they will sit comfortably on the rounded fuselage in the near shoulder mounted positiion that the P.6 drawing shows.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi9.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa94%2FWtMiller%2FDSCF0017.jpg&hash=93071a10c689df59fba456112c2c8ee28c95d4a0)
Great idea, great thread. Good Luck with this and more pictures please!
Waynos, a silly-assed question here, if you wanted a constant section nose, why not use the A-Model Su-11 instead of a Su-9?
That minor bit aside, I like what I see and it's looking good.
Not a silly question at all. The way this has come about is that I was reading British Secret Projects for the umpteenth time and while imagining a service fighter developed from the P.6 I remembered the old Lightning and Su-9 kits I've had stashed for years. Despite not being able to find the Lightning kit at all I was now obsessed with the thought of doing this and eneded up buying a Lightning to hack to pieces!
The fact that the P.6 drawing in the Book dates from 1953 and is thus a very early scheme has given me a bit of license to take liberties with the design though, just look how the P.1B prototypes differed from the Lightning F.6. Thus my model is not meant to represent a P.6 'if built' but rather a sort of P.6B 'as evolved'. Of course that also means nobody can tell me I've got it wrong, ha ha! :D
With this in mind my wing is mounted ever so slightly further back on the fuselage so that the leading edge root is not directly under the canopyand the missiles are going to be mounted further forwards on the wingtip than EE drawings of the P.8 show, for no other reason than I think EE's depiction looks a bit odd, and any unexpected curves on the fuselage are simply down to EE applying area rule during developent. The tailplane mounting is a complete figment of my imagination as I've found no reference that shows what it should look like but I've taken inspiration from the P1121 on that score.
QuoteAt risk of hijacking the thread...
Chris, do you mean the Fairey O.21/44, as I can't find an O.22/44? If you're going to do that one, I'd advise using a Contrail Spearfish as a basis - IF you can find one. Yeah, it's a vacform but the plastic is fairly thick and it's ideal for kitbashing. The O.21/44 looks like some kind of Spearfish deriviative anyway.
Lee
I'll check as the one I'm going to try for was a Spearfish derivrative but with a Gannet like front end
Chris
Here are some update pictures, what do you think?
Now pondering markings and finishes. I'm rubbish at BMF and have never used anything but a brush for painting so don't expect miracles. I am thinknig of standard RAF 1970's camouflage with C type roundels and maybe a black fin and spine as my favoured option at the moment, probably with light Aircraft grey undersides as wellmaking it a 1968-70 model.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi9.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa94%2FWtMiller%2FDSCF0019.jpg&hash=418fc2aa0042623550f146bd6602b74b687af0d5)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi9.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa94%2FWtMiller%2FDSCF0020.jpg&hash=ea948dbd4005a12609b98b1dcccc5233f839155a)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi9.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa94%2FWtMiller%2FDSCF0021.jpg&hash=f15a98e8b599f013637f443d9618b496eb5107b0)
Looks like a good bit of modelling to me :D :D :D
Splendid job!
It looks a lot better than the real Ligthning!
Ducks for cover...
^_^
QuoteSplendid job!
It looks a lot better than the real Ligthning!
Ducks for cover...
^_^
Fido, KILL! :angry:
Top bit of work fella, BTW! ;)
ooooooooooh that IS nice...
be even better when italy/germany/canada etc etc buy it instead of the f-104
Damm, that is looking very good!!!
That looks so right - well done mate
Looking good, i used the same kit when doing the Supermarine 553 mated to a length of 22mm uPVC Plumbing tube from B&Q. Checking another Su-9 last night you could use a length of the same tube to remove the area rule bulge in the Su-9 by cutting out the bulge and replacing with a section of tube.
Is this one coming to Telford this year ?
G B)
Thanks for the kind words all, I just hope the finished article is as good as you all seem to expect it to be :unsure:
As for Telford, I love looking at other peoples models but my own a far from 'show standard' I'm afraid.
That's a good suggestion about the B&Q pipe, if I'd thought of that I might have tried it, but the bulge has grown on me now as I have come to regard it as EE introducing an element of area rule to the design but avoiding a complete redesign of the fuselage. ;)
Funny you should mention the Supermarine 553 as when I looked the nose shape of my 'P.6F' I thought it would be perfect for one of those! Looking at the picture in the book I think the name 'Bloodhound' suits its looks, shame about the missile getting in there first.
Speaking of names, I'm starting to have my doubts about 'Thunder' as it seems to belong to Republic. I am struggling to decide though and I'd love to hear any suggestions. One I was wondering about was 'Excalibur' seeing as it gives a phonetic match with English Electric, hmmmm.
Any ideas?
Quote
As for Telford, I love looking at other peoples models but my own a far from 'show standard' I'm afraid.
Waynos
I had exactly the same thoughts before joing this merry bunch. I would never have showed my models, but since joining I have received such encouragement that I don't have a problem with it at all now. Bring it and others along and you will be pleasently suprised by the feeling you get - I promise (and no it's nothing to do with Radish creeping up on you :P )
Chris
Waynos,
I was like Chris as far as my models was concerned, but after taking the plunge and displaying some at the MK show a couple of years ago, I noe enjoy putting my stuff on the stands. To me it serves as a motivator to improve my moderate skills and also there is a sense of pride when you can say to yourself, 'Thats good enough to go on display'. So bring 'em along and display them. You'll be surprised by how much praise you actually get.
Quoteand no it's nothing to do with Radish creeping up on you )
Chris, you should know by now Rad never creeps up on you, he's like a force of nature and comes at you ful force, wether you're ready or not!!!! :D :D :D :P :ph34r:
Still thinking about your wise words guys;
Anyway, here is a pic of my almost finished Thunder F.4 of 56 Sqn, 1971. I used interior green on the U/C doors and bays just to be different but I've changed my mind and will repaint them silver. The worst thing though is that it is a tail sitter! I forgot about the main gears being angled forwards and the balance is wrong, Oops!
anyway, does it suit?
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi9.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa94%2FWtMiller%2FDSCF0048.jpg&hash=da222bb8412436f9c7391c9aadc2fc6920f85ef7)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi9.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa94%2FWtMiller%2FDscf0024.jpg&hash=8228cf7849311ad9e5045be90f48ac7dfd5e74e0)
Whooooooowheeeee !!! NICE!!!!
greg
Well done!
Awesome!
:wub:
Quote
anyway, does it suit?
OOO! Suits you Sir!
Very nice! You could call this the BAe Moderate Breeze and it would still look awesome!
Now quick, do another in current air defence colors with ASRAAMS and AMRAAMS!
:wub: :wub: :wub:
Holy frelling poo-poo (with an english accent) Waynos. That is AWSOME!!!! You have got to put that on the stand at Telford.
That's good mate - and will throw some people
Chris
Wow....amazing how different it looks from a 'real' Lightning ! Great work....love the camo
:wub:
I'd appreciate a few more pics, tho.....especially around the tail. And a wee dab of cyano glue under the front wheel will cure all your woes at showtime
Cool, very cool, I can see the fuel gauge spinning round now :D :D :D
Looks really good :P :P
Yeap that does look good, and certainly must go on the SIG stand at Telford if your coming B).
Nice one
Geoff B
(PS i moved it here as this is where builds should actually be posted ;) )
QuoteQuote
anyway, does it suit?
OOO! Suits you Sir!
Very nice! You could call this the BAe Moderate Breeze and it would still look awesome!
Amen, brother! :D
Which gives me an idea...
super stuff! :D
familiar yet subtly different, like the best What Ifs
Excellent work and very convincing!
The P6 was a damn good idea that never saw hardware, a crying shame since it would have been cheaper than a Lightning to buy and run, yet should have been able to mount all the hardware of the larger twin engined machine. Most likely the P6 would have been easier to maintain as well, not having to deal with stacked engines.
A real name from the time......how about 'Assagai' which was floated in the list for the Lightning, and would seem appropriate.
Hmmm.....developments.....EE would have propsed a 'solid' nose version, A two seater Trainer (both side by side and tandem), attack variants, recce types, and a swing wing variant much like the Lightning. Perhaps even a navalised type as well?
"Does it suit?" he says. :rolleyes:
Does the Pope wear a funny hat?
It's GORGEOUS!
Woah! finished already? I like it!
now THAT's an aircraft... :wub: :wub:
Oh
My
GOODNESS!!!
:wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub:
Niiice!
Alvis 3.1
HOLY CRAP!!!!!!!!!!
That thing is fecking awesome, looks just like a Lightning but then again it doesn't, perfect WIF. That SU-9 did the trick and I think I've got one in the stash i just may steal that idea.
One question though what is "area rule" ? Everybody was talking about it in the thread.
QuoteHOLY CRAP!!!!!!!!!!
That thing is fecking awesome, looks just like a Lightning but then again it doesn't, perfect WIF. That SU-9 did the trick and I think I've got one in the stash i just may steal that idea.
One question though what is "area rule" ? Everybody was talking about it in the thread.
Area rule (or the "Coke-Bottle effect") used to be required to lessen transonic drag. NACA scientists under Dr. Richard Whitcomb determined that the total cross sectional area of an aircraft must effect a smooth curve from front to back, sort of like an egg. Now, because airplanes have to have wings and such, an egg shape just isn't possible. So to get around this, the fuselage of the aircraft is "pinched" over the wings to lessen the total cross section. This can best be seen in mid- to late-Fifties designs like the Phantom, the Hustler, the Thud and especially the F-102 Delta Dagger, where blisters were added to either side of the exhaust cone to alter the cross section as the Dagger didn't have enough room in the fuselage to pinch the waist.
Compare pictures of the YF-102 and the F-102A, and the YF-105 and F-105B to see how area rule changed their designs.
Thus endeth the lesson, and you may now return to your modeling. There will be a test Monday morning, :lol:
Wow guys, I'm overwhelmed! Thank you all for massaging my ego so much! Still bits and bobs to do and I will try and get some better pictures up too when I can showing different views, from above it looks like a fat lightning with the circular fuselage but from the side its more shallow profile and nosewheel set further back (a property of the kit, not something I did on purpose) gives it a completely different character from the old Lightning.
Zen, I was coming here too to suggest (that somebody else builds!) a VG version!
wooksta, The reason the tail fin codes are wrong is because it is a decal sheet for that very 1988 Lightning you mention, I have single codes too but they are in black and I like the look of the white ones, that was all there was to the choice, a bit remiss of me I admit. I just thought 'what if' they did do that? :)
Thanks for the advice on the nosewheel, also the cockpit is wide enough for the seat to lift straight out, I will try the wheel and then the seat if it doesn't work.
By coincidence, all the Lightning parts in this are also from the Novo kit as I felt it was better than the Matchbox one I also have. I also have the same kit in a very cheap papery all Russian box and moulded in an extremely odd colour of browny purply plastic which donated the second pair of Red Tops.
(thinks: I have just remembered that I have an SR.177 kit with METAL red tops! Hallelujah!)
After seeing the P.8 drawings with area rule I convinced myself, reasonably I think, that EE would take the opportunity to incorporate it on the P.6 if they got the go ahead to build it, but this reasoning was purely borne out of the fact that I didn't want to cut the thing in half after I'd started it. :P
I'm wondering about a back story where perhaps the prototype P.6 was flown off against the production Lightning F.1 in 1960 and found to be lighter, more manouverable with a quicker rate of roll (due to weight distribution in the fuselage) and faster climbing (!!)l. Therefore the Lightning F.2 upgrade was introduced as planned but the F.3 and F.6 were cancelled with all the planned improvements for the Lightning F.3 transferred across to the P.6F which entered service in 1964 as the Thunder F.2, the armed standard P.6 entering service with a trials squadron in 1963 as the F.1. following the T.3 conversion trainer the new wing, weapons and belly tank developed for the Lightning F.6 were incorporated into the Thunder F.4 entering RAF service in 1967 and from 1965 Thunders are also bought by Germany, Italy, Australia, Canada and Austria (because they nearly bought Lightnings in the '80's so why not?). The swing wing version appears in 1972 and becomes a standard strike fighter throughout many NATO air forces.
edit; just balanced ONE metal red top on the canopy and it was enough to make it stand up properly, I'm so happy! :D
QuoteMight be better using the seat/nosegear as those Maintrack missiles are totally oversized.
Yeah, I noticed that as soon as I held one up to the model, why is this game never straightforward?
I've left the metal missiles on for now but I will put the Novo ones back on once I have a metal nosewheel.
Is it me or do those maintrack red tops look more like Harpoons?
Cannot add to anything the guys have said.
You've built an absolute gem of a model. Look forward to seeing it in the flesh at Telford.
I H-G