-
I decided it was time to put my Profiles into one folder. So ..
Based on this proposal :- http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2009/10/proposed-super-furies.html (http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2009/10/proposed-super-furies.html)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wI-DdPSXymk/SvL1qZIbnaI/AAAAAAAAAc4/G_AV3POLHNo/s1600/F2J+Illustrator.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/W4jn0bz3/Rapier.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/MpGVpZZt/F-2-J-Rapier.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/W1VT2nLj/143.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/258YWSSK/145.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/52m1jCbz/153.jpg)
;)
-
:smiley:
-
I saw this image .......
(https://i.postimg.cc/nrtH8r8Y/Reaper.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/QdNdxFFf/Gloster-Reaper.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/4xG2VXf7/182.jpg)
;)
...and thought .. what would the later models have looked like ........
Gloster Reaper GR2 & GR3
(https://i.postimg.cc/Jz8B37GX/182a.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/yxPvsr5Q/202.jpg)
:smiley:
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y9Y5CTjk/Lockheed-F-109-Lancer-II.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/x1XFdBF7/118.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Hxk6fK5B/128.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/rsWgRP7N/183.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/CxwJdJ7b/189.jpg)
-
Based on the North American F-100 : Super Sabre ......... the FJ-5 : Super Fury
FJ-5A
(https://i.postimg.cc/L4fgwW68/149.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/KjXk4PQb/147.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/QdNBBxgF/142.jpg)
FJ5B
(https://i.postimg.cc/D06HzyLX/154.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/wBZ3bXCN/156.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/MH8HzWKK/155.jpg)
-
Nice work
-
I decided it was time to put my Profiles into one folder...
Excellent idea ... and as impressive as ever :smiley:
-
Beautiful FJ-5A and FJ-5T models. Perhaps a FJ-5TE as the USN equivalent of an early F-100-based Wild Weasel? In either standard gull grey over white or in a variation of some of the camouflage efforts the USN trialed.
-
Like this "Navalised" F-100 ....
F-100N.
A basic F-100 airframe with strengthened undercarriage, arrestor hook, a modified vertical stabilizer to allow for hangar deckhead clearance, an angled intake to improve airflow at high AoA and of course... folding wings.
(https://i.postimg.cc/LX830CzF/F-100Nc.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/pTcJNfZh/F-100Nb.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/1zHKBhVK/F-100Na.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/VLWWzZy2/150.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/cLN1BTr1/F-100N.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/c4GcygH9/F-100Na.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/vBtL26wW/151.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/XYBhsJnk/213.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/JhwFvLnV/214.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/7YJjXTRK/F-100Nb.jpg)
;)
-
Has 1960s USN look on steroids. Last picture has side intake !
-
...Last picture has side intake !
Well spotted, my mistake :-[ . I was using it to illustrate the undercarriage and hook arrangement, however that image is actually one of the two prototypes of the XF-100N.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Lsm1NLxf/XF-100N.jpg)
The design was rejected by the USN but was developed into the F2J model that had a higher, "shoulder" mounted wing and different undercarriage arrangement. The F2J was adopted by the Royal Navy where it was called the Rapier, as featured in an earlier profile. When the Royal Navy lost it's carrier fleet the remaining Rapiers were transferred to the RAF where they served in the low level strike role.
RAF Rapiers - Desert Warriors
(https://i.postimg.cc/vmx64Ftm/212.jpg)
;)
-
F-100N looks good. :smiley:
-
Maaan that F-100N is awesome !!!
-
Beautiful!!
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/02xrwHgw/Hunter-T10.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/rF8Fm0WG/160.jpg)
;)
-
Now that Hunter T.10 is beautiful!! Now to figure out how to model it in plastic.
-
Much prefer the inline look to the side-by-side look. :smiley: :smiley: 8)
Wonder if the cockpit section of my TA-7 would fit onto my Hunter? ???
-
Nice work. :smiley: Much better than my attempt from years ago:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/661de185.jpg)
-
Now to figure out how to model it in plastic.
Wonder if the cockpit section of my TA-7 would fit onto my Hunter?
I would recommend using the fwd fuselage from a TF-104. Possibly with a new/reshaped nose ......
(https://i.postimg.cc/zGm9Xw5B/00-TF-104.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/J0MS5M6k/215.jpg)
;)
-
Ah, yes, but I don't own any TA-104s, whereas I do have a spare TA-7! ;)
-
.... life is full of choices and it could make for an interesting project, however ...
....... Both models together for about £30 max on ebay ...... ;)
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/ZwMAAOSwVEhc4wyY/s-l1600.jpg)
(https://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTIwMFgxNjAw/z/bW4AAOSwbYdaul2t/$_32.JPG)
:D :D :D :D :D
:smiley:
-
Oh, that is lovely :-* What an improvement over the side-by-side Hunter trainers!
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/MT3HXKd5/216.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/qMTqRYG9/218.jpg)
;)
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/hPQbd4dW/ArGo-239.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y0Z6sZTs/ArGo-239a.jpg)
-
Very nice, indeed - both the tandem-seat Hunter and the flying wing.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/DzKnf5Mv/Ar234E.jpg)
;)
-
I like. Fuel might be a problem though as you appear to be eating not the tankage - see below:
(http://wrrnzb2.devhub.com/img/upload/234edr2.jpg)
-
Would probably need to go to a wet wing with suitable protections if you're filling the fuselage tank space with other things. Even then, I'm not sure you would make up the difference.
-
If it was extended slightly towards the rear, I calculate that bout 1/3 of he fwd would be lost to create the additional navigator station and he aft tank would also expand in the space created when the rear facing fixed armament is removed. That combined with a wet wing and drop tanks would make up for some if not most of the shortfall. But anyway "never let the truth get in the way of a good story" as they say :D :D
;)
-
In the Ar234 nighfighter (which flew one mission) they crammed the dumbass who volunteered to be the radar guy - and all his equipment - in the space behind the rear fuel tank (where the camera is shown in the line drawing).
-
In the Ar234 nighfighter (which flew one mission) they crammed the dumbass who volunteered to be the radar guy - and all his equipment - in the space behind the rear fuel tank (where the camera is shown in the line drawing).
Yeah, you can see here:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/61/7a/26/617a26655e553786e49b23440d1fb2eb.jpg)
(http://www.unicraft.biz/germ/ar23448/ar234dr.gif)
It would have been very cramped though.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/bvV9wGSH/AWACS-Turbo-II.jpg)
.
-
AWACS with a punch! ;)
Neat! 8)
-
Given the Ruhrstahl/Kramer X-4 was wire guided I wonder if some sort of prop guard would be required?
-
I wonder if some sort of prop guard would be required?
Good point ???
-
Greeaat study of Ar-234 :smiley:
First thought is 1/48 built as 1/72 AWACS. Pick a country and time period.
-
Given the Ruhrstahl/Kramer X-4 was wire guided I wonder if some sort of prop guard would be required?
After weapons testing with the X-4 wire-guided missile the Ar-234 was converted to pusher turboprops, which, coincidentally, led to the ability to carry a second pair of X-4's inboard of the engines & to the outer missiles being able to be brought closer in, thus reducing the loading on the outer wing sections! ;)
-
Given the Ruhrstahl/Kramer X-4 was wire guided I wonder if some sort of prop guard would be required?
After weapons testing with the X-4 wire-guided missile the Ar-234 was converted to pusher turboprops, which, coincidentally, led to the ability to carry a second pair of X-4's inboard of the engines & to the outer missiles being able to be brought closer in, thus reducing the loading on the outer wing sections! ;)
The engineer in me wonders if those would be gearbox driven propellers as on Allison's propfan design or exhaust-driven propellers like the aft fans on the CF700 and CJ805-23 or the aft propfans on GE's GE36 unducted fan engine. Personally, I think the gearbox driven approach would be more feasible for the times.
-
It was just a design exercise as early turboprop engines would have had little advantage over internal combustion engines at the time ... with the added complications of un-reliability, complexity and high maintenance.
So, at a time when speed and firepower were critical in the defence of the Reich I give you .....
(https://i.postimg.cc/5N2zsNZv/Me262-HG-III.jpg)
(http://i730.photobucket.com/albums/ww310/GJE52/240220141-00-27_zps4073013d.jpg)
(http://i730.photobucket.com/albums/ww310/GJE52/Me262HGVB_zpsd2ac3e20.jpg)
;)
-
Given the Ruhrstahl/Kramer X-4 was wire guided I wonder if some sort of prop guard would be required?
After weapons testing with the X-4 wire-guided missile the Ar-234 was converted to pusher turboprops, which, coincidentally, led to the ability to carry a second pair of X-4's inboard of the engines & to the outer missiles being able to be brought closer in, thus reducing the loading on the outer wing sections! ;)
The engineer in me wonders if those would be gearbox driven propellers as on Allison's propfan design or exhaust-driven propellers like the aft fans on the CF700 and CJ805-23 or the aft propfans on GE's GE36 unducted fan engine. Personally, I think the gearbox driven approach would be more feasible for the times.
The BMW concepts used a gearbox, the first design being a contra-prop with planetary gearing in a
ducted spinner, second contra-props with a long spinner, short annular intake and gear drive moved
aft to in front of the compressor.
(https://i.imgur.com/UOKy9QO.jpg)
-
What's the source of those images Jon?
-
Oh, that is lovely :-* What an improvement over the side-by-side Hunter trainers!
Apparently the side by side Hunters were faster than the single seaters due to the better drag coefficient of the wider forward fuselage.