Author Topic: Orchard Studios (Read 11535 times)

Ghost Rider · « **on:** April 14, 2019, 09:49:33 PM »

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

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #1 on:** April 15, 2019, 01:22:59 AM »

Ghost Rider · « **Reply #2 on:** May 06, 2019, 11:04:01 PM »

I saw this image .......

...and thought .. what would the later models have looked like ........

Gloster Reaper GR2 & GR3

Ghost Rider · « **Reply #3 on:** May 06, 2019, 11:08:47 PM »

Ghost Rider · « **Reply #4 on:** May 06, 2019, 11:10:20 PM »

Based on the North American F-100 : Super Sabre ......... the FJ-5 : Super Fury

FJ-5A

FJ5B

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #5 on:** May 07, 2019, 03:37:13 AM »

Nice work

apophenia · « **Reply #6 on:** May 07, 2019, 04:51:51 AM »

Quote from: GJE52 on April 14, 2019, 09:49:33 PM

I decided it was time to put my Profiles into one folder...

Excellent idea ... and as impressive as ever

elmayerle · « **Reply #7 on:** May 07, 2019, 07:15:18 AM »

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.

Ghost Rider · « **Reply #8 on:** May 07, 2019, 05:08:35 PM »

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.

finsrin · « **Reply #9 on:** May 07, 2019, 06:05:16 PM »

Has 1960s USN look on steroids. Last picture has side intake !

Ghost Rider · « **Reply #10 on:** May 07, 2019, 06:53:10 PM »

Quote

...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.

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

Old Wombat · « **Reply #11 on:** May 07, 2019, 07:52:01 PM »

F-100N looks good.

AXOR · « **Reply #12 on:** May 08, 2019, 12:23:52 AM »

Maaan that F-100N is awesome !!!

elmayerle · « **Reply #13 on:** May 08, 2019, 01:09:07 AM »

Beautiful!!

Ghost Rider · « **Reply #14 on:** May 26, 2019, 08:42:49 AM »

elmayerle · « **Reply #15 on:** May 26, 2019, 12:24:37 PM »

Now that Hunter T.10 is beautiful!! Now to figure out how to model it in plastic.

Old Wombat · « **Reply #16 on:** May 26, 2019, 01:53:12 PM »

Much prefer the inline look to the side-by-side look.

Wonder if the cockpit section of my TA-7 would fit onto my Hunter?

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #17 on:** May 27, 2019, 01:50:45 AM »

Nice work.

Much better than my attempt from years ago:

Ghost Rider · « **Reply #18 on:** May 27, 2019, 11:32:33 PM »

Quote

Now to figure out how to model it in plastic.

Quote

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 ......

Old Wombat · « **Reply #19 on:** May 28, 2019, 01:15:44 AM »

Ah, yes, but I don't own any TA-104s, whereas I do have a spare TA-7!

Ghost Rider · « **Reply #20 on:** May 28, 2019, 02:25:19 AM »

.... life is full of choices and it could make for an interesting project, however ...

....... Both models together for about £30 max on ebay ......

apophenia · « **Reply #21 on:** May 28, 2019, 02:32:09 AM »

Oh, that is lovely

What an improvement over the side-by-side Hunter trainers!

Ghost Rider · « **Reply #22 on:** May 28, 2019, 05:59:52 PM »

Ghost Rider · « **Reply #23 on:** May 28, 2019, 07:37:17 PM »

elmayerle · « **Reply #24 on:** May 29, 2019, 08:41:40 AM »

Very nice, indeed - both the tandem-seat Hunter and the flying wing.

Ghost Rider · « **Reply #25 on:** June 05, 2019, 04:43:13 PM »

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #26 on:** June 06, 2019, 01:45:15 AM »

I like. Fuel might be a problem though as you appear to be eating not the tankage - see below:

elmayerle · « **Reply #27 on:** June 06, 2019, 02:20:50 AM »

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.

Ghost Rider · « **Reply #28 on:** June 07, 2019, 05:00:01 PM »

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

Frank3k · « **Reply #29 on:** June 08, 2019, 02:33:36 AM »

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).

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #30 on:** June 08, 2019, 04:30:04 AM »

Quote from: Frank3k on June 08, 2019, 02:33:36 AM

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:

It would have been very cramped though.

Ghost Rider · « **Reply #31 on:** June 18, 2019, 11:08:08 PM »

Old Wombat · « **Reply #32 on:** June 19, 2019, 01:39:16 AM »

AWACS with a punch!

Neat!

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #33 on:** June 19, 2019, 03:26:07 AM »

Given the Ruhrstahl/Kramer X-4 was wire guided I wonder if some sort of prop guard would be required?

Ghost Rider · « **Reply #34 on:** June 19, 2019, 05:13:02 AM »

Quote

I wonder if some sort of prop guard would be required?

Good point

finsrin · « **Reply #35 on:** June 19, 2019, 06:28:54 AM »

Greeaat study of Ar-234

First thought is 1/48 built as 1/72 AWACS. Pick a country and time period.

Old Wombat · « **Reply #36 on:** June 19, 2019, 09:51:58 AM »

Quote from: GTX_Admin on June 19, 2019, 03:26:07 AM

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!

elmayerle · « **Reply #37 on:** June 19, 2019, 12:22:32 PM »

Quote from: Old Wombat on June 19, 2019, 09:51:58 AM

Quote from: GTX_Admin on June 19, 2019, 03:26:07 AM
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.

Ghost Rider · « **Reply #38 on:** June 19, 2019, 07:23:06 PM »

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 .....

jcf · « **Reply #39 on:** June 25, 2019, 04:55:34 AM »

Quote from: elmayerle on June 19, 2019, 12:22:32 PM

Quote from: Old Wombat on June 19, 2019, 09:51:58 AM
Quote from: GTX_Admin on June 19, 2019, 03:26:07 AM
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.

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #40 on:** June 26, 2019, 02:04:53 AM »

What's the source of those images Jon?

Volkodav · « **Reply #41 on:** June 26, 2019, 10:11:30 PM »

Quote from: apophenia on May 28, 2019, 02:32:09 AM

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.


Swords to Plowshares GB Now Open!!

News:

Author Topic: Orchard Studios (Read 11535 times)