Author Topic: Not a Tupolev?  (Read 2411 times)

Offline pigflyer

  • If reality is real, give me whatif. Really?
Not a Tupolev?
« on: January 19, 2017, 01:56:26 AM »
In 1966 China was accused of stealing plans for the Dassault Mirage IV bomber.  China, of course, denied this, claiming to have bought a tech transfer from the soviets, the "dead on the drawing board" Tupolev Tu 21, NATO codename Blighter. Russia refused to comment.

The Xian H4 Was revealed in 1969 in prototype form.  By late 1972 it was in full production, an eventual 237 serving the Chinese, including a dozen pre production models in the test role.
With the soviets refusing the Tu22 for Egypt, China leaped in to sell a dozen bombers plus four trainers with a raised rear cockpit, and limited operational performance. Syria took ten and three respectively, and Uganda five and two.
Of the 36 sold abroad, 7 were lost and the rest removed from operations by the Israelis through various means.
China has 11 left in the recce role, five in testing and several as ground instructional airframes.
 ;)
If I don't plan it, it can't go wrong!

If it's great, I did it. If it's naff, I found it.

Offline pigflyer

  • If reality is real, give me whatif. Really?
Re: Not a Tupolev?
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2017, 02:11:21 AM »
I don't have the actual Chinese spelling, but the name of the missile translates roughly as "Not a copy of the bullpup, honest guv!"
Most Chinese and soviet weapons can be carried, the NR23 cannon, mounted in a pod under the rear, is controlled by the "Proper original Chinese radar" pod on the fin.
Top speed, clean,  mach 1.8.   Recce fit, 3 tanks = 1.6
Max load, center fuel tank as shown, mach 1.4 at 50,000 ft.
Ceiling, 59,500 ft.
Max range hi low hi, 900 miles with standard load.
Crew 2.

The aircraft dedicated to low level ops often had the gun/radar removed.

If I don't plan it, it can't go wrong!

If it's great, I did it. If it's naff, I found it.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Not a Tupolev?
« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2017, 02:13:43 AM »
 :)
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline KiwiZac

  • The Modeller Formerly Known As K5054NZ
Re: Not a Tupolev?
« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2017, 03:13:07 AM »
Very cool idea - the back end and canopy look very Tupolev!
Zac in NZ
#avgeek, modelbuilder, photographer, writer. Callsign: "HANDBAG"
https://linktr.ee/zacyates

Offline The Big Gimper

  • Any model will look better in RCAF, SEAC or FAA markings
  • Global Moderator
  • Cut. Cut. Cut. Measure. Cut. Cut. Crap. Toss.
    • Photobucket Modeling Album
Re: Not a Tupolev?
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2017, 03:30:31 AM »
Very nice Mr. Flyer.  Great execution.
Work in progress ::

I am giving up listing them. They all end up on the shelf of procrastination anyways.

User and abuser of Bothans...

Offline Brian da Basher

  • He has an unnatural attraction to Spats...and a growing fascination with airships!
  • Moderator
  • *
  • Hulk smash, Brian bash
Re: Not a Tupolev?
« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2017, 04:56:29 AM »
Just fantastic! I'm especially impressed with the outstanding paintwork!

Great stuff!

Brian da Basher

Offline pigflyer

  • If reality is real, give me whatif. Really?
Re: Not a Tupolev?
« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2017, 09:11:31 PM »
Thanks for the nice words guys.
It was the canopy that gave me the Tupolev idea.  All the paint work is mark one hairy stick.

I appreciate your looking folks, thanks,

Ian
If I don't plan it, it can't go wrong!

If it's great, I did it. If it's naff, I found it.

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: Not a Tupolev?
« Reply #7 on: January 21, 2017, 04:05:44 AM »
Wild camo scheme, love it! :)
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."