Jump to content

Sea Vixen boom length


Pat C

Recommended Posts

All descriptions I've read of the FAW.Mk.2 conversion say that the booms were extended forwards, ie ahead of the leading edge - nothing about any substantive additional structure aft of the trailing edge.

If you look at parts diagrams, or some walkrounds where they've got the panels open, it appears that the original boom structure is still there and the extension is stuck on top, basically an aerodynamic fairing for the extra avionics and fuel tanks. I don't know if this differed between the new builds and the conversions from FAW.1 but it seems unlikely considering the limited extent of the upgrade after the original more ambitious plans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The drawings that I have are for the FAW.2, and they seem to match the 55' 7" overall length which is quoted in numerous sources (for the FAW.2). The picture above from the parts manual is for a FAW.1, and lists the overall length as 53' 6.5". Does anyone know if there really was a difference between the two marks? Longer radome, longer booms, etc. Something that may account for the difference, assuming both values are "right."

I'm starting the Xtrakit model, and I don't want to be cutting away any more than I have to on the booms! Is it possible that the addition of the extra fuel tanks, which extended the boom past the front edge of the wing, also necessitated extending the booms on the rear for balance, or to keep the same center of gravity and thereby maintaining the flight characteristics of the plane?

Cheers,

Bill

Air Britains Sea Vixen book has both at 55' 7" they were the same aircraft, only over boom fuel tanks were add all other mods were internal ,mostly in the radar operators bay & Red Top fire control. Flightlines series1 excellent book has it as 53' 6.5 " so it looks like the only way is to go & measure the real thing.!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill - how do the position of the wing fences and the fuel dump pipe compare Xtrakit vs plans? High Planes and Cyber-Hobby disagree on the position of these!!!!

Pat

I'll have a look as soon as I can and let you know. Got a business dinner tonight and then a seminar tomorrow, so it might not be until after all that is over. I seem to remember that the Xtrakit wing fences are too far outboard relative to the plans, but let me check that. They are definitely the wrong shape.

I agree with the consensus that the 55' figure was an error that has taken hold. Funny how these things happen.

Cheers,

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll have a look as soon as I can and let you know. Got a business dinner tonight and then a seminar tomorrow, so it might not be until after all that is over. I seem to remember that the Xtrakit wing fences are too far outboard relative to the plans, but let me check that. They are definitely the wrong shape.

I agree with the consensus that the 55' figure was an error that has taken hold. Funny how these things happen.

Cheers,

Bill

Think you will find the fuel dump is shown on the Port side & should be on the St/b side as on the box picture in the kit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW I searched the Flight archives from 1955-1960 and found several references showing 53' 6.5" as the overall length including one diagram that shows that length along the centreline here:

http://www.flightglo...ea vixen length

David

Edited by David Womby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when and where did the, apparently, errant 55' 7" start to appear?

We're going to have to measure one properly, aren't we. Sorry but there are none in my neighbourhood so I can't do it.

David

Edited by David Womby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill - how do the position of the wing fences and the fuel dump pipe compare Xtrakit vs plans? High Planes and Cyber-Hobby disagree on the position of these!!!!

Pat

Compared to plans that are scaled at 55' 7" (for 1:72 scale) the wing fences are located 3mm outboard of where the plans indicate. It looks like they should be 26-27mm from the wing fold, but they are 29-30mm.

The fuel dump pipe is shown in the instructions as being installed on the port wing, whereas it should be on the starboard wing (as shown on the box art) just like Grizzly stated.

Also, when compared to the plans the "coal hole" is located approximately 2mm back (towards the rear) from where it should be. The overall opening of the hatch looks good for length and width, it's just a bit too far back.

Cheers,

Bill

Edited by Navy Bird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Pat, Interesting thread, I don't know if it muddies the waters any more or less than previously. I was quite happy to accept he 2mm aesthetic plug for the Frog kit radome and leave it at that.

If we take take the last part of Goirgio's comment above, 'would it be posible to correct he existing drawings' stricktly tongue in cheeck, we have a solution. Or maybe not!

Being more serious (or trying at any rate) we seem to have a fair bit of interest in the old Sea Vixen. My Frog kit of at least 30 years still lurks close ot the top of the 'to do' list in the stash.

Frog kit, a rescribe, a 2mm plug a decsent pair of seats and a nice set of Model Art decals (squadron TBD) and I think she would look rather nice in the dispaly cabinet.

Colin on the Africa Station

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Jane's All The world's Aircraft 1966-67 it gives the dimensions as in the Flight article that David posted the link to, which also agrees with the IPC and Pilots notes. So I would say that seeing as two well respected industry publications and two official documents all agree on the same figure it would be safe to assume that the dimensions are as stated in my Illustration from the IPC. It also states in the Jane's book that the Mk.1 and Mk.2 are essentially the same airframe the only difference being Weapons mod.'s and extra fuel mod.'s.

Vix4_zps8b6c2756.png

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frog kit, a rescribe, a 2mm plug a decsent pair of seats and a nice set of Model Art decals (squadron TBD) and I think she would look rather nice in the dispaly cabinet.

Colin - go for it! Still gnashing my teeth that Mr Cyber-Hobby was able to engineer a kit that almost builds itself but couldn't measure the real thing.

The fuel dump pipe is shown in the instructions as being installed on the port wing, whereas it should be on the starboard wing

Did they have it in the right place on the wrong wing? :banghead:

Pat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when and where did the, apparently, errant 55' 7" start to appear?

We're going to have to measure one properly, aren't we. Sorry but there are none in my neighbourhood so I can't do it.

David

I am going to Yeovilton on the 27th so will see what I can find out. Also of note to those making a FAW1 it only had the small wing fuel dumps, the large one on the St/b wing was for the over wing pinion tanks on the FAW2. Regards Len.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to Yeovilton on the 27th so will see what I can find out. Also of note to those making a FAW1 it only had the small wing fuel dumps, the large one on the St/b wing was for the over wing pinion tanks on the FAW2. Regards Len.

Len - Cyber-Hobby provide two small appendages to hang under the wing tips - they look a bit like large mass balance weights or tiny drop tanks. I failed to find any pictures of the real aircraft with these but would you or anyone else have any idea what Mr Cyber-Hobby might have been thinking of?

EDIT - you can just make it out on the box art - see link below

https://www.whiteensignmodels.com/p/Cyber+Hobby+172+Sea+Vixen+FAW1+CH5051/12563/

Pat

Edited by Pat C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read somewhere they were camera pods and were only carried on one particular trials aircraft but I can't remember where I read it and my memory may be playing me false, Pat.

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len - Cyber-Hobby provide two small appendages to hang under the wing tips - they look a bit like large mass balance weights or tiny drop tanks. I failed to find any pictures of the real aircraft with these but would you or anyone else have any idea what Mr Cyber-Hobby might have been thinking of?

EDIT - you can just make it out on the box art - see link below

https://www.whiteens...1 CH5051/12563/

Pat

I think Xtrakit provides one of these - for the port wing. I will have to check when I get home this evening.

Cheers,

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len - Cyber-Hobby provide two small appendages to hang under the wing tips - they look a bit like large mass balance weights or tiny drop tanks. I failed to find any pictures of the real aircraft with these but would you or anyone else have any idea what Mr Cyber-Hobby might have been thinking of?

EDIT - you can just make it out on the box art - see link below

https://www.whiteens...1 CH5051/12563/

Pat

Hi Pat Yes they are camera pods used by XJ476 the all white FAW1 on the wing tips, for various weapons release trails it was based at Hatfield to test Hawker Siddeley (Ex DH) missiles out Excocet being one. The 4th production machine XJ744 had one mounted on the Port fin top. Both aircraft also carried Zuni type rocket pods with two forward facing camera windows on hard points . The D3 s carried a faired in camera under each wing tip paint black. Regards Len
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they have it in the right place on the wrong wing? :banghead:

Pat

Actually, you can put it anywhere on the wing that you want it. They've designed it to mount to the top of the trailing edge of the wing. I'd like to see a picture of the real thing, I don't know why but I'm guessing it's not quite like that.

Cheers,

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also of note to those making a FAW1 it only had the small wing fuel dumps, the large one on the St/b wing was for the over wing pinion tanks on the FAW2.

I'm not sure the FAW1 actually had a fuel dump as it's not mentioned in the Pilot's Notes or Flight Reference Cards and I have a recollection of my old man saying they had to open the airbrake and use a high throttle setting to get down to landing weight at times. Are the bits you're referring to on each wing not part of the flap system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure the FAW1 actually had a fuel dump as it's not mentioned in the Pilot's Notes or Flight Reference Cards and I have a recollection of my old man saying they had to open the airbrake and use a high throttle setting to get down to landing weight at times. Are the bits you're referring to on each wing not part of the flap system?

I've had a yet another look through the IPC and AP and I can only find one "drain" mast but there are a few vent's for the fuel system but I can find no associated mast so I assume they were flush with the skin. The vent are for the venting of fuel vapor and releasing air pressure during air to air refueling, not for the jettisoning of fuel. As Skippy Bing points out, it looks as if the Sea Vixen like the Canberra did not have provision to "dump" fuel.The Canberra originally had a flush fuel vent that was later replaced by a mast near the tail,

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure the FAW1 actually had a fuel dump as it's not mentioned in the Pilot's Notes or Flight Reference Cards and I have a recollection of my old man saying they had to open the airbrake and use a high throttle setting to get down to landing weight at times. Are the bits you're referring to on each wing not part of the flap system?

I cannot find any thing on this in the books or diagram ,I thought the small bits on the centre of the wing were the fuel dump outlets ? Reading an account from FAW1 flights ,it seems that the fuel pump system often left aircraft landing back on with 1000lb fuel still unused in no 4 wing tank, which couldnot be pumped out!!! Regards Len
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I have seen, chopping the booms on the Xtrakit isn't going to make the fit any worse! :banghead:

Just an aside (& because I want to bookmark this thread!) although I din't chop my xtrakits booms down at all, I did sand the inside of them literally to paper thinness - & they fitted like a dream! No filler, just a little liquid glue & a seam free result. If only the rest of the kit was like that....!! :whistle:

Keef

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...