Navy Bird Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 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. John Just came back to this great drawing - and I would like to verify one thing. The plans that I have show that there is a very small "dog tooth" in the leading edge, at the location of the wing fence. This is also part of the Xtrakit/MPM offering. I think that I see that in the drawing above, unfortunately from that angle most of it is hidden behind the fence. Or maybe it's not a dog tooth per se, but rather a really short section of the leading edge that is not swept, to facilitate the mounting of the fence? Cheers, Bill (who sometimes looks at things too hard) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Bird Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 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....!! Keef This is where the booms butt-join up to the back of the fuselage (in other words where they meet the front sections of the booms that are moulded as part of the wing)? By sanding them paper-thin you could re-shape them to match the fuselage attachment points? Cheers, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Lambess Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) another major flaw in the xtrakit booms is that they are way to fat at the front when viewed from the top or bottom, (plan view) the previously posted link shows this well http://postimage.org/image/qcky0xfy7/ you really have to sand a lot of stuff away to get the sharp pointy look, (in side profile they look quite blunt, its a difficult shape to get right IMO) i would fix this before any surgery is done on the nose shape as "de-bulking" the front of the booms makes the whole nose shape of the xtrakit look much better ive always felt that the Frog nose is the right length but looks too short due to the excessive depth of its canopy rails (this i feel generates an optical illusion that its too squat & short when compared to pics, ) but carving and sanding about half of the depth out of it improves the look considerably, and make the whole front fuselage look longer and slimmer Edited October 4, 2012 by Neil Lambess 01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Lambess Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) also with the xtrakit , in side profile the RATOG bulges appear to be the wrong way round... ( i sanded the rear of them to be flush with the fuselage and at the front cut a wedge with a razor saw and "chocked" them out with plasticard and then resanded them ) Edited October 4, 2012 by Neil Lambess 01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) Just came back to this great drawing - and I would like to verify one thing. The plans that I have show that there is a very small "dog tooth" in the leading edge, at the location of the wing fence. This is also part of the Xtrakit/MPM offering. I think that I see that in the drawing above, unfortunately from that angle most of it is hidden behind the fence. Or maybe it's not a dog tooth per se, but rather a really short section of the leading edge that is not swept, to facilitate the mounting of the fence? Cheers, Bill (who sometimes looks at things too hard) It looks like there is a step Bill, I found this nice plan view in the AP. And just becouse it's a nice drawing this one of the flaps John Edited October 4, 2012 by canberra kid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Womby Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 > > ive always felt that the Frog nose is the right length but looks too short due to the excessive depth of its canopy rails (this i feel generates an optical illusion that its too squat & short when compared to pics, ) but carving and sanding about half of the depth out of it improves the look considerably, and make the whole front fuselage look longer and slimmer Neil, could you elaborate on how much to remove from where, please? David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keefr22 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) This is where the booms butt-join up to the back of the fuselage (in other words where they meet the front sections of the booms that are moulded as part of the wing)? By sanding them paper-thin you could re-shape them to match the fuselage attachment points? Cheers, Bill Hi Bill, Basically what I recall is sanding the whole of the insides of the booms to paper thinness, wherever they were going to have to fit any other part of the kit. I was just sanding & test fitting & they got that thin before they would fit properly! Any more & I wouldn't have had any sides left to the booms. But once done they fitted like a dream! I have to say that I hadn't noticed the bulkiness at the booms' noses that Neil mentions, but I've just compared pics of my completed model to the real thing & I can see it now. But I'd have to disagree with him that reshaping them will make that much difference to the look of the nose shape as the radome shape is woeful, & immediately catches the eye (it actually caught my eye as soon as I opened the box!) But having looked at some of the 'works' drawings in this thread I can begin to see where the kit designers may have got their idea of the radome shape from. They look a bit off too!! Keef Edited October 4, 2012 by keefr22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miggers Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 ive always felt that the Frog nose is the right length but looks too short due to the excessive depth of its canopy rails (this i feel generates an optical illusion that its too squat & short when compared to pics, ) but carving and sanding about half of the depth out of it improves the look considerably, and make the whole front fuselage look longer and slimmer Yes,come on Neil,you've whetted the apetitie and got the old juices flowing here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Lambess Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Yes,come on Neil,you've whetted the apetitie and got the old juices flowing here Ill try and post some pics soon of the areas i mean, its the bit where the canopy rail is molded onto the side of the Frog fuselage, the rail is way too fat and deep and "slabby" its a bit of a chore ,but if you carve and sand it away it improves the look of things .. and keefr i agree with you about the Xtrakit radome shape , it needs a lot of sanding as well, the side profile look of the nose is also vastly improved by chocking out the RATOGS at their front edges (which gives a bulkier/flatter look to the underside in side profile added to all that the top of the fuselage in front of the canopy is too curved in cross section (a fault shared by the airfix kit ) just search for photos of sea vixens with the radomes open and youll spot that the very top of the fuselage formers is flat and not curved........ this also appears to be backed up by shots of open observers hatches , which dont seem to be a compound curve but seem to be flat with a very sharp curve on the side nearest the intake (interestingly the Cyberhobby kit appears to have this correct in the photos ive seen of it, but they may have gone a little too far in their attempt to capture the shape.... stay tuned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keefr22 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 the side profile look of the nose is also vastly improved by chocking out the RATOGS at their front edges (which gives a bulkier/flatter look to the underside in side profile Apart from the radome I think it's the pregnant guppy look of the fuselage underside that most spoils the look of the thing, & it's something I want to try and adress on the other kit I have in stock, so thanks for the tip Neil. Keef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 The nose dose flatten out in front on the windscreen as shown in the following drawings. The first one is a general view of the nose which shows front bulkhead KQ.17. Drawing KQ17 note the flattened top contour The Observers hatch General view of the top fusalage decking I hope that helps? John 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Bird Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I'm loving these drawings that John keeps serving up. To help me with some of the mods necessary on the Xtrakit, do you have some drawings that show the RATOG? And maybe the demisting channel? The Xtrakit moulding doesn't look right at all to me. Cheers, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 I'm glad they're helping Bill, there is no information in either of my two Vixen manuals for the RATOG it guess it must me in another book which I don't have, sorry. Is this what you need for the demist system? If not let me know. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 I've just found another drawing John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grizzly Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 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 Yes there are five outlets on the underside to the rear looks like one or two of these are fuel vent pipes, thanks for the great manual pages good to see the internal workings. Dad was the chief Inspector for the wing sections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Yes there are five outlets on the underside to the rear looks like one or two of these are fuel vent pipes, thanks for the great manual pages good to see the internal workings. Dad was the chief Inspector for the wing sections. Thanks Grizzly, it's good to get these things confirmed, I hope it brings back happy memories for your dad! John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Bird Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Is this what you need for the demist system? If not let me know. John Thanks, John. Those drawings help a lot, especially with the shape of the rain shedding pipes along the side and behind the canopy. Xtrakit has this all wrong, but they're moulded solid so a better shape can be sanded into them. Any drawings that show the bottom fuselage around the front gear? Maybe included with drawings of the front gear itself? Or better yet, why not post the whole manual? Cheers, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Thanks, John. Those drawings help a lot, especially with the shape of the rain shedding pipes along the side and behind the canopy. Xtrakit has this all wrong, but they're moulded solid so a better shape can be sanded into them. Any drawings that show the bottom fuselage around the front gear? Maybe included with drawings of the front gear itself? Or better yet, why not post the whole manual? Cheers, Bill No prob's Bill, I would post the full manual but I don't think my photobucket would take it Two drawings of the nose wheel quite simular but slightly different And I've just found this, is it the RATOG? forgive my ignorance but it's not a Canberra Is there anything specific you need on the underside on the nose Bill? there isn't a lot of general stuff. If you need anything on the wing fold there is a ton of stuff on that and the APU, air-brake flaps, and the radar is quite well covered too. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Bird Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Yes, I think that's the RATOG unit. There are two of these, and they're mounted on the front lower fuselage just above the front gear bay. Any drawing of one of those units installed? Speaking of the front gear, those pictures are great! Thank you so much! As I start to build the Xtrakit Sea Vixen, I may take you up on your offer and come back for more help! Cheers, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regulus Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Not RATOG, they're launchers. Yes, I think that's the RATOG unit. There are two of these, and they're mounted on the front lower fuselage just above the front gear bay. Any drawing of one of those units installed? Speaking of the front gear, those pictures are great! Thank you so much! As I start to build the Xtrakit Sea Vixen, I may take you up on your offer and come back for more help! Cheers, Bill 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Lambess Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Okay , following earlier requests , heres some images of my work on correcting the XTRAKIT version ( All images should be taken as a work in progress and im not saying my corrections are definitive, theyre just things ive done to try and make it look more like a sea vixen to my eyes..... so if ive got the link thing sussed heres the first pic the image tags are pretty self explanitory , and apologies that i dont have any "before" pics...... (over to you Navy Bird ?) One correction that i forgot to mention earlier was the "crease" over the air intakes, its very noticable in some images of the real aircraft and adding it improves the curves on the upper fuselage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Lambess Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 ok think that worked heres a side profile showing the reshaped lauchers (which i blundered and called Ratogs earlier ) as i pointed out earlier shimming the launchers at the front removes some of the "pregnant guppy" look of the side profile by "chunking up" the side profile , i dont think the "pregnant" look is too pronounced compared to some side profile shots of a FAW1 (its hard to find a decent side profile shot of a real FAW2 as they tend to have more tanks and pylons in the way blocking the view ! ) the pic also shows some of the work ive done on reshaping the canopy some people have complained with justification about how hideously malformed it is ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Lambess Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 ......However some of the complaints that the canopy rake is too steep may be unjustified...... ild reccomend anyone to get the superb Roy Sutherland BARRACUDA profile on the Sea Vixen which has been a huge help while ive been trying to save this kit....... (so to Roy apologies for the following comparison shot ! ) as noted the models booms look too far forward due to them been way too close to the camera ....(yay for parallax) As you can see that rain guard on the canopy is one large chunk of heavy metal ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Lambess Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 speaking of rain guards heres a bad photo of my somewhat hamfisted attempts to make them on my build......( Navy Bird i really think this is the hardest fault to correct and hopefully get the nose looking better than an unmodded kit) .....and im still playing around with it....... it also, ( i just realised ) shows of the "boom fillets "on the inside of the booms just above the intakes . these fillets are really noticable on some airframes, and look to vary from aircraft to aircraft..... .......the more i look at Sea Vixens the more i see some major variation between every airframe.... panel lines appear and dissapear between aircraft and the BARRACUDA book clearly shows lots of variations between FAW2 observers bulges Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Lambess Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 this also shows the thinned booms (ill try and post a comparison pic as i do have a few unbuilt xtrakits) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now