Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ChocolateCrisps

  1. I suspect it's not actually done yet - I notice that Airfix have used quite low resolution images, which suggests that they're not quite ready to show everything off yet, but poring closely over the few closeup shots, it looks to me like the outer wings and tail have much more impressive surface detail than what's visible in the nose closeup - so I think they're only part way through detailing!
  2. With there having been recent talk of fitting at least some form of CATOBAR to the QE I suspect they may hold off a little before investing in a tooling that could very rapidly need updating!
  3. Page 253 (of the overall document) of the Pilot's Notes for the Naval Buccaneer says that folding is possible for any of the loads that can be put on the outboard pylons, and IIRC the mechanism was further strengthened and increased in power for the RAF version of the aircraft.
  4. It's crazy to see just how far even the good looking plans are from reality! Maybe this will be another way to make a bit of extra money off this project - you'll be able to provide publishers with their first ever set of decent Scimitar plans!
  5. @Bikitzer Looks like you've been busy! I don't really know much about any of those for certain, only what I've gleaned from photos, books, and the Pilot's Notes, but I'll post what I think at least! Early "Fat" nose cone - I'm not really sure how to identify this too well, it's just something I know how to recognise! It's a shorter, more rounded nose cone often seen in photos of early Scimitars, such as this one. It's interesting that you mention WT859, as the shape of that nose does indeed look more like the early one to me, it certainly isn't the Later one - but I wasn't aware of the early one having a radome! The Late nose cone - I'd be interested to see clear photographs of the aircraft you mention having this without a black tip - although I've seen a few profiles depicting that, I've never seen a photo where I thought it was actually the case rather than just a misidentified Early or PR nose. The PR nose cone - As far as I'm aware there's only one type of this, the issue is the windows which can be opened or shut depending on what cameras are being used - the more of them are shut, the harder it becomes to identify! As I say, I think it's quite common to see these with just the tip window open, perhaps as a gun camera, but I think that could probably be closed too (this photo zoomed all the way in seems to show this)? With all of them open there is a window at the tip, one oblique window either side (although the starboard one is lower than the port one), and two vertical ones underneath. Solent Sky's airframe actually has this nose as far as I know, albeit painted over to resemble the Late nose with its radome. The Harley light nose - I know very little about this beyond knowing that it exists - the Pilot's Notes do mention it as a modification though - which suggests it was approved and rolled out for use? Regarding the refuelling probes, I don't really know very much about them - I'd always assumed they could be fitted or removed to any nose as necessary, but I have no idea if that's right! One other thing to point out - the nose fitted to the Scimitar was swappable as far as I know, so two photos of the same airframe showing different paint jobs on the nose may well mean that a different nose had been fitted! Edit: You mentioned the drawing on P.53 of the Franks book, and it looks to me like that confirms the fuel probe also being removeable - so likely any of the nose options can have it added as and when necessary.
  6. Not prepared to embarrass myself by trying to commit to an answer for your second question , but I think that the answer to this one is four: -The early 'fat' nose cone -The fairly standard ranging radar nose cone (black radome at tip) -The PR nose (I suspect also fairly common - photos frequently show Scimitars with a nosecone with a small window at the tip - as it's in exactly the same place as the forward camera window on the PR nose, and as the PR nose has doors that can be closed to cover windows that aren't in use, I suspect the two are one and the same, but if I'm wrong then there's five!) -The Harley light nose cone used by FRU Scimitars
  7. It seems like the most reasonable explanation that it's for a kit, so I don't see why it shouldn't generate discussion in the Rumourmonger of a modelling site - a Museum doesn't really need a high definition 3D model of an aircraft that they already have and can physically measure, and there's not really any other industry that would use this kind of thing! Now if it had been an absurdly detailed photogrammetry scan of the cockpit to get all the dials and lettering just so I'd have suspected it was a Flight Sim developer, but they don't usually care too much about the outsides of their aircraft!
  8. Lots of dislike for the Scimitar in this thread, which I'm surprised by - It's big, fast, powerful, versatile, looks the part, and it's naval! All things that will make even quite an average aircraft popular - and none of which (aside from big in the Jav's case) are satisfied by either the Javelin or the Swift that it's so far been compared to. As an example of what I mean, take the case of the Javelin and the Sea Vixen - both designed for the same role and largely the same performance, but the Sea Vixen is both more of a looker and carrier based, and is far more popular than the Javelin (and particularly seems to be a far more popular subject when it comes to kits, which is ultimately what we're interested in here) - despite both of them being pretty unremarkable in terms of actual performance, service history, and colour schemes.
  9. Oooh, yes please! Solent Sky's one has the camera nose too, so hopefully that option makes it into the final product...
  10. The RAFHS Journals are an absolute treasure trove, from what I've seen of them! Most of the others are available here, although more recently they seem to have stopped uploading them, not sure why.
  11. EE were one of the first, if not the first, firms in the UK to have a supersonic tunnel, and from what I remember that was a major factor in the development process of the Lightning.
  12. The Lightning didn't have a movable inlet cone, nor (to the best of my knowledge) did any of it's unbuilt derivatives. For that matter there are plenty of contemporaries that also didn't bother, another good example being the Bristol 188. I suspect that in the Lightning's case, the cone was simply fixed far enough forwards that at all the expected inlet speeds the air would have formed sufficient shocks to become subsonic. It's probably slightly less efficient on paper than a movable one, but unlikely to be a significant issue across the kind of speed ranges the Lightning sees.
  13. These are probably both quite niche, but for me, the two main areas I've been interested in these very high resolution printers are for text and transparencies. I feel like these are both things where further increases in resolution will have an impact that's visible to the human eye, but I understand that they're not what most users of these printers are likely to be needing them for, so I can't comment on whether the increased resolution is really necessary...
  14. Tim Mason's The Cold War Years: Flight Testing at Boscombe Down 1945-1975 mentions that the Washington was one of two aircraft to serve in British use in that period never tested by the A&AEE, (the other being the Skyraider). That suggests to me that it had no equipment modifications for British use, so would therefore probably have only been able to use US weapons.
  15. Looks great, hopefully this colour technology will reach desktop printers within the next few years! It will be interesting to see how it compares to other printers in terms of print quality though - some pictures of the output seem to suggest a slightly more grainy texture than we see with current resin printers, which could be a limitation of the technique they use for the colour. And I really can't see the reason for all the complaints. As someone who has often bought pre-built models, I'm glad that there will potentially be more scope for them in the future, getting good ones of interesting subjects can be a right faff. Similarly, as someone who enjoys building kits, all that this technology means is that there are now more options - smaller manufacturers who maybe couldn't afford to injection mould are already starting to come on to the market with 3D printed goods, which means more kits available, not less! But perhaps most importantly, as someone who has at least started playing around with CAD in the hopes of one-day printing my own models, I can't stand this idea that 3D printing will take all the creativity out of the hobby - it just moves some of the creative input a stage upstream, for those of us who prefer screaming at our computers when they break things than we do our fingers!
  16. I'm possibly misunderstanding this somewhat, but I often see this tossed around - and isn't it exactly what tanks did end up being used for in the successful Western Front Campaigns of late WWII?
  17. Not sure if it helps much but one of my go-tos for questions like this is the RAF Museum's Collection site. Searching 'Rocket 60lb' on there bought up quite a number of warheads, but this generally seems to be how they've classified the two shown in the Eduard kits: I hope that helps!
  18. We've all seen your 3D Printed Aircraft - why not just CAD the entire Fleet Air Arm (how hard can it be?) and downscale them all slightly so they'll fit on one shelf?
  19. There's two very big problems with that approach though. The first is - what are the technologies for the next war? Historically, the nations that have often had the 'latest' technologies that all the cool kids will be using in the next war have not necessarily been the ones to actually win that war! And the second - even if it were possible to agree on what the technology for the next war will be (and that's a big if), can you ever get all your neighbours not only to agree on it, but to agree to share the work on it with you? It's all very well saying how much cheaper everything would be if we put all development in the hands of the Germans or the French, but we have had a fair few wars with them over the years, and we'd be in a rather uncomfortable situation if we ended up on the opposite side of a conflict to the people who were not only building our weapons, but were the only people on the continent left who knew how to build them...
  20. Where are you getting this from? They've been given a three year contract to develop the basic concept - from their website it doesn't seem like their plan is anything other than going on to actually produce the design after that, provided it seems feasible. "With a view to full-scale production, the AERALIS project has the scope to directly create over 200 new UK high-value design and manufacturing jobs, supporting a further 3800 in the UK supply chain." That sounds to me like they're planning to make something! And regarding the Defence Review - given the timing of the contract, I suspect that this is something which is going to be funded as a result of the Review, not cancelled by it!
  21. @WrathofAtlantis Thank you for the thorough explanation, that's very interesting! I can see why you'd say that the science is lacking in this area - as you rightly say, the effect of propeller flow interactions on aircraft have not been very thoroughly studied, but you're also combining that with intense manuevers, which are possibly the most difficult flight conditions to model even now, on account of the complex and unsteady flows going on. It's not entirely related but you may find it interesting if you haven't already seen it - the Whirlwind Fighter Project came to some interesting conclusions about the impacts of propeller behaviours on flight performance for the Westland Whirlwind - and that was another example of what seems to have been the right answer being entirely missed by science at the time!
  22. @WrathofAtlantis Thanks for the thorough reply! What's really got me confused is the turn rate values you mention early on. I'd have fully understood it if, when test pilots came to talk tactics, they were at odds with operational pilots. In this case though, (if I haven't misunderstood), you're saying that actual empirical test data was at odds with what was seen in combat, right? I simply cannot see how that can plausibly be the case, at least without there being some other factor that hasn't been considered. A test pilot's biases may cause some of the tactical conclusions they draw to be incorrect, but they won't have any impact on their ability to pull on the stick and record the time an aircraft takes to turn! I can only see the results being different if either the aircraft being tested were different in some way, or the test data being quoted was recorded in different conditions (speed, altitude, etc.) to the actual combat scenarios.
  23. Could you expand a little more on this please? I've tended to find test reports far more useful than combat ones, so I was just wondering where the problems lie, and what the cause is? Thanks!
  24. I have to be honest, I was sort of working on the basis that as they clearly still owned the things they might have at least used them occasionally!
  • Create New...