Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Dave Fleming

Vampire NF10 v T11 differences

Recommended Posts

Continuing this one to it's own thread from the Airfix 2013 one, I thought it worth a discussion should anyone else be considering this conversion (Or an enterprising aftermarket company would like to try!)

As far as I can work out the differences are:

(i) Different, asymetric canopy on NF10

(ii) Staggered seats

(iii) Different shaped tail fins

(iv) Cannons

(vi) Different shaped nose (radome)

The big question is was the whole fuselage nacelle forward of the wings a different shape? The cockpit was wider, but was the fuselage as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The differences in real life were not too difficult to engineer but from a model perspective quite extensive. Not going to say too much at this point.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Continuing this one to it's own thread from the Airfix 2013 one, I thought it worth a discussion should anyone else be considering this conversion (Or an enterprising aftermarket company would like to try!)

As far as I can work out the differences are:

(i) Different, asymetric canopy on NF10

(ii) Staggered seats

(iii) Different shaped tail fins

(iv) Cannons

(vi) Different shaped nose (radome)

The big question is was the whole fuselage nacelle forward of the wings a different shape? The cockpit was wider, but was the fuselage as well?

Sorry, I posted an explanation of the difference in the pod width in the Airfix 2013 Releases thread before I spotted this one! See here - http://www.britmodel...20#entry1194537

Edited by StephenMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Continuing this one to it's own thread from the Airfix 2013 one, I thought it worth a discussion should anyone else be considering this conversion (Or an enterprising aftermarket company would like to try!)

As far as I can work out the differences are:

(i) Different, asymetric canopy on NF10

(ii) Staggered seats

(iii) Different shaped tail fins

(iv) Cannons

(vi) Different shaped nose (radome)

The big question is was the whole fuselage nacelle forward of the wings a different shape? The cockpit was wider, but was the fuselage as well?

Don't forget..no ejection seats on the NF10....also, worth noting that some NF(T)10's seem to have been fitted with the later style canopy associated with T.11 aircraft with ejection seats, and some earlier T11's had the old framed canopy associated with ordinary seats (obviously no Ejection Seat there!)! I've been looking at photo's of both type's and I can't see any discernible width differences/bulges below where the canopies are to suggest a width difference, at this point - the only real difference appears to be that the NF10's nose is bulkier forward of the panel line just in front of and above the cannon ports .... and, FWIW Ian Huntley's drawings in Warpaint No27 show a 'shared' front aspect drawing for both the NF10 and T11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I posted an explanation of the difference in the pod width in the Airfix 2013 Releases thread before I spotted this one! See here - http://www.britmodel...20#entry1194537

That does indeed make sense Mark.......It appear from photo's of T11's that the fairing below the canopy was extended a few inches lower to accommodate this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The differences in real life were not too difficult to engineer but from a model perspective quite extensive. Not going to say too much at this point.

John

Noted!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget..no ejection seats on the NF10....also, worth noting that some NF(T)10's seem to have been fitted with the later style canopy associated with T.11 aircraft with ejection seats, and some earlier T11's had the old framed canopy associated with ordinary seats (obviously no Ejection Seat there!)! I've been looking at photo's of both type's and I can't see any discernible width differences/bulges below where the canopies are to suggest a width difference, at this point - the only real difference appears to be that the NF10's nose is bulkier forward of the panel line just in front of and above the cannon ports .... and, FWIW Ian Huntley's drawings in Warpaint No27 show a 'shared' front aspect drawing for both the NF10 and T11.

need to find some pics of early T11s, but IIRC the canopy was different as it was assymetric in the NF10 (Check the quarter lights).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

need to find some pics of early T11s, but IIRC the canopy was different as it was assymetric in the NF10 (Check the quarter lights).

You could be right, I'm comparing photo's in Warpaint 27 of an NF10 (p26) and a T11(p29), both with framed canopies (i.e. no ejection seats) and the fairings on the T11 are a lot larger than those on the NF10. No doubt to cater for the later inclusion of an Ejection Seat...

Don't forget too that it was not just the Royal Navy which used the two-seat Vampires.

Some lesser airforces, for example the RAF also used it.

:bye:

:rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That does indeed make sense Mark.......It appear from photo's of T11's that the fairing below the canopy was extended a few inches lower to accommodate this

You can see the differences easily when compared side by side. I've ringed the bit I was referring to - the enlarged 'bulgy bit' gave just enough enough extra 'shoulder width' to accomodate side by side seating. Note, it was for any seats side by side not specifically for ejection seats. The Martin Baker Mk3B seat was a lightweight seat designed specifically for the T.11 and fitted into the same pod as the the early non-ejection seat T.11s without further modification (other than internal mounting structure, leg line anchor points and relocation of some internal equipment from behind the seats) - indeed several 'early' T.11s were converted to have ejection seats fitted later.

Incidentally, the T.11 pod in the photo below is my own and with it being stripped out it's quite easy to see how the shape was modified to add the extra width to the cockpit opening.

Vampires_zpsc6f56560.jpg

Edited by StephenMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What actually was done is that on the original mock up NF.10 pod the sides were cut lower (which effectively widened the hole) and the new topsides were built up vertically to the sill height. this allowed the side by side seating, as the sill top distance was greater. The canopy was later changed to allow canopy clearance for the rearwards sloping ejection seats trajectory. I have the relative measurements and the T.11 canopy is wider and higher than the NF.10. The gun spout fairings (correct DH terminology) should be the same. The noses are different in construction from the nose wheelbay former.

The fins are the same. but the later T.11's had scabbed on dorsal fairings to improve inverted spin recovery.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can see the differences easily when compared side by side. I've ringed the bit I was referring to - the enlarged 'bulgy bit' gave just enough enough extra 'shoulder width' to accomodate side by side seating. Note, it was for any seats side by side not specifically for ejection seats. The Martin Baker Mk3B seat was a lightweight seat designed specifically for the T.11 and fitted into the same pod as the the early non-ejection seat T.11s without further modification (other than internal mounting structure, leg line anchor points and relocation of some internal equipment from behind the seats) - indeed several 'early' T.11s were converted to have ejection seats fitted later.

Incidentally, the T.11 pod in the photo below is my own and with it being stripped out it's quite easy to see how the shape was modified to add the extra width to the cockpit opening.

Vampires_zpsc6f56560.jpg

Thanks again Mark - that explains it perfectly!

What actually was done is that on the original mock up NF.10 pod the sides were cut lower (which effectively widened the hole) and the new topsides were built up vertically to the sill height. this allowed the side by side seating, as the sill top distance was greater. The canopy was later changed to allow canopy clearance for the rearwards sloping ejection seats trajectory. I have the relative measurements and the T.11 canopy is wider and higher than the NF.10. The gun spout fairings (correct DH terminology) should be the same. The noses are different in construction from the nose wheelbay former.

The fins are the same. but the later T.11's had scabbed on dorsal fairings to improve inverted spin recovery.

John

Thanks John, I knew that you'd know!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget too that it was not just the Royal Navy which used the two-seat Vampires.

Some lesser airforces, for example the RAF also used it.

:bye:

I believe that ALL Royal Navy aircraft fly by to this theme tune:

The NF.10 certainly has a much bulkier nose than a T.11.

I have doubts about the Ian Huntley plans in the Warpaint book, I thought T.11's only had two cannon whereas NF.10's had four, Huntley's plans show T.11's (including in the shared frontal view), four cannons on both Mk's.

Wez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The standard training fit was 2x 20mm with the option of fitting 4 guns in an operational emergency (presumably flown solo?)

The Huntley drawings for the two seaters are quite wrong in several places. For instance the sill depth and canopy width are drawn the same for the 10 and 11. The drawings in the Warpaint are printed underscale and the overall length of the T.ll is too short as drawn. There is not a great difference in the shape of the noses, the NF.10 being a little fuller on the nose tip top. It had a bulged fairing underneath for the scanner bracket and I suspect that the radome on the prototype was a bit fuller . The shape of the Huntley drawing is quite wrong. Look at the NF.10 side view and then at the photo below.

John

Edited by John Aero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that ALL Royal Navy aircraft fly by to this theme tune:

The NF.10 certainly has a much bulkier nose than a T.11.

I have doubts about the Ian Huntley plans in the Warpaint book, I thought T.11's only had two cannon whereas NF.10's had four, Huntley's plans show T.11's (including in the shared frontal view), four cannons on both Mk's.

Wez

Love the music ,who are the RAF anyway FLY NAVY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The differences in real life were not too difficult to engineer but from a model perspective quite extensive. Not going to say too much at this point.

John

Hmmm :spider: ,someone's scheming a conversion kit here methinks Mr Adams. :shutup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as when I thought I had a fairly complete picture a few more NF.10 facts have emerged from my researches.

36 NF.10's were converted to Nav trainers (NF(T)10's) and they had clamshell style canopies (mod3151). I suspect they might have some commonality with Venom NF.2a's. I strongly suspect that there are also two types of earlier hood with one having more headroom. The prototype had a more bulbous radome, no scanner bracket fairing and a shallow canopy.

DH aeroplanes are a nightmare. I once questioned two old DH employees about the apparently similar Gipsy cowls I was measuring and I was puzzled that seemingly similar cowls differed by varying degrees up to an 3/4". I was told "well Fred didn't make 'em all".

John

Edited by John Aero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the music ,who are the RAF anyway FLY NAVY

Brings to mind a sticker I.had on my locker in the old 724 squadron days

"FLY NAVY

DIG ARMY

EAT CRAB"

Might have to purchase a few of the Airfix Vampires, 724 flew one or two in their day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apropo nothing, just a nice photo.

John

John,

Thanks for posting this, vary useful reference now saved in the file named Vampire...

...mighty cosy in there isn't it, no chance of the pupil not being able to see what the instructor is teaching or for the pupil to do something unnoticed by the instructor.

Wez

Edited by Wez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

Thanks for posting this, vary useful reference now saved in the file named Vampire...

...mighty cosy in there isn't it, no chance of the pupil not being able to see what the instructor is teaching or for the pupil to do something unnoticed by the instructor.

Wez

I had a simular experience ones when sharing the front of a Reliant Robin with a rather large gentleman, all the time I just kept on think to myself this must be exactly like being in a Vampire T.11

I'm glad the photo's usfull!!

john

Share this post


Link to post
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

×