Smudge Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Apologies if this has all been covered before. A search didn't throw anything up. I believe the Vampire T.11 was developed from the NF.10. The nose contours of the two I would imagine are similar if not the same? Looking at photo's they appear to be slightly different, is that the case? Obviously the NF.10 is armed and has a radar, but is the T.11 markedly different in outline? The twin vertical tail units are also different, is there anything else (excluding the inner workings of the cockpit) that I should be aware of, if I try and do a NF.10 from a T.11? I am thinking 1/72 Airfix T.11 to NF.10. Cheers guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ptmvarsityfan Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Hi, one difference is the canopies, the NF10 had a flat upper surface, similar to early T11's. Later T11's (as kitted by Airfix) had ejection seats and a bulged canopy top. Cheers, paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viscount806x Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Why not just go with the lovely CMR kit? Review here: http://www.hyperscale.com/2011/reviews/kits/cmr220reviewmd_1.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Why not just go with the lovely CMR kit? Review here: http://www.hyperscale.com/2011/reviews/kits/cmr220reviewmd_1.htm Cost? Have a read here, it's discussed in some detail: http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234931519-vampire-nf10-v-t11-differences/?hl=%2Bvampire+%2Bnf10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smudge Posted February 14, 2014 Author Share Posted February 14, 2014 Thank you for the replies, Gentlemen. Well, cost is certainly a factor £.33.33 , when the Airfix kit is very nice and a bit of a bargain. Also, I was at a model show where another fine gentleman sat behind a rather impressive assortment of 1/72 Vampires (and Venoms?). We discussed the merits of the CMR kit v the Airfix, and he pointed out to me the rather odd looking front of the CMR canopy, which compared to the Airfix kit looked decidedly dodgy. If I recall correctly it was too narrow. Seeing the Airfix kit made up next to the CMR was very useful, and for me the Airfix kit is the winner. Dave, thanks for the link, I see you already did the leg work on that one. Did you ever get your NF.10 done? I wonder if I could get myself to break up an old Heller kit just for the tail-booms? Thanks again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Thank you for the replies, Gentlemen. Well, cost is certainly a factor £.33.33 , when the Airfix kit is very nice and a bit of a bargain. Also, I was at a model show where another fine gentleman sat behind a rather impressive assortment of 1/72 Vampires (and Venoms?). We discussed the merits of the CMR kit v the Airfix, and he pointed out to me the rather odd looking front of the CMR canopy, which compared to the Airfix kit looked decidedly dodgy. If I recall correctly it was too narrow. Seeing the Airfix kit made up next to the CMR was very useful, and for me the Airfix kit is the winner. Dave, thanks for the link, I see you already did the leg work on that one. Did you ever get your NF.10 done? I wonder if I could get myself to break up an old Heller kit just for the tail-booms? Thanks again. I haven't got my T11 done yet! A case of modellers yips whenever I wield a paintbrush! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herb Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Well, here's my shot at making one. I had the old Airmodel vac conversion, which supplied the nose and tail bits. I made a new canopy out of a reshaped master from the T.11 parts. Cheers, Herb 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bradley Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) One thing to remember is that while the T.11 was derived from the NF.10, the T.11 had wider cockpit sills, so you'd need to thin them down. Take a look at these photos of each from the same angle and you'll see what I mean. [/uRL] This is from when I built my Classic Airframes kit, BTW... ...and, naturally, this is more adequately explained in the thread highlighted above...... Edited October 22, 2014 by Paul Bradley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smudge Posted October 22, 2014 Author Share Posted October 22, 2014 Glad I noticed this. Funny coincidence, as I was just yesterday looking at the Airmodel conversion set I picked up. It is basically a vac-formed fuselage and a vac canopy. No tail parts in my set. I was fiddling about with it and my Airfix T.11, and came to the conclusion that it needed new tail fins, but couldn't quite see how to achieve them (no plans) as they seem to be different to the single seaters and the T.11. Are they just extended vertically to achieve a taller more pointed fin? Herb, I really like your NF.10, lovely job on the tail planes, but Paul is right. The T.11 has a wider cockpit opening, to make room for the side by side seating of the ejection seats. So I would be inclined to use more or all of the conversion kit fuselage, at least to include the cockpit. The Airmodel conversion kit is designed for the old Frog single seater FB.5 kit, and I was even thinking of using the Heller FB.5 kit, as the tail shape is a closer match, having the bullet fairings. It's all very confusing! By the way, the bottom photo of the two in Paul's post is even more confusing, as it seems to have the wider cockpit of the T.11 and the nose of a NF.10. The wider cockpit of the T.11 was achieved by lowering the cockpit opening to a wider section, and then building up a vertical lip on the sides, which is very visible below the canopy of the T.11. It can be a bit of a mine-field. I am still determined to have an NF.10 though. Cheers guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bradley Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Sorry, I should have explained - the Classic Airframes kit is wrong, wrong, wrong - the pic originally illustrated my review at the IPMS/USA website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smudge Posted October 22, 2014 Author Share Posted October 22, 2014 Cheers Paul, no problem. That clears that up. I think I am up to speed on all the differences. It's just a matter of deciding on a plan of action. Heller FB.5 or Airfix.T.11. Or both and the conversion set. Seems a shame to use two kits, but you get all the good bit's! All the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bradley Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 That's the way it is sometimes - I sacrificed one of the Heller kits to correct the tailbooms on the A-Model FB.6 I have..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tempestfan Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Sorry, I should have explained - the Classic Airframes kit is wrong, wrong, wrong. Slightly o/t I admit but that appears to extend to the upper intake lip coming too far forward, and the "intake ramp" on the fuselage having a funny shape. Even Hobbycrfat looks to have been closer to reality... Maybe you can get a Frog/Russian incarnation kit cheaply off ebay, though possibly a Heller (or Airfix boxing of it) may not be more expensive. The hulk of the donor kit could be the basis for a late 1 perhaps (with the late canopy), as I think for a 1 you'd basically have to reshape the wing tips and get yourself new tail boom ends and fins (without the bullet fairings), for which the Airfix 11 segments may form a basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan B Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 We discussed the merits of the CMR kit v the Airfix, and he pointed out to me the rather odd looking front of the CMR canopy, which compared to the Airfix kit looked decidedly dodgy. If I recall correctly it was too narrow. Seeing the Airfix kit made up next to the CMR was very useful, and for me the Airfix kit is the winner. I think I'm right in saying that the fixed front windscreen of the NF10 was narrower than the T11 and the photo of the Italian NF10 compared to the T11 pod in one of the links would appear to confirm that. I believe CMR actually got the NF10 windscreen correct instead of using a T11 one. Duncan B 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceG Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 The 2 seat Vampire is a complex subject. The NF10 was a private development by de Havilland at Hatfield, and used mostly single seat parts, and a new fuselage pod, with staggered seating similar to the night fighter mosquito. It is not as some observers have claimed, a modified mosquito nose. Moving on, the two seat Venom used the same pod as the NF10. This the NF2 and NF2a along with the NF50 all used the same pod as the Vampire 10, but with different spars and forward wing mounts. Sea Venom Mk20 is also the same pod. The pod was later developed for use in the NF3 and sea Venom 22, by modifying the front end, forward of the pressure bulkhead. It also used a different clamshell type cockpit canopy. This canopy was later retrofitted to some Vampire NF10 aircraft. This was possible because it is the same pod. Meanwhile, the T11 was developed at Christchurch. The T11 is a different design entirely, and shares no commonality with the earlier two seat pod, and little with the single seat pod. It is wider overall, keeping a constant width forward of the engine bulkhead, up to the front cockpit bulkhead. It was built for side by side seating, so has to be wider than the earlier design. The early canopy, although very similar to the NF10 is quite different, and nothing is interchangeable. Hope that helps. Bruce 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smudge Posted October 24, 2014 Author Share Posted October 24, 2014 Duncan B and BruceG, thank's for the input guy's. More stuff to think about. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan B Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Duncan B and BruceG, thank's for the input guy's. More stuff to think about. Remember to post when you get round to it. Duncan B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Womby Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 On 10/23/2014 at 12:10 PM, BruceG said: The 2 seat Vampire is a complex subject. The NF10 was a private development by de Havilland at Hatfield, and used mostly single seat parts, and a new fuselage pod, with staggered seating similar to the night fighter mosquito. It is not as some observers have claimed, a modified mosquito nose. Moving on, the two seat Venom used the same pod as the NF10. This the NF2 and NF2a along with the NF50 all used the same pod as the Vampire 10, but with different spars and forward wing mounts. Sea Venom Mk20 is also the same pod. The pod was later developed for use in the NF3 and sea Venom 22, by modifying the front end, forward of the pressure bulkhead. It also used a different clamshell type cockpit canopy. This canopy was later retrofitted to some Vampire NF10 aircraft. This was possible because it is the same pod. Meanwhile, the T11 was developed at Christchurch. The T11 is a different design entirely, and shares no commonality with the earlier two seat pod, and little with the single seat pod. It is wider overall, keeping a constant width forward of the engine bulkhead, up to the front cockpit bulkhead. It was built for side by side seating, so has to be wider than the earlier design. The early canopy, although very similar to the NF10 is quite different, and nothing is interchangeable. Hope that helps. Bruce So does this mean the second canopy fitted to the T11 (as on the Airfix kit) is wider than the similar looking canopy of the Venom NF2a, NF3 and Sea Venoms? David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 13 hours ago, David Womby said: So does this mean the second canopy fitted to the T11 (as on the Airfix kit) is wider than the similar looking canopy of the Venom NF2a, NF3 and Sea Venoms? David Yes, but I’m now wondering about cross kitting the Sea Venom with a Vampire to get an NF10 and a Venom FB..... 😀 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Womby Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 2 hours ago, Dave Fleming said: Yes, but I’m now wondering about cross kitting the Sea Venom with a Vampire to get an NF10 and a Venom FB..... 😀 I have an old SAM article cross kitting the Sea Venom and Vampire to get the Venom FB. It mentions the reverse but you would need to change the Sea Venom radome and canopy too to get the Vampire NF. Right? I am looking at the ancient Airmodel Vampire NF conversion and wondering if that might not be so bad after all. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selwyn Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 I'm just surprised that nobody has come up with a NF conversion for the Airfix T11 yet! Just hope somebody on scalemates comes up with something. Selwyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigModeller Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 (edited) On 2/21/2019 at 8:36 AM, Dave Fleming said: Yes, but I’m now wondering about cross kitting the Sea Venom with a Vampire to get an NF10 and a Venom FB..... 😀 Yes, this was how it was done in days gone by. Infact there was an article in How to go Plastic modelling by Chris Ellis. I'll try and find my copy Edited February 25, 2019 by MigModeller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 3 hours ago, MigModeller said: Yes, this was how it was done in days gone by. Infact there was an article in How to go Plastic modelling by Chris Ellis. I'll try and find my copy I did the Venom FB many moonsago, but didn't think of the NF option 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