Jump to content

As a result of the close-down of the UK by the British Government last night, we have made all the Buy/Sell areas read-only until we open back up again, so please have a look at the announcement linked here.

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. :)

Col.

Interceptor GB; 14 Nov 20 to 7 Mar 21

Recommended Posts

Hi col.

Congrats with the GB’s success in the bunfight. 👌

Can you sign me up? - the end of year timing fits really well.

it’s either a 1/48 kinetic canadian early f/a-18

...or a 1/48 tamiya f-16*

(*but is the f-16 technically an interceptor and eligible?)

 

 

 

Edited by Dansk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wez said:

Definitely in for this one, all studies will be finished, I can finally go back to enjoying life!

 

Plenty in the stash that fits the bill, plenty of time to choose!

That's excellent news Wez. Glad to hear the end of your studies are in sight and you can get stuck into this GB :D 

16 minutes ago, Dansk said:

Hi col.

Congrats with the GB’s success in the bunfight. 👌

Can you sign me up? - the end of year timing fits really well.

it’s either a 1/48 kinetic canadian early f/a-18

...or a 1/48 tamiya f-16*

(*but is the f-16 technically an interceptor and eligible?)

Be delighted to have you join in Paul :) Either your F/A-18 or F-16 will be fine so long as they are modelled in fighter trim rather than carrying any air-to-ground weaponary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am tempted by either a Supermarine Type 224 or Gladiator, both of  which were the outcome of Specification F/30 for a day and night fighter, which in 1931 when the spec was issued seemed to imply a bomber interceptor able to shoot down French bombers as the only likely enemy at that time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mr T said:

I am tempted by either a Supermarine Type 224 or Gladiator, both of  which were the outcome of Specification F/30 for a day and night fighter, which in 1931 when the spec was issued seemed to imply a bomber interceptor able to shoot down French bombers as the only likely enemy at that time. 

Again both of those machines are fine candidates :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2019 at 9:30 PM, reini said:

'Ultimate Interceptor' - I've got Meng F-106 that would be perfect for this.

LOL!!! What You know about 'Ultimate Interceptor'??? 😁😁

F-106??? 😁

This is REAL 'Ultimate Interceptor':

1gj_enloq.jpg

and this is 'Ultimate Interceptor':

6600.jpg

and of course this is 'Ultimate Interceptor':

71_6.jpg

this is 'Ultimate- ultimate Interceptor':

m-17-stratosfera-samolet-01.jpg

and this is 'Ultimate Interceptor'

ha-300-box.jpg

....but this 'Ultimate Interceptor' no carry gun or missile, he just killed with his small size !!!

😁😁😁

 

B.R.

Serge

 

P.S.

Of course I have all this 'Ultimate Interceptor'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Aardvark said:

...Of course I have all this 'Ultimate Interceptor'

So you are signing up to build them all, yes Serge? Enzo will be proud :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Col. said:

So you are signing up to build them all, yes Serge?

1. My personal SB (Single Building 😉😁) the list has already been announced:

Need maked his first!!!  

 

2. (Gloomy) Until November 2020, me still have to live.🤗🤔

 

But...but if this two paragraphs I release, so then I think about this GB!

B.w. La-15 was in general in PVO service

....so it's interceptor! 😉😚

 

B.R.

Serge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aardvark said:

LOL!!! What You know about 'Ultimate Interceptor'??? 😁😁

F-106??? 😁

Not sure if you're just kidding around or not - but I was just quoting literature.🤔

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, reini said:

Not sure if you're just kidding around

Of course just kidding!!!

F-106 from Meng good choice for modeller in all...in all except for the decal. I do not like Meng versions, but this is my personal opinion!

What version like to me?

With Viking on nose.

 

B.R.

Serge

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the ultimate interceptor!

 

spacer.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to say I wasn't really all that interested in this one, but looking at the stash, maybe this is the year I'll get round to the 1/48 Lightning (my 'ultimate interceptor'), 1/32 F-86D, or even the Classic Airframes Vampire NF.10 (probably nobody's 'ultimate interceptor'!) that's had me wondering why I bought it for a while now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Enzo Matrix said:

This is the ultimate interceptor!

 

spacer.png

Two maple syrup for this gentleman!

😁😁😁

Unfortunately, I have the first edition of this "Ultimate interceptor" from Hobbycraft....

😭

 

B.R.

Serge

 

P.S.

How about this "Ultimate interceptor":

 37.jpg

????

 

Edited by Aardvark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Aardvark said:

Unfortunately, I have the first edition of this "Ultimate interceptor" from Hobbycraft....

:door:  

 

 

I've already mentioned that I will be building the NOTSNIK version of the Douglas F4D Skyray, with was used to launch the first experimental anti-satellite missile tested by the US.   However, in my researches into the F4D, I came across the following statement on Wikipedia:

 

The Skyray was designed exclusively for the high-altitude interception role, with a high rate and angle of climb. It set a new time-to-altitude record, flying from a standing start to 49,221 feet (15,003 m) in 2 minutes and 36 seconds, all while flying at a 70° pitch angle.

 

I think that deserves an additional build of an F4D in squadron service...

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you get when you mix an elephant with a rhino?

Elephino. (HEll if I know)

 

What do you call an elephant at the North Pole?

Lost!

 

Why did the elephant go in the mens restroom?

To get some nuts
 

I'm following you Enzo!! :ninja:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Aardvark said:

Two maple syrup for this gentleman!

😁😁😁

Unfortunately, I have the first edition of this "Ultimate interceptor" from Hobbycraft....

😭

Oh :sick:

 

12 hours ago, Aardvark said:

P.S.

How about this "Ultimate interceptor":

 37.jpg

????

Another good one Serge :thumbsup:

12 hours ago, Enzo Matrix said:

:door:  

 

 

I've already mentioned that I will be building the NOTSNIK version of the Douglas F4D Skyray, with was used to launch the first experimental anti-satellite missile tested by the US.   However, in my researches into the F4D, I came across the following statement on Wikipedia:

 

The Skyray was designed exclusively for the high-altitude interception role, with a high rate and angle of climb. It set a new time-to-altitude record, flying from a standing start to 49,221 feet (15,003 m) in 2 minutes and 36 seconds, all while flying at a 70° pitch angle.

 

I think that deserves an additional build of an F4D in squadron service...

Cool plan :D 

11 hours ago, trickyrich said:

What do you get when you mix an elephant with a rhino?

Elephino. (HEll if I know)

 

What do you call an elephant at the North Pole?

Lost!

 

Why did the elephant go in the mens restroom?

To get some nuts
 

I'm following you Enzo!! :ninja:

Shoosh you!

 

Now while we're on the subject of Ultimate Interceptor, and diverting away from @trickyrich's obsession with terrible jokes (Ithink it's the resin dust getting to him ;) ) how about the Sea Harrier? It was, after all, the Royal Navy's Ultimate Interceptor and is only now in the process of being replaced many years after retirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Col. said:

Another good one Serge :thumbsup:

But unlucky for me. I started 4 (FOUR) BI-1 but no finished no one!

First was BI-1 from Modelist, it was poor model BI-1 then was two from VES...don't remember what was with second, but when I almost finished  third published drawings BI-1....and then it became clear that the model does not correspond to the drawings. It's amazing, because Vladimir Rudenko, co-owner , head designer VES & modeller hi-class (I see some his build models) HAVE ORIGINAL DRAWINGS on BI-1!!!! This was told to me by a friend-modeler (he was then a police colonel, now he is a retired general of the Russian police) to whom the VES presented copies of these drawings and he forgot (!!!) them in a restaurant where they drinking Vodka with VES.

But HOW???

How, being an extra-class modeller, having original factory drawings, to make such a BI-1 ???

No understand....

7 hours ago, Col. said:

how about the Sea Harrier?

No way! Clear fighter for dog-fight!!! 

Falkland War to the help, if that!

😉😁

 

B.R.

Serge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Aardvark said:

But unlucky for me. I started 4 (FOUR) BI-1 but no finished no one!

First was BI-1 from Modelist, it was poor model BI-1 then was two from VES...don't remember what was with second, but when I almost finished  third published drawings BI-1....and then it became clear that the model does not correspond to the drawings. It's amazing, because Vladimir Rudenko, co-owner , head designer VES & modeller hi-class (I see some his build models) HAVE ORIGINAL DRAWINGS on BI-1!!!! This was told to me by a friend-modeler (he was then a police colonel, now he is a retired general of the Russian police) to whom the VES presented copies of these drawings and he forgot (!!!) them in a restaurant where they drinking Vodka with VES.

But HOW???

How, being an extra-class modeller, having original factory drawings, to make such a BI-1 ???

No understand....

No way! Clear fighter for dog-fight!!! 

Falkland War to the help, if that!

😉😁

 

B.R.

Serge

Perhaps now will be the time to finish that elusive BI-1? As for forgetting the drawings; I was once told by a Russian that, when studying Russian history, never underestimate the importance of vodka :shrug:

When it comes to our subjects, be they interceptor or dog-fighter or ground/ship based, the purpose and result of shooting down the enemy is paramount ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Col. said:

Perhaps now will be the time to finish that elusive BI-1?

Probably

27 minutes ago, Col. said:

As for forgetting the drawings; I was once told by a Russian that, when studying Russian history, never underestimate the importance of vodka :shrug:

As say modern version well known classic slogans:

"There are two troubles in Russia - fool & road....and if one of them can be dealt with with the help of skating rinks and pavers, then the roads are much more complicated."

As You see vodka in Russia troubles

- fool & road no complete!!

😁

27 minutes ago, Col. said:

When it comes to our subjects, be they interceptor or dog-fighter or ground/ship based, the purpose and result of shooting down the enemy is paramount ;)

😁

Interesting HOW Shar intercept Tu-22M3 or Tu-160??? 

When Tu-22M3 was maximum degree swept wing, escorted 

MiG-23 could not catch him, the speed of which is much higher than Shar.

😉😋

F.A.2 probably because AIM-120, but not FRS.1.

 

B.R.

Serge

Edited by Aardvark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Aardvark said:

Interesting HOW Shar intercept Tu-22M3 or Tu-160??? 

When Tu-22M3 was maximum degree swept wing, escorted 

MiG-23 could not catch him, the speed of which is much higher than Shar.

😉😋

F.A.2 probably because AIM-120, but not FRS.1.

I guess the trick was to get up in front and wait for them to arrive. Alas our leaders decided the navy did not need a ship-based airborne early warning capacity so the chances of seeing an aggressively flown Tu-22M3 or Tu-160 in time to get up in its way were drastically reduced. Aside from that potentially serious issue the SHAR proved itself a capable fighter in combat and during exercises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O.K. My military education somewhat different, but try to figure it out.

 

10 minutes ago, Col. said:

I guess the trick was to get up in front and wait for them to arrive.

This  the term is called: "line of interception".

 

For SHAR have two maximum

"line of interception" which are equal

combat radius, for
 vertical take-off: 135 km, for 
 during take-off with take-off run: 795 km (with take-off weight of 9700 kg).

 

What is against?

Аgainst  army naval Tu-16, Tu-22 & Tu-22M with X-22.

 

What is X-22/ AS-4 "Kitchen"???

Firing Range: 140-300 (460-600) km?

So with vertical take-off SHAR just useless, lucky for SHAR was only pilots Tu-22/Tu-22M was drinking vodka all flight to target and get closer to the carrier warrant on 135 +18= 153 km

(Front hemisphere launch range AIM-9 : 18 km)!!!

In all other cases, missiles will be launched before the appearance of the SHAR.

Result from hollywood movie:

With during take-off with take-off run SHAR have chances....but, let's see Russian tactic!

"Attacks of naval groups in various battle formations, including at extremely low altitudes, were also tested.

 The use of Tu-22K missile carriers equipped with X-22 missiles for AUG-type targets was planned to be carried out by groups of aircraft up to air division (up to 80 aircraft) [2] according to various schemes - from a frontal strike from one direction to diluting carriers into three groups with alignment  them in two waves (in range) and the use of jammers from aircraft of already launched missiles at the forefront.

 The distribution of targets in the order between the missiles was carried out by the operators of the missile carriers in agreement with the leading aircraft.  Start-up was carried out by the group after agreeing on the taking of goals by the group for escort.  The mission of the division was considered completed when the aircraft carrier was defeated (incapacitation for a long time or sinking)."

How match SHAR on carriers? 24?

V.s. 80 Tu-22/Tu-22M?? Tu-22M have carry two or three X-22. 80×2=160 X-22

with combination attack missile from Russian submarines no chance.

 

It's for ideal conditions for SHAR.

And if the sea swell does not allow to fly up?

 

As for my SHAR for light attack aircraft & fighter, for bomber best Tornado F.3 it's classic interceptor

 

B.R.

Serge

 

____________

*- AUG it's Avianosnaya Udarnaya Gruppa - Carrier Attack Group.

 

P.S. But I like SHAR.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Next stage Ultimate interceptor:

20191204-105139.jpg

there is no F3D but I have it.  Also, there is no La-200B and Su-15 first. La-200B I'm 

have not received it yet. First Su-15 was future release Modelsvit, but about this project any news.

This mini-collection is interesting because it reflects the difference in the strategy of the USSR and the USA embodied in the design at the same time.

If for USA most important was time barging on "line of interception"  which caused the direct wing, it was important for the USSR to reach the 

"line of interception" 

as soon as possible which caused swept wing.

At the same time, the Americans did not have enough engine power, so there were four of them on the XF-87, the Russians had enough power but the size of the engines was large, so such an exotic twin-engine redan

design.

 

B.R.

Serge

 

Edited by Aardvark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2019 at 9:11 AM, Aardvark said:

This mini-collection is interesting because it reflects the difference in the strategy of the USSR and the USA embodied in the design at the same time.

That's an interesting point Serge. The US design's straight wings and use of rockets is at odds with the Soviet use of swept wings and guns.

Edited by Col.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just jumping in as I have a habit of doing. 

 

In some ways the ultimate western interceptor was the F-104??? Nothing before or after it has even been so extreme. A dart with probably the finest engine ever made, the GE J79.

 

She killed more pilots then she actually killed, yet she served from the 60's right up to 2005!

 

@Aardvark Serge, was there anything as extreme as this tested by Russia, during the Cold War? Not knowing prototypes all I can think of (or know about) is maybe the Su-11 or MiG-25??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, trickyrich said:

 

In some ways the ultimate western interceptor was the F-104??? Nothing before or after it has even been so extreme. A dart with probably the finest engine ever made, the GE J79.

Statistics very strongly made West Germany, but what you want? Remade  9  tons light fighter to 13 tons attack fighter-bomber, nothing extraordinary in disaster! Also F-104 was aerodynamic problem with design, for more:

"Apex approximation" or Mosolov effect.

731248_original.jpg

https://afirsov.livejournal.com/485629.html

Quote:

"

Interesting data turned out to be the results of purging the American Lockheed Starfighter fighter.  The aircraft had a very specific layout - a long fuselage - "body rotation" on a cone in the bow.


 Indeed, when blowing on a corkscrew, it turned out that at large angles of attack there is a strong lateral moment - a “peak” at 50 gr.  and at a slip angle of 0 g.  That is, the conditions are close, except for the angle of attack.  But, given that the body is “on a cone” - the angle of attack in “local aerodynamics” could be larger.  Moreover, the Americans "blew" at low Reynolds numbers - at speeds up to M = 0.2.  At the same time, a “paradoxical” behavior was observed in the flow disruption from under the nasal part - intermittent, to the right and left.  At the same time, the bevel of the flow fell on the stabilizer, clearly sharply reducing controllability.  And this is in the most dangerous mode, of course, - "Hello, corkscrew!"

 In order to somehow deal with this phenomenon, the Americans proposed to establish a nasal influx - a horizontal plate to the left of the nose of the "Starfighter" model.  That is, if the "phenomenon" is manifested at zero glide, then asymmetric flow around the bow should be caused.  How to simulate a glide in direct flight.  It was noted that for a positive effect, the plate should go from the LDPE in the nose to the cockpit - that is, almost along the entire “taper” of the fuselage.

732137_original.jpg

 

From this it can be assumed that the cause of the phenomenon was a pressure surge formed on the cone-shaped nose of the “body of revolution”.  Ideally, the air flow, meeting with the cylinder at a certain angle of attack, should uniformly flow around it to the right and left.  Here the Americans visualize on the Starfighter model with smoke:

732236_original.jpg

The asymmetrical flow around the influx is visible 


 The usual flow around a cylinder for small R.

 But what will happen in the “extreme case” when the stream hits the point where the “meeting angle” of the stream is exactly 0 degrees?


 Formally, in the case of air flow, a small region of high pressure should form, which in any case, being unstable "on the ball" should shift to the right or left.


 Behind the cylinder, a "Cartman path" is formed


 However, with increasing speed, the effect of compressibility of the air plays an increasing role.  As a result, from a certain moment, the air flow begins to slow down not on the fuselage, but on the “pressure jump” in front of it.


 As a result, “under the nose” of the aircraft under favorable conditions (good fuselage symmetry, lack of slipping) a “beard” of a decent attached mass is formed.

 

In this case, the phenomenon develops very quickly and, in fact, the then means of visualization of air flow was not recorded.  It is clear that such a “beard”, abutting against the “ball”, was unstable in the flow and at some point fell off to the right or to the left (the very “paradoxical” phenomenon of intermittent stall of the flow from under the bow)  Depending on the magnitude of the “attached mass”, a lateral moment of forces was to be created.

733791_original.jpg


 Moreover, again, the paradox is that the better the fuselage of the plane is made in terms of symmetry and the more precisely the pilot keeps the course without sliding, the more “attached mass” he can get and the more heeling moment will be.  Such a surprise only for good pilots!

P.S.  The high accident rate of Lockheed's Starfighter began to play with special colors.

 If Jaeger believed that the layout of the F-104 made it impossible to get him out of critical stall flow regimes immediately on the wing and stabilizer (How not to make planes - 4, or, well, Kelly Johnson riveted "flying coffins"?),  then the “Mosolov effect” led to the fact that the Starfighter pilot could get into critical mode without actually making any mistakes when piloting!  Purely by the will of the plane.  And no chance to get out"

 

And

 

"How not to make planes - 4, or, well, Kelly Johnson, "flying coffins" riveted?"

https://afirsov.livejournal.com/409602.html

Quote:

"The answer to the high accident rate of Starfighter, in this case, bypasses the usual technical problems then, is to enter "supercritical modes": there were no limiters of the angle of attack then (or rather, it was turned off due to unreliability), and they were going to fight seriously -  flew a lot and in extreme modes.  Having got into the stall mode, which was simultaneously on the wing and the stabilizer, the pilot no longer had the chance to cope with the control, especially at the then popular low altitudes.  Moreover, the then ejected seats gave a low chance of salvation, especially near the ground (on the first "starfighters" the ejection was generally down!).  The complexity of the development of the aircraft, the rapid development of the emergency situation, the lack of objective controls then, coupled with problems with controllability, ensured Starfighter’s high accident rate, which in many ways remained its mystery ... For the majority.  Well, Kelly had to come to a conclusion later.  Later."

 

B.w. F-100  was also  high accident.

1 hour ago, trickyrich said:

 

@Aardvark Serge, was there anything as extreme as this tested by Russia, during the Cold War? Not knowing prototypes all I can think of (or know about) is maybe the Su-11 or MiG-25??

Su-11 was only 100, but You close! Most high accident was Su-9 and early version MiG-23 - MiG-23S with wing first edition.

 

B.R.

Serge

Edited by Aardvark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hell yeah she was a death trap and not forgetting the early ones had downward operating ejection seats as well.

 

Only for the most experienced and even then it got them as well. An extremely controversial aircraft, but excluding the fact it'd probably kill you it was still and in a lot of way now an awesome looking aircraft.

 

Thanks for the technical breakdown. :thumbsup:

 

I sort of remember reading something about the early MiG-23's

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

×
×
  • Create New...