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

22 minutes ago, trickyrich said:

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

From what I recall the MiG-23 was impressed into service far too early into its development stages and suffered from not having some flaws ironed out. Although later versions resolved at least some of those flaws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This GB is a long way off but I've got a good choice in the stash;

 

Airfix Javelin & Lightning

Hobbyboss F/A-18C

Eduard Ltd Ed Su-27

Share this post


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

From what I recall the MiG-23 was impressed into service far too early into its development stages and suffered from not having some flaws ironed out.

In reality, needed an urgent response to the Phantom.

The first arriving aircraft turned out to be very “raw” - many had a truncated equipment, with limited functionality, which was also not reliable.  Despite the good thrust-to-weight ratio, the aircraft in piloting turned out to be difficult, had a huge number of restrictions, in certain modes it fell into a tailspin, from which it was not drawn well.  Aircraft with a wing without a deflectable sock were prone to swing and stall on landing.  The big problem was the constantly cracking and current fuselage tank compartment.  Poor insulation of the outboard technical compartment contributed to the ingress of water into complex electronic equipment and regular failures.

 

2 hours ago, Col. said:

Although later versions resolved at least some of those flaws

Late version - MiG-23MLD & MiG-23P (P from Perehvatchic - interceptor 😉 ) was serious fighter. Modernization with next generation missile R-27, R-77 ,  engine RD-33 & new avionics it can continue to extend the life of this aircraft.

But....

 

B.R.

Serge

Edited by Aardvark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please add me, I have several options in my stash (all 1/48 scale): Saab Draken, Su-9 and 11 "Fishpot", Mirage III and F-14.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About thin red line separating fighter from interceptor.😁

All know Su-15 is interceptor.

But....

http://scalemodels.ru/modules/forum/viewtopic_t_45289_start_20.html

Question:

"Good day!  The question is not quite on the topic, but the slanted Su-15.  In golden childhood, planes of the Kramatorsk regiment flew over my village of Zaitsevo, Artyomovsky district.  Watched them for hours.  It looked like there was an aerobatic zone, because they twisted the aerobatics: loops, combat turns, turns, etc.  Around 1982, he observed an “air battle” between two groups of aircraft, the four and three chasing each other.  How is this possible?  Maneuvering dog-fight are not at all characteristic of interceptors, especially in a group.  I saw everything with my own eyes.  But maybe that confused, or misunderstood?"

Answer:

"I won’t answer my question strictly, but I only note that the Su-15 was entrusted with functions not only of interception, but also of ground operations.  I don’t know, of course, who came up with this, but the Su-15 had to be able to bomb."

Other answer from author question:

"Here is what one good person wrote to me: “what you saw was a real maneuverable aerial battle of a link at a link. The fact is that the air defense regiments from February 1981 to 1986-1988 were part of the air forces of the districts. And flew  by KBP* Air Force. "  This also explains the work of the Su-15 on the ground."

 

So clear interceptor maybe was and fighter and bomber!

😉

 

Now we always may say:

" You Su-15 from 

February 1981 to 1986-1988 it's not a interceptor it's a fighter or maybe bomber!!!!

Get out from this GB!!!!!! 

 ENTRANCE ONLY FOR INTERCEPTOR!!!"

😁😁😁

 

B.R.

Serge

 

___________

* - KBP - Kurs Boevoi Podgotovki  - Combat training course

 

 

Edited by Aardvark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rui Silva said:

Please add me, I have several options in my stash (all 1/48 scale): Saab Draken, Su-9 and 11 "Fishpot", Mirage III and F-14.

With pleasure :) That's a fine selection of potential options you have there :thumbsup:

1 hour ago, Aardvark said:

About thin red line separating fighter from interceptor.😁

All know Su-15 is interceptor.

But....

http://scalemodels.ru/modules/forum/viewtopic_t_45289_start_20.html

....

" You Su-15 from 

February 1981 to 1986-1988 it's not a interceptor it's a fighter or maybe bomber!!!!

Get out from this GB!!!!!! 

 ENTRANCE ONLY FOR INTERCEPTOR!!!"

😁😁😁

So long as it could fullfill the role of a fighter and is modelled in that configuration your Su-15 is still good for this one Serge ;) 

Share this post


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

About thin red line separating fighter from interceptor

 

Thin red line - 2  separating 

interceptor from business-jet:

13749173_original.jpg

13746025_original.jpg

13746567_original.jpg

13748074_original.jpg

13748393_original.jpg

13749383_original.jpg

13749997_original.jpg

https://yuripasholok.livejournal.com/12264440.html

For those who don’t know, the old Russian trick, take the project of an interceptor, throw out of its weapons  and  call this a business-jet!!! 😉😁

this has already happened with the MiG 701 and the Sukhoj Gulfstream.

1 hour ago, Hockeyboy76 said:

What about a Tie Interceptor from ROTJ?

Tie Interceptor is this definitely not a business-jet?

Corporation "Dart Vader & son" ???

😁😁😁

 

B.R.

Serge

 

Share this post


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

Corporation "Dart Vader & son" ???

:rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hockeyboy76 said:

@Col. What about a Tie Interceptor from ROTJ?

Yip. Designed to shoot down the enemy so it, along with the X-Wing, are good for this GB :) 

4 hours ago, Aardvark said:

Thin red line - 2  separating 

interceptor from business-jet:

13749173_original.jpg

13746025_original.jpg

13746567_original.jpg

13748074_original.jpg

13748393_original.jpg

13749383_original.jpg

13749997_original.jpg

https://yuripasholok.livejournal.com/12264440.html

For those who don’t know, the old Russian trick, take the project of an interceptor, throw out of its weapons  and  call this a business-jet!!! 😉😁

this has already happened with the MiG 701 and the Sukhoj Gulfstream.

Tie Interceptor is this definitely not a business-jet?

Corporation "Dart Vader & son" ???

😁😁😁

B.R.

Serge

If the cabin door and cockpit windows are anything to go by this thing will be massive!

Share this post


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

If the cabin door and cockpit windows are anything to go by this thing will be massive!

YF-12? 

Share this post


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

If the cabin door and cockpit windows are anything to go by this thing will be massive!

It's for buisness-jet project, for interceptor traditional canopy.

See project MiG 701:

First edition:

701.jpg

701_3.jpg

Other edition (probably Oleg Samoilovich team) :

701_MIG_01.jpg

 

 

and see buisness-jet project on his base:

701_MIG_03.jpg

 

8 hours ago, Enzo Matrix said:

YF-12? 

Yes, it's as YF-12 project long-range hevy interceptor with speed over 5000 km/h.

 Is he have official name "PROMISING AVIATION COMPLEX DISTANT INTERCEPT (PAK DP)"

and unofficial - MiG-41.

As I think, this project buisness-jet based on interceptor.

 

But future Russian interceptor PAK DP also maybe based on early project multipurpose hypersonic MiG 301/321

2126301_original.jpg

2126552_original.jpg

2126708_original.jpg

2126975_original.jpg

 

B.R.

Serge

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About F-104 & F-100 accident.

in both cases, you see access to critical angles of attack, disruption of the air flow from the wing, and disaster.

The situation in most cases with many aircraft in itself can lead to disaster with most aircraft*, but the problem is that it is assumed that the F-104 and F-100 had this situation precisely because of design errors.

 

B.R.

Serge

 

______________

*- exceptions will probably be modern super-maneuverable fighters type Su-27/35, Eurofighter, Rafal, Gripen e.t.c.

but much still depends on the pilot despite the computers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's impossible to tell what will happen between today and the start of the GB, but I think I'll at least try to join with a "proper" interceptor, not one of those air superiority types also used for interception duties.. 🤣

Potential candidates are the F-102 and 101B, maybe a Lightning or a MiG-25 or a Su-9. Or maybe an F-94...

I also have something a bit less usual but I'm not sure if types that did not enter service would be eligible ? If so I may consider building a Lavochkin La-250, quite a beast of an aircraft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

It's impossible to tell what will happen between today and the start of the GB, but I think I'll at least try to join with a "proper" interceptor, not one of those air superiority types also used for interception duties.. 🤣

Potential candidates are the F-102 and 101B, maybe a Lightning or a MiG-25 or a Su-9. Or maybe an F-94...

W.W.E.M.D ;) 

(What Would Enzo Matrix Do)

11 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

I also have something a bit less usual but I'm not sure if types that did not enter service would be eligible ? If so I may consider building a Lavochkin La-250, quite a beast of an aircraft

Prototypes and projected types are also good for this one. So long as they were designed to shoot down other aircraft it's all good regardless if they made it into service or even off the drawing board or not :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I am in if I may. It will definitely be something Russian, the favourite at the moment being a Mig-31.

 

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rafalbert said:

Ok, I am in if I may. It will definitely be something Russian, the favourite at the moment being a Mig-31.

 

Dave

Nice choice Dave :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2019 at 11:15 AM, Giorgio N said:

building a Lavochkin La-250

For best results.

La-250 have AL-7F some as on Su-7/9/11 family & Tu-128.

In 72nd scale have AL-7F from 

Amigo Models

http://www.amigomodels.ru/product/al7-72017/

Also was cockpit on La-250 from Balkans manufacturing (don't remember name) but his extremely rare.

 

 

B.R.

Serge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2019 at 7:19 PM, Col. said:

Who's up for a GB dedicated to interceptors? A celebration of types who's sole purpose has been to intercept and, when required, shoot down other aircraft.

 

Any aircraft type, missile system, or gun designed specifically or employed to bring down enemy aircraft

If I'm correct.

 

As long as it dousn't carry bombs,any WW-2 fighter fits this GB ?

Edited by Col.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Erwin said:

If I'm correct.

 

As long as it dousn't carry bombs,any WW-2 fighter fits this GB ?

Yes Erwin that's correct. If it was designed and used to shoot down aircraft then it is eligible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, LostCosmonauts said:

Add me to the list please - still thinking about a subject

With pleasure :) 

 

Remember gang this one is open to more than aircraft alone so land and sea based systems designed to shoot down aircraft are eligible. Subjects can also be from any era so WWI, interwar, WWII, Cold War, modern, Sci-fi, and unbuilt paper projects are all good.

Share this post


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

With pleasure :) 

 

Remember gang this one is open to more than aircraft alone so land and sea based systems designed to shoot down aircraft are eligible. Subjects can also be from any era so WWI, interwar, WWII, Cold War, modern, Sci-fi, and unbuilt paper projects are all good.

Thanks, I’ve an ongoing project of 3D modelling & printing British interceptor designs that got canned in the infamous defence White Paper so will probably do one or two of those for this (as long as doing some of the work digitally is ok?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Erwin said:

As long as it dousn't carry bombs,

Bombs was differences! Let's my introduce!

ag2-i.jpg

"The AG-2 aircraft grenade"

Is a defensive aviation munition designed to protect the lower part of the rear hemisphere of bombers and attack aircraft.  Constructor - A.F. Turakhin (1938).

After dropping from the aircraft from special stationary cartridges of the holders of aviation grenades DAG-5 or DAG-10 (with a capacity of 5 and 10 grenades, respectively) according to the control signals from the cockpit arrow, the parachute box lid also pulled out the fuse pin as a result of an aerodynamic strike.  At this time, grenades under the action of parachutes quickly lagged behind the carrier by a distance quite sufficient to actuate a remote fuse.  Exploding, the shells of ammunition were crushed into 100-130 fragments, forming a zone of continuous destruction with a radius of 8-10 m. Individual fragments of the shell of ammunition scattered at ranges of 40-50 m.

During the fighting, pilots of bombers and attack aircraft worked out several specific techniques of this type of weapon.  From Pe-2, Il-2 and Il-10 aircraft, aircraft grenades were used in series of 2-3 pieces both in horizontal flight and when diving at angles of up to 30 °.  At a carrier speed of 270 km / h in horizontal flight, the AG-2 lagged behind in height by 40-55 m and in range by 220-280 m. In addition, to protect the upper part of the rear hemisphere, the ammunition was dropped when the carrier was dived, which guaranteed their breaks  at a distance of 280-320 m behind the aircraft, but with an excess of 50-100 m. For the use of grenades it was necessary to let the enemy fighter 400-500 m. However, the use of AG-2 was required very carefully and competently, so as not to cause damage to their aircraft in the ranks  .  For example, when an enemy attacked a group of aircraft, grenades were allowed to be used only by the crew of the closing machine and taking into account the position of “neighbors” in the ranks.

http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/ab/ag2.html

I read in memoirs that with the help of AG-2 some German fighters were shot down, but this of course does not make the IL-2, IL-10 and Pe-2 interceptors ..... unlike the Pe-3 & IL-1.😉

 

B.R.

Serge

 

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...