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. :)

Recommended Posts

Hi

Just saw it announced at Aviation Megastore news.

there comes the Convair TF-102A 'Deuce", by RVHP Models C7241

 

Hope RVHP produces this Conversion also in 1:48  and 1:32 scales too.

 

SouthViper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's RHVP doing it, I'll take a pass.  Too damn expensive.  Where are they from anyway and why such high prices?  They must be taking on VAT like crazy.

Later,

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The TF-102 (and the Lightning trainers) always look to me like they were designed by a committee.  "Your charge is to take a beautiful airplane and make it as ugly as possible."  And the "Tub" had the performance to go with it.  It would only go supersonic in a fairly steep dive!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Hook said:

I still have the Xtraparts conversion in the stash. 

 

And it is still available from Hannants: https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/XP003

 

A much more cost-effective solution, especially if you have a spare Hasegawa F-102 lying around.

Share this post


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

I still have the Xtraparts conversion in the stash. 

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

 

I like those coloured anti collision lights. Usefull for other kits too (the F-106A)?

 

Cheers / André

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2019 at 9:28 AM, Jordi said:

The TF-102 (and the Lightning trainers) always look to me like they were designed by a committee.  "Your charge is to take a beautiful airplane and make it as ugly as possible."  And the "Tub" had the performance to go with it.  It would only go supersonic in a fairly steep dive!

Sadly i have to agree with you. I never understood why Convair did this to the Deuce ? The F-106's got a tandem seat. They could have easily put a plug in the fuselage of the Deuce, to stretch it the 3-4 feet needed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another recommendation for Grand Models. Excellent decals for Greek, Turkish and USAF (ANG) aircraft available from them too.

Richard

Share this post


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

Sadly i have to agree with you. I never understood why Convair did this to the Deuce ? The F-106's got a tandem seat. They could have easily put a plug in the fuselage of the Deuce, to stretch it the 3-4 feet needed. 

At the time, the thinking among USAF higher-ups was that side-by-side seating was best for training. Witness the T-37.  By the time the F-106 was about to go into service, that thinking had changed, and tandem seating became the standard.

Share this post


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

At the time, the thinking among USAF higher-ups was that side-by-side seating was best for training. Witness the T-37.  By the time the F-106 was about to go into service, that thinking had changed, and tandem seating became the standard.

 

The TF-102 was however an exception, as all other USAF two-seaters of the same era followed a more conventional tandem arrangement: TF-80/T-33, TF-86, F-100F, F-104B etc.

In Britain on the other hand side-by-side seats were quite common on training variants, as seen in the Vampire, Venom and Hunter before the Lightning.

 

Share this post


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

 

The TF-102 was however an exception, as all other USAF two-seaters of the same era followed a more conventional tandem arrangement: TF-80/T-33, TF-86, F-100F, F-104B etc.

In Britain on the other hand side-by-side seats were quite common on training variants, as seen in the Vampire, Venom and Hunter before the Lightning.

 

All true, although the proposed but cancelled successor to the the T-37, Fairchild's T-46, also featured side-by-side seating. However, author Bill Yenne, in his excellent book Convair Deltas — From Sea Dart to Hustler, also points out that the side-by-side configuration of the TF-102A "was proposed because engineers decided that widening the fuselage would incur less of a weight and performance penalty than lengthening it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Space Ranger said:

At the time, the thinking among USAF higher-ups was that side-by-side seating was best for training. Witness the T-37.  By the time the F-106 was about to go into service, that thinking had changed, and tandem seating became the standard.

 

Was it really the role as trainer that led to the tandem seating? The F-111 had side by side. But when the Navy got their free will they choosed to build the F-14 with tandem. I read somewhere that the reason was high speed demands on the pilots during manoevring...

 

Cheers / André

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Recall that the original B-52 had tandem seating, but the USAF insisted that production models have side-by-side seating for better "crew coordination." The same was thought to apply to training - better instructor/pupil coordination. Writing in Century Jets — USAF Frontline Fighters of the Cold War (AIRtime Publishing, 2003), historian Robert Dorr states "The side-by-side seating arrangement was chosen, despite the likely performance loss, to simplify radar training in particular."  So crew coordination as well as weight and performance appear to have been the primary considerations for the design of the TF-102A's cockpit.

Edited by Space Ranger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2019 at 2:58 AM, Hook said:

I still have the Xtraparts conversion in the stash. 

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

Hi Andre

 

Let me tell you that having a couple of Douglas A-4 Skyhawk (from Hase kit) can help a lot of pain

 

Best Modelling

 

Armando

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Andre B said:

 

Was it really the role as trainer that led to the tandem seating? The F-111 had side by side. But when the Navy got their free will they choosed to build the F-14 with tandem. I read somewhere that the reason was high speed demands on the pilots during manoevring...

 

Cheers / André

 

Actually it was the Navy who requested a side-by-side arrangement for the F-111 ! The USAF wanted a tandem configuration to keep drag at a minimum and increase performance, the Navy realised that the tandem configuration was the best in terms of performance but preferred a side-by-side design as allowed a shorter fuselage.

The USN interestingly had previously used a couple of aircraft with similar design, like the F3D and the A-6. The proposed F6D Missileer, that predated the F-111. was also supposed to have side-by-side seating.

Edited by Giorgio N

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I knew the reason for the side by side on F6D was the large radar that dictaded a wide fuselage.

 

Concerning the F-111B the Navy also wanted an crew escspe capsule which more or less dictaded an side by side seating.

 

I don't think the F-111B would have been that much longer with an tandem seat. The Navy deleted the option in weapons bay on the F-14. And the Navy had the not so small Vigilante and the Phantom. But in the end McNamara himself dicided on setting the requirements 1961 when the Navy and Air Force couldn't agree... ;)

 

Cheers / André

Share this post


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

What I knew the reason for the side by side on F6D was the large radar that dictaded a wide fuselage.

 

Concerning the F-111B the Navy also wanted an crew escspe capsule which more or less dictaded an side by side seating.

 

I don't think the F-111B would have been that much longer with an tandem seat. The Navy deleted the option in weapons bay on the F-14. And the Navy had the not so small Vigilante and the Phantom. But in the end McNamara himself dicided on setting the requirements 1961 when the Navy and Air Force couldn't agree... ;)

 

Cheers / André

I have yet to see any USAF or USN TFX requirements documentation that "proves" whether it was the Navy or the Air Force that dictated side-by-side seating. In fact, some of the early TFX proposals had tandem cockpits, which suggests that there was no seating requirement in the specification. The Navy probably preferred side-by-side for crew coordination and minimization of overall length, an important attribute for a carrier-based airplane. It also wasn't much of a performance penalty for the Navy variant because of the size of the radar dish originally and in and of itself probably minimized weight relative to to a tandem configuration. However, my impression is that while Navy contractors had studied ejection-capsule concepts, self-funded or contracted, for improved survivability in high-speed ejections, the Navy wasn't all that enamored with it and never bought a production airplane with one before the F-111B. The Air Force, on the other hand, was a big proponent of the capsule concept, including survivability after splash-down at sea (the F-111's had a bilge pump) or in Arctic conditions. Nevertheless, designs for the Air Force pre-TFX requirement featured tandem seating.  My guess is that as the competition necked down to GD/Grumman and Boeing, side-by-side seating became preferred by both the Navy and the Air Force for different reasons.

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...