SouthViper Posted June 8, 2019 Share Posted June 8, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e8n2 Posted June 8, 2019 Share Posted June 8, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hook Posted June 8, 2019 Share Posted June 8, 2019 I still have the Xtraparts conversion in the stash. Cheers, Andre 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Ranger Posted June 8, 2019 Share Posted June 8, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre B Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry1954 Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 There is a pretty good conversion set by Grand Models, designed for the Meng F-102. Maybe a bit pricy but I have one and it's very good. http://grandmodels.gr/product/tf-102-publ/ Terry 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corsairfoxfouruncle Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufdriver Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 Another recommendation for Grand Models. Excellent decals for Greek, Turkish and USAF (ANG) aircraft available from them too. Richard 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Ranger Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Ranger Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 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." 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre B Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Ranger Posted June 11, 2019 Share Posted June 11, 2019 (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 June 12, 2019 by Space Ranger 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAGATIGER Posted June 12, 2019 Share Posted June 12, 2019 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted June 12, 2019 Share Posted June 12, 2019 (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 June 12, 2019 by Giorgio N Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre B Posted June 12, 2019 Share Posted June 12, 2019 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tailspin Turtle Posted June 12, 2019 Share Posted June 12, 2019 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. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gondor44 Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 Seeing the discussion here is about the TF-102 which I have the Grand Models conversion set for, can I ask a couple of questions? 1) Should the step at the rear of the cockpit tub be flush with the top of the cockpit sides? 2) What colour is the sphere in the rear portion of the cockpit behind the seats? Thanks in advance Gondor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAT69 Posted May 24, 2020 Share Posted May 24, 2020 On 6/11/2019 at 5:54 PM, 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 The F-111 ended up with the side by side seating because the Navy needed it to keep the length of the F-111B short enough for carrier operations. If the Air Force had had its way,the F-111 would have had tandem cockpits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andre B Posted May 25, 2020 Share Posted May 25, 2020 2 hours ago, SAT69 said: The F-111 ended up with the side by side seating because the Navy needed it to keep the length of the F-111B short enough for carrier operations. If the Air Force had had its way,the F-111 would have had tandem cockpits. But the Vigilante was already longer. So it could not be an main reason... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e8n2 Posted May 25, 2020 Share Posted May 25, 2020 4 hours ago, Andre B said: But the Vigilante was already longer. So it could not be an main reason... Mainly I would say that politics had a lot to do with it. The Secretary of Defense at the time was Robert McNamara. He couldn't see why the Navy and Air Force couldn't use the same basic aircraft. To keep changes to a minimum, and lower costs since McNamara was a big time bean counter, the kept the side by side seating for both versions. The Navy fought tooth and nail to be rid of it and finally succeded. I'm not sure but I think McNamara may have already left as Secretary of Defense by the time that happened, and the Navy got the F-14 which was more of what they wanted in the first place. Later, Dave 1 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