Sea Vixen FAW.1x2

[71chally]

Well we are at the starting blocks!

That DH GA drawing, I have never trusted it, but I  don't think it was ever meant to be accurate, more a disposition and dimensions illustration of the aircraft.

 

It's amazing how close the Warpaint illustrations are though, even the under fuselage line is accurate as the rocket pod bulges don't exist on XJ481 which your line drawing is based on.

Edited December 11, 2019 by 71chally

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

11 hours ago, TheBaron said:

Both of these display the characteristic bulge under the nose for the Microcell rocket packs ( I think in the case of the FAW.2, that Microcell shape was retained faired in without the actual rocket launchers  - open to correction on this of course....) 

 

 

 

The space was re-used for something to do with the Red Top system - I think it was gas bottles used to cool the seeker heads, if memory serves.  But you are right that the external shape of the underside of the nose was un-changed.

 

Power cut?  A likely story.  You’ve just set up a small altar to de Havilland (and why wouldn’t you?)

[71chally]

Tony, these pictures show internal shots of my Mk1 cockpit, it's clearly a restoration case but should help with some of the details.

They are on old Photobucket albums which I haven't updated, so haven't a clue how or even if they will show for you.

https://s9.photobucket.com/user/pagen/library/Sea Vixen Simulator?page=1

https://s9.photobucket.com/user/pagen/library/Sea Vixen Simulator?page=1

 

 

I have got internal shots of XJ481, which I believe is one of your subjects, so will try and get them hosted and linked for you soon.

 

 

This is the other side view if it helps,

de Havilland Sea Vixen FAW.1 XJ481 by James Thomas, on Flickr

Edited December 11, 2019 by 71chally

[TheBaron]

22 hours ago, CedB said:

I also hope the power comes back on soon - don't keep us in the dark  

Power off again today Ced (but not for long) - the villains must have done over the sweet shop this time...

21 hours ago, canberra kid said:

I've found these two if they are of any use?

Immaculate as always John - my thanks!

21 hours ago, Terry1954 said:

Will continue to follow this very closely.

I hope you're not of a nervous disposition Terry.

Don't say I didn't warn ye! 😁

20 hours ago, Martian Hale said:

You are going to be so sorry!

Spare the plane, spoil the child....

20 hours ago, rob85 said:

glad to see you’ve started tucking into this one, it will no doubt be a great watch!(as in to look at, I know your not building a watch)

Stranger things Rob....

17 hours ago, 71chally said:

That DH GA drawing, I have never trusted it, but I  don't think it was ever meant to be accurate, more a disposition and dimensions illustration of the aircraft.

I made a mental note at the time when you mentioned that point in the preparatory thread for this build. The FAW.1 GA is indeed dead ropey but the plan view in FAW.2 manual matches the Warpaint drawing quite well (GA outline = white):

 

(Apologies all for small size of some of these refs but I'm trying to tiptoe around publication copyright by not posting printable content)

17 hours ago, 71chally said:

 

It's amazing how close the Warpaint illustrations are though, even the under fuselage line is accurate as the rocket pod bulges don't exist on XJ481 which your line drawing is based on.

Between the outline taken from your photographs and the FAW.2 GA overhead plan view, that's now two independent votes of confidence in the Warpaint drawings - in broad outline anyway. (The side view in the GA though is not accurate in outline against your ref. photo however...)

10 hours ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

The space was re-used for something to do with the Red Top system - I think it was gas bottles used to cool the seeker heads, if memory serves.  But you are right that the external shape of the underside of the nose was un-changed.

Valuable info Crisp: thanks!

7 hours ago, 71chally said:

Tony, these pictures show internal shots of my Mk1 cockpit, it's clearly a restoration case but should help with some of the details.

They are on old Photobucket albums which I haven't updated, so haven't a clue how or even if they will show for you.

Those shots are amazing James - I can't thank you enough for sharing this material!

So much so that I've had to add a @71chally section to the infinite Sea Vixen mosiac now.... 😁

 

So far anyway (and against my usual instincts for drawings in books) I've got a growing confidence in the fidelity of the Warpaint designs as a basis for getting the general outline of the aircraft as correct as possible in this build. Overlaying side and plan views of the FAW.1 from the WP volume indicates these match up in two different dimensions also:

 

Time to check out the kit against the drawings. To avoid any lens distortion from photography in reproducing plan views of the kit fuselages, I put the kits parts on the scanner. Frog first:

Aside from what we know about the front of the nose - the conjunction of drawing and kit outlines look pretty good.

High Planes next:

 

Aside from all the yucky flash, again not bad but interestingly the trailing edge of the wing seems to become increasingly too narrow towards the wing tip (in relation to the WP drawing), giving it too great an inward curve radius. It does however seem to match the wing tip shape in the GA drawing (the white outline discussed above), so I need to think some more about this issue: there's no rush on a decision yet.

 

Comparisons on booms and tailplanes will keep for another day - that's enough for tonight.

 

Tony

 

 

 

 

 

[perdu]

It'll be fun 'sizing' the booms, promise you that

 

😉

[71chally]

Hopefully these pics will help, added the cockpit shots, though the Obs position was hard to do in a rush, I will be adding more Vixen internals to my Flickr pages soon, but I think this is pretty much all I have for '481.https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=56270329%40N08&sort=date-taken-desc&text=xj481&view_all=1

 

de Havilland Sea Vixen FAW.1 XJ481 by James Thomas, on Flickr

 

 

 

Edited December 11, 2019 by 71chally

[Terry1954]

32 minutes ago, TheBaron said:

so I need to think some more about this issue: there's no rush on a decision yet.

 

Yes, don't rush these things, I we need you to be as through as possible for me us!

 

Terry

[canberra kid]

I absolutely agree with what James says regarding the GA drawings some are no better than cartoons, but others seem to be much more accurate, I'd like to know if it down to the individual draughtsman or a company thing? Anyway, this is another one of the wing that may be worth considering?

John 

[Fritag]

Bl**dy hell, just bl**dy hell.

 

I confess that much of the detail of the discussion so far has gone so far over my head that I didn’t even feel the wind of its passing.  But I do think that you can’t have any sympathetic feelings at all for aviation without loving (or having a sense of awe of?) the Sea Vixen.

 

My understandings so far is:

 

1. Take some pretty dodgy raw material

2. Import notable expert advice

3. Mix with (very) high-tech techniques

4. Add (more than) a dash of individual flair and artistry

5. Produce a masterpiece.

 

Have I got it?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Fritag

[Terry1954]

4 minutes ago, Fritag said:

Have I got it?

Spot on I reckon, although in this case it looks as if we will get two of no.5

 

Terry

[Brandy]

Sounds about right to me Steve. Better make sure you're not off cycling/skiing or you might miss it!

😉

 

Ian

[Navy Bird]

Definitely need to follow this one. The High Planes kit has always interested me, so it will be fun seeing what you make of it. A masterpiece, no doubt. And I like that scheme. XN708 will be a fine tribute.

 

My dark secret is that I fully intend to build the CyberHobby kit, warts and all. I have the usual assortment of aftermarket to tart it up, but I won't be attempting to correct the front fuselage cross-section other than the nose. At my age, the grandiose dreams of youth have crashed against the wall of reality - I ain't got enough time to be fixing all this stuff! Not if I want to make a decent run at my stash.  

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

PS. I'll fix the easy stuff like the boom length, which I think is off just like the Xtrakit effort was. 

PPS. How about the Red Bull livery? You can put Max Verstappen in the cockpit, and Jos in the coal hole.

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

11 minutes ago, Navy Bird said:

...the Red Bull livery...

Sacrilege!

[giemme]

11 hours ago, Fritag said:

Bl**dy hell, just bl**dy hell.

Yes, I agree

 

Not sure why I saw this thread only now, and good thing you haven't really started yet, Tony  

 

Following....

 

Ciao 

[keefr22]

12 hours ago, Terry1954 said:

looks as if we will get two of no.5

 

As long as it's not 5 number 2's....  Sorry,

 

Are they finished yet?

 

K

[TheBaron]

On 12/11/2019 at 6:18 PM, perdu said:

It'll be fun 'sizing' the booms, promise you that

Berms?

Did you say 'Berms'?

On 12/11/2019 at 6:38 PM, Terry1954 said:

Yes, don't rush these things, I we need you to be as through as possible for me us!

Same with me and @limeypilots Battle, though the confounded blighter has cruelly ceased production just when I was getting confident that there was enough to blatantly copy take up in homage.

On 12/11/2019 at 7:01 PM, canberra kid said:

I absolutely agree with what James says regarding the GA drawings some are no better than cartoons, but others seem to be much more accurate, I'd like to know if it down to the individual draughtsman or a company thing?

I'd agree thirdly with you both (albeit on the basis of knowledge far scanter than you to savants) John. A good question about the fidelity of drawings and where the impetus for some to be right and others to be merely indicative. Is it possible some of the more sparse GA jobs might have been given to the apprentice to cut their teeth on, whilst the Lords of the Drawing Board did all the detailed breakdowns? Who knows, but each office tends to develop its own particular customs and culture I guess.

On 12/11/2019 at 7:01 PM, canberra kid said:

Anyway, this is another one of the wing that may be worth considering?

'Tis, and it shall be!

On 12/12/2019 at 8:48 AM, Fritag said:

Bl**dy hell, just bl**dy hell.

Ooof! The language on here sometimes is positively martial.

On 12/12/2019 at 8:48 AM, Fritag said:

But I do think that you can’t have any sympathetic feelings at all for aviation without loving (or having a sense of awe of?) the Sea Vixen.

Definitely:

- a poem of wind and physics

- a bird of salt sea and sky

- the apotheosis of naval aviation

On 12/12/2019 at 8:48 AM, Fritag said:

Have I got it?

It better no be catching...

On 12/12/2019 at 2:07 PM, limeypilot said:

Sounds about right to me Steve. Better make sure you're not off cycling/skiing or you might miss it!

No checking forum posts while on the slopes d'you hear!

On 12/12/2019 at 7:32 PM, Navy Bird said:

Definitely need to follow this one. The High Planes kit has always interested me, so it will be fun seeing what you make of it. A masterpiece, no doubt. And I like that scheme. XN708 will be a fine tribute.

This thread'll be all the richer for your presence Bill.

On 12/12/2019 at 7:32 PM, Navy Bird said:

PPS. How about the Red Bull livery?

A Vixen? As a painted Jezebel?

By God sir you have some nerve.

On 12/12/2019 at 7:44 PM, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

Sacrilege!

That 'Harrumph' was clearly audible this side of the Irish Sea...

On 12/12/2019 at 8:16 PM, giemme said:

Not sure why I saw this thread only now, and good thing you haven't really started yet, Tony

Page 4 and still nothing built Giorgio. Typical eh?

On 12/12/2019 at 9:43 PM, keefr22 said:

As long as it's not 5 number 2's....  Sorry,

You don't sound sorry to be quite honest Keith.

Far from it in fact.

I'm detecting insouciance - if not outright nonchalance. 😜

 

Another little step this evening that has given me greater confidence in the usablity of the Warpaint drawings for establishing the general outline and proportions of the aircraft. James most kindly forwarded me some drone shots taken by a colleague of his that included an overhead of the FAW.1 at Flixton:

^{Image credit: Richard Flagg}

I'm most grateful to Richard for sharing these through James, yet another reminder of the generosity of people bound together by a love of aircraft!

 

There are of course certain problems in converting an image like this into an orthographic drawing due to a) linear perspective of the scene, and b) optical distortion caused by a wide angle lens - either separately or superimposed. Nonetheless there was enough detail in the hi-res version of this image for me to pull some useful detail:

To try and produce as close as possible to a plan view from the original photo, I drew the port side of the aircraft and then mirrored it below to produce the starboard side. The cockpit and coal-hole were then drawn in place. I forgot to delete the stump of the refuelling probe on the stbd wing of course...

 

Allowing for the distortions of perspective/optics, when superimposed on top of the same Warpaint view, the match between the two is pretty damn good. This means that:

1. this drawing

2. the FAW.2 GA

3. James' side view of XJ481

- all seem to tally with the outlines of the Warpaint drawing; I think I can trust them enough now to base major decisions over shape and proportion upon then.

Tony

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheBaron]

You'll be getting pretty sick of drawings by now so last post involving them I promise.

 

To reassure myself as much as anything else about being on the right track for a viably accurate outline,  I did up a colour composite of the overhead views from the WP publication, GA drawing from the FAW.2 manual, and my own drawing extracted from Richard's drone shot:

You'd expect those disparities due to perspective in the green outline, and you can see the disagreement between boom length and wing tip shape/angle between the red and blacks. @Pat Cs thread on Vixen booms has been helpful in the former case, not least due to him getting his Dad to go to Yeovilton to measure them. Top man!

I'm currently doing up a schematic with all the major dimensions translated into mm for downscaling to 1/72.

 

It also seemed prudent to have a look at the surface detailing to start taking decisions over which of the two kits will have be the 'engines-out' one. Two avoid adding in as much distortion as I could I shot these through a standard lens using a grid overlay on the viewfinder to ensure lines are at 90 degrees to each other across the frame.

The Frog one was damned hard to see the surface markings against so I dusted the surfaces with some lavender chalk for contrast:

Opposite problem with the High Planes offering:

There are some very nice subtle qualities to those surface details here:

I need to check of course that they correspond accurately to panels on the actual airframe but it seems pretty clear with all that rather ugly raised detail on its surfaces, the Frog will have all of the top access panels cut away in order to show the Avons as XN708. That's doubly handy as it can have the wingfold too - which the kit gives you the option for - whereas the paint scheme for XJ481 is just too bold and striking with that diagonal b/w slash right across the aircraft to lose that design through folding.

 

I'm tempted just to cut the whole centre section of the Frog one out altogether and install completely scratched-up engine bays for the engines to sit in. I'll look at some m ore photos and 'have a think'...

 

Tony

 

 

[giemme]

  

 

Ciao

[canberra kid]

@TheBaron Tony, good work with the comparison, have you had chance to compere the last drawing I posted of the wing skins with the photo and plans, it would be interesting(for me) if they match and if so what the match with? 

 

John

[AdrianMF]

Ooooh...

 

Regards,

Adrian

[Brandy]

Why am I reminded of school biology lessons? Something to do with a Frog showing its internals, maybe? 

I'm so glad I quit biology, and with a "U" in chemistry I wish I'd quit that too!

 

Ian

[Terry1954]

3 hours ago, TheBaron said:

Now thats the sort of analysis I like. Great to see you getting stuck into this so thoroughly Tony.

 

Terry

[TheBaron]

4 hours ago, giemme said:

  

 

Aaah, the sophistication of cafe society. Living out here in the sticks one misses it so Giorgio. The witty repartee, the saliva all over your shoes....

4 hours ago, canberra kid said:

@TheBaron Tony, good work with the comparison, have you had chance to compere the last drawing I posted of the wing skins with the photo and plans, it would be interesting(for me) if they match and if so what the match with?

You sir have force me to break my own embargo on any more drawings!

Interesting result John:

Against the WP drawing wingtip, trailing edge and boom are nigh-on perfect (though boom slender). Leading edge angle speaks for itself. That gives me an excellent candidate shape for the wingtip now so thanks for nudging me into action as this was an outstanding detail now resolved.

3 hours ago, AdrianMF said:

Ooooh...

Aaarrr...

2 hours ago, limeypilot said:

Why am I reminded of school biology lessons?

I suppose it depends what you used to get up to in them or whether in fact this is a euphemism Ian.

2 hours ago, limeypilot said:

I'm so glad I quit biology, and with a "U" in chemistry I wish I'd quit that too!

Amazing that you ever became a surgeon at all.

 

1 hour ago, Terry1954 said:

Now thats the sort of analysis I like. Great to see you getting stuck into this so thoroughly Tony.

Tery: hope the latest addition satisfies you palate.

[71chally]

Regarding DH (or indeed many other manufacturers) drawings I doubt any were to scale, or even needed to be, I don't think it came down to drawing offices either, they were primarily used schematics.

Apart from drawings of individual parts for manufacturing purposes that is.

 

When it comes to GA drawings no one is as worried about scale as modellers, or those really interested in the subject.

 

I reckon the most accurate drawings will be Warpaint, as we are rapidly finding out, and the Airfix plans in their 48th kit.

 

That other thread about boom length troubles me aswel, I have read and reread it over and over and struggle with the datums used to obtain the boom length. Even the positions provided don't allow for errors in the boom wing portion or indeed the fin/rudder portion.

 

I think Tony's methods here are as near as dammit for finding out scale of the Vixen.

Bring on more drawings!

[Learstang]

Excellent research going on here! Makes me want to take out my CyberHobby FAW.1 kit and have another go at it. Maybe...

 

Regards,

 

Jason