Sea Vixen FAW.1x2

[keefr22]

5 hours ago, TheBaron said:

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'...

 

Bet it didn't take you long to think 'it must be done'....!! (after all, it's not that you don't have previous in taking saw and scalpel to large parts of the anatomy of unsuspecting old kits is it ?!)

 

K

[71chally]

Let us remind ourselves of how good this thing looked in its day, March 1957

 

de Havilland Sea Vixen FAW.1 XJ474 by James Thomas, on Flickr

Edited December 14, 2019 by 71chally

[Navy Bird]

1 hour ago, Learstang said:

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

 

There is no maybe. There is only do. Besides, we can have a dual build.  

 

Cheers,

Bill

[71chally]

mmm, interesting Bill, along with the Dragon kit I would turn it into that gloopy glue that @perdu uses!

[Learstang]

19 minutes ago, Navy Bird said:

 

There is no maybe. There is only do. Besides, we can have a dual build.  

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

Judge me by my inability to finish a model, do you? I'm afraid that the Modelling Force is not very strong with this one (me). I've no doubt your build would put mine to shame, Bill. You would do insane things like rescribe access panels because they were a little off. Me, I'm more like 'Yeah, that looks about right...'. And set it aside to age for a few years. By the way, James, that is a brilliant photograph of the Sea Vixen - she does look very impressive there.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jason

[canberra kid]

Tony, for what it's worth I'm going to put these drawings up, and I know James will have some reservations as to the veracity of some of the data, but it's there to take as much or as little as you can from it. 

First up, stations, position in inches,

and the main engine bay access panels.

There you go Tony, something for you  to mull over.

 

John     

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

Tony, you could save yourself a whole heap of pain / simply acquiring an Airfix 1/48 Vixen.  It’s a lovely kit, and there is an excellent FAW1 conversion available, too.

[keefr22]

31 minutes ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

Tony, you could save yourself a whole heap of pain / simply acquiring an Airfix 1/48 Vixen.  It’s a lovely kit, and there is an excellent FAW1 conversion available, too.

 

Don't tell him that, you'll spoil all the fun....!!

 

Keith

 

(who just happens to have sold all the rubbish 72nd Vixens he had after purchasing said Airfix kit and conversion... )

[Terry1954]

44 minutes ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

Tony, you could save yourself a whole heap of pain / simply acquiring an Airfix 1/48 Vixen.  It’s a lovely kit, and there is an excellent FAW1 conversion available, too.

Sacrilege! This is a One True Scale build! Wash your mouth out sir! 😱

[Terry1954]

18 minutes ago, keefr22 said:

 

(who just happens to have sold all the rubbish 72nd Vixens he had after purchasing said Airfix kit and conversion...

You as well! 😱😱😱

[bigbadbadge]

Crikey this is interesting. Will be an amazing build I'm sure Tony.

 

Also agree the Airfix 48 kit and FAW.1 conversion is fantastic. 

 

Keep up the good work Tony

All the best

Chris

[keefr22]

9 hours ago, Terry1954 said:

You as well!

 

Ah, but I have built the Xtrakit thing once Terry, and that was more than enough at my age! And I've long given up hope of Airfix doing the right thing and downscaling their lovely 48th Vixen and Javelin to the one true scale, so have taken the easy way out and gone to fumble thumbs scale...!!

 

I'll leave young whippersnappers like Tony suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous 1/72nd Sea Vixens from now on...!!

 

Keith

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

Piffle.  The One True Scale is 1/350.  There are Vixens available in that scale,too, if you so desire!

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

On 12/13/2019 at 10:46 PM, TheBaron said:

 

 

 

^{Image credit: Richard Flagg}

 

Sigh. Swoon.  How could you not love that wing shape (so much purer without the monstrous carbuncles of the FAW2 boom extensions)?

 

[Terry1954]

47 minutes ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

Piffle.  The One True Scale is 1/350.  There are Vixens available in that scale,too, if you so desire!

On this occasion I may see fit to ignore your "piffle" and agree that for Maritime subjects your point is well made. I'll qualify that further by adding that they have to be of the kind that were originally built to float or lurk darkly somewhere in the depths of the sea.

 

I also have a confession to make to the One True Scale following I was referring to originally. I have started to construct a 1/48 aircraft 🤫 more on that one soon.

 

Terry

[bbudde]

Hello Tony , didn#t noticed you started already. Ok post war mid 50' jets are not my favourites, But the Sea Vixen looks somewhat special.

Cheers Benedikt

[keefr22]

15 hours ago, Terry1954 said:

You as well! 😱😱😱

 

2 hours ago, Terry1954 said:

I have started to construct a 1/48 aircraft

 

Pot. Kettle. Black....

 

K

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

5 hours ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

On 12/13/2019 at 4:46 PM, TheBaron said:

How could you not love that wing shape (so much purer without the monstrous carbuncles of the FAW2 boom extensions)?

Im curious as a bit of a noob to British types. Why did they add the extensions to the booms ? Was it a strength or stability issue ? If strength Why not just increase internal connection ? If stability why not add the extra length in the middle of the booms instead of the front ? Or was it tail heavy and they need the weight out front ? 

Edited December 15, 2019 by Corsairfoxfouruncle

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

None of the above: the main difference between the FAW 1 & 2 was that the Mk. 2 had Red Top missiles, whereas the Mk.1 only the less capable Firestreak.  Red Top needed a lot more avionics - today they’d probably change a few circuit boards at most, but then they needed to make room for some pretty bulky black boxes.  They ended up in the booms on top of the wing, and fuel was moved forward into the sticky-out bits.  There was a slight increase in drag so reduction in performance, but not significant - and Red Top was a much better missile, especially in a frontal attack.  Since the Vixen was the first RN fighter without a gun, the missilewas the whole point

[Terry1954]

4 hours ago, keefr22 said:

 

 

Pot. Kettle. Black....

 

K

In my defence, it is a commission build for a friend. 

 

Terry

[71chally]

The FAW.2 was purely a stop gap to give the Royal Navy Red Top missile capability.

In the very late 1950s (as the FAW.1 was entering service) it was realised that AI.18 radar and Firestreak missiles would be outdated by the mid 1960s.

de Havilland were tasked with developing an aircraft that pluged the gap from the mid '60s to when the new carriers would come into service in the early 1970s, which as we know, didn't happen.

This was the British solution, the information passed to DH was that a foreign type would be in consideration.

 

DH came up with both a Rolls Royce RB168 (later named Spey) and a 168 with afterburners powered Sea Vixen development armed with Red Top, which apart from the intakes and aft fuselage used the same airframe.

Extra fuel was required and this was done by extending the booms and fitting new 500 Gal pinion fuel tanks in the forward section of them, and fitting Red Top avionics in the mid boom. 

The nose rocket projectile launchers were removed to make room for an oxygen system for the new missiles.

As this programme went on it became apparent that buying a new aircraft and weapons system would be the better option, enter the Phantom.

 

The FAW.2 emerged out of this project to provide at least some short term Red Top capability to the RN, 67 were FAW.1 conversions and 29 were new build aircraft, and entered service in 1963.

 

Obvious visual differences from the FAW.1 are the extended booms, the clear non framed pilots canopy and the bulged observers entry hatch which had a large frangible section which he could eject straight through.

In reality for the FAW.1 conversions, apart from the booms many of differences came in as modifications during their service life.

 

 

Oh by the way, that line drawing without the booms and tailplane gives a glimpse into what might have been, some early DH110 proposals were tailless designs using data from the DH108 programme - you can certainly see the lineage!

 

Edited December 15, 2019 by 71chally

[Martian]

21 hours ago, Terry1954 said:

Sacrilege! This is a One True Scale build! Wash your mouth out sir! 😱

That rather depends on one's definition of the one true scale.

 

Provocative of Mars 👽

[Neil Lambess]

On 15/12/2019 at 05:55, Terry1954 said:

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

 

Terry

Just a quick observation about using a plan view or photo taken from the same position  to determine the layout from  (sorry to hijack your post Terry)  the Sea Vixen has a distinct nose up tail down aspect on the ground so the overhead photo will look shorter in total length than reality ....most but not all GA drawings take this into account so true  length should be taken from a side profile / not to mention that due to dihedral anahedral etc all wing lengths should be compared to a front elevation ..... (way to many reviewers have complained about spitfire wings been too long when comparing to a plan /overhead view-  when the  wings are fine if they bothered to compare to a frontal view )

[Fritag]

I’m rather intrigued as to how much (our little) of the original kits are going to end up being incorporated into the build Tony......There ought to be some way of keeping track of it.....

 

I dunno what the plastic on either of these kits is like to work with; but I guess you’ll be re-doing more or less all the surface detail from scratch.  Looking at how the fuselages are split horizontally it occurs to me it may be easier to re-scribe the panel lines earlier rather than later in the build and before sticking the fuselage halves together; at least that way you’ll have a flatish base whilst you scribe. I guess it depends on how much/when fuselage reshaping is required......

 

As a veteran (in duration if not  numbers ) of dual builds, I’ve found that resin casting has been the way to go to produce identical multiple bits (I was thinking boom shapes ?).  But I guess there’s a more hi-tech 3D printing option in play here 

 

Now.  Instead of musing on a master-modellers’ build as who needs no suggestions from the likes of me, I ought to get some real work done............

 

 

Edited December 16, 2019 by Fritag

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

I reckon Steve’s call on the early scribing is a good one.  The shape of the engine bay area in particular makes access quite hard quite early - notably once the wings are on, but even before that if the wing roots are built into the fuselage.  I only had a very minor bit of panel line adjustment to do on my 1/48 FAW, but I was glad I did it early.