1:72 Gloster Javelin Jambalaya

[Duncan B]

11 hours ago, Navy Bird said:

 

I always wondered whether the "engineer" responsible for the Airwaves PE sets actually measured any models with something more precise than a metre stick. The pieces, in my experience, never fit, but they are usually oversize so trimming isn't too difficult.

 

 

An interesting comparison:

 

 

Yes, this is the mating ritual of Plastyk and Airfix. The intakes, and width of the fuselage in that area, agree well, as does the size of the forward fuselage behind the nose cone. When you align the noses at their aft end (based on the panel line), they are very close in size as well. When compared to the Airfix FAW.9 stencil placement drawing, the nose cone on the Heller T.3 matches the drawing nicely in both diameter and length. However, the Plastyk nose cone is too short. Since I have an extra set of T.3 parts, I think I'll use the Heller nose cone on the Plastyk fuselage. Did that make sense to anyone?

 

I suspect the T.3 radome is not exactly the same as the FAW.9 in real life - or is it? For sure, if I use the Heller T.3 nose on the Plastyk FAW.9 kit, it will be a much better match to the FAW.9 drawing.

 

And silly me, I have an extra Heller cockpit tub, too, so I don't have to make a duplicate out of card stock. Sorry, @Martian Hale

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

PS. That "styrene" on the Plastyk kit looks loverly up close, doesn't it?

Bill you are remembering that the T.3 was (60 inches IIRC) longer than the FAWs?  The whole front end from somewhere behind the intakes was moved with the addition of a fuselage plug for C of G reasons and an additional fuel tank was fitted in too. If you compare the position of the cockpits of any of the FAWs with the T.3 in photos it becomes instantly obvious. From what you have said I wouldn't trust the Airfix stencil placement drawing as a good reference for an FAW.

A not very scientific illustration:

Heller T.3, note that the front end of the intakes are roughly level with the rear cockpit instrument panel. The cockpit canopy is a different shape so the fairing behind is different from the FAWs too.

 

Airfix FAW9, the intake lip is roughly level with the front cockpit instrument panel and the whole aircraft has a pug nosed look to it that the T.3 doesn't. The T.3 is by far the prettier of the two and maybe that's why Heller, with their continental eye for beauty, decided to mould the T.3 instead of any of the FAWs.

 

Duncan B 

 

p.s. the T.3 did have a radar but it was just the gun ranging type and not the full on AI set of the FAW

[Robert]

Looking forward to your build Bill and learning some new techniques. I have a few Javelins in the stash and always take them out, look at them then put them back. Hope to make one soon before someone release a new tooled one.

 

Regards

Robert

Edited August 7, 2019 by Robert

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

The Javelin always feels like a huge missed opportunity to me; it looked awesome, but by all accounts was an aerodynamic dog - as Steve says, a fighter with major restrictions on vertical manoeuvres doesn’t fill you with confidence.  I can’t find the reference, but the Far East Fleet Vixen crews reckoned they routinely had the Javelins on toast, and let’s face it the Vixen was not without issues of its own.  [OK, so all fighter pilots say that kind of thing, but they seem to have some data on their side.].

 

I appreciate this was an era of incredibly rapid change, but any aircraft that takes numerous Mks to get to somewhere useful (maybe not 9, but certainly 4 or 5) has some fundamental snags.  See the Swift for a similar tale.

 

But for all that, it still looks the business!

[Antti_K]

Well... Javelin was designed to fulfill requirements set by an AM(?) specification that called for a fast climbing, missile armed and radar equipped fighter interceptor that could attack against high flying, fast Soviet nuclear bombers. Those aircraft were flying at the very top limits of their own Flight Envelopes and therefore couldn't take any evasive action. Javelin was a very good match for the specification requirements.

 

Javelin's wing design was based on the work of Dr. Lippisch's theoretical work. Because of the rush to get a new interceptor into operational use there really wasn't time to study further with thinner delta wings (Lippisch's work concentrated on thick deltas only). Wings like these are sturdy but not well suited for high air speeds. Javelin was therefore trans-sonic.

 

I think that Nos 60 and 64 Squadrons especially did a great work operating their Javelins at low level patrols on single engine running only (to save fuel). The air crews developed sound tactics taking all those limitations into consideration. Javelin was agile at low level but you had to keep a very close eye on the AoA. In Singapore tactics against P-51 Mustangs were developed and tested and the squadrons were confident that they had a good chance to win.

 

Cheers,

Antti

[Navy Bird]

16 hours ago, Max Headroom said:

To be nit-picky the T.3 didn’t  have a radome because it didn’t have a radar!

 

I thought it had a radar, but a different type? I went back and changed all occurrences of "radome" to "nose cone" so I won't confuse anyone further. My mind is programmed to think radome for any pointy thing on the front of a jet.

 

15 hours ago, Martian Hale said:

Chicken! Taking the easy way out eh?

 

The sun's not yellow - it's chicken! (Bob Dylan)

 

12 hours ago, Andwil said:

Is it actually plastic?  It looks like the bamboo used to make sustainable coffee cups  knives and forks etc.  hmmm, that’s a thought, the future of modelling, moulded bamboo aircraft kits.

 

Funny. I cleaned up a few of the Plastyk parts, and it actually sands quite nicely. Gawd, I hope all that swirly stuff disappears underneath the paint.

 

6 hours ago, Duncan B said:

Bill you are remembering that the T.3 was (60 inches IIRC) longer than the FAWs?  The whole front end from somewhere behind the intakes was moved with the addition of a fuselage plug for C of G reasons and an additional fuel tank was fitted in too. If you compare the position of the cockpits of any of the FAWs with the T.3 in photos it becomes instantly obvious. From what you have said I wouldn't trust the Airfix stencil placement drawing as a good reference for an FAW.

A not very scientific illustration:

Heller T.3, note that the front end of the intakes are roughly level with the rear cockpit instrument panel. The cockpit canopy is a different shape so the fairing behind is different from the FAWs too.

<snip>

Airfix FAW9, the intake lip is roughly level with the front cockpit instrument panel and the whole aircraft has a pug nosed look to it that the T.3 doesn't. The T.3 is by far the prettier of the two and maybe that's why Heller, with their continental eye for beauty, decided to mould the T.3 instead of any of the FAWs.

<snip>

Duncan B 

 

p.s. the T.3 did have a radar but it was just the gun ranging type and not the full on AI set of the FAW

 

Nice work on those kits! You're trying to force me to build the natural metal one instead of the red & white one, aren't you!    

 

And yes, of course I know that the cockpit and nose gear bay were moved forward on the T.3 and hence the front end is much longer.

 

I guess I didn't explain myself well enough. I wasn't suggesting that the T.3 and FAW.9 fuselages should have completely matched up in my photo. The purpose of that photo was to show that the width of the fuselage around the intakes, and the intake aperture match pretty good. Then I started talking about the nose cone (the portion shown in black on your FAW.9). On the Heller T.3, there is a panel line that represents the rear edge of the nose cone. Using that as an alignment point, and only looking at the nose cone, the Heller T.3 is almost a perfect match for the Airfix 1:48 FAW.9 drawing. I then surmised that perhaps the nose cone was the same on both marks, and I could use my spare Heller nose cone on the Plastyk kit, whose nose cone is too short relative to the drawing. I also pointed out that the diameter at the rear edge of the nose cone is very close to being the same on both kits, so the proposed substitution should work well.

 

Does that explain it better?

 

Luckily, the three kits I have are all in different colours of plastic, so it will be easy to see how the Frankenbash FAW.9 goes together.

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

PS. I think the Airfix 1:48 stencil placement drawing is OK. It has to have been made from the same data used by Airfix to tool the 1:48 kit, which to my knowledge had not been knocked as being inaccurate.

[71chally]

16 hours ago, Max Headroom said:

To be nit-picky the T.3 didn’t  have a radome because it didn’t have a radar! The nose was also longer (to counterbalance the lack of weight for the radar maybe?).

 

Brain cells are trying to recall if the short nose* was identified as a problem with the FROG original, or am I mixing that up with the Sea Vixen?

To be even more nit-picky, the T.3 does have a radome but it is very small and at the extreme forward section of the nose cone, believe it housed the gun ranging radar.

You are essentially correct, in that the T.3 had a metal nose cone which appears to me a slightly different shape to the fighter radomes, hard to describe though.

 

The Frog Sea Vixen does have a short nose at the radome join.

[Gondor44]

I have a rather nice FAW.7 exhaust / tail end from Spot On Designs last year at the Glasgow show

 

Gondor

[Navy Bird]

1 hour ago, Gondor44 said:

I have a rather nice FAW.7 exhaust / tail end from Spot On Designs last year at the Glasgow show

 

Photos!

 

Cheers,

Bill

[David H]

"You see Joey, When a Avro CF-100 and a McDonnell F-101 love each other very, very much......."

[Navy Bird]

9 hours ago, David H said:

"You see Joey, When a Avro CF-100 and a McDonnell F-101 love each other very, very much......."

 

Methinks Ms. F-101 has been seeing CF-105 on the side...   

 

Cheers,

Bill

[Gondor44]

21 hours ago, Navy Bird said:

 

Photos!

 

Cheers,

Bill

Certainly Bill,

 

Upper views

 

Underside views

 

Hope these do Bill

 

Gondor

 

[Nikolay Polyakov]

On 06/08/2019 at 01:01, rob Lyttle said:

 

Just sayin......... 

😎

Yes! 😉

 

Excellent project, Bill! I’ll take a seat... 🍿

[71chally]

On 8/7/2019 at 9:18 AM, Duncan B said:

Airfix FAW9...

 

Duncan B 

Superb looking result there Duncan, did you modify the rear end or kept with the kit?

[Navy Bird]

50 minutes ago, Gondor44 said:

Hope these do Bill

 

Thanks a lot, that looks nice. I had not seen that bit of aftermarket before.

 

 

So, I've been doing a lot of comparison of the Plastyk kit against the drawings I have, and to put it mildly - it ain't worth the time to spend on it. Pretty much everything needs work. So following the lead of @Duncan B, it's going in the bin. But I still want an FAW.9, so I found a Novo version of the Frog kit on eBay for a song, so I bought it. It will need a bit of work too, but from what I've read it won't be as bad as the Plastyk kit.

 

So there, I've done it.   

 

Meanwhile, I have the T.3 cockpit in progress, and I've just started painting the ejection seats. I used the Airwaves consoles (they didn't fit - someone warned me) and the replacement forward floor:

 

 

 

I trimmed the the consoles a little and dry brushed the details, and I used decals on the instrument panels. (Lazy, I know.)

 

 

Maybe OK? There is a throttle quadrant in the Airwaves set that hasn't been added yet. Not sure how much of this will be seen, especially if the canopy is closed. The rudder pedals were attached to the back of the main instrument panel.

 

 

Another modification that probably didn't need to be made. Oh well. The ejection seats look really nice. They will really brighten up this pit. Cushions are khaki in the photo I have, with blue belts on the seat and tan belts for the harnesses. It's a Martin-Baker photo, but I'm not sure it's from an in-service Javelin. Do those colours sound right? You know, like before I paint them?   

 

Cheers,

Bill

[Nikolay Polyakov]

Excellent progress, Bill! 👍

 

26 minutes ago, Navy Bird said:

Cushions are khaki in the photo I have, with blue belts on the seat and tan belts for the harnesses. It's a Martin-Baker photo, but I'm not sure it's from an in-service Javelin. Do those colours sound right? You know, like before I paint them?

Looks like this. But on some photos cushions are tan:

 

It’s not so useful regarding the seats, but it’s a very interesting information here: Gloster Javelin.

[71chally]

1 hour ago, Gondor44 said:

 

Underside views

 

Hope these do Bill

 

Gondor

 

That is causing me some serious head scratching, the Javelin rear underside was pretty flat between the engines, and the rear face of the fuselage was flat and upright on the FAW.7.

The deep trough is just odd, I wonder if this part was modelled on the Gyron Javelin which featured the angles between the jet pipes and a slightly dished rear underside to take the different engines?

Typical Mk7 here, 

 

Lovely work on the 'office' there Bill.

 

I had a Novo Javelin, the example I had (I believe they varied alot) was abysmal quality wise so brought a Frog one which is far better in molding and plastic quality, they can be found quite cheaply.  From memory I think one correction that needs doing is to thicken the fin/rudder assembly but you might be able to use one from the other kits?

 

Edited August 8, 2019 by 71chally

[Navy Bird]

3 hours ago, 71chally said:

Superb looking result there Duncan, did you modify the rear end or kept with the kit?

 

It is indeed a wonderful job. It's the Airfix 1:48 kit isn't it?

 

Cheers,

Bill

[Gondor44]

16 hours ago, 71chally said:

That is causing me some serious head scratching, the Javelin rear underside was pretty flat between the engines, and the rear face of the fuselage was flat and upright on the FAW.7.

The deep trough is just odd, I wonder if this part was modelled on the Gyron Javelin which featured the angles between the jet pipes and a slightly dished rear underside to take the different engines?

Typical Mk7 here, 

 

Lovely work on the 'office' there Bill.

 

I had a Novo Javelin, the example I had (I believe they varied alot) was abysmal quality wise so brought a Frog one which is far better in molding and plastic quality, they can be found quite cheaply.  From memory I think one correction that needs doing is to thicken the fin/rudder assembly but you might be able to use one from the other kits?

 

Thanks for the info, I will let the fellow who runs Spot-On about the error. 👍

 

Gondor

[Duncan B]

20 hours ago, 71chally said:

Superb looking result there Duncan, did you modify the rear end or kept with the kit?

That's the 1/48 kit so didn't need any modifying.

 

Duncan B

[stever219]

I’m sorry if this has been dealt with earlier in this thread but the FROG Javelin F(AW). Mk. 9 nose is about ²/₂₅ inch too short.  Unfortunately I’m 4¹/₂ hours flying time from my copy of the Modeldecal sheet that details the error and shows how to turn it to advantage by converting the kit into an F(AW). Mk. 8.

[Duncan B]

22 hours ago, Gondor44 said:

Certainly Bill,

 

Upper views

 

Underside views

 

Hope these do Bill

 

Gondor

 

That doesn't look like the FAW7 rear end to me, the section between the jet pipes is too pronounced and, as already stated the underside was relatively flat but quite obviously swept up towards the jet pipes on the FAW7.

I'd like to see a photo from above of that FAW7 carrying out the refuelling trials, the refuelling probe looks to be a lot different from the production version that the FAW9R wore.

 

Duncan B

[Duncan B]

22 minutes ago, stever219 said:

I’m sorry if this has been dealt with earlier in this thread but the FROG Javelin F(AW). Mk. 9 nose is about ²/₂₅ inch too short.  Unfortunately I’m 4¹/₂ hours flying time from my copy of the Modeldecal sheet that details the error and shows how to turn it to advantage by converting the kit into an F(AW). Mk. 8.

Freightdog do a resin replacement nose for the Frog kit. I have 2 in the stash somewhere that I bought earlier this year at the Southern Expo.

 

Duncan B

[71chally]

1 hour ago, Duncan B said:

I'd like to see a photo from above of that FAW7 carrying out the refuelling trials, the refuelling probe looks to be a lot different from the production version that the FAW9R wore.

It was a special fit for the Oct '59 trials, there are side on pictures somewhere showing the probe starts at just ahead of the windscreen slope and elevated to top of the canopy height.  It looks far neater than the production 9R type but guess there must have been an airflow problem over the nose of the aircraft? It also looks like it might have been semi retractable, but don't know for sure.

 

There was also earlier trails involving a Javelin FAW.4 with a wing mounted refuelling probe.

Edited August 9, 2019 by 71chally

[Navy Bird]

Wow, learning lots of good stuff. And I need it, too, because I'm a Javelin novice, having been cloistered in the colonies during the 50s and 60s. Maybe one of you can answer a question about the airbrakes - where these ever seen open when the aircraft was on the ground? And when they were closed were they flush with the surface of the wing?

 

Cheers,

Bill

[Duncan B]

23 minutes ago, Navy Bird said:

Wow, learning lots of good stuff. And I need it, too, because I'm a Javelin novice, having been cloistered in the colonies during the 50s and 60s. Maybe one of you can answer a question about the airbrakes - where these ever seen open when the aircraft was on the ground? And when they were closed were they flush with the surface of the wing?

 

Cheers,

Bill

The airbrakes wouldn't have been left open on the ground during Ops, that would lead to the offending pilot having to buy a case of beer for the ground crew (well that's what they had to do on Hunters anyway so guess it was the same on Javelins). Flush with the wing when closed.

 

Duncan B