Jump to content

1:72 Gloster Javelin Jambalaya


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Duncan B said:

12mm outside diameter (not including scoops).

 

Thanks - that's almost exactly the same size as the burners on the Frog kit. I measured them at 11.9 mm.

 

Question - beside the inward canting of the two exhausts looking from the top, in some photos it looks like they are canted down ever so slightly relative to the end of the fuselage. I suspect they're not, it's just the cut of the rear fuselage termination making it appear that way.

 

thrust2

 

Thrust1

 

Probably not something to worry about in 1:72 scale.

 

Cheers,

Bill

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can’t offer any practical help, but is the downward cant anything to do with the upper/lower camouflage demarcation line sweeping upwards from the rear of the wing to the tail?

 

Trevor

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit I thought they were canted downward ever so slightly, but nothing more scientific than that.

 

Some good pics here, including the thickened ailerons

http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/mark_hayward/javelin_faw.9/

 

 

Edit, this is a good one, compare the vertical lines on the jet pipe with those on the fuselage

javelin_faw.9_09_of_13.jpg

Edited by 71chally
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expressing my totally uneducated opinion on the matter, it looks from that last pic that those exhausts are slightly canted downward. 

 

Ciao

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, you mean I was right for a change? Ha...I gotta go tell wifey.    :)

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

PS. Trying to figure out how to make the Airfix intake "trunks" fit in the Froggie. I think it can be done, but it will involve putty. Lots of it. And sanding. And swearing.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent photo James; it gives a lot of information.

 

The photo shows nicely the curvature of the rear end, re-heaters with those little air scoops, ailerons, wing trailing edge and the crew boarding ladder handle (something that is missing from the Airfix 1/48 Javelin!).

 

Cheers,

Antti

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Navy Bird said:

Wow, you mean I was right for a change? Ha...I gotta go tell wifey.    :)

There's a first time for everything Bill! Sorry but sometimes you do provide the most gorgeous ammunition and it would be rude not to fire it.

 

Martian 👽

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Martian Hale said:

There's a first time for everything Bill! Sorry but sometimes you do provide the most gorgeous ammunition and it would be rude not to fire it.

 

Fire away! I've made a career out of being wrong. Wifey is very kind to point this out - to anyone who will listen. But she feeds me, so I can't complain.    :)

 

Cheers,

Bill

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The photo of the Duxford Javelin does show the rounding out of the jet pipe panels quite nicely. The HPM resin parts are perfectly straight so a little light sanding to round them out is required to be more accurate.

 

(I’ll add pictures later)

 

Duncan B

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Duncan B said:

The photo of the Duxford Javelin does show the rounding out of the jet pipe panels quite nicely. The HPM resin parts are perfectly straight so a little light sanding to round them out is required to be more accurate.

 

(I’ll add pictures later)

 

Duncan B

The more I look at the picture James posted the more complex the shape looks. And now the re-heaters bother me; they don't point slightly down as in the real thing...

 

spacer.png

A good reason to build my next Javelin😉

 

Cheers,

Antti

 

  • Like 8
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, I'd like to get the fuselage bundled up on the T.3. First, the scratch built bumpy things go into the air brake wells, and pose for another mating picture:

 

IMG_4424

 

They should look OK once painted. I haven't found any good photos of this area, but my plan is to simply paint the camo scheme over them without masking of any kind. Now, against my better judgement, I did NOT try to size the bumps so they would fit inside the holes in the air brakes. Because, after all, I may be a Yank but I'm not crazy. And this is 1:72 scale - the bumps are only 1 mm wide (nominally) and my thumbs are 25 mm wide. I think my Geometry teacher called this an "incongruity."   :)

 

And, of course, you have to fill in the ejector pin marks inside the intake trunks which have been conveniently engineered to be right in the line of sight.

 

IMG_4423

 

FOD covers might still be a good idea. We'll see.

 

Lastly, my package arrived from Singapore. As has been mentioned, the rear fuselage does need some additional shaping, but I think it will work out OK. The fuselage piece has no panel lines on it. I'm still thinking about how to angle the burners in and down, but I suspect it will be a modification of the burners, not the fuselage.

 

IMG_4425

 

It doesn't look like the resin fuselage would easily fit on either the Frog or the Plastyk kits. Which is too bad, because they could both use a little help. Looking at the width across the aft end of the fuselage (where the burner cans attach), the narrowest by far is the Airfix "tweaking" of the T.3 kit (23 mm), followed by Plastyk (25 mm), Frog (27 mm), and the HPM resin part (also 27 mm). The difficulty putting this on either the Frog or Plastyk kit is the cross-sectional shape of this section of the fuselage. Airfix seem to have the curvature on the side matching the drawings I have, whilst Frog and Plastyk are too flat on top, and the side curvature is too "square." I think you could do it with a bit of filler, but I'm already tired of sanding.

 

Now it's time to change my other mind again. I have sourced an actual Airfix FAW.9 (not a T.3 in an FAW.9 box like I have now), and I'm going to use that for my FAW.9 when it arrives. The resin parts are designed for that kit (I'm trusting that they will fit - hmmm...) and if both models, the T.3 and FAW.9, are from Airfix they will look better sitting next to one another in the display case. The Frog and Plastyk kits will be donated to the Retirement Home for Oddly Coloured Misfit Styrene.

 

Fickle modeller...     :doh:

 

Cheers,

Bill

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, giemme said:

Lovely job on the airbrake wells, BTW :clap:

 

Yeah, I think they'll look OK with some paint on them and the photoetch brakes in place. Which reminds me, I'm not sure what the actuators look like. Maybe I'll just copy what is in the Airfix 1:48 scale instructions.

 

1 hour ago, CedB said:

Very nice wells Bill - I bet you're glad they're done! :) 

 

Except that I need to make four more for the FAW.9! Of course, some semblance of sanity could return and I could leave the air brakes closed on that one.    :)

 

Cheers,

Bill

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Navy Bird said:

 

Of course, some semblance of sanity could return.    :)

 

Cheers,

Bill

You are building Javelins in 1/72 scale with all the inherent issues involved and wondering if sanity is still an option? 😂

 

As for the 'downward angle' of the exhausts I am not convinced that they actually do have any angle offset from the centreline of the aircraft. I remember seeing a photo of the rear end of a Javelin with the rear panels removed and the jet pipes and nozzles looked to be running straight along the centreline. I suspect it's just the shape of the rear panels that make it look like the exhausts are angled off centre in the longitudinal axis. 

 

Duncan B

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Duncan B said:

As for the 'downward angle' of the exhausts I am not convinced that they actually do have any angle offset from the centreline of the aircraft. I remember seeing a photo of the rear end of a Javelin with the rear panels removed and the jet pipes and nozzles looked to be running straight along the centreline. I suspect it's just the shape of the rear panels that make it look like the exhausts are angled off centre in the longitudinal axis. 

I think they do a tad, and I saw a photo yesterday that convinces me more.   I drew straight lines following the cans edges and the top edge would have emerged through the top of the fuselage near the front of the fin.  I know that lens distortion etc all have their part to play, but this convinces me.

I have also seen pics with the rear fuselage removed, and the pipes are straight as you say, personally I think the cans are down turned a couple of  degrees (I would say as much as the inward angle) where they emerge out of the rear fuselage, and that is why the vertical lines of the cans are angled compared with vertical lines in the fuselage structure.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would love to see a photo with the rear panels removed. I'm also quite curious why the burner cans are angled at all. My trigonometric brain tells me the effective thrust will be reduced relative to the cosine of the angle, but I am sure there are good aerodynamic reasons for doing this.

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

PS. I know, the angle is so small that the cosine effect is minimal.    :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Navy Bird said:

Would love to see a photo with the rear panels removed. I'm also quite curious why the burner cans are angled at all. My trigonometric brain tells me the effective thrust will be reduced relative to the cosine of the angle, but I am sure there are good aerodynamic reasons for doing this.

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

PS. I know, the angle is so small that the cosine effect is minimal.    :)

I always thought with the nickname of “Dragmaster” the Javelin was the very definition of “bad” aerodynamic decisions.  

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick question - the engine trunks (tail pipes) on the pen-nib tail from the Airfix T.3 extend only 9 mm into the fuselage. I'm thinking maybe they should be farther in - cutaway drawings show the aft end of the engine quite a ways inside the fuselage. Plus, in the Airfix 1:48 FAW.9 instructions, it looks like the tail pipes are nearly half the length of the fuselage (minus the nose). Anyone know how long the tail pipes should be for the T.3?

 

Cheers,

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Navy Bird said:

Meanwhile, I'd like to get the fuselage bundled up on the T.3. First, the scratch built bumpy things go into the air brake wells, and pose for another mating picture:

 

IMG_4424

 

They should look OK once painted. I haven't found any good photos of this area, but my plan is to simply paint the camo scheme over them without masking of any kind. Now, against my better judgement, I did NOT try to size the bumps so they would fit inside the holes in the air brakes. Because, after all, I may be a Yank but I'm not crazy. And this is 1:72 scale - the bumps are only 1 mm wide (nominally) and my thumbs are 25 mm wide. I think my Geometry teacher called this an "incongruity."   :)

 

And, of course, you have to fill in the ejector pin marks inside the intake trunks which have been conveniently engineered to be right in the line of sight.

 

IMG_4423

 

FOD covers might still be a good idea. We'll see.

 

Lastly, my package arrived from Singapore. As has been mentioned, the rear fuselage does need some additional shaping, but I think it will work out OK. The fuselage piece has no panel lines on it. I'm still thinking about how to angle the burners in and down, but I suspect it will be a modification of the burners, not the fuselage.

 

IMG_4425

 

It doesn't look like the resin fuselage would easily fit on either the Frog or the Plastyk kits. Which is too bad, because they could both use a little help. Looking at the width across the aft end of the fuselage (where the burner cans attach), the narrowest by far is the Airfix "tweaking" of the T.3 kit (23 mm), followed by Plastyk (25 mm), Frog (27 mm), and the HPM resin part (also 27 mm). The difficulty putting this on either the Frog or Plastyk kit is the cross-sectional shape of this section of the fuselage. Airfix seem to have the curvature on the side matching the drawings I have, whilst Frog and Plastyk are too flat on top, and the side curvature is too "square." I think you could do it with a bit of filler, but I'm already tired of sanding.

 

Now it's time to change my other mind again. I have sourced an actual Airfix FAW.9 (not a T.3 in an FAW.9 box like I have now), and I'm going to use that for my FAW.9 when it arrives. The resin parts are designed for that kit (I'm trusting that they will fit - hmmm...) and if both models, the T.3 and FAW.9, are from Airfix they will look better sitting next to one another in the display case. The Frog and Plastyk kits will be donated to the Retirement Home for Oddly Coloured Misfit Styrene.

 

Fickle modeller...     :doh:

 

Cheers,

Bill

Having recently purchased and assembled this new accessory I note that it is not quiet as should be?  I see from various photos on this thread that burners slide in/out of the fuselage, there should be a gap around those burner ends after fitting showing the inside of the fuselage, I should think about a 1" gap eyeballed on photos.  The accessory from HPM is a straight Butt fit, cannot understand why they bothered to drill holes for the burners as no way once all the crud is removed from the burner will it slide into those holes unless you make the holes bigger, which you cannot due to the tolerance of those holes and you cannot reduce the diameter of the burners without removing the finely cast detail on those parts.  Unless I did it wrong!  :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rayprit said:

Having recently purchased and assembled this new accessory I note that it is not quiet as should be?  I see from various photos on this thread that burners slide in/out of the fuselage, there should be a gap around those burner ends after fitting showing the inside of the fuselage, I should think about a 1" gap eyeballed on photos.  The accessory from HPM is a straight Butt fit, cannot understand why they bothered to drill holes for the burners as no way once all the crud is removed from the burner will it slide into those holes unless you make the holes bigger, which you cannot due to the tolerance of those holes and you cannot reduce the diameter of the burners without removing the finely cast detail on those parts.  Unless I did it wrong!  :(

 

I've been scratching my head over this same issue. The burner cans are at least 12 mm in diameter (mine are closer to 13 mm) and the openings in the fuselage piece are about 10 mm. I agree that it's not practical to drill out the holes in the fuselage piece, so the burner cans will need to be shortened. Since the fuselage section is about 26.5 mm wide (I rounded up to 27 above), and the burner cans are around 13 mm, this means they can't be angled towards each other, as they'll hit. Not the best of designs, but we'll figure out how to make it work. Somehow.

 

Cheers,

Bill

  • Like 4
Link to comment
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...