Jump to content

1:72 Emhar McDonnell F3H-2N Demon


Recommended Posts

On 4/13/2022 at 5:19 PM, Navy Bird said:

That last post of mine got me thinking.    :hmmm:

 

Since I want to add the Demon to my collection as an ancestor of the Phantom, I suspect I also need to add the Voodoo. One of my favourite airshow memories was the first time I ever saw a vertical climb - a Canadian Voodoo came roaring down the runaway at an altitude of naught metres (a bit higher than naught feet), ignited reheat and proceeded to climb vertically until clear out of sight, barrel-rolling whilst doing so. This was at Dayton, probably in 1977 or 78. The Canadian's display made the teen series routines look staid and placid by comparison.

 

Yeah, gotta do a Voodoo and it has to be Canadian. Luckily I have the Revell 1:72 kit in my stash, though I will have to do some research to see which markings that Voodoo at Dayton carried back then, RCAF or CAF.    :)

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

PS. Sorry, no work on the Demon today - too many stencils on the Super Bug.

If you do a Canadian Voodoo, it's worth pointing out that the last Voodoos built went straight to Canada and were delivered from the McDonnell factory in RCAF markings.

 

The SMS series CF-101 Voodoo Canadian Profile book is probably the most authoritative single reference out there on the CF-101.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/04/2022 at 14:00, Brandy said:

Aaah, if only you'd got to see a Lightning do that. It did things to a young lad that never happened again until he discovered girls!

 

So it was an engorging engaging experience, eh?

 

Cheers,

Bill

  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/04/2022 at 17:12, Navy Bird said:

 

I'm always shocked to see just how large it was when placed next to a Phantom. At 59 ft. long, it's longer than an FGR.1 or a USN F-4. (The F-4E is longer, due to the extended nose.) I think the Demon's wingspan is only 3-4 ft. less than the Phantom. I think the Phantom gets higher marks for performance and versatility though.    :)

 

Back to work...

 

Cheers,

Bill

You may have a look at a Demon next to others, half way down this thread :

 

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/29221-comparing-sizes/

 

Edited by AV O
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beautiful work as always Bill👍

 

I want to see how you will manage to replicate the refuelling probe because the one that the kit gives is just a plastic tube with a small bump and nothing more.

 

Cheers,

Bill

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Shalako said:

I want to see how you will manage to replicate the refuelling probe because the one that the kit gives is just a plastic tube with a small bump and nothing more.

 

Sorry, I wasn't planning on adding the refueling probe. The photo that I'm working from, which is the actual aircraft I'm building, doesn't show the probe fitted (at least when the photo was taken). Actually, none of the VF-122 birds in the Ginter book show a probe either.

 

F3H-2N 137014 VF-122 NG-404 (No Data) (JS-C)

 

I think the lines of the aircraft are cleaner without the probe. It looks kind of scabbed on. The pilot's report in the Ginter book states that his squadron usually flew without it since it was easy to take on and off.

 

Cheers,

Bill

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I presume it was a capability added much later, perhaps near the end of the aircraft's service?

 

By the way, the pilot must had a really great view from that windscreen!

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

P.S.: Bill, have you checked how easy or difficult it is to represent the extended slats? Does the Ginter book provides diagrams or photos that show details of the slats?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Shalako said:

So, I presume it was a capability added much later, perhaps near the end of the aircraft's service?

 

By the way, the pilot must had a really great view from that windscreen!

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

P.S.: Bill, have you checked how easy or difficult it is to represent the extended slats? Does the Ginter book provides diagrams or photos that show details of the slats?

The refueling probe was added very early on (see https://thanlont.blogspot.com/2013/10/texaco.html) and it was in fact "scabbed on". My impression was that it was rarely removed, particularly on a deployment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/04/2022 at 01:14, Navy Bird said:

First, the exhaust nozzle in the kit needs some help. The thickness of the vanes doesn't look quite right,

 

 

 

I really wish there was a nice aftermarket resin nozzle, but the Demon isn't popular enough to warrant one. However, a little judicious sanding helps a bit.

Your sacrifice was in vane.

 

(And nicely done too Bill.)

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Shalako said:

Bill, have you checked how easy or difficult it is to represent the extended slats? Does the Ginter book provides diagrams or photos that show details of the slats?

 

It's probably not any more difficult than cutting out the slats and scratchbuilding the interior structure. I'm not planning on doing that however. I had another look through the Ginter book and did not see any good diagrams or photos of the deployed slats. Lots of great drawings for other things, though, like the gear struts and wells, air brakes, etc. I also had a quick scan of the Detail & Scale digital book on the Demon and didn't really see any good drawings or photos there either.

 

3 hours ago, Tailspin Turtle said:

The refueling probe was added very early on (see https://thanlont.blogspot.com/2013/10/texaco.html) and it was in fact "scabbed on". My impression was that it was rarely removed, particularly on a deployment.

 

Thanks for the link Tommy. The pilot from VF-14 who wrote the short essay in the Ginter book said he was the second man to plug a Demon into an AJ Savage tanker. Apparently it was a bit tricky as it required the Demon to approach with slats out, a higher power setting, and the air brakes deployed in order to get better maneuverability for the hook-up. He also says that it was "relatively easy to remove the probe and cover the openings with a blank-off plate. We usually flew with the probe off and when on the beach removed the racks and rails too." What does he mean by "on the beach?" Not on deployment and thereby able to work on your tan while having a brew? I assume that racks and rails refers to the pylons, etc.

 

1 hour ago, TheBaron said:

Your sacrifice was in vane.

 

You funny guy! Sandpaper is your friend. Especially when you can wrap it around a cylindrical handle (from a hobby knife) that matches the ID of the nozzle. Much easier to get it round that way.

 

*****

 

Trying to finish up the Super Bug right now so I can clear my bench (and my mind) to make more progress on the Demon. By the way, the Demon is only 1 ft. shorter in length than the F/A-18F.

 

Cheers,

Bill

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Navy Bird said:

I think the lines of the aircraft are cleaner without the probe.

 

It’s a slightly weird looking aircraft.  From some angles it just looks plain odd.  I’m sure it’s mother thought it was good looking tho’ :whistle:

 

3 hours ago, Navy Bird said:

Apparently it was a bit tricky as it required the Demon to approach with slats out, a higher power setting, and the air brakes deployed in order to get better maneuverability for the hook-up.

 

The Jaguar had a curious switch activated setting called PTR (part throttle reheat) we used for tanking (Air to Air refuelling).  It gave you reheat at less than 100% max-dry power (conventionally you push the throttles forward to max-dry and then further forward into afterburner/reheat).  The problem in the Jag was that at higher weights/altitude you couldn’t stay plugged in at max-dry, but going into conventional reheat was too much of a power increase and a surge forward (not good news plugged into the tanker). So PTR and reheat at less than 100% power nicely filled the gap in the power band.  Drift over…

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Navy Bird said:

Thanks for the link Tommy. The pilot from VF-14 who wrote the short essay in the Ginter book said he was the second man to plug a Demon into an AJ Savage tanker. Apparently it was a bit tricky as it required the Demon to approach with slats out, a higher power setting, and the air brakes deployed in order to get better maneuverability for the hook-up. He also says that it was "relatively easy to remove the probe and cover the openings with a blank-off plate. We usually flew with the probe off and when on the beach removed the racks and rails too." What does he mean by "on the beach?" Not on deployment and thereby able to work on your tan while having a brew? I assume that racks and rails refers to the pylons, etc.

 

Roughly speaking, an air group deployed for six months on a carrier and then was shore based (on the beach) for anywhere from  a year to two years. There was no real need for the refueling probe when shore based. And it may be that early on, as in this case, pilots were more cavalier about the necessity for inflight-refueling capability when flying from the carrier. I also don't know how much work it took to remove and reinstall the Demon's probe. However, I do not remember seeing a picture of a Demon without the probe—dated for sure after the modification was introduced—certainly not one with any indication (discoloration around the edge of the fairing, unfaded surface where the fairing had been, blanking panel) that one had been removed. However, I would be very interested in being informed about exceptions.

 

With respect to the slats, when the airplane was parked, they were usually up.

 

With respect to the roll spoilers, they were an afterthought and literally scabbed onto the top of the wing surface. I don't know if photoetch is thin enough to be accurate enough in that regard.

Edited by Tailspin Turtle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fritag said:

It’s a slightly weird looking aircraft.  From some angles it just looks plain odd.  I’m sure it’s mother thought it was good looking tho’ :whistle:

 

...So PTR and reheat at less than 100% power nicely filled the gap in the power band.  Drift over…

 

I didn't say the aircraft wasn't a bit weird looking, just that it looked cleaner without the refueling pod. But even its weirdness is growing on me. Maybe that's because I'm weird?   :)

 

So the solution on the Jag was a lower power setting plus reheat while the solution on the Demon was higher power and the air brakes deployed. Interesting. Was this all about going slow enough to match the tanker while retaining the maneuverability needed to accurately hook up? Two different solutions for the same problem or two different problems?

 

54 minutes ago, Tailspin Turtle said:

Roughly speaking, an air group deployed for six months on a carrier and then was shore based (on the beach) for anywhere from  a year to two years. There was no real need for the refueling probe when shore based. And it may be that early on, as in this case, pilots were more cavalier about the necessity for inflight-refueling capability when flying from the carrier. I also don't know how much work it took to remove and reinstall the Demon's probe. However, I do not remember seeing a picture of a Demon without the probe—dated for sure after the modification was introduced—certainly not one with any indication (discoloration around the edge of the fairing, unfaded surface where the fairing had been, blanking panel) that one had been removed. However, I would be very interested in being informed about exceptions.

 

With respect to the slats, when the airplane was parked, they were usually up.

 

With respect to the roll spoilers, they were an afterthought and literally scabbed onto the top of the wing surface. I don't know if photoetch is thin enough to be accurate enough in that regard.

 

Thanks Tommy. Good news about the slats being up when parked as I'm already going to get in trouble for having the air brakes open! I think the photoetch for the spoilers will be OK - it's 0.005 in. thick, or 0.36 in in real life. I don't know what they really were, but 3/8 inch doesn't seem too unreasonable to me. Looking at the detail photos in the Detail & Scale digital book, the spoilers are not a constant thickness, as they taper off towards the trailing edge. The leading edge looks like maybe 0.5 inch? They also look like castings or otherwise machined out of a solid chunk.

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

Cheers,

Bill

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some good walkarounds on the internet. I think the spoiler was basically a flat piece of metal. There was a "ramp" in front of its leading edge. Note that the two "fingers' extending aft actually covered the holes in the wing skin that the actuators poked out of.

 

https://www.cybermodeler.com/aircraft/f3h/images/forttin_f3h_34.jpg

 

https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2010/11/f3h-demon.html

 

I'm pretty sure but not certain that the spoilers were not extended on the ground. They were also for roll control, not speed or total lift control so only one was extended at a time. At high speed (I have never seen a number for it), the spoilers automatically took over roll control from the ailerons. It was discovered at some point after deliveries began that roll control decreased unacceptably at higher speeds because the wing torsional stiffness was no longer adequate to keep the wing from twisting as aileron was applied, reducing its effectiveness.

Edited by Tailspin Turtle
Add information about spoiler function
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/04/2022 at 00:13, Tailspin Turtle said:

There are some good walkarounds on the internet. I think the spoiler was basically a flat piece of metal. There was a "ramp" in front of its leading edge. Note that the two "fingers' extending aft actually covered the holes in the wing skin that the actuators poked out of.

 

https://www.cybermodeler.com/aircraft/f3h/images/forttin_f3h_34.jpg

 

https://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2010/11/f3h-demon.html

 

I'm pretty sure but not certain that the spoilers were not extended on the ground. They were also for roll control, not speed or total lift control so only one was extended at a time. At high speed (I have never seen a number for it), the spoilers automatically took over roll control from the ailerons. It was discovered at some point after deliveries began that roll control decreased unacceptably at higher speeds because the wing torsional stiffness was no longer adequate to keep the wing from twisting as aileron was applied, reducing its effectiveness.

 

Thanks Tommy, that's a great description of how the wing spoilers were used.

 

Here are the photos I have that show the spoiler was not a constant thickness (at least not on this restored example at the Museum of Naval Aviation):

 

(Please consult the Detail & Scale publication on the F3H Demon.)

 

Looking from the front - The reflection in the lower left of the spoiler in the next photo would make me think that the front edge has a bevel on it, which could help serve as a ramp. The ramp certainly makes sense from an aerodynamic perspective. Not the best photo, but what do you think?

 

(Please consult the Detail & Scale publication on the F3H Demon.)

 

It may just be the angle of the photo - makes it look like a piano hinge (which it most likely isn't). The ramp strip in front of the leading edge is shown better in the photo from your website.  It's too small for 1:72 scale though!   :)

 

Cheers,

Bill

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta love the Internet. Here are some home movies of the Demon:

 

 

Shot by the poster's Dad on the USS Hancock in 1958.

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

PS. The music doesn't sound like the 50s to me...

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/04/2022 at 02:41, Navy Bird said:

 

Thanks Tommy, that's a great description of how the wing spoilers were used.

 

Here are the photos I have that show the spoiler was not a constant thickness (at least not on this restored example at the Museum of Naval Aviation):

 

 

 

 

 

Looking from the front - The reflection in the lower left of the spoiler in the next photo would make me think that the front edge has a bevel on it, which could help serve as a ramp. The ramp certainly makes sense from an aerodynamic perspective. Not the best photo, but what do you think?

 

 

 

It may just be the angle of the photo - makes it look like a piano hinge (which it most likely isn't). The ramp strip in front of the leading edge is shown better in the photo from your website.  It's too small for 1:72 scale though!   :)

 

Cheers,

Bill

As best I can tell from other walk-around  pictures of the NNAM F3H, the big fingers are tapered from thickness of the spoiler itself to fairly  sharp and also have rounded sides. The smaller fingers have a sharp bevel, like a chisel. That is a piano hinge at the front of the spoiler. The left and right forward corners of the spoiler are rounded when viewed from above its surface but I pretty sure that the sides are not.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/04/2022 at 02:41, Navy Bird said:

 

Thanks Tommy, that's a great description of how the wing spoilers were used.

 

Here are the photos I have that show the spoiler was not a constant thickness (at least not on this restored example at the Museum of Naval Aviation):

 

 

 

 

 

Looking from the front - The reflection in the lower left of the spoiler in the next photo would make me think that the front edge has a bevel on it, which could help serve as a ramp. The ramp certainly makes sense from an aerodynamic perspective. Not the best photo, but what do you think?

 

 

 

It may just be the angle of the photo - makes it look like a piano hinge (which it most likely isn't). The ramp strip in front of the leading edge is shown better in the photo from your website.  It's too small for 1:72 scale though!   :)

 

Cheers,

Bill

Are these images from the Detail & Scale publication? if so please remove them as its a copyright issue

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Julien said:

Are these images from the Detail & Scale publication? if so please remove them as its a copyright issue

 

Done. Thank you.

 

Cheers,

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Terry1954 said:

That video is great Bill. The landing shots really show how close the wingtips come to scraping the deck on landing!

 

Which is why the underside of the wingtips have a skid plate, as Tommy posted earlier:

 

https://thanlont.blogspot.com/2015/02/swept-wing-tip-skid_22.html

 

In the video, you can also see the nose wheel coming off the deck as the plane tips backwards after catching the wire. The wing tip skid plate was previously identified as a wingtip "vortex de-generator" by a volunteer at the Naval Aviation Museum, which sounds way more techie that a skid plate, but it is what it is. Now I have to figure out how to add one to the model. (Two, actually).

 

Cheers,

Bill

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2022 at 10:08 PM, Navy Bird said:

Gotta love the Internet. Here are some home movies of the Demon:

 

 

Shot by the poster's Dad on the USS Hancock in 1958.

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

PS. The music doesn't sound like the 50s to me...

One surprise to me is that the roll-control spoilers appear to both be raised when the wings are folded and the airplane is taxiing out. I don't think that they are when the power is off. It's not unusual for ailerons to not be in trail, so to speak, because of the need to cross the fold joint with mechanical controls, but these are inboard of the fold joint and below about Mach .82, locked out. Plus when functioning in flight, only one will be up at a time...

Edited by Tailspin Turtle
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Tailspin Turtle said:

One surprise to me is that the roll-control spoilers appear to both be raised when the wings are folded and the airplane is taxiing out. I don't think that they are when the power is off. It's not unusual for ailerons to not be in trail, so to speak, because of the need to cross the fold joint with mechanical controls, but these are inboard of the fold joint and below about Mach .82, locked out. Plus when functioning in flight, only one will be up at a time...

My guess right now is that the roll-control spoilers coming up together when the wings are folded after engine start (and therefore hydraulic pressure is present) and going down when the wings are extended is a feature, a positive flight control check. One of the checks required before launch is that the flight controls all function properly. Since these spoilers only begin to move in response to the stick in flight at high speed, this would satisfy the requirement to know before takeoff that they are functional. Somebody who seemed to have first-hand familiarity with the Demon once challenged my statement that only one was extended at a time; this would explain why he thought they could function in concert.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Tailspin Turtle said:

My guess right now is that the roll-control spoilers coming up together when the wings are folded after engine start (and therefore hydraulic pressure is present) and going down when the wings are extended is a feature, a positive flight control check. One of the checks required before launch is that the flight controls all function properly. Since these spoilers only begin to move in response to the stick in flight at high speed, this would satisfy the requirement to know before takeoff that they are functional.

 

Sounds like a good explanation. In the video, do you know what the red device is that one of the Demons is shown trailing out on a reel or something similar? And the flares or rockets that are skipping across the water? One last question - how does the home movie maker get something like this past the Navy's censors?

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

PS. Sorry for no progress on the model - my grandson's first birthday party occupied a LOT of our time!   🎂

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Navy Bird said:

do you know what the red device is that one of the Demons is shown trailing out on a reel or something similar?

Towed target, same as in this photo. 
 

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FJ-4_VU-7_with_towed_aerial_targets_1960.jpg

Edited by Corsairfoxfouruncle
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

Towed target, same as in this photo. 

 

Aha! A target trailing Demon is perhaps another candidate for the Target facilities SIG Dennis! 🤔

 

Terry

  • Like 2
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...