Jump to content

!/32 Royal Navy Hunter Conversion - A Question or two...


Mark

Recommended Posts

After having just sorted through the stash, there are two kits just begging to be built and they are the two Revell Hunters in 1/32nd that I have. But I'd like to do them slightly differently and want to do one as a Royal Navy FR10 or GA11. So, to all of you Hunter experts, what do I need to do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheers guys!

Homebee... That looks rather nice! One of yours?

MODeller... Cheers Brian, so they do!!

Dave... Thanks, looks like the Flightpath's set includes the F.4 tailcone as well as having some older Echelon decal sheets available for the GA.11 too!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd recommend the Flightpath set too, it's a little pricey at about 36 quid but as it includes the whole Hunter etched set you could spread the parts over both your kits, there is a lot of detail included! My set has an F.4 pattern tailcone and GA.11 lamp assembly in etch and acetate, you cut the kit nose back and add the lamp, the tailcone is resin with an etched jet-pipe insert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After having just sorted through the stash, there are two kits just begging to be built and they are the two Revell Hunters in 1/32nd that I have. But I'd like to do them slightly differently and want to do one as a Royal Navy FR10 or GA11. So, to all of you Hunter experts, what do I need to do?

The FAA never had FR10's - they did have a few (not sure how many off hand - maybe only one or two?)GA11's with PR noses - designated PR11.

ALL GA/PR11's were converted from surplus RAF F4's, some later Hunters could accommodate the larger 230 Gallon tanks on the inner pylon, so would have had the cut out flaps associated with the FGA9 and FR10. Either Revell kit would suffice. The Flightpath set is rather good, though the resin tail cone section seems a bit "chunky" - it should taper in quite a bit - as befits an Avon 100 series Hunter.

When I built mine - a long time ago - I used the FGA9 as the basis (The F6 hadn't been issued) , and left off the tail cone, building a new narrow bore unit from a section of the "Swiss ferry tank" encased in Milliput.

Picture241.jpg

Edited by Bill Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FAA never had FR10's - they did have a few (not sure how many off hand - maybe only one or two?)GA11's with PR noses - designated PR11.

There are pictures of WT764 and XE869 in R.Ward's Hunter Squadrons. Then if I'm not wrong there was WT723 that is still flying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's some pics I took in Gibralter sometime in the mid 1980s of a couple GA.11s:

111.jpg

112.jpg

113.jpg

114.jpg

And a T.7 for good measure:

711.jpg

These are scanned from matt prints, so this is as hi-res as these photos will get until I rescan them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are pictures of WT764 and XE869 in R.Ward's Hunter Squadrons. Then if I'm not wrong there was WT723 that is still flying.

Indeed my "one or two" was of course figurative! Had a quick look through the FRADU website and XF977/865 and WT723/866 had Camera nose fitted. By all accounts these were converted at Shorts Brothers in Belfast...three from 764NAS having the standard PR nose (as added to the FR10) with three F.95 cameras added in the "mid-sixties".

One of the PR.11's actually flew with "The Blue Heron's"......

EDIT: Had anothe quick look - this time through "The Hawker Hunter" book and it seems that four GA11's were converted to PR.11 standard...WT721 (W/O 22.09.1970), WT723, XE689 and XF977

Edited by Bill Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, I realised that I wrote both serials wrong in my post... looks like I really need some holiday !!!!!

XE869 is of course XE689, shown during its days with 764 NAS, coded 695-LM

WT764 is of course wrong....the picture was of WT723 serving with FRADU as 866-VL, formerly serving with 764 NAS. Both wear the old edsg over white scheme.

In the same book there's a nice colour shot of XF977 carrying not only the camera nose but also a unusual array of aerials under the forward fuselage.

Don't know how I messed up 2 serials out of 2.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, I realised that I wrote both serials wrong in my post... looks like I really need some holiday !!!!!

XE869 is of course XE689, shown during its days with 764 NAS, coded 695-LM

WT764 is of course wrong....the picture was of WT723 serving with FRADU as 866-VL, formerly serving with 764 NAS. Both wear the old edsg over white scheme.

In the same book there's a nice colour shot of XF977 carrying not only the camera nose but also a unusual array of aerials under the forward fuselage.

Don't know how I messed up 2 serials out of 2.....

XF977 was a member of The Blue Herons - I have some photo's that I took of the team back in 1979(or 1980?) at RAF Greenham Common - and these aerials are very apparent - I'll see if I can find them and scan them in ........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill, I realised that I wrote both serials wrong in my post... looks like I really need some holiday !!!!!

XE869 is of course XE689, shown during its days with 764 NAS, coded 695-LM

WT764 is of course wrong....the picture was of WT723 serving with FRADU as 866-VL, formerly serving with 764 NAS. Both wear the old edsg over white scheme.

In the same book there's a nice colour shot of XF977 carrying not only the camera nose but also a unusual array of aerials under the forward fuselage.

Don't know how I messed up 2 serials out of 2.....

The 'aerials' were actually designed to carry four 25lb practice bombs. There is a photograph in The Cold War Years by Tim Mason (page 143), which shows a GA.11 (WT808) carrying eight practice bombs, four of which are carried on the four positions noted above.

Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'aerials' were actually designed to carry four 25lb practice bombs. There is a photograph in The Cold War Years by Tim Mason (page 143), which shows a GA.11 (WT808) carrying eight practice bombs, four of which are carried on the four positions noted above.

Andrew

Yes that makes sense! Thanks for that Andrew.....

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...