Happy New Year! :drink: :party:
So my best friend got me a Heller Super Etendard for Xmas. It's a cool looking bird but don't have many ideas for it. All I can come up with is updating it as a USMC bird. Would like to hear your Super Etendard ideas.
Thanks for looking,
Steven :cheers:
1. Give it to anyone else who operates, or has operated a carrier in roughly the relevent time period: Britain, France, The Netherlands, Brazil, Australia, Canada, India.
Maybe The UK and France set up a joint carrier force, or at least a joint acquisition process, in the 1960s/70s and both ended up flying Spey-Crusaders and Avon Super Es.
Maybe the Netherlands or Canada kept their carriers going in the 1970s, or one or the other of them bought Victorious when the UK disposed of her.
Maybe Australia went for the Super E instead of the Skyhawk.
Maybe Brazil kept fixed-wing ops going on the Minas Gerais like Argentine did with the 25 de Mayo.
Maybe India bought Victorious, or commissioned a new Clemenceau class.
2. The original Etendard was developed for the NBMR-1 light fighter competition won by the Fiat G-91. What if the Etendard had won instead, but had then been developed more, first with a more powerful ATAR engine and then with a radar and/or other sophisticated avionics? This could have seen land-based Super-Es, possibly with different noses and avionics fits, in service with France, Italy, Germany, Greece, Turkey, Portugal or any other NATO member. Maybe the RAF could have taken an Avon or Spey-engined version with a UK nav/attack system as a Hunter replacement instead of the Jaguar? Exports? The world is your oyster: anyone who bought Mirage 5s, Jaguars or F-5Es would potentially be up for it.
3. Sell it to anybody who needed Exocet capability in a hurry and wasn't able or willing to wait for an adapted Mirage to do the job. Iraq, in place of it's Mirage F.1EQs, is the example that springs to mind. Or how about South Africa if their Buccaneer order was embargoed? Pakistan would be another possibility.
PantherG did several Super Etendard profiles, e. g. in German Marineflieger use - and based on that I created one, too:
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2845/9053292206_d6b671e831_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/eN1umW)1:72 AMD Super Étendard; aircraft '42+15' of Marinefliegergeschwader (MFG) 2, Eggebek (Germany); mid 1984 (Whif) (https://flic.kr/p/eN1umW) by dizzyfugu (https://www.flickr.com/people/14802581@N07/), on Flickr
There's a lot of potential - Weaver gave a lot of potential NATO users, and I'd throw India or Pakistan in, too.
South American carrier based. Or Aussie or Kiwi. Kiwi would look good as a carrier based bird done up like their super-sexy A-4s.
:cheers:
Quote from: Weaver on January 04, 2015, 07:32:03 AM
Sell it to anybody who needed Exocet capability in a hurry - - - Iraq, in place of it's Mirage F.1EQs, is the example that springs to mind
Indeed - in the Real World, Iraq received five Super Etendards in 1983, on loan from France pending the arrival of the Mirage F1 EQ-5. Four of the five were returned to France in 1985.
Some good ideas offered already, with any of the carrier operators being a good choice, and South/Central America.
Also lots of ex-french territories that still turned to France for support, where like Weaver offered an Exocet armed SuE would serve well in land based maritime strike role: Djibuti, Senegal, Algeria, Morroco, Haiti with some WHIF oil money....
Some others: Ecuador, Guiana, Peru, Mexico, Greek, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Columbia...
Lots of ideas for some colorful SuE's
Quote from: McGreig on January 04, 2015, 11:26:06 AM
Quote from: Weaver on January 04, 2015, 07:32:03 AM
Sell it to anybody who needed Exocet capability in a hurry - - - Iraq, in place of it's Mirage F.1EQs, is the example that springs to mind
Indeed - in the Real World, Iraq received five Super Etendards in 1983, on loan from France pending the arrival of the Mirage F1 EQ-5. Four of the five were returned to France in 1985.
Didn't know they'd done it for real: cheers!
That kind of deal is what inspired the idea: France does things like that to get a sale all the time.
what about Using the Super Etendard as a French Coastal Air Sea Rescue Plane for when Merchant Ships send out an SOS? think that would Work? Just for You to Consider. Dan
Give it an F-84 nose intake if the time is not short.
That would be a Super Mystère, navalized?
Whiffing the Mystere into some whiffed Republic line-up would surely make the Super Etendart a navalized F-84?
The difference would be in the "vertical" intake instead of the horizontal F-100 kind in the original.
Make it more of a fighter: fit the front fuselage (with bigger radar), afterburning engine nozzle and variable intakes from a Mirage III.
Test and evaluation with a crazy colour scheme, or civilian aggressor, like the BAE Skyhawks in Germany?
Quoteland-based Super-Es, possibly with different noses and avionics fits, in service with France, Italy, Germany, Greece, Turkey, Portugal or any other NATO member. Maybe the RAF could have taken an Avon or Spey-engined version with a UK nav/attack system as a Hunter replacement instead of the Jaguar?
I like this idea. :thumbsup:
QuoteTest and evaluation
That could be fun :thumbsup:
Keep them coming!
Steven L :cheers:
Why not make it a swing wing fighter?
Finnish. Grey and white and all dirtied up from beating up the sea....
:tornado: :wub:
Quote from: pyro-manic on January 10, 2015, 09:30:19 AM
<...> or civilian aggressor, like the BAE Skyhawks in Germany?
Oooh! I like your thinking! :thumbsup:
Anyone with Mirages and a coastline.
Like Geoff said :thumbsup:
Quote from: Geoff on January 15, 2015, 01:10:39 PM
Anyone with Mirages and a coastline.
It's not nice, discriminating like that. I know some lovely Swiss people!
Do a USAF Etendard :rolleyes:
Quote from: Geoff on January 15, 2015, 01:10:39 PM
Anyone with Mirages and a coastline.
Actually, if you've got Mirages and want an Exocet capability, it makes much more logistic sense to buy Mirages with the Exocet/Agave combination: it was available on the Mirage III/5/50 and the F.1. That way, you're only servicing and supporting one airframe type with a variety of avionics fits. The only thing a Super E brings to the party that a Mirage F.1EQ doesn't is carrier capability, and the market for that is very limited.
It would be more likely for Dassault to sell Super Etendards to a customer with a coastline, but WITHOUT Mirages, for whom converting their existing aircraft to carry Exocet would be more trouble that buying a fleet of Super Es. A good candidate might be a former Soviet client that's gone western: the Tu-16 Badgers and their AS-5 Kelts have gone back to Russia with the "mercenary" crews that flew them, so now they need an off-the-shelf anti-ship capability. Another possibility might be a country with American hardware who've been denied Harpoon by the US for political reasons, or with planes like the F-5 or A-4 where adding Exocet capabilty would be complicated and expensive for a small number of airframes.
The Super Etendard would be More of Use to the US Navy than the USAF, I Could hear some Air Force General ask,"What? use a French Navy Plane for Our Air Force? What were they Smokin when they Came Up with That Idea? Ask The Navy if They're Interested in that Plane." Don't mean to be a Doofus about it. Dan BTW, I Think a Super Etendard in US Navy Markings would be a Cool Profile to see.
Suely, give the ways of defence procurement, the USAF is exactly where they would be likely to end up?
Might look good with a marines paint job?
What if the USN had gone with the 1970s idea of small "Sea Control Ships" (i.e. small ASW carriers) but decided that STOVL was unworkable and made them a Clemenceau-sized CATOBAR design instead? If they had, then it might have ended up as a joint project with the bigger NATO nations and that might have lead to France getting the contract for the strike aircraft, so you end up with Super Es in US, UK, French, Spanish, Italian (possibly Dutch?) markings.
what if royal navy had kept albion, bulwark and centaur and converted them back to conventional carriers? could Super etendard haver operated of them?
Quote from: DarrenP on January 17, 2015, 05:07:39 AM
what if royal navy had kept albion, bulwark and centaur and converted them back to conventional carriers? could Super etendard haver operated of them?
Maybe. The Centaur class ships were only a little smaller than the Clemenceau class, and the Aeronavale operated their SUEs off them satisfactorily.
I found some neat RL Tiger meet schemes.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meretmarine.com%2Fobjets%2F13591.jpg&hash=51f1a4e662e152db3809dbc2375de240b421895e)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fox-two.com%2Fimages%2F116_SEM_NTM_2007_07.jpg&hash=a8d5f06d462b4559061de5514fe25f68c61c3caa)
Another option might be to give it delta wings and a USAF paint job and see if you can pass it off as a Delta Dagger/Dart variant.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on January 17, 2015, 06:02:18 AM
Quote from: DarrenP on January 17, 2015, 05:07:39 AM
what if royal navy had kept albion, bulwark and centaur and converted them back to conventional carriers? could Super etendard haver operated of them?
Maybe. The Centaur class ships were only a little smaller than the Clemenceau class, and the Aeronavale operated their SUEs off them satisfactorily.
I'd say pretty much certainly with a suitable refit, given that Hermes operated Sea Vixens, Scimitars and Buccaneers, all of which are heavier than a Super E.
Those "snow tiger" Etendards look damn fine! :wub:
I'm not generally a big fan of this aircraft, but that scheme makes them look very tasty indeed.
Have to agree with Weaver they are superb and naval tigers as well :bow:
Quote from: Weaver on January 18, 2015, 07:25:42 AM
Those "snow tiger" Etendards look damn fine! :wub:
Totally agree but I hate, HATE shooting white paint.
Quote from: FAR148 on January 24, 2015, 02:34:32 PM
Quote from: Weaver on January 18, 2015, 07:25:42 AM
Those "snow tiger" Etendards look damn fine! :wub:
Totally agree but I hate, HATE shooting white paint.
A pity you can't get Halfords Appliance White out there. And we can't even send you a few cans either. :banghead:
Only two years late....
Make the two-seat Etendard that never was by grafting a Mirage IIIB nose onto it. The Etendard and Mirage fuselages are near identical so it should be relatively easy.
How about a Mirage F1B nose? Are the fuselages a match with those as well?
Quote from: PR19_Kit on February 12, 2018, 11:06:44 PM
How about a Mirage F1B nose? Are the fuselages a match with those as well?
Don't know, but they look pretty close.
Quote from: Weaver on February 13, 2018, 01:05:58 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on February 12, 2018, 11:06:44 PM
How about a Mirage F1B nose? Are the fuselages a match with those as well?
Don't know, but they look pretty close.
When I get home from the far north I'll check, I've got F1s coming out my ears just now! :o
I know that the USN has used IAI Kfirs as Aggressors in their Top Gun school. Here on the east coast I know of three privately-held aircraft that hire out for what's known as "Difference Training" - a DH-100 in Swiss markings, a Fouga Magister, and a MiG-15UTI. The first two are natural metal finish; the MiG is eye-bleeding red.
My point is that as an aggressor you could paint it anything, from tiger meet to monochrome to splinter (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/07/14/23/0714239778864b0a6af9ea5e385bf0bd.jpg).
Leptiprince already did the Etendard two-seater: http://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php/topic,44436.msg786359.html#msg786359
Of course, you could do it differently: he went for the Mirage 2000's GIB-in-place-of-a-fuel-tank approach, but the alternative is to stretch the airframe and lose the radar, Mirage IIIB/D-style.
Would a forward swept wing Super Etendard work?
Quote from: Jesse220 on February 17, 2018, 02:31:44 PM
Would a forward swept wing Super Etendard work?
No more or less well than a forward-swept wing anything else, I'd imagine. The problem with forward-swept wings from a modelling point of view is finding one with the right aerofoil cross-section: you can't just turn a backwards-swept wing round the other way...
[quote
No more or less well than a forward-swept wing anything else, I'd imagine. The problem with forward-swept wings from a modelling point of view is finding one with the right aerofoil cross-section: you can't just turn a backwards-swept wing round the other way...
[/quote]
And, if you just cut the wings off at the root to make them sweep forward, you'll find you just lost 20-30% of your wing length. Trimming the tip's to match the sweep angle exacerbates the problem.
If you then extend the tips out the results are wings that are the correct length but absurdly narrow. Since the real-world problem with forward-swept wings is tip-flex causing catastrophic flutter ...
I did once put forward-swept wings on a 1/48 Hornet, and I had to make completely new wings - the only original kit wing parts used were the strakes and the under-wing pylons and stores.
What about two engines for a landbased variant? I always thought the SuE looked a bit skinny in the hips.
Graft the back end of an F-111 on there..........
Quote from: Mossie on February 18, 2018, 07:03:19 AM
What about two engines for a landbased variant? I always thought the SuE looked a bit skinny in the hips.
The back end of a MiG-19 might blend in quite nicely, and you could claim the engines as Adours. They wouldn't give much more thrust (at least in a late '60s/early '70s timeframe) but the fuel consumption would be WAY better and you'd have twin-engined safety.
Alternatively, beef up the fuselage diameter, nozzle size and intake size and claim it's got a Spey. Worked for the AMX...
Quote from: Weaver on February 18, 2018, 11:57:11 AM
Quote from: Mossie on February 18, 2018, 07:03:19 AM
What about two engines for a landbased variant? I always thought the SuE looked a bit skinny in the hips.
The back end of a MiG-19 might blend in quite nicely, and you could claim the engines as Adours. They wouldn't give much more thrust (at least in a late '60s/early '70s timeframe) but the fuel consumption would be WAY better and you'd have twin-engined safety.
Alternatively, beef up the fuselage diameter, nozzle size and intake size and claim it's got a Spey. Worked for the AMX...
I like your idea that would rather be a Super Etendard II ;D
http://www.aviastar.org/air/france/dassault_etendard2.php (http://www.aviastar.org/air/france/dassault_etendard2.php)
Etendard II scratch build here ...
http://maquette72.free.fr/amis/JCHoug/2014_08_etendard2/index_ajch08.php (http://maquette72.free.fr/amis/JCHoug/2014_08_etendard2/index_ajch08.php)
Quote from: Scotaidh on February 18, 2018, 05:53:21 AM
[quote
No more or less well than a forward-swept wing anything else, I'd imagine. The problem with forward-swept wings from a modelling point of view is finding one with the right aerofoil cross-section: you can't just turn a backwards-swept wing round the other way...
And, if you just cut the wings off at the root to make them sweep forward, you'll find you just lost 20-30% of your wing length. Trimming the tip's to match the sweep angle exacerbates the problem.
If you then extend the tips out the results are wings that are the correct length but absurdly narrow. Since the real-world problem with forward-swept wings is tip-flex causing catastrophic flutter ...
I did once put forward-swept wings on a 1/48 Hornet, and I had to make completely new wings - the only original kit wing parts used were the strakes and the under-wing pylons and stores.
[/quote]
Might scaleoramaing 1/48 wings into 1/72 solve some of the issues?
Not a Super but ..... how about a Dassault Deux Etage?? (Etendard+ Mirage) :wacko:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1947/43122919590_e98bd688df_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/28GCeBC)
D-Etendard-Plus-02 (https://flic.kr/p/28GCeBC) by Big Gimper (https://www.flickr.com/photos/21812089@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1924/44023179875_d7608ac3d9_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2a5biCF)
D-Etendard-Plus-01 (https://flic.kr/p/2a5biCF) by Big Gimper (https://www.flickr.com/photos/21812089@N02/), on Flickr
1/72 Heller Etendard with F1 intakes, AB (SNECMA Atar 9K-50), wings, horiz stab and F-16 tail. Nose and landing gear TBD. Maybe F1 as well.
:thumbsup:
That's pretty, my first thought was a low-wing Mirage F.1.
Works for me :thumbsup:
Looks perfect. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
... but.., How about F1 tail fin? :mellow:
Quote from: ysi_maniac on September 27, 2018, 10:36:26 AM
Looks perfect. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
... but.., How about F1 tail fin? :mellow:
Thanks.
I could do that but lazy in me saw that the F-16 tail was already a separate part so no cutting was required. F1 tail is attached the fuselage.
I may go with the F1 or an earlier F-16 tail which does not have the lower extension.