Hawker Hunter

[AeroplaneDriver]

Do some of the RofG Hunter F.6 kits not have the FGA.9 tailpipe?   Mine does.


Daryl J.

I got this kit a few years ago, so it only has the F.6 parts unfortunately.

[elmayerle]

I've been doing some thinking about possibilities for re-engining the Hunter as part of zero-timign the airframe for continued usage.  The J79 seems suitable, but it's just enough larger than the Avon that there's likely to be problems fitting it to the existing aft fuselage.  Despite the fun it'll present for weight and balance purposes, I'm leaning toward the idea of using a F404/F414 or a RB.199 derivative.  Any thoughts here?

[Mossie]

A licence built version of the M53 maybe?  More than enough thrust for the Hunter & pretty simple to maintain, a feature that might be desirable for Hunter customers that were late to the party.

[GTX]

My take on a tandem seating Hunter trainer:



Regards,

Greg

[JayBee]

My take on a tandem seating Hunter trainer:



Regards,

Greg

Well done that man, he has managed to uglyfie a seamingly un-uglifyable aircraft!

I think the original Hawker idea for a tandem two seater was better, still not nice mind you, but better.

Cheers,

JimB

[GTX]

Well done that man, he has managed to uglyfie a seamingly un-uglifyable aircraft!

Bah!!! Speak for yourself - I think the real world side be side trainers were ugly.

I think the original Hawker idea for a tandem two seater was better, still not nice mind you, but better.

Do you have a picture of that?

Regards,

Greg

[GTX]

I suppose you will probably complain about a UCAV Hunter as well:



Regards,

Greg

[JayBee]

Do you have a picture of that?

[/quote]

Not at the moment. There was a model of one on a stand at Cosford but I did not take a photo of it.
However I do know that it was built using a conversion that was an old MAINTRACK issue.
Compared to your drawing the Hawker design had a longer canopy that did not have such a pronounced hump.
At those times no-one had thought to give the instructor a better view by raising his seat, hence Britains preference for side by side seating.

As for your UCAV, well, it is not too bad but why deny some human the joy of flying a Hunter?

JimB

[PR19_Kit]

Here's a quick pic of the Maintrack P1101 conversion. The instruction isn't that clear but you'll get the overall shape I'm sure.

[jcf]

At those times no-one had thought to give the instructor a better view by raising his seat, hence Britains preference for side by side seating.

Not true. The pre-WWII Aeronca TC Tandem Trainer/Defender had the instructor pilot's seat raised.

The privately-funded Lockheed "T-33B" (L-245) studies that eventually led to the T2V-1 for the USN began in
October 1952 and from the beginning they included the raised instructor seat and revised canopy to
improve the instructor's view.

[pyro-manic]

Hmm - I actually prefer Greg's version to that one!

I think they both need more of a spine, though, to balance them out.

[The Rat]

Hmm - I actually prefer Greg's version to that one!

Agreed, Greg's is prettier, almost a Seahawk look to the nose.

[GTX]

Thanks guys!

Apart from raising the rear seat, I moved the front seat forward a bit.

Regards,

Greg

[jcf]

I suppose you will probably complain about a UCAV Hunter as well:



Regards,

Greg

Has a Mace look about it. 

Another notion, take your UCAV Hunter profile ditch the guns (and related mil service bumps) and add
in a Bugatti 100 type canopy for a really clean looking racer.

Cheers

[GTX]

I like your thinking - will investigate over the weekend.

Another idea would be to go with a prone pilot arrangement.

Regards,

Greg