Raf 74 Sqn Hunter F.15

[AeroplaneDriver]

So there I was sitting in domestic bliss.  The oldest kid banished to bed early for a bad grade on the report card, the yougest in bed ready for the last day of school tomorrow, the wife in the bedroom wrapping prezzies, and me on the couch watching 'Gray's Anatomy' making nice progress on my nice little OOB Hunter.  No cutting, no putty, minimal sanding.

Then...I hear the voice.  Faint at first, then louder, it calls from the spare parts box.  I pry the lid off the tupperware container full of little bits of styrene looking for the voice.  There it is.  A 1/48 Strike Eagle drop tank.  

"Look at me." it whispers.

"Look at my curves.  Wouldn't my nose make a superb Hunter radome..." it continued.

I put the lid back on and ignored the voice.  Back to cleaing up the near-perfect seams on the Hunter.  

"Look at me..."  again it says.  

"I'd make a lovely radome..."

Like Poe's unnamed murderer I can't stand the sound from beneath that plastic lid.  I tear into the box and out comes the razor saw.  A few swift strokes later the tank is dismembered.  Surely this won't fit, I tell myself.  I can get this over and move on with my lovely little OOB Hunter with its clean seams and no putty.

Carefully I match the tank section to the Hunter, begging for a nasty, ragged step, or an unfortunate angle.  Anything that would let me leave this diversion and get back to my lovely little OOB Hunter with its clean seams and no putty.

SON OF A B****!!!!


It fits perfectly.

"See".  It mocks my despair.

"What a lovely radome I make".  I can hear the delight in its voice.








So my friends... do I give in to the temptation, or stay the course with my lovely little OOB Hunter with its perfect seams and no putty?

In all fairness, this mod would not need any putty, it fits so well.  This nose also looks virtually identical to the pic I have of a P1109A.  I'm actually thinking it might look very nice in Lightning green/silver streaking into a low German overcast with a pair of Red Tops on the wings.


Any opinions?

[Eddie M.]

The nose looks very good. I say go for it. I find very hard to ignore the voice (or voices as it applies to me) as well.
 Eddie

[SinUnNombre]

I think it looks nice. And if it fits well, go for it. Just be careful gluing as to not introduce a funky seam. That makes me want to put a new nose on my Airfix FGA.9. Keep us posted.

Jon

[Captain Canada]

Sure....go ahead, Nick, toss it back into the spares box. I triple dog dare ya.....then be prepared to spend the next two weeks at home listening to it calling !

With that said, it looks way to right to pass on ! Obviously you gotta go for it !

 

[AeroplaneDriver]

The voice won out.

The radome is fitted, and as predicted no putty was needed.  I dab of gap filling super glue made it all come together.  The seam on the tank even works perfectly.  If anyone ever wants to puta radar nose on a RoG Hunter, well get yourself a drop tank from a Revell 1/48 Strike Eagle and you're in business!

So now my entire build plan is in disarray, since I was planning on a Vietnam CAS machine with bombs/napalm and Matra RPs.  

Now I have all these new possibilites.  I'm torn between:

1.  Mid-late 1960s RAFG interceptor with an AI.23 radar operating alongside Lightnings.  Colors would be the the Lightning's green uppers with the normal Hunter silver lower surfaces.  Weapons fit would be 2 x Red Top AAM

2.  Early-mid 80s point defence interceptor.  Similar to the Hawk, but more capable with a Blue Fox radar from the SHAR1.  Colors would be two-tone gray like contemporary Lightnings.  Weapons fit would be 4 x AIM-9L on twin launch rails.

3.  Early 90s point defence interceptor.  The Cold War continues, and the RAF seek to supplement the Tornado interceptor force as the Phantoms retire due to fatigue.  BAe offers to rebuild low-time Hunter airframes with the Blue Vixen radar and re-engine them with low time Speys from the Phantoms (minus the 'burner).  The smaller engine offers the same thrust, but is more fuel efficient and allows for greater internal fuel carriage.  Colors would be low-viz gray, but something different from the Tornado scheme.  Weapons would be 2 x AMRAAM + 2 x AIM-9M.  This Hunter F.14 would serve well into the 21st century.

[Captain Canada]

Geez.....tough call. I like the 60s idea, but I'd rather see it in camo like the Phantoms. Please.

 

[AeroplaneDriver]

Geez.....tough call. I like the 60s idea, but I'd rather see it in camo like the Phantoms. Please.

I dunno man.  Every Hunter you see has RAF camo it seems.  I'm kinda leaning towards a gray one.  I have nothing against a gray warplane, I just get tired of seeing it on every single F-Xteen, Typoon, Tornado, etc.  I'd kinda like to see a Hunter in a modern air-defence scheme. (Guess I'd have to dig through the spares box for a Mk.10 seat too though)

[philp]

How about an Air Defense version for Chile.
Would look nice in one of their camo schemes...

[AeroplaneDriver]

One of the things that I love about whif modeling is the way a build changes along the way.  Surely it must get dull for every model to be built to match the box art with no discovery along the way.

What started only 6 hours ago as a stock Hunter in RAF Vietnam service is now evolving into what BAe would call Hunter 2000.



Since this pic I've fitted a HUD.  Unfortunately the fork in the road cam after the fuselage was assembled, so I cant redo the panel with a nice big MFD, but since it's all in black it's not too visible anyway.  I will be trading the lovely kit seat for a Mk.10.

Phil-much as I'd love an intricate camo, I'm on a tight time budget on this build, so it's gonna be done the quick way.  Plus I dont have any Chilean markings in the stash.  Still, it's an interesting idea...  What if the Hunters Chile received from the UK after the Falklands didnt end up as spare parts, but were rebuilt and upgraded..?

[Archibald]

3. Early 90s point defence interceptor. The Cold War continues, and the RAF seek to supplement the Tornado interceptor force as the Phantoms retire due to fatigue. BAe offers to rebuild low-time Hunter airframes with the Blue Vixen radar and re-engine them with low time Speys from the Phantoms (minus the 'burner). The smaller engine offers the same thrust, but is more fuel efficient and allows for greater internal fuel carriage. Colors would be low-viz gray, but something different from the Tornado scheme. Weapons would be 2 x AMRAAM + 2 x AIM-9M. This Hunter F.14 would serve well into the 21st century.

Go for this one, gooo!!!    

[AeroplaneDriver]

Well as they say, 'in for a penny, in for a pound'.  I've decided to go with the fully modified mid-late 90s model.  This has been in the back of my mind all day after reading an article on the Flightglobal.com website about Hawker Hunter Aviation, a company in England operating 12 low time Hunters on defence contracts doing things like target simulation, radar calibration, trials, etc.  Seeing a pic of a Hunter with a current RAF Z**** registration got me wondering how long the Hunter could have served on the front line if upgraded enough.  After all A-4s served for decades, as has the B-52, and the Nimrod MRA.4 is a rebuild of an very old airframe.  

So...the upgrades so far:

Blue Vixen radar
Shortened tailpipe for the Spey engine
One-piece windscreen (sanding center panel frame away was the point of no return)

It's getting very late so that will be all for tonight.  Tomorrow I'll post more updates.  

I happen to have some pretty nice 74 Sqn decals for the Hawk, so now I'm thinking a black-spined Tiger Squadron machine with a pair or AMRAAMs might look nice.

[philp]

Ok, No Chile today  

If you are thinking 2000, going to need some upgraded ECM stuff and flare/chaff pods etc.

[Ian the Kiwi Herder]

It's certainly 'evolved' in the last couple of posts, Nick.... Looking forward to following this one.

Ian

[elmayerle]

I don't think you want a Spey, even the small ones are rather larger than the Avon and require significantly larger inlets.  A better approach would be re-engining with a RB.199, EJ200, or F404/412(RM12)/414.  You get a bit of improvement in thrust with a much better fuel consumption and reliability.  The airframe looks to be too far along now, but adding the CFE-proposed three-foot extension at the nose/main fuselage joint would've been nice, too.

[lancer]

Where do you get your ideas from?? This one is a brilliant one.