Gloster Javelin

[kitnut617]

So, considering the size of these kit missiles, is/was there anything about the size I could use them as, in 1/72 that is.

[pyro-manic]

Make something up! A competing design for Firestreak/Red Top, perhaps, or something more radical.

[Ed S]

So, considering the size of these kit missiles, is/was there anything about the size I could use them as, in 1/72 that is.

You might be able to convert them into AGM-45 Shrikes.  They had a similar configuration and were shorter than the AIM-7.

Ed

[The Rat]

I think it's just a case of "Missile:Generic" to be honest....

Ah, but is it the Generic MkI or the MkII? The MkII, as you no doubt recall, had the inverted flange on the framis valve.

[PR19_Kit]

Ah, but is it the Generic MkI or the MkII? The MkII, as you no doubt recall, had the inverted flange on the framis valve.

Didn't Aeroclub do the inverted flange framis valve in white metal at one time? You could get 4 in a packet as I recall..............

[NARSES2]

I think it's just a case of "Missile:Generic" to be honest....

When the Hawk kit came out some of their aircraft were best described as "generic" let alone the missiles 

[kitnut617]

I think it's just a case of "Missile:Generic" to be honest....

When the Hawk kit came out some of their aircraft were best described as "generic" let alone the missiles 

As I said further back in the thread, the Hawk kit matches very well with the Airfix/Heller kits.

[NARSES2]

I think it's just a case of "Missile:Generic" to be honest....

When the Hawk kit came out some of their aircraft were best described as "generic" let alone the missiles 

As I said further back in the thread, the Hawk kit matches very well with the Airfix/Heller kits.

I wasn't refering particularly to the Javelin but some of the others and not just them as a manufacturer. Back then I built what was available and what I was given/could get. All good fun and enjoyable. It's just we are spoilt nowadays and I suppose should remember that at times

[Daryl J.]

All weather anti shipping.
Sea Eagle equipped.

And with the new Airfix coming, outfitting a 1/48 kit can remain All Airfix with the Sea Eagles from the Buccaneer S2B kit.

[PR19_Kit]

I'd have HATED to fly a Flatiron on an anti-shipping op! 

With that huge wing the low altitude ride would have been appalling, but nonetheless it'd look great in 208 Sqdn markings. 

[kitbasher]

Bomber and recce versions.



jon

Do it as a 1950's version of  the Tornado - bombs and cameras.

[Daryl J.]

I'd have HATED to fly a Flatiron on an anti-shipping op!  

With that huge wing the low altitude ride would have been appalling

That'd sure be understandable.   One professor at Pacific University in Forest Grove, OR commanded B-52's and he hated the day-long low level missions.   "We'd fly all day at 25 feet agl and then go search for a chiropractor!''  

[The Rat]

I'd have HATED to fly a Flatiron on an anti-shipping op! 

With that huge wing the low altitude ride would have been appalling, but nonetheless it'd look great in 208 Sqdn markings. 

More than just large wings. The Hunter was hell on pilots at low level, the Swift was rock steady, but they were a comparable size.

[Daryl J.]

the Swift was rock steady

(Mumbles to self about a scratch built swept wing conversion, eyes the other Trumpeter Supermarine Attacker in the stash, and returns to the Javelin conversation.)


Interesting to know.   

[rickshaw]

I think you'll find its related to wing loading and wing area.  Large area wings tend to have high gust response.  If coupled with low wing loading, it means every time the wing hits even a slight difference in pressure, gusts of wind, etc., it moves easily.  A small wing with high wing loading doesn't. Fighter designers usually aim for as low a wing loading with as great a wing area as possible to ensure manoeuvrability.  Strike aircraft designers usually aim for the reverse.  One reason why the F-104 was successful as a strike aircraft but lousy as a fighter, while the Mirage wasn't much good low down.