"High Ground-A History of the Cold War in Space"

[AeroplaneDriver]

Since I bought the F-104 Warbird Tech book a few weeks ago and got 'American Secret Projects" for Christmas, I've been on a bit of a Cold War USAF kick lately.  I wanted a relatively quick build that I can knock out before  I go back to work Monday morning, while still doing some family stuff over the weekend.

So....

I'm going back to my F-13 Raven idea from last year



This is the concept I origainally posted. 

I'm using the Revell-Monogram 1/72 kit for the build, and the contours make it tough to shorten the forward fuselage as much as the picture.

I cut out 1.25 in., or a about 7 scale feet in a spot were the contours match back up just about perfectly.



This is the shortened fuselage.  Instead of missile bays I'll be mounting a large ASAT missile on the pylon included in the kit for the D-21 drone, and I'm adding a rocket engine to the tail too. 

I'll post a full backstory in my gallery article when I finish, but the general idea is a late-1960's push for an ASAT weapon after eveidence emerges that the Soviets are pursuing orbital weapons platforms.  Since there is an urgent requirement for this ASAP platform the USAF turn to Lockheed to modify the SR-71 design.  Included in the modifications is a liquid-fueled rocket engine in the tail.  The mission profile involves a climb to 85,000', where a Mach 3 zoom climb is initiated.  The rocket is ignited, boosting the Raven to extreme altitude (classified, but thought to be over 150,000').  In the climg the WSO locks the piggyback mounted missile onto the orbital target.  The missile is realeased during the zero-G parabolic arc at the top of hte zoom climb.  After safely clearing the Raven the missile is fired. 

Since the Raven'e engines flame-out during the zoom climb the aircraft descends unpowered (apart from H2O2 reaction jets for control) to an altitude of 60,000' where engine relight is begun.  Though it sounds hair-raising, only one of 28 Ravens was lost due to an inability to relight during recovery.

More pics as the build progresses!

[Eddie M.]

Looks like this will be a very interesting project. I was going to build the drone from that kit this weekend, but I doubt it will be as good as yours.
   Eddie

[Aircav]

Here's a couple I'd thought about doing but haven't got round to it yet 

[John Howling Mouse]

I like the real, real short versions but this new, intermediate one of yours might just be subtle enough to turn heads not only once but twice, AD.

Didn't someone here actually complete a shortened '71 in styrene?  I'll have to go searching...

[AeroplaneDriver]

I think it was Zac that did one a while back.

I really wanted to go with a lot shorter fuselage, and thought it would work until I really started looking closely.  If I had chopped much more It would have meant much more effort to get a good join.  As it is the join is just about perfect, and I used no filler at all other than a tiny amount of gap-gilling CA.

[cthulhu77]

wonderful stuff, love all whatiffs revolving about the 71 !

[K5054NZ]

I think it was Zac that did one a while back.

It's disappeared - or I sent it to someone - as I simply can't seem to find it. I never quite did get around to finishing it but the cutout was in almost exactly the same place.

As you were. Looks very promising!

[AeroplaneDriver]

One more pic for tonight.  Major construction is mostly complete.  The shock cones, exhausts, and vertical stabilizers arent permanently attached yet, and there is still some PSR to do around the seam on the underside where the top and bottom halves meet, but otherwise it's mostly done.



This pic shows the small rocket engine bell at the tail to boost the Raven to missile launch altitude/attitude.  It doesnt look as different from a normal -71 as I had hoped, but as I mentioned earlier, the shape as well as the nosegear bay made it much easier to chop out 7 scale feet instead of the 15 or so I had intended.  The scheme will be whiffy, with a mix of YF-12 and operational colors.

More progress and pics tomorrow!

[Aircav]

Oh my, that does look nice, very nice 

[Mossie]

AD, here's a couple of pics I've scanned from Lockheed Blackbird: Beyond the Secret Missions by Paul F. Chickmore.  One shows the A-6, one of the configurations investigated in the devlopment of the A-12.  The other shows a canard layout that was investigated.





Just for info, only use them if you feel like it!

[kitnut617]

AD, when I was working on my RAF Concorde I shortened the forward fuselage too, and I had a similar problem when I tried to do it.  In the top view it looked quite easy as the sides ran parrallel in this view up to the point it narrowed down to the nose, but in the profile view the top had a subtle sloping down which started further back than where the narrowing starts in the top view.  I had to do a 'Z' type cut for the join so that I kept the subtle slope to the top of the fuselage. Here's a photo of how I went about it and you can see the cut line highlighted.

[John Howling Mouse]

I've seen these sorts of "Z" cuts before (an FSM article where they lengthened a Herc fuselage).
How is it that the Z-cut better accommodates compound cross-sections than a straight cut?  How does one know where and in what direction/configuration to make the best cut?

[Martin H]

its called guess work LOL

[kitnut617]

I've seen these sorts of "Z" cuts before (an FSM article where they lengthened a Herc fuselage).
How is it that the Z-cut better accommodates compound cross-sections than a straight cut?  How does one know where and in what direction/configuration to make the best cut?

How can I explain this,  at the horizontal cut line the main fuselage and the nose section have a common width (just under the windows in my case) because here the fuselage outline is parallel when you look at it from the top (note! it doesn't have to be parallel, just the same), and the forward vertical cut which runs from the horizontal cut down to the bottom of the fuselage also has a common width, height and half-section view, the bottom outline of the fuselage in the profile view is also horizontal with the horizontal cut line.  But the top outline of the fuselage in the profile view has a gradual sloping roof line where at the rear vertical cut line it has the same height as the main fuselage but at the forward vertical cut line it has a smaller height.  What would have happened if I had just cut straight through at the forward vertical cut line, the two fuselage part would not have matched up and I would then have to pile on the putty and spend lots of time trying to sand it down into a nice curve.  Doing the horizontal cut preserves the sloping roof line and also saves on a lot of puttying and sanding.  The horizontal cut only has to be long enough to find two common half-sections that will match up.  I hope that hasn't confused everything any further but I can't think of another way to explain it Barry.

[John Howling Mouse]

I do believe I'm starting to understand how the horizontal cutlines help to accommodate the shrinking cross-section and I think one can eyeball approximately where to select said cuts by looking at the fuselage's taper from all sides----thanks!