airfix 1/72 RA-5C

[Martin H]

I HATE the Thunderchicken (TSR.2)

Brave man for admitting that around here lol.

[B777LR]

I HATE the Thunderchicken (TSR.2)

BURN THE WITCH!!!

Does he weigh the same as a duck?

[anthonyp]

Does he weigh the same as a duck?

A very large duck, yes, but the average pineapple carrying one, no.  I do not float, rather, hover below the surface, surfacing as a whale does for air.

And I stand by my statement, the Thunderchicken looks good with Vigi wings 

[frinklemur]

I managed to join the two together to make my Barracuda and it was almost easy, the Vigi's wings fit a TSR2 fuse almost exactly (well, a Merlin TSR2's fuse anyway....) the fins are almost identical and the fuselage is only wider on the Vigi at the rear 'cos the of bomb bay down between the engines.

I wonder about that CG being a might bit a bit forward.  I think she'd do well with some YF-17 or such chines starting behind the cockpit, going up and over the intakes, which should be F-15 style ramps - at least in a practical sense if I sought to improve/modernize the thing with some mid-60s think.   
The Vigilante did not have such good low altitude economy with its lots of wing, but was otherwise generous in handling. 

80lbs-ft2 wing loading on the Vigilante,   145lbs-ft2 on the TSR2

[PR19_Kit]

I wonder about that CG being a might bit a bit forward.  I think she'd do well with some YF-17 or such chines starting behind the cockpit, going up and over the intakes, which should be F-15 style ramps - at least in a practical sense if I sought to improve/modernize the thing with some mid-60s think.   

Note the bit about it starting life as a MERLIN TSR2.

As there isn't any way you can actually build a TSR2 from the Merlin 'kit' (the word 'kit' here is used in its widest possible sense....) I had to make do with what I had, and the Vigi parts were the only game in town. The CG was maintained in the correct place because the third engine had it's main shaft made from depleted uranium of course....... 

[B777LR]

Actually the Vigilante with TSR-2 wings looks far better than both the TSR-2, Vigilante and TSR-2 with Vigilante wings

[Weaver]

I always liked the (admittedly not straight-forward) idea of a proper 3-engined Vigi, i.e. not that NA-349 (?) thing with the third engine higher and dorsal intakes, but three engines all in a line, with fuselage sides straightened and the intakes widened by 50% and each split 1/3 inner & 2/3 outer.

[kitnut617]

Actually Sir, you have it all wrong.... the Vigilante looks WAAAAAY better with TSR-2 wings.... 



Duncan

I have to agree, that does look amazingly very nice and neat, I had to do a 'double-take' when I first saw it.

[PR19_Kit]

I always liked the (admittedly not straight-forward) idea of a proper 3-engined Vigi, i.e. not that NA-349 (?) thing with the third engine higher and dorsal intakes, but three engines all in a line, with fuselage sides straightened and the intakes widened by 50% and each split 1/3 inner & 2/3 outer.

A bit like this you mean? 

[anthonyp]

Actually Sir, you have it all wrong.... the Vigilante looks WAAAAAY better with TSR-2 wings.... 

Uck...  how can anything fly with such stubby wings?  I feel sorry for that Vigi 

[B777LR]

Actually Sir, you have it all wrong.... the Vigilante looks WAAAAAY better with TSR-2 wings.... 

Uck...  how can anything fly with such stubby wings?  I feel sorry for that Vigi 

Well, if the F-104 could do so, anything is possible

[elmayerle]

I always liked the (admittedly not straight-forward) idea of a proper 3-engined Vigi, i.e. not that NA-349 (?) thing with the third engine higher and dorsal intakes, but three engines all in a line, with fuselage sides straightened and the intakes widened by 50% and each split 1/3 inner & 2/3 outer.

I like that idea, but would there be any issues with intake performance (I'm thinking duct losses) from such an arrangement?

One idea often bandied about on this forum, is the use of the Vigilante as a KA-5C buddy tanker, replace the cover on the linear bomb bay with a drogue unit. A re-engined, upgraded Vigilante is another idea I have on my "to do" list, as part of my long term "Vigilante in RAAF service" theme that I will get round to doing....some day...honest!

If you're going for a re-engined Vigi, keep the two engines and upgarde to a pair of PW1120s or, somewhat more modern, a pair of F414s (though those would most definitely require some careful installation to deal with cg issues with the shorter engines).  If I can get hold of the nozzles from a 1/100 F-15, I can do reasonable 1/72 PW1120 nozzles using some other bits and pieces.

[ysi_maniac]

If I can get hold of the nozzles from a 1/100 F-15, I can do reasonable 1/72 PW1120 nozzles using some other bits and pieces.

Thanks for posting!

[elmayerle]

You still need a base for those nozzles and I'm cheating, using the very poor Spey nozzles from a 1960's Revell 1/72 F-4K kit; I figure I can use the rest of the kit, with some J79 nozzles, as an early F-4J (though i may poach the nose gear for a Maritime Jaguar).

[Weaver]

I always liked the (admittedly not straight-forward) idea of a proper 3-engined Vigi, i.e. not that NA-349 (?) thing with the third engine higher and dorsal intakes, but three engines all in a line, with fuselage sides straightened and the intakes widened by 50% and each split 1/3 inner & 2/3 outer.

I like that idea, but would there be any issues with intake performance (I'm thinking duct losses) from such an arrangement?

Don't see why: the ducts to the centre engine are much the same length as real Vigi ducts, and there's loads of room to make the inboard swerve to reach it benign. The splitters wouldn't need to be right at the intake lip: they'd be as far back as you could get away with (to save weight and surface drag) consistent with the flow settling down before it reached the engines.

One idea often bandied about on this forum, is the use of the Vigilante as a KA-5C buddy tanker, replace the cover on the linear bomb bay with a drogue unit. A re-engined, upgraded Vigilante is another idea I have on my "to do" list, as part of my long term "Vigilante in RAAF service" theme that I will get round to doing....some day...honest!



Duncan

My immediate thought is what about the jetwash? The drogue might bounce around too much in the turbulence, and/or the reciever might drift sideways whilst connected, thus dragging the pipe into the exhaust flow. My inclination would be to put the HDU at the front of the former bomb bay and lead the hose through a retractable arm that lowers it well below the jet nozzles before paying it out. Closed up, it'd have no more drag that the RA-5C's canoe fairing.