F7U-3 Cutlass conversion

[Scotaidh]

Ok, all I have is 1/48.

Sry,

Thanks anyway, O Salty Six.  I appreciate your willingness to help.   

The very first aircraft model I built - an Airfix Japanese Zero, back in grade school - was in 1/72.  For a long time (whilst I was dependent on my allowance) I couldn't afford the larger scales.  I did save up for Airfix's Superkit Spitfire in 1/24 - and I found I had no-where to display it, it was simply too large.  That has coloured all my aircraft-kit buying, although I have dabbled in other scales.  I have some 1/48 - an F-100, an F-101b, escorted by a pair of Sea Harriers, and a P-51D flying with a Spit Mk22, both in overall gray-over-green, and a lonely Tornado F2 (in need of a post-move re-build).

Once, when I was still in college, I found at a "stuff store" (Yardbirds, IIRC), a 1/32 Tomcat sans directions, for $5.  I built it as a self-challenge, and painted it grey overall with a Non-specular Sea-Blue ... diamond, I guess - it ran from the pitot, straddled the cockpit, and came back to a point somewhere midway between the wings.  This model I gave to someone who admired it, because I had no room to display it. .... 

Now I own (rent from the bank) a house, and display space is still at a premium.  <le sigh>

Anyway - sorry for the ramble - thanks. 

[63cpe]

Maybelline dumb questionnaire, but in what scale do you need the lower silhouet canopy in? I can test fit in width with 1/72 fujimi F7U and check for lower profile.

David als 63cpe

[Scotaidh]

Maybelline dumb questionnaire, but in what scale do you need the lower silhouet canopy in? I can test fit in width with 1/72 fujimi F7U and check for lower profile.

David als 63cpe

1/72.    Thanks!

[Scotaidh]

As I was looking through my stash, I found an F86 canopy that looks like it would work.  Might try some photoshop to see what might work.

I put my F-86 canopy - the sliding part - and the Cutlass windshield together.  The width is right; the angle at which the two pieces meet is a bit off, but sandable.  There is very little clearance for the ejection seat, though - it seemed to me to be an 'interference' fit, due to the thickness of the material.

Whilst I'm wishing for the moon, it'd need to be a bit taller and a bit longer - half again as long - to be perfect ...

[Scotaidh]

F7U-3 Cutlass - 078
Hardpoints, yes. There were two anyway, inboard of the undercarriage fairings, for fuel tanks. With the centre-line tank they become moot, so I'm using them for the Sparrows. Trouble is, the Sparrows' "wings" are longer than the pylons are tall, so the tips of the "wings" impact the fuselage - not cool. I have an order in to Evergreen for some square tubing (and one of their "Surprize!" packs, 'cos I love those), and as soon as it gets here I'll build some spacers to make the pylons longer. Yes, I know I could have just scratched some out of card stock, but I wanted the square tubing anyway - I'm out, so ...


F7U-3 Cutlass - 079
Payload! The Sparrows are from the Phantom kit already raided for turkey feathers. The Sidewinders are from an F-18 kit - when I build that I'll have to get imaginative for replacements - Matra Magics, perhaps, to prove cross-compatibility?


F7U-3 Cutlass - 080
Close-up of the pitot and the other 'under-the-cockpit-miniscule-bump'. The "bump" had to be scratched - the original disappeared. My eyes aren't very good, so to me the original looked kinda like a half-round conic section - some kind of scoop or optical sensor, perhaps? I dunno, and I can't find it labeled in any Cutlass picture I can find, so ...
FYI, Oldsmobile named their Cutlass car after this - well, the original version - aircraft.


F7U-3 Cutlass - 081
These are my original attempt at the outboard pylons - quick and dirty. I don't like them - they will be modified.


F7U-3 Cutlass - 082
Pylon modification underway! I trimmed down the aft edge to the same height as the u/c fairings. A couple of seconds worth of Dremel work with some filing follow-up. Then some putty-work to smooth things over and fair things over ... Now my least favourite part of painting and PSR - drying time!


F7U-3 Cutlass - 083
Side shot to show the new outboard pylon profile ...

[Scotaidh]

F7U-3 Cutlass - 084
I thought the aircraft could use a braking parachute - but what happened to Mr. Schockly's "Shockwave" jet truck showed the perils of off-centre braking, so I had to add a housing centre-line above the fuel dump line.

(I will admit to the thought that if one were closely pursued the two controls could be activated simultaneously, leaving a sticky ball of flaming nylon in one's pursuer's face.)   


F7U-3 Cutlass - 085
Sanding has been accomplished, and the missile rails re-installed. Next for a lick of paint, some time to let it all really dry, and we'll be ready for the dreaded Canopy Experiments.

[Scotaidh]

F7U-3 Cutlass - 086
I decided that she really needs some guns, so I'm putting in a Vulcan on each side, replacing the twin .50s. The blast-tube muzzles are sufficiently back of the engine intakes that gun gas ingestion will not be a problem, as it was with the original in-service aircraft.


F7U-3 Cutlass - 087
I cut some grooves with a triangular file, deepened and rounded the slot with a Swiss rat-tail, inserted some tubing, and puttied it all over. Sanding away the excess produced two unique muzzle. Just waiting for the black paint to dry before greying it all over.  I'm waiting on the canopy before I start installing the greeblies behind the pilot - don't want to install something that won't fit.

[NARSES2]

2 Vulcan's ? Never even thought about the possibilities of that before 

[PR19_Kit]

2 Vulcan's ? Never even thought about the possibilities of that before 

Has any aircraft ever had twin Vulcans installed?

[nighthunter]

I could see two 20mm Colt revolver cannons, but I have never heard of any aircraft carrying two Vulcans

[Scotaidh]

I'd never heard of the Colt M39 cannon, so I went with what I've always thought of as the "default" USAF gun.  I think, though, that using J79 engines opens the door to equipment contemporary to those engines.  That means Vulcan cannons, and I've never liked the single gun idea - even if that one is really eight in one - I think it makes the aircraft look unbalanced.

Besides, even if having two Vulcans is a bit over the top in terms of firepower, the top is just something to go over, right?

[Snowtrooper]

Cutlass being Navy plane, Mk 12 would have probably been used instead of M39, but two Vulcans should be interesting

[Scotaidh]

Here's a comparison of the two types of Naval aircraft cannon. Some of the data for the Mk 12 is inferred, because I could find very little information for it.
I was surprised to see that the Vulcan is actually shorter than the Mk 12, if quite a bit heavier. But, I've got the power to lift quite a bit, so I see no reason to retreat from having two Vulcans.
Since the weapons fire at the rate of 100 rounds per second, I'll give each gun 6 seconds worth of ammo, with selected "L/R/Both" weapons firing at once. Since the Vulcan needs to spin-up to full firing-speed, having two going at once should improve matters, yes?

[NARSES2]

Interesting comparison. Thanks 

I can't see why having two Vulcan's going at the same time shouldn't improve things. At least from the firers point of view, from the targets however ? 

[Scotaidh]

Interesting comparison. Thanks 

I can't see why having two Vulcan's going at the same time shouldn't improve things. At least from the firers point of view, from the targets however ? 

Well, I'm no expert on this, but this web site <https://www.456fis.org/M-61_GATLING_GUN.htm> has this to say:

Another criticism is that despite its high rate of fire, the Gatling-type weapon is hampered by the time it takes for the weapon to spin up to its maximum rotation speed (about 0.5 seconds). As a result, a one-second burst only fires about 70-75 rounds, which some experts feel is not enough of an advantage over revolver cannons like the ADEN/DEFA 30 mm weapons to justify the additional weight and complexity. To overcome this shortfall, the M61A2, with its lower inertia can be powered by a hydraulic motor with 5,000 P.S.I. (34 MPa) of hydro power instead of the 3,000 lbf/in² (21 MPa) previously used on the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon.

As to the targets' point of view ... hmmm.  For some reason, those typically aren't taken into account.