BAC Thunder F.4

[waynos]

Tell me, does that name stink?

I'm planning a what if based around the premise that the single engined EE P.6 adaptation of the Lighning was built and flown and recognised to have great potential as a fighter ( just like EE always wanted).

What I'm planning is therefore a later mark of the fighter version, a single (Gyron or Olympus maybe?) engined aircraft made out of the fuselage of an Su-9 Fishpot mated with the wings, tail, fuselage spine and cockpit, belly tank and nose intake (if it fits) of a Lightning F.6.

Has anyone done anything similar who can advise me on this?

I'm thinking four missiles with two on the wingtips and two on shallow pylons on the inboard portion of the wing, similar to the installation seen with sidewinders on some F-86's. I don't know whether to try and find some red tops or use sidewinders and sparrows (2 each). I'm also thinking of making it circa 1972 with camouflage and roundels as used on the Phantom and Bucc when they first entered service as this variant would be of that vintage.


I like the idea of the developed and trouble free Olympus powering a single engined interceptor to go alongside my TSR.2's that I'm waiting for.
what do you think?

[Gary]

A rose by any other name...

Seriously, build her and the name will come. Besides, the names you've chosen are not bad at all in the first place.  And the concept is rather cool.

[waynos]

Cheers wooksta, I'm afraid I can't get hold of two Su-9's so thats what led me to thinking about a 'mk.4' P.106, explaining the bulged rear fuselage accomodating a bigger engine  At least I think the Olympus is bigger than the RB.106.

I suppose what I was really looking for was confirmation about the Su-9 size from someone who I consider would really know about this stuff and you've given me that, thanks.

I was concerned about the longer tapering nose of the Su-9 but the drawings I have seen of the P.6 suggest a similar, if shorter, shape anyway. I'm thinking I may get away with it but I am thinking of maybe cutting it down if necessary, I have to wait for my ebay Lightning to arrive to go for a test fit.

One plus point I've noticed about the Su-9 is that the wing roots are not indented on the inside of the fuselage so removing them will be a doddle.

Yes, I am using the F.6 tank too, thanks.

If you tyhink of anything else, anyone, I'm all ears.

[nev]

Anything involving the Lightning is cool...  B)

You might want to check out my Storm Lightning

[lancer]

I like the name Thunder. It goes right alongside Lightning.  

[waynos]

That storm lightning is great! Thanks for that link. I'm waiting to see how the model actually looks before I settle on a name, thats why it will be a Lightning F.9 if it looks like it merits the name or the Thunder F.4 if it looks different enough once finished.

[waynos]

Right I've made a tentative start on this. The Spine and belly tank came off the Lightning and cleaned up OK, I may have to shorten the spine at the rear slightly and also shorten the Lightning fin a little from the bottom as it looks too big.

I shortened the Su-9 nose until it was the same diameter as the lightning intake, which is good as I was worried the nose was too long in the first place, it now looks right (so far anyway) against the drawings of the P.6

I was a bit flippant when I said removing the Su-9 wing roots would be a doddle. Flaming hell, what sort of Plastic do Kopro use? It took ages of hacking and sanding to get them off.

I now have a box of bits that appear to be capable of being built up into my Olympus-Lightning/Thunder.

Oh gawd, I'm feeling nervous now, I haven't built anything for two years, and that was a comeback model!

[NARSES2]

So you havn't built anything for two years and you comeback by hacking something up  

Braver man then me Gunga Din  

Best of luck - I'm looking forward to the results

Chris

[Geoff_B]

So you havn't built anything for two years and you comeback by hacking something up  

Braver man then me Gunga Din  

Best of luck - I'm looking forward to the results

Chris

Actually Chris , it isn't as daunting as you may think, Waynos obviously knows the craft just he hasn't been active for a bit. The key to modelling i find is the inspiration. If you want to build something then and know how it will work in your head then you'll find you can probably do it.

So go for it Waynos, and good luck with the kit bashing as the BAC Thunder sounds rather tasty.

G B)  

[waynos]

Thanks for the kind words, I've also discovered that my reason for keeping the bulged rear fuselage (a bigger engine) is bogus because the engine, as I suspected all along, isn't mounted at he back at all, its in the middle between the wings!

No matter though! For I see that two years after the P.6 was first schemed English Electric was drawing another derivative of the Lightning design, the P.8, with an area ruled rear fuselage! Whatsmore, Blackburns drawings for the Buccaneer from about the same time show the trademark 'coke bottle' shape to its rear fuselage to be missing completely!

Hey presto! When the P.6 was selected for development therefpore clearly EE bulged the rear fuselage slightly to incorporate a degree of area rule! My Su-7 fuselage is OK after all, yippee!  

[NARSES2]

[Actually Chris , it isn't as daunting as you may think, Waynos obviously knows the craft just he hasn't been active for a bit. The key to modelling i find is the inspiration. If you want to build something then and know how it will work in your head then you'll find you can probably do it.

So go for it Waynos, and good luck with the kit bashing as the BAC Thunder sounds rather tasty.

G B)

Your'e right there Geoff. Inspiration is the key. My Strike Gannet concept was inspired by seeing the size of the real things bombay at MAM, followed up by a conversation with you. This has now moved on to what I hope will be a post SMW attempt to produce a version of the Fairey O22/44 design from the sketch and company model in British Secret Projects. Looks doable and will be my first serious kit bash since I was a teenager, which is why it will be a post SMW project so I can give it the time it deserves.

Chris

[waynos]

I don't know if anyones following this but here's an update;

the fuselage is coming along nicely as you can see here, the spine fitted perfectly (hope the canopy does!) but the belly tank will need a bit of filler when the glue is dry, no real problem. If anyone else is thinking of using the Kopro Su-9 beware that constructing the cockpit tub is a matter of guesswork as the instructions are of very little use and once it is constructed it is a bit too wide for the fuselage, so nothing much to worry about there then.

In my haste to get it together I forgot to weight the nose (doh!) :dum: but fortunately the main gear will be quite far aft and at least I got some weight into the front of the belly tank before it went on!

I left the fin its original size as I figure this MAY allow me to get away without using the ventral fins, but no firm decision on that yet.

The only other thing I've done is to glue the wings together and carve out the roots so that they will sit comfortably on the rounded fuselage in the near shoulder mounted positiion that the P.6 drawing shows.

[Jack Bobson]

Great idea, great thread. Good Luck with this and more pictures please!

[elmayerle]

Waynos, a silly-assed question here, if you wanted a constant section nose, why not use the A-Model Su-11 instead of a Su-9?

That minor bit aside, I like what I see and it's looking good.

[waynos]

Not a silly question at all. The way this has come about is that I was reading British Secret Projects for the umpteenth time and while imagining a service fighter developed from the P.6 I remembered the old Lightning and Su-9 kits I've had stashed for years. Despite not being able to find the Lightning kit at all I was now obsessed with the thought of doing this and eneded up buying a Lightning to hack to pieces!

The fact that the P.6 drawing in the Book dates from 1953 and is thus a very early scheme has given me a bit of license to take liberties with the design though, just look how the P.1B prototypes differed from the Lightning F.6. Thus my model is not meant to represent a P.6 'if built' but rather a sort of P.6B 'as evolved'. Of course that also means nobody can tell me I've got it wrong, ha ha!

With this in mind my wing is mounted ever so slightly further back on the fuselage so that the leading edge root is not directly under the canopyand the missiles are going to be mounted further forwards on the wingtip than EE drawings of the P.8 show, for no other reason than I think EE's depiction looks a bit odd, and any unexpected curves on the fuselage are simply down to EE applying area rule during developent. The tailplane mounting is a complete figment of my imagination as I've found no reference that shows what it should look like but I've taken inspiration from the P1121 on that score.