My Projects (EricJ)

[+Dave 2,322]

Good golly Miss Molly!

[+EricJ 4,245]

Left tail work, and then going to bed...

[+Sundowner 4,823]

Looking good Eric

[+ace888 327]

Left tail work, and then going to bed...

 

 

 

 

 

[+EricJ 4,245]

thanks both! Tail redux:

[+EricJ 4,245]

The right... Next headache the nose and more work for FC's project.

[+EricJ 4,245]

And now for something totally different... Been starting working on this for FC in conjunction with the Sex Plane...

 

F-103 Thunderwarrior... Markings so far from a 3331Killerbee 431st CO F-106 or -102

[+Dave 2,322]

Wow that es muy sexy!!!!

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Funny, the fuselage does have a certain F-105 look. Republic of course.

 

AwSim stuff Eric.

[+EricJ 4,245]

It's not bad so far, just not my flavor as right now the FM is "flyable" able to reach Mach 3 on sustained burner (see SF2 screenshot thread) and in my mind goofy looking. FC wanted an "operational" one as it never made it past the prototype stage so I settled with this version for now. Next batch of WIP photos I'll show the gimmicky stuff which is actually pretty cool. But right now the only external ordnance are the tanks.

[FastCargo 412]

I pretty much built it in the prototype form...assuming they would have rushed it to production as such. There are models and diagrams with it carrying the GAR-9, but that was a later Republic proposal after it had been cancelled.

 

The design was given a brief reprieve as part of the Long-Range Interceptor - Experimental (LRI-X) project that led to the XF-108 Rapier. Part of this project was the development of the advanced Hughes AN/ASG-18 pulse-doppler radar and the GAR-9 missile. Republic proposed adapting the F-103 as a testbed for these systems, although it wouldn't be able to come close to meeting the range requirements of LRI-X. Some work was carried out adapting the mockup to house the 40 inch antenna, which required the nose section to be scaled up considerably. Nothing ever came of the proposal.

 

Such a redesign would have compromised the already small fuel capacity of the original F-103...so I stuck with the design as mocked up.

 

Even if they had sorted out the engine issues, I don't think the F-103 in reality would have ever reached it's design speed, considering it was designed before the discovery of 'area rule'. You can clearly see where the F-105 got it's design cues from though...and the F-105 was fast as hell, without the need for a flush canopy.

 

FC

[+Spectre_USA 7]

Any particular reason for the 431st?

 

I mean, is there historical significance, or were the Red Devils doing OT&E back during the

days of the proposed F-103?

 

The reason I ask is I was one of the last of the Red Devils.

 

Oh, and, Sierra hotel looking zipper there...

 

 

___EDIT___

 

I reckon I found the answer from the History of the 431st;

 

* Redesignated 431st Fighter-Interceptor Squadron on 11 September 1952.

 

Activated on November 1952.

Inactivated on 18 May 1964

 

That would be a good choice, in this instance.

 

Would love to try and fly it!

 

Edited December 28, 2010 by Spectre_USA

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

mmmm, best writeup I've seen yet on -103

 

~> http://www.alireggiane.com/t575-republic-xf-103-thunderwarrior

 

 

FC, it seems area rule is mainly for transonic performance; getting beyond Mach 1. With higher machs, wings can get smaller compared to fuselage, so less area ruling needed maybe. Su eliminated area rule from later Su-15 designs to have more fuel in the fuselage. It had a very small high mach wing for its size, so that may make it less vulnerable to transonic acceleration problems than the older 1950s stuff with higher aspect ratio swept wings (...or giant 102~esque delta wings).

 

Dunno.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Lexx_Luthor

[FastCargo 412]

I have the book that web page references which is where I got most of my data.

 

FC

[+EricJ 4,245]

Any particular reason for the 431st?

 

I mean, is there historical significance, or were the Red Devils doing OT&E back during the

days of the proposed F-103?

 

The reason I ask is I was one of the last of the Red Devils.

 

Oh, and, Sierra hotel looking zipper there...

 

 

___EDIT___

 

I reckon I found the answer from the History of the 431st;

 

 

 

That would be a good choice, in this instance.

 

Would love to try and fly it!

 

 

Random choice and something simple to skin up for the project. That and the years that FC has the plane fits into the time frame of the Red Devils. Pure coinkeydink.

[+EricJ 4,245]

More fun stuff regarding weapons and some more work. There are two sets of internal bays on the F-103 as modeled. The first set is actually controlled by the player, i.e. manual bomb bay doors which open to reveal rocket launchers (AA) and Falcon missiles. The other set are automatic opening and closing Plus some limited panel work and the view from the current cockpit.

Edited December 28, 2010 by EricJ

[FastCargo 412]

Eric,

 

I've started improving the cockpit view...getting rid of the canopy braces and moving the 'porthole' closer to the pilot. Definite improvement all around...

 

Nice work on those skins...

 

Folks, this will be an interesting plane to try to use in combat...

 

FC

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Indeed. Keep your speed high. If you miss, just keep going, don't look back (as if you could). Let your wingman 50 miles behind you take care of the target. What a concept!!!

 

 

FC::

I have the book that web page references which is where I got most of my data.

Jenkins B-70. I started that tonight sitting in tub. Not much time to read anymore so I read in the bath hoping not to drop a book. Don't try to visualize this.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

FC, if you look through the cockpit's gunsight, won't you see the inside of F-103? How do you plan to get the periscope to work?

[FastCargo 412]

Well, originally, I actually had a working periscope. The external model would animate a hollow tube that you could see through. However, I found that it was VERY difficult to actually fly that way.

 

I hit upon the solution while doing some other experiments and its actually pretty simple. I'll be able to show you a screenshot in action when I get back to my computer tommorrow.

 

FC

[xclusiv8 35]

No disrespect to you artist for making the F-103 but that jet just looks like s**t. Talk about a simple design. And whats with the no front cockpit view?

[+EricJ 4,245]

You have to realize that this was developed in the early 50s-60s not today so concepts and designs were... more esoteric than they are today, and as FC poiinted out developed before the area rule was discovered. And naturally it never developed beyond prototype stage. Google the F-103 and you'll get more information on it too.

[FastCargo 412]

No disrespect to you artist for making the F-103 but that jet just looks like s**t. Talk about a simple design. And whats with the no front cockpit view?

 

And yet this airplane makes you say WOW?

 

http://combatace.com/topic/60193-republic-xf-84h-thunderscreech/

 

The F-103 design was designed for one thing...to go very fast in a straight line. There is no doubt of its purpose just by looking at it. It was also to have pioneered several concepts, including a dual cycle turbojet/ramjet, capsule cockpit/ejection system, speedbrakes that also did double duty as an engine nozzle, 'tiperons' and, oh yeah, speeds up to Mach 4...in the mid 1950s...not even 10 years after officially breaking Mach 1.

 

It was not a kludge, but a very specific design for a very specific goal. Though it may not have ever hit its planned performance numbers, the basic design was in fact sound. As I said before, look VERY closely at the F-105...you will note the strong family resemblance in size, overall body shape, and general wing/planform layout. And the F-105 was indeed fast...especially down low.

 

Just because a design is simple does not mean it is wrong. Simplicity can denote elegance...clean, smooth lines.

 

However, because the goal of going fast was the priority, the compromises to do so in the design meant that it probably would have been fairly ineffective as an actual interceptor due to things like visibility, range, possible reliability issues.

 

FC

[+Julhelm 266]

I've always wondered how they were going to deal with FOD with that sugar scoop intake.

[+EricJ 4,245]

More work, getting some access panels added from a picture FC sent me this morning. It's nice in I have a guide but keeping some panel lines as I go along just to keep it fairly nice.