Guest Peterpools Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Kai WOW ... just can't get enough - fantastic work and I can hear the gears grinding ... Keep 'em coming Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loic Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Great stuff Edited February 10, 2015 by Loic EmperorKai 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmperorKai Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 Kai WOW ... just can't get enough - fantastic work and I can hear the gears grinding ... Keep 'em coming Peter Great stuff Thanks guys! Kai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marauderdriver Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Hey Kai, I hadn't thought of the ILS system, but love the over the sponson FLIR on the starboard, if you want to mount the ILS on the port side. I also hadn't thought of both FLIR on the same side, but there probably is an advantage to it in systems share or maintenance. Seeing the F-15 pods for size comparison helps a bunch for mock-up. Sorry about possibly increasing your work load on this build, but I enjoy conversing with someone who sees the "possibilities" and will bounce ideas without getting insulted. GREAT STUFF watch'in you jack EmperorKai 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmperorKai Posted February 11, 2015 Author Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Hey Kai, I hadn't thought of the ILS system, but love the over the sponson FLIR on the starboard, if you want to mount the ILS on the port side. I also hadn't thought of both FLIR on the same side, but there probably is an advantage to it in systems share or maintenance. Seeing the F-15 pods for size comparison helps a bunch for mock-up. Sorry about possibly increasing your work load on this build, but I enjoy conversing with someone who sees the "possibilities" and will bounce ideas without getting insulted. GREAT STUFF watch'in you jack I'm really enjoying this too. The warts shouldn't be too much work. The ball FLIR will take some doing, but if it looks cool, I think I can muster through it I know what you mean about being able to float ideas without being shutdown or worse. It's all about RESPECT, and you'll never get anything less from me. As far as the next step, the more I think about it, the more I am sold on the bulges on the top of the sponsons. One for the pilot FLIR and one for the ILS would even it up for each sponson too. Along those lines, I started thinking that combining the FLIR systems on one pod might seem like an efficient arrangement, but now I'm thinking they should be separated on each sponson. One of the key design philosophies of the A-10 is survivability, and putting those two systems in a location where one shot could take out both FLIR systems seems contrary to that. Make sense? Before I start mocking up some "warts", I thought I'd peruse the internet and get some design queues. Here's some interesting pics... One of the first things that came to mind is the Tropic Moon program on the B-57. More warts... This last pic has me thinking of building out the cheeks on the sponsons. More work, and not sure they would be necessary, but interesting and would definitely add volume if needed. I think this is kind of like what Erik was describing. When it comes to putting warts on a warthog, they're gonna be ugly, no way around it. The wart in this pic is kind of what I was thinking for the top of the sponsons. The ILS would be streamlined like it is here, maybe lean a little bit more forward and even up the sides. The pilot FLIR would be similar, but with a face and window for the sensor. In either case, I think there would be enough volume for each respective system. As my english lit professor use to say, "questions? comments? criticisms?" Kai Edited February 11, 2015 by EmperorKai Girlscanplay2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marauderdriver Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Hey Kai, Sorry to take so long as I keep getting interrupted or having a Brain-Fart. OK Putting pilots FLIR on left sponson as a wart? I was thinking (Smell the Burning?) internally in the left sponson as it doesn't seem to be that big. If it is and you mount it externally, what would the ILS antenna look like? I could not find a pic o the ILS antenna on the C model. I did not think of the survivability portion until you mentioned it and makes sense to split them in that regard. On the left side I think you could still keep the single point refuel in there also. watch'in you Jack Girlscanplay2 and EmperorKai 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmperorKai Posted February 14, 2015 Author Share Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) jack- no problem buddy. Have some life things going on on my end too and haven't had much time to build or check-in. Here's a pic of the left side, which right now is set to house the radar nav equipment. I do think that it would probably be packed in there as it is, so putting the pilot FLIR in a wart on top would seem to be reasonable. I think your right in that the FLIR probably isn't huge by any means, so the size of the wart would be smaller than I drew up earlier. Here's a borrowed pic of the right sponson. The black nose cap portion of the sponson on earlier versions was <empty?>, but on later versions, they filled the space with the ILS system. If the ILS was mounted externally as a wart on this side (just move it to the top), it would probably be in a similar sized wart as the pilot FLIR on the left. I am not aware (and could be totally wrong) that the ILS has a shape requirement like a blade antenna or window for a sensor- it can whatever streamlined shape it needs to be as long as it is functionally transparent to the system. I hope to be able to get some bench time soon so I can mock up the warts and post some pics. Kai Edited February 14, 2015 by EmperorKai Girlscanplay2 and marauderdriver 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marauderdriver Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Kai, I say GO FOR IT Sir! If you don't like the warts you can always get some Compound W or Frezone to remove them watch'in you Jack EmperorKai 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaffyMan Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Keep on Trucking Kia - Love that pic of the Herc with the big guns sticking out of her side - just love the madness of it!! Happy Days - Taff EmperorKai 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmperorKai Posted February 24, 2015 Author Share Posted February 24, 2015 Thanks guys! Haven't had much bench time lately, and at this point, pretty sure this won't make it in time for the group build deadline. So I'll have to finish this up as a WIP. As always, hope to have an update soon Kai marauderdriver 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marauderdriver Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Have an extra month WOOOO-HOOOOO, I may try to get me Bronco back in production. Hope to see you soon on this Magnificent Machine watch'in you Jack EmperorKai 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmperorKai Posted March 1, 2015 Author Share Posted March 1, 2015 Nice- I can definitely use the time though I don't think it will be enough. There's still quite a bit to do. I'm actually going to take a break from this project for a bit and do a couple of quick builds. I'll definitely come back to this though once I've zapped a few... Kai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLAAAR! Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Emperor, Really nice work there on your NAW. I hope you will publish finished photos of it. Thought I might contribute a little bit to the discussion on the windscreen. There are three reasons for the switch to a single piece windscreen. 1. Birdstrike vs. Small Arms. While the existing windscreen is indeed 'bullet proof' (7.62mm API), that is -all- it is and only the main panel is so rated, not the quarter panels. It will not stop 12.7mm (Tank) 14.5mm (BTR) or 23mm (Zoos). To be honest, from that aspect, you'd be fortunate if the bathtub did. Given the period GSFG/WARPAC threat, by the time you close enough for small arms fire to pose a serious risk, especially at night, you had better be down to harsh language and rude gestures yourself. The reverse was true of bird strike. Generally you outrun anything you might hit as birds are only roused by overhead jet noise in the aftermath of their wakes. But CAS often requires tight orbits over a narrow area where risen flocks of birds could pose a real second-pass problem as you went in for five minutes to rough the enemy up and then backed of for 5-10 more before rinse-repeating. Under these conditions, where a solid windscreen will bow and deform in a rippling wave effect (after being struck by a bird), it will not break. A framed windscreen however usually shears on the unequal stress lines of the frame posts and this shear causes the quarter panels to shatter and shrapnel spray the whole cockpit. Razor sharp and heavy fragments of Polycarb are far worse than the bird itself in this. 2. Raster Presentation of FLIR. While it was not generally assumed that the jet would get the WARHUD (holographic raster presentation) systems being developed for the F-15E and F-16C.40, you do need to have a wide field of view system so that there is minimal tunnel-speeding effect and some look into turn ability on which to present 1:1 scaled imagery. Where the windscreen frames interfere with this, they 'superimpose' an artificial lateral terminus that disagrees with the infinity projection of the image itself. So the windscreen post frames had to go, along with the double combiner stack and it's own heavy side frames. 3. Night Vision Effects. While we were not using the existing Gen-2 goggles at the time within the fast jet community, it was discovered, later in the early 90s, that the main, armored, windscreen panel was so heavily leaded that it interfered with the performance of the Gen-3 M949s (ANVIS-9) which were then coming online. This is important because, while goggles greatly exacerbate the risks of low altitude ejections, they also provide significantly better look into turn and threat tracking. You can literally see a missile launch from dozens of miles away because it is a very intense, near-IR, source. Almost like a small sunrise. As a result most pilots prefer night vision on a stick over HUD FLIR. With regard to the WX-50 pod. It was a strange looking beast with a nose/radome assembly almost half again as large as the rest of the pod with a noticeable step in diameter as a result. The scanner was fifteen inches across with perhaps another 6-8" on either side. The Flight Global from 6-12-76 has a couple of good renderings of the pod on a Skyhawk and in sectioned view. Possibly enough to let you scratch build. Note the conformal ECS vent system on the back which looks somewhat like the drogue receptacle on a KC-130 wing tank (I can't paste LINKS here so check out the Wikipedia listing for Google: 'Hose Drogue Pod'). I believe Attack Squadron resin models makes this pod as part of their KC-130W upgrade in 1/72nd. Useless for the Trumpeter but possible for the Hobbyboss. Though the late 1979 Aviation Week article on the NAW A-10 shows the WX-50 radar in the forward section of the port landing gear sponson, I have some question over the utility of the unit in this location. Namely, in a starboard turn there is no look angle as the fuselage masks. The FLIR was never intended to be more than a basic terminal (gun) targeting aid with a FOV of approximately 20` to either side and a laser range finding ability only. But the radar needs to have a full look angle of at least 80`, both in searching for MTI ground targets to cue the FLIR onto and to assist with manual terrain following. This means a suspended centerline pod. Which is not all that hard to do as the station easily spanwise and longitudinally clears the inboard wing hardpoints and is rarely used otherwise. Just some thoughts, hope your hard effort turns out well. EmperorKai 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmperorKai Posted February 22, 2016 Author Share Posted February 22, 2016 Emperor, Really nice work there on your NAW. I hope you will publish finished photos of it. Thought I might contribute a little bit to the discussion on the windscreen. There are three reasons for the switch to a single piece windscreen. 1. Birdstrike vs. Small Arms. While the existing windscreen is indeed 'bullet proof' (7.62mm API), that is -all- it is and only the main panel is so rated, not the quarter panels. It will not stop 12.7mm (Tank) 14.5mm (BTR) or 23mm (Zoos). To be honest, from that aspect, you'd be fortunate if the bathtub did. Given the period GSFG/WARPAC threat, by the time you close enough for small arms fire to pose a serious risk, especially at night, you had better be down to harsh language and rude gestures yourself. The reverse was true of bird strike. Generally you outrun anything you might hit as birds are only roused by overhead jet noise in the aftermath of their wakes. But CAS often requires tight orbits over a narrow area where risen flocks of birds could pose a real second-pass problem as you went in for five minutes to rough the enemy up and then backed of for 5-10 more before rinse-repeating. Under these conditions, where a solid windscreen will bow and deform in a rippling wave effect (after being struck by a bird), it will not break. A framed windscreen however usually shears on the unequal stress lines of the frame posts and this shear causes the quarter panels to shatter and shrapnel spray the whole cockpit. Razor sharp and heavy fragments of Polycarb are far worse than the bird itself in this. 2. Raster Presentation of FLIR. While it was not generally assumed that the jet would get the WARHUD (holographic raster presentation) systems being developed for the F-15E and F-16C.40, you do need to have a wide field of view system so that there is minimal tunnel-speeding effect and some look into turn ability on which to present 1:1 scaled imagery. Where the windscreen frames interfere with this, they 'superimpose' an artificial lateral terminus that disagrees with the infinity projection of the image itself. So the windscreen post frames had to go, along with the double combiner stack and it's own heavy side frames. 3. Night Vision Effects. While we were not using the existing Gen-2 goggles at the time within the fast jet community, it was discovered, later in the early 90s, that the main, armored, windscreen panel was so heavily leaded that it interfered with the performance of the Gen-3 M949s (ANVIS-9) which were then coming online. This is important because, while goggles greatly exacerbate the risks of low altitude ejections, they also provide significantly better look into turn and threat tracking. You can literally see a missile launch from dozens of miles away because it is a very intense, near-IR, source. Almost like a small sunrise. As a result most pilots prefer night vision on a stick over HUD FLIR. With regard to the WX-50 pod. It was a strange looking beast with a nose/radome assembly almost half again as large as the rest of the pod with a noticeable step in diameter as a result. The scanner was fifteen inches across with perhaps another 6-8" on either side. The Flight Global from 6-12-76 has a couple of good renderings of the pod on a Skyhawk and in sectioned view. Possibly enough to let you scratch build. Note the conformal ECS vent system on the back which looks somewhat like the drogue receptacle on a KC-130 wing tank (I can't paste LINKS here so check out the Wikipedia listing for Google: 'Hose Drogue Pod'). I believe Attack Squadron resin models makes this pod as part of their KC-130W upgrade in 1/72nd. Useless for the Trumpeter but possible for the Hobbyboss. Though the late 1979 Aviation Week article on the NAW A-10 shows the WX-50 radar in the forward section of the port landing gear sponson, I have some question over the utility of the unit in this location. Namely, in a starboard turn there is no look angle as the fuselage masks. The FLIR was never intended to be more than a basic terminal (gun) targeting aid with a FOV of approximately 20` to either side and a laser range finding ability only. But the radar needs to have a full look angle of at least 80`, both in searching for MTI ground targets to cue the FLIR onto and to assist with manual terrain following. This means a suspended centerline pod. Which is not all that hard to do as the station easily spanwise and longitudinally clears the inboard wing hardpoints and is rarely used otherwise. Just some thoughts, hope your hard effort turns out well. GLAAR! First- Awesome name! Second- Awesome post! I appreciate the input and it has given me a bit to consider in regards to the single piece windscreen. It's been a while since I've had a chance to sit down at the bench much less get back to this one, so this is still sitting off to the side patiently waiting... Hope things slow down enough to get back to some modeling soon Thanks again and for looking in on my build! Kai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmperorKai Posted February 22, 2016 Author Share Posted February 22, 2016 Hello Emperor Kai, How are you doing with this..did you finish it and I missed it. Hey there Maru- It's still sitting next to the work bench along with the Skyray. Have been quite busy with work and life in general, so haven't had much of a chance to build for quite awhile. One of the projects I've been picking at is a general re-organization of the man-cave, but once that is squared away, there should be plenty of motivation to get back to some bench time. Thanks for checking in on this Kai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now