Grippen E/F conversion.

[faassen]

Is somebody planning a conversion for the new Grippen E/F? Or are there plans of bringing out this version as a plastic model? 

Would love to build one in 1/72nd scale and 1/48th scale!!

[mingwin]

appart from the engine and the IP panels, what are the differences between legacy and new generation Grippen?(modeling wise)

Edited March 16, 2018 by mingwin

[shion]

Main gear is significantly wider, to give space for more weapon stations.

[Slartibartfast]

Mr. Pedantic here. It's Gripen, with one "p".

[SebastianP]

To make a Gripen E from the new-tool Revell 1/72 Gripen C kit, you basically need to replace everything on the A runner (the largest one), but nothing else. The B (weapons and hardpoints), C (canopy), and D (forward fuselage and cockpit) runners can very likely be reused. Same goes for turning the Gripen D into a Gripen F. 

 

Funny how that works out, really... almost as if they'd planned it... 

 

(The Gripen E has a wider wingspan, so it needs new wings; a longer fuselage to accomodate the more powerful engine; an entirely different landing gear configuration with the landing gear mounted in the wing roots, retracting straight forward like a Tomcat or Flanker, rather than in the belly retracting inward/forward like an F-16. There are a few things on the A runner that might have been better placed on a different runner, like the seat, but overall what I see this as allowing is basically issuing *any* gripen variant with a retool of only one runner beyond the existing ones. Maybe two, if you'd add the "B" landing gear, which was really different, to the F runner that contains the twin-seat forward fuselage). 

Edited March 16, 2018 by SebastianP

[Darren Roberts]

For those of us not well versed in the Gripen, would this be like trying to build an F-18E out of an F-18C?

[NaOH]

2 hours ago, Darren Roberts said:

For those of us not well versed in the Gripen, would this be like trying to build an F-18E out of an F-18C?

 

A similar idea. It looks similar from a distance but it’s a very different aircraft.

[southwestforests]

7 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

Mr. Pedantic here. It's Gripen, with one "p".

Yep. Just because griffin, griffon, has two f that doesn't mean gripen has two p.

(and there's gryphon, with zero f, which we'll kindly omit from my remarks)

[SebastianP]

8 hours ago, Darren Roberts said:

For those of us not well versed in the Gripen, would this be like trying to build an F-18E out of an F-18C?

 

Not quite as dramatic if you build it with the gear up. In flight, the biggest visible difference between the two versions is that the E has two belly hardpoints instead of one, so from a lot of angles you can't actually see which version you're looking at unless you're *really* good. It's not that much bigger or anything, and it doesn't have massively redesigned intakes or LEX'es which make the Super Hornet so distinctive. 

 

With the gear down... Imagine trying to put Tomcat landing gear on a Hornet or F-16. 

[Aigore]

The impression of the E is that it is a bit like a middle aged man, it's put out a bit in the middle :P

It has got a bulkier midsection, the wings are pretty much the same but they are put on a wider body with the landing gears moved out. Same swelling body has put the nose and tail further apart, it is almost a meter longer.

Bigger suckers and bigger bananas at the wing tips and a new scoop at the base of the tail.

 

[erik_g]

On 3/17/2018 at 12:47 AM, Darren Roberts said:

For those of us not well versed in the Gripen, would this be like trying to build an F-18E out of an F-18C?

Almost. There are more differences than the obvious ones. First of all, the fuselage, while looking like the old one, is all new. The internal structure is all new, and the shape is slightly different. The fuselage seems higher behind the canopy, like it has got a hump back, not unlike the F-35. The wings are wider due to the increased size of the wing roots, and as far as I have been able to tell, also gained a slight dihedral, just like the Rafale.
The fuselage is also slightly longer, most of which is added behind the main wing. The engine has been moved backwards slightly.
Then there are the more obvious changes, like big ugly EW pods on the wing tips, scope for an additional heat exchanger in the fin root, IRST housing just forward of the canopy, antenna housings just where the leading edge of the canard wings meet the fuselage (again, like the Rafale).
To make a somewhat correct E out of a C one would need to be creative with the saw and putty. 

Not that I think the Gripen was the most good looking eurocanard before (Again, the Rafale), but the modifications didn´t make it prettier. But it sure handles nicely, has good sensors and that big screen is really good for tactical awareness. All around a good a good fighter.

[faassen]

Thanks Erik ,

But I was planning to build the first prototype: the two-seater with the Grifon onnthe tail. Does your statements also count for this prototype? (The Kittyhawk two-seat Gripen has decals for this prototype, by the way!)

regards. 

Dick

[erik_g]

No, the "Gripen Demo" aircraft, also called 39-7 (The real 39E prototype goes by the name 39-8 by the way) is a rebuilt 39B, so it is more or less just like a 39D with the thicker wing root and new main landing gear. It is not as much a prototype as a technology test bed and concept demonstrator.