Ex-FAAWAFU

Amen to that!

The ‘friendly’ “Menders vs Benders” deck hockey matches on non-flying days were called that for a reason! [For the non-Naval types, deck hockey was played with upside down walking sticks and a puck made of masking tape, and was one of the most dangerous pastimes known to Mankind. Even an accidental rap on the shin or knuckle with a stick hurts, and very few of them were genuinely accidental. Somewhere I have a wonderfully evocative photo of a Swordfish doing a low pass over a WW2 deck with a game of deck hockey in full swing, so clearly its value for letting off steam has a long and noble history!]

Heavily tied up in real life nonsense - the legal dispute with my employers - plus I want to finish the Sea King build before I pick up Ark again. When I can carve myself some time at the bench, there’s probably only a couple of days’ work left (I have started the decals and she will only need a small amount of weathering)… but I have to fight my way out of legal papers, briefing people like @Fritag, redacting hundreds of pages of my medical records, and all that malarkey. It’s not a mojo issue, it’s just time.

Thinking a bit more about this, the Intrepid Grubber climbing the side of a Sea King with a Pusser’s Hammer was more often to administer a well-earned smack to the starter bullet. The starter motors on the front of the trusty Gnome were designed so that they automatically disengaged (via centrifugal force) once the engine reached a certain RPM, but occasionally they’d stick, leaving the starter motor screaming away well beyond its normal max speed - a recipe for failure and/or fire if not addressed. The judicious application of a tap from a FBH generally sorted this, with the result that some starter bullets (the metal fairing covering the motor itself) developed a somewhat battered appearance over time. The only time this happened to me I was on 1 Spot in Ark, at the foot of the ramp, when no.2 starter wouldn’t disengage; I had a very irate Wings threatening all sorts of retribution over the Flyco net, since he had jets astern waiting for me to lift. The ship was moving quite a lot, and I remember thinking “rather you than me, mate” as a Grubber shinned up the side of the cab to perch precariously next to the intakes of two running jet engines in order to hit one of them with a sledgehamner. It worked, but I’m not sure modern H&S would allow it!

Read the earlier pages of this build and you’ll see that they undoubtedly will at some point. But they’ve already released the Red & Light Grey air sea rescue version, so why are you waiting…? Fly Navy

The Airfix guys admitted at the launch that the box art has the stiffening plate in the wrong place, but they noticed it too late to change. There’s also an error in the instructions (again, admitted by Airfix); the internal colour is labelled as Humbrol 25 (a blue) when it should be Humbrol 125, a grey. To be corrected in future editions of the instructions, I gather (I wonder whether they’ll correct the spelling mistake…? ‘Rota’ instead of ‘rotor’)

Funny, that. Especially since in theory it should be impossible, since the blade fold system has no power to it in flight. In theory, therefore, if any of the blade fold lights come on in flight it must be a problem with the lights… but if it had happened to me I’d have landed as soon as possible and let someone else make certain!

Yes

No. The yellow blade is simply there to make a SAR aircraft more visible, especially from above. However, your idea is not rubbish; the blades do indeed need to be in a certain position to fold, and one of the pitch change rods was painted white (on RN aircraft, anyway) so that the marshaller could see whether it aligned with a white mark on the “dog kennel” (the fuselage around the MRGB). The blade fold was surprisingly reliable, given the fact that it was a complicated combination of hydraulic pressure switches designed in the 1950s, but it did occasionally need a nudge from a Grubber with a FBH if a switch stuck.

It is indeed a misprint; Airfix have confirmed that and say it will be fixed in future prints of the instructions. And yes, you’re right that the top (& bottom) of the sonar body were a cream colour

The two aerials immediately behind the landing lamp are for sonobuoy homing. There are two much thinner aerials a bit further aft (if you look closely at the photo of me in Brunei you can see one of them silhouetted in front of the lower anti-collision light); they were for VHF homing (e.g. to a ship or a liferaft) and were always white. Jakub, I’ve already answered the question about removing the Barn Door in hot conditions. Yes, it was done sometimes if airframe icing wasn’t a risk and the added power outweighed the higher risk of FOD. Steve, the pose is because we were being used as play Junglies for a few days - we had two HC4s embarked but this was a much bigger exercise, so we had a right laugh barrelling around at 50’ (over an actual jungle) dropping sticks of troops into clearings. Bloody good fun (& a real change for 80s ASW types!). It was my first tour, I’d just started being an aircraft Captain, and HM the Queen was paying me good money to do this. What’s not to like? You can even make out the packet of fags in my pocket…

No piping on this build; I said at the start it would be OOB (other than belts) and I am sticking to it. I am, however, using it as a recce for detailing in future builds…

The Qatar aircraft are all variants of the “Commando”, originally developed for Egypt (the RN HC4 is based on the same design, albeit retaining some features of the earlier ASW types, such as blade fold). Though the Qatar Exocet cabs have sponsons & radar (for missile targeting), they’re still essentially “Commandos”, so it would make perfect sense for them to use the same can (as per Wessex & Sea King HC4) flotation gear as their non-missile stablemates. Jakub, you asked about FOD / anti-icing arrangements. Originally (HAS1 & other country equivalents such as India Mk.41, Germany Mk.42, Norway Mk.43 & Pakistan Mk.45) had nothing in front of the engine intakes. Engine icing (caused when the pressure change as air enters the intakes / compressor stages of the engine reduces the air temperature to below freezing) is well covered by hot oil ducts inside the engine, but airframe icing (ice forming on cold-soaked aircraft skin) can give problems if it flakes off and is ingested - plus other types of FOD (foreign object damage) can also be an issue. [Flight in freezing rain is especially dangerous because of ice accretion on rotor blades, and is expressly verboten in the Sea King.] And then there is salt. This is best illustrated by a famous rescue in 1974, when a freighter called Merc Enterprise capsized in atrocious weather in the Channel. Culdrose sent 5 Sea Kings to supplement the usual SAR - 2 Mk.42s from the German training unit (joint FGN & RN crews) and 3 HAS1s from 706 & 824 Squadrons. Between them they achieved extraordinary things that are outside the scope of this, but two of the 5 ended up with serious engine problems (surges sufficiently bad to cause loud explosions and flames from the exhausts); one of the German cabs eventually had a double flame-out on the way home and auto-rotated into a field on the cliffs. This was caused by significant build-up of salt on the compressor blades after operating for several hours below 200’ in a very salt-laden atmosphere; effectively the profile of the compressor blades altered so they stopped working properly. The other 3 aircraft subsequently realised that they’d had periods flying in rain, which had acted as a fresh-water compressor wash - by chance, the two affected aircraft had missed these showers. So the “Barn Door” was born. This acted as a physical shield in front of the intakes vs FOD & airframe ice; the characteristic stripes were actually outlets for evil smelling anti-icing fluid called TKS; and it modified the airflow into the intakes, reducing (but not stopping entirely) salt accretion (the aircraft had regular compressor washes, and we’d deliberately fly through rain if we got the chance if doing a lot of sub-200’ flying over the sea). HAS5s + an HC4 and an AEW2 on Ark Royal deck, 1988, showing the Barn Door & TKS stripes. There was a small penalty of c.1.5% loss of power, but the HAS2 onwards had more powerful engines (hence the extra tail rotor blade to handle the power), so it was deemed worth it. Very occasionally we’d remove the Barn Door; the photo below shows me in front of an 820 NAS HAS5 in Brunei - we were operating heavy aircraft in “hot & high” conditions near the Equator (so airframe icing not a risk), so opted to get the 1.5% power back! From mid-70s (HAS2) to early-90s (HAS6), the RN’s bread & butter was anti-submarine work in the North Atlantic; ice & salt definite problems, sand less so. Then the Cold War ended and the Gulf Wars & Afghanistan shifted a lot of the Fleet Air Arm’s focus. I think it was coincidence that the Centriseps boxes replaced the Barn Door from the late-90s on (they’re just as effective vs ice as they are vs sand), but for the rest of the Sea King’s life they flew with the ugly box in front of the intakes. I last flew a Sea King in 1995, as they were starting to come in, so to my eyes a Sea King doesn’t look right unless it has a Barn Door… So from HAS2 to early HAS6 (mid-70s to mid-90s) Barn Door; after that, Centriseps. Hope that helps. Crisp

I’m no expert on the Qatar export versions, but at a guess I’d say you are right that it will be to do with the Exocet installation. The MAD and non-MAD sponsons weren’t interchangeable. Those aircraft that had their starboard sponson changed to accommodate a MAD bird retained that sponson for the rest of their days, long after the internal wiring, winch etc had been removed. During my time on 819 NAS (93-95) we had at least one ex-MAD cab, a good 10 years after the MAD itself had been removed. Equally, if a particular airframe never had MAD (& the fit was never intended to be fleet-wide), then it never received the long sponson. The MAD experiment with both Sea King and Lynx in the early-80s wasn’t a huge success; the USN persisted with it in the SH-60B, but we didn’t. However, the Sea King HAS6 had MAD fitted inside the tailcone.

Airfix are way ahead of you; they have engineered it so that there is a suitable gap between fuselage and stub-wing without any action on the builder’s part.

You probably could, just about. The stub wing is hinged at the fuselage end, to allow it to flex slightly during a deck landing - the diagonal support strut is actually an aerodynamic (shut up, Steve!) fairing covering a compression strut that takes much of the load, and is designed to collapse progressively in an over-heavy-landing, thus saving the airframe from further damage. The main purpose of the stub wings is to spread the undercarriage / sponsons to provide stability on deck and/or on the water. This (again, FAA Museum) shows the stub wing attachment quite clearly)

Ask away & I’ll answer if I can. The fuel filler differences are relatively easy. The primary refuelling point is the one on the starboard side, which is for pressure fuelling (i.e. pumping it in). The single point is underneath the cargo door for all ASW & AEW marks, because that puts it directly underneath the hoist, which is used for HIFR (helicopter in flight refuelling, where you can take fuel from a ship with a foul deck, or a deck that’s too small for a Sea King, or even no flight deck at all). The pressure fuelling point is moved to immediately behind the cargo door for the HAR3 & HC4, because they don’t really have a HIFR requirement… but they do have Bootnecks and/or casualties climbing in and out of the rear door a lot; hence the “Commando step” and its smaller SAR cousin. The fuelling points on the port side are for gravity fuelling only (pouring the stuff in from cans). In c.1,500 hours on Sea Kings I never saw gravity fuelling used. The aircraft actually has up to 5 fuel tanks (depending on mark) distributed throughout the boat hull. Pressure fuelling forces the fuel through the system to all tanks, but gravity doesn’t, so you need more fuelling points - 3 on an ASW aircraft. All Sea Kings - even HAR3, HC4 & ASaC7 - have the sonar well built into the design; it was there already and not worth the cost & effort of rejigging. In those (inferior, obvs) aircraft that are not designed to kill submarines, the well is plated over, but it’s still there. The fuel tanks are configured accordingly

Hoorah!

Some reference shots to help you on your way (the FAA Museum HAS5 with a Stingray TVT loaded)

The HAS5 bit is easy; it’s all there in the kit… but the weapons bit is not, because Airfix haven’t included weapon carriers (at least in this boxing). If you can find one, there used to be a FlightPath set to convert the Hasegawa Sea King into an HAS5, and it included some nice weapon carriers (white metal inside with brass exterior). Pretty rare now., though. I face the same issue. This build is essentially a test run, OOB, HAS1… but in future I can definitely see myself building aircraft that I actually flew, notably an HU5 in 819 NAS colours, and probably an HAS6 as well. I suspect I will end up designing and printing some weapon carriers; the carriers themselves aren’t that hard (being box-shaped), but the compound curves of attaching them to the fuselage are what pushed my Hasegawa HAS5 (ZE419) onto the shelf of doom in the first place. This build is tweaking my interest in digging it out and finishing it, though there is the little matter of Ark Royal, too. Short answer is you’ll either have to wait for after market or scratch build them yourself. The weapons themselves aren’t too hard; you can get after market Stingrays and Mk.46s, and/or purloin a Mk.11 DC from elsewhere. Hope that helps!

OK, the rotor head. I have been trying to find pictures of the unmodified Hasegawa head, but have failed, so you should please keep in mind that these comparisons are between an Airfix version straight out of the box (because I promised myself that this build would have no detailing work at all other than seat belts) and a Hasegawa one after many hours of work to modify and improve it. The Airfix one one is painted RAF BG, Hasegawa Tamiya white primer. Top view: Bottom view: The most obvious differences are that Airfix has superior drag dampers (the concertina pieces seen best from above - they will be show better once I’ve done some detail painting). Hasegawa’s blade fold hinges look thinner and more refined, but that’s only after an awful lot of filing and sanding, so it’s not a fair comparison. And the infamous droop stops on the underside of Hasegawa are my detailing with wire, tube & rod. Bottom line is that the Sea King rotor head is a nightmare for any designer; the head itself is no more complicated than any conventional (i.e. not semi-rigid, as the Lynx / Wildcat) head, but the hydraulic blade fold system means that it is festooned with pipes and wires. I’d say that Airfix have done a reasonable job; I’m still hoping that ResKit or A.N.Other after market outfit will bring one out, or my future builds (& I have three in mind) are going to have to revisit the whole saga! In case you aren’t familiar with a Sea King rotor head… I think I’ve sorted the blade droop with my wife's hair dryer. More soon Crisp

Work is still going on, but of a non-photogenic kind; I am working on the main rotor blades to give them better droop (paging Ced!) - arguably the only area where the Hasegawa kit is better than the Airfix. The blades are currently taped to the inside of a bathroom basin, where they receive aplications if very hot water. Also, my man cave is unbearably hot in the current unseasonal heatwave. More soon Crisp

Yes, Colin, it definitely would. I have said this to myself several times since I glued the sponsons & compression struts in place. Working on the rotor head now. Pics to follow.

Thank you, and I may well take you up on that… I have access to a Silhouette, so even just the file would be enough

Sorry - only just noticed this question, and I wish I could give you a more scientific answer… but I can tell you that it’s at least 80% Smoke, maybe more. I just put the Smoke & Mr Levelling Thinners into my airbrush and then added drops of green until it looked about right!