4 replies to this topic

[Benbow]

With the arrival of the new 1/48 Lynx, in both Army and Naval variants, I was slightly dissappointed to see that the forthcoming Merlin only appears to have been tooled up for the HC3 version. I therefore have a few questions to ask;

1) Am I correct in my assumption?

2) If so does anyone in "Rumourmonger" land know if there are any plans to do a maritime version?

3) If not, then how hard would it be to convert an HC3 to an HM2??

Looking at this site - UKArmedForcesBlogspot

Then it apprears as if the differences would be;

the rear cargo ramp - Seal that up
lack of foldability - Scratch a fold if required
double-wheel main landing gear, whereas the RN version only has a single wheel on each of the main gears. - Modify wheels
An ice protection system allows operation in known icing conditions.
An engine inlet particle separator system provides protection in sandy environments.
High flotation tyres and efficient landing gear permit operation from soft or rough terrain. - Modify wheels
The HC3 is equipped with a full set of infrared jammers, such as the Northrop Grumman Nemesis, directed infrared countermeasures, missile approach warners, six different chaff and flare dispensers, and a laser detection and warning system. - Remove "lumps & bumps"

Comments appreciated from all you wise sages out there!!

Edited by Benbow, 18 April 2012 - 03:36 PM.

[bootneck]

With the arrival of the new 1/48 Lynx, in both Army and Naval variants, I was slightly dissappointed to see that the forthcoming Merlin only appears to have been tooled up for the HC3 version. I therefore have a few questions to ask;

1) Am I correct in my assumption?

2) If so does anyone in "Rumourmonger" land know if there are any plans to do a maritime version?

3) If not, then how hard would it be to convert an HC3 to an HM2??

Looking at this site - UKArmedForcesBlogspot

Then it apprears as if the differences would be;

the rear cargo ramp - Seal that up
lack of foldability - Scratch a fold if required
double-wheel main landing gear, whereas the RN version only has a single wheel on each of the main gears. - Modify wheels
An ice protection system allows operation in known icing conditions.
An engine inlet particle separator system provides protection in sandy environments.
High flotation tyres and efficient landing gear permit operation from soft or rough terrain. - Modify wheels
The HC3 is equipped with a full set of infrared jammers, such as the Northrop Grumman Nemesis, directed infrared countermeasures, missile approach warners, six different chaff and flare dispensers, and a laser detection and warning system. - Remove "lumps & bumps"

Comments appreciated from all you wise sages out there!!

Hi Benbow,

the section, from the rear of the fuselage (from the back of the wheel sponsons) to the tail-fold section is completely different between the two versions of this aircraft. It's not just a case of seal up the ramp.

I'm sure that there are quite a few smaller elements of difference but that, to me, would be a showstopper as it would need major surgery.

I am also sure that the real experts here will be able to give you actual specifics, perhaps even with schematics for comparison. I would also like to know the extent of the actual differences.

You may already be aware but the HC.3's are due to be transferred to the RN, to replace the junglie Sea Kings, to there's a modelling opportunity there!

cheers

Mike

[Dave Fleming]

If you were considering a conversion, I'd get hold of the Italeri kits of both versions as a comparison.

One other diufference is the radome under the forward fuselage on the HMA1/2

[lufbramatt]

Only common parts are tail rotor, engine nacelles and windscreen, everything else is different in one way or another. And even the tail rotor might be upgraded with The new hub like the danish ones. All the fuselage windows and doors are in different places, layout of the interior is different (HC3 is trrop/cargo transport, HM2 is like a flying computer lab) , instrument panel totally different, weapons sponsons on HM2 to carry torpedos etc, HC3 has a honking great big cargo door on the stbd side that the HM2 doesnt have. As said, the whole fuselage aft of the rear modular joint is a completely different shape and the HM2 has a folding tail with a huge hinge sticking out the side. Undercarriage legs all different, as well as the shape of the holes they retract into. HC3 has bigger sponsons- compare the shape of the leading edge of the sponson, HM2 is "blunter" at the front. Big radome under nose of HM2. HM2 has the fold down "airstairs" door on the port side whereas the HC3 has the sliding "van" door on the port side so they can mount a GPMG in its place.

Main rotor head and cuffs very different due to the folding system.

you can see why Airfix have only tooled one version- the number of common parts is minimal. Even a conversion to a HC3A isn't that easy, it entails a lot more than just a new nose radome to do it properly. The HC3 has had a lot of media coverage as it has been serving in Afganistan and been featured on programs like Mike Brewer's Frontline Battle Machine and Ross Kemp's programs, and a HC3 pilot was famously awarded a DFC (first female to get a DFC). You don't often hear much about the grey Merlin.

Edited by lufbramatt, 19 April 2012 - 09:35 AM.

[Benbow]

Thanks guys for the responses, it certainly appears as if lufbramatt has pretty much summed it up as a non-starter for the mo!

Considering the amount of major structural differences outlined above I can see why Airfix has only tooled for one version. I suppose I'd initially got my hopes up the other year when Italeri had touted a 1/48 RN version which had even made it as far as their catalogue. One can only hope they resurrect this idea following Airfix's release with a sclaed up version of their 1/72 version - heres living in hope!!

Agree Bootneck that the option of doing a Jungly version remains which would go nicely with my CDO Sea King and Wessex but, with the nice Lynx released, I was hoping to continue the "Maritime" line. Don't know why but I fond something inherently facinating about complex flying machines all foled and stowed - Rotors/Tail which land land based version either aren't capable of or aren't often stowed in that configuration.

Cheers once again - appreciated!!