TheBaron Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 I notice from the red colour inside the lower lip of the port intake in Dave's shot that you are using an authentic colour of filler Bill... Is that some kind of warning demarcation perhaps? Tony 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Bill's thorough like that! The red is the don't walk here X marking. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 On 20.12.2016 at 6:13 AM, Navy Bird said: Just for giggles, I downloaded some of those drawings from that Russian site. Cheers, Bill Bill, you speak about these: http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw2/sharrfrs1.html drawings? These drawings from book Chechin and Okolelov "Take-off down" represent selection of this edition which contains drawings on YAK-38 and Harrier (all modifications). And if to factory documentation of YAK-38 thanks to archives Kharkiv Aviation institute as well as to the real YAK-38 set in the museums of Ukraine authors had access (that is confirmed by discussions on Scalemodels.ru where one of authors) that their access to real Harrier's is registered as well as to factory documentation to them it is represented more than doubtful. Most likely these drawings are creative processing of drawings any of the western authors. Nevertheless authors of these drawings have university aviation engineering education, worked in the aviation industry of the USSR and represent "old school", and their new drawings (to which also drawings on Harrier belong) created in professional computer drawing programs are distinguished by high specification and careful study. Though from mistakes nobody is insured. B.R. Serge P.S. Bill, great building! But she won't force me to sell ESCI and to buy Fujimi! 😆 ESCI forever!😎 😆 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 The lower Fujimi bomb looks like a US pattern cluster bomb. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selwyn Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 (edited) 12 hours ago, Navy Bird said: All right then, let's see what we're dealing with. First, some things that go boom: The Hasegawa bomb is on top, the two Fujimi choices below. Hasegawa label theirs "1,000 pound bomb" whilst Fujimi name the middle one "bomb" and the lower one "1,000 pound bomb." So, two very different looking 1,000 pounders! Since I am a complete neophyte when it comes to British ordnance, anyone want to take a guess at what we've got here? And more importantly, which ones look best for using with a Sea Harrier FRS.1. Next up, the tanks. As before Hasegawa on top: For what it's worth, the Hasegawa tank matches the one shown on the Russian drawing; Fujimi does not. In the event that I mount the tanks, I will most likely go with Hasegawa, unless someone can verify that Fujimi is actually better. Lastly, the refueling probe. First, a look at our two candidates, again Hasegawa is at the top. Different diameter to the arm, different configuration of the end, different shape to the vane at the bottom where it bolts to the intake, and a different slope to the arm. Easier to see if I put the Fujimi part directly on top of the Hasegawa part, aligning the surface that attaches to the intake. Comparing to photos, I think Fujimi has this right, especially with the way that the base "leans forward." Using the Hasegawa part would result in a probe that is too high above the fuselage. I think...I can't really compare these parts to the Russian drawings, as they show the IFR probe in perspective. Appreciate any comments you guys might have. Thanks! Cheers, Bill Bill sent you a personal message re Brit bombs. The RAF/RN only used AIM9G before they got the L model (well except a few early "B" models in the 1960's!) I understood that it was policy that some SHARS on CAP in the Falklands would take off from the carrier with two Missiles and a centre line 1000lb bomb and do a toss bomb manoeuvre putting the bomb onto Port Stanley airport on the way to their CAP position. Not really aiming at something as such, but "Just to keep them awake" and on edge. Must have been a shocker to have a 1000lb bomb popping off at sometime in the middle of the night and not seeing any aircraft! Selwyn Edited January 6, 2017 by Selwyn 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Bird Posted January 6, 2017 Author Share Posted January 6, 2017 16 hours ago, TheBaron said: I notice from the red colour inside the lower lip of the port intake in Dave's shot that you are using an authentic colour of filler Bill... <snip> Is that some kind of warning demarcation perhaps? Tony I know there is a red "X" in that spot, which I believe means the same as "no step." You can just make it out in that photo. Not sure what that straight red line means, though. Perhaps the FAA was using my brand of filler! 15 hours ago, 71chally said: Bill's thorough like that! The red is the don't walk here X marking. You beat me to it! 14 hours ago, Aardvark said: Bill, you speak about these: http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw2/sharrfrs1.html drawings? These drawings from book Chechin and Okolelov "Take-off down" represent selection of this edition which contains drawings on YAK-38 and Harrier (all modifications). And if to factory documentation of YAK-38 thanks to archives Kharkiv Aviation institute as well as to the real YAK-38 set in the museums of Ukraine authors had access (that is confirmed by discussions on Scalemodels.ru where one of authors) that their access to real Harrier's is registered as well as to factory documentation to them it is represented more than doubtful. Most likely these drawings are creative processing of drawings any of the western authors. Nevertheless authors of these drawings have university aviation engineering education, worked in the aviation industry of the USSR and represent "old school", and their new drawings (to which also drawings on Harrier belong) created in professional computer drawing programs are distinguished by high specification and careful study. Though from mistakes nobody is insured. B.R. Serge P.S. Bill, great building! But she won't force me to sell ESCI and to buy Fujimi! 😆 ESCI forever!😎 😆 Thanks, Serge. Those are indeed the drawings that I've been using. I've seen some criticism of the drawings that you can get from that site, but I've always found them to be very useful. The ESCI Sea Harrier kit is by far the best in 1:72 scale, but I already had these two kits (purchased very cheaply at a vendor table) and didn't want to add another. The Fujimi fuselage shape is pretty good, it just has some crazy engineering. 12 hours ago, Dave Fleming said: The lower Fujimi bomb looks like a US pattern cluster bomb. Were those ever carried by a Sea Harrier? I wonder why Fujimi would include one of them in this kit. 9 hours ago, Selwyn said: Bill sent you a personal message re Brit bombs. The RAF/RN only used AIM9G before they got the L model (well except a few early "B" models in the 1960's!) I understood that it was policy that some SHARS on CAP in the Falklands would take off from the carrier with two Missiles and a centre line 1000lb bomb and do a toss bomb manoeuvre putting the bomb onto Port Stanley airport on the way to their CAP position. Not really aiming at something as such, but "Just to keep them awake" and on edge. Must have been a shocker to have a 1000lb bomb popping off at sometime in the middle of the night and not seeing any aircraft! Selwyn Thanks, Selwyn. I've sent you a PM. Just to keep them awake, huh? Couldn't we just play Ozzy records all night at 125 dB? That would not only keep them awake, it would probably drive them insane. Well, that white paint is almost dry. But not quite, I think I need to give it another day. Cheers, Bill 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 3 hours ago, Navy Bird said: Were those ever carried by a Sea Harrier? I wonder why Fujimi would include one of them in this kit. Don't think so, probably the same reason they include d Martels! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Bird Posted January 7, 2017 Author Share Posted January 7, 2017 I bet you guys are getting tired of me asking silly questions. I know that the gear wells were white, but the landing gear struts and wheels were Light Admiralty Grey. My question concerns the air brake and its internal surfaces. White or Light Admiralty Grey? From photos it looks to me like grey, most assuredly on the overall grey aircraft. But I don't have a lot of good photos of the open air brake on EDSG/White birds. The restoration at Yeovilton has the internals of the air brake bay white. I'd like to paint this area LAG, but the historian in me says ask the question first. Cheers, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col. Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 Filthy. The air brake and its internal surfaces colour was filthy. Okay, joking apart, from what I can recall the airbrake itself was always the same colour inside and out as the aircraft lower surface whereas the bay also started off white but rather soon got covered in a layer of dirt and grime. In fact I can't recall ever seeing a photo of it clean. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Bird Posted January 8, 2017 Author Share Posted January 8, 2017 First things first. I finally got rid of the neon blue construction paper that I was using for a photo backdrop. It was getting to be a real pain photoshopping all of the coffee stains out of each picture before I posted them. This time I got some actual, honest-to-goodness seamless photo paper packaged in a roll that is twelve yards long. Methinks it will take me a while to use all of this stuff. I like a light blue background but I had to pick the colour online, which always worries me, PC monitors being what they are etc. But surprisingly the actual product matches the online colour very nicely. I had some fun masking the demarcation between the EDSG and the white, especially inside the intake. But mask it I did, and then gave the remaining exposed surfaces a combination of Gunze H333 EDSG and H331 DSG. This is the same effect that I did on my Buccaneer S.2, Scimitar F.1, Sea Venom FAW.53, Gannet AS.1, and the Phantom FG.1. It may not be authentic, but it's consistent! I'm letting this mess dry now before I rip all the masking tape off. Then again, I see an oops or two, so I probably should take care of that first. You may notice that I rebuilt the short shot on the port side of the nose pitot probe mount, and I added the air inlet on top of the nose. I also drilled out the cooling/fire holes in the wing root, ready for their red squares. I think the intake blow-in doors came out pretty good. I like this effect better than what the resin parts give you. I suppose that means every Harrier I build will end up getting the same treatment. Ugh. I have the GR.1, GR.3, GR.7/9, FA.2, T.2 and T.4 in the stash...nice collection if I ever finish them! I can't remember - is the turtledeck the same colour as the cockpit? I imagine it is, so I'll need to mask that off and paint it. I'll go through all those walkaround pictures first, though, to make sure! And then there are all those small areas that need to be masked off and painted, like the various antennae, UHF and IFF panels, etc. I think the HF notch on the leading edge of the fin will need to be a decal. Should be sufficient in this scale. I think there are a couple of vents that I need to add once she's setting on her wheels. Speaking of wheels, they've been painted and are ready to go. I painted both the Hasegawa and Fujimi main wheels - still can't decide which ones I want to use. Cheers, Bill 13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martian Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Very smart as always Bill! Martian 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody37 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Looks great already Bill, hope you get a photo with the RN buccaneer when done 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hacker Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 (edited) Quote However, because I like to make things difficult Yes you do Bill or at least that is rumours l start Anyways l have seen this thread but just got to it as l been busy with the kids home this week from school ( back to school for them tomorrow ) so l just got caught up here. Nicely done Bill, workmanship at it's finest! I was going to kit bash the other Airfix FA2 Sea Harrier with the newer GR 1/3 fuselage at some point but FRS1 was a hard one to figure what is the best. From what l can see here the Fujimi and the ESCI kits are the better way to go for me. Meanwhile l am taking notes as always. Edited January 8, 2017 by hacker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Bird Posted January 8, 2017 Author Share Posted January 8, 2017 On 08/01/2017 at 16:59, Martian Hale said: Very smart as always Bill! Martian Thanks, Martin. There is something about EDSG that suits me. That and Light Gull Gray. Those two are the real colours for naval aviation, not that low-viz stuff they use now. I guess that means I'm old. On 08/01/2017 at 17:01, woody37 said: Looks great already Bill, hope you get a photo with the RN buccaneer when done For you, anything! I was just working on the S.2 the other day, modifying the wings so that they are now folded at (almost) the correct angle. I always hate breaking apart a perfectly good model to try and make it better. Usually I just cock it up! But everything went according to plan - now I have to do the S.1 to match. On 08/01/2017 at 17:05, hacker said: Yes you do Bill or at least that is rumours l start Anyways l have seen this thread but just got to it as l been busy with the kids home this week from school ( back to school for them tomorrow ) so l just got caught up here. Nicely done Bill, workmanship at it's finest! I was going to kit bash the other Airfix FA2 Sea Harrier with the newer GR 1/3 fuselage at some point but FRS1 was a hard one to figure what is the best. From what l can see here the Fujimi and the ESCI kits are the better way to go for me. Meanwhile l am taking notes as always. Although I've never built one, it looks to me like ESCI took all of the best features of the Fujimi kit, and got rid of all of the bad stuff (like the horrible joins between the front and rear fuselage sections, and the huge gap with the vertical fin). If you want to build an FRS.1, go for ESCI (Italeri/Academy). I'm only building the Fujimi kit because it was already in the stash and I didn't want to buy another kit. The real fun will start when I try to build the Special Hobby FA.2, bashing it with the Hasegawa wings, Pavla cockpit and nose, Quickboost outriggers, and Eduard photoetch. Unfortunately I will have to paint it low-viz grey. No, wait, there is a Oxford Blue anniversary scheme! Aha! Thanks to Selwyn, I now have some good references on British bombs, and determined that of the versions included in the two kits, Hasegawa's is the best. However, I've found some that are even better - these are the ones that came with the Scale Resin Buccaneer S.1 kit. I will most likely use one of them on the center pylon, rocket pods on the inner wing pylons, and Sidewinders on the outer wing pylons. I hope that is a representative load-out. Tape is off, and things look good! I'm adding some landing gear stuff now. Woo hoo! Cheers, Bill PS. Anyone else notice that this new version of the forum software is schizophrenic about paragraph justification? I compose ragged right, it switches to fully justified when I save the post. I then have to go back and edit the post to get ragged right back again. Posts from ages ago are all fully justified, and some of them look ridiculous (like spreading ten words or so across the full width of the paragraph. What's going on? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamden Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Looking splendid in that colour scheme! Roger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giemme Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 The EDSG coat looks great! Did I miss something here, though? Have you been pre or post shading for that? Either way, I love the final result Ciao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selwyn Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 12 hours ago, Navy Bird said: Thanks, Martin. There is something about EDSG that suits me. That and Light Gull Gray. Those two are the real colours for naval aviation, not that low-viz stuff they use now. I guess that means I'm old. For you, anything! I was just working on the S.2 the other day, modifying the wings so that they are now folded at (almost) the correct angle. I always hate breaking apart a perfectly good model to try and make it better. Usually I just cock it up! But everything went according to plan - now I have to do the S.1 to match. Although I've never built one, it looks to me like ESCI took all of the best features of the Fujimi kit, and got rid of all of the bad stuff (like the horrible joins between the front and rear fuselage sections, and the huge gap with the vertical fin). If you want to build an FRS.1, go for ESCI (Italeri/Academy). I'm only building the Fujimi kit because it was already in the stash and I didn't want to buy another kit. The real fun will start when I try to build the Special Hobby FA.2, bashing it with the Hasegawa wings, Pavla cockpit and nose, Quickboost outriggers, and Eduard photoetch. Unfortunately I will have to paint it low-viz grey. No, wait, there is a Roundel Blue anniversary scheme! Aha! Thanks to Selwyn, I now have some good references on British bombs, and determined that of the versions included in the two kits, Hasegawa's is the best. However, I've found some that are even better - these are the ones that came with the Scale Resin Buccaneer S.1 kit. I will most likely use one of them on the center pylon, rocket pods on the inner wing pylons, and Sidewinders on the outer wing pylons. I hope that is a representative load-out. Tape is off, and things look good! I'm adding some landing gear stuff now. Woo hoo! Cheers, Bill PS. Anyone else notice that this new version of the forum software is schizophrenic about paragraph justification? I compose ragged right, it switches to fully justified when I save the post. I then have to go back and edit the post to get ragged right back again. Posts from ages ago are all fully justified, and some of them look ridiculous (like spreading ten words or so across the full width of the paragraph. What's going on? I would go with Tanks on the inner pylons as these were standard fit as they needed the range from the carrier decks. Must admit I have never seen a SHAR carring 2" rocket pods. They would certainly not be fitted for AD duties. The only 2" pods I know of that were used in the falklands were on RAF GR3 IIRC. (willing to be corrected on this). Selwyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 55 minutes ago, Selwyn said: I would go with Tanks on the inner pylons as these were standard fit as they needed the range from the carrier decks. Must admit I have never seen a SHAR carring 2" rocket pods. They would certainly not be fitted for AD duties. The only 2" pods I know of that were used in the falklands were on RAF GR3 IIRC. (willing to be corrected on this). Selwyn Seen a preFalklands shot of one with 2 in pods on the outer pylons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Bird Posted January 9, 2017 Author Share Posted January 9, 2017 6 hours ago, giemme said: The EDSG coat looks great! Did I miss something here, though? Have you been pre or post shading for that? Either way, I love the final result Thanks! Post-shading, guv'ner. I never pre-shade, it's a crime against nature. 3 hours ago, Selwyn said: I would go with Tanks on the inner pylons as these were standard fit as they needed the range from the carrier decks. Must admit I have never seen a SHAR carring 2" rocket pods. They would certainly not be fitted for AD duties. The only 2" pods I know of that were used in the falklands were on RAF GR3 IIRC. (willing to be corrected on this). Selwyn Thanks - since I'll be mounting the Sidewinders, perhaps I should use the tanks. But this will be in a pre-Falklands scheme, so maybe range wasn't a concern? The load-out would all be training versions of the ordnance I suppose. Makes a difference in how they're painted, right? Cheers, Bill 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 From memory, the only weapons I think I've seen on inner pylons were Sea eagles and WE177 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giemme Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 5 hours ago, Navy Bird said: I never pre-shade, it's a crime against nature. Well, I'm a criminal, then ... but I also post-shade, sometimes... Ciao 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Bird Posted January 10, 2017 Author Share Posted January 10, 2017 Whilst trying to get the landing gear mounted on the Sea Harrier, I discovered a fundamental axiom of mathematics. Five points do NOT determine a plane. Cheers, Bill 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 57 minutes ago, Navy Bird said: Whilst trying to get the landing gear mounted on the Sea Harrier, I discovered a fundamental axiom of mathematics. Five points do NOT determine a plane. Uh-oh. Math jokes. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giemme Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 4 hours ago, Navy Bird said: Five points do NOT determine a plane. 3 hours ago, Procopius said: Uh-oh. Math jokes. Wait: I haven't checked on my Harrier, yet. Ciao 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 16 hours ago, Navy Bird said: perhaps I should use the tanks. But this will be in a pre-Falklands scheme, so maybe range wasn't a concern? I know relying on photos isn't always the best way to go, but by far the majority of shots of pre-war Shars show them carrying the tanks. I think the extra fuel in a Harrier was welcome. 1 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