Falklands Sea Harrier - La Muerta Negra

[Pappy]

3 hours ago, exdraken said:

The Amraam can't be realistically used with the FRS.1! only the FA.2 used them. They were not availBle in 1982 ...

thats why no decals for these I guess!

not sure about the SeaEagle. Definitrly was not used in the conflict.

hope you will be able to make use of these fantastic missiles elsewhere!!

 

2 hours ago, Selwyn said:

Sidewinders look good, all the other stuff is not really appropriate for a Falklands  navy jet.

Just a note, as you have got the red target detector covers on the winders I assume your build is a wheels down aircraft parked version.  To make the winders more accurate you need to fit the yellow "noddy caps" on the seekers, as these are always fitted on the ground (or in your case deck!) they are always removed at engine start and refitted on shutdown. Another thing you will need is an extra RBF flag on the rocket motor arming key (at the green patch on the missile body as seen in your pictures).

To be really anally accurate the Missile RBF flags AIM9L being american missiles, are american and are red and have "Remove before flight" written on them. however the pylon RBF flags are the British standard which are the red/white diagonal stripe design. these would be used on any occupied aircraft pylons.

 

I actually could go really anally anal on the sidewinders, but that would be silly and would entitle you to shoot me on sight!

 

Incidentally, an interesting point about the Sea Eagle and the Falklands, this missile was undergoing early flight testing on SHAR when the war started. The flight test aircraft, the only one that was equipped to carry the missile was taken from trials  for service on the carriers. This jet was the one that was shot down over port Stanley. airfield. When the Argentines examined the wreck they found the sole existing Sea Eagle control panel, which was fitted (they obviously had no time to remove it on the rush south) and therefore they had to assume that the missile was  operational with SHAR. This was  believed  to be probably a factor in Argentine navy planning, resulting in their  major surface units largely staying in port during the conflict.

 

Selwyn

(happy new year to you all by the way!)

 

 

Gents, I never intended for the AMRAAMs or Sea Eagles to be fitted to my SHAR, they were built up just for fun to see how they would look painted up. For one thing all the ordnance displayed would just not fit on the jet at once. I will one day build an FA.2 so having some whoosh bangs ready to fit may come in handy, or they can be fitted to another platform, it is just a shame that since they were included in the kit there are no decals included. As for the Sea Eagles, as Selwyn stated, they were trialed but not used during Op Corporate. Still they are included and could be fitted to the FRS.1 so no decals is a disappointment here as well, on top of the incorrect intake configuration. As for other platforms, Buccaneer, Jags (Indian)  and Sea King have all carried the missile, so these will do nicely.

 

Selwyn, always good to hear from you and yes, I realise the AOTD covers should have RBF on the streamers.

 

I have never seen the rocket motor arming switch having its own RBF streamer, after all it is not like it can arm itself as it needs to be pulled out of its detent and rotated through about 90 degrees and then seated in another detent, but I can add one if you say it needs one. I have  seen a detent wrench safety pin fitted to the LAU-7's when live missiles are loaded (which is only removed at the ASPs), is this not the case with the SHAR/UK aircraft ? I suppose a carrier deck does not really have a dedicated ASP?  I have not actually finished the kit yet, and that means some (fragile) details will be added later, including the seeker covers. I was thinking of having one on and one off, perhaps being inspected on walkaround? I think that apart from protecting the seeker domes from damage they also cage the seeker when power is removed?

 

Be as anal as you want ( I'm sure that came out wrong -ooh ahh!), even if I don't heed the advice, someone else may find the information useful. As for nit picking, well, to be correct, I should have picked out the 'delta P' panel on the AIM-9 GCS  a darker shade (I still might) and when the missiles are on their rails, the LAU-7 fin keepers should engage the fwd steering fins (I have never seen this depicted). Whilst we are at it, all jets should have an earth lead attached when parked, but especially when tooled up. Finally and aircraft armed sign should be present,

 

As for the major Argy surface combatants deciding not to play, I would have though the bigger factor was the submarine threat following the sinking of  the General Belgrano.

 

thanks for all the comments everyone,

 

cheers,

 

Pappy

Edited January 1, 2017 by Pappy

[exdraken]

Sea Eagle decals would indeed be welcome!

For the the loadout, better be sure sorry

Edited January 1, 2017 by exdraken

[Selwyn]

7 hours ago, Pappy said:

 

 

Gents, I never intended for the AMRAAMs or Sea Eagles to be fitted to my SHAR, they were built up just for fun to see how they would look painted up. For one thing all the ordnance displayed would just not fit on the jet at once. I will one day build an FA.2 so having some whoosh bangs ready to fit may come in handy, or they can be fitted to another platform, it is just a shame that since they were included in the kit there are no decals included. As for the Sea Eagles, as Selwyn stated, they were trialed but not used during Op Corporate. Still they are included and could be fitted to the FRS.1 so no decals is a disappointment here as well, on top of the incorrect intake configuration. As for other platforms, Buccaneer, Jags (Indian)  and Sea King have all carried the missile, so these will do nicely.

 

Selwyn, always good to hear from you and yes, I realise the AOTD covers should have RBF on the streamers.

 

I have never seen the rocket motor arming switch having its own RBF streamer, after all it is not like it can arm itself as it needs to be pulled out of its detent and rotated through about 90 degrees and then seated in another detent, but I can add one if you say it needs one. I have  seen a detent wrench safety pin fitted to the LAU-7's when live missiles are loaded (which is only removed at the ASPs), is this not the case with the SHAR/UK aircraft ? I suppose a carrier deck does not really have a dedicated ASP?  I have not actually finished the kit yet, and that means some (fragile) details will be added later, including the seeker covers. I was thinking of having one on and one off, perhaps being inspected on walkaround? I think that apart from protecting the seeker domes from damage they also cage the seeker when power is removed?

 

Be as anal as you want ( I'm sure that came out wrong -ooh ahh!), even if I don't heed the advice, someone else may find the information useful. As for nit picking, well, to be correct, I should have picked out the 'delta P' panel on the AIM-9 GCS  a darker shade (I still might) and when the missiles are on their rails, the LAU-7 fin keepers should engage the fwd steering fins (I have never seen this depicted). Whilst we are at it, all jets should have an earth lead attached when parked, but especially when tooled up. Finally and aircraft armed sign should be present,

 

As for the major Argy surface combatants deciding not to play, I would have though the bigger factor was the submarine threat following the sinking of  the General Belgrano.

 

thanks for all the comments everyone,

 

cheers,

 

Pappy

Pappy,

 

The Sidewinder rocket motors used by the RAF in the Falklands were an earlier model (38 Mod 8 IIRC?)and had a removable "T" key that had a RBF flag on it. The  Missiles in the kit have the later twist type arming key you describe and were not used in the falklands timescale.  (Told you I could be anal!) I did not see that kind of key system  used on RAF missiles until the gulf war 1990 (and They were M not L missiles).

Yes you are right about the LAU 7/A detent key but there would possibly be a pylon pin and flag  in the Pylon ERU as well.  You are correct about the noddy cap  caging the seeker head,  thats why it was always fitted on the ground (no Power on).

 

I agree the submarine threat was a major factor in keeping the fleet in  dock,  but any additional "Evidence" Argentine intelligence found such as the sea eagle panel obviously  helped!

 

Selwyn

Edited January 1, 2017 by Selwyn

[rich2010]

I can't tell the size of your drop tanks from the photos, but there were two types of tanks used by Shars. In the Falklands they used the 100(?) gallon ones, whilst afterwards they used 190 gallon. 

[Pappy]

4 hours ago, Selwyn said:

Pappy,

 

The Sidewinder rocket motors used by the RAF in the Falklands were an earlier model (38 Mod 8 IIRC?)and had a removable "T" key that had a RBF flag on it. The  Missiles in the kit have the later twist type arming key you describe and were not used in the falklands timescale.  (Told you I could be anal!) I did not see that kind of key system  used on RAF missiles until the gulf war 1990 (and They were M not L missiles).

Yes you are right about the LAU 7/A detent key but there would possibly be a pylon pin and flag  in the Pylon ERU as well.  You are correct about the noddy cap  caging the seeker head,  thats why it was always fitted on the ground (no Power on).

 

I agree the submarine threat was a major factor in keeping the fleet in  dock,  but any additional "Evidence" Argentine intelligence found such as the sea eagle panel obviously  helped!

 

Selwyn

 

Great info as always Selwyn

 

3 hours ago, rich2010 said:

I can't tell the size of your drop tanks from the photos, but there were two types of tanks used by Shars. In the Falklands they used the 100(?) gallon ones, whilst afterwards they used 190 gallon. 

 

G'day Rich, the ones in the pics are the standard 100 gallon tanks. The kit includes the larger (190 gallon) tanks as well which I have assembled but not finished,

 

G'day people,

 

The intakes are now on.

 

 

The fit here was not the greatest, especially the left intake.

 

The right intake was not too bad

 

 

The left intake gaps on the inside

 

 

as well as a considerable step between the intake and fuselage

 

 

I see some sanding and filling in my future..............

 

cheers,

 

Pappy

 

 

 

 

 

[Martian]

Those intakes do not look at all good, especially for a modern kit. Still, we have every confidence that you will get them sorted out.

 

Martian

[Sarcococca]

Wow, that`s nice! I like all tose lil`details you`ve added.

[Pappy]

On 02/01/2017 at 0:46 PM, Martian Hale said:

Those intakes do not look at all good, especially for a modern kit. Still, we have every confidence that you will get them sorted out.

 

Martian

 

On 03/01/2017 at 5:02 AM, Sarcococca said:

Wow, that`s nice! I like all tose lil`details you`ve added.

 

Thanks chaps,

 

The intakes step looks a lot worse than it is due to the macro lens, but putty has been applied and sanding has commenced. Meanwhile, I was looking at my refs when I discovered another kit error.

 

Kinetic provide the small panel (part E 25) on the tail boom underside with the Reaction Control Vent (RCV) and two circular grilles as a separate panel. Full marks on the idea as this means the builder avoids a nasty seam running down the guts and possibly eliminating or damaging this delicate detail whilst cleaning up the centreline seam. The instructions would have you install this item with the details back to front, i.e with the two circular grilles towards the rear and the RCV towards the front. This is wrong, the RCV should be aft and the two circular grilles forward. Unfortunately, the tail boom has a subtle taper in length and width so that simply installing the part the opposite way to the instructions means that the part tapers the opposite way to the surrounding surface

 

I was faced with three options;

 

1. Ignore it

2  Fix it

3. Replace it

 

I decided that I could not ignore it and although it would be easy enough to add a chunk of styrene and sand to shape, I really like the details included, so I decided on option 2.

 

Part E 25 was glued in the opposite orientation to the instructions and generous amounts of sprue glue were applied to the edges of the part.

 

 

 

Once this had dried, the part was sanded to profile and the forward contours were built back up with putty to match the surrounding surface

 

 

Luckily, the PE set provides a couple of small PE grilles that are supposed to sit over the supplied detail. The kit detail is nice enough and only needs a wash so I was not intending on using these items until now. Once the putty was sanded back, two small holes were drilled where the grilles should be and these were progressively enlarged until they were just larger than the PE replacement grilles. Once satisfied, the PE grilles were attached with a small drop of CA

 

 

Result!

 

cheers,

 

Pappy

Edited January 5, 2017 by Pappy

[HOUSTON]

Pappy,

 

EXEMPLARY workmanship  with great detailing.

 

and information in your thread is fascinating and Selwyn's input  and "first"  hand knowledge can't be knocked. 

 

Pappy keep up the EXCELLENCE  and high standards you have set for the others..

 

keep it Coming.

 

 

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

Hi Pappy - great work continuing!  

 

I'm painting mine at the moment - but I had a sod of a time getting the intakes to fit nicely too- I think it's one of the "features" of this kit

One question - the single AIM-9 launcher rail and its pylon adaptor: I read somewhere it should be a different adaptor for a Falkands war timescale SHAR. Did I imagine I read that, or should i wear a mask more when spraying?

 

Cheers from frosty blighty

 

Jonners

[Pappy]

2 minutes ago, Jon Kunac-Tabinor said:

Hi Pappy - great work continuing!  

 

I'm painting mine at the moment - but I had a sod of a time getting the intakes to fit nicely too- I think it's one of the "features" of this kit

One question - the single AIM-9 launcher rail and its pylon adaptor: I read somewhere it should be a different adaptor for a Falkands war timescale SHAR. Did I imagine I read that, or should i wear a mask more when spraying?

 

Cheers from frosty blighty

 

Jonners

 

G'day Jonners!

 

I think that the majority of my intake fit problem was down to me. I only did a casual dry fit before committing to glue but in hindsight, If I had paid more attention to the ends of the intake parts that contact the fuselage I may have saved myself some grief.

 

I am no expert on SHAR's, hopefully Selwyn will pop along shortly and enlighten us both!  To my eye, the single rail definitely looks like a LAU-7, and that is what the kit supplies. There may be different variants of LAU-7 that The RN were using at the time which may be the issue. The LAU-7 replaced the Aero-3B in service as the AIM-9 rail, but the Aero-3B is squarer and chunkier and  these were replaced long before the Sea Harrier arrived on the scene. The adapter may be the issue as the forward and aft ends may need to taper lengthways instead of the vertical ends as the kit depicts but again I am not 100%,

 

cheers,

 

Pappy

[Selwyn]

40 minutes ago, Pappy said:

 

G'day Jonners!

 

I think that the majority of my intake fit problem was down to me. I only did a casual dry fit before committing to glue but in hindsight, If I had paid more attention to the ends of the intake parts that contact the fuselage I may have saved myself some grief.

 

I am no expert on SHAR's, hopefully Selwyn will pop along shortly and enlighten us both!  To my eye, the single rail definitely looks like a LAU-7, and that is what the kit supplies. There may be different variants of LAU-7 that The RN were using at the time which may be the issue. The LAU-7 replaced the Aero-3B in service as the AIM-9 rail, but the Aero-3B is squarer and chunkier and  these were replaced long before the Sea Harrier arrived on the scene. The adapter may be the issue as the forward and aft ends may need to taper lengthways instead of the vertical ends as the kit depicts but again I am not 100%,

 

cheers,

 

Pappy

Pappy, Not sure about the pylon adaptor Jonners is asking about, this incidentally is the bit between the Launcher and the pylon allowing the rail to be attached to the pylon release unit. This may have changed design after the Falklands but that was after my Harrier time.  The Launcher used by the RN/RAF harriers was the LAU7/A, (the RAF/RN only used this type for AIM 9 on all aircraft types, I never saw another design of SRAAM rail launcher used on any UK aircraft,until the Typhoon. 

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

30 minutes ago, Selwyn said:

Pappy, Not sure about the pylon adaptor Jonners is asking about, this incidentally is the bit between the Launcher and the pylon allowing the rail to be attached to the pylon release unit. This may have changed design after the Falklands but that was after my Harrier time.  The Launcher used by the RN/RAF harriers was the LAU7/A, (the RAF/RN only used this type for AIM 9 on all aircraft types, I never saw another design of SRAAM rail launcher used on any UK aircraft,until the Typhoon. 

Cheers Welwyn - if it looks fine for a Corporate SHAR that will suit my needs!

 

Jonners

 

[Martian]

Good fix Pappy and thanks for highlighting it for us.

 

Martian

[Pappy]

2 hours ago, Selwyn said:

Pappy, Not sure about the pylon adaptor Jonners is asking about, this incidentally is the bit between the Launcher and the pylon allowing the rail to be attached to the pylon release unit. This may have changed design after the Falklands but that was after my Harrier time.  The Launcher used by the RN/RAF harriers was the LAU7/A, (the RAF/RN only used this type for AIM 9 on all aircraft types, I never saw another design of SRAAM rail launcher used on any UK aircraft,until the Typhoon. 

 

 Cheers Selwyn, it is great that you are riding shotgun on this  and keeping me honest!

 

Pappy

[71chally]

On 23/12/2016 at 9:37 PM, Pappy said:

Interestingly, two sets of wings are provided. One wing is for the previously released Sea Harrier FA.2 boxing. The only difference that I could find is that the FA.2 wing has the second vortex generator (from the inboard end) deleted

 

FA.2

 

FRS.1

 

 

The biggest change in the FA.2 wing was the kink in the leading edge, which in effect fares in the outboard dog tooth, there is an extra wing fence fitted at that point as well.

 

Superb build going on here and sorrry I've only just picked up on it!

[Pappy]

1 minute ago, 71chally said:

 

The biggest change in the FA.2 wing was the kink in the leading edge, which in effect fares in the outboard dog tooth, there is an extra wing fence fitted at that point as well.

 

Superb build going on here and sorrry I've only just picked up on it!

 

G'day James and I am glad that you are enjoying  the ride. The wing difference between the FRS.1 and FA.2 has already been pointed out by Col on the first page of this thread,

 

cheers,

 

Pappy

[71chally]

Ooops, missed that!

 

Too busy looking at your marvelous build.

[Pappy]

G'day folks,

 

Guess what, I found another error with the Kinetic SHAR kit!

 

This one is a really simple fix.

 

The kit features a panel in front of the windshield that is shaped like an air inlet. Upon checking the refs, yup, there should be an inlet scoop here which the instructions neglect to mention. The good news is that this part (well at least what I think part E13 is for) is included on the E sprue. Part E13 is not mentioned anywhere else in the instructions but it corresponds perfectly to the 'panel' shape so I cleaned this part up and added it to the nose.

 

 

The slot for the nose mounted pitot was also cleaned up. The fuselage seam passes directly through this slot and I found that one half of the slot was slightly higher. I cleaned up the slot using a micro chisel which comes in very handy for this sort of job.

 

The kit pitot is very nicely moulded, although the sprue attachment points will require great care to clean up without damaging the item.

 

 

 

I wanted to add the pitot base to the kit so that the paint would match, but in order to avoid damaging the delicate probe, I sawed off the probe from the base. I also drilled out the base to accept a turned brass replacement

 

 

 

This approach would also work if I had chosen not to purchase a brass pitot, as the kit probe will still plug into the probe base,

 

cheers,

 

Pappy

Edited January 6, 2017 by Pappy

[pacificmustang]

On ‎1‎/‎01‎/‎2017 at 8:00 AM, Pappy said:

 

G'day John,

 

Thanks very much for the kind words. I am not here to advertise other people's stuff, but I am pretty sure you can figure out whose PE I am using, there are not that many options. If you go to their website, you can actually view a PDF of their PE instructions which will give you a good idea of what kit parts need to be modified or omitted so you can get a good idea as to the additional detail the PE  parts will add and if the set ill be worth purchasing. Sometimes I think the kit details are better

 

 Oh For gods sake pappy!!

  The PE is  Eduard John.  Was that so hard to answer ? 

simple question, the bloke wants to know so he can buy some Pappy, that's what we do here, help people

 

Bruce

[Pappy]

On 1/6/2017 at 1:15 PM, pacificmustang said:

 Oh For gods sake pappy!!

  The PE is  Eduard John.  Was that so hard to answer ? 

simple question, the bloke wants to know so he can buy some Pappy, that's what we do here, help people

 

Bruce

 

Actually Bruce, although you are correct about the exterior set, the interior set is not by Eduard so you will have to guess again I am afraid.

 

I am not being paid to post my builds.

 

There are people who contribute to magazines (paper as well as virtual) who do get paid for their work (good luck to them), and who are also given aftermarket stuff gratus, they are expected to plug that stuff.I have to pay for this AM stuff (like most people) but that does not mean that I am obliged to advertise their products as well - that is my choice. It is a philosophical point, but one I wish to make all the same

 

As for helping people, I think that is exactly what my build is doing, revealing the pitfalls so that others are not caught out. There are several 'gotcha's that have not appeared in any of the reviews I have seen for the kit which I have raised, so before you would presume to lecture me, I would suggest that I am helping people, I just don't see the need to advertise manufacturers who are more than capable of doing so themselves,

 

Now unless you have something useful to contribute to building a SHAR, how about you be useful and stop hijacking my thread

 

Pappy

 

 

Edited January 17, 2023 by Pappy

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

Pappy - this seems to be the fella!! ( thanks for the link to the SHAR pic too)

 

http://www.tpub.com/aviord321/47.htm   scroll down a tad for a diagram

 

It's an ADU-299 adaptor

 

pic of one here too attached to a Skyhawk

 

http://zone-five.net/showpost.php?s=b62da6b212ddf5067b94b0295ee3e235&p=295611&postcount=34

 

Hope this is of help to us all

 

 

Jonners

[Pappy]

3 hours ago, Jon Kunac-Tabinor said:

Pappy - this seems to be the fella!! ( thanks for the link to the SHAR pic too)

 

http://www.tpub.com/aviord321/47.htm   scroll down a tad for a diagram

 

It's an ADU-299 adaptor

 

pic of one here too attached to a Skyhawk

 

http://zone-five.net/showpost.php?s=b62da6b212ddf5067b94b0295ee3e235&p=295611&postcount=34

 

Hope this is of help to us all

 

 

Jonners

 

That looks like a pretty close match from where I am sitting, good work that man there!

 

cheers,

 

Pappy

[Pappy]

G'day people,

 

Well I have pushed on through the unpleasantness that was the intake assemblies. After several sessions of FSR (fill, sand - repeat) I am happy to say that I eventually triumphed over the intakes.

 

 

 

 

 

The intakes were given a quick blast of EDSG to see if the job was really over

 

 

 

Since I still had some paint in the airbrush, the tail cone was also given a quick blast

 

 

Result!

 

Next up, I started working on the wings. The flight controls are supplied as separate parts so you can position these as you wish. I will attach the flaps after the wing is attached to the fuselage but the ailerons were installed next. The trailing edges are wonderfully thin and sharp,

 

 

 

The ailerons have two types of hinges provided, one set allows the builder to install these in a streamlined position, the other with both ailerons drooped down. I wanted mine streamlined so the appropriate hinges were cleaned up.

 

Which brings me to the next issue.

 

The hinges have two locating pins, one for the aileron and one for the wing trailing edge.

 

 

The problem is, Kinetic have the wing trailing edge locating holes flashed over. They are easily visible on the inner surface of the lower wing halves. Step 4 deals with the wing assembly, however there is no mention at all in the instructions that these locating holes need to be drilled out. The FA.2 wing is also included in the FRS.1 boxing and the holes for this wing are already open. Perhaps this is a quality control issue and it was just my kits? Both of my FRS.1 kits have the same issue, although I was able to measure the positions using the unstarted kit to determine the correct positions to drill the locating holes.

 

In any case, the ailerons were attached to the wing but now a new problem arose. There is a step between the wing underside and the lower aileron surface which meant that the hinges met the ailerons with a gap.

 

 

Two steps forwards and one backwards it appears.....................

 

Pappy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 7, 2017 by Pappy

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

Pappy looks like you have changed the SHAR's designation then   From FRS, to FSR

 

my kit kit had the same flashed over holes for the aileron actuators, and I didn't notice. I just trimmed off the  appropriate pin, and yes, mine had gaps too.   I feel a little ashamed, as I should have flagged it up. Soz!!

 

jonners