Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

96 Good

About P.1127

  • Rank
    New Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Cracking build, brilliant display. That's for sharing, Jack
  2. This is right up my street, a great idea to stop a model heading off to landfill: "green" modelling! look forward to seeing how you get on with it. What's your plan regarding the paint scheme? Jack
  3. Gah... I assumed (clearly incorrectly) that the intake configuration was fixed for XP984... more research required obviously. I'll think on re. the tailplane: I've already modified the one I have to what I think is the original configuration and am trying to source a starboard half: if I come across both halves for sale I'll perhaps stick to the Harrier type. In reality there's a little bit of time to finalise the configuration but I am getting itchy and wanting to glue the fuselage together... I MUST resist! Thanks for your interest, Jack
  4. Lovely start, especially the instrument panel. Looking forward to watching this progress. Jack
  5. Afternoon all, I've not been idle over the last few days but, alas, I've not got as much done as I would have liked. Photos of the NLG bay with it's modicum of scratch-built detail. Needless to say that it all looks a little bit better in real life... I've now moved onto the cockpit area attempting some scratch-building in way of adding detail to the tub and ejection seat. The Instrument Panel in the Kestrels is noticeably different than that supplied in the kit. This is my current focus and I'll post an update hopefully after the weekend. The rest of the time I've been digging into the configuration history of XP984. Merewether's book has been a great help here for trying to nail the configuration. According to Merewether (who I assume to be correct!) the aircraft flew with two wing types: the "7th", or Kestrel wing and the Harrier wing. The aircraft flew with three tailplane types: the "original", an "extended" and the "production" (what I assume to be the Harrier) tailplanes. I have made enquiries as to what the "extended" tailplane looks like... the original tailplane is what I have modelled (I'm still to locate a replacement for the lost one) based on the literature, which was modified from the Harrier one in the kit. The wasp in the beer? Merewether's book provides a fantastic list of the aircraft's flights up until 11th September 1968 but it clearly states that the aircraft only ever flew conventionally, i.e. not vertically, with the original tailplane. My plan to model the aircraft hovering in it's original configuration is not accurate... as it never did hover in this configuration. No worries... slight change of plan required I think... I may now display the model on the ground in a "just about to take-off conventionally" pose. Thanks for the interest (and for keeping the pressure on), Jack (P.1127)
  6. I love this, just my type of modelling... a quick build with plenty of time for running around the house simulating dispersed operations from the sofa before commencing a strafing run on the dastardly Lego mini-figure insurgents... with lots of Pegasus roar for good measure. The model itself looks brilliant. Thanks for sharing this uplifting reminder of the fun than can be had with this hobby. Jack
  7. A serious looking machine, one of my favourite Soviet era aircraft (along with the above mentioned Blackjack). It definitely looks the part to me, especially in the Iraqi colours. Off to Ebay I go to try and find one... Thanks for sharing, Jack
  8. Lovely job on the He 280, an aircraft I didn't know too much about. I really like your sound of your future plans and look forward to seeing them. Jack
  9. I've enjoyed watching this. I'd admire your ability to crack-on and not get bogged down when things get tricky. Impressive stuff, if you ask me. Thanks for sharing, Jack
  10. Lots and lots of information has come my way over the course of the past couple of days, all of which I'm grateful for. It's going to take me a couple of days to pick the bones out of it all but I think XP984 might have flown, albeit briefly, in the configuration that I've sort-of committed to model, phew! (more to follow on this) Thanks to a section of a factory drawing of the Kestrel sent to me by Nick (NG899) I've managed to check the length of the Airfix GR1 fuselage. Despite a slight mis-scaling of the drawing from screen to printer by me, it seems as though the Kestrel fuselage length (from the drawing) does match the Airfix fuselage length... which means that I don't have to shorten it... HOORAH! Next step is to revise the MLG based on new info received and crack on with the NLG. Until then, Jack
  11. Crumbs, you're not hanging about with this! Cracking demarcation there and a tidy job with excavating the landing gear bays. Jack
  12. Brilliant, Brilliant, Brilliant! I appreciate your time in digging all of that out for me. In fact, I struggled to find it when I first set up the thread but I have spent some time in the past admiring your 1/48 P.117 conversion and it was that (amongst other things...) that inspired me to give this a go. "Thanks"... at least I think so for now haha On the subject of XP984, there's some great stuff there which is very useful: I'll definitely take on your advice regarding the MLG and lengthen it even more than I have currently done so (if you could send me any drawings to assist it getting the length right then that would be brill.) The fuselage... if I understand correctly what you've written above, which can not be guaranteed, then the fuselage length of the Kestrel (inc. XP984) is NOT the same as that as the Harrier GR1 as provided by Airfix (ignoring the pitot length difference, of course). I've seen a diagram in an AIAA publication written by Fozard that the extension took place between the P.1127s and P.1127/2s (aka Kestrels). Have I interpreted this incorrectly? The wing... I think then that the wing as I have it at the moment is a valid configuration for XP984? i.e. no LE extensions, no vortex generators... I need to drop the flaps for displaying in the hover but that's a "minor" point for another day. The tailplane… so it seems that the tailplane as shown in my first post is a valid XP984 configuration? PHEW! (I still need to find another one though but there's plenty of time for that). My info here has come from a paper presented at a combined AIAA/AHS/ASEE conference on Aircraft Design by Fozard in 1990: figure 4.4 on page 8 gives table defining the span, anhedral and area of the tailplane configurations between the P.1127 and Harrier. ... The question remains in my mind though, if I've understood your information correctly, did XP984 fly or even just exist in the wing / tailplane configuration... or do I need to reconsider my options... or build it as a WHIFF? haha Sorry if any of the above comes across as defensive or combative... it's not my intention, I'm just keen to learn (where I've gone wrong haha) Interesting to read that John Farley flew XP984 in the Hole in the Woods proving exercise. I had the good fortune to meet him whilst I was a student at Cranfield in either 2008 or 2009 (I suppose it must have been 2009). Another nice link to the aircraft being modelled. I understand that the trial took place from RAE Bedford, is that right? Wrt XS695 I was in fact at Cosford this past weekend with the family and some friends: a smashing day out although the lower floor of the Cold War hangar was closed for unpublicised reasons, including the shop which naturally left me gutted and took the edge off of the day! I'd noticed the lack of wing-tip RCVs on previous occasions but was encouraged to see that the replacement fairing over the stbd wing had been removed... perhaps to reinstate something more representative?! I digress... One of the reasons I love this hobby is the fascination with historical aspects, it's just great to at least try and get this stuff right during a build! If you don't mind, I'll take you up on the offer of any extra info that you might be able to send me to help with the build. I'll PM you my address this evening. Thanks again, P.1127 (actual name... Jack)
  13. Funnily enough I recently completed the 1/72 P.1127, it was a nice a relatively quick build. There was still a considerable amount of filler required along all of the seams and I decided to build mine in forward flight with the landing gear retracted... and of course the doors didn't fit well... so lots of filler there too. It was fun anyway and I learnt that I probably need to invest some time in developing my finishing techniques before trashing the paint-job on this thing. I've made a small amount of progress on the 1/24th Kestrel, focusing on the MLG area. The bay is as detailed as it's going to get and as mentioned previously I've been working on the doors, which are now all but complete. The two MLG doors provided in the kit have been glued together, a plastic-card box built for the inner side to thicken it up and a pair of swan-neck hinges roughed up. Unlike the kit offering I won't have the landing gear moveable so all this will be glued in place upon final assembly, making the design of the hinges easier! The MLG strut has been lengthened to represent the unloaded "extended" gear because I'm planning to display this model on a stand in the hover. The plastic-card torque link and systems positioner are a bit rough but will be hidden by the wheels, for the most part. As for the wheels and tyres, my plan is to use the kit offering after a little bit of modification (I quite like the real rubber tyres... there's no accounting for taste). The hubs are plain and need a series of holes drilling into them to improve the appearance, which should be fun! The photo below shows what I'm aiming for (taken from a previously referenced walk-around of XP831... http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/howard_mason2/p1127_kestrel/index.php?Page=2 ) "All" that's left to do here before a bit of painting is some pipe-work on the MLG itself for the brake hydraulics and the tie rod linking the gear and door together (and the wheels...) The photos are still rubbish, I'm afraid. I'll have a good think about how I can improve on them for next time. P.
  14. Very impressive. Thanks for sharing, P.
  • Create New...