P.1127

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

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

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

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

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

Crumbs, you're not hanging about with this! Cracking demarcation there and a tidy job with excavating the landing gear bays. Jack

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)

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.

Very impressive. Thanks for sharing, P.

Following with interest. Despite the issues that you've highlighted the shape looks great to me and the engineering of the kit also looks good. I'm intrigued by the idea of closing up the fuselage in stages. I guess you use a fairly thin styrene glue to wick into the gaps? This sounds much better than slapping on the Humbrol cement "at the double", throwing the two halves together and hoping... i.e. my current method. Thanks for sharing, P.

Yes indeed, the venerable 1/24 scale kit, circa 1974 I think. I'm working with an early boxing so everything is still relatively crisp (although much of the detail is being obliterated anyway!) Thanks Martian, I'm trying my best to keep my head above water with the build... As previously stated I've decided to crack on with main landing gear area. The Kestrel landing gear itself is similar enough as makes no difference to the Harrier, as far as I can tell. The big visual difference appears to be the door configuration. The Harrier has a three door MLG arrangement: a small forward door and two larger doors hinged on outboard edges. The Kestrel has a two door arrangement, the same small forward door but a singular large door, hinged on the leading edge. Thus I am in the process of modifying the two Harrier doors provided in the kit... slowly but surely. Incidentally, it seems as though the singular large MLG door hinged on the leading edge may have provided a fairly effective airbrake for the P.1127s, hence the lack of the large airbrake found on the Harriers. Just a theory though! Watch this space for an update over the weekend, hopefully! P.

A display of enviable skill and an inspiring piece of model making. The air brakes... WOW... I just love those! P.

A small post-holiday update on the Kestrel. The good news was that I managed to sneak it into the car with me (hoorah) but the bad news is that I didn't get as much done as I wanted to: I was too tired in the evenings from long hot days traipsing around the countryside and generally enjoying family life! My intention was to have a break from the heavy duty work of filling/sanding/filling/sanding etc and have a go at some detailing on the main and nose landing gear bays. The Airfix offering leaves a lot to be desired here, in fact the side walls are not defined at all. I hadn't done anything like this before and I thought it'd be fun. I was "sort of" right but was left hankering for more filling/sanding work as a tonic from the fiddliness! In the end I only managed the MLG bay (I think I'll now focus on this area and get the large one piece door and MLG itself done before conducting any more major work). The work is rough by the standards of this site but I have learnt a lot for next time (the main thing being I should have detailed the wall panels before they were stuck together to form the box). I'm not sure on the rules... perhaps I'm breaking them... but the following URL shows the basis for my efforts. http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/howard_mason2/p1127_kestrel/index.php?Page=2 The aircraft in question here is XP831 at the Science Museum: my assumption is that the sixth aircraft (XP984... my aeroplane) would be similar enough to the first wrt to landing gear bays to make no difference. To reiterate, I'm aiming for "that looks like a Kestrel" rather than a faithful miniaturisation. Below are the photos showing the limited progress. FWIW the MLG bay fits better into the fuselage than what the photos suggest: it's much better when held together properly! I hope that by the time I've practiced on the NLG bay, which also won't really be seen once complete, that the cockpit might look half tidy. Another minor victory was had whilst away though. The Tony Buttler book (referenced earlier in the thread) confirms on page 59 that XP984 had the longer (i.e. Harrier length) fuselage, which means that the plastic as supplied by Airfix doesn't need ~1cm cutting out of it. HOORAH! Until next time, P.

Thanks for the interest! I'm feeling the pressure already 😉 Mr. T, Thanks for the heads-up on the book. As a matter of supreme coincidence I was gifted the very book just yesterday evening at club night. I can attest to the pictures in the book being useful (I haven't read it yet...) and luckily the information therein supports the assumptions and modifications that I've already made. PHEW! Interesting to hear your thoughts on the engine: I had assumed that the diameter had remained fairly constant throughout development but I was aware that the size of the accessories on the top had increased due to increased secondary power demands... leading to a larger hump on top of the wing for the Harrier. I'll pore over my new book and find out (as well as re-reading the relevant chapter in "Pegasus: The Heart of the Harrier" by Andrew Dow, recommended as a good source of info. by Ralph Hooper himself!) I should have mentioned my references above, for good measure! As well as my new book, I've mainly been using "Prelude to the Harrier: P.1127" by Hugh Merewether (test pilot) and a paper (long and short versions) written by John Fozard (Harrier Chief Engineer) and published by the AIAA. The former has interesting bits a pieces about the flight testing of the P.1127s as well as individual aircraft overviews whilst the latter is fantastic for proper technical details. I'd recommend both to anyone interested: I can post a photo of the front covers if required. Toby, thanks for the paint info. I'll investigate. To confirm, its a brush on thing rather than the rather fetching yellow filler/primer from a spray can? Its definitely a job to do soonish: some of the pock-marks have been inadvertantly filled with Isopon anyway but that doesn't seem like a sensible route to follow = lots of work. I confess to never have used Milliput before but am looking forward to seeing what exciting avenues it opens up for me. Good tip wrt the freezer, I'll do my very best to remember it for the future. I'm now on holiday for 9 days or so and if I'm clever about packing the car I might be able to sneak the Kestrel into the boot so I can work whilst I'm away! Hopefully i'll have some progress to show upon my return! Cheers, P.

... or Happiness is Vectored Thrust! Firstly, I am a fan of the Harrier but mostly the early variants before the airframe was “afflicted” by the lumps and bumps associated with the development of an aircraft. As you may have guessed by my screen name, I’m particularly fond of the prototype aircraft, the P.1127 and P.1127/2, otherwise known as (the/a) Kestrel. To my eye, these are the definitive forms of this aircraft concept/configuration, with their aluminium finish and long pitot tubes sticking out the front, ready for the jousting tournament. I’ve recently returned to the hobby after 20 years or so: the aircraft I always fancied building all those years ago was an Airfix 1/24 scale Harrier but it was never to be. I’ve now decided that I’m going to give converting the Harrier into a P.1127 a go and I thought I’d try posting a WiP to try and keep myself out of metaphorical doldrums. The question was which P.1127 configuration to model? As you may or may not know (or care) there were many configuration states of P.1127 although predominantly they can be split into two groups. The first six aircraft had registration numbers starting with XP (831, 836, 972, 976 980 & 984). The second group with the designation P.1127/2, also given the name Kestrel by the Hawker marketing department had registration numbers starting with XS (688 - 696). This is based on my limited research into the subject, anyway. The reason for being so picky with the registration numbers is because there was evidently quite a bit of variation between each aircraft, especially in the first group of six but also extending into the second group. Relevant differences include (but are not limited to): the wing ¼ chord sweep (the trailing edge was unswept for the first five aircraft but was swept back on the sixth) wing leading edge extensions (saw-tooth extensions were added during development to refine handing) fairing of wing tip into landing gear fairing fuselage length (the Kestrel was extended by 9 inches compared to the P.1127) tailplane area, span & dihedral sweep angle of air intakes (reduced from 35 degrees on the first aircraft to a more moderate 20 degrees on later aircraft… less so on the Harrier upon EIS) various intake lip profiles etc. Of course all the aircraft above are significantly different to the Harrier (GR1) that is the subject of Airfix’s 1/24 scale kit. The aircraft that I’ve decided to model (try to model) is XP984, a special aircraft for me. XP 984 was the last of the original P.1127 aircraft but was designated as the prototype for the forthcoming Kestrels (P.1127/2). This means that the aircraft originally had the Kestrel wing with the swept trailing edge, the 20 degree sweep on the air intakes and an intermediate tailplane configuration. To my eyes the aircraft in its original configuration looks “the most right” out of all the P.1127 configurations: a nice swept trailing edge with no leading edge extensions to spoil things, a nice sweep on the intakes with no bulbous “elephant ears” ruining the lines but maintaining the aforementioned pitot tube at the nose. (The aircraft, now at Brooklands, has been retro-fitted with a Harrier wing and tailplane so looks less good, IMHO. I’m grateful it’s now inside however). The reason XP984 is special to me is because I’ve had the pleasure of meeting Ralph Hooper (conceptual design and Chief Engineer of the P.1127 programme) at Brooklands and discussing the aircraft with him for an hour or so. I’d like to build this aircraft to help remember such a wonderful experience. As for model itself (an eBay “bargain”), progress has been made but is intermittent due to family and work commitments. The progress so far includes: Fin: removing air intake from root. I’m unsure whether a reduction in height is required… research is ongoing Tailplane: modified to the correct profile but I only have one of them L a shortcoming of the eBay “bargain”. Airfix themselves couldn’t help… any other ideas? Making one will be simple enough but I’d rather modify! Wing: leading edge extensions removed and tips re-profiled. The model will be displayed in the hover so the flaps need cutting out and lowering but this I’m saving for another day Fuselage: the biggest job was re-profiling the air intakes the kit’s Harrier intakes are wrong for the P.1127 so they were cut out and new ones built up from plastic-card and car body filler (I love that stuff) at the required 20 degree sweep for XP984. This also required making the fairings for the cold nozzles: these have intakes in their leading edges but I haven’t got there yet. I’ve also boxed out the landing gear bays to attempt some detailing in there… we shall see how successful that is. My biggest unknown with the fuselage is the length. The Kestrel fuselage is 9 inches longer that the P.1127 but is the same as the Harrier, I think. I’m modelling the Kestrel prototype so I don’t know if XP984 had a P.1127 or Kestrel/Harrier length fuselage. Any ideas? There’s clearly a lot of work left to do, especially on the fuselage (and especially if it wants shortening by 9 scale inches!). The other big thing is the fairing over the wing but I need to wait for the fuselage to be joined first, I think. As I said, progress will be intermittent but I’m hoping the pressure of the forum will eventually get me over the line. The finished model will not be worthy of any special mention like so many of the fantastic efforts displayed on this forum: I shall be ecstatic if it is recognisable as a Kestrel (prototype). I’ve tried to add some pictures below… fingers crossed. Anyway, thanks for looking, P. (Sorry for the quality of the photos, clearly they were taken on my phone!) The bits so far... Fuselage showing modified intakes and cold nozzle fairings The air intake structure aft of the cockpit is a key omission of the kit, perhaps not surprising given its age. Plasticard has been used to rough-in some of the structure but more work is required to tidy it up and fair it in. I shall invest in some Milliput, which I have never used but am led to understand that it might be useful here than my beloved Isopon. Yours truly and the Chief Engineer himself, in front of the aircraft in question.

A fascinating endeavour indeed. I love the of recycling a model in this way by refurbishing it: one kit, two lots of enjoyment. Following eagerly, P.

Getting better and better. The engine pairs look spot on to me, a real distinguishing feature of the aircraft. P.

Will follow with interest. Fantastic paint scheme! P.

Love the aircraft, love this scheme in particular. Well done in knocking it into shape! P.

The box of bits almost looks like a factory or museum diorama: lovely stuff. Great attention to detail in this build, thanks for sharing, P.

I agree, the box-art doesn't do the kit justice by the looks of things. As for the subject, a Handley Page Victor... and an early one at that. What's not to like?! Following with interest, P.

I'm the opposite: in-line engines and pointy fins for me! I've got the Revell Mk.I kit in the stash though so will follow with interest. Can't go wrong with some Handley Page magic. P.

Great progress so far, a marked improvement to the supplied engine by the looks of things. Following with interest, P.

Good tip. Was it a branded spray or simply Wilkos stuff? Always useful to know of effective alternatives!

Excellent job on putting this together, including the NMF! Thanks for sharing, P.