Selwyn
-
Posts
3,934 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Media Demo
Posts posted by Selwyn
-
-
6 hours ago, TornadoF3 said:
Am I right in assuming that PAVEWAY is just an add on to a standard bomb? Is it then kosher to modify a standard modern British 500lb bomb by attaching the sealer head and fins at the front and the flight fins at the back?
ingot lots of spare 500lb bombs from other British modern jets.
The answer is yes, it is a bolt on kit. No you can't have a British 540lb (not 500lb!) LGB as there was never a Paveway guided version of a 540lb bomb in UK service. If you are getting confused about the current UK Paveway IV weapon, that is not a bolt on system, and not a LGB.
Selwyn
-
Thanks for the tips guys!
Selwyn
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, RedhillPhil said:
What have decal makers got against my beloved 43 squadron? It seems just about every user is possible except 43.
Unless I've missed something in which case my apologies.
look here
Selwyn
-
On 8/15/2022 at 10:52 AM, bootneck said:
Great new, that will make it easier with my build.
cheers,
MikeThis might be of interest be sure to keep scrolling down!
http://www.old-bus-photos.co.uk/?cat=200
Selwyn
-
Taking my first real dip into ship modelling, and looking to mount my kit on a polished wood base. What do you chaps use for the two supports between the base and hull any good suggestions?
Selwyn
-
On 8/8/2022 at 1:09 PM, TheBaron said:
Blessings upon you all.
Taking a break from writing up Vixen instructions so thought it was time indeed to make a few scratches on the wall here. Before proceeding though I need to publicly thank Mike (@bootneck) for his generosity in the sharing of technical references; it is no exaggeration to say that without acccess to that level of information, I would not currently be contemplating this endeavour. Thanks also are due to Ian (@Wafu) in the matter of photographic sources : no doubt I shall be perstering your for brass rubbings of the Nimbus when the time comes Ian!
I've spent the past few weeks reading up from primary sources about several overlapping areas which are of direct concern to this build, to whit: how a helicopter capable of landing on a small surface out at sea which is rapidly translating and rotating in three dimensions was in fact developed, the main structural components of this vehicle and how they have to interact with one another in order to reliably accomplish this feat, and finally the integration of the Wasp into the MATCH (Medium Range Anti-Submarine Torpedo Carrying Helicopter) environment as a means of extending the ASW capability of a naval frigate via a radar umbilical.
The above description is, if you like, the 'classic' profile which it was originally designed to fulfil but as is well known, the Wasp subsequently showed itself capable of a wide range of operational duties from the offensive (via AS11/AS12 missiles), to reconnaissance, casualty transfer and so forth. Equally well-known in the modelling circles are the overt visual differences between Scout and Wasp, which I don't intend to repeat here.
A quick survey of available literature might be useful place to start in terms of identifying the primary sources I'm relying on here, and why.
To augment reference photography, as a standard procedure now on builds I like to have original technical manuals to hand for cross-referencing so AP-101C-0601-3A, Wasp HAS 1 Illustrated Parts manual and AP-101C-0601-15, Wasp HAS Mk.1 Pilot's Notes are used here.
T. L. Ciastula: The Development of the P.531, The Aeronautical Journal / Volume 68 / Issue 642 / June 1964: in terms of the evolution of the Wasp out of the P.531 program, this remains a foundational, highly-detailed account. Ciastula was Chief Designer (Light Helicopters) at Westland-Fairey Aviation Division during this period so this is effectively an eyewitness document.
J. H. Stevens: Scout and Wasp - Westland's All-British Helicopters, Flight International June 1964: drawing in part on Ciastula's account above, this article - as you would expect from a Flight one of the period - contains what is still the best written description of the helicopter in terms of its structures, their construction and functioning. The cutaway drawing is of great value in understanding the overall arrangement of features.
D. B. Bathurst: Maritime VSTOL — The Development of Small Ship Helicopter Operations in the Royal Navy, SAE Transactions Vol. 83, Section 3: 740525–740863 (1974): contains a highly detailed description of the Wasp/frigate MATCH system in operation, along with a through discussion of approach, landing, ship motion, securing and deck handling problems. A lot of interesting information about Wasp-related matters not discussed elsewhere is included, such airflow and deck disturbance, as well as the Mctaggart-Scott system of which I was unaware:
Image credit: SAE Transactions
L. B. Bryson, F. E. Heenan, C. A. Johnson: Helicopters in the Royal Navy, The Aeronautical Journal / Volume 76 / Issue 740 / August 1972: Highly useful source in this instance on two counts: firstly it contains an excellently detailed history of helicopter development in the RN from 1915 onwards, secondly, the text provides the most detailed account I've found of the various (I think there were 19 in total) methods tested for securing a helicopter when landing on a moving vessel. Heavily illustrated throughout:
Image credit: The Aeronautical Journal
Larry Jeram-Croft, Terry Martin: The Royal Navy Wasp: An Operational & Retirement History, Pen & Sword Aviation 2018: am currently reading this. First reactions are that this contains first class operational information not found elsewhere, but is let down by poor editing and design. Feels like a first draft.
Adrian Balch: Westland Scout & Wasp, Warpaint Series No.110, Guideline Publications. 2017: A valuable and comprehensive set of visual references, as you would expect. Can confirm on the basis of photographic overlays in Photoshop that (allowing for the effects of focal length) Richard J. Caruana's drawings of the Wasp published here look accurate in both shape and proportion.
If it is at all ppossible to condense the above into an introduction here without distorting matters through over-simplification, the Wasp then came into being as follows:
By the late 1950s it was becoming apparent that changes in submarine technology required ASW operations to be capable of being projected further out beyond the existing offensive range of small surface vessels such as frigates, in terms of both speed and distance. Leaving aside historical background regarding existing RN operation of the Hoverfly, Dragonfly, and Whirlwind helicopters (all of US origin)* in the maritime role, the Wasp helicopter was developed out of a defined need for a light, turbine powered helicopter to fulfil such a role within the Royal Navy, in the form of the private venture P.531 project.
Subsequent to the two initial airframes which had a wheeled undercarriage, three further protoypes (known as the P.531-0) were constructed with skid undercarriages in order for the Navy to examine the various problems involved in the operation and recovery of light helicopters from small vessels. Footage from this stage of the Wasp's evolution can be seen here:
It was during this period that many of the competing ideas (as referred to above in the Bryson/Heenan/Johnson article) for holding the helicopter in place on deck were considered, such as the suction pads seen here:
Image credit: Navtechlife
Little known fact: the deck handling crew were required to wear those protective hoods because of the grotesque effects of suction which those discs had upon their appearance:
Undercarriage aside, in relation to the main design features of the Wasp it is worth noting how Ciastula states that in examining these, 'It should, however, be stressed that the very first P.531 could equally well have been chosen for this purpose, since all the main design features of importance were determined and incorporated in it.' (p.400).
As I believe in the primacy of pencil and paper when it comes to working out three dimensional ideas, if you compare my rough initial sketch of the Wasp's profile with the photograph of XN334 above, the continuities of shape become immediately apparent:
As the design process develops over the coming weeks and months I'll bring in further information from the above sources at relevant points in the narrative. I still haven't decided which particular Wasp to build and must confess to being genuinely torn between wanting to build an AS12 wielding version so that I can include the APX-BEZU M260 sight, or one in its 'classic' Mk.44/46 torpedo carrying role. As it's my understanding that the latter version would not have had the sight fitted, I am sorely vexed as the sight is someting of an obsession, to the point that I bought some of the French manufacturer's specs via Delcampe:
En Anglais for those who want to sing along with the band:
There's a fascinating ten-part oral history interview over here in the IWM archive that includes a detailed description (in pt.6) of firing a missile from the Wasp with this sight, as well as a genuinely engaging narrative of learning to fly naval helicopters in general in the earlier parts of the series.
Finally today, one matter giving me serious food for thought is that of the opportunities offered by working this time in 1/24 scale. As well as the obvious disorienting effects of no longer being constrained by the size of part that I can consider creating - in terms of detailing - the other is that of creating a certain level of functionality in various regions of the airframe:
- There's no reason why the tail rotor can't be a working foldable feature on robust hinges.
- It may be possible to experiment with having a castoring undercarriage as per the original (I also want to look into the feasibility of printing with flexible rubber resin for the tyres).
- I see no reason why it shouldn't be possible to have the blades being capable of being both folded back and opened. Whilst I've a lot more to look at and undertand yet with respect to the mechanical feaures of rotor gearbox and hub, it may be possible to do something fancy there also. We'll see.
- Cockpit doors should be capable of being openable/removable as per operational use.
But the sight....what about the sight....I want torpedoes but I want a sight too...it's not fair.
Tony
*Regarding the preeminence of US technology in this regard, discussion notes at the end of Ciastula's paper to the Royal Aeronautical Society contain this superb reporting of the masculine 'Harrumph!'
If you are doing 3D printing why after all that design work dont you print 2, and have one with the sight and one with torpedoes?
Selwyn
-
3
-
13 hours ago, Sturmovik said:
You shouldn't need to scratch build something from a mainstream manufacturer, especially if the kit is 60£ and the mold was short shot. Airfix has to provide OP with a new part.
Thats incorrect. UK law says you should return it to the retailer, not the manufacturer.
Selwyn
-
3
-
-
6 hours ago, ed-209 said:
?
-
31 minutes ago, ed-209 said:
The zts kit doesn't match to the faw9 much at all if you line up the wing leading edge and the intake lip that mach well the nose is short enough to fit inside the airfix kit the wing trailing edge is 3mm short and the rear fuselage is also narrower
Yes, but my point is the ZTS aft fuselage is the extended FAW7 fuselage, are you measuring the width of the rear of the fuselage as it stands, or are you measuring the width of the internal false bulkhead that you cut back to in the instructions ,when you modify the kit to the FAW9 option?
Selwyn
-
2 hours ago, ed-209 said:
I have just mixed and matched the t3 and faw 9 Half's together and there is no difference the zts what ever it is to t3 and faw9 zts is smaller I also looked at the backend and it's narrower than the airfix faw9
Are you measuring the ZTS from the inner FAW 9 bulkhead? or the overall (FAW7) kit length?
Selwyn
-
1 hour ago, TeeELL said:
Currently sat in Frankfurt airport en-route to Cuba. At home I have an Airfix/Heller T3 Javelin so on my return I will be able to check the measurements, unless someone else has the T3?
Had to giggle at this.
I was reading "The book of heroic failures" by Steven Pyle recently, In the book was; "The most unsuccessful Hijacking of an airliner," when a man entered the cockpit and ordered the pilot to fly him to Cuba. The pilot answered, " but we are flying to Cuba anyway!" The man said "Oh!" and went and sat back down in his seat. He was arrested on arrival.
Selwyn
-
58 minutes ago, TeeELL said:
Forgive me for going ‘off piste’ for a moment! Sloegin, your photos are particularly useful for me. As an ex-29(F) Sqn Phantom driver I selected ‘29 as one of my ‘themes’, the FAW9, FAW6 and T3 I am planning will all be marked for that Sqn. Your comparison photos, notwithstanding the intake differences, also highlight the camouflage differences - wrap around and not. What is less obvious is the question of high speed silver finish on the under surface, they both look very ‘light aircraft grey’? Yep, I realise B&W photo etc, etc, etc.
If you have any more 29(F) San specific photos I would very much like to see them.
There is no question at all about the under surfaces, they were HSS. Light Aircraft Grey began to be used around 1967/8's when the RAF moved to the polyurethane paint system. For some reason at that time they could not produce a silver polyurethane paint, so LAG was used instead, as the closest equivalent (lots of questions in the past on BM about this, as in a BW image they are hard to differentiate, seems to be prevalent on hunter questions!). 29Sqn got lightnings in 1967, the FAW9 /T3 Javelins would obviously not have been repainted as they went to store/scrap at that time, FAW 6 went long before the change.
I don't think any Jav's were LAG I have never seen a picture of one. If one did exist I would suggest it would have been a 60 Sqn jet in the Far east.
Selwyn
-
2 hours ago, Graham Boak said:
Did Airfix change the intakes from the Heller T Mk.3 that their kit was modified from?
Tee Ell is building a Airfix FAW 9 (see pics above) and measured the intakes at between 8.35 and 8.5mm which is closer to the smaller intake and he suggests in his post that the intakes were not changed from the T3.
Selwyn
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, theplasticsurgeon said:
I have measured the intakes today.
Here's the FAW4, not on public display.
Intake diameter 22.5 inches.
And the FAW9
Intake diameter 26 inches.
So 3 1/2" inch wider, that's quite an increase in airflow! Strange that it hasn't been really noticed before, especially if you look closely at the differences on the intake lip profile.
That works out to 7.94mm dia for FAW1 to 6 in 1/72
9,2 mm for FAW 7 to 9.
the 1/72 Airfix kit intakes are measured at 8.35 and 8.5mm the Frog at 9.6 /9.8m (both are slightly oval in the kit!)
Selwyn
-
14 hours ago, NavyWessex said:
Hi all,
I've searched the group to great extend but was unable to find any information amongst the vast spread of Buccaneer threads about an S.1 conversion...
I'm eager to convert the Airfix 1/72 Buccaneer S.2 into the earlier S1 with the white belly and blue topside livery. I believe there may be an Aerocraft resin set available but is it an easy conversion and if so, what else would need to be altered?
I *assume* this livery was only worn on the earlier S.1?
If there is an existing thread on the subject then I apologise, so please point me in the right direction!
It wasn't Blue top side, it was extra dark sea grey!
Selwyn
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Tomas Enerdal said:
Ok, at least I tried to help. I just got the mentioned books and remembered your question. Building mine now (will be a sharkmouth from 112 Sq.)
TE
Don;t get me wrong, help was appreciated, it was good to see a image exists i couldn't find one.
Selwyn
-
28 minutes ago, NG899 said:
Selwyn - My references have the UK PWII using the Mk.13 1,000lb GP bomb with dimensions of 3,680mm (146ins) diameter 420mm (16ins). I trust that info tallies with your references.
Charlie and Johnson, as far as I know, SHARs only operated with 100-gal tanks and max 3x 1,000lb bombs during the Falklands War. In 'bomber' mode their usual load out was 2. Only the initial strikes on Stanley airfield by HMS Hermes' FRS1s on 1 May and a few of their other ops, plus those planned attacks on helicopters on Mt Kent by 801 on 19 May, had the FRS1s loaded with 3. Compared with 2x 9-Limas for CAP the carriers would have had to move closer to the islands to launch the heavier FRS1s or GR3s armed with bombs, then moving away from the islands to the east once more after launch to safeguard the carriers from SuE strikes. I've always understood max bomb load to be 3. Burden et al in "Falklands the Air War" have never mentioned five bombs being carried, nor have any other authors. I'm sure John Shields would have mentioned it in his recent analysis "Air Power in the Falklands Conflict".
I have asked if the FRS1s ever carried the the M L Aviation Ltd twin store carrier seen on early Harrier GR1s (included in Airfix's 24th scale GR1/3 kits) the answer is "No". Had they done so, then they could have carried 5x 1,000lb bombs IF their all up weight had still enabled them to take off safely from the carriers' ski-jumps...
Hope that helps, good luck.
Nick
Around that time the majority live bombs used by the RAF/RN for external carriage were the Mk 13 and 16. The Mk 20 was just coming into service so some of them might have gone south. The Vulcans probably carried Mk 9 bombs (single point suspension) as I was involved in sending the RAF Waddington bomb dump stocks to RoF Bieth in 1983 for refurbishment and modification to Mk 20, and all the bombs left at Waddo were Mk 9's. Not that this means meant a jot of difference to model builders as the only way of differentiating between marks was by looking at the ident plate or stencilling, as the differences were all internal. According to drawings The diameter of all postwar UK 1000lb bombs (except the Mk 7) was actually 16 1/2." not 16." not that it makes a lot of difference in 1/72!
Selwyn
Selwyn
-
2
-
-
I too have this kit in the stash and last night I was looking at it against the warpaint drawings. It looks like the inner wing pylons are positioned too close to the fuselage so the "Bump" on the leading edge is in the wrong place, but what is more worrying is that if you fit the tanks, the tank body will possibly interfere with the undercarriage legs
Selwyn
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Tomas Enerdal said:
Selwyn,
Found two pics of this a/c in early markings:
-Sabre, From the Cockpit 15/Charles Keil, p.110. Pic credited to Philip Jarrett
This a/c in early markings B roundel T, right side. It shows that the B and T flanking the fuselage roundel are slightly darker than the white in the roundel itself and the again lighter- (probably white) T on the mid fuselage, above the wing. In the same pic XB935/Z is seen with the later 4 Sq squadron bars (Red/Black/Yellow lightning). The canopy with a front portion of upper fuselage is covered by a tarpaulin, therefore not known if a ejector warning triangle is applied.
-SABRE, the Canadair Sabre in RAF service/Duncan Curtis (aka Sabrejet), p.48. Pic credited to Norman Giffin
Left side this time, reading T roundel B. No lighter T on fuselage, no ejector warning triangle either. Pic possibly taken earlier.
An interesting detail while looking at RAF Sabres is the small font variations in the 8" fuselage serials. Not just the standard postwar style all the time. The wide, rounded 8 is not even on Modeldecal numers sheet 35 & 36... Also some variations in how close together they have been applied. As in the kit decals, thorough research? The old truth applies; check your references!
TE
Thats a long time ago!
Completed my Sabre using the 4 sqn scheme from the Xtradecal 4 squadron sheet, nice and colourful! Couldn't live with the strange 4Sqn kit scheme.
Selwyn
-
On 8/18/2022 at 9:56 AM, TeeELL said:
I have just measured the Airfix intake at between 8.35 and 8.5mm, 27” is 9.35mm
My frog kit intakes measure out at between 9.6 /9.8mm
Selwyn
-
1 hour ago, TeeELL said:
My suspicion is that the Airfix 1/72 model has the ‘small intakes’ of the T3 Heller original. It does look as though there is enough plastic to be open them out though. Unless anyone does so in the mean time, I will add that to the measurements I need to take when I meet with ‘theplasticsurgeon’ at Jet Age Museum. If any one has easy access to an earlier mark somewhere ……?
Doesn't the Jet age museum have a FAW9 and a FAW4 (Ex leeming gate guard ) now?
https://jetagemuseum.org/faw-4/
Selwyn
-
15 hours ago, Scott Hemsley said:
Going by the photos in Slogin57's reply, it looks as if the intakes on the Javelin F(AW) Mk.9R are indeed larger than the early Javelin Mk.1 delivery photo. It may be just me, but if you set aside the actual dimensions of the nacelles, etc., the illusion(?) of a larger intake may be caused by the reduced thickness of the intake lips. Those on the F(AW) Mk.9R do appear to be much thinner than intake lips of the early Mk.1
Scott
I understand the change occurred between the FAW6 (Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire Sa.6 engines), and FAW7 (Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire Sa.7 or Sa.7R for FAW8&9) engines.
Selwyn
-
2
-
-
Building a frog Javelin as a FAW 8 at the moment and consequently have been reading up on the subject.
I have come across a couple of mentions in passing that the intakes were increased in size for the second generation Javs (FAW 7,8,9,) with the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire Sa.7 engine variants. I have not heard of this before. I have looked a some images, but the jury is out on this as I can't find anything definitive, best pics I can find are these;
Anybody have anything definitive on this?
Selwyn
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, TeeELL said:
Selwyn,
I have a set at 12.8 mm diameter and can print off a set at the ‘near as dammit’ correct diameter of 12 mm if you are interested.
That would be great. I was literally just trying to source some 12mm tube for this! i will PM you.
Selwyn
A PAVEWAY question
in Aircraft Modern
Posted
Absolute nonsense, The RAF Paveway II and Paveway III were based on UK bombs, the PW IV weapon is not based on a Mk 82.
Selwyn