Selwyn
-
Posts
3,934 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Media Demo
Posts posted by Selwyn
-
-
Lovely Gr1!
Just a quick point , GR1/2 (And T2/4) Harriers when parked had their nosewheel doors open. They were opened on engine shutdown by the groundcrew to allow access to the accumilators etc in the nosewheel bay. They closed automatically on engine start.
Selwyn
-
Thanks for the pictures guys, it looks like it is some sort of zero length rocket launcher, in that as the missile fires it travels forward a few inches and is then free from the launcher so its a cross between forward firing and a drop!
Selwyn
-
Has anyone got any information on the AM39 Exocet missile rail launcher?
i understand this missile can be both rail or eject launched
In hope
Selwyn
-
U tube video of the typhoon RIAT display, this shouldn't be allowed with a 4000lb bombload!
selwyn
-
Hello
These are my two Phantoms, an FG.1 and FGR.2 built for the Phantom Group build, hope you like them. Built with Aires resin pits, one with D-Mold intakes and the other with Eduard AIM-9L and Eduard RBF Tags. Comments and criticisms welcome.
Ian
I am going to go for a real Nerdy nit pic! the Sidewinders should have Red AOTD covers on them. (sorry I'm being really ANAL!)
Notwithstanding, probably the best Brit Phantoms I have seen in many a year!
Selwyn
-
Building the old 1/72 heller kit.
Were French Air force F84G in natural metal finish or silver painted?
I understand French swept wing F84F were painted silver, but I can't find anything to say the straight wing "G" was as well.
can anyone help?
Selwyn
-
It's nice that the kits aren't your usual Spitfires and Lancasters...
knowing what these kits go for individually, At £21 it represents remakable value for money!
Selwyn
-
Hi Selwyn,
I didn't know the RN pod was not Matra, I suppose I thought all pods of that type came from the same manufacturer, even though the Navy used 2" and the RAF used 68mm. I do know that the RN pods had 3 rings of missiles so, logically, the overall diameter of the pod should be larger but I don't recall ever seeing an RAF pod next to a Navy one to directly compare
Mark asked where my recollection of a single/salvo switch came from. My primary reference for the Harrier is a book given to me in February 1978 by Hawker Siddeley and described to me as the 'engineers bible' on the Harrier . The section on the armament system and particularly the weapons control panel shows a drawing of the panel and one switch in particular labelled off-R/P-N-N/T. In my mind I had thought that was the selector for either single or salvo but I now know that this is the mode selector switch and means (I think) 'Off-Rocket Projectile - Nose - Nose/Tail' to enable selection of R/P's or bombs and their fusing. I also know that pickling the switch on the stick sends a pulse to the ejector release unit on each pylon to drop bombs or to the pod to fire rockets so it would make sense that the R/P's would be ground selected for single or salvo. Interestingly, later in the book it describes the Matra 155 as a 're-usable practice launcher' but the 116 is just a '68mm rocket launcher', hence my idea that 155's are for practising but the 116 is 'for real'. Funny how the mind can make sense of everything but not necessarily correctly!
A great book and very interesting but its now going back on my shelf with other 'treasures'!
Simon
The switch you refer to is the Weapon fuzing switch. Off is obvious, R/P is rocket pod. This setting routed the firing line down to the rocket pod through the pylon, missing out the release unit .
N, T, and N/T settings are for Bomb fuzes. Aircraft Bombs can be fitted with either a Nose or a Tail fuze, or both. This switch selected which of the two fuzing units on the pylon energised (the nose or tail) and would subsequently arm which particular fuze. or both on release. Nose fuzes in my Harrier time were normally for airburst, (952) tail fuzes (947, 951) for impact. so potentially the pilot could select in the cockpit the method of Bomb detonation. In fact on Airburst he would usually set N/T because if the nose fuze failed for some reason, the tail fuze would detonate the bomb anyway.
On modern aircraft Fuzes can be set for both impact and airburst so usually only one fuze is fitted in the tail, and fuzing protocol is now part of the store programming. The stores system now automatically selects the required Fuzing for each particular store. and gives the correct HUD aiming info.
On Harrier GR1/3 Configuration was much more simple. There were five rotary "patching switches" under the armament panel, located under the clear aircraft switches (above where the Pilots left knee would be (a swine to get to, and difficult to read as you normally had to do it upside down!) These were simple rotary switches with letters on them that you set to the aircraft configuration. For example A configuration with two SNEB pods, two drop tanks, and an empty centreline would read "R (rockets)-F (fuel) -OFF-F-R". Three bombs and two tanks would be put in as B-F-B-F-B- simple! These I understand enabled the correct weapon aiming info in the harrier HUD.
Selwyn
-
I know I shouldn't, but...
Vincent camouflage:
Bright colours applied thickly with short strokes.
It causes a lot of drag but you will never spot the aircraft in a field of sunflowers.
I would give my right ear to see an aircraft painted like that...............!
(Sorry!)
Selwyn
-
Well Selwyn, with your background, I'm not going to argue with you!
Agreed, the 155 could be used for both training and for real whereas the 116 was purely a warshot pod and, as we both know, the extra SNEB went down the middle where the point is in the 155. I saw the fibreglass shield - as you say, covered by the outer metal shell - back in the 1970's when I was over at Gutersloh with the ATC and, being a keen modeller then, you notice these things and I think that the briefing we had mentioned that the 116 was a 'once only' store. I've seen photos of 155's on Harriers in books from time to time but the majority were minus the fibreglass shield - presumably with the training rounds as you say - but, when you know what you're looking at you see the occasional one fitted with a shield. I imagine any live firing exercises with the real McCoy would have always had the shields fitted for obvious reasons?
I'll have to take your word for it on the ripple switch - I'm pretty sure that the weapons panel in the GR3 had a 'single' or 'salvo' switch position but that may have been for bomb release, not Matra pod? I would have to dig my references out to clarify the point but, with your trade background, I'm pretty sure you'll know the answer!
One thing that intrigues me is the RN 2" Matra pod. I can't recall ever seeing heat shields with this but they must have been fitted? That would be highly relevant for a Falklands Harrier. Maybe they took the view that the flight time was so short that aerodynamic heating would n't be an issue so they weren't used and then I suppose they did more bombing than rocketing in that conflict? Then again, hang them off a Vixen or a Phantom and heat would be a real issue!
Simon
Simon the RN 2" pod was not a MATRA pod, It was an entirely different system and as far as I know did not incorporate heat shields. The 2" rockets were not pointed but dome shaped, which probably precluded the use of a shield, I think it was a 30 shot launcher as well?
The M155 launcher could not have its single /ripple selected from the cockpit. The switch I mentioned was a two pole toggle switch marked A & B The settings were easily remembered by Armourers as A= All & B= Bits!
The pod came from the bay with the setting marked on the servicable label.Occasionally these were marked or set wrong, on one occasion a Harrier with four pods all selected went to the range, when the pilot pressed the trigger he expected six rockets but got 82! A very smoky day on the range.
We also used to go "mini rip" wher you would put 9 rockets in, one in every second tube. Probably as an economy measure..
Selwyn
-
One thing to bear in mind is that the Matra pods supplied with all kits are really training pods and they were fitted with a fibreglass inner cone to protect the SNEB heads from overheating, the rockets just blasting through when fired. Consequently you should really model the pod with the 'holes' pretty much filled in and then come up with your best shade of raw fibreglass. Unles of course you wanted to show the pods 'post firing' in which case you could drill each hole right through! The 'warshot' pods had a fibreglass front like a drop tank - fire once then clear the pylon! Matra 155 and 116 I think - but someone will correct me on that!
I am afraid that you are quite wrong Simon.
The M155 18 shot launcher was not a training pod, it could and was used for both training and operational use.
The usual load for training in the RAF was 68mm SNEB rockets with smoke heads. (coloured eau de nil) the smoke was emitted by a chemical that was in the frangible head that broke on impact with the target and gave a "puff" of smoke. You NEVER used the fibreglass shield with these as the smoke heads smashed on impact with the shield as they left the pod.
The fibreglass shield was used when High Explosive Anti Tank (HEAT) SNEB rockets were used, (hardly a training round!) the shield prevented aerodynamic heating of the HEAT heads in flight and the rocket punched through them on launch. the Shield was fitted between the pod cone shaped nose and a metal fairing with holes that trapped it in Place. If you study photos this can be seen if you look closely.
The M155 Launcher could fire single shot or "Ripple" which meant as long as the trigger was pulled the rockets would fire. this was only selectable on the ground, you had to take the nose cone off the pod to reach the switch to change the setting.
The other SNEB pod in use in the RAF was the M116 disposable 19 shot launcher. This had HEAT rounds only and had a round dome nose made out of asbestos phenolic if I remember correctly. I only ever saw one of these in training and I have recently seen a picture in the early 1970's loaded to a GR1 Harrier on exercise. I think they must have been set aside for war use only. They fired ripple only and the last firing pulse jettisoned the pod.
As far as I know the RAF only used smoke and HEAT variants of the SNEB rocket.
Selwyn
-
Hi Folks,just a quick question ,does anyone know how many WE177's a Vulcan would have carried typically??
thanks
Adam
Adam go to
http://www.avrovulcan.org.uk/nukes/we177a_b.htm
second picture down shows a white WE177 complete with Vulcan carrier on a blue type "O" weapon trolley
Selwyn
-
In Mike's review on here, apparently it appears they've got the shape of them wrong
The bombs depicted in the kit bear no resemblence to any British 1000lb Bomb. pre war, WW2 or otherwise.
Postwar 1000lb bombs (Mk 6 onwards) were introduced in the early 50's. all marks since then upto the current Mk 20 are dimensionally the same the differences being in fill and suspension system. The only exception being the mk 7 which was slightly wider in diameter and had a "boat tail" that accepted earlier bomb tail units. You could use any currently commercially available modern british bomb as long as it had a balllistic (non Retard tail) to depict the bombload but 21 of them might prove expensive!
The Valiant bomb carriers could probably take wartime 1000lb bombs, there must have been plenty still available in store in the early 50's. I understand that the Lincolns still used them in the Malayan emergency in the mid 50's.
Selwyn
-
Watched the Rehearsal of the RIAT Fairford Typhoon display yesterday.
A great display routine, one of the best I have ever seen. The crowd are in for a bit of a treat.
I must admit the inverted flypast carrying four 1000lb Paveway II LGB and drop tanks was a bit of a pose..............................!
Selwyn
-
Hi Santiago,
The 613 Sqn used both Hawker Demons and Lysanders during the Battle of France in the AOP role, the colour scheme used was standard dark green/ dark earth, with black/??silver or white?? undersides. codes (ZR-?) were Grey and aircraft were fitted with bomb racks which remained on return to the UK.
On return, the squadron was based at RAF Firbeck- a comandeerd civil aerodrome a few miles to the east of Rotherham, South Yorkshire, before transferring to RAF Doncaster. Here they changed aircraft and began to operate Curtis P40's.
.
A number of photos exsist of these aircraft taken at Firbeck (one with Paddy Barthrop stood in front) and some can be seen on display at Doncaster Aeroventure aircraft museum. Incidentally the new Eduard kit seems to have a 613 machine as ZR letters are on the decal sheet.
I hope this helps & look forward to see the end results.
Regards Rad.
Rad
A Correction, 613Sqn used Hawker Hectors not Demons in the Battle of France.
Selwyn
-
I'm about to embark on a 1/48 Tamiya Mossie B. Mk. IV in Medium Sea Grey/Ocean Grey/Dark Green camouflage scheme, and I have a quick question about the Ocean Grey - which one of the following (if any!) is nearest to the right colour?
I've got the following three: Humbrol 106 Ocean Grey, Xtracrylix XA1006 Ocean Grey and Tamiya XF-82 Ocean Grey. They all claim to be RAF Ocean Grey, and they're all quite different! I've done a quick tester, with each oversparyed onto Xtracrylix XA1006 Medium Sea Grey, and they look something like this (allowing for monitor differences, but it gives an idea):
To me it's a bit like Goldilocks and the three bowls of porridge - Humbrol doesn't look 'bluey' enough, Xtracrylix is too pale and doesn't contrast enough with the MSG, so that leaves Tamiya...is that one just right? Or is there another one altogether that's a better option?
Cheers
Simon
Simon
How do you know it does not look "bluey enough?"
Any one of these colours could be right or wrong, and unless you have something painted in wartime Ocean Grey to compare it to You are on a loser from the start.
I suggest you paint your model in the OG colour you feel is correct , who is going to argue with your choice anyway? Its called artistic licence.
Selwyn
-
1
-
-
Hi,
I am still confused..
Below are two rocket pods - left is the Airfix kit pod and to the right its Flightpath' 'Matra rocket pod' (smaller in diameter and shorter)
To me the Flightpath pod looks more the part as posted above....??? Is this a 2 inch pod? And what would the Airfix part resemble then?
TIA again,
Ingo
ps: as I just noticed, the Flighpath part has fewer tubes (two rows only) than the one in the original photograph above)....
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Ingo
The Airfix Sea Vixen kit pods are 2inch (50mm) rocket pods used by Royal Navy aircraft (and RAF Harriers when embarked on a carrier) they fire British 2inch rockets.
The other pod (on the right) is the Matra 155 rocket pod for firing 68mm SNEB rockets (a French design)and were used only by the RAF. 68mm SNEB rockets cannot be used on carriers due to safety concerns.
They are two different rocket systems the rockets are not interchangable.
Selwyn
-
I may have missed this on the forums, so apologies if I have and direction to the answer gratefully received ...
Has anyone produced / can produce an "Idiot's Comparison Guide to Paveway LGBs" for use on UK aircraft. Ideally, what I would like is side by side comparison shots of the Paveway II, Paveway III and Paveway IV guidance systems when attached to their respective weapons. I'm not bothered whether this is real life photos (though all preferably side-on), "sims" or photos of plastic from kits, as long as it enables me to easily identify which is which and what is what. Even better, a guide to the colours and colour schemes used would be good, just to complete the picture. Now it might be that there's no visible difference in some of these, only the size of the bomb they go on - well that's great - and new information for me, just exactly what I was after. Or, as I think is the case, the guidance head is different?
As I understand it..
the Paveway II and Enhanced Paveway II and Enhanced Paveway II+ went on a 1000lb bomb (or metric equivalent)
the Paveway II and Enhanced Paveway III went on a 2000lb bomb (or metric equivalent)
the Paveway IV goes on a 500lb bomb (or metric equivalent)
is that correct?
So how do you tell the difference between standard, enhanced and + models?
Make sense? Useful? Or should I just go away and annoy someone else (second thoughts, not sure I want to know the answer to the last one).
Why do I want to know - because I'm likely to be scratch building from donated parts to create the variations. Plus I'm easily confused over this and would like it straight in my own mind, vast that it isn't!
thanks for any assistance.
The Paveway II and enhanced Paveway II are based on the UK 1000lb bomb Enhanced Paveway II + does not exist! it is at best a project.
"Paveway" refers to the standard of Guidance package. that is attached to the nose of the bomb.
Both bombs generally look identical (search paveway on the aircraft modern and cold war forums to see images) the only visual difference being that the Enhanced Paveway II has two GPS antenna "Bumps" on the top andbottom of the guidance and a wirting conduit running from the guidance to the bomb tail. This is secured to the bomb body by two large silver jubilee clips.
Selwyn
-
I'm looking for 1930s-style u7nderwing RAF Bomb Carriers (Bomb Racks) in 1/72nd scale. Resin or etched brass - I don't really mind..
Here's a pic of what I have in mind -
[email=http://www.fotolibra.com/gallery/206695/bomb-on-hawker-hind/]http://www.fotolibra.com/gallery/206695/bomb-on-hawker-hind/[/email]
That's on a Hind, BTW
TIA
The Correct description of this item is a Universal bomb carrier"
Selwyn
-
A freind of mine took his daughter to show it to her - it's XV997 ex 4 Squadron - and he flew it when he was on Harriers in Germany!
Definition of old age
I remember XV 997 being delivered brand spanking new to 4(AC) Squadron at Gutersloh.........................................!
(late "81" IIRC, memory fades with old age?)
Selwyn
-
Ah, Julien`s were the pics I meant, sorry Julien.
Just to square the circle, there is also a Paveway III with clipped fins meant for fit in the F-117 bay that was only bought by The USAF and Israel, NOT the RAF, True/False?
EDIT- Just read Bobski`s last post, DOH! on my part, still don`t know why Israel bought the clipped version though (no bomb bays to fit into in IASF).
Cheers, Ian.
The bomb being used in Libya is the Enhanced Paveway III. "The Paveway III" refers to the guidance which on Paveway III is laser only. Enhanced Paveway III is laser and/or GPS guided.
The British 2000lb bomb although it looks like the US GBU is not the same. It is configured differently and is not interchangable with the US version. It uses a UK fuze, US type fuses will not fit. The tail unit, although it appears similar is different to the US item as it has a arming vane at the back to arm the UK fuse. (visable in the pictures above)
GBU is a US designation and is not used by the UK.
Selwyn
-
Only a very oblique partial answer to your question but there's a story in a book called "From The Cockpit" (not to be confused with the current series by Ad Hoc) about a naval Whirlwind pilot tasked with making a troop insertion onto a plateau in hot and high conditions during one of the brush wars in the Arabian peninsula. He was able to prove (and subsequently have confirmed by Westlands) that in such conditions his Whirlwind's payload could be one soldier but not his rifle! Can't recall offhand which mark of Whirlwind it was but quite possibly the Whirlwind 7, which all pilots seem to have hated/dreaded.
Cant help on the weight issue but I can add that the Mk 7 was Notoriously unreliable The Alvis Leonides engine installation was never a success. it was a more powerful engine than the US wright engine and caused transmission failiures. There were also design problems. One of the biggest was that the air intake for the engine was on the bottom near the front RH wheel (a box structure clearly visable on pictures) It was found that when using the dipping sonar close to the sea surface, on several occasions a big wave splashed the aircraft bottom resulting in seawater in the Carburettor system causing engine stalling and the Copter having to ditch!
Selwyn
-
Gents
I am just about to start a build of the FROG Blackburn Shark These two aircraft were products of the early 1930's had the same 3 man crew had the same defensive armament and were dimensionally just about the same.
As part of my research into the Shark I was able to compare the performance details of both aircraft. Strangly the Shark was lighter (empty weight) had a more powerful engine, was faster , had a longer range, and could carry a bigger torpedo/bombload than the Swordfish. So can anyone tell me why did the FAA replace the Shark with the Swordfish as it appears that it was a step backwards in capability?
Any Ideas?
Selwyn
-
HEEEELP!
Last night dropped the clear sprue into the jaws of the carpet monster. I moved my wheeled computer/ Modelling chair to retrieve it and, "CRUNCH!" yes I got both Canopies.
So the question is:
Has anyone got a spare F8 /FR9 canopy in 1/72 They might let me have? I looked for an Aeroclub replacement but they seem to have stopped trading.
Selwyn
Valiant Bomb Bay
in Aircraft Cold War
Posted
the Valiant had a similar loading process to the Vulcan, 3 bomb carriers, loaded seperately, each carrier carried 7 x 1000lb bombs. The carriers were not the same as the Vulcan AVRO type, but had the same four on the top, three underneath configuration.
the bombs provided are in the kit are its only main disappointment as they look nothing like the British 1000lb bomb.
Selwyn