Shar2 Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 The whole test shot does look like it's been thrown together. Just look at the angles of the pylons. I also hope they provide more representative weapons loads, especially for post Falklands aircraft. I never saw a rocket pod, let alone loaded one between 1984 and 1991. Whereas we loaded loads of CBLS, Sidewinders, 8" Lepus flares, Sea Eagle, plus 100 and 190ig drop tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger331 Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Seriously !? People can judge accuracy and if it meets high modelling standards from pics and cad images on a computer screen,? my goodness me a vortex generator missing from a wing ? the grey makes the nose look different ???????.......i'm beyond the capacity for rational thought after reading this Beam me up Scotty Totally agree….I also have it on good authority that this manufacturer have gone out of their way to make regular contact with a number of Sea Harrier experts AND have taken on board constructive criticism about some of the original design flaws with the first CAD drawings/test shots of the kit. I would, therefore, be most surprised if there are major accuracy issues with the kit given the time and trouble that has been taken by manufacturer and advisers alike to get it right. Time will tell, of course. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom726 Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 Latest Kinetic Facebook update: The Harrier that we showed earlier this week is indeed the FIRST test shot, so you can expect corrections to be included in future updates - stay tuned for the adjustments we we move this toward production later this summer/early Fall! So time to remain constructive and let Raymond know what should be changed? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truro Model Builder Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 I suspect Raymond is already well aware of that. And it is true about the grey radome on that Indian Sea Harrier FRS. 51; it just looks weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fu_manchu Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 If you look at one of the more recent comments around the nose on FB, kinetic actually state. "We spot the error, we will revise the nose clone" (their spelling not mine!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blikkey Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 The whole test shot does look like it's been thrown together. Just look at the angles of the pylons. I also hope they provide more representative weapons loads, especially for post Falklands aircraft. I never saw a rocket pod, let alone loaded one between 1984 and 1991. Whereas we loaded loads of CBLS, Sidewinders, 8" Lepus flares, Sea Eagle, plus 100 and 190ig drop tanks. I wouldn't mind them including the LAU155's as they would be used on other projects Shar2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar2 Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Good point. It would be good if they included the Sunshine bomb too, as long as they get the adaptor right, but that would probably be a bit controversial these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blikkey Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Good point. It would be good if they included the Sunshine bomb too, as long as they get the adaptor right, but that would probably be a bit controversial these days. Dave being a ex RAF plummer, with instant sunshine being part of RAF when I was still in. It would be great for other kits including them too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homebee Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 (edited) Box art. But where's the tailplane? You can just see its shadow... Missing antennas under the nose Etc. Source: https://www.facebook.com/Kineticmodel/photos/a.150625411771245.1073741825.129238860576567/479302548903528/?type=1&theater Source: http://www.aviationphotocompany.com/p883200785/h5F7AA5B0 Source: http://www.google.be/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0CAMQjxw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mohinhvn.org%2Fforum%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D3117&ei=lWSbVbOoMMWyUeCugaAL&bvm=bv.96952980,d.d24&psig=AFQjCNGOt8uu8UaPXW_U89_-hUPb11EUZA&ust=1436333550496505 V.P. Edited July 15, 2015 by Homebee 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar2 Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Well, they got that box art wrong. A pre 1982 SHAR paint scheme with a post 1989 Invincible class. Not that I'm criticising the artist, but really. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 I should add that Dave served on that ship fixing FRS.1s and FA.2s, which is why he knows a bit about it. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Well, they got that box art wrong. A pre 1982 SHAR paint scheme with a post 1989 Invincible class. Not that I'm criticising the artist, but really. And a Hermes aircraft at that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The dragonborn Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) Looks like the artist who did the Airfix Lightning F.6 box art has been moonshining moonlighting. Edited July 7, 2015 by The dragonborn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar2 Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Do you mean moonlighting, or he was pickled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antoine Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) Dave, any pics of Lepus flare? I'm wondering how it looks under a SHAR since I read Ward's book in the early 90's..... Edited July 7, 2015 by Antoine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar2 Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Sorry Antoine I don't, but I do have some training manuals that might show it. Will have a look tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The dragonborn Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Do you mean moonlighting, or he was pickled? maybe both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Dave, any pics of Lepus flare? I'm wondering how it looks under a SHAR since I read Ward's book in the early 90's..... Try this link, http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1970/1970%20-%200427.html This shows 3 flares on a triple ejector rack for the Viggen (Lepus was a Bofors product) http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1972/1972%20-%203333.PDF There seems to be very few actual photos about. I seem to recall the harrier SIG had some info on them. At 3 million candle power I bet it burned HOT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar2 Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 We only ever loaded one flare per outer pylon, none of this triple rack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 We only ever loaded one flare per outer pylon, none of this triple rack. I think that was NIck's conculsion for Sharkey's aircraft as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 We only ever loaded one flare per outer pylon, none of this triple rack.I did point out the triple rack was for a viggen, still shows the flares though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar2 Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 It would have been useful to have three flares on one pylon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger331 Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 That, albeit incorrect, box art certainly brings back memories......first tourist at RAF St Athan when we started to accept the early FRS.1s on their first post acceptance modification programme with 3 (Engineering) Squadron before that was abruptly halted half way through by a certain Argentinian General. We had to hurriedly put them all back together (well most anyway) before the USMC/USN and RNZAF exchange pilots (who were not given permission to sail with the Fleet) completed the ferry flights from Saints back to Yeovilton. Ten days later (or thereabouts) they were onboard sporting their not so smart low visibility colour schemes and markings for the long trip South. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homebee Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) And now the corrected box art. Source: https://www.facebook.com/284153468459310/photos/a.288214588053198.1073741828.284153468459310/427194714155184/?type=1&theater Now Before V.P. Edited July 10, 2015 by Homebee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shar2 Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Still the wrong scheme for the era of ship. I guess having one from the home of the SHAR is ok, but I wish they'd give us an 8oo NAS cab post Falklands, preferably when based on Illustrious or Invincible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now