71chally Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 I had a good look over stored Lynx HMA.8s yesterday and noticed that majority had the layout of the observer sat next to the pilot on his right. However some had the observer panels deleted and a second pilot position with full controls and instrumentation in their place. What dictated the change in cockpit layout? I assumed (likely wrongly!) that the dedicated troop rolled Lynx may have the two pilots positions? Also, does the same go for the HAS.3 from which they are derived? Thanks in advance Lynx HMA.8 ZF560 456 HMS Duncan by James Thomas, on Flickr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedBarron Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 The pilot on the right and the observer on the left was the normal configuration. The aircraft with a second set of sticks on the left were used for pilot training, it was just a case of taking out the radar components and fitting the second set of sticks. Any aircraft could have these stick installed or removed, 702 Sqn had a lot of 2 stick aircraft where 815 Sqn had nearly all single sticks. Hope that helps Red 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted May 4, 2018 Author Share Posted May 4, 2018 It does indeed thank you. I was wondering if it was for training, but seeing how big a change it was put me off that idea and the Navy seemed to shy away from two seat trainers with fixed wing operational types. I was surprised to see the whole floor was different, ie perfectly flat with no rudder pedals, sticks etc for the operational role. thanks again Red Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedBarron Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 The rods, levers and whatnots are all still there underneath the floor panels. It was just a case of removing the floor panels and bolting in the yaw pedals, cyclic stick and collective in to their relative sockets and fitting different floor panels. The radar removal and fitment of the instruments took a bit longer. Red 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted May 4, 2018 Author Share Posted May 4, 2018 Thanks again, brilliant info. Was it the same thing with the HAS.3? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedBarron Posted May 5, 2018 Share Posted May 5, 2018 Yes as far as I know, there were hardly any differences flying control wise between a Mk3 and a Mk8 other than the tail rotor. Red 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglierating Posted May 5, 2018 Share Posted May 5, 2018 (edited) 13 hours ago, RedBarron said: The rods, levers and whatnots are all still there underneath the floor panels. It was just a case of removing the floor panels and bolting in the yaw pedals, cyclic stick and collective in to their relative sockets and fitting different floor panels. The radar removal and fitment of the instruments took a bit longer. Red Im not a teeny weenies expert but other than taking out the cockpit avionic surely they left the radar in ....hell of a cofg change...unless they fitted balast weights...kinda irrelevant for modelling unless you take the radome off.just interested. It probably took longer coz the grubbers were in the way faffing about with split pins and wirelocking lol Edited May 5, 2018 by junglierating 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedBarron Posted May 5, 2018 Share Posted May 5, 2018 Having done it a couple of times they removed the radar components. They fitted ballast weights because as you say, the CofG change. From a grubber point of view, it was just a case of removing the relevant panels, putting the sticks in their sockets and adjusting the collective balance spring to allow for the added weight of another collective stick. The AVs used to faff about for ages, behind the instrument panel of a lynx was a snakes wedding, plus being herd animals it took 4 of them, 1 to do the job and 3 to stand around. In terms of modelling unless you're doing a super-detailed panels off build then it pretty much is irrelevant. Red 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troffa Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 "Herd animals" harsh but fair! 🙂 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex-FAAWAFU Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 @71chally, yes, it was the same for the HAS3; as others have said, all airframes had the requisite control runs etc under the floor. 702 (as the dedicated training squadron) had several cabs permanently rigged with dual controls, including the instruments. I can’t be sure, but I don’t recall 815 / 829 (front line) having a full-on dual aircraft - no need, really. They did, however, gave so-called “Quasi” cabs, with the Observer’s instruments, radar etc still fitted but with flying controls. To use the radar the Obs had to be fery careful not to nudge the cyclic, which meant an awkward, hunchback posture - hence the “Quasimodo” nickname. The only thing I can remember Quasi cabs being used for was Instrument Rating Tests / training - so the safety pilot (i.e. the one able to look out of the window) had the ability to fly the aircraft if something went wrong. But 99% of the time we never flew with other pilots once training was finished; the aircraft was designed around a single pilot & single observer, and flights were manned accordingly. I did once take a Quasi cab to sea on Broadsword flight; my aircraft was in bits in 829’s hangar in mid gearbox change, and the ship was sailed unexpectedly to shadow something, so we borrowed an HQ cab, and the only one available was Quasi rigged. We decided to mess with a few heads on board, so I flew it from the left hand seat, including the deck landing. It was worth it to see the faces on deck as they thought an Observer was flying the aircraft. We were only on board for a few days, but my Looker hated that cab, especially at night, because I smacked him around the head every time he interfered with the controls! 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted May 8, 2018 Author Share Posted May 8, 2018 Brilliant info @Ex-FAAWAFUCrisp, thank you. One of your old cabs might even be in with this lot! Just seen a shop stocking the Revell 32nd Lynx for £20, so will likely get one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex-FAAWAFU Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 11 minutes ago, 71chally said: Brilliant info @Ex-FAAWAFUCrisp, thank you. One of your old cabs might even be in with this lot! Just seen a shop stocking the Revell 32nd Lynx for £20, so will likely get one. I have a Revell 1/32 Lynx or 2 in the stash, despite it being a “wrong” scale for me. If anyone is ever mad/inspired enough to produce a 1/32 Seaking, I’d get one of them, and all! The two airframes that I had on my flight were XZ722 (which I know is in a museum in the US somewhere) & ZD260. Between them they account for about 900 of my c.1200 hours on type. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted May 8, 2018 Author Share Posted May 8, 2018 Thanks Crisp, I think ZD260 is currently held at Middle Wallop. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedBarron Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 I built a 1/32 Revell Mk3 a while ago, I can't remember having any problems with it. The only thing that's very obviously missing is all the rivet detail, the lynx is covered in the things. I seem to remember Revell announcing they were going to do a 1/32 Mk8 towards the end of this year. Red 1 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