1:72 Gloster Javelin Jambalaya

[Navy Bird]

Right, a Javelin Jambalaya, and not in the Cajun meaning of the word. I won't be making a stew for dinner. I have three kits of the Javelin (EDIT - four), the Heller T.3, the Airfix "FAW.9" (and that's in quotes for a reason as we will soon see), the Plastyk FAW.9, and the Novo/Frog FAW.9 all in glorious 1:72 scale. Thank the woman above that I don't need to add crazy detail like I did on that big Spitfire. So let's see what we have as raw materials - first, the Airfix "FAW.9" which I purchased at a model show swap meet, but was in its original package and still sealed.

 

 

 

 

The Javelin Illuminati among us (they come out occasionally and are dreadfully frightening) will immediately notice that the grey sprues are in fact those from the Heller T.3 kit, with the tailcone removed from the sprue on the right in the second photo. However, the white and clear sprues are indeed from the Airfix FAW.9 version of the Javelin. Everyone knows that the original T.3 tooling was modified to produce the FAW.9, and it seems that Airfix have mistakenly packaged surplus T.3 sprues (but correctly snipping off the tailcone) in my kit. Oops. It would be rather difficult at this stage to make an FAW.9 out of this kit.

 

But I also have this kit from Plastyk in Poland:

 

 

 

 

I'm told that this kit is based on the second Frog tooling of the Javelin, but I don't have that so I can't compare. The sprue layout bears no resemblance to the Frog kit as seen here in the Frog Museum. I've seen a few very nice builds of this kit, but it is quite basic. So maybe.

 

Now, I also have one of these babies, along with a Print Scale decal sheet to replace the nicely curled and yellowed one that was unearthed at some archaeological dig and packaged with the plastic:

 

 

The sprues from the Heller kit look just like the Airfix sprues above, except they're in a yukky silver styrene and, of course, include the correct T.3 tailcone.

 

Oh, right, aftermarket. I've assembled some, but maybe not enough.

 

 

What to do? If I had another T.3 tailcone, I could build two T.3s and an FAW.9, but I really don't need to have three Javelins in my display case. Two sounds like a good number. I'll give this some thought and make a plan. The Airwaves airbrake PE set is designed for the Heller/Airfix kit, but might be useful for Plastyk. I will need another to make two models. The other Airwaves set is for the Airfix FAW.9, but could most likely be used on a T.3 and few would notice. I don't think there is a set for the T.3 like this, so I would need another of those too. More aftermarket tyres and pitot tubes will be easy to acquire. Oh, I suspect I will need to source some ejection seats. Martin-Baker Mk.3J for the FAW.9, but which mark for the T.3?

 

The easiest route is to build a T.3 from the grey Airfix sprues (I hate that silver styrene in the Heller kit) and an FAW.9 from Plastyk. Easy is a relative term here, as the Plastyk kit looks like it need a lot of help, where the Heller kit maybe needs just "some" help. First, though, I want to find some layout drawings that are reasonably correct to see what I'm starting with. I have the stencil placement drawing that came with the Airfix 1:48 kit, and I suspect that is pretty good for an FAW.9. Drawings for the T.3 I'm still looking for.

 

I'm not sure why I always make things difficult for myself, but I think this will be a fun project!  

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

PS. I do like the fancy paint job on that red and white FAW.9. I'm a stickler for that kind of stuff.  

[Courageous]

Count me in Bill. I have the Airfix 9 in the cupboard, so this should prove useful, whatever mark you build.

That plastic from Plastyk looks horrid!

 

Stuart

[Dave Swindell]

The harmonious dragmaster gets the @Navy Bird treatment!

2 hours ago, Navy Bird said:

If I had another T.3 tailcone,

Whirlybird do FAW.1/4/5  and FAW.7 replacement rear fuselages - but then you'd have the front end to sort out as well.

The rear fuselages had their origins in the Maintrack conversions, but the Maintrack front fuselage doesn't appear to be in the Whirlybird catalogue.

[ijs302]

i think i need to watch this one , whilst searching the stash today i found an old novo kit i had forgotten about

[Antti_K]

Hello Bill,

 

I can assure you (even from this distance) that the Plastyk example's belly tanks and wing tanks require quite a lot of work. Otherwise it is unknown kit to me. I'm watching this with interest as I've built both Airfix (same boxing) and Frog/Novo kits.

 

Kind Regards,

Antti

[Hamden]

 

Will sit in on this one if I may Bill? Very interested to see what you do with these, working your magic to produce more inspirational  results!

 

                     Roger

[giemme]

17 hours ago, Navy Bird said:

I'm not sure why I always make things difficult for myself, but I think this will be a fun project!  

And that's what we like: fun  

 

Following ...   🍺

 

Ciao

[Navy Bird]

On 04/08/2019 at 12:58, Courageous said:

That plastic from Plastyk looks horrid!

 

It not only looks horrid, it is horrid. I think they melted down whatever leftover plastic they had from yuletide packaging, and didn't stir it enough. Hopefully all that disappears with some paint, but I am a bit concerned how the stuff will sand. Looks brittle.

 

21 hours ago, Dave Swindell said:

The harmonious dragmaster gets the @Navy Bird treatment!

Whirlybird do FAW.1/4/5  and FAW.7 replacement rear fuselages - but then you'd have the front end to sort out as well.

The rear fuselages had their origins in the Maintrack conversions, but the Maintrack front fuselage doesn't appear to be in the Whirlybird catalogue.

 

Harmonious dragmaster? Never heard that - it is a real nickname? I had the Maintrack conversion for a short while, but I sold it to some lucky feller on this forum. The front fuselage was solid resin - I think it would have been the first model I made that required weight in the back of the fuselage to prevent it being a nose-sitter.

 

21 hours ago, Antti_K said:

I can assure you (even from this distance) that the Plastyk example's belly tanks and wing tanks require quite a lot of work.

 

No doubt. I've seen a few builds of this kit that look rather nice though, like this one:

 

 

So maybe it will clean up OK. I've ordered some more aftermarket goodies, like ejection seats and more PE, so I'll have enough extras to make two kits. At this point, it will be a T.3 from the Airfix/Heller kit, and the F(AW).9 from the Plastyk kit. The first will be in normal camo, the second in that cool red and white A&AEE scheme. If life cooperates, and @CedB , @Cookenbacher , and @Procopius don't turn me into an alcoholic during my trip to Telford, it should be done before the end of the year.

 

Sound like a plan?

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

PS. Oh, wait, I already am an alcoholic...   

[Procopius]

2 minutes ago, Navy Bird said:

If life cooperates, and @CedB , @Cookenbacher , and @Procopius don't turn me into an alcoholic during my trip to Telford, it should be done before the end of the year.

I shouldn't think so, I only drink alone, in the dark, until I go to sleep, not socially, so you should be safe.

 

I actually feel quite guilty about this build, as you very kindly gave me your Maintrack conversion and a Heller Javelin a while back, and now you have to do all this work!

[Navy Bird]

9 minutes ago, Procopius said:

I actually feel quite guilty about this build, as you very kindly gave me your Maintrack conversion and a Heller Javelin a while back, and now you have to do all this work!

 

Really? I gave it to you? Wow, I don't remember that, I just see it marked as sold in my stash database. Well then, I hope you enjoy it, and remember to put extra weight in the back!

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

PS. What I do remember is that I've left my entire modelling stash, tools, supplies and accessories to you in my will. So get ready!

PPS. You have to pay the postage.  

[Procopius]

2 minutes ago, Navy Bird said:

PPS. You have to pay the postage.  

I hope you live forever, Bill.

[Max Headroom]

I did the FROG back in the day and I have the semi- ZTS Plastyk one in the furthest reaches of my own Personal AMARC. I don’t plan on going back there anytime soon.

 

Whilst both are ‘different’ ZTS is definitely inspired by FROG. ZTS has the advantage of (crudely) scribed panel lines. The stickies were pants though.

 

One thing they share in common, is a ruddy great join line running through the main wheel bays. If you are going to detail this area (I know.....that was a stupid thing to say!), serious hacking is required.

 

Another shared feature are the intakes, basically just holes, I simulated intakes using chopped off Tuzuka (sp?!) Model MiG 31 drop tanks.

 

You have my admiration and/or sympathies!

 

Trevor

[Navy Bird]

12 minutes ago, Procopius said:

I hope you live forever, Bill.

 

OK, I'll have wifey deliver it all to you. But you'll need to give her chocolate in return.

 

11 minutes ago, Max Headroom said:

The stickies were pants though.

 

One thing they share in common, is a ruddy great join line running through the main wheel bays. If you are going to detail this area (I know.....that was a stupid thing to say!), serious hacking is required.

 

Another shared feature are the intakes, basically just holes, I simulated intakes using chopped off Tuzuka (sp?!) Model MiG 31 drop tanks.

 

You have my admiration and/or sympathies!

 

Thanks Trevor. Sympathies it is! I had already considered the need for brass tubing or something like that for the intakes, but I hadn't yet thought about the gear bays. They're on the bottom, right? Nobody will look down there.   

 

I am, however, worried about the stickies comment. Those are needed for the A&AEE scheme, and if everything is all nicely painted red and white, and then the stickies don't work...that's a bummer, man. What exactly was the problem with them? The old "disintegrating in water" trick? Or the "Authentic Tamiya I won't conform to anything even with gallons of decal solvent" trick? Or worse? My decal sheet looks OK, but that doesn't mean anything. The roundels, serials, stencils, and fin flash can be acquired elsewhere, but I may have to print my own A&AEE logo for the nose if the decals are no good.

 

Cheers,

Bill

[Dave Swindell]

19 minutes ago, Navy Bird said:

Harmonious dragmaster? Never heard that - it is a real nickname?

Quite a common nickname for the Javelin. Aquired allegedly due to a "blue note" generated by airflow over the 4 aden cannon ports, and lack of performance due to drag caused by the thick wing and no area ruling.

 

 

[Max Headroom]

My boxing is not the same as yours. It has a boggo standard RAF scheme and not the raspberry ripple one that you have. Also we’re talking early 90’s when to be fair, most Eastern European manufacturers hadn’t yet got into their stride. If possible I’d sacrifice a spare transfer from the sheet for testing.

 

As an aside, that particular example is preserved at Duxford and I’d expect it’s well photographed.

 

Trevor 

[Navy Bird]

17 minutes ago, Dave Swindell said:

Quite a common nickname for the Javelin. Aquired allegedly due to a "blue note" generated by airflow over the 4 aden cannon ports, and lack of performance due to drag caused by the thick wing and no area ruling.

 

Ah, OK, that makes sense. I was thinking it meant something like a dragster - fast acceleration, etc. Aerodynamic drag makes more sense. I wish I could have seen one in person so I could hear that blue note.

 

11 minutes ago, Max Headroom said:

My boxing is not the same as yours. It has a boggo standard RAF scheme and not the raspberry ripple one that you have. Also we’re talking early 90’s when to be fair, most Eastern European manufacturers hadn’t yet got into their stride. If possible I’d sacrifice a spare transfer from the sheet for testing.

 

As an aside, that particular example is preserved at Duxford and I’d expect it’s well photographed.

 

Thanks. I've managed to purloin download look at many photos of XH897. She sure is purty. I've had another look at my kit, and I don't see any join lines going through the main gear bays. There are no gear bays at all, just holes in the bottom of the wing. I must have misunderstood your comment. Which, at my age, is happening all the time!

 

Cheers,

Bill

[Max Headroom]

This is an experiment with Village Photos via my iPhone. First time try (free Flickr has maxed out).

 

What I hope you can see is the wheel well. That ridge on the inner face is the inner edge of the upper wing part on my ZTS Plastyk version. That obviously needs correction and the rest of the wheel well blocking in.

 

Trevor

 

[Navy Bird]

For some strange reason, Airfix/Heller have you start in the cockpit. I've never had that happen before. Very odd. In any event, there are some extra thin metal bendy things to add to the styrene, along with some ejection seats that I think are a little nicer than those included with the kit.

 

 

Some explanation is in order. To use the photoetch rudder petals as designed, the front wall of the cockpit tub needs to be removed. To compensate for this, the piece that I've positioned in front of the tub (with the four stripes) acts as an extension of the floor, and Airwaves would have you bend this piece into a gentle curve upwards. I'm not sure this is accurate, but it will at least prevent those with eyes on tiny stalks that could actually look in there from seeing the nose gear well.

 

The other large PE piece is to close off the front of the rear instrument panel/coaming area. Airwaves provides a PE part for the front panel, but not the rear. This is because their front panel is different, and has extra gubbins on top. This is supposed to be an FAW.9 panel, so I need to find out what a T.3 panel really looks like.

 

According to the Martin-Baker website, the Javelin used Mk.3J seats. The closest I could find in this scale are the Mk.3 seats used in the Vampire, and although they are not perfect, neither am I so I'm going to use them. The resin seats shown are from Pavla, I believe. I plan on taking some measurements of the tub, so I can build another from card stock, with appropriate dimensional modification, for use with the Plastyk kit. We'll discuss that soon.

 

Somewhere around here, I have some of that very dark grey paint that I use for interior black, so I think it's time for hacking away with a razor saw, slapping on some superglue, and fogging up my workshop with paint fumes. Oh, it's dinner time too, so somebody order some Chinese takeaway.

 

@Max Headroom - thanks for that. Now I know what you were referring to. Getting rid of the offending ridge should not be too difficult, and I'll have to box in the bays anyway. I'll use the Airfix/Heller kit as a master "reference." You know, try to make both kits look similar.

 

Cheers,

Bill

[Martian]

This has to be followed, therefore I am, err, following.

 

Martian 👽

[rob Lyttle]

 

Just sayin......... 

😎

[Max Headroom]

A couple of more observations (sorry about this, but the synapses are sparking randomly with memories).

 

On the starboard nose, is a non-standard camera aperture. If I remember correctly, the ZTS kit has rather thick plastic at this point and an awful lot of gouging and drilling would be needed. I was going to chicken out and just do this with a suitably shaped black transfer. Thinking about it now, maybe thinning the inside surface before cutting out the aperture would work? 

 

Final thought for now, is that the serials on the ZTS sheet look a tad skinny? 

 

Trevor

[Navy Bird]

3 hours ago, rob Lyttle said:

<snip>

Just sayin.........

 

Hey, I got stickers for that one. But I like red & white better than natural metal. Although it would like pretty sinister...now you got me thinking again. There's always trouble when I start thinking. Ask wifey. 

 

3 hours ago, Max Headroom said:

A couple of more observations (sorry about this, but the synapses are sparking randomly with memories).

 

On the starboard nose, is a non-standard camera aperture. If I remember correctly, the ZTS kit has rather thick plastic at this point and an awful lot of gouging and drilling would be needed. I was going to chicken out and just do this with a suitably shaped black transfer. Thinking about it now, maybe thinning the inside surface before cutting out the aperture would work? 

 

Final thought for now, is that the serials on the ZTS sheet look a tad skinny?

 

At least you have synapses, can't say that about me. I planned on trying to add a window with clear plastic, but a black decal would work fine in this scale. As far as grinding down the wall thickness - me got Dremel. That's what I'll use to grind away the entire cockpit tub on the Plastyk kit which is part of the upper fuselage (like the old Frog kit). I typically use a ball end on the grinding tool, and I've learned to be careful so I only screw it up slightly. You are correct, thin the wall before cutting the aperture. Otherwise you risk messing up the edges of the opening.

 

Tad skinny? More like anorexic. I had noticed that when I got the kit, but luckily serials are easy to source.

 

Cheers,

Bill

[Courageous]

A good plan of attack on the tub, never liked that Airwaves PE though...

 

Stuart

[Lord Riot]

Brilliant, I love Javelins! I have Airfix's 1/72 and 1/48 offerings in the stash so will follow this build.

 

As well as Dragmaster I think they were also dubbed 'Flatirons' by the RAF. I may be wrong but wasn't there a restriction on looping them too as they were prone to fall out of the sky if this was attempted? And Vulcans could out-turn and out-climb them at altitude so for exercises the Vulcan crews were politely asked to stay a bit lower to give our plucky fighter boys a sporting chance?

 

Despite (or maybe because of) its inadequacies though I still have a huge soft spot for the Jav. Wish there were more preserved ones around. Actually I wish there were still a few squadrons in service but that's a fantasy too far!

Edited August 6, 2019 by Lord Riot

[Antti_K]

2 minutes ago, Lord Riot said:

Brilliant, I love Javelins! I have Airfix's 1/72 and 1/48 offerings in the stash so will follow this build.

 

As well as Dragmaster I think they were also dubbed 'Flatirons' by the RAF. I may be wrong but wasn't there a restriction on looping them too as they were prone to fall out of the sky if this was attempted? And Vulcans could out-turn and out-climb them at altitude so for exercises the Vulcan crews were politely asked to stay a bit lower to give our plucky fighter boys a sporting chance?

 

Despite (or maybe because of) its inadequacies though I still have a huge soft spot for the Jav. Wish there were more preserved ones around. Actually I wish there were still a few squadrons in service but that's a fantasy too far!

So do I! It would really be something to have a squadron or two of these operational!

 

It seems that Javelins were earlier called as "Harmonius Dragmasters" and later during their service career came the nick name "Flatiron".

 

There certainly are restrictions in the Javelin Air Crew Manual. Looping is prohibited and the manual gives no explanation for this. Former OC of No 60 Squadron M.H. Miller tells the story behind the restriction. When you are inverted at the top of the loop with a small air speed the elevator feel system increases the control force (low air speed, pilot shouldn't pull any further). If the pilot continues to pull (as he should) the system pulls the stick forward thus making the situation worse. The trick was to continue with your pull against the "stick pusher". And if you messed with that... Miller says that "he saw Javelins making loops with no problem at all" but of course he won't give any names.

 

An other oddity was the stall behavior: it was only possible to recover from a stall via a spin! That's why the Javelin has the stall vanes on top of the wing; not at the leading edge. If you got the warning you had to unload immediately to avoid a deep stall state (as with increasing AoA the drag increases rapidly in delta wing aircraft). It was somewhat uncertain whether a Javelin would recover from a spin. FAW.7, 8 or 9 were never air tested for this and the spin recovery procedure given in FAW.9's Air Crew Manual is based on the tests conducted with a FAW.1 (with slightly different wing and different mass, load distribution and CoG).

 

Cheers,

Antti