Jump to content

1/32 Westland Sea King HAS.6 and HC.4


Icelandic Fine Art

Recommended Posts

Visited an active airframe recently, carried out dimension checks and done some sketches of FAA versions. I have now completed a set of outline drawings for a Westland Sea King and mentally building up a 3d picture to commence work on the masters. Any assistance and support would be welcome. Just the basic rendition at first and it won't be until summer time, that I get stuck into shaping the masters. These 2 versions I have to stick to, since I have to get together all the supporting documentation and file it with the design bureau, who approves my work. Everything has to be original and my own work, in order to authenticate it.

 

Alan

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ohmigodohmigodohmigodohmigod.

 

I have (thus far) narrowly avoided buying one of your Gannets, but a Sea King?  Irresistible.

 

I flew HAS5s and 6s (plus SAR HU5s) between 1985 & 1997.  I have a lot of photos, many of which appear in THIS build of a heavily modified Hasegawa 1/48 HAS5.

 

Anything you want to ask, just ask.  If I don’t know, I will almost certainly know someone who does.

 

P.S.  I will definitely buy one, and probably 2...

Edited by Ex-FAAWAFU
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was tempted by your Buccaneer at Telford but for this scale it has to be something really special. I think a Sea King would do it!

 

You may have started something rather good here.

 

Terry

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crisp (EX-FAAWAFU) will be your 'go to' guy, but having done a lot of research on various versions for my long-term Sea King build project, I'd be happy to provide any assistance I can - there has been the odd pointer I've able to give him, eg., the different lengths of third generator bulges...

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/02/2020 at 17:10, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

Anything you want to ask, just ask.  If I don’t know, I will almost certainly know someone who does.

 

 

Crisp,

Did all Sea King airframes have the same rivet pattern along the main fuselage section and if so, what is the spacing between rivets? Also which airframes had 5 or 6 main blades and were airframes a standard length, apart from the HC.4?

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve got a load of sea king stuff I can send you.photos etc if it’s of any use lots of it was used by mr Parkinson’s for his etch sets.

terry 

Edited by viper-30
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, viper-30 said:

I’ve got a load of sea king stuff I can send you.photos etc if it’s of any use lots of it was used by mr Parkinson’s for his etch sets.

terry 

Hello Viper-30,

 

Thanks for the offer. I only need some photos of the main fuselage, showing the rivet details and arrangement and also the auxiliary turbine location.

 

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2020 at 3:12 PM, Icelandic Fine Art said:

Crisp,

Did all Sea King airframes have the same rivet pattern along the main fuselage section and if so, what is the spacing between rivets? Also which airframes had 5 or 6 main blades and were airframes a standard length, apart from the HC.4?

Alan

Don't know if Crisp's responded to you directly, but in case he hasn't, the rivet pattern was common across all Westland versions, as the base airframe was the same throughout production - which was why all non-ASW versions had a 'plated over' sonar well. I believe the only variations may have been around/across the different window configurations.

Likewise, the airframes were a standard length - including the HC.4 - it was only the useable interior cabin length which was increased when that version was developed.

All Sea Kings had five main blades - it was tail rotors that varied between five or six blades. The original HAS.1, early Norwegian Mk.43s, and German Mk.41s (throughout their service) had five blades, all other Westland versions had six-blade TRs until Carson blade sets were introduced for aircraft deployed to Afghanistan - the Carson TR was a five-blade unit.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/3/2020 at 4:21 PM, Icelandic Fine Art said:

Hello Viper-30,

 

Thanks for the offer. I only need some photos of the main fuselage, showing the rivet details and arrangement and also the auxiliary turbine location.

 

Alan

If by "auxiliary turbine location" you mean the third generator bulge on the port side of the doghouse, the HC.4 had the 'standard' one as seen here (on a Mk.50):

spacer.png

The HAS.6, however, had a longer one, as seen here on an ASaC.7:

spacer.png

Note how it extends halfway into the rectangular panel aft of the access platform.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, andyf117 said:

Don't know if Crisp's responded to you directly, but in case he hasn't, the rivet pattern was common across all Westland versions, as the base airframe was the same throughout production 

Andyf117,

Thanks for that info, it has given me a better understanding for the basic airframe. I have drawn up the basic outline drawings and profiles, so once I start to shape things, problems will show themselves. I have not heard from Crisp, as of yet, so I will wait out. I was misinformed about the HC.4 being longer, physically, so only internally, that clears that up. 

 

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Icelandic Fine Art said:

Andyf117,

Thanks for that info, it has given me a better understanding for the basic airframe. I have drawn up the basic outline drawings and profiles, so once I start to shape things, problems will show themselves. I have not heard from Crisp, as of yet, so I will wait out. I was misinformed about the HC.4 being longer, physically, so only internally, that clears that up. 

 

Alan

I know Crisp created his own set of drawings for his Sea King build, largely in preparation for adding the rivet detail to it, so he'll doubtless be able to give you more detailed info on that aspect of the airframe than I can - might be worth sending him a PM?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Alan 

I’ve only just seen this thread. I only finished reading the Haynes manual on the Sea King and thought that it would make a superb 1/32 kit so I was really pleased to read this! I’d love an HAS.6 so I’ll follow this thread to check on progress!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2020 at 1:19 PM, Icelandic Fine Art said:

Visited an active airframe recently, carried out dimension checks and done some sketches of FAA versions. I have now completed a set of outline drawings for a Westland Sea King and mentally building up a 3d picture to commence work on the masters. Any assistance and support would be welcome. Just the basic rendition at first and it won't be until summer time, that I get stuck into shaping the masters. These 2 versions I have to stick to, since I have to get together all the supporting documentation and file it with the design bureau, who approves my work. Everything has to be original and my own work, in order to authenticate it.

 

Alan

Hello Alan,  It might be worth contacting  South Yorkshire Aircraft Museum,  they have XV677 on display.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/6/2020 at 9:01 PM, Icelandic Fine Art said:

Andyf117,

Thanks for that info, it has given me a better understanding for the basic airframe. I have drawn up the basic outline drawings and profiles, so once I start to shape things, problems will show themselves. I have not heard from Crisp, as of yet, so I will wait out. I was misinformed about the HC.4 being longer, physically, so only internally, that clears that up. 

 

Alan

Alan - really sorry for not responding sooner, though Andy has already answered a lot of your questions.  The HC 4 (& I think HAR3, but I know less about the RAF cabs) had the internal rear wall further aft than its ASW cousins; all to do with space (HC4) and centre of gravity (ASW); the anti-submarine airframes already had a lot of stuff in the back - look at photos of an HAS1 (5-bladed tail rotor) in the hover in comparison with a later mark and you will see how the later aircraft hovered visibly more nose up / tail down and left wing low.  
 

The worst example of that was the early passive-capable ASW airframes - so a few HAS2s (mostly trials & development) and then the HAS5.  These had a LAPADS table and associated seat for the Aircrewman (who was the sonics operator) behind the normal 2 rear seats, so roughly level with the rear door.  The ACMN was only allowed to move back to this seat once you were in level flight, because hovering with him back there, especially at high fuel states, gave big CofG issues.  We had to work out the centre of gravity at various fuel states before every sortie, and mange fuel accordingly - or risk running out of control authority in extremis.  The HAS6 fixed this problem by combining the active and passive acoustics into one piece of kit.

 

I cannot remember whether i ever finished my Sea King rivet drawings - it’s possible that I simply gave up and modelled direct from photographs of the FAA Museum’s HAS5.  I’ll look later and send you a PM.  If I have them, you’re most welcome to them.

Edited by Ex-FAAWAFU
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an idea of the general layout of the rivet detail on the airframe. obviously some rivet detail is quite numerous in some areas but I will only concern myself with the general pattern, so as to give a feel for the actual cab itself. The rotor assembly poses the biggest problem but I will face that when I come to that stage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the main rotor head is probably your biggest challenge.  If it were me, I’d confine myself to making the main head parts as accurate as possible (folded & spread?) but not even try to depict the hydraulics and electrics of the blade fold system. Leave that to the modeller... unless you’re feeling very brave indeed:

48264016861_555d8dee47_b.jpg


The essential parts are actually quite simple; it’s the blade fold that takes you rapidly in the direction of insanity.  That was what stalled my 1/48 HAS5 build (though it will return...)

Edited by Ex-FAAWAFU
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S. I think these probably give the best impression of the rivet distribution resulting from my research/obsession:

IMG_1865

IMG_3426
 

...and here the essential elements of the rotor head (upside down here!):

IMG_3431

...and here the right way up:

IMG_1559

 

Edited by Ex-FAAWAFU
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

IMG_1865

Not seen that beauty for a while. As an aside, I'm intrigued by the picture on the wall. An American Charles F Adams class I reckon? Probably my favourite American Cold War Destroyer class. 

 

Sorry for the thread drift Alan, couldn't resist!

 

Btw, I'm definitely up for a large scale Sea King.

 

Terry

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Terry1954 said:

Not seen that beauty for a while. As an aside, I'm intrigued by the picture on the wall. An American Charles F Adams class I reckon? Probably my favourite American Cold War Destroyer class. 

 

Sorry for the thread drift Alan, couldn't resist!

 

Btw, I'm definitely up for a large scale Sea King.

 

Terry

 

 

It is indeed a CFA - not sure which one; just out of shot on the right is Fearless arriving home from the Falklands with 22-year-old me on board 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing the info and photos, Crisp, I will leave all the intricate detailing to the modeller since that is how I prefer to approach my projects. I remember reading an earlier article about the blade fold mechanism you described in another thread, you did explain very well, I may have to try and dig it out again; once I understand the description and sequence, I can then use the geometry to work out the general layout. 

I am a friend of the FAA museum, so I may have to pay a visit at some stage, to see how much info I can get; I have seen the Sea King in the exhibition hall. 

Simon, I was rather disappointed with the Haynes manual, there was not the sort of technical info that I was looking for but it is more of a general manual, than a technical publication. 

 

One of the most noticeable aspects of helicopters, is their raised rivet detail, quite distinctive that sets them apart from aircraft. In some ways, I think the older generation of helicopters were much better in some respects and I know the march of time, technological developments and material science has made newer designs economical but they are still basically the same machines; as I recall often being a passenger in a Merlin, it is quite noisy and the vibrations are there like all machines; the other problem as I noted, even with the Merlin, is that it has a lot of sensors that cause problems and it is prone to leaks. It has a lot of redundancy built into it, but for what it is, it is over complicated and expensive and when compared to some of the newer Russian helicopters in the same class, the Merlin costs five times more and still no better. I remember out in the desert, often with the problems the Merlin suffered, we often had to rely on the older Pumas and Chinooks. 

It would be something else, flying over the sea in a Sea king, it takes a certain type of person to pilot these machines. My first flight in a Gazelle, seated in the back, in the middle and the pilot, a young Captain, crash dived the Gazelle, virtually free-falling and almost auto rotating, it was a fantastic experience from my daily routine and coming from a mundane heavy armour unit, it made for a change in the normal day to day routine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Icelandic Fine Art said:

I am a friend of the FAA museum, so I may have to pay a visit at some stage, to see how much info I can get; I have seen the Sea King in the exhibition hall. 

 

One of the most noticeable aspects of helicopters, is their raised rivet detail, quite distinctive that sets them apart from aircraft. In some ways, I think the older generation of helicopters were much better in some respects and I know the march of time, technological developments and material science has made newer designs economical but they are still basically the same machines; as I recall often being a passenger in a Merlin, it is quite noisy and the vibrations are there like all machines; the other problem as I noted, even with the Merlin, is that it has a lot of sensors that cause problems and it is prone to leaks. It has a lot of redundancy built into it, but for what it is, it is over complicated and expensive and when compared to some of the newer Russian helicopters in the same class, the Merlin costs five times more and still no better. I remember out in the desert, often with the problems the Merlin suffered, we often had to rely on the older Pumas and Chinooks. 

It would be something else, flying over the sea in a Sea king, it takes a certain type of person to pilot these machines. My first flight in a Gazelle, seated in the back, in the middle and the pilot, a young Captain, crash dived the Gazelle, virtually free-falling and almost auto rotating, it was a fantastic experience from my daily routine and coming from a mundane heavy armour unit, it made for a change in the normal day to day routine. 

If you are a friend of the FAA Museum and have not already done so, I heartily recommend the occasional open days of the Reserve Collection in Cobham Hall; they are obviously not doing any at present, but in normal times they open it 2 or 3 times a year - check the website.  Apart from the fact that there are fascinating rare aircraft in there (e.g. one of only 2 extant Sea Vixen FAW1s, the prototype Wasp / P531, an NA39 and unique airframes like the Supermarine 510), you can get really up close to the airframes, and they have a Sea King HAS5 (XZ574) that is a much better representation of the front line ASW aircraft than XV663, the HAS6 in the main collection - others have seen me rant about this airframe before, but suffice it to say that it is painted half as an RAF HAR3 and half as an HU5 of 771 squadron, when in fact it was never either of those.  XV663 IS an historic airframe - it was one of the cabs that used its downwash to push life rafts away from the burning Sir Galahad at Bluff Cove in the Falklands war, while still a Mk2 - but I do wish a reputable museum would not persist in exhibiting it as something that it isn't.  (Having said that, you can at least get inside it, which for your purposes might be really helpful; just don't mistake it for a SAR machine, cos it ain't and never was).

 

I think you're being very harsh on the Merlin - not least because you seem to be judging it as a support/utility helicopter, rather than as a sophisticated ASW aircraft which is (just like the Sea King) what it was designed for.  There is a reason why the prime contractor in the Merlin project wasn't the people who made the airframes, but the people who built the electronics & sensors around which it was designed.  Yes, as a flying truck it is definitely possible to argue that it is over-complicated & expensive - but as an anti-submarine aircraft, the advantages of range, endurance, performance, redundancy, far better electronics, a massively better active sonar and much better acoustics processors mean that it was a very considerable step up from the Sea King... and that was why it was designed, built and purchased.  It shouldn't really come as a shock to learn that an aircraft designed for prolonged blue water ASW in the North Atlantic found working as a glorified lorry in hot & high desert conditions a bit of a stretch.  I doubt the Puma or Chinook would do terribly well at locating submarines operating off the back of a frigate.  The Sea King Mk 4s were 40 years old or more, and it made perfect sense to acquire the HC3 & 4 Merlin for Naval ops because of the commonality in engines and a high percentage of the airframe with their ASW cousins.   

 

After all, the Seafire wasn't that great as a Naval aircraft because it had a narrow track undercarriage and was decidedly fragile for the rigours of flying from a deck - compare it with, say, a Hellcat, which is built like the proverbial brick outhouse in comparison.  But no-one would criticise the Seafire for its failings; it wasn't designed as a Naval aircraft (and the Hellcat was) - any more than the Merlin was designed as a utility aircraft.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you are quite right, I totally forgot that the Merlin was designed as a ASW, which with 3 engines and endurance make it an excellent vehicle. I did actually make an early Italeri Royal Navy Merlin in the ASW role and had forgotten about it, it is certainly a large helicopter.

I will have to try and get down to the FAA, sometime, I do still receive their newsletters, so will look into this. 

Your 1/48 Sea king looks every bit the part and will give me an idea as to how to approach the subject.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...