Jump to content

Westland Wasp HAS 1: 'Ambuscade Flight: XT778'


Recommended Posts

On 02/08/2022 at 18:26, Pete in Lincs said:

I dropped some off at Melchett towers this afternoon for @Martian who is due to land there any time soon. 

He did indeed and is now penance free. 

 

Martian 👽

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/18/2022 at 8:25 PM, Galligraphics said:

I’ll just sneak in here at the back and, if I’m quiet, perhaps no one will notice me…:popcorn:

You boy, YES YOU, behind the bike shed...STAND STILL LADDIE!

 

On 8/1/2022 at 9:41 PM, Pete in Lincs said:

Aha! This is where you're hiding. And it's still page one. Should I park the dray wagon on the drive outside?

Nah, bring it in. We'll be too engrossed to keep walking out to it!

 

Ian

  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blessings upon you all.

 

Taking a break from writing up Vixen instructions so thought it was time indeed to make a few scratches on the wall here. Before proceeding though I need to publicly thank Mike (@bootneck) for his generosity in the sharing of technical references; it is  no exaggeration to say that without acccess to that level of information, I would not currently be contemplating this endeavour. Thanks also are due to Ian (@Wafu) in the matter of photographic sources : no doubt I shall be perstering your for brass rubbings of the Nimbus when the time comes Ian!

 

I've spent the past few weeks reading up from primary sources about several overlapping areas which are of direct concern to this build, to whit: how a helicopter capable of landing on a small surface out at sea which is rapidly translating and rotating in three dimensions was in fact developed, the main structural components of this vehicle and how they have to interact with one another in order to reliably accomplish this feat, and finally the integration of the Wasp into the MATCH (Medium Range Anti-Submarine Torpedo Carrying Helicopter) environment as a means of extending the ASW capability of a naval frigate via a radar umbilical. 

 

The above description is, if you like, the 'classic' profile which it was originally designed to fulfil but as is well known, the Wasp subsequently showed itself capable of a wide range of operational duties from the offensive (via AS11/AS12 missiles), to reconnaissance, casualty transfer and so forth. Equally well-known in the modelling circles are the overt visual differences between Scout and Wasp, which I don't intend to repeat here.

 

A quick survey of available literature might be useful place to start in terms of identifying the primary sources I'm relying on here, and why.

 

To augment reference photography, as a standard procedure now on builds I like to have original technical manuals to hand for cross-referencing so AP-101C-0601-3A, Wasp HAS 1 Illustrated Parts manual and AP-101C-0601-15, Wasp HAS Mk.1 Pilot's Notes are used here.

 

T. L. Ciastula: The Development of the P.531, The Aeronautical Journal / Volume 68 / Issue 642 / June 1964: in terms of the evolution of the Wasp out of the P.531 program, this remains a foundational, highly-detailed account. Ciastula was Chief Designer (Light Helicopters) at Westland-Fairey Aviation Division during this period so this is effectively an eyewitness document.

 

J. H. Stevens: Scout and Wasp - Westland's All-British Helicopters,  Flight International June 1964: drawing in part on Ciastula's account above, this article - as you would expect from a Flight one of the period -  contains what is still the best written description of the helicopter in terms of its structures, their construction and  functioning. The cutaway drawing is of great value in understanding the overall arrangement of features.

 

D. B. Bathurst: Maritime VSTOL — The Development of Small Ship Helicopter Operations in the Royal Navy, SAE Transactions Vol. 83, Section 3: 740525–740863 (1974): contains a highly detailed description of the Wasp/frigate  MATCH system in operation, along with a through discussion of approach, landing, ship motion, securing and deck handling problems. A lot of interesting information about Wasp-related matters not discussed elsewhere is included, such airflow and deck disturbance, as well as the Mctaggart-Scott system of which I was unaware:

52213012187_155d97aa95_c.jpg

Image credit: SAE Transactions

L. B. Bryson, F. E. Heenan, C. A. Johnson: Helicopters in the Royal Navy, The Aeronautical Journal / Volume 76 / Issue 740 / August 1972: Highly useful source in this instance on two counts: firstly it contains an excellently detailed history of helicopter development in the RN from 1915 onwards, secondly, the text provides the most detailed account I've found of the various (I think there were 19 in total) methods tested for securing a helicopter when landing on a moving vessel. Heavily illustrated throughout:

52271911540_783ab42234_b.jpg

Image credit: The Aeronautical Journal

Larry Jeram-Croft, Terry Martin: The Royal Navy Wasp: An Operational & Retirement History, Pen & Sword Aviation 2018: am currently reading this. First reactions are that this contains first class operational information not found elsewhere, but is let down by poor editing and design. Feels like a first draft. 

 

Adrian Balch: Westland Scout & Wasp, Warpaint Series No.110, Guideline Publications. 2017:   A valuable and comprehensive set of visual references, as you would expect. Can confirm on the basis of  photographic overlays in Photoshop that (allowing for the effects of focal length) Richard  J. Caruana's drawings of the Wasp published here look accurate in both shape and proportion.

 

If it is at all ppossible to condense the above into an introduction here without distorting matters through over-simplification, the Wasp then came into being as follows:

 

By the late 1950s it was becoming apparent that changes in submarine technology required ASW operations to be capable of being projected further out beyond the existing offensive range of small surface vessels such as frigates, in terms of both speed and distance. Leaving aside historical background regarding existing RN operation of the Hoverfly, Dragonfly, and Whirlwind helicopters (all of US origin)* in the maritime role, the Wasp  helicopter was developed out of a defined need for a light, turbine powered helicopter to fulfil such a role within the Royal Navy, in the form of the private venture P.531 project.

 

Subsequent to the two initial airframes which had a wheeled undercarriage, three further protoypes (known as the P.531-0) were constructed with  skid undercarriages in order for the Navy to examine the various problems involved in the operation and recovery of light helicopters from small vessels. Footage from this stage of the Wasp's evolution can be seen here:

It was during this period that many of the competing ideas (as referred to above in the Bryson/Heenan/Johnson article) for holding the helicopter in place on deck were considered, such as the suction pads seen here:

small_Saunders%20Roe%20Wasp%20P531-0%20X

Image credit: Navtechlife

Little known fact: the deck handling crew were required to wear those protective hoods because of the grotesque effects of suction which those discs had upon their appearance:

52270600202_113d724989_z.jpg

Undercarriage aside, in relation to the main design features of the Wasp it is worth noting how Ciastula states that in examining these, 'It should, however, be stressed that the very first P.531 could equally well have been chosen for this purpose, since all the main design features of importance were determined and incorporated in it.' (p.400).

 

As I believe in the primacy of pencil and paper when it comes  to working out three dimensional ideas, if you compare my rough initial sketch of the Wasp's  profile with the photograph of XN334 above, the continuities of shape become immediately apparent:

52270063201_6b3b4e2e9c_b.jpg

As the design process develops over the coming weeks and months I'll bring in further information from the above sources at relevant points in the narrative. I still haven't decided which particular Wasp to build and must confess to being genuinely torn between wanting to build an AS12 wielding version so that I can include the APX-BEZU M260 sight, or one in its 'classic' Mk.44/46 torpedo carrying role. As it's my understanding that the latter version would not have had the sight fitted, I am sorely vexed as the sight is someting of an obsession, to the point that I bought some of the French manufacturer's specs via Delcampe:

52270097648_fa7a35f80f_c.jpg

En Anglais for those who want to sing along with the band:

52269115122_2a99266c5c_h.jpg

There's a fascinating ten-part oral history interview over here  in the IWM archive that includes a detailed description (in pt.6) of firing a missile from the Wasp with this sight, as well as a genuinely engaging narrative of learning to fly naval helicopters in general in the earlier parts of the series.

 

Finally today, one matter giving me serious food for thought is that of the opportunities offered  by working this time in 1/24 scale. As well as the obvious disorienting effects of no longer being constrained by the size of part that I can consider creating - in terms of detailing - the other is that of creating a certain level of functionality in various regions of the airframe:

52270332264_bf47b0d9a5_b.jpg

  1. There's no reason why the tail rotor can't be a working foldable feature on robust hinges.
  2. It may be possible to experiment with having a castoring undercarriage as per the original (I also want to look into the feasibility of printing with flexible rubber resin for the tyres).
  3. I see no reason why it shouldn't be possible to have the blades being capable of being both folded back and opened. Whilst I've a lot more to look at and undertand yet with respect to the mechanical feaures of rotor gearbox and hub, it may be possible to do something fancy there also. We'll see.
  4. Cockpit doors should be capable of being openable/removable as per operational use.

But the sight....what about the sight....I want torpedoes but I want a sight too...it's not fair.

 

:bye:

Tony

 

 

*Regarding the preeminence of US technology in this regard, discussion notes at the end of Ciastula's paper to the Royal Aeronautical Society contain this superb reporting of the masculine 'Harrumph!' 

52270532022_ec97379a6d_c.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 16
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, TheBaron said:
  • There's no reason why the tail rotor can't be a working feature on robust hinges.
  • It may be possible to experiment with having a castoring undercarriage as per the original (I also want to look into the feasibility of printing with flexible rubber resin for the tyres).
  • I see no reason why it shouldn't be possible to have the blades being capable of being folded back and openined. Whilst I've a lot more to look at and undertand yet with respect to the mechanical feaures of he rotor gearbox and hub, it may be possible to do something there also. We'll see.
  • Cockpit doors should be capable of being openable/removable as per operational use.

With reference to my earlier post,i was only joking 🙃 😝

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@TheBaron have you found any reliable drawings/profiles of the Wasp, I have long been considering doing this in 48th, but can only find the Warpaint drawings!

 

@bootneck I don't suppose the Heli museum has any resources that you might be able to share?

 

This is going to be a rather exciting thread!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, wellsprop said:

 I don't suppose the Heli museum has any resources that you might be able to share

Hi Ben,

 

we only have the Parts Manuals [AP101C-0601-3A] types of documentation, which you and I discussed about for the WG.30.  I haven't been able to find anything with dimensions or scales there.  We do have a Wasp HAS.1 at the museum, photos of which have been taken by @richellis and @Julien and posted in the Walkaround Section.

 

cheers,
Mike

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheBaron said:

But the sight....what about the sight....I want torpedoes but I want a sight too...it's not fair.

How  different from one another could they be? After all, you did build two Vixens, didn't you?

 

:whistle:  :devil:

 

Ciao 

  • Haha 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheBaron said:

But the sight....what about the sight....I want torpedoes but I want a sight too...it's not fair.

 

15 minutes ago, giemme said:

How  different from one another could they be? After all, you did build two Vixens, didn't you?

 

:whistle:  :devil:

 

Ciao 

 

My thoughts exactly Giorgio...........maybee we should start a chant .......

 

We want both, we want both.....!

 

Ok, that's not fair Tony, but your decision is a hard one I agree as either config is very appealing.

 

Terry

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now THIS is going to be fun.

I see no reason not to go for two, both full-size of course, just so you can then annoy the local sheep!

 

Ian

  • Haha 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TheBaron said:

pestering you for brass rubbings of the Nimbus

Chortle! (That's the first one over with) Will some one please throw the blackboard rubber at @CedB to wake him up.

 

Great ambitions are in the air for this build, and it seems that there is plenty of support available. Soar like an Eagle, Tony! Go for it! (Or them).

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, hendie said:

while you sharpen your nurbs

300px-Terry-Thomas_in_Where_Were_You_Whe I say, Ding Dong!

I just read the Terry-Thomas Biography. Fascinating. Can we make him the Patron of this thread. Pretty please? 

(If not, You're an absolute shower!)

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pete in Lincs said:

300px-Terry-Thomas_in_Where_Were_You_Whe I say, Ding Dong!

I just read the Terry-Thomas Biography. Fascinating. Can we make him the Patron of this thread. Pretty please? 

(If not, You're an absolute shower!)

I vote for that, best place for him.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tony,

 

as I understand it, the sight was removable in the Wasp and Scout; as the airframe had different roles at varying times.   The 'hole' was infilled with a replacement piece of canopy held in a grommety thingy.

 

spacer.png

 

Have a search for images of Wasps and Scouts and you might find the same airframe with and without the sight etc.

cheers,


Mike

 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

It looks like I've lot motivation here but t'ain't so fiends friends. A daily increase in the brain-fog of late (Mrs B has had to ask me to stop putting the kettle back in the fridge after making tea...) and hospital tests for sleeping disorder haven't left much over mentally to push this thread forward in any meaningful way since the last posting - to my sincere regret given the interest shown here.

 

On 08/08/2022 at 13:21, mark.au said:

Very glad it’s begun, by the way.

I'm just sorry there's not more to report at present Mark. :sad:

On 08/08/2022 at 13:42, fatalbert said:

With reference to my earlier post,i was only joking 🙃 😝

Too late sir. I am taking you steadfastly at your word! :rofl:

N.B. It's all Albert's fault guys.... ⬆️

On 08/08/2022 at 14:17, wellsprop said:

@TheBaron have you found any reliable drawings/profiles of the Wasp, I have long been considering doing this in 48th, but can only find the Warpaint drawings!

The drawings in:

On 08/08/2022 at 13:09, TheBaron said:

Adrian Balch: Westland Scout & Wasp, Warpaint Series No.110, Guideline Publications. 2017:  

are likewise the only ones I've come across that seem accurate but as with the Vixen previously , photos will be my primary cross-references whilst working in Fusion.

On 08/08/2022 at 14:17, wellsprop said:

 

This is going to be a rather exciting thread!

It will be soon, I promise!

On 08/08/2022 at 14:40, Fritag said:

Ditto…although my inconsequential comment is: Bl**dy Hell!

Quote

Bl**dy Hell!

from you is all the encouragement I need Steve. 😁 :thumbsup2:

On 08/08/2022 at 15:11, giemme said:

How  different from one another could they be? After all, you did build two Vixens, didn't you?

Another bloody comedian! (in Italian). :rofl:

On 08/08/2022 at 15:32, Terry1954 said:

We want both, we want both.....!

 

Ok, that's not fair Tony, but your decision is a hard one I agree as either config is very appealing.

 

I have the beginnings of a plan Terry.... 😅

On 08/08/2022 at 15:40, Heather Kay said:

With the prospect of working features, dare I propose a yet larger scale? Since the model will be entirely generated from first principles, why not go 1/12 or 1/6?

S'truth and Betty Martin - at that scale Heather we'd be talking about having it rise from a lake of resin like Excalibur! :laugh:

On 08/08/2022 at 15:51, Brandy said:

Now THIS is going to be fun.

I see no reason not to go for two

I can see a logical contradiction here.... :rofl2:

On 08/08/2022 at 19:32, Pete in Lincs said:

Soar like an Eagle, Tony! Go for it! 

I got this Pete....

flight.jpg

This wheel will do grand for them old rotor blade lads and....Jesus Mary & Joseph: what in God's name are you doing back there Greville?

On 08/08/2022 at 19:43, bigbadbadge said:

Wicked, working features too,even more exciting. 

That's the theory Chris - it'll face its greatest test as a set of physical objects of course!

On 09/08/2022 at 06:44, The Spadgent said:

I see no reason why I shouldn’t pull up a bar stool and enjoy the ride.

I apologize for the other clientele in advance Johnny. Do not offer them rides.

On 09/08/2022 at 12:12, hendie said:

I'll just sit here and listen to the orchestra tuning up while you sharpen your nurbs

😁 Better than a kick in the Booleans on a cold night anyway Alan....

On 09/08/2022 at 18:28, Pete in Lincs said:

Can we make him the Patron of this thread. Pretty please? 

Granted, with pleasure. :thumbsup:

On 09/08/2022 at 20:24, perdu said:

Why not two one with doors and a sight and the other without the sight but with doors.

A plan is forming Bill, fear not.

It may not be practicable,

or achievable.

But it's worth a try. 😁

On 09/08/2022 at 20:33, bootneck said:

Have a search for images of Wasps and Scouts and you might find the same airframe with and without the sight etc.

Thanks for that info and the low-angle photo Mike, extermely useful: I reckon if I combine hubris with naive overconfidence then it might prove possible to create a removable sight unit and replacment 'grommety thing'. :thumbsup2:

On 10/08/2022 at 16:53, bootneck said:

I thought he was saying SHAR :giggle:

 

That reminds me, this'll need ground crew as well....

i035550.jpg

Only just remembered the factory in that was called 'Missiles Ltd.'..... :pipe:

On 10/08/2022 at 17:30, Pete in Lincs said:

And that just happens to remind me that I have Sea Harrier over the Falklands by Sharkey Ward waiting on the bookshelf to be re-read.

I hate to mention this Pete but that book has been thoroughly debunked by the RSPB. Most ornithologists consider it more likely to have been a bald sheep temporarily airborne after a being hit by a Benny in a Land Rover.

 

So where do matters Waspish stand then?

 

As of today I'ver gathered a set of general dimensions for the airframe and blades/undercarriage. These need to be translated into 1/24 scale as the first step in Fusion (learned early on with the Vixen) is that when doing an entire aircraft, it's advisable create a set of linear extents in three dimensions to act as a virtual 'cage' defining the size of all subsequent work.

 

Also in hand are the required level of photographic references. I've amassed about 300+ representative shots from various sources, which should provide a reasonable baseline for accurate cross-referencing of viewing angles regading areas large and small. As well as the excellent forum walkarounds referenced by Mike above, one of the most comprehensive sets for shape and detail is this one from SkippyBing.  

 

Before starting any design drawings in Fusion then, I need to break the job down firstly into regions, then into layers of detail, so that I can put together image mosaics for each in Pureref that will provide the required level of visual cues (seen from multiple viewing angles) to refer to whilst bloocking out and filling in the airframe on various planes.

 

Hopefully I should have something more visual in nature to show you in a few days but off for an afternoon sleep now. If only I was joking....

:bye:

Tony

 

 

 

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/10/2022 at 7:53 PM, bootneck said:

I thought he was saying SHAR :giggle:

 

 

If he does SHAR, presumably he'll have to do TRAY as well? 

 

"Shar, wot's this Wasp fingy wot he's goin' on abaht?"

"No idea Tray. 'ave you gone an' nicked me chips?"

 

Ian

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...