Kinetic 1/48 Sea Harrier FRS1 XZ451 during operation Corporate

[NellyV]

I've just started on this build to complement my 1/48 Argentine Canberra B62 B-110 based on the Airfix kit (still to be finished). I intend this build to represent B-110s nemesis, SHAR XZ451 more or less straight out of the box, just like the Canberra. I've started with the ordinance. I'm not sure exactly what loadout XZ451 would have been carrying when it shot down B-110 on the 1st May 1982, but twin AIM-9Ls are for sure. The kit AIM-9Ls look to be acceptable with careful detailing and painting.

The kit has a single bomb, which looks very much like a BL755 cluster bomb to me, although the kit box text claims it is a MK17?

I think I read on another post that SHARs very often carried a bomb when they took off on CAP during Corporate, which they tossed in the direction of Stanley airport before taking up their patrol. Not sure if these would have been BL755s though? Might switch it for an iron bomb. I'm assuming the larger drop tanks in the kit are ferry tanks, but there is an official IWM pic of XZ banking away from another SHAR taken during Corporate where it is carrying the larger tanks and a single AIM-9L on the starboard outer rail. I'll probably fit the smaller tanks because I can't believe the larger tanks would have been carried on a combat mission?

 

The kit parts have some mis-moulds and what look like errors to me? One of the turbulators on the upper starboard wing surface had broken off in my kit. It looks to me as if it broke off when being removed from the mould as there is also a blemish on the port upper wing surface that's a similar size and shape to the turbulator and it could have ended up being pressed into the plastic here.

However, it was a simple job to replace the missing turbulator with one from the FA2 wing also included in the kit and fill the blemish.

The moulding errors required a bit more work. There's a flat region on the inner surface of the lower wing parts that has to be pared away to thin the leading edges at the tips where they meet the outrigger sponsons. The lower wing tips also need some reshaping to fit neatly against the sponsons. Before on left. After on right.

 

I've been unable to find any close up high res images of the underside of the leading edge dogtooth on the real thing, but a colour photo in a 1981 Air International article appears to show that the stepped underside on the kinetic parts wasn't actually present, plus the kinetic layout doesn't make much aerodynamic sense to me, so I've filled the slight underside step in on both wings. You can also see the ailerons in this pic, which also needed some work done on their very thin mis-moulded trailing edges. They suffered from insufficient plastic injection and had wavy trailing edges which I've corrected with Mr Surfacer. More soon.....

 

 

[amos brierley]

2 hours ago, NellyV said:

Not sure if these would have been BL755s though?

I always thought that the bombs on the center line pylon were just General Purpose 1000lb ders , I’m sure BL755 are cluster munitions for battlefield attack and I presume are dropped in the lay down manoeuvre. Where as G.P bombs can be launched in the toss manoeuvre, in a good one I think you could get a good five miles.

 

3 hours ago, NellyV said:

However, it was a simple job to replace the missing turbulator

I’ve never heard these items called ‘ tubulators’ , but I’ve had to replace these once or twice on real A/C and there called Vortex Generators, they developed strong vortices that create lift. 
 

Hope this helps.      😉

[Biggles87]

I have the Gr1/Gr3 boxing which comes with two complete wings, one of which has that peculiar ‘ stepped ‘ dogtooth ( presumably intended for the Sea Harrier ) and the other quite different.

Looking forward to more.

 

John

[NellyV]

15 hours ago, amos brierley said:

I always thought that the bombs on the center line pylon were just General Purpose 1000lb ders , I’m sure BL755 are cluster munitions for battlefield attack and I presume are dropped in the lay down manoeuvre. Where as G.P bombs can be launched in the toss manoeuvre, in a good one I think you could get a good five miles.

 

I’ve never heard these items called ‘ tubulators’ , but I’ve had to replace these once or twice on real A/C and there called Vortex Generators, they developed strong vortices that create lift. 
 

Hope this helps.      😉

Hi Amos, I've since read up that BL755 is an anti-armour weapon containing multiple parachute retarded bomblets which are dispersed over a wide area when the bomb casing opens up after release, so why Kinetic include a single BL755 is a mystery to me and you are absolutely right that for an airfield toss bombing attack a 1000lb GP bomb would probably be a better choice. A mate has promised me some of these left over from his 1/48 Tornado build😉

Sounds like you have some real world hands-on experience, so I have to concede on the aerodynamic terminology. I think Turbulator is probably a more generic term for any device that turns laminar flow into turbulent flow and as you say I thought their job on the Harrier wing was to generate vortices over the top of the wing to maintain lift and prevent flow break-away at high alpha? The original Harrier wing was a bit of a lash up really. Dog-tooths, fences and vortex generators are all used to control airflow, suggesting it needed quite some aerodynamic optimisation following testing in the wind tunnel. No Computational Fluid Dynamics modelling back then to design a completely clean aerodynamic profile before finalising the design. I believe the later "big wing" Harrier MKs benefitted from a supercritical aerofoil section for lower transonic drag as well as increased area for decreased wing loading? Photo's seem to show that the FRS1 seems to have spent a lot of time flying with a few degrees of flap on the smaller wing to generate enough lift when carrying stores?

[NellyV]

On 30/12/2022 at 06:35, Biggles87 said:

I have the Gr1/Gr3 boxing which comes with two complete wings, one of which has that peculiar ‘ stepped ‘ dogtooth ( presumably intended for the Sea Harrier ) and the other quite different.

Looking forward to more.

 

John

Hi John, that's interesting. I thought I'd read somewhere that the GR3 and FRS1 shared the same wing. The FRS1 kit also has two wings, which differ in that one is intended for the updated FA2 version of the SHAR. I've just checked and the FA2 wing parts in the kit don't have the outer most dog-tooth, but do have a kink in the leading edge where the dog tooth is on the FRS1 wing. Perhaps this is what you thought I meant by a stepped dog-tooth and that the GR3 kit also has the FA2 wing parts? The FA2 wing also lacks one of the vortex generators present on top of the FRS1 wing ahead of that kink.

Edited February 11, 2023 by NellyV
changed back to outer dogtooth

[wombat]

Ward’s squadron (I forget which was which) would habitually toss a 1000lb GP bomb in the general direction of Stanley airfield on the way out to a CAP. 

[NellyV]

9 minutes ago, wombat said:

Ward’s squadron (I forget which was which) would habitually toss a 1000lb GP bomb in the general direction of Stanley airfield on the way out to a CAP. 

TX Wombat. That would be 801 NAS. According to Mortons Books 'SHARs of the Falklands War', Ward flew XZ451 for an early morning CAP on the 1st May 1982. It was flown by Lt. Curtis on a further mission later that day when he brought down the FAA Canberra. So hanging a 1000 lb GP bomb on her would probably be accurate for depicting XZ451 at the start of the day at least. Regarding the drop tanks, I've worked out that the IWM photo purporting to be from the Falklands Campaign of XZ451 carrying ferry tanks is probably from 1983, because ZA176 in the foreground is coded Blue 001 and finished in overall Dark Sea Grey and not coded Black 76 with the Medium Sea Grey/Barley Grey scheme she carried during operation Corporate. Also ZA176 was based on Hermes and XZ451 on Illustrious in 1982, so unlikely they would have flown a mission together then.

[Pete in Lincs]

I've just finished reading Sea Harrier over the Falklands, Highly recommended.

Yes, both early morning 801 Sqn CAP Aircraft would usually lob a thousand pounder towards the Airport.

801 were on Illustrious and 800 on Hermes. Both directed by orders from 'the flag' on Hermes, but to some extent Sharky Ward made up his own rules.

The two squadrons were mostly kept separate and had different mission outlines.

In the book he is rather scathing regarding the RAF in general and tactical orders from Hermes, especially regarding how CAP should be carried out.

 

[wombat]

Re an earlier post, be wary of air to air photos and flap positions...it may just reflect that the photo platform is a much slower aircraft type and the fast jet is struggling to match its speed for the shot.

[Grey Beema]

I finished this model as exactly the same aircraft earlier this year.  

 

Beware of the fuselage wing join.  They need a lot of fetling, packing, filling, sanding and re-scribing...

[NellyV]

1 hour ago, wombat said:

Re an earlier post, be wary of air to air photos and flap positions...it may just reflect that the photo platform is a much slower aircraft type and the fast jet is struggling to match its speed for the shot.

Good point Wombat, but I'd still say it was an indication of the Harriers relatively high wing loading. Might other fast jets with lower wing loading just adopt a higher angle of attack? We might need an aerodynamicists comments to settle this one?😉

[wombat]

So many variables...altitude, airspeed, temperature, weight...AoA might be enough, it might not.

[NellyV]

14 minutes ago, Grey Beema said:

I finished this model as exactly the same aircraft earlier this year.  

 

Beware of the fuselage wing join.  They need a lot of fetling, packing, filling, sanding and re-scribing...

I can believe it! A dry fit shows not so much of a gap as a major chordwise step between the wing underside and the fuselage. I'll have to think through the solution to this carefully. Can you provide a link to your build? I'd like to see it.

 

4 minutes ago, wombat said:

So many variables...altitude, airspeed, temperature, weight...AoA might be enough, it might not.

but at least it allows one to argue a case for any configuration your imagination can come up with🙂

[NellyV]

2 hours ago, Pete in Lincs said:

I've just finished reading Sea Harrier over the Falklands, Highly recommended.

Yes, both early morning 801 Sqn CAP Aircraft would usually lob a thousand pounder towards the Airport.

801 were on Illustrious and 800 on Hermes. Both directed by orders from 'the flag' on Hermes, but to some extent Sharky Ward made up his own rules.

The two squadrons were mostly kept separate and had different mission outlines.

In the book he is rather scathing regarding the RAF in general and tactical orders from Hermes, especially regarding how CAP should be carried out.

 

A Senior Service officer slagging off the RAF. Surely not?😆 

[ERK]

I also  built   this  kit  -   its  a  great kit  but  as  noted  - the  wing / fuselage  needs  careful  placement.

 

Erk.

[Grey Beema]

I didn't do a build thread for the Sea Harrier on Britmodeller  as it was built for our local IPMS 40th Anniversary of the end of the Falkland War Group Build but I did keep a couple of photos of the build. 

 

Here are the most appropriate:-

 

The Seat didn't seem right to me, I purchased the Kits-world seat straps and Instrument Panel sets.

The Kits-World instructions were virtually non existent so in the end I studied the Martin-Baker web site and built from that, reshaping the kit supplied seat and working out the cushions and straps as I went

 

I have seen comment on difficulty of alignment of the intakes, so I added the intakes before joining the fuselage halves to help with the alignment and the filling.  It made some work more fiddly later but I think its worth considering.

 

I had to put plastic strip at the rear of the wing to fill the gap and a step that had formed there.  lots of sanding and filling here.  This joint is critical, not getting it right stands out like a sore thumb. 

There is also a lot of work in the filling at the front edge of the wing / fuselage join.  The seam line does not follow the panel lines so lots of sanding, polishing and re-scribing there.  Those two square gaps are to fit the fin aerials so don't fill those.

I eventually cut out the two vents on the top of the fuselage and replace them with an APU exhaust and a bit of mesh I had knocking around which improved the look too.

 

Underwing fuselage / wing join is a yawning chasm.  There is multiple thicknesses of plastic strip and loads of sprue gloop in there and sanding is really difficult as it is so narrow.  Mine is a long way from perfect.

 

Also I left adding the jet nozzles until near the end of the build after painting and everything else.  This made them really difficult to fit and was probably a mistake to be honest.

 

This is how it turned out.  I used the CBU (I don't have the 1000 LB GP bomb) and the larger tanks.

 

Good luck with your kit, there are far more knowledgeable people than me on this site who will hopefully cruise by and give better advice..

 

 

[wombat]

11 hours ago, NellyV said:

A Senior Service officer slagging off the RAF. Surely not?😆 

If you read all three of the books by harrier pilots in theatre (ward, Morgan and pook) its pretty clear that they could have had quite a good three way war going on even if the Argentines had stayed out of it.  I recently read the book about the abortive SAS raid and the same theme continues. 

 

To be fair it seems to have been a nadir of inter-service cooperation which led to some reassessment and grown up thinking being applied ever since.

[Whitewolf]

14 hours ago, Pete in Lincs said:

I've just finished reading Sea Harrier over the Falklands, Highly recommended.

Yes, both early morning 801 Sqn CAP Aircraft would usually lob a thousand pounder towards the Airport.

801 were on Illustrious and 800 on Hermes. Both directed by orders from 'the flag' on Hermes, but to some extent Sharky Ward made up his own rules.

The two squadrons were mostly kept separate and had different mission outlines.

In the book he is rather scathing regarding the RAF in general and tactical orders from Hermes, especially regarding how CAP should be carried out.

 

Sharky & 801 were on Invincible, Illustrious didn't arrive until after hostilities had ceased.

[junglierating]

Didnt join the mob before 86 but afaik Cluster bombs werent carried or the aircraft configured for carrying them.I guess possibly something may have been jacked up for the campaign but im not so sure.

As for drop tanks id imagine 190s over 100 gal would have been used...certainly 190s during my time on 899 and 801 were the norm.

330 were used for long ferry trips to say Akrotiri or Decimomanu 

[NellyV]

7 hours ago, Grey Beema said:

I didn't do a build thread for the Sea Harrier on Britmodeller  as it was built for our local IPMS 40th Anniversary of the end of the Falkland War Group Build but I did keep a couple of photos of the build. 

 

Here are the most appropriate:-

 

The Seat didn't seem right to me, I purchased the Kits-world seat straps and Instrument Panel sets.

The Kits-World instructions were virtually non existent so in the end I studied the Martin-Baker web site and built from that, reshaping the kit supplied seat and working out the cushions and straps as I went

 

I have seen comment on difficulty of alignment of the intakes, so I added the intakes before joining the fuselage halves to help with the alignment and the filling.  It made some work more fiddly later but I think its worth considering.

 

I had to put plastic strip at the rear of the wing to fill the gap and a step that had formed there.  lots of sanding and filling here.  This joint is critical, not getting it right stands out like a sore thumb. 

There is also a lot of work in the filling at the front edge of the wing / fuselage join.  The seam line does not follow the panel lines so lots of sanding, polishing and re-scribing there.  Those two square gaps are to fit the fin aerials so don't fill those.

I eventually cut out the two vents on the top of the fuselage and replace them with an APU exhaust and a bit of mesh I had knocking around which improved the look too.

 

Underwing fuselage / wing join is a yawning chasm.  There is multiple thicknesses of plastic strip and loads of sprue gloop in there and sanding is really difficult as it is so narrow.  Mine is a long way from perfect.

 

Also I left adding the jet nozzles until near the end of the build after painting and everything else.  This made them really difficult to fit and was probably a mistake to be honest.

 

This is how it turned out.  I used the CBU (I don't have the 1000 LB GP bomb) and the larger tanks.

 

Good luck with your kit, there are far more knowledgeable people than me on this site who will hopefully cruise by and give better advice..

 

 

Looks great! Nice Southern Ocean backdrop🤩 Which EDSG paint did you use? It looks to me as if it's down to Hataka, AK or Humbrol. I've not had a great experience with thinning and air brushing either Humbrol or Hataka acrylics in the past. This is my first Kinetic kit. The surface detail is done well and the general fit of the parts seems to be fine, but there are some real design howlers on the GR3/FRS1 wing parts. I've just assembled the FA2 wing for a test fit and it lines up perfectly with the underside fuselage wing stub. It also doesn't have the poorly fitting wing tip leading edges. 

I've already come to the same conclusions regarding fitting the intakes, but I'm thinking of a slightly different approach to the problematic underside wing fuselage joint. A dry fit of my parts indicates that because of the design flaws on the wing parts the wing root stub on the fuselage ends up being too shallow. Ideally, this would be best fixed by thinning the wing parts to the correct thickness a la FA2 wing before assembly, but as I've already assembled the wing this isn't possible. So I'm thinking of cementing on some thin plastic card shims to the fuselage stub wing underside and blending them in before I attach the wing. I hope I'll be able to do some test dry fits during the blending to get a good match with the wing underside surface. Should minimise the amount of filling and sanding back compared to with the wing attached and then it's just a case of making sure the top surface joints align well.

Ejection seats are an area where I always fail to get realism. I was thinking of getting the Big Ed PE set and the Aries seat, but I'm working to a tight budget since retiring and will soldier on with the kit OOTB. I made some neat harnesses for my Horten build out of tape and I'll try and scratch build a bit more detail in.

6 hours ago, junglierating said:

Didnt join the mob before 86 but afaik Cluster bombs werent carried or the aircraft configured for carrying them.I guess possibly something may have been jacked up for the campaign but im not so sure.

As for drop tanks id imagine 190s over 100 gal would have been used...certainly 190s during my time on 899 and 801 were the norm.

330 were used for long ferry trips to say Akrotiri or Decimomanu 

Great first hand knowledge. Cheers!

[tweeky]

On 12/29/2022 at 8:02 PM, NellyV said:

turbulator new name for Vortex Generator 

I doubt that BL755 were designed to be tossed they were designed to be used on soft targets ie troop in the open convoys etc etc.

The bomb that was used for these "nuance toss bombing" was the 1000 pounder.  I think the smaller tanks were used on combat missions too.

Have a read of Harrier 809 by Roland White might give you an idea of mission profiles used 

[NellyV]

As an aside to this build. Someone should really tell Kits World not to put hi res images of their 3D cockpits on line without watermarks. Let's just say my Canberra has some nice 2D ink jet printed decals in the cockpit. Not as good as 3D ones I'm sure, but when viewed through a distorting canopy transparency, they look reasonable.😈 I promise not to do it again😇

[NellyV]

8 minutes ago, tweeky said:

I doubt that BL755 were designed to be tossed they were designed to be used on soft targets ie troop in the open convoys etc etc.

The bomb that was used for these "nuance toss bombing" was the 1000 pounder.  I think the smaller tanks were used on combat missions too.

Have a read of Harrier 809 by Roland White might give you an idea of mission profiles used 

Yep! Smaller tanks it will be

Edited December 31, 2022 by NellyV
wrong text entered

[NellyV]

9 minutes ago, tweeky said:

I doubt that BL755 were designed to be tossed they were designed to be used on soft targets ie troop in the open convoys etc etc.

The bomb that was used for these "nuance toss bombing" was the 1000 pounder.  I think the smaller tanks were used on combat missions too.

Have a read of Harrier 809 by Roland White might give you an idea of mission profiles used 

I look forward to seeing it's use spread far and wide😆

[tweeky]

13 minutes ago, NellyV said:

I look forward to seeing it's use spread far and wide😆

As the BL755 carried bomblets and just like JP233 on Tornado its now outlawed under the cluster weapons convention. 

 

Here.

Edited December 31, 2022 by tweeky