Quote from: Weaver on January 06, 2024, 03:40:19 PM

Quote from: Rick Lowe on January 06, 2024, 03:14:29 PM

Quote from: Weaver on January 06, 2024, 02:45:15 PMThat's a job that's done for real by small hovercraft only able to carry a handful of people. For instance, the RNLI hovercraft used at Morecombe Bay and a few other locations around the UK are 10-seater Griffon types: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-class_lifeboat

I didn't know that - thanks for the confirmation of a valid idea! 

Note that it's only considered better than a normal displacement hull in certain very specific locations. Morecambe Bay, has a very broad, very shallow-slope beach with a very large tidal range. This means that at low tide, you can walk literally miles off-shore in search of the cockles (shellfish) which the sands are full of, and then find that the incoming tide had got behind you and yo're now on a rapidly shrinking island. Quicksand is also a major problem. The place is notorious for killing people, notably in 2004 when 21 Chinese illegal immigrants drowned whilst working the cockle beds. There couldn't be a more perfect "pocket environment" for a hovercraft rescue vessel: there's a real risk to life, yet a compelling economic reason to take that risk, in an area that's inaccessible to normal boats or land vehicles when the risk is highest, and which consists of an effectively flat surface.

Quote from: Weaver on January 06, 2024, 03:40:19 PM

Quote from: Rick Lowe on January 06, 2024, 03:14:29 PM

Quote from: Weaver on January 06, 2024, 02:45:15 PMThat's a job that's done for real by small hovercraft only able to carry a handful of people. For instance, the RNLI hovercraft used at Morecombe Bay and a few other locations around the UK are 10-seater Griffon types: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-class_lifeboat

I didn't know that - thanks for the confirmation of a valid idea! 

Note that it's only considered better than a normal displacement hull in certain very specific locations. Morecambe Bay, has a very broad, very shallow-slope beach with a very large tidal range. This means that at low tide, you can walk literally miles off-shore in search of the cockles (shellfish) which the sands are full of, and then find that the incoming tide had got behind you and yo're now on a rapidly shrinking island. Quicksand is also a major problem. The place is notorious for killing people, notably in 2004 when 21 Chinese illegal immigrants drowned whilst working the cockle beds. There couldn't be a more perfect "pocket environment" for a hovercraft rescue vessel: there's a real risk to life, yet a compelling economic reason to take that risk, in an area that's inaccessible to normal boats or land vehicles when the risk is highest, and which consists of an effectively flat surface.

Well that's quite a compelling argument to do a 60's version 🤔

I am leaning towards an RAF search and rescue craft for mine. I could have a go at putting a rubber skirt on it too, and attaching some external seating on it somewhere, and so boxes for rescue equipment pilot figures sjould do the job as rescue crew, and paint their suits in a time appropriate colour scheme, I will have to look into that online, as all of my books are at the new house.

Paint it red and put Royal Mail stickers on it or scaleorama it into 1/144 to give you more room.

Quote from: killnoizer on January 06, 2024, 04:06:29 PMI got an eye on this kit ... and now you came with this question    . 
Hold my beer .

Oooh what are you thinking of doing with yours?

This thing is one of my absolute earliest contact with plastic models ,  my dad bought me on , ready assembled , on a flea market when i was 5 or 6 years old .

I got no plan what I could do with it at now , sorry ,  there are other projects to do , but it seems that i realy should get a kit in the near future, because everyone wants one ?

When I have the parts at home the idea will grow , that'll be shure

Quote from: RAFF-35 on January 07, 2024, 12:42:05 AMThat was the general gist of what I was thinking. Modify the cab to fit extra crew members. Add some stuff on the back for extra fuel etc, pop some radar arrays on top, penguins on the side and of course, a really cool cammo 😄

The thing is, hovercraft have a weight limit, and judging by the Royal Marines photo, it seems to be about 20 guys. Hovercraft in general have a low weight limit per unit of platform area.

Now on the upside, remember that 1960s ideas of fast attack craft started off in a fairly different place from where they ended up once things like Exocet became the standard weapon. Vosper sold quite a few VERY small wooden hulls armed with just two basic 40mm Bofors and eight small optically-guided SS.12 missiles in fixed frames alongside the wheelhouse. Likewise the Swedish and French navies had boats with a five-round SS.12 turret amidships. So a modest hovercraft version, with, say four SS.12s on the control ducts, a helicopter roof-mounted sight on the cabin and a couple of extra guys manning .50 cals seems doable.

Been reading up on the SR-N1. One thing that surprises me is that the two jet engines tried (Marbore* first, then Viper) were only for propulsion, with the lift engine remaining the Leonides radial piston engine in the duct. That's a lot of engine for a little craft, which is no wonder the jet engine fittings took up the whole of the rear deck. Nobody seems to have tried a turboshaft/turboprop engine on it that drove the lift fan AND provided residual thrust from it's exhaust. It seems to me that you could put such an engine in the middle of the rear deck, with it's intake filters wrapped around it in a boxy "turbine house", have it driving the lift fan via a shaft & right-angle gearbox from the front, and have it's exhaust provide additional horizontal thrust. In order to stay still you'd have to have the control duct thrust vented forwards to counteract the engine thrust, but that's okay as long as the control duct thrust exceeds the engine thrust.

Modelling-wise, it occurs to me to buy two SR-N1s and siamese them together on a larger platform, with two lift ducts in the middle either side of a more useful single 'straight through' cargo space. You could have the control ducts running straight forwards and backwards from them, with one control cab above one set of ducts and a platform with all the other misc equipment above the other.

*Edited to correct Palouste to Marbore as per JCF.

If you replace the separate lift and propulsion systems with a combined system, first used
on the SRN2, you don't need the propulsion and control ducts, which BTW performed poorly
in both roles.

The SRN2 is in some ways a doubled SRN1, but with the fans/propellers in tandem rather
than abreast.
You cannot view this attachment.

You cannot view this attachment.

The SRN5 used a different fan + propulsion setup with the engine forward driving back to a
gearbox that drove the fan and propeller. A similar setup would probably be the best for an
improved SRN1.
You cannot view this attachment.

Quote from: Weaver on January 07, 2024, 11:32:22 AMBeen reading up on the SR-N1. One thing that surprises me is that the two jet engines tried (Palouste first, then Viper)
were only for propulsion, with the lift engine remaining the Leonides radial piston engine in the duct. That's a lot of engine
for a little craft, which is no wonder the jet engine fittings took up the whole of the rear deck. Nobody seems to have tried a
turboshaft/turboprop engine on it that drove the lift fan AND provided residual thrust from it's exhaust.

Bristol built Marbore rather than Palouste, and as extensive a rebuild as you suggest was probably
well outside of the available budget.

Quote from: jcf on January 07, 2024, 12:34:55 PM

Quote from: Weaver on January 07, 2024, 11:32:22 AMBeen reading up on the SR-N1. One thing that surprises me is that the two jet engines tried (Palouste first, then Viper)
were only for propulsion, with the lift engine remaining the Leonides radial piston engine in the duct. That's a lot of engine
for a little craft, which is no wonder the jet engine fittings took up the whole of the rear deck. Nobody seems to have tried a
turboshaft/turboprop engine on it that drove the lift fan AND provided residual thrust from it's exhaust.

Bristol built Marbore rather than Palouste, and as extensive a rebuild as you suggest was probably
well outside of the available budget.

Oh I'm sure, but then budget is one of the most malleable things to change for a Whiff.

Cheers for the correction - edited the original post.

Quote from: jcf on January 07, 2024, 12:31:50 PMIf you replace the separate lift and propulsion systems with a combined system, first used
on the SRN2, you don't need the propulsion and control ducts, which BTW performed poorly
in both roles.

The SRN2 is in some ways a doubled SRN1, but with the fans/propellers in tandem rather
than abreast.

...

The SRN5 used a different fan + propulsion setup with the engine forward driving back to a
gearbox that drove the fan and propeller. A similar setup would probably be the best for an
improved SRN1.

...

Again, I agree, but I was thinking of what you could do by kitbashing the components of the SR-N1 model. These two examples are effectively new craft, which if anything is the sign of a rather larger budget, i.e. they abandoned the SR-N1 for an all-new successor with real commercial potential, rather than continuing to tinker with the SR-N1 "technology demonstrator".

The SRN2 really did have 'commercial potential' too. I rode/flew aboard it over to the IoW and back in 1964. a mind blowing experience at that time.

Quote from: Weaver on January 07, 2024, 06:04:30 PM

Quote from: jcf on January 07, 2024, 12:31:50 PMIf you replace the separate lift and propulsion systems with a combined system, first used
on the SRN2, you don't need the propulsion and control ducts, which BTW performed poorly
in both roles.

The SRN2 is in some ways a doubled SRN1, but with the fans/propellers in tandem rather
than abreast.

...

The SRN5 used a different fan + propulsion setup with the engine forward driving back to a
gearbox that drove the fan and propeller. A similar setup would probably be the best for an
improved SRN1.

...

Again, I agree, but I was thinking of what you could do by kitbashing the components of the SR-N1 model. These two examples are effectively new craft, which if anything is the sign of a rather larger budget, i.e. they abandoned the SR-N1 for an all-new successor with real commercial potential, rather than continuing to tinker with the SR-N1 "technology demonstrator".

Thank you for the wealth of information, JCF! It's very useful for steering how I think about this build. The issue is that I really like the ducted propulsion that the SR-N1 used so would like to retain the concept as it is so unique. The fact that no other hovercraft has used the system since proves what you said about the system being rubbish. What I am thinking of is blending the SR-N1's system with that of the ducted steering used on the Canadian SAR hovercraft. This should hopefully keep the spirit of the build that Weaver was referring to whilst hopefully making the design more functional. 

Not quite correct that ducted steering was abandoned. The Griffon BHT series craft used that system on their civilian and military models.

It's not quite clear how the current 1200TD model steer as there's no sign of ducts, puffers, or steering props. 

Quote from: PR19_Kit on January 08, 2024, 07:05:07 AM...
It's not quite clear how the current 1200TD model steer as there's no sign of ducts, puffers, or steering props. 

This?


At least it has rudders next to the fans.