Harrier and Sea Harrier

[Gondor]

That extra extra tail extension seemed to appear later on in the 2 seater's lives, with or without the laser nose IIRC. It may have had some ECM connection but I can't find my Harrier library just now.  

OK, after having found my Harrier library I've sussed out the purpose of the extra extra tail extension on the early RAF and RN two seaters.

It's notable that the FAA's T4Ns have the extra extra tail extenion as do the Indian Navy's T60 and neither of these marks ever carried the laser nose. Neither the RAF's early T2s, nor the USMC's TAV-8As have the extra extra extension whereas the RAF's later T4s could carry the extra extra extension but sometimes didn't. The T4s that were assigned for ab initio VSTOL training didn't have laser noses but later in their life they DID have the extra extra extension, so all versions are possible.

The purpose of the extra extra extension seems to be aligned with the RWR fit used on the later GR3s and T4s. The later GR3s had the forward looking RWR aerial at the top of the fin, but there's also a small extension to the rear puffer jet aft of the rudder. When the T4s, originally fitted with the very tall fin extension, were retro-fitted with the GR3 style fins with the RWR aerial they fitted the rear facing part of the RWR in the extra extra extension!  

I might say none of this is mentioned in any of the Harrier books, I've gleaned it from mentions in the various texts and photo captions, and of close perusal of the drawings and photos.

Which is exactly why I asked here as I was sure someone somewhere would know, but as you have pointed out Kit it can get a little confusing as to what was fitted to what and I didn't dare ask about the hight of the tail 

Gondor

[PR19_Kit]

A LITTLE confusing? 

That it surely is, yes, and it's a pity that it's not really documented anywhere publically. AFAIK there were at least FOUR different fin heights at various times, but in the end they reverted to an almost standard height.

And that's not counting the T10s of course............

[Gondor]

A LITTLE confusing? 

That it surely is, yes, and it's a pity that it's not really documented anywhere publically. AFAIK there were at least FOUR different fin heights at various times, but in the end they reverted to an almost standard height.

And that's not counting the T10s of course............

I think, based on photographs but not certain, that the TAV-8A's and the TAV-8A(s) had the tallest fins where the normal fin with about a foot extension at its base was the eventual standard sized fin which was the same hight used on the T4. But this is all conjecture and based on reading but not quoting from "Harrier" by F K Mason and published by PSL.

All three fins are available in at least the Sword T2/2A kit which also has all the other parts to make any version you want. Only parts not in the kit are the extended wing tips used for ferry flights and a refuelling probe. Other than that it looks as if the word or operator is your oyster. Just wish there was a main stream decal manufacturer that did both Spanish and Thai decals for the Harrier.

Gondor

[PR19_Kit]

That's a good guess, the extension at the foot of the fin was actually 11 ins. 

The USMC 2 seat Harriers always stayed with the taller 'in service' fin while the RAF and FAA versions reverted to the standard length GR3 fin mounted on the 11" extension. This meant they were limited in their slow speed AoAs but that was deemed not to be a problem in a training situation.

[Gondor]

If I remember correctly from having a look at the book earlier today while also trying to watch the Olympics, the RAF used a system which partially deployed the air-brake to help with weather-cocking with the smaller fin. At the back of the previously mentioned book it gives dimensions of the various versions with the T4 being longer than the T2/T2A which would be correct due to the laser nose, I forgot to check the difference between the GR1 and GR3 and then apply the difference to the dimension of the T4 to see if it was still longer than the T2, maybe another day.....

Gondor

[PR19_Kit]

All early model Hariers land with the airbrake just cracked open, even the single seaters.

The length difference won't be translated exactly from the GR3 to the T4 as the extra extra extension is CONSIDERABLY longer than the extra pimple added to the tail of the RWR equipped GR3s. There's a good photo of the extra extra extension and the GR3 pimple on page 22 of the Aeroguide No. 12 on the early Harriers. I'd try and scan them but previous experience proves that they just come out dotted form.

[rickshaw]

All early model Hariers land with the airbrake just cracked open, even the single seaters.

The length difference won't be translated exactly from the GR3 to the T4 as the extra extra extension is CONSIDERABLY longer than the extra pimple added to the tail of the RWR equipped GR3s. There's a good photo of the extra extra extension and the GR3 pimple on page 22 of the Aeroguide No. 12 on the early Harriers. I'd try and scan them but previous experience proves that they just come out dotted form.

Try scanning them at a greater density (more dots per inch).  Sounds like you're using your scanner at a low density, which often results in pictures appearing as "dotted".

[The Wooksta!]

No, you'll need the descreen option switched ON, but higher resolution never hurts.  Min 200dpi for printing.

[marek]

Hi,

I am currently building a chineese Harrier, based on almost-happend sale from 1978.

I read somewhere (unfortunatelly can't remember where exactly) chineese version was based on FRS1 airframe with downgraded radar. Does anyone knows more details about it?

I also strongly consider arming it with Sparrow missiles. In the mid 80's China bought some Aspide Mk1 missiles from Italy (based on AIM-7E) and later build it as PL-10. Do you think Blue Fox would work with Sparrows?

[rickshaw]

Range might be reduced but I can't see any reason why not.  It might need to be upgraded to provide lock-on but it should have adequate power.

[Captain Canada]

Even if it didn't work, it would still look cool !

[Thorvic]

The Italeri US/Nato weapons set had the Aspide missile with their triangular fins which might be of use if you can find a set or put a post up in the wanted section to see if another member has the missiles going spare.

[Daryl J.]

Here's to hoping the future Kinetic FA.2 is decent. 
While I'd prefer the earlier FRS.1, I hope to put one in US Army markings serving in The Sandbox.   

[Captain Canada]

Now that would be cool ! The more Harriers the merrier !

[Weaver]

Hi,

I am currently building a chineese Harrier, based on almost-happend sale from 1978.

I read somewhere (unfortunatelly can't remember where exactly) chineese version was based on FRS1 airframe with downgraded radar. Does anyone knows more details about it?

I also strongly consider arming it with Sparrow missiles. In the mid 80's China bought some Aspide Mk1 missiles from Italy (based on AIM-7E) and later build it as PL-10. Do you think Blue Fox would work with Sparrows?

My understanding is that the Chinese Harrier proposal would have had the FRS.1 airframe but with GR.3-style land-attack avionics, i.e. INS & LRMTS, instead of the radar, however I really don't have any concrete information on it.

Having said that though, it appears that the export version of Blue Fox was called Red Fox, which might be suggestive of it's potential destination, though it's hardly hard evidence.

Blue Fox was based on Seaspray which provides SARH illumination for Sea Skua AshMs, so I see no reason in principle why it couldn't provide it for Sparrow/Aspide, although it might need to be a special sub-version to add the capability back.