Harrier and Sea Harrier

[kitnut617]

The reason is that mixing the 1/72 and 1/48 parts don't work, I really need a 1/60 Harrier to make it work right.

What a pity Lincoln aren't still in business, I bet they'd have made one........... 

Would that be Lindberg, Kit ?  They did a 1/72 Harrier.  I can't find a manufacturer called Lincoln in my book ---

[PR19_Kit]

Would that be Lindberg, Kit ?  They did a 1/72 Harrier.  I can't find a manufacturer called Lincoln in my book ---

No, I really did mean Lincoln.

They were a small company that was around in the late 50s, early 60s, and always made kits to 'fit the box'. This resulted in some bizarre looking models with lots of parts jammed into smallish boxes. From memory their best ones were a Venom FB5 and a Sycamore helicopter, both were almost 1/72 which helped.

They just sort of faded out in the mid -60s, but you see the boxes at sales now and then, usually red and yellow with a blue-ish tinged piccie of the model on the lid.

[JayBee]

Would that be Lindberg, Kit ?  They did a 1/72 Harrier.  I can't find a manufacturer called Lincoln in my book ---

No, I really did mean Lincoln.

They were a small company that was around in the late 50s, early 60s, and always made kits to 'fit the box'. This resulted in some bizarre looking models with lots of parts jammed into smallish boxes. From memory their best ones were a Venom FB5 and a Sycamore helicopter, both were almost 1/72 which helped.

They just sort of faded out in the mid -60s, but you see the boxes at sales now and then, usually red and yellow with a blue-ish tinged piccie of the model on the lid.

[JayBee]

Would that be Lindberg, Kit ?  They did a 1/72 Harrier.  I can't find a manufacturer called Lincoln in my book ---

No, I really did mean Lincoln.

They were a small company that was around in the late 50s, early 60s, and always made kits to 'fit the box'. This resulted in some bizarre looking models with lots of parts jammed into smallish boxes. From memory their best ones were a Venom FB5 and a Sycamore helicopter, both were almost 1/72 which helped.

They just sort of faded out in the mid -60s, but you see the boxes at sales now and then, usually red and yellow with a blue-ish tinged piccie of the model on the lid.

OOPs about that last one, I hit the wromg button.
Lincoln also did a Sunderland I which is almost exactly 1/144 scale. Not a bad wee kit if you can find it.
Lincoln was also later issued under the KADER lable.

JimB

[Zen]

HSA Brough studied a STOL alternative to the P1127 (Harrier as it became), using a heavily blown wing. Project number I think P146. Eventualy became a light fighter/attack type for carriers.
A single reheated Spey engine for abotu mach 1.8, side inlets, twin ADEN 30mm cannon, wingtip 'Taildog' missiles, no radar, but the nose could accomodate such.
Circa 1965-1969.

[kitnut617]

OOPs about that last one, I hit the wromg button.

You can delete your own posts Jim

Lincoln also did a Sunderland I which is almost exactly 1/144 scale. Not a bad wee kit if you can find it.
Lincoln was also later issued under the KADER lable.

JimB

Found Lincoln in my book, don't know why I missed it. Anyway, before we get haul up for 'Off-Topic', you mentioning Kader struck a bell Jim, I've got four International Models kits, all ex-Lincoln/Kader except one,the Connie, the others I have are the Britannia and two DC-7's.  (surplus to requirement BTW)

The Sunderland was 1/152 scale.

[Weaver]

HSA Brough studied a STOL alternative to the P1127 (Harrier as it became), using a heavily blown wing. Project number I think P146. Eventualy became a light fighter/attack type for carriers.
A single reheated Spey engine for abotu mach 1.8, side inlets, twin ADEN 30mm cannon, wingtip 'Taildog' missiles, no radar, but the nose could accomodate such.
Circa 1965-1969.

It evolved through the P.153 (to AST.396) and P.156 to P.159 (candidate for AST.403), gaining more wing area, an RB.199 and a bubble canopy and losing the LE blowing along the way as the mission became more and more air-to-air oriented. All versions were expected to be tasty little dogfighters, but I particularly like the P.153, which retained the full blowing for STOL. I see no reason, other than financial, why this couldn't have been in production by the mid 1970s and I suspect it would have sold like hot cakes around the world.

[norseman]

A modified version of the RB.422 engine for the P.1216 was also worked on so that instead of the 3 pot arrangement it was slot in capable into the Harrier with the 4 pot arrangement. This gave approx 32,000lb dry thrust which would have been very interesting indeed!

There was also a twin linked Spey development for the P.1154 each driving 2 nozzles with the ability to compensate if one engine went down with a cross over system. The original design used PCB reheat but a later version briefly looked at before the project was cancelled involved just the upcoming increased thrust dry Spey's to work round the PCB problems (if it had continued this would have used the 17,500lb dry Spey that was available in the late 60's) giving a total of 35,000lb with no PCB deck heating issues. 

[dy031101]

Question about the Harrier II:

Other than the AN/ASB-19 system, does the AV-8B possess a bombing mode for the HUD or backup bomb sight of some sort (that can function without the ARBS)?

[Weaver]

Question about the Harrier II:

Other than the AN/ASB-19 system, does the AV-8B possess a bombing mode for the HUD or backup bomb sight of some sort (that can function without the ARBS)?

I'd be amazed if if it didn't. Most HUDs have bombing/rocketing/straffing functions which don't need any special sensor: just the weapon ballistics and the normal flight data inputs.

[trekaddict]

How would an up-engined and armoured Harrier variant work as a tank-busting A-10 analogue?

[Weaver]

How would an up-engined and armoured Harrier variant work as a tank-busting A-10 analogue?

Difficult to get a big gun in it, but it could carry a hell of a lot of Hellfires. Something I've proposed before now is a REALLY big wing Harrier. Fit it with long, straight, thick wings that restrict maximum speed, but hold a lot more fuel and have a lot more pylons beneath them. Of course it would increase empty weight as well, but then real Harriers almost always carry a pair of drop tanks anyway, which this would avoid, so the VTO penalty would be bearable. On the other hand, in STO (which is what Harriers almost always do in practice) it would actually improve performance due to the increased lift. The wing could have lots of individual hardpoints with every 2nd or 3rd one being highly rated (a bit like a Hunter FGA.9 wing with it's rockets-or-bombs setup), which would allow Hellfires/Brimstones to be carried individually instead of on triple rails, thereby reducing drag and weight again. The end result would approximate to a STOVL Su-25.

[trekaddict]

I see. It's for a part of an AH I am working on, so right now I am torn between that Harrier variant and a Britified SU-25.

As part of that American tech of any sort can't be had in Europe and the Commonwealth, yet at the same time some Russian tech is available.

[trekaddict]

5 minute slap together.

[rickshaw]

I wonder, has anybody else noticed that Unicraft are advertising a HS.1127 HSF - "High Speed Helicopter" (I wonder if that is a real designation) kit?   Looks interesting and has potential, I think.