USMC/USN Sea Harrier

[Gondor]

So a radar a bit like this?



The kit was a 1/72 Airfix Harrier GR.5, the radar nose was the rear of a 1/48 SUU-23 Gun Pod, decals were from the stash as were the missiles and launch rails.

Gondor

[Spino]

Something along those lines.  I'm also debating about what missiles to put on the rails.  I have AIM-9L/M, AIM-9X, and AIM-120C/D to choose from.  I think that with the otherwise CAS loadout it has currently, I should stick with some type of Sidewinder.  If I put AIM-9X on I'll probably also scratch-build a JHMCS/Scorpion HMD onto the pilot's helmet to go with them.  Gonna have to scratch build a refueling probe too unless I find one laying around in the spare parts box (those are rare in my collection of spares).  I'm thinking I want to build this one gear-up since I have basically no room for a model with gear down to sit, and the kit is set up fairly well for a gear-up build.  That's one of my big gripes about the Revell 1:48 F-14Ds, they seem to be made only to be build with the gear down unless you are up for a lot of putty and sanding.  My ST-21 has that issue since it's a kitbash of a Revell F-14D and some 3D printed parts (gonna come back to that one eventually).

Any thoughts on a dorsal spine for extra fuel and avionics?  Not sure I like the CFT idea.

[Gondor]

Which version of missiles will depend on when your aircraft is. The older then the earlier the missile type. As for electronics in a spine. I suppose it's do-able but remember that on a Harrier the whole wing includeing the upper fuselage between the wings lifts off so the engine can be changed, very labour intensive and time consuming thing to do. I asume that the F-35 engine is changed just like the F-16 engine, just pull it out the back once all the connections have been uncoupled etc. But yes a spine is do-able, one hinged at the base of the tail so it pivots upwards could work, that would allow for some internal connections such as pipework to stay connected. I'm sure you can work something out.

Gondor

[Spino]

Well it turns out that the Sea Harrier FA2 had a Blue Vixen radar in a redesigned nose similar to the Harrier II+, and it could guide AIM-120s.  Armed with this info I may do a bigger nosecone for this model, but probably not the AMRAAMs.You cannot view this attachment.

I'm not sure I like the idea of a spine, particularly with how hard it was to replace the Harrier's engine in the first place, so I think I'll leave the top of this build as-is.

[AeroplaneDriver]

Well it turns out that the Sea Harrier FA2 had a Blue Vixen radar in a redesigned nose similar to the Harrier II+, and it could guide AIM-120s.  Armed with this info I may do a bigger nosecone for this model, but probably not the AMRAAMs.

Tiny point of clarification...the Blue Vixen didn't actually "guide" the AMRAAM (nor does the APG-65)...it's an active homing missile so it doesn't need an illuminating aircraft to guide it to a target, just to find the target. 

[Spino]

Actually it kind of does.  The AMRAAM's radar doesn't actually turn on until it is around 10 miles away from the target.  In theory it doesn't absolutely have to have an aircraft illuminating the target like the AIM-7 Sparrow did, but it gets initial targeting information from either the launch aircraft's radar, or in the more modern versions, from datalink.  It also gets mid-course updates from the same sources if available, if not it reverts to inertial guidance to the target's last known position and then turns its radar on.  It doesn't need any offboard sensor input when it goes active during the terminal phase, and it doesn't technically have to have it once it gets the initial target position just before launch, but the kill probability is significantly reduced.

[Weaver]

One unique feature of the Blue Vixen was that it was designed for distributed installation, i.e. some of the black boxes went into the _rear_ fuselage, partly to just find space and also to keep the aircraft CofG in the same place (vital for hovering) and were connected to the transmitter/receiver via a digital databus. That might seem standard-issue these days, but in the late 1980s it was cutting edge and kind of a big deal.

[Spino]

I can imagine it was cutting-edge then.  Believe it or not one of the first aircraft if not THE first aircraft to have a fly-by-wire FCS (of sorts) was the A-5 Vigilante back in the late '50s.  That was certainly cutting edge then, took it 30-40 years before that kind of tech finally went mainstream in combat aircraft.

[Hobbes]

It may be worthwhile economically for people like Colin Frieghtdog who are making numbers of small items. Then many of them could be printed at the same time, located in different area of the platen.

Perhaps someone in the business would like to comment on that? 

At big outfits like Shapeways it's standard practice to fill up the build volume with as many parts as possible. The main savings is in 'machining time': the amount of material needed stays the same, but the machine is used more efficiently (printing 100 parts in one go instead of having to set up, print one part, remove it, set up for the next etc.).

[Hobbes]

3D printing really does open up vast opportunities for those with the skills and equipment.

On UK TV (The Yesterday Channel) they've been having a series about Hornby and one of the recent ones covered the installation of their new 3 printing kit and initial test runs. What surprised me most was the cost, it was nowhere near as much as I would have thought. I must admit I still struggle with how long print runs take and whilst I can see it's use when it comes to prototypes, which is what I think Hornby will use theirs for, I can't see it being economical when it comes to production runs, but that will undoubtedly change in the future.

Yes, Hornby have been showcasing 3D printed items on their blog and at Telford, they're ideal for prototyping: in the past they'd have to make moulds, then produce a few copies and test-build these. Now they can do a test build using 3D printed parts, which reduces the amount of modification the moulds have to go through.

For production runs 3D printing is still expensive. You can produce one complete kit's worth of parts for a few cents using an injection moulding machine, vs. $30 for an 1/72 aircraft done on a 3D printer.

[Spino]

Tanks and 7 shot pods are ready for sanding and painting.  At this scale you have to look really close to see the difference between the 7 shot LAU-131 and the one-off 8-shot pods that I accidentally made.  Not sure if the tanks are a bit too large, they seem pretty big on the Sea Harrier, but so do the real Aero 1Ds.
You cannot view this attachment.

[Spino]

Did a lot of work today, added the Aero 1D fuel tanks (hopefully the right size), an IRST sensor on top of the nose, a refueling probe on the port intake, and some blade antennas on top of the fuselage.  Need to print some countermeasure dispensers like the ones on the AV-8B next, finish the paintjob and the putty and sanding where needed, and make an enlarged radome for the APG-79.  I think I want to do a high-vis scheme on this, hence the flat black drop tanks.

You cannot view this attachment.
You cannot view this attachment. 

I chose to add a pair of AIM-9Ms because they were handy from another kit and in good shape.  Might swap them out with 9X to match the rest of the load better,

[Spino]

Even though I got sick over the weekend I still managed to put a second coat of paint on the fuel tanks and add the upper fuselage countermeasure dispensers.  Dorsal antennas are painted as well.

[NARSES2]

Hope you're feeling better sir, but glad to see progress despite that 

[Spino]

Yeah it's just a head cold I think.  Once I get that radar nose finished and fill the slots in the wingtips it'll be time to finish painting and add the canopy.  I'm considering scratch-building a canopy more like the one on the AV-8B, that bulges out more.