Think I'm right in saying that, with extra Sidewinder pylons, Zeus RHAWR aerials and Matra rocket pods, that's an RAF Harrier, not a USMC one...... ;DIndeed, unless the USMC wishes to make operational use of their recent acquisitions.
([url]http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww37/jmsfbip/DeltaHarrier-2.jpg[/url])
Replying to yourself is bad form, but I did locate that drawing of a stretched AV-8B+. There's another image, front on, that intriques, too.
Gr.7/9 with a Blue Vixen radar, AIM-120's, and in service with Sweden in Splinter cammo.Fit the basic nose of the AV-8B+ for at least some similarity with the proposed version of the AV-8B+ to the FAA. It had the B+'s AN/APG-65 but I could see it fitted with a modified Blue Vixen, too, and carrying AIM-132's in place of Sidewinders. Perhaps later adding a capability for Meteor BVRAAMs.
1:48 sources for the missiles?
:-\ :-[
Sorry....AIM-132 and Meteors.
I've got AIM-132s from Oz-Mods in other scales, so those are easily available. Use 'em along with my resin Meteors on a Swedish Harrier, F-20, or severely upgraded Draken.:-\ :-[
Sorry....AIM-132 and Meteors.
A 1/48 Revell GermanyTyphoon Single Seater will supply both (2 AIM-132s and4 Meteors I believe). You can also buy each individually I believe (e.g. ozmods for the AIM-132s)
Good. Thanks.There are plenty of aftermarket replacements for that.
There is a Hasegawa B+ kit in the stash already. But I think it has the 65% LERX.
AV-8A, stationed in Alaska, large drop tanks and Americanized Sea Eagles. Or Greece. Or Turkey.I doubt you could do both the large drop tanks and the Americanized Sea Eagles, both are heavy stores which need the inboard pylon on each wing. The outboard pylons don't have near the load capacity of the inboard ones. I could see one tank and one missile.
Why did the first generation Harrier use fairly small auxiliary fuel tanks? Weight restrictions? Mission profile?If memory serves me correctly, mostly overall weight restrictions. The larger fuel tanks were used on occasion for ferry missions where nothing was carried on the outboard hardpoints. The Harrier's forte was BAI and it wouldn't need external tankage for that. External tanks would primarily be for ferry operations when you'd also have strakes beneath the fuselage rather than gunpods.
Would fitment of somewhat enlarged tanks be reasonable?
Thanks.BAI = Battlefield Air Interdiction - Close Support that crosses over the line of battle.
BAI?
Ok...another question if I may:
Would the AV-8A need visible upgrades to drop smart bombs?
Reason for the question: The Army keeps their Harriers through the first Iraq conflict.
As another approach, since the US Army also evaluated the Northrop F-5, a F-5E in Army markings with the radar nose replaced by the short recce nose with the cameras replaced by the optics from a designator pod and one of the cannon replaced by the guts of the pod, the barrel opening now serving as a cooling air scoop for the electronics. This could make a nice team display of an attack Harrier and it's Fast-FAC F-5E designator, both in Asia Minor schemes for southwest asian conflicts.
Ok...another question if I may:
Would the AV-8A need visible upgrades to drop smart bombs?
Reason for the question: The Army keeps their Harriers through the first Iraq conflict.
The short recce nose from the Monogram kit was what I had in mind. It's designed to be a line replaceable unit for the radar on F-5's when basic recce ability is needed quickly. The RF-5E is a dedicated conversion for more intensive recce operations. If you want a two-seat recce/fast FAC aircraft, this nose will fit on a F-5F but I'm not at all certain that it would fit on a F-5B since that and the T-38 had the front cockpit "shoved forward" into where the guns are on the single-seater.QuoteAs another approach, since the US Army also evaluated the Northrop F-5, a F-5E in Army markings with the radar nose replaced by the short recce nose with the cameras replaced by the optics from a designator pod and one of the cannon replaced by the guts of the pod, the barrel opening now serving as a cooling air scoop for the electronics. This could make a nice team display of an attack Harrier and it's Fast-FAC F-5E designator, both in Asia Minor schemes for southwest asian conflicts.
Such as the nose found in the AFV Club RF-5E? Or are there a variety of noses?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: Perused the Stash Storage Department and found a Monogram F-5E. There is a short recce nose right in the kit. :icon_music: :icon_music: :icon_music:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I'm waiting for the new Airfix GR.1/GR.3 kits because I want to do a series of models along the lines that the US Army, British Army and Royal Marines all won the 1960s arguments about CAS and ended up with their own Harriers with their own equipment fits.
Ok...another question if I may:
Would the AV-8A need visible upgrades to drop smart bombs?
Reason for the question: The Army keeps their Harriers through the first Iraq conflict.
Well, a modified RAF spec, including the radios for contacting engaged units (the aerial on top that the AV-8A has) and with the LRMTS replaced with the guts of PAVE PENNY or equivalent. By the time of the first Gulf War, I could also see the US Army Harriers reworked to incorporate the same upgrades the AV-8C has in our timeline.
There's a Harrier book out there that shows a mockup of a Hellfire quad rack on a Harrier II inboard hard points; have to scan that pic in as it's the only time I've seen it. But, seriously, this would be a most attractive whif and quite plausible if the US Army went on to operate the Harrier.Well, a modified RAF spec, including the radios for contacting engaged units (the aerial on top that the AV-8A has) and with the LRMTS replaced with the guts of PAVE PENNY or equivalent. By the time of the first Gulf War, I could also see the US Army Harriers reworked to incorporate the same upgrades the AV-8C has in our timeline.
Putting on the Whiff hat it would be cool to see a two seat US Army Harrier II with PAVE TACK under the belly and 24 Hellfires in Brimstone style triple rail launchers under the wings...
I built a model of the British Army photo-recce one, but struggling with the old Airfix Harrier put me off trying the rest:
My idea for the everyone-except-the-air-forces harriers would be that the USMC and RM go for a simple, multi-role aircraft like the AV-8A in order to get maximum flexibility from limited deck spots on their amphibious ships. The US and British armies however, with no deck space limitations and more ambitions to build their own "private" air forces, go for multiple specialist versions: strike aircraft with TFR and INS, CAS aircraft with LRMTS and recce aircraft with all-camera noses.
Weaver,
I like the recce nose, but wouldn't they be more likely to just adopt the recce pod the RAF Harriers used, or at least a recce pod of suitable weight and size (I believe RAF Harriers flew with Jaguar recce pods at some points)?
Leave it to the British to design a delightfully Whiffable aircraft! :)
Getting back to the Pave Penny, there has to be a way of putting it on a Harrier 1 without creating the Probiscis Monkey look of the GR.3 nose. Directly under the chin? In place of the gun pods? Note to self: think this through for a while.
Getting back to the Pave Penny, there has to be a way of putting it on a Harrier 1 without creating the Probiscis Monkey look of the GR.3 nose. Directly under the chin? In place of the gun pods? Note to self: think this through for a while.Well, the obvious one is to take the "Blue Eric" route and install the Pave Penny in the front of a gun pod structure, leaving the remainder for other kit if needed. Alternatively, you could refair the nose around the Pave Penny guts and have something that resembles the nose of a Hunter FGA.11. Personally, I like the idea of an enlarged nose for the Pave Penny because the later could then later be fitted with the ARBS used on A-4M's and Harrier II's.
The two seat Harrier II (T.10) is crying out for some night attack mods with that high rear seat.
Well, with no RAF Harrier buy, I could see a dedicated recce version being built though I suspect it'd have secondary capabilities just as a matter of course.
I'd be willing to wager that the various armies and marine corps don't go for a common equipment fit, though I can see going for a common airframe. I still think that a recce capacity that can be quickly fitted to any aircraft when needed is worth having.
Regarding pods used by the Harriers, I've seen pictures of more than one pod in use, something about the older, wet film, pods being replaced by ones from another aircraft.
Just a thought with regard to using the Sea Harrier FRS.1 airframe with other fitments, a version of the Harrier proposed to the PLAAF fitted a GR.3's avionics to a Sea harrier airframe because that was the airframe in production at the time. I could see that being done for various Army and Marine versions to take advantage of the better fivew from the Sea Harrier cockpit.
As an aside the JMSDF looked at the TAV-8B as an EW platform for their through deck cruisers.An EAV-8J along the lines of an EA-7L? that could be interesting. Still think they need AV-8J's with full radar fit (for local content rules, use a version of the F-2's radar) to go with it.
As an aside the JMSDF looked at the TAV-8B as an EW platform for their through deck cruisers.An EAV-8J along the lines of an EA-7L? that could be interesting. Still think they need AV-8J's with full radar fit (for local content rules, use a version of the F-2's radar) to go with it.
While Kongsberg Penguins likely would be better carried by the big wing Harrier, how about putting a pair on the inner pylons of a FA.2 and fuel on the outer pylons. Practical? I'm sure not. As to the designation of the machine, would FGR.2 work?Given what the pylons are stressed for and plumbed for, I could see a Penguin on each outer pylon with fuel tanks on the inner pylons.
Don't forget the third necessary team member: the refueler. ;DThe second Harrier SIG "Whif" issue has a Harrier KR.3(N) and I can see a Harrier KR.5(N) being built from those airframes not upgraded to GR.7's with large tanks on the two heavy-duty hardpoints on each wing and the two light-weight hardpoints carrying small tanks. On the US side, I can see the guts of a buddy-refueling pod inserted into a modified AV-8B cannon pod with the ammo pod mounting the signal lights and carrying associated avionics and controls. A KV-8B with four large tanks and two small tanks on the outer hardpoints would be unique.
Sea Harrier FRS.1 with a pair of Kormorans for various NATO countries besides Germany.
Presuming that McDD produced a SHAR and the US Army used them, what would be suitable droppables for the two outer pylons that is available in 1:48?Would it be the SHAR or the SHAR airframe with the radar replaced by a LRMTS, or equivalent avionics, as was proposed for the PRC?
Presuming that McDD produced a SHAR and the US Army used them, what would be suitable droppables for the two outer pylons that is available in 1:48?
Ignoring the obvious "why not just get AV-8A/B etc", I would imagine that pretty much what ever the AV-8A/GR.3 used would be the way to go. Therefore, unguided rockets, iron/cluster bombs, AGMs such as Maverick...Well, if you're buying in the early 1970's, the SHAR airframe would be the only one in production and what you'd buy would be based off that. Much of the reason the proposed variant for the PLAAF was based on the SHAR airframe with GR.3 avionics and LRMTS (as well as commonality with the SHAR variant proposed to the PLANAF). I could see the US Army doing a later, joint buy, of the AV-8B with the USMC.
A question about the Blue Vixen radar if I may: any air-to-ground or anti-shipping capabilities?
The reason for asking: I find the pointy nose on the American Harrier rather ugly. Geeze....we detail-oriented men can be so impossible at times!!! ;D. Given the new-tool FA.2 coming down the pike, I'd love to build a couple Coulda Shoulda's.
How about a French Sea Harrier with Thomson-CSF Agave radar in the nose and a single Exocet missile under one wing?
Ysi - nice ideas!Pegasus, The Heart of the Harrier has a cross-section of one such engine. It was proposed as a H2-burning engine for the returning Space Shuttle (RB>420, depicted on pg. 291 of the hardback). I'll have to check it again to verify, but memory says the exhaust was nearly the same diameter as the the front face of the engine (memory was wrong, it's a tad smaller and the exhaust nozzle reduces nicely aft of the engine). Now, aft of the engine structure you could reduce it or you could add a good mixer for a real low-observable signature. Given the other numbers, I suspect a TF41 exhaust from an A-7 would work nicely for art. Given the rather higher thrust of the RB.420, I reckon you could carry as much as an A-7, too, with the right wing (Scaled-up hawk wing?).
How about a non-VTOL Harrier with the original engine, a conventional (large!) single nozzle and longer, straighter wings (Su-25?) with more hardpoints as a sort of A-10-ish CAS aircraft?
The single nozzle for the Pegasus would probably have to be about the size of the Viggen's....
Or possibly go twin tail boom or something akin to the Yak-141 but without the swivelling exhaust:
([url]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Yakovlev_Yak-141_3D_model.jpg[/url])
Personally, I'm waiting for the new Airfix GR.1/GR.3 kits because I want to do a series of models along the lines that the US Army, British Army and Royal Marines all won the 1960s arguments about CAS and ended up with their own Harriers with their own equipment fits.
4 pylon load out of smart bombs or Hellfire racks (either the four-missile racks off the helicopters or the three-missile racks used by the RAF for its Brimstone derivative of Hellfire - alternative fit might be an air-launched version of the anti-ship Hellfire derivative the Swedes use from ground launchers) sounds like a reasonable loadout, though perhaps dispensers with SDB's would be another alternative for some combat environments.QuotePersonally, I'm waiting for the new Airfix GR.1/GR.3 kits because I want to do a series of models along the lines that the US Army, British Army and Royal Marines all won the 1960s arguments about CAS and ended up with their own Harriers with their own equipment fits.
Ok.... US Army gets the AV-8B. And they keep their Apaches and Cobras. Is a 4 pylon loadout of guided smart bombs a reasonable presumption presuming skirmishes that involve something similar to The Recent 20 Year Sandbox Conflict? The helicopters provide the lead spray and rockets, the Harriers a rapidly deployable somewhat heavier bit.
Hmmmm.....Kinetic's SHAR might have to also get US Army markings.Or like the export version 1st generation strike Harrier proposed to the PLAAF, a SHAR 1 airframe (the only 1st generation airframe in production at the time) with the radar replaced by a LRMTS as on the Harrier GR.3. Of course, instead of the LRMTS, it might have the ARBS flown in USMC A-4Ms and fitted to the original AV-8B.
It is more likely to be one of the nine Kestrels that went to the USA after they were Tri-partied tested. Named XV-6A Kestrel or Kestrel FGA.1 (RAF).
I've got models of both the P.1127 and the Kestrel and the latter is somewhat bigger than the P.1127 but not as big as a Harrier.
It is more likely to be one of the nine Kestrels that went to the USA after they were Tri-partied tested. Named XV-6A Kestrel or Kestrel FGA.1 (RAF).
I've got models of both the P.1127 and the Kestrel and the latter is somewhat bigger than the P.1127 but not as big as a Harrier.
This Kestrel ([url]https://www.scalemates.com/kits/160208-aardvark-aviation-hawker-kestrel[/url])?
([url]https://s1.scalemates.com/products/img/2/0/8/160208-11185.jpg[/url])
... another thought is wing mounted engines as per the Sud Aviation Vautour, YAK25/28...
... another thought is wing mounted engines as per the Sud Aviation Vautour, YAK25/28...
How about cross-shafting between engines so that thrust can be maintained, at least somewhat, in an engine-out condition? I rather suspect you'd need some electronics to synchronize the drive motors for the nozzles to make sure both engines vector identically.... another thought is wing mounted engines as per the Sud Aviation Vautour, YAK25/28...
The tricky bit would be interconnecting the nozzles for engine-out flight. Might be simpler to mount the engines side-by-side with two, bigger nozzles per side?
How about cross-shafting between engines so that thrust can be maintained, at least somewhat, in an engine-out condition? I rather suspect you'd need some electronics to synchronize the drive motors for the nozzles to make sure both engines vector identically.... another thought is wing mounted engines as per the Sud Aviation Vautour, YAK25/28...
The tricky bit would be interconnecting the nozzles for engine-out flight. Might be simpler to mount the engines side-by-side with two, bigger nozzles per side?
I've emailed Adrian. Hope to get an update soon.Please let him now that I'm interested in more than one, plsu more than one of the new Hunter items you showed on the Hunter thread. One thought, does anyone make a Fairey Fireflash for use on Hunter and Swit models?
I've emailed Adrian. Hope to get an update soon.Please let him now that I'm interested in more than one, plsu more than one of the new Hunter items you showed on the Hunter thread. One thought, does anyone make a Fairey Fireflash for use on Hunter and Swit models?
Pavla Evan, and I think there's another company that does them too, thinking maybe AlleyCat
Interesting photo:
(https://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=166763&d=1225976637)
Heavy v/stol fighter with two Pegasus engines.
Heavy v/stol fighter with two Pegasus engines.
aka Fat Budgie. ;D
Heavy v/stol fighter with two Pegasus engines.
P.1132 | -- | Multi-engined V/STOL or STOL strike aircraft | -- | 2 x Bristol BE.53 + Tail mounted Napier Scorpion optional. STOL 4 x Orpheus | -- | 1958 | -- | Twin boom and single fuselage variants. twin boom version had inward exhausting nozzles |
What happens if one engine fails? Automatic punchout?I don't know if it was in a further development of the single-fuselage version or another Hawker design, but they somewhat got around that by crossing the aft, core, exhausts so that even on one engine you had some balance and might could attempt astandard or a stol landing (sure wouldn't want to try a vertical one with only one engine running).
What happens if one engine fails? Automatic punchout?
What happens if one engine fails? Automatic punchout?
What happens if one engine fails? Automatic punchout?
No worse than in a conventional Harrier
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/721/Screenshot_1_copy.jpg)JAS-38?
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/09a/Screen_171204_211446.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/363/Screenshot_2_copy.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/207/IAF%20149th%20V4.JPG)Wonder how many modified systems installations they would make using their own systems? Still, I could see the IAF using the Harrier for dispersed operations that would be difficult to target.
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/e45/Screen_200404_145616.png)
sci-fi Harrier ?
Yak -141 . . . is that you ?? ;D
cheers,
Robin.
(https://combatace.com/applications/downloads/interface/legacy/screenshot.php?path=/monthly_02_2016/c42acc31588537d21c1da45ea4b0e798-4.jpg)Sea Harrier FA.3? A companion the the RAF's similar Harrier FGR.11?
(https://combatace.com/applications/downloads/interface/legacy/screenshot.php?path=/monthly_02_2016/31bdd615d586cdf6eea7b09a340b1ebd-3.jpg)
(https://combatace.com/applications/downloads/interface/legacy/screenshot.php?path=/monthly_02_2016/e94856ec6e1e71bd97e5aa83b638048f-5.jpg)
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/38e4b4e4-7e8c-4620-ad19-c9bc672ab982/dh7kkzy-b868ee71-10ad-469c-9d13-d80a5b33121b.jpg/v1/fit/w_800,h_601,q_70,strp/photomanipulation_by_drakre52_dh7kkzy-414w-2x.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7ImhlaWdodCI6Ijw9NjAxIiwicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvMzhlNGI0ZTQtN2U4Yy00NjIwLWFkMTktYzliYzY3MmFiOTgyXC9kaDdra3p5LWI4NjhlZTcxLTEwYWQtNDY5Yy05ZDEzLWQ4MGE1YjMzMTIxYi5qcGciLCJ3aWR0aCI6Ijw9ODAwIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmltYWdlLm9wZXJhdGlvbnMiXX0.OuUkXtkUmRijQVSvM5BH2aZBwlCH1Ar8Yyitb6fG_pw)
https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/38e4b4e4-7e8c-4620-ad19-c9bc672ab982/dh7kkzy-b868ee71-10ad-469c-9d13-d80a5b33121b.jpg/v1/fit/w_800,h_601,q_70,strp/photomanipulation_by_drakre52_dh7kkzy-414w-2x.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7ImhlaWdodCI6Ijw9NjAxIiwicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvMzhlNGI0ZTQtN2U4Yy00NjIwLWFkMTktYzliYzY3MmFiOTgyXC9kaDdra3p5LWI4NjhlZTcxLTEwYWQtNDY5Yy05ZDEzLWQ4MGE1YjMzMTIxYi5qcGciLCJ3aWR0aCI6Ijw9ODAwIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmltYWdlLm9wZXJhdGlvbnMiXX0.OuUkXtkUmRijQVSvM5BH2aZBwlCH1Ar8Yyitb6fG_pw
They did always call it the “jump jet”.
Are we sure this wasn’t a build by ericr?