Chek

Afternoon all 
 
It's been a while since I've done anything on this long-term build, but decided to get it back out for a bit of TLC and decided to jump straight back in and tackle something that I'd been needing to correct...
 
When building the fuselage what seems like years ago I had somehow managed to make the extreme rear fuselage (where the rear observation glazing mates) completely the wrong shape. In my example, you can see I've made the fuselage sides curved, and the upper and lower fuselage too curved as well:
 
IMG_1859 by Thomas Probert, on Flickr
 
...when compared to the real thing - taken at the Charlwood museum - which shows flat sides and top:
 
Tail Glazing by Thomas Probert, on Flickr
 
So, using some better plans as well as the good old Mk1 eyeball, I made a new shape for the rear fuselage:
 
IMG_1861 by Thomas Probert, on Flickr
 
...which when offered up already improves the look:
 
IMG_1860 by Thomas Probert, on Flickr
 
The difference has now been built up with filler, and slowly a much better-shaped rear fuselage is beginning to emerge:
 
IMG_1868 by Thomas Probert, on Flickr
 
Still plenty of shaping and blending to do, but I'm much happier with this now.
 
I've also began inserting the framing into the cockpit as these will be needed to support the glazing when the time comes:
 
IMG_1867 by Thomas Probert, on Flickr
 
I'm enjoying being back on this - let's see how long the motivation lasts!
 
All the best,
Tom

Thanks Dan and to give me the inspiration to get this build over the goal line, here is my subject again, all clean in a hanger at the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum near Hamilton, Ontario.  The Kitty Hawk kit has these exact decals.
 

 
Cheers,
Chuck

March 25/20
 
 
I hope this update finds you well.  Thank goodness we have our hobby to keep us from going nuts while being stuck indoors.  Two more months of this and we might have record for completed models! 
 
I’ve got this bird painted now, but before I show that, I was checking to see if the interior of the engine cowling could be seen from the front with the engine installed.  The answer is “very little”, but that’s also a little problem, because the interior is full of pin marks and 4 large tabs that hold the cowling together.  If you peek inside and hunt around you can find them, so that's good enough for me to eliminate them as much as possible.  Sanding off the tabs and filling the sinkholes is hard to do on the thin plastic without damaging it, so I set out to achieve a “good enough” job which also included the Eduard brass PE detail, just in case you can see it too.
 
 

 
 
After paint.  I found the inside cowling color to be all over the map from Aluminum to Interior Green, so I picked Aluminum to highlight the added detail.  You won't be able to see the slight yellow over spray at the front when the cowling is installed.
 
 

 
 
For the yellow paint I used Tamiya TS-34 Camel Yellow decanted from a rattle can, which is almost the perfect color of most Canadian Harvard Trainers.  Like most yellow paint, coverage over a darker base can be problematic, so I painted a white primer coat as shown earlier.  Even with the white base, however, I needed at least 5-6 coats of paint to cover everything!  Lots of paint fills lots of rivet and panel line detail, so I was quite worried that all this paint would ruin the fine detail that I created earlier.  However, everything turned out pretty darn good in the end, as the paint dried and shrunk into this detail after 2-3 days of drying time.  Whew!
 
I now think this paint is made for mostly car models, where the focus is on a deep and shiny paint job.  I had the same problem with coverage with Tamiya TS-8 Italian Red a few years ago on my P-38L, where I needed a similar number of coats to cover.  Tamiya AS series of spray paints are made for aircraft and cover very well, but colors are limited, while the new line of lacquer paints in a bottle do not include Camel Yellow.  In any case, the TS-34 still worked very well as shown below.
 
 

 
 

 
 
I am also pleased to say that I think I nailed the look of the ribbing on the elevators and rudder, where the rivet detail underneath is still there, but subtle.
 
 

 
 
For the black walkways, I went back to my go-to method of using textured paint out of a spray can, in this case Krylon Fushion “Textured Shimmer”, rather than Rustoleum textured paint.  While effective, the Rustoleum paint comes out of the can a bit too rough for scale, so you need to sand it down later. 
 
The first step is to mask off the walkways and then COVER EVERYTHING with a kitchen garbage bag, to avoid over spray.
 
 

 
 
What do I mean by over spray?  THIS and it’s not for the faint of heart or without lots of practice.  After vigorously shaking the can, you spray in sweeping strokes and never directly at the model, which is why it’s all over the place.  The goals are even coverage and not too thick or thin.
 
 

 
 
A closer look.  Some of this spray is clear, hence the blotchy appearance.  After drying for at least 15 minutes, I then sprayed a cover coat of flat black, then removed all masking tape within an hour of spraying.  If you leave the masking tape on too long, it may become impossible to remove, because the paint is very hard when dry.
 
 

 
 
With such a high color contrast, I also used the kitchen bag method for the gloss black on the top of the front fuselage area, which was airbrushed.  You would think that this should be flat black as well to reduce glare in front of the windscreen, but all my references show that it’s glossy.  Note the subtle but very real over spray, which would be nasty on yellow.
 
 

 
 
The results.  Note that I haven’t added any details like flaps, aileron control arms or antennae yet due to risk of breakage.  The front engine cowling is only dry fit.
 
 

 
 
The walkways turned out just like I hoped with no sanding required. They are slightly rough, but to scale rough, but are also tough to photograph in these high contrast conditions.  I will add some pastels to them later to show minor wear at the end of the build, which will highlight them more.
 
 

 
 
The gloss black turned out pretty good as well, which also helps to hide the crude fit of Part D5 to the front fuselage, which is the same demarcation line.  Note the brass cowling fitting at the top I added earlier.
 
 

 
 
Other side…
 
 

 
 
And top view.  Note that the angled front of the walkways are due to panel lines at the front I added earlier, which is why most walkways are painted this way.
 
 

 
 
Another angle of the ribs on the elevators and rudder.
 
 

 
 
And finally the bottom, where everything is yellow, including the wheel wells and rear flaps.
 
 

 
 
Next up decals and other little bits.  I will be using the kit decals that I understand are quite good, but you don’t have much time to move them around much.  Thankfully with my second kit to replace the canopy parts, I have a second set of decals just in case I screw up one or six.
 
 
Cheers,
Chuck

That';s the bottom line Richard. That we all remain safe until the epidemic subsides.

OK, I see they're saying the risk is 'low'.
 
What I'm not seeing is any hard data on residence times and how that low risk' has been assessed.
The key sentence from your source is this:
' Like other viruses, it is possible that the virus that causes COVID-19 can survive on surfaces or objects.'
(It can, the UNC study was into survival periods of covid-19 type viruses on various surfaces at various temperatures).
 
This episode should not be a game of Russian roulette.

I watched a review online of scientific papers which gave a range of test results for covid-19 type viruses, and some had a shelf life of up to 14 days at room temperature (20C).
Some viruses are dangerous to work with, so close relatives are used to extropolate from.
 
If there's solid WHO evidence to the contrary (and not a cherry-picked, commercially convenient mis-comprehension of the data, like 'herd immunity as is being propagated in the media) then I'll accept that. With reliable source data.

For anyone following Dainis' advice, try to tackle subjects that have been in your stash for a while.
 
If you need to order in stuff from online (certainly what most modelers have to do these days) take care.
Covid-19 type viruses can have a residence time of up to 14 days on packaging or cardboard box surfaces.
But a wipe down with isopropyl alcohol (or iodine which is messier) will kill any stray bugs within seconds.
Curiously, bleach agents while effective, take much longer to  work.
It seems all that unnecessary plastic packaging finally has some use.
 
And wash your hands after handling. The detergent effect of soap breaks down the proteins in the virus that may have transferred during the process.

A very nice Beau model with a lot of really good detail.
 
Just needs to be paired with a Ju 88 C-6 night fighter!

Getting back to staying safe from the COVID-19 virus, I'd like to draw your attention to my post of 13th March pointing out virus survival for 14 days. Various well-meaning people preferred to accept some reports of much shorter persistence on surfaces times, including those from the WHO.
 
However today the CDC has warned https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/23/cdc-coronavirus-survived-in-princess-cruise-cabins-up-to-17-days-after-passengers-left.html
 
Recommendations for dealing with that can be found in my original post here. (Short version alcohol wipe down where possible)

Come on without,
Come on within.
You won't see nothin'
Like the Mighty Fin.

Getting back to staying safe from the COVID-19 virus, I'd like to draw your attention to my post of 13th March pointing out virus survival for 14 days. Various well-meaning people preferred to accept some reports of much shorter persistence on surfaces times, including those from the WHO.
 
However today the CDC has warned https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/23/cdc-coronavirus-survived-in-princess-cruise-cabins-up-to-17-days-after-passengers-left.html
 
Recommendations for dealing with that can be found in my original post here. (Short version alcohol wipe down where possible)

Come on without,
Come on within.
You won't see nothin'
Like the Mighty Fin.

I did have one of the BAE Warton GR.4 prototype/Demo Tornado GR.4 in the old wrap around Green and Grey scheme of the GR.1 but I can’t find it anywhere. I suspect it’s on a portable HD. I need to dig that one out and have a look at what’s on there. Lots from my early days taking photos in the Mach Loop, back when I lived at home 3 miles away from where this was taken. Most of the stuff on there is no longer flying with the RAF either. 

Come on without,
Come on within.
You won't see nothin'
Like the Mighty Fin.

Come on without,
Come on within.
You won't see nothin'
Like the Mighty Fin.

One of the problems is that your model is in danger of looking ineptly painted (by you) rather than 'authentic'.

To save Thierry rummaging around, it was a company called LMG (Laser Model Graver)
Compressor engine Rolls-Royce Pegasus
    The example is 1/48, but there was a 1/32 version (for a short time).
 
I'm looking forward to a new fan replacement. Using the Trumpeter would also remedy the fact the Revell blades are backward for the Pegasus.

An obscure company from Russia or Ukraine. I got one set from Hobbyeasy some years ago but it looks it disappeared as it came. I should have the name somewhere. 

I'm not at all sure why I'm doing this. I've already got a perfectly good and exciting challenge to hand with Alan Wilson's Icelandic big 1/32nd Bucc resin masterpiece, never mind the shelf of procrastination if not quite doom and the aftermath of a recent house move to be getting on with.
 
But whatever the reason, Revell's 1/32 Harrier hit the doorstep today (it's chunky enough to withstand the impact) and I couldn't resist a look. Mainly because of nostalgia - I first took a crack at it in 1975 - but also because of reports that it most closely resembled a P1127(RAF) and therefore is potential Kestrel source material. 
 
Does it and is it? Well, yes and no. The first disappointment is with the forward nozzle fairings which resemble nothing Harrier or predecessor like at all. I wondered if Revell had attempted some mould revision, but no. Vintage builds show the same flawed concept and execution. The red line indicates the kit contour line, with the correctly shaped fairing overlaid in black. Those corrected intake fairings will also be a lot more rectangular in cross section.

 
Built kit photos also demonstrate that perennial Revell problem of the squashed canopy. But in this case, a replacement mould can probably be made by jacking up just  the windscreen arch by a couple of mm., gluing on the hood then filling it and crash moulding or vac forming a better replacement. I'll work out the dimensions and details later because its a basic requirement that every model has the right 'face'. If you don't know what I mean by face, the squashed canopy probably doesn't bother you.
 
The intake fan is also terrible for the scale and needs some kind of enhancement. The tailplanes are of the extended tip type with the leading edge crank - correct for all but the very earliest Kestrels but easily cut to size if required, and the fin is the short version which just needs the root intake removed, the leading edge re-instated and a pitot probe added. I've read that the brass Hawk T1 probe from Master is Harrier-suitable, but from photos it looks like their L-39 Albatross type is closer to the Kestrel fin mounted one.
 
The wing will need both leading edge saw tooths (teeth?) and fences removed (although at least XV689 definitely had the outer saw tooth introduced at some stage) and also the tip beyond the outrigger fairings. Which also need to be reshaped. The vortex generators can be removed completely, the innermost one and outer six left in place or the full set left as is, depending on the evolution of your subject.
 
The undercarriage is a bit simplified as too are the cannon pods, but luckily the Kestrel doesn't need the latter, only the under fuselage strakes which are supplied and seem to fit reasonably well.
 
On balance then it's better that there is one than if there wasn't. But in 2020, an updated one would surely have been worth the effort for what is still the most efficient and innovative VTOL aircraft seen so far.

I'm not at all sure why I'm doing this. I've already got a perfectly good and exciting challenge to hand with Alan Wilson's Icelandic big 1/32nd Bucc resin masterpiece, never mind the shelf of procrastination if not quite doom and the aftermath of a recent house move to be getting on with.
 
But whatever the reason, Revell's 1/32 Harrier hit the doorstep today (it's chunky enough to withstand the impact) and I couldn't resist a look. Mainly because of nostalgia - I first took a crack at it in 1975 - but also because of reports that it most closely resembled a P1127(RAF) and therefore is potential Kestrel source material. 
 
Does it and is it? Well, yes and no. The first disappointment is with the forward nozzle fairings which resemble nothing Harrier or predecessor like at all. I wondered if Revell had attempted some mould revision, but no. Vintage builds show the same flawed concept and execution. The red line indicates the kit contour line, with the correctly shaped fairing overlaid in black. Those corrected intake fairings will also be a lot more rectangular in cross section.

 
Built kit photos also demonstrate that perennial Revell problem of the squashed canopy. But in this case, a replacement mould can probably be made by jacking up just  the windscreen arch by a couple of mm., gluing on the hood then filling it and crash moulding or vac forming a better replacement. I'll work out the dimensions and details later because its a basic requirement that every model has the right 'face'. If you don't know what I mean by face, the squashed canopy probably doesn't bother you.
 
The intake fan is also terrible for the scale and needs some kind of enhancement. The tailplanes are of the extended tip type with the leading edge crank - correct for all but the very earliest Kestrels but easily cut to size if required, and the fin is the short version which just needs the root intake removed, the leading edge re-instated and a pitot probe added. I've read that the brass Hawk T1 probe from Master is Harrier-suitable, but from photos it looks like their L-39 Albatross type is closer to the Kestrel fin mounted one.
 
The wing will need both leading edge saw tooths (teeth?) and fences removed (although at least XV689 definitely had the outer saw tooth introduced at some stage) and also the tip beyond the outrigger fairings. Which also need to be reshaped. The vortex generators can be removed completely, the innermost one and outer six left in place or the full set left as is, depending on the evolution of your subject.
 
The undercarriage is a bit simplified as too are the cannon pods, but luckily the Kestrel doesn't need the latter, only the under fuselage strakes which are supplied and seem to fit reasonably well.
 
On balance then it's better that there is one than if there wasn't. But in 2020, an updated one would surely have been worth the effort for what is still the most efficient and innovative VTOL aircraft seen so far.

Thanks for that Charles. It seems like I have deflected you off your Bucc path!! Apologies for that. I have a P.1127 (RAF) in build for the last 3 or 4 years. I am scratch building a cockpit and ground to a halt whilst realising I'd got the angle of the HUD unit relative to the instrument panel wrong and also running out of steam making straps for the seat! Fortunately I can carry on in due course, hopefully before someone produces an accurate tin wing Harrier and then I have another 3 to produce a GR3, T2 and FRS1. Not ambitious at all! With the P.1127(RAF) you have to be very precise about which airframe because, for one thing, the number of vortex generators changed! I will now follow your trials and tribulations with interest because I definitely need to know how to do it! Keep going!!
Simon

I'm not at all sure why I'm doing this. I've already got a perfectly good and exciting challenge to hand with Alan Wilson's Icelandic big 1/32nd Bucc resin masterpiece, never mind the shelf of procrastination if not quite doom and the aftermath of a recent house move to be getting on with.
 
But whatever the reason, Revell's 1/32 Harrier hit the doorstep today (it's chunky enough to withstand the impact) and I couldn't resist a look. Mainly because of nostalgia - I first took a crack at it in 1975 - but also because of reports that it most closely resembled a P1127(RAF) and therefore is potential Kestrel source material. 
 
Does it and is it? Well, yes and no. The first disappointment is with the forward nozzle fairings which resemble nothing Harrier or predecessor like at all. I wondered if Revell had attempted some mould revision, but no. Vintage builds show the same flawed concept and execution. The red line indicates the kit contour line, with the correctly shaped fairing overlaid in black. Those corrected intake fairings will also be a lot more rectangular in cross section.

 
Built kit photos also demonstrate that perennial Revell problem of the squashed canopy. But in this case, a replacement mould can probably be made by jacking up just  the windscreen arch by a couple of mm., gluing on the hood then filling it and crash moulding or vac forming a better replacement. I'll work out the dimensions and details later because its a basic requirement that every model has the right 'face'. If you don't know what I mean by face, the squashed canopy probably doesn't bother you.
 
The intake fan is also terrible for the scale and needs some kind of enhancement. The tailplanes are of the extended tip type with the leading edge crank - correct for all but the very earliest Kestrels but easily cut to size if required, and the fin is the short version which just needs the root intake removed, the leading edge re-instated and a pitot probe added. I've read that the brass Hawk T1 probe from Master is Harrier-suitable, but from photos it looks like their L-39 Albatross type is closer to the Kestrel fin mounted one.
 
The wing will need both leading edge saw tooths (teeth?) and fences removed (although at least XV689 definitely had the outer saw tooth introduced at some stage) and also the tip beyond the outrigger fairings. Which also need to be reshaped. The vortex generators can be removed completely, the innermost one and outer six left in place or the full set left as is, depending on the evolution of your subject.
 
The undercarriage is a bit simplified as too are the cannon pods, but luckily the Kestrel doesn't need the latter, only the under fuselage strakes which are supplied and seem to fit reasonably well.
 
On balance then it's better that there is one than if there wasn't. But in 2020, an updated one would surely have been worth the effort for what is still the most efficient and innovative VTOL aircraft seen so far.

I was looking at that model and idly thinking a foiled 1/32 Hustler on such a stand with watchmaker engineering quality motorised retracting and extending landing gear could very well be the 'executive' toy I'll commission when I inherit a fortune from a hitheto unknown rich relative. Pretty sure I could watch that for hours.
 

Consequence of the wing 4%  thickness ratio in action. And that's with an added bulged fairing overwing.
Although similar could be said of the Victor and Vulcan undercarriages' multi wheel bogies, which weren't quite so dimensionally constrained

Thanks for that Tim.
 
Interesting details to be scavenged from it, such as the 'Harrier hump' over the engine bay being on XS688 at Farnborough in Sept '64 while XS695 definitely had it while with the TES until at least '66. Yet while at Culdrose in the photo from Feb. '87 in the faux FAA scheme, it had been retro-fitted with the P1127 flat spine. The hump has been restored now '695's on display at Cosford.
 
I'm sure there's even more to be extracted.