Trumpeter 1/32 AV-8B Harrier review - The beginning

[thierry laurent]

The FRS1 is also my favourite Harrier variant. Unfortunately, it would be easier to release a full kit rather than converting the AV-8B.

 

Indeed, the Trumpy fuselage parts would need tweaking at the level of the wing root to be re-used. And except the front and main LG parts and the AIM-9L all other parts would need modifications. This does not mean that they won't release first gen Harrier but the more I look at the parts, the more I believe they cut the tail and nose area to possibly release a TAV-8B rather than the GR1/3-AV-8A/C-FRS1/FA2 family.

 

Currently the best approach to create a Sea Harrier asks for the old Revell kit, the FRS1 vac conversion kit from Tigger and a lot of Milliput...

 

A reduced copy of the flightpath 1/24 photoetched set is also a good way to be helped to scratchbuild the pit and other missing details.

 

I'm considering this job for years and have accumulated all the abovementioned parts as well as tons of scale plans and reference books but I'm a little bit scared by the amount of time necessary to end such a project ... Last but not least, I've no doubt one will be finally released as the plane is not very large and would be an ideal candidate for a 1/32 release...

[Derek B]

The FRS1 is also my favourite Harrier variant. Unfortunately, it would be easier to release a full kit rather than converting the AV-8B.

 

Indeed, the Trumpy fuselage parts would need tweaking at the level of the wing root to be re-used. And except the front and main LG parts and the AIM-9L all other parts would need modifications. This does not mean that they won't release first gen Harrier but the more I look at the parts, the more I believe they cut the tail and nose area to possibly release a TAV-8B rather than the GR1/3-AV-8A/C-FRS1/FA2 family.

 

Currently the best approach to create a Sea Harrier asks for the old Revell kit, the FRS1 vac conversion kit from Tigger and a lot of Milliput...

 

A reduced copy of the flightpath 1/24 photoetched set is also a good way to be helped to scratchbuild the pit and other missing details.

 

I'm considering this job for years and have accumulated all the abovementioned parts as well as tons of scale plans and reference books but I'm a little bit scared by the amount of time necessary to end such a project ... Last but not least, I've no doubt one will be finally released as the plane is not very large and would be an ideal candidate for a 1/32 release...

 

Thierry,

 

I think that trying to convert a Harrier II into a first generation Harrier I is pretty well a non-starter, as they differ so much (it's not impossible to cross-kit a Harrier I and II, but will require an enormous amount of potential work, as you have already alluded to). However, I think that you are correct about using the elderly Revell GR.1 as a basis for a Sea Harrier. Most Harrier kits these days have very similar kit parts breakdown, i.e. seperate nose parts, etc. I am sure that one day, a major model company will produce an accurate first generation Harrier/Sea Harrier, but in the meantime, I have a few Revell ones awaiting re-work into master patterns for both Harrier types.

 

Derek

[Dave Roof]

Hi Dave Roof,

 

Please keep your comments on the Trumpeter Harrier (early version) comming. I will be meeting with Trumpeter executives this week at the IPMS Philippines National Contest in Manila and we will be discussing thse discrepancies. The gun pod error will definately be changed. See photo

 

Also please note that when we reviewed the test shot of this kit earlier this year the weapons were not included. When I recieved my kit two days ago this was the first time I had seen the weapons.

 

Also be advised that this kit is the first of four Harrier kits Trumpeter will do. Next up will be the night attack version, then the B plus, then the GR-7. Whatever discrepancies noted in this kit will be corrected in the future kits.

 

Capt Dave Mason

IPMS Philippines

IPMS USA

 

Mr. Mason,

 

Please let them know that I am prepared to help in any way I can. I have over 2000 photos of the Harrier, all of the technical publications, and measurements of the real aircraft.

 

I am also an Aviation Ordnanceman in the Marine Corps and have extensive knowledge of the ordnance being used today by the Marine Corps. As this has been one of Trumpeter's weak spots, I am willing to assist them in this area as well.

 

I had other commitments last night, so will continue the review this evening. Thank you for assisting in getting this information to Trumpeter.

 

Dave

[jbrundt]

Yeah, it definitely 'looks' like a Harrier, but there are a lot of issues with it. Honestly, it looks like they rushed it just to get it out and cut a lot of corners on details.

 

 

Rushed it?!

 

They've been working on it for the last 5+ years!

 

You would think that would be more than enough time.

 

Jeff

[Dave Roof]

Rushed it?!

 

They've been working on it for the last 5+ years!

 

You would think that would be more than enough time.

 

Jeff

 

Let me clarify........Think of it as that model you started building for a contest......two years before the contest was being held. You worked on it a little bit at a time, 3 hours here, 30 minutes there, etc. This goes on for months, then before you know it, the contest is a week away and you still have a lot of work to do! So, you burn the midnight oil and rush to finish it in time to enter. It's during this time that a few mistakes are made that compromise all of the awesome work done the previous two years.

 

This is what I feel happened with the Harrier.....they put a lot of work into it and were making progress. Before they knew it, years had passed and someone finally said, "Hey, we really need to release this kit". In the rush to just get it done and out, they made a lot of mistakes.

 

This is obviously just a gut feeling and I fully admit that this may be completely off base. It is just the impression I get from looking at the kit as a whole.

 

I hope that makes sense!

 

Dave

[Jack]

Let me clarify........Think of it as that model you started building for a contest......two years before the contest was being held. You worked on it a little bit at a time, 3 hours here, 30 minutes there, etc. This goes on for months, then before you know it, the contest is a week away and you still have a lot of work to do! So, you burn the midnight oil and rush to finish it in time to enter. It's during this time that a few mistakes are made that compromise all of the awesome work done the previous two years.

 

This is what I feel happened with the Harrier.....they put a lot of work into it and were making progress. Before they knew it, years had passed and someone finally said, "Hey, we really need to release this kit". In the rush to just get it done and out, they made a lot of mistakes.

 

This is obviously just a gut feeling and I fully admit that this may be completely off base. It is just the impression I get from looking at the kit as a whole.

 

I hope that makes sense!

 

Dave

 

Dave, i didn't see the kit yet, but i think you might be dead right on your assumptions, considering your theory on how things develop and eventually turn out to be "murderous" on the subject.

I myself encountered some of these reflections and "actions" that proved to be counter productive in the end, and i could just kick myself for not having more patience and/or time to get it done properly.......

Well, anyhow, i'm going to buy the kit and see to it'll turn out in a "reasonable" representation of the Harrier in the end.

 

Jack

[Dave Roof]

Before going into the fuselage, I'll cover the ordnance pylons. This will get all of the 'hanging' stuff out of the way.

 

For the most part, the pylons are OK. Unfortunately, the inboard and outboard pylons suffer in a couple of areas. The outboard and middle also have their profiles off a bit and most of the details are incorrect.

 

The inboard pylons have notches (for lack of a better term) at the aft-bottom ends that are not on the real pylons. However, these can easily be fixed by filling the void with sheet plastic and sanding to shape. The orange lines in the photo show how the pylon should be.

 

As you can see by the dimensions listed, the outboard pylon is the only one that is really screwed up, being almost a scale foot too short! They got the inboard pylon within a scale half inch and the middle pylon by 1.5 scale inches.......how they managed to get the outboard a scale foot too short is beyond me.

 

Also, Trumpeter did not include a centerline pylon.

 

Along with the photo of the kit parts, I have also included photos of the real pylons.

 

 

 

Inboard:

 

 

Middle:

 

 

Outboard:

[Dave Roof]

In this next update, I'll cover the nose section. When I first saw the test shots and the subsequent build ups, it looked to me as if the nose cone was a little too bulbous. After receiving the kit and being able to get a better look at the parts, I was able to confirm that this is indeed the case.

 

Oddly enough though, a particular part of the kit nose matches the real nose measurement wise.

 

On the real aircraft, measured along the centerline of the nose cone, the distance from the nose cone hinge line to the ARBS glass is 47 inches.

On the kit, the distance from the nose cone hinge line to the ARBS glass is just shy of 47 scale inches. It just has the wrong profile, making the whole nose section look odd.

 

Also, the small antenna on the upper nose cone is in the wrong location, making the nose look even more odd.

On the real aircraft, the distance from the nose cone hinge line to the aft edge of the antenna is 14 inches.

On the kit, the distance from the nose cone hinge line to the aft edge of the antenna is 23 scale inches.

 

In the photo below, I have added an outline of what the nose should look like (bear in mind that the drawing is not exact, but provided as a visual aid). A photo of the nose cone on the AV-8B at Cherry Point is also included. While it is slightly open, it also shows the correct profile of the nose.

 

Most of the panel lines are also off (slightly) and there are two details that should be flush with the fuselage. These areas are noted in the attached photo.

 

 

[Pfuf]

Greet Pictures thx for the detail explenation on the detail. save pic's lol

 

johan

[DavidJMason]

Mr. Mason,

 

Please let them know that I am prepared to help in any way I can. I have over 2000 photos of the Harrier, all of the technical publications, and measurements of the real aircraft.

 

I am also an Aviation Ordnanceman in the Marine Corps and have extensive knowledge of the ordnance being used today by the Marine Corps. As this has been one of Trumpeter's weak spots, I am willing to assist them in this area as well.

 

I had other commitments last night, so will continue the review this evening. Thank you for assisting in getting this information to Trumpeter.

 

Dave

 

Hi Dave,

 

Thanks for the offer to help. They will have the test shot of the night attack varriant available soon. Could you email me a private message and give me your mailing address. I could FedEx you a test shot as soon as they give me one. When I first saw the test shot I pointed out about 50 descrepancies that needed to be corrected. They corrected most of them but a few got by. I never did see the weapons until recently so I never critiqued them. I would have certainly cought the gun pod mistake. Please believe me that Trumpeter is very committed to getting it right. If a mistake has been made they will correct it.

 

Stay in touch,

 

Dave Mason

davidmasonmd11capt@yahoo.com

[thierry laurent]

Dave,

 

I've one specific question regarding the outboard pylon: Is it globally underscaled or is there a problem with one of its sections?

[Barry]

Great stuff Dave!

 

Barry

[Barry]

Dave,

 

I've one specific question regarding the outboard pylon: Is it globally underscaled or is there a problem with one of its sections?

 

Also Dave this pylon appears to be very limited as to what gets hung on it.

It does not look like it has the same Weapon Release Rack as the Inboard and Center.

 

Barry

[Dave Roof]

Dave,

 

I've one specific question regarding the outboard pylon: Is it globally underscaled or is there a problem with one of its sections?

 

 

The outboard pylon is too short, too tall and has the wrong profile overall. In fact, after taking a closer look at all three pylons, they all have the wrong profile. There are three possible solutions:

 

1. Hopefully, with the assistance of Mr. Mason, I'm going to attempt to persuade Trumpeter to retool them (unlikely due to cost, but you never know).

 

2. I'm going to master new parts for a resin update set (either released through Orion after I retire, or sold to another company that may be interested).

 

3. The modeler can leave them as is, as they don't take that much away from the overall appearance of the finished model. The nose is the only major item that throws the look off.

 

Dave

[Dave Roof]

Also Dave this pylon appears to be very limited as to what gets hung on it.

It does not look like it has the same Weapon Release Rack as the Inboard and Center.

 

Barry

 

Barry,

 

When the LAU-7 is attached, the BRU-36 bomb rack (the same rack used on the middle and inboard pylons) is replaced with what's called a BRRU (Bomb Rack Replacement Unit).

 

With the LAU-7 removed, the BRU-36 can be installed and single stores can be carried there.

 

Dave