| Welcome to 72nd Aircraft. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| SHAR FA.2; Corrections to Airfix or...? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 27 2012, 04:47 PM (1,107 Views) | |
| larrygre | Jul 27 2012, 04:47 PM Post #1 |
|
Hero
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Everyone, What would be the best way to do a SHAR FA.2? 1. The recent Airfix kit - besides the panel lines that look like the Matchbox trenchdigger's last revenge, what needs serious correction? or 2. Hasegawa SHAR FRS.1 with Heritage Aviation resin conversion set. Thanks, all. |
|
Cheers, Larry "Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic." -- attributed to Dave Barry | |
![]() |
|
| Seahawk | Jul 27 2012, 06:40 PM Post #2 |
|
Beast
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Visually the reason for my hatred of the Airfix Sea Harrier FRS.1 and FA.2 kits is that the cockpit is a sort of slightly modified GR.3 cockpit rather than the properly raised Sea Harrier cockpit with bubble canopy. However I've seen a long list of errors, some with corrections, by Nick Greenhall, presiding genius of the IPMS Sea Harrier SIG which suggests there's a lot more wrong with it as well eg the underfuselage strake is too big. (The summary paragraph begins: "I really wanted to like this kit but...".) Unfortunately I am not a member of said SIG so don't have the list of corrections to hand. Personally I suspect that a corrected canopy and windscreen would make it cosmetically acceptable. When it comes to the FA.2, the most noticeable change is the new radome. The Airfix offering is an odd shape, bulging out to bulge in again just ahead of the attachment point. This can of course be corrected with a file but an alternative is to buy the Odds and Ordnance 1/72 Hunter T.8M conversion, which includes a better shaped FA.2 radome as a "bonus" (see OAO72030. Disregard the "coming soon": it's been available since last year's IPMS Nats at least). http://www.oddsandordnance.co.uk/index.asp?pageid=161038 Were I doing a Sea Harrier FA.2, I would start from an ESCI/Italeri kit and use the O&O radome, though of course there's more to it than that (wing dogtooth, rear fuselage extension, pitot tube on fin). Or you could equally well use the Hasegawa Sea Harrier, since the new FA.2 radome will remove the most inaccurate part of that kit: the too-short radome. No experience of the Heritage conversion set, I'm afraid, but it would have to be pretty awful not to be worse than the Airfix kit. |
![]() |
|
| walrus | Jul 27 2012, 09:00 PM Post #3 |
|
Porco
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Larry, the article was pretty much put on Britmodeller IIRC The Airfix Shar2 isn't as bad as the FRS1. Nick didn't slate it as much as the Shar1. Maybe he ran out of energy! A couple of books came out around that time and they were not up to the mark either :lol: The most noticeable thing is the radome. That is easily sorted with sanding or AM replacements Panel lines are better except for some reason the access panels on the nose section Didn't take a lot of notice of the release tbh, so I don't recall the issue of the raised shar cockpit. will try and find some articles Edit: The Britmodeller article deals more with the colour notes but still may be of interest: http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.p...pic=43158&st=20 |
|
Paul from Birmingham, UK Now living in Barnsley. | |
![]() |
|
| Dave Fleming | Jul 30 2012, 07:32 PM Post #4 |
|
Beast
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The main issues I have with it are: (i) Nose radome is wrong (ii) canopy is too flat (iii) The lower rear fuselage shape is woeful. As for the heritage set, it's OK, but requires a biot of work. I used the Italeri/ESCI version as I prefer the ESCI kit. Biggest issue for that was that the fuselage insert needed a lot of filler to fit properly. |
|
IPMS UK Harrier SIG http://harriersig.org.uk/ | |
![]() |
|
| walrus | Jul 30 2012, 07:58 PM Post #5 |
|
Porco
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There's always the Xtrakit kit Blast where is that sofa when you need it. |
|
Paul from Birmingham, UK Now living in Barnsley. | |
![]() |
|
| Glen44444 | Aug 1 2012, 04:20 AM Post #6 |
|
Beast
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Talking of the Xtrakit FA-2, I've heard there is a lot wrong with it but as I have one, can someone be a bit more specific. :wacko: |
|
Glen P (The Braille scale old Fart) Then a big Turkish shell knocked me arse over ead, an when I awoke in me ospital bed, an seen what it'd done I whished I was dead, never new there were worse things than dyin. Eric Bogle. | |
![]() |
|
| peebeep | Aug 1 2012, 12:46 PM Post #7 |
|
Lots Of Trouble Usually Serious
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
As I understand it the challenge of the Xtrakit SHAR is to actually persuade it to go together.
peebeep |
|
www.locate-and-cement.com Locate and Cement website RevellAtions Bring me my chariot of fire Paul Brown, Chelmsford, UK
| |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · Help, I'm about to start... · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)



7:35 PM Jul 11