Hobby Master Harrier

[muesingman]

Originally Posted by Aeolus

Just curious how RAF has anything to do related to producing targeting pods or weapons. How can RAF be worried over one company producing Sniper pod in miniature, they do not hold intellectual rights nor their reproduction in scale presents any breach of security whatsoever.

They are not worried about a possible violation of trademark rights or something like that. But someone at RAF Cottesmore and/or the MoD really still seems to believe that he might open Pandora´s box when allowing HM to do these pods because they´re suuuuuch a secret... how narrow-minded can one be?

Originally Posted by gary ford

You can show all the pictures you want, and quote MoD websites all you want, but it is still NO.

Production of the Pods as some have stated is not a problem, but again we contacted RAF Cottesmore and its NO.

Until the RAF/MoD give Tiger Hobbies permission to get HM to do these Pods it is still NO.

We live in a free country and you do not have to buy this model, or you can buy the model and then buy the resin Pods paint them and put them on your model. But at this time its NO from Tiger Hobbies.

Well... I will NOT buy this model then. As a free man in a free country, You may put the blame for this on the RAF/MoD.

[Aeolus]

Even if we go that far to blame RAF/MoD-which in my opinion is a blatant lie or more midely put convenient excuse, there is more than enough data to produce one, especially in 72nd scale if HM wanted to.

[highnoon1966]

Why do HM need RAF/MOD approval to produce something to which the intellectual copyright resides with a US company?

After all we do live in a free country

[Dakota]

I for one am just happy with the fine collection of models that I have and would rather spend the time enjoying them than worrying about this!

If the pod and other stores can be supplied in the future all well and good but otherwise it won't stop me from buying the models that appeal to me.

Each to their own but life's to short. Hay guys "don't worry, be happy!!!"

[gary1701]

All,

Ok, if I'm following this right then, it is now accepted that for Hobbymaster to design and produce the SNIPER pod from reference material independent from the RAF is no longer considered a problem. The real issue being that the RAF would prefer that was not done, and would not directly help in doing so, and that Hobbymaster would prefer not to go and do one on it's own as they're afraid it might jeopardize future co-operation. Would that be a accurate summing up of the problem here?

If that actually is what has happened, then to be fair, I can understand Hobbymaster's decision on that point. Clearly, applying OPSEC to the plastic reproduction of the SNIPER in that scale on a Harrier is absurd. But the MoD's track record (espically in the public/press relations side of things) on common sense is hardly reassuring so I can unfortunately imagine somebody not in the know just saying 'no' to play it safe.

However, that doesn't explain why this has only come to light now and also does it apply to any other kit the MoD use? I'm not a prolific poster here, but have followed the Harrier thread throughout with interest. Ever since the first model came out the stores required for a 'Afghanistan' jet have frequently been discussed here and information freely provided - along with plea's (including mine!) to please get it right, espically after it was known that a 'Afghanistan' bird was being developed.

I don't know the in's and out's of who here works for who in the industry, but there were requests for information and for errors visible in the development pics to be pointed out, but as I've also seen posted in exasperation by others before many times, if you ask, and then get, for crying out loud, use the info provided. That goes back to my original point a few posts back.

So you want to do a 'Afghan' jet but have decided that you can't use SNIPER, right don't keep that under wraps (I assume that the no SNIPER rule itself wasn't OPSEC!), ask the membership for help...easy! How about TIALD? It's largely been replaced by the SNIPER on 'ops' now, but the model is toted as a 2008 model anyway. Infact there's some decent pics out there of ZD461 - complete with mission marks - toting TIALD, CRV-7s and 540lb free-fall bombs. If you can do Brimstone, then the other stuff above shouldn't be to difficult, and you wouldn't have needed to waste resources on Brimstone anyway - unless you're planning on a Tornado in the near future! If the RAF/MoD get uppity over any of that kit, then come back and say so, and we'll work something else out. I assume it's too late for this one now, but if another UK Harrier is planned, use the resources out there.

Gary

[planejunky]

Absolutely, and the TIALD has been modelled in 1/72nd by airfix already!

I do recall many years ago that the Royal Navy prohibited kit manufacturers from making models of their ships, again citing security. Again this was laughable as any decent Janes Naval edition would give the Russians more info than any model kit ever could!

[von hitchofen]

if its really that hard to do a Op. Herrick Harrier correctly without offending the JFH scrambled egg brigade, why bother to do one at all

talk about a PR own-goal, quibbling over something so minor as a targeting pod....

will Terry Taliban get hold a 1/72 HM Harrier and reverse engineer it

why not bash out a dark-green Cold War Laarbruch/Gutersloh GR-5 3 Squadron Hoverjet instead?

or did the RAF hang something on them that is someone else's intellectual property?

sheesh

[gary ford]

We released HA2601 and raised £2000.00 for the RAF Benevolent fund, and the main reason for the release of HA2604 is the same reason but this time with the co-operation of RAF Cottesmore. I dont care how many on the forum will buy this model or will not buy this model, but it will be bought by lots of folks who will buy it for the right reason, as a tribute to the personnel from the Harrier force who did their bit in Afganhistan from 2006 to 2009.

Yes we presented 48 of HA2601 to RAF Cottesmore and a number of the new models again will be presented.

We are not using the RAF as an excuse for not doing these pods. If we are given access to do detailed work on the Pods to master these and we are given permission by the RAF I am sure HM will do them.

[Skip24]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I for one am just happy with the fine collection of models that I have and would rather spend the time enjoying them than worrying about this!

If the pod and other stores can be supplied in the future all well and good but otherwise it won't stop me from buying the models that appeal to me.

Each to their own but life's to short. Hay guys "don't worry, be happy!!!"

Hear, hear, hear !!!!!!!!.
Just one point, producing a finished replica to the high standards that we have come to expect relies to a great extent on access to the subject, technical information and co-operation. So, regardless of the rationale, if you are told no and then ignore or circumvent the restriction.......what happens to future co-operation and access ?

[planejunky]

Well I think we could sit here all day arguing about this one, and frankly we'd get nowhere as I think the underlaying message towards the collector is coming through loud and clear.

Suffice to say I'm bitterly dissapointed with this, but somehow unsurprised as the collector of modern military subjects has been let down on so many occasions, so why was this ever going to be any different?

[von hitchofen]

Originally Posted by gary ford

We released HA2601 and raised £2000.00 for the RAF Benevolent fund, and the main reason for the release of HA2604 is the same reason but this time with the co-operation of RAF Cottesmore. I dont care how many on the forum will buy this model or will not buy this model, but it will be bought by lots of folks who will buy it for the right reason, as

I'm happy there will be a charitable element to HA2604 and I hope you shift all of them and make double that, but the people on this thread, and the forum in general priorities are
1 is it accurate?
2 do I like it?

you can understand why people are disappointed that the release will be a curates egg from the get-go, good in parts but a missed opportunity

any others factors probably don't even come in third

I for one, am not fussed either way as my HA2601 is displayed without stores [a butterfly flaps its wings on the North York Moors and a store drops off]

but would I buy HA2604.....probably not

roll on the deep green RAFG GR5

[planejunky]

Originally Posted by von hitchofen

.......roll on the deep green RAFG GR5

Bring it on!!! Though I reckon it would end up with the current BOL rails that weren't even invented back then!

[Shawn 507]

I'm still getting the model. I can get the extra pods and modify it myself, if I care that much. But I doubt it.
I think Gary Ford has his intentions in the right place, raising money for the fund.
And I seriously doubt those who flew in the Stan would be all that upset over the lack of pods ( yes there might be one or two who snivel).
In fact, they would probably echo the comments about OPSEC and the idiots who see evil everywhere.
In the end though, those guys will be pleased that someone actually made something to honor their service.

[jay]

This will be the first harrier i'll buy. It looks good to me, and the 'what it has, or has not got slung under the wing' debate passes me by. Obviously, i'm not a rivet counter, and i do kinda understand it from their point of view, so i can't be too much of a perfectionist, however, the plane itself looks right, and if it looks right......

[gary1701]

Gents,

I picked up a example of the new USMC AV-8B(NA) model at the Waddington show, which is the first model of the US non-radar variant, as the two previous releases were AV-8B+'s.

I thought I'd put up a couple of pics as well as my opinion of it, espically as I had quite strong opinions on the forthcoming new RAF version recently. Overall, I do like the Hobbymaster Harrier II, as I think it shows the complex lines of this version quite well. The model depicts a special colour scheme from 1999, and I can only find pics of that aircraft recently and after a transfer to another unit and back to a normal tail.

I think it's the first USMC model fitted with the GAU-12 cannon pods, I only have one of the previous two versions so cannot be sure. It looks like you cannot display it on the stand with the pods fitted though, although personally that's not a problem, and they do look good. You get the same stores as the other USMC version (LITENING/GBU-12), but also a pair of standard iron bombs (Mk82's) which was a good call by somebody as I don't think the above stuff from the other version is applicable in the late 1990's. But, the best bit is you get four fuel tanks, which the instructions suggest are to be paired off with the other stuff, but you can also display a Harrier in the four tank, ferry configuration - brilliant, as it looks good like that, even if not actually what Hobbymaster intended.

It's a nice model, the only quality control issue being that the GPS aerial was glued on the wrong way, but that was easily fixed. For the first time in three models, I've finally got my fuel tanks glued onto the pylons straight - all four of them! Overall, lovely, and shows what can be done when somebody decides to apply the finishing touch's correctly, which makes what has happened with the next one even more frustrating!





Gary

[von hitchofen]

all it needs is Arnie Schwartzenegger flying it, Eliza Dushku holding onto the nose and Art Malik hanging from that Sidewinder [True Lies]