Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Navy Bird

1:72 Scale Resin Blackburn Buccaneer S.Mk.1

Recommended Posts

On 8/16/2016 at 17:28, general melchett said:

Apparently they were Bill, according to the 700Z Flight S1 evaluation section of March 1961 in the Modern Combat Aircraft 7 'Buccaneer' book by Maurice Allward.

Also hunting through old reference magazines I found this photo of an S1 with the brown intake cones, clearly shows what appears to be the same colour extending back inside the intake,

Here's a scan,

<snip>

 

Thanks, Andy. I expected that to be the case.

 

Oddly, though, such a type-defining seat arrangement is not designed into the S.1 kit, nor was it designed into the previous S.2 kit from CMR. The ejection seats just fit between the consoles, and the consoles align front to back. If you remove the resin detail on one side of the lower seat frames, left side for the front seat and right side for the rear, you can stage the seats with an offset. It doesn't have to be much, as the actual offset was only two inches either side of centreline. That's about 1.5 mm in 1:72 scale.

 

Cheers,

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem Bill, even though the offset was as you say only two inches apparently it made quite a difference to the observers field of forward vision and the overall situational awareness of both crewmen. I'm a bit surprised it hasn't been incorporated into the kit after all the research that's been done as even in 1/72nd it would be noticeable that the seats aren't in alignment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having been fortunate enough to fly in the back seat of a Buccaneer I can qualify that the view forward on the right hand side for the observer is pretty good. It also means that you can observe and call the blow gauges on take off and landing for the pilot as a back up check. Needed to make sure they did not drop below 20lb/sq inch on both gauges as I remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great start Bill, the S.1 is often overlooked in favour of the later mark. As an aside a friend of mine in the village who's help with my 1/24th S.2 has been invaluable flew the S.1 on a couple of occasions whilst carrying out pre delivery testing at Holme-on-Spalding Moor and said he actually preferred the handling of the earlier mark at the time as the single spool Gyrons reacted faster than the twin spooled Speys due to the LP compressor lag. This was something that the FAA chaps had to get used to pretty quickly particularly on final approach, on the other hand the Spey's extra power meant you didn't have to worry about landing back aboard if one of the engines decided to pack up.

Funnily enough I was looking over the S.1 at Newark the other day with a mind to get one of these. I've heard good things about the kit so look forward to seeing what you do with it...

I have chatted to a number of FAA pilots who likewise said the S.1 was a better aircraft to fly (apart from take off) not least as the area rule calculations were carried out on the S.1 design and did not change when the S.2 came along with the bigger intakes and the necessary airframe changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point Colin, the S.1 took a lot of pushing and shoving from the Gyron Juniors to get the thing shifting but when airborne it flew beautifully, (once they'd ironed out a few issues including the low speed aileron roll inertia coupling and the excessive snaking/ vibration of the tailplane solved by fitting the large tailplane/fin junction bullet). I particularly like the comment from one unit commander when asked about take off performance said, it was all 'Adequately exciting and events were frequent enough to avoid a feeling of boredom', typical British reserve. Things changed a bit with the S.2.

Another odd problem with the S.1 was that of the tail skid routinely hitting the catapult shuttle during launch only solved by modifying both the unit and the shuttle....

Back to you Bill...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CMR themselves mention that the Buccaneer kit is able to replicate the seats offset, here http://www.blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk/Pages3_files/Model_Directory-cmr_files/0_cmr.html

' — The modeller can accurately 'offset' the two Ejector Seats 2-inches either side of the cockpit centreline if wished
(front seat 0.7mm to port; rear seat 0.7mm to starboard). '

Edited by 71chally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2016 at 08:57, 71chally said:

CMR themselves mention that the Buccaneer kit is able to replicate the seats offset, here http://www.blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk/Pages3_files/Model_Directory-cmr_files/0_cmr.html

' — The modeller can accurately 'offset' the two Ejector Seats 2-inches either side of the cockpit centreline if wished

(front seat 0.7mm to port; rear seat 0.7mm to starboard). '

 

Yes, they include that statement in the instructions for the S.2 kit, but it's not present in the S.1 instructions. Although their comment is technically correct, they don't say how you can do it. You have to modify the seats, it can't be done with the parts as they are. I have photos of this issue at my S.2 WIP.

 

Sanding sticks at the ready! :)

 

Cheers,

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

apologies, just responding to your earlier post where you mentioned that the feature didn't seem to be designed in to the S.2 kit.

At least you get the option I guess, but miniscule in that scale, in fact I think I've probably off set seats in other kits by more than that - by accident!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I'd take a photo that shows the issue with the lack of offset in the bang seats. Here is the in-progress cockpit with the resin seats and you can see that they are a pretty tight fit to the cockpit side consoles, and that they are both on centreline.

 

IMG_0602

 

I don't want to make this out to be a big deal, because it's not. It was a very easy fix on the S.2, and I expect the same with the S.1.

 

Now, about that cockpit - I've begun to detail it but I decided to use decals instead of painting all of the knobs and switches, etc. Why? Because I'm stupid, probably. At this stage, the cockpit tub has only two pieces of photoetch, the Blue Parrot radar screen and the Blue Jacket thingamajig. Everything else is a decal, and there are probably 15 or so individual decals so far (including the controls on the upper fuselage sidewalls) that I cut out of spare sheets trying to match the photos. Some of the decals were like 1 x 2 mm. Hey, I told you I was stupid.

 

IMG_0604

 

IMG_0603

 

IMG_0605

 

I didn't remove any cast in detail on the controls, as I wanted the decals to have a 3-D look. I've been using Future to snuggle them down and it worked OK. It looks so much better in real life - these magnified photos don't do it justice.

 

The instrument panel is all photoetch, and also looks much better in real life. Remember these photoetch pieces had to be re-painted to match the cockpit, having originally arrived in Interior Grey Green. I think I wasn't holding the camera too steady either. Crap, I see some Grey Green that I missed! Oh well, you can't see it with your eyeballs.

 

IMG_0608

 

Anyway, it's still a work in progress. I'm also working on the exhausts, as I want to arrange it so they can go in after the fuselage halves are together. This means I need a bulkhead so they don't push through to the bomb bay! CMR provide a ridge on the bottom fuselage that is a "stop" for the exhaust cans, but I don't trust it. I think the cans could get past it, especially if they were at an angle when being installed.

 

Cheers,

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cockpit looks very impressive, Bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lovely work there. Sounds a bit gash but could you tilt the seat bases slightly to give the effect of the offset?

Re the intakes, here's an image of the XN957 at FAAM, to me the intake looks a dull metal colour.

It's not a great image but I've uploaded full rez so that it can be zoomed in on

28435891003_d1d406bc50_c.jpgBuccaneer S.1 XN957 30 Oct 09 by James Thomas, on Flickr

I'm due to visit again, can always poke a camera down there, but you will have probably progressed by then!

Have you choosen a particular scheme yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking good Bill and I`ll be following you closely on this one! My claim to fame on this kit is that I provided the slide for the box artwork and helped a bit with some schemes!

I have always wanted to model a Bucc S.1 but unfortunately the upper and lower fuselage parts of my kit do not match at all and while trying to bend the bottom one into a more fitting shape using hot water I accidentally ripped/cracked the fuselage,......so the kit has been set aside for now while I think about what to do next! Bum!

Good luck with yours mate,

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice 'pit Bill - the decals look really effective. Are they Mike Grant's?

Ooo, look at the lovely detail on the broken nose... just saying :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2016 at 17:06, Beard said:

The cockpit looks very impressive, Bill.

 

Thanks. There is still lots more to do.

 

Just as a giggle, I made a copy of one of the photos, but scaled it to actual size. If you're using a 96 dpi monitor (typical Windows) then the length of the cockpit tub in the next photo should be 1.625 inches on your screen. That's what it is in real life. Looks a bit different, don't you think? (If your screen resolution is less than 96 dpi, then the photo will look larger, etc.)

 

IMG_0605_act_size

 

On 8/17/2016 at 17:37, 71chally said:

Lovely work there. Sounds a bit gash but could you tilt the seat bases slightly to give the effect of the offset?

Re the intakes, here's an image of the XN957 at FAAM, to me the intake looks a dull metal colour.

It's not a great image but I've uploaded full rez so that it can be zoomed in on

28435891003_d1d406bc50_c.jpgBuccaneer S.1 XN957 30 Oct 09 by James Thomas, on Flickr

I'm due to visit again, can always poke a camera down there, but you will have probably progressed by then!

Have you choosen a particular scheme yet?

 

I tried tilting the seats but they ended up looking...well, tilted. By removing some of the material from the starboard side of the rear seat, and from the port side of the front seat, here is what I ended up with during my S.2 build:

 

100_2206

 

It's enough so that the offset is noticeable, and that's what we're aiming for. You only have to remove a little more than a half millimetre from each seat.

That's a great picture of the S.1 at the FAA Museum, but the inside of the intakes look to me like they used to be painted in camouflage colours (EDSG and White) and it's been worn away. The boundary between the two colours is soft instead of a sharp line. Does anyone else see that? I could be completely wrong, and it's just a shadow or something. Personally, I think unpainted metal makes sense for these early aircraft.

 

As far as the scheme goes, right now I'm still planning on XN934, 801 Squadron, HMS Ark Royal, February-March 1963. This is one of the all-white aircraft that participated in the Carrier Deck Trials, I'll have the wings folded, speed brakes open, canopy open, and radome open. Here she is on the Ark:

 

XN934

 

You can see the numbers XN93_ on the wing, and 17 on the speed brakes. The nose number on XN934 at this time was 117 and she had R on her tail. And now we can all start a discussion of what colour the insides of the speed brakes were painted! Very dark in this picture...CMR say Light Admiralty Grey with an oil protective wash. Must be 90 weight gearbox grease.

 

If anyone has any other photos of XN934, please post a link. I'm going back through the links posted earlier in this thread, as I remember a lot of white aircraft, to see if I can find any.

 

On 8/17/2016 at 17:45, tonyot said:

Looking good Bill and I`ll be following you closely on this one! My claim to fame on this kit is that I provided the slide for the box artwork and helped a bit with some schemes!

I have always wanted to model a Bucc S.1 but unfortunately the upper and lower fuselage parts of my kit do not match at all and while trying to bend the bottom one into a more fitting shape using hot water I accidentally ripped/cracked the fuselage,......so the kit has been set aside for now while I think about what to do next! Bum!

Good luck with yours mate,

Tony

 

Arghhh, that stinks in so many ways. Have you contacted Scale Resin (CMR Casting & Moulding) to see if you can get a replacement? If you helped with the schemes, then I can bombard you with endless questions, right? :)

 

On 8/17/2016 at 18:11, CedB said:

Very nice 'pit Bill - the decals look really effective. Are they Mike Grant's?

Ooo, look at the lovely detail on the broken nose... just saying :whistle:

 

The instruments, dials, knobs, and switches are all from leftover decal sheets in the Decal Box of Happiness & Joy. Some of them have no known provenance, but some are from the Eurofighter, Sea Harrier, F-16, F-4, and even some from a Gannet. Not all of them are 1:72 scale to begin with, but they are now! :)

 

Yup, the nose will be open. I can't let that detail go to waste!

 

Cheers,

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2016 at 14:45, TheBaron said:

Beautiful Dob Bill. What craftsmanship you US astronomers have! I've an old Dynascope RV6 I inherited from my father-in-law that used to be part of the Armagh observatory. It's very decrepit, the mirror needs re-silverig and the cork gearing's all shot. One day...

 

Going back through the thread I realised that I didn't respond to this. I would have given anything for an RV6 when I was in high school, but I couldn't afford one. (At the time I think they were $299!) So I bought a mirror grinding kit from Edmund and built my own scope. I used a cardboard tube from a carpet role, pipe fittings for the mount, etc. And it worked, too. I have a feeling that there are very few people today, especially kids, who grind and polish telescope mirrors in their spare time. Wow, how time has changed.

 

Cheers,

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to raise any, you know, shibboleth kinda thingys but, that lovely photo

The intakes look decidedly dark all round, as if, kinda, it was painted a dark brownish colour :fight:

Maybe similar to the brownish ring round the radar nose cone...

There is no obvious differential colouring where it would be receiving sunlight on the lower intake lips

957 does look (to me) as if the intakes are painted in the grey / white scheme with additional intake paint erosion...

Edited by perdu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2016 at 19:31, perdu said:

I don't want to raise any, you know, shibboleth kinda thingys but, that lovely photo

The intakes look decidedly dark all round, as if, kinda, it was painted a dark brownish colour :fight:

Maybe similar to the brownish ring round the radar nose cone...

There is no obvious differential colouring where it would be receiving sunlight on the lower intake lips

 

You mean the photo in post #75? I tend to agree with you. Now, I know all about drawing any conclusions from colour photographs, but here is XN934 (the scheme I'm modelling) and XN92(?):

 

XN934-2

 

XN92_

 

The nose cones look a bit different - weathering? Both intake interiors are dark, very dark.

 

On another subject, the landing gear and wing fold areas on XN92(?) sure do look like Light Admiralty Grey. Man, I wish I could find a good colour picture of the inside of the speed brakes.

 

I'm really liking that white scheme - which is too bad, because overall white is my absolute least favourite colour to airbrush. Ugh!

 

Cheers,

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if this of any use Bill? From Aeroguide 30:

EE4E409D-EEFA-4553-A96E-A147022311F6_zps

The same publication has a number of b/w S1 photos with those same tonality differences you mention above regarding radome colour/weathering. In those photos it appears to be actual, rather than the result of shading due to the phase angle of the light.

HTH,

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Yup, the nose will be open. I can't let that detail go to waste!" Thanks Bill, you've made an old man very happy :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill I think the changes of colour on radomes is normal, possibly a result of different resin mixes - different day of mixing

I remember the very obvious colour changes on E E Lightning radar cones when they were in service, as an ATC Cadet my squadron spent a glorious week playing round the flight line at RAF Wattisham

Some were almost green others a very faded straw colour, at least on the Buccs the colours are similar

I keep looking at the white scheme too, scary but awfully enticing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a great picture of the S.1 at the FAA Museum, but the inside of the intakes look to me like they used to be painted in camouflage colours (EDSG and White) and it's been worn away. The boundary between the two colours is soft instead of a sharp line. Does anyone else see that? I could be completely wrong, and it's just a shadow or something. Personally, I think unpainted metal makes sense for these early aircraft.

Bill

Trick o' the light I would say.

The picture is taken on a tripod at a very very slow shutter speed to use the available light (!?!) at the museum.

If you look carefully you can see the faint delineation of where the external white & EDSG finishes, there does seem to be a tad of overspray in one area. The natural light mainly from above is making the bottom half of the intake tube look lighter than the top half.

However I get that this is only one aircraft, and as it happens not in the scheme that you have chosen.

Very nice option that you have gone for.

My first thought was red for the air brake interiors, but I think the kit guide could be correct as seen another picture which is a middish hue but with mottled very dark areas of what I assume is grease.

Be interesting to know why the intake rings did get that buff (sometimes greyish) colour at one stage, they only seem to used on the pre-production aircraft and briefly on early production aircraft (note they feature on the Lossie shot, but gone in the Ark shot), early intake de-icing perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so loving this discussion - I have all the constituent parts / modifications in my stash for a 1/48 S1, and mine will also be Anti-Flash White, so all contributions gratefully received. The only thing i would add is that the photo of 117 looks very dark, so it would be easy to be misled about shades. The radome was definitely a tan colour, not the brown shoe polish shade we see here. Even the sky... I know it's Lossie so barely gets light at some times of year, but even so!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope these help, also from the excellent 'Wooley Family' site, note the air brake colour and the one furthest from the camera.

http://www.woolleyfamily.co.uk/Aircraft_parked_upfront2.jpg

http://www.woolleyfamily.co.uk/Wessex_Buccaneer.jpg

My personal thoughts on the intake tubes, and bearing in mind the making an A55 out of U & ME (or just me!) edict!

The intake rings are clearly a tan or grey colour on very early S.1s. Did these rings do something?

Very shortly they reverted to the overall colour of the aircraft, ie white or EDSG over white split, or even just EDSG on a white & EDSG split aircraft. the external colour carries into the inside by varying amounts, but seems up to a foot inside.

The rest to my eyes just looks a very dull metal which has tarnished through use in dirty salt air etc. This would fit with similar intake trunking detail to Scimitar and Sea Vixen and early S.2s, this is from visual inspection of preserved (which should be noted) aircraft and not just photos.

I can't really see why they would be painted a brown colour, especially when the colour wasn't used elsewhere.

Just my two penneth!

I'm sure none of this is going to effect what s clearly going to be a superb build here.

Like FAAWAFU I enjoy this sort of minutiae, or as I tell the missus, I revel in banality!

Edited by 71chally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW have you got 'The Buccaneers' film at all?

There is superb and sharp S.1 footage on it, but detail shots are fleeting. The period is c'65 so after your model period, air brake and undercarriage are painted in that strange bright green/yellow colour (also seen on Vixen U/C of that era).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill, I went for WEM's excellent WEMCC RN03 ColourCoats Light Admiralty Grey enamel. Dick Ward of Modeldecal pointed out on his sheet 20, (1972 for the S.2 but would have applied to the S.1 as well), "The interior surfaces of the Buccaneer wheel wells, inside faces of undercarriage doors and rear mounted air-brakes, undercarriage legs and wheel hubs are gloss pale-greenish-blue*, similar to BS381c697 Light Admiralty Grey.", if anyone would know he would, hope that helps....

Although weathered this image gives some idea of an operational S.1's gear colouration,

http://www.abpic.co.uk/popup.php?q=1339983

As for the inner surfaces of the open air brakes it seems they were painted a dark grey possibly Dark Admiralty Grey for the 801 squadron shake down trials in 1963. (almost impossible to tell from early black and white photos and this colour may have only been applied for the duration of the trials).

Here's a nice image of the three aircraft during the trials....the nearest aircraft XN935's airbrakes seem to show a heavily weathered grey to me but that's just my take on it.

It also appears that the dark colour continued inside the inner brake actuator door edges and mech areas too....

http://www.blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk/Pages3_files/photo6_Index.html

Of interest is the wing stay visible and the dark rearmost tip of the tailplane cone, (dark tan ?)...

Great job on the cockpit..

Edited by general melchett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×