daz greenwood Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 Rivets? They're so 2009 Daz.........What I want t o know is this.......how many tread marks have they put in them there tyres!!! Dunno about treads on Bricks. It's not an F-14 is it? But, it would look nice in USN Aggressor markings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul A H Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 My god, that looks amazing! I might have to work up a plan for sneaking this box into the house... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 I just did a test "hold" of my Airfix kit, and it's definitely 1:48 unless the person holding the jet has HUGE hands. My hand is 91mm across the 4 knuckles, which corresponds roughly to the wing fold, as does the holder's hand in the pic. I'm still very happy though, even though I have 2 Airfix kits in my stash. 1:48 is my scale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 My god, that looks amazing! I might have to work up a plan for sneaking this box into the house... Maybe under the radar, the Bucc was good at that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drdave Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Does it realy matter if its 1:32 or 1:48? Good God! Does it really matter? Are you MAD? To us LSPers 1/32 and up is life itself and 1/48th is the ...er.. well its worse than INCEST Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollieholmes Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Good God! Does it really matter? Are you MAD? To us LSPers 1/32 and up is life itself and 1/48th is the ...er.. well its worse than INCEST Well there is the ludicrously rare Aerodynamix version to keep you busy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homebee Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 (edited) In 1/48th please! That would be a great piece of news. That said, considering we already have the Airfix 1/48th Buccaneer injected kit, I would have preferred a more original post-WWII British quarter-inch subject like: - Gloster Javelin - Supermarine Scimitar - Fairey Gannet AEW - Blackburn Firebrand - Fairey Firefly Mk.5 - Supermarine Swift - DH89 Dominie/Dragon Rapide - Bristol Brigand - Avro Vulcan - HP Victor - Folland Gnat T.Mk.1 - HP Provost T.Mk.1 V.P. FLY NAVY Edited January 5, 2010 by Homebee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Bryon Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 That's definitely 1/48. A Bucc has the same fuselage length as a C-47. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtd350 Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Nobody I ever knew in the mob who'd worked on them ever referred to them as anything but "Bucc's" or "Buccaneers", the only people I've ever heard refer to them as "Bricks" are enthusiasts/modellers. Likewise the Tornado, none of the ex Tornado boys I worked with referred to it as anything but the "Tonka" or "Tornado", again, the only people I'd ever heard call the Tornado the "Fin" are enthusiasts/modellers.Wez Hindenburger underwing tanks is another enthusiast /spotter/modeller term I've always known them as :- Lima's (large tanks) 2250's (amount of fuel in litres they carry) or (big jugs) and I've worked on a "Tonka" Unit since they came into service. Wow though, a 32nd "Bucc" I hope Revell cover it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homebee Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 I'll leave you to figure out the scale; can't see too many rivets, which will upset some. Edgar My hand with my 1/48th Airfix Bucc... V.P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousAA72 Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 My hand with my 1/48th Airfix Bucc... V.P. C.E. (Well sort of!!) "....but this is most likely only(!) a resin test shot (as per the Jagular), so could theoretically be in any scale. I seem to remember everyone getting excited about Airfix having a 1/48th scale TSR2 when the 1/72nd scale model was announced - as they had a 1/48th test shot? Mr Song has posted this on Large Scale Planes - and they only "deal" in 1/32nd or larger - so my dosh is on it being in 1/32nd scale - and Hobbyboss doing it in 1/48th - and Trumpeter in 1/72nd......." But I'll be happy either (or all three!) way(s)!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 I should hope there aren't any rivets on the Bucc. Most of it was machined from the solid. There would still be attachments for external panels, though, wouldn't there? Especially the removeable ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy wood Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Oh for GAWDS Sake. Will someone please confirm that Trumpy are doing this as 1/32. Mr Son, I cant cope with this suspense any longer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Ogilvie Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Oh for GAWDS Sake. Will someone please confirm that Trumpy are doing this as 1/32. Mr Son, I cant cope with this suspense any longer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wot Andy said! Iain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousAA72 Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 C.E. (Well sort of!!)"....but this is most likely only(!) a resin test shot (as per the Jagular), so could theoretically be in any scale. I seem to remember everyone getting excited about Airfix having a 1/48th scale TSR2 when the 1/72nd scale model was announced - as they had a 1/48th test shot? Mr Song has posted this on Large Scale Planes - and they only "deal" in 1/32nd or larger - so my dosh is on it being in 1/32nd scale - and Hobbyboss doing it in 1/48th - and Trumpeter in 1/72nd......." But I'll be happy either (or all three!) way(s)!! There are a few more pic's on LSP - a site that only deals in 1/32nd or larger scale aircraft!! Anyway just to allay fears here..The 1/48th resin test shot is nothing new. Airfix produced one for their TSR2 in 1/72nd scale.... TSR2 link from ARC in 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miggers Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Ex-RAF Aircraft Refinisher I used to know reckoned they were called Buccaneers because they flew so low and so fast that you could'nt "Bucca-an-well-eer" 'em coming. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousAA72 Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Dunno about treads on Bricks. ...well, without Rivets to count, what else will us Rivet counters count??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul A H Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Perhaps those are Richard Kiel's hands. Or Peter Schmeichel's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bandwagon 106 Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 ...well, without Rivets to count, what else will us Rivet counters count??? Being modellers, I'm sure we'll find something! Compressor blades, fins on a SNEB rocket, number of circuit breakers.... I like the look of this, 48 or 32, I'll get one. Now, if the Bucc's USN /USMC counterpart (you know the one) gets the same love, I shall be rather happy (understatement!) Joel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roys Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 My Father joined Blackburns in 1958 after completing a degree in Aeronautical Eng at Imperial College London. He recently told me that the famous area ruled bulge to the rear fuselage was an error! 2 draughtsmen were told to analyse the cross sectional area- one chap used the wing fold joint as the junction between the wing and fuselage, the other the intersection with the engine fairings ,resulting in the mistake. Once the bulge had been put in it was filled up with avionics and could not be taken out. He says he has never seen this published anywhere but it was widely talked about in the works at the time. If any of you visit the aircraft hall in the Science Museum in London it is also worth having a look at the Pegasus computer on the floor below. Apparently after a morning of slide rule calculations it took the computer the rest of the week to do them as a check! Its the only surviving working one and uses thermionic valves ,cost £35 000 in 1956 and had coachwork made by H J Mulliner (RR and Bentley).Interestingly the finish was blue-grey (like a Bucc!), 10 coats and the doors close with a RR clunk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plastic Bonsai Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 (edited) In my stint in the Brough Aerodynamics department I heard that the area ruling was incorrect and it could have reduced the phenomally low drag even further with re-shapingand I think an even bigger avionics bay. Make no mistake one of the key features of this aircraft is its low profile drag - more than half that of other airframes and a lot lower than it's replacement. This is why it could buddy pack it's replacement as well as spiking for them and then going even further in and delivering it's own payload. I did hear that they called themselves "The Usherettes". Area ruling appears counter intuitive and not many people believe what the numbers show. Hawkers area ruled a Hunter F Mk 4/5 and it barely showed and they found it made no difference drag wise. Along comes the T Mk 7 and it was faster than the Mk 6 and FGA 9 despite their more powerful engines because that great big nose gave a better area ruling and reduced drag. The discoverer of the Area Rule, Dr Richard Whitcombe (he of the winglets fame) area ruled the Citation X , all lumps and bumps and it has a terrific range and needs dive brakes on descent as it's that slippery. Does low drag make a difference - well in the Buccs case you had 1000(+)nm strike range, a very high airspeed at low level and despite the lack of reheat in a dive nothing manned with wings on it could catch you. The Buccaneer is an outstanding aircraft because there was no compromise. It was not designed by a committee. It had a very sensible launch customer who listened to the designers and didn't ask for capabilities it didn't need that would have ruined it. For low drag they used the T tail - smaller more effective fin and reduced area tailplane and more positive tail loads at cruise. The faired in wing tanks have a lot lower drag than the conventional underwing tanks - tricky to jettison but you don't need to because they have virtually no drag. The lack of rivets came from the milled from solid construction which came from the need for strength to survive low level turbulence and... they didn't understand aeroelastics so they just made it stiff enough. The boundary layer blowing made the wing smaller and the near full span aileron was for added lift when dropped and the eye watering roll accelerations were a bonus. I think the solid construction as well as a simple flight control system gave the pilots the smoother ride and confidence to fly very low and stay low for a long time. One of our pilots said he only had to hold the stick delicately ("like a princess holding a navvies pr*ch") with a slight forward pressure trimmed in to fly it low level. The Hawk has a very similar longitudinal control system as it was designed by Brough and that's pretty good too. Some say the Bucct was riding on cushion at low level - well at the height they were at they were probably in ground effect which most airframes only briefly experiance on flaring to land- and thats a low drag area as well. see et al - sorry no sign of that Red Falg film though.We operated the F-4's ( and yes we cocked up the base area so they were slower that the American ones) at the same time.They were very similar on paper as far as low level ride was concerned but you didn't stay down for long before the vibration got to you and possibly the thought that at any moment it could develop a fault in the flight control system and stuff you into the ground. Sorry I get a bit passionate about this. It's so rare these days to see an aerodynamically well designed aircraft - it's a neglected art and not even seen as a core compentancy by aerospace companies so we have very exepensive, aerodynamically ugly airframes smothered in stealth, stuffed with critical avionics that you don't want a internal gun near that require external tanks and tankers to have a useable range. So the next time someone says how ugly the Bucc looks, tell them it has a form that air loves and that's all that matters. I wish I could come up with a better phrasing than that but I'm not that good with words. Edited January 6, 2010 by Plastic Bonsai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyT Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 Think you said it all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightningboy2000 Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 Well I though all that was well said. I personally have always thought that the lines of the Bucc make sense aesthetically and almost natural in shape (as in nature) much like the Hawk looks almost animal in its proportions and curves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROGERD Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 There are a few more pic's on LSP - a site that only deals in 1/32nd or larger scale aircraft!! Anyway just to allay fears here..The 1/48th resin test shot is nothing new. Airfix produced one for their TSR2 in 1/72nd scale....TSR2 link from ARC in 2005 The 1/32 bucc has been listed as a future relaese for some time- I do not see where the confusion has arsien, although a 1/48 would be nice regards Rogerd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousAA72 Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 (edited) The 1/32 bucc has been listed as a future relaese for some time- I do not see where the confusion has arsien, although a 1/48 would be niceregards Rogerd The confusion has probably arisen because of the size of the Buccaneer "model" held in the post above....... Edited January 6, 2010 by Bill Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now