71chally

It might depend on what you call the prototype. The prototype of the series was the VS392, TS409, and was a generic experimental design that could meet a land or sea based fighter. My interpretation is that it had provision for the canon armament from the beginning as it simply used the Spiteful wing and undercarriage. The intakes were slimmer, but unsure by how much it would show on a 72nd rendition. The Attacker prototype proper was the VS398, TS413, that did have the cannon provision, an arrestor hook and a Martin Baker Mk1 ejection seat. The third aircraft TS416, had the enlarged intakes, and the wing moved aft by about a foot. The first production Attacker, WA469, was the first to have the folding wings, it wasn't originally built with the dorsal fillet. I must admit I thought the fin & rudder were essentially the same height, but production Attackers had the prominant dorsal fin fillet, this feature was later retroftted to TS409.

Absolutely agree, their Canberra is very nice and looks the most accurate when its completed, but man I don't think I've ever worked so hard to finish a 72nd kit!

I think it's because we are looking at the render from an angle above, I think as you turn that image to exactly side on the nose point will come higher up. Note how far the bottom curvature carries on past the lower crew area. Looks good to me.

I'm hoping that this up and coming example will be easier to build!

Great project, must admit I enjoyed the two Matchbox Sea Venoms I built, even though they did require extra work, seem to remember a chisel being used at one stage. I hadn't realised that there were aftermarket seats and wheels for the kit, are they still available? Looks like you've got the ulimate reference material there and will follow with interest.

I can't remember if the example you are after is XV160, if it is pics here, http://buccsociety.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=print&num=1231087408 http://aviadejavu.ru/Site/Arts/Art6354.htm http://buccsociety.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=helpwanted&action=display&num=1263582663

The only product I know of is the ancient Revell S-55 offering which gets reboxed and re-released every now and then. I know the detail parts are meant to be pretty bad, but I have wondered how accurate the main parts might be for the basis as a blank canvass for detailing. Anyone here know? Personally I think it's time for a new kit of the S-55 and Whirlwind.

I've measured the cockpit section today, at the rear bulkhead it's 1605 mm at the widest point, at the front pressure bulkhead it's 1510mm across the widest points. It's 2490mm between those bulkheads. That's taken from the basic overall shape of the cockpit section, that doesn't include the intake leading edge panels.

Excellent news, really looking forward to a decent up to date and reasonably accurate offering of this type.

Nice, which kit is it?

I know of another with the same name, but haven't seen in years! Looking forward to seeing more of the Starfighter build, superb work and be interesting to see the Daco additions.

Why are helicopters (naval in particular) so complicated underneath! BTW, the what appears to be two tubes (fuel dumps? Urinal release? twin firework breeches for starter?) in the first shot was actually a step, but the cross tube has gone.

Blimey Charlie! BTW were you once a West Cornwall resident, and not always of Poole, Mars?

Excellent link, I know nothing of the use of these aircraft and was surprised to see that the 'parasite' concept was used in combat.

Going off the plans that is off more than I thought, bu I don't know how good the plans are either. I think the Vixen is poorly served for quantified accurate plans, but there may be some out there that I'm unaware of. I've got tech drawings of the Spey powered proposal, will see if they cover the fuselage. Will have a look through my pics to see if I have any good direct planform shots aswel.

Only just caught up with this thread Tony, I can't believe that so much work can go into such a diminutive kit! Superb work, and with far more patience than I could even think of!

That is looking very sharp!

I reckon you could have a cottage industry turning out Victor and Vulcan, and I guess any jet, tail pipes there, lovely work

What is this that you speak of! de Havilland made aircraft before the 110?!!

Frog spin offs (ie Novo, Chematic & Revell) are cheapest option, the original Frog moldng itself can be found from £12 and is the best mold to start this particular kit from if you can. Best kit for accuracy and detail is the Highplanes one and allows an FAW.1 to be built straight out of the box, it is currently offered by one trader for £20 minus decals. Typically for their stuff, it does require a bit of work in construction though.

Excellent work there, that looks superb Pierre. I adore this kit and built a couple years ago, quite basic but goes together well. I believe the grey used on that scheme was US Navy 'Seaplane Grey' which is similar to 'Engine grey', your EDSG rendition looks mightily good though, and I guess actual colouration would have been strongly effected by sea water and sunlight. Very nice.

I know you say airplane, but BEA and BA operated some diminutive choppers, including Dragonfly, Jet Ranger, and Sycamore.

Martian, I'm not sure why I'm pointing you to this, just feel duty bound, http://www.dacoproducts.com/KDCC4802.php#anker1 DACO improvement/correction set, of which there are options to buy individual, or any combination of sprues!

If you go up a scale then there is the recent excellent 1:32nd Italeri offering which is claimed to be the best Starfighter kit, review here http://www.finescale.com/reviews/kit-reviews/2014/05/italeri-starfighter I wouldn't pay the full asking price though, you do see it on offer quite regularly. Hasegawa and Revell also covered the type in 32nd, but are old kits now.

I have theory on that, as to the eye it doesn't look that far off. The Vixen has a rounded square section fuselage at the cockpit, where as the Frog kit is a lot more round/circular, I think that's where the extra girth effect comes from. I basically reduced the circular effect from the fuselage sides by removing plastic with a scalpel and files and it looked pretty convincing afterwards. I believe the fuselage length is actually correct, but it was the girth issue that made it appear a bit stumpy. Hope that makes sense! The hardest part of the Frog build for me was dealing with those intakes and splitters, and the forward boom to wing join areas - but you won't suffer with the latter. The rain dispersal fairing under the canopy is too deep, but spending time carefully reshaping this by following photographs and getting to understand it's shape really pays off. The canopies on mine were really nicely done, quite thin and crisp framing detail on the windscreen. Other than a pilots seat I didn't add any aftermarket to my build. Along with their Shackleton & Neptune, I rate this as one of Frogs' finest moments!