1:72 AZ Model Supermarine Attacker

[Navy Bird]

16 hours ago, David H said:

I've seen wet paper bags with sharper outlines.

 

True fact. Which, as I understand it, is more powerful than a regular fact in a court of law. Go figure.

 

2 hours ago, Scimitar said:

Regarding the intake bulge.

I think that the plate with the louvres is straight but the bulge curves over it. Have a look at the intake shot in here:

http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/howard_mason/supermarine_attacker_f1/

 

Agreed. This is why the FOD cover on that Scimitar picture I posted has a cut-out for the bulge. In any event, the bulges are going to be added today.

 

1 hour ago, Martian Hale said:

And that's just the banter!

 

Let alone the quips, sallies, ripostes, wisecracks, badinage, and raillery.  And an occasional rejoinder.    

 

Cheers,

Bill

[David H]

For the record: My one-liners are just that: gags intended to evoke a giggle, a snicker, and occasionally the spitting out of coffee while drinking. Never intended to be malicious or ill-willed.

 

-d-

[Martian]

2 hours ago, Navy Bird said:

Let alone the quips, sallies, ripostes, wisecracks, badinage, and raillery.  And an occasional rejoinder.   

And as an added bonus, there is a rumour going round that a model is going to get built as well; my cup runneth over!

 

Martian 👽

 

[Terry1954]

49 minutes ago, Martian Hale said:

a model is going to get built as well

A model, where...?

[Martian]

3 minutes ago, Terry1954 said:

A model, where...?

Here by all accounts, I did say it was only a rumour though!

 

Martian 👽

[Navy Bird]

Hey, I'm making a model here. I'm not making much of one yet, but here's a couple of new things. First, the little bumps on the boundary layer plates. I just used a simple arc-shaped piece of styrene card as it's not going to be real visible. No use trying to contour the edges. Hopefully you can see them here, what with white-on-white and all that.

 

 

The leading edge of the intakes are moulded as separate pieces, and there is quite a bit of wonkiness on the inside corners. (Note the two big chunks of gunk on the top and bottom of the intake lip. These might look like sprue attachment points, but they're not. Just chunks of gunk.) You can see it here on the left, whilst the one on the right has been victimized by some indiscriminate filing. Presumably, if I do some fine sanding on this, it will look a bit better, but at least the wonkiness has been de-wonkyized. I wonder what AZ was thinking on that one?

 

 

I think the entire area where the arresting hook goes will need to be cut out and rebuilt from scratch. Luckily, I still have some white plastic card stock and a razor saw or two. Oh, and some bandages.

 

Cheers,

Bill

[Graeme H]

My photo of the intake, seems to suggest that any curve is at the top or bottom, those wonky intakes are really , really wonky

 

Supermarine Attacker Intake by qfa_tsv, on Flickr

[Martian]

There you go, there is a model being built! Clearly anything can happen on Britmodeller! (Apologies to Stingray's Commander Shore)

 

Martian 👽

[Navy Bird]

Unexpected Revelation Number 3:

 

The central portion of the port fuselage is 1.0 mm taller than the same portion on the starboard fuselage. Ha ha! Those guys at AZ are always looking out for me - encouraging me to use my meagre modelling skills to solve their pernicious little riddles. Knave, bring me my spreaders! And if you haven't already counted to three, the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch!

 

Cheers,

Bill

[perdu]

Oddly (I know) I expected  this to be a good build to build...

The front of those bulges looks as if it curves behind the front edge, I wonder if it is intended to speed up the intaken air to counter some unknown (to me, I  know nozzings) issues with the Mk1s with an aerofoil effect

Odd that the mk 1 doesnt seem to have them

 

Nice intakes, reminds me of the Frog/Easter Express Sea Vixen

Get past the opening and anything can happen

And did 

[Martian]

I think AZ Models have shares in Evergreen plastic stock and have been made aware of your addiction to the same.

 

Sherlock Martian 👽

[huvut76g7gbbui7]

13 hours ago, perdu said:

Odd that the mk 1 doesnt seem to have them

This raises  questions as there are photographs of some Mk1s with them (eg WA473 the FAA museum's one,and WA488) but most don't .

As a result of early trials,the third prototype, TS416 ,was modified with larger intakes and the wings set back by 13"

Due to the urgency of getting the Attacker into service,the Mk1s were completed to the earlier configuration. (source of info : Supermarine Attacker by Philip Birtles)

Questions then

Some Mk1s obviously had the bulge modifications to the intakes. Is this the enlarged intake.?

"the Mk1s were completed to the earlier configuration."  Does this mean the Mk2s were built in the later configuration, including the re-positioning of the wing or did they just do the intakes?

 

 

 

[corsaircorp]

13 hours ago, Martian Hale said:

I think AZ Models have shares in Evergreen plastic stock and have been made aware of your addiction to the same.

 

Sherlock Martian 👽

Hello Dear ETI,

They also share some of the Fonderie geniuses !!

This is not because they go to produce kits in Czech republic that they will grew better !!

Did you ever try a Fonderie kit ? Bill ??

Sincerely.

CC

 

[canberra kid]

Hi Bill @Navy Bird I don't have much on the Attacker just half a dozen photos but I would agree that the bulge is a later mod, it looks like it's just scabbed on to the flat plate, as it is with the Scimitar.

 

John    

[huvut76g7gbbui7]

Some photos of Pakistani FB2s in here:  http://www.toremmodellismo.it/images/PATT.ACROB/PAKISTAN/FOTO/ATTAKER PAY BILL_1.htm

Looking at other photos of their FB2s and they don't have the bulge.

[Martian]

5 hours ago, corsaircorp said:

Did you ever try a Fonderie kit ? Bill ??

Are you trying to create some sort of international incident CC? What has poor Bill done do deserve a Fonderie kit? Hye thee to the naughty corner!  What do you mean you never left it? OK, cessation of beer rations then!

 

Martian 👽

[Navy Bird]

6 hours ago, Scimitar said:

Does this mean the Mk2s were built in the later configuration, including the re-positioning of the wing or did they just do the intakes?

 

Good question. With some cursory glances at side-view photos of both F.1 and FB.2 airframes, it doesn't look to me like the wings are in different places by over a foot. Some Mk.Is didn't have the dorsal fin ahead of the vertical tail, and had different framing on the canopy. Maybe this is the earlier configuration?

 

5 hours ago, corsaircorp said:

Did you ever try a Fonderie kit ? Bill ??

 

I have yet to experience this joy. On occasion, however, I fondle the sprues of the 1:72 AviS Bf-109C and wonder what strange madness caused me to procure it.

 

4 hours ago, canberra kid said:

Hi Bill @Navy Bird I don't have much on the Attacker just half a dozen photos but I would agree that the bulge is a later mod, it looks like it's just scabbed on to the flat plate, as it is with the Scimitar.

 

Thanks John, I appreciate you having a look. If you have any good photos of the exhaust I would love to see them.

 

49 minutes ago, Scimitar said:

Looking at other photos of their FB2s and they don't have the bulge.

 

I would agree, I have the following photo where they don't seem to be present.

 

 

Now, speaking of this photo - are those extra drop tanks under the wings, or are they baggage carriers?

 

24 minutes ago, Martian Hale said:

Are you trying to create some sort of international incident CC? What has poor Bill done do deserve a Fonderie kit? Hye thee to the naughty corner!  What do you mean you never left it? OK, cessation of beer rations then!

 

Thanks to my alien bodyguard for keeping these naughty influences in check. With the extra beer ration I now have (at the expense of this Fonderie fellow), I raise my glass to the Martians. But first, let me apologize for those nasty bacteria that played such havoc with your prior invasion.  

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

PS. Modeling Content Alert! I have hacked out the gunk masquerading as the arresting hook bay, and am now cutting and trimming little pieces of flat white plastic. Soon we will see if something resembling the actual hook bay can be replicated. I can offer no guarantees, so place your bets wisely.

[Martian]

2 minutes ago, Navy Bird said:

I have yet to experience this joy. On occasion, however, I fondle the sprues of the 1:72 AviS Bf-109C and wonder what strange madness caused me to procure it.

Bill, just put the kit down and make your way quietly to the exit. The emergency services have been summoned .

 

Martian 👽

[corsaircorp]

My only bet will be for you !

You gonna tame this arresting hook compartment !! And nicely !

No Fonderie Yet ?? How's that possible ???

Sincerely.

CC

I smuggled a huge stock of rocket fuel here in the nasty corner...

 

[Aardvark]

21 hours ago, perdu said:

The front of those bulges looks as if it curves behind the front edge, I wonder if it is intended to speed up the intaken air to counter some unknown (to me, I  know nozzings) issues with the Mk1s with an aerofoil effect

Odd that the mk 1 doesnt seem to have them 

As write https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Attacker

Attacker  for RN have two modification Nene:

"Type 398 Attacker F.1

Production Nene 3 powered variant, 63 ordered on 29 October 1948 and built at South Marston, 50 built as F1 as two were cancelled and the last 11 built as FB.1s. First flight of production F.1 was on 4 April 1950.[12]

Attacker FB.1

Last 11 production F 1s were built as FB 1s plus an additional aircraft ordered on 27 March 1951 to replace one aircraft destroyed on a production test flight.[12] The FB1 had been modifi

ed from the original design to allow it to carry rocket projectiles or bombs under the wings.

Attacker FB.2

Updated fighter-bomber variant powered by the Nene 102, 24 ordered on 21 November 1950, 30 ordered on 16 February 1951 and a further 30 ordered on 7 September 1951, all 84 built at South Marston.[12]"

 

Guess that's the thing!

Perhaps the later model Nene had problems with gas-dynamic stability and therefore required a different mode of flow around the air stream inside the air intake?

 

1 hour ago, Navy Bird said:

Some Mk.Is didn't have the dorsal fin ahead of the vertical tail, and had different framing on the canopy. Maybe this is the earlier configuration?

Yes, these are early configurations. As I recall, pre-production models did not have dorsal fin ahead of the vertical tail. Another framing

canopy was implemented on FB.2.

In addition, some of the very first serial F.1 had a different border color EDSG & Sky in the area of the tail.

 

B.R.

Serge

Edited October 13, 2018 by Aardvark

[huvut76g7gbbui7]

1 hour ago, Aardvark said:

Another framing

canopy was implemented on FB.2.

Note that the survivor WA473 has the later canopy. It was probably fitted at HMS Sanderling before being displayed as the gate guard.

 

2 hours ago, Navy Bird said:

Some Mk.Is didn't have the dorsal fin ahead of the vertical tail,

This was soon fitted to sort out directional instability,especially when the belly tank was fitted.

 

1 hour ago, Aardvark said:

had a different border color EDSG & Sky in the area of the tail.

That they did. Here's a photo to show that

 

There were little differences too as often found in colour schemes. Look how the sky colour has intruded on to the EDSG in this photo. It is almost as if the painter made a mistake then painted that shape to make it look ok.

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

I think we can rule out moving the wing being the difference.  The Richard Franks Attacker book says “When prototype number three, TS416, was completed it incorporated all the lessons learnt with the previous two airframes.  The wings were moved back 13 inches and the air intakes were enlarged, both factors that improved the handling markedly.”  So only the first two prototypes had the pre-moved wing; nothing front line.

 

However, because the Navy were anxious to get on with learning how to operate jets at sea, apparently the very first Attackers (WA470-WA484) were delivered in what was termed “sub-standard configuration”, and only gradually brought up to full production standard (the Attacker F1 order was 63 aircraft, of which the first - WA469 - never got beyond Boscombe Down).  

 

As well as the Franks book, I have Attacker From The Cockpit (No. 9 of the fantastic “From The Cockpit” series).  Between them they have dozens of Attacker photos, but as we have seen already this bulge is hard to see.  I can see several shots of both F1s and FB2s which definitely DO have the bump; and lots of shots where it’s impossible to tell either way (either wrong angle, or the intake is in shadow).  The only ones where it looks almost certain that they DON’T have the bump are either of the prototypes (e.g. Mike Lithgow landing TS413 - 2nd prototype - on board Illustrious in October 1947) or from this “sub-standard configuration” batch (e.g. WA471, which spent most of its life at Boscombe Down testing stuff) - and even the WA471 shot isn’t 100% conclusive.

 

Similarly, the reprofiled intakes were early on; there’s a photo in the From The Cockpit book showing the difference (but only from the side - no mention of bumps!), but the ‘before’ shot is of TS416 and the ‘after’ of “one of the WA series” [doesn’t say which one].

 

My theory - and it is definitely ONLY a theory - is that both Supermerine and the Navy were keen to get publicity shots early on; there are lots, for instance, taken at South Marston (now a Honda factory, but then Supermarine’s gaff outside Swindon) when 800 visited the factory just after becoming the first FAA front line jet squadron (August 1951).  So a high proportion of the close-up shots are of early airframes.  Maybe they didn’t have the bump (because we know the prototypes didn’t have it).  

 

The change to FB2 did involve an uprated engine (Nene 102 instead of 101)  but I can’t find and reference to the difference meaning bigger intakes; the 102 only had 100lbs more static thrust!  The differences were largely about the B bit of FB (though some Mk1s were FB standard): wing hard points, wiring, etc.

 

What is certain is that even if my theory is correct and the bulge-free airframes were from the “sub-standard” batch, they didn’t stay that way; the FAA Museum airframe is WA473!

 

[Sorry I can’t back up with photos, but you’ll just have to buy these two books!]

 

Oh, and the Pakistani machines all had the Nene 102.

 

 

Edited October 13, 2018 by Ex-FAAWAFU

[huvut76g7gbbui7]

2 hours ago, Navy Bird said:

photos of the exhaust

Until some better appear:

[huvut76g7gbbui7]

38 minutes ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

So only the first two prototypes had the pre-moved wing; nothing front line.

This contradicts Birtle's book from which I quote "However,such was the rush to put the Attacker into service,the Mk1s were completed to the earlier configuration"

My interpretation of this is that the Mk1s at least did not get the wings moved. I also suspect that neither did the Mk2s as I can't find any reference to such a change.

I would have thought that by the time TS416 was modified,the production line would have been in full swing thus making such a major change time consuming and expensive.

As to the bigger intakes,I have no idea. Unfortunately photos of TS416 in the modified state are all angled so don't help.

 

I wish those 'From the Cockpit' series had continued (and that I had bought two of each!)

[Navy Bird]

Thanks mates. For what it's worth, I downloaded drawings (of unknown provenance and accuracy) of both the Mk.I (without dorsal fin) and the FB.2 (with the dorsal fin), scaled them to the same overall length and printed them out. The wings are in the same place...

 

So, let's see...right, a model. Remember my comment about the starboard fuselage height being less than the port half? Not any more.

 

 

Hard to see, but the brass tubes are epoxied in place. Not perfect, but so much better than it was. It had quite the step!

 

My next problem is the exhaust tube as supplied by AZ is 1) not round and 2) too big in diameter to fit in the fuselage. I have some really nice brass tubing that is almost the right size, but I think it will still be too small. As it turns out, the center section of a tip tank from an old F-104 kit is just about perfect in outside diameter (and it's round), but the wall thickness will need some "thinning." Nothing insurmountable, so I shall proceed blindly.

 

I think I should paint the one-piece resin cockpit and see if that is going to be OK. The cockpit for my CMR Sea Venom had the bang seats cast in place along with the cockpit tub, so I know this can be done. I don't really care for this method, but whatever. With the canopy closed on the Attacker no one is going to be able to see anything anyway.

 

Cheers,

Bill