Jump to content

1/72 - Blackburn Buccaneer S.Mk.2 by Airfix - S.2C & S.2B released - new S.2B boxing


Homebee

Recommended Posts

My plan for the Buccaneer STGB is to build three.  An FAA aircraft (I haven't decided on grey and white or overall grey yet), a SAAF aircraft (with resin conversion parts from Odds and Ordnance) and a 1980s RAFG aircraft (bulged bomb bay robbed from the old Airfix kits I have in The Stash).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh... I am just doing their FG1 and was impressed by all the flap options to pose it in catapult launch condition and I was hoping the Bucc would be the same. Still some enterprising after market set perhaps.  Or do some old fashioned cutting bits out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Plastic Bonsai said:

Or do some old fashioned cutting bits out.

Well the flaps do actually appear to be separate  parts and I assume these can be positioned down. So it looks like the difficult cutting bit / after market part is not required. Tha aileron droop would need to be set at its maximum deflection for a carrier launch  so the ailerons need to be separated from the top wings and set at the required angle - hopefully not too difficult. Similarly for the tailplane droop also I think. 

 

It does seem slightly odd to have flaps but not all the control surfaces separate. I  do wonder whether this might be Airfix reacting to adverse comments from some about their Phantom FG1/FGR2 having too many options or being over engineered / wasteful. Consequently they made the difficult flap part separate and the rest modifiable with a modicum of care.  Interesting to see if this is an option in the instructions. 

 

Rich

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's just no pleasing Uncle Dick when it comes to ordnance loads in new tool Airfix kits -

(except the WWII RAF Bomber re-supply set ☑️ ☑️ ☑️ 🏋️‍♂️ 🏋️‍♂️ 🏋️‍♂️ which Uncle Dick rates a 7 out of 10) 

 

If the sprues are correct - looks like not even a half bottom attempt on the armament; only 2 x 1,000lb bombs and 2 rocket pods - that is pathetic!    :angry::angry::angry: 

 

This image from the RAFG BUC topic shows what could have been done - with the new tool Airfix Buc you cannot fill the bomb bay, even their old tool Buc had 3 separate sprues of ordnance!

10-1.jpg&key=0c2bc60fd55b301281606b2a176

da_blackburn_buccaneer_royal_navy_a06021

OLD TOOL ORDNANCE SPRUES BELOW

airfix_4049_parts3.jpg

 

airfix_4049_parts4.jpg

 

airfix_4049_parts5.jpg

 

 

 

 

Edited by Uncle Dick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes the Bombs in the kit appear to be for empty wing pylons as an alternative to the Rocket Pods or Wing tanks, the break down of those tanks over 2 sprue indicates that this weapon sprue is singular.

 

Now those weapons included do look very nicely done apart from moulding the rocket pod too the pylon, but these are the early naval pylons so the load is suitable for 60s FAA

 

Its very likely we will see at least a 2nd boxing for RAF with the universal Pylons, later tail, revised slipper tanks and a different weapons load, now if Aifix were clever they would do a 70s/80s boxing with the RAF early and late 70s scheme and hopefully 809 on Ark with the later weapons fit including Martel. Then do a 3rd boxing with the late 80s/90s fit so Sea Eagle, Gulf War fit, and the Desert Storm and final grey scheme.

 

The lack of weapons especially no load for that bomb bay does open the way for the aftermarket crews to fill the gaps and add a bit more variety, hopefully do the optional folded nose cone to do a fully folded Bucc to go next to a fully Folded Phantom.

 

5 hours ago, Uncle Dick said:

There's just no pleasing Uncle Dick when it comes to ordnance loads in new tool Airfix kits -

(except the WWII RAF Bomber re-supply set ☑️ ☑️ ☑️ 🏋️‍♂️ 🏋️‍♂️ 🏋️‍♂️ which Uncle Dick rates a 7 out of 10) 

Given the lack of strike options in the RAF Phantom where they appeared to forget its Strike role in the 70s apart from Recon and the underwhelming load for the new Buccaneer it does make you wonder if Airfix may be lining up a Cold War support set, with the bombs, Rockets and Missiles with trollies and ground support equipment to complement these Cod War kits, certainly a RN Carrier version with the aircraft tug, towbars and boarding ladders together with the weapon loads would go down a treat almost as much as an RAF with a tractor and possibly a Refueller.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The separate flaps thing is quite interesting, as when the flaps are deployed the ailerons droop at the same time to act as extra flap area.  it does seem odd then that Airfix have provided separate flaps and not the ailerons.  The good news is that the ailerons are a lot easier to separate and pose than the flaps would be.

For the fussy the tailplane flaps move with the main flaps aswel.

 

Great looking molds though, however it does show that an S.1 option would be impossible unless they changed the large moldings or that entire sprue.

 

Might be worth buying old Airfix Buccs cheap (I got one for £2.20 the other day!) so that you can mix and match weapons and pylons options with the new kit, that should provide for most RN/RAF options.

Edited by 71chally
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Enzo Matrix said:

Just the one?   :) 

 

18 hours ago, Wez said:

 

Some people have no imagination :fraidnot:

 

I want six, or is it seven, no maybe eight!  Or more....:whistle:

 

1/32 is my scale and I'll dabble in 1/48 where necessary but a new Bucc in any double-digit scale is irresistible.

 

I do understand the greedy-guts-in-a-sweetshop syndrome but it's wise to buy one for joy assessment before committing to multiples, especially when there are very likely further boxings to follow.

 

And still waiting o see what Tanmodel do, if anything.

 

Tony 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Uncle Dick said:

There's just no pleasing Uncle Dick when it comes to ordnance loads in new tool Airfix kits -

(except the WWII RAF Bomber re-supply set ☑️ ☑️ ☑️ 🏋️‍♂️ 🏋️‍♂️ 🏋️‍♂️ which Uncle Dick rates a 7 out of 10) 

 

If the sprues are correct - looks like not even a half bottom attempt on the armament; only 2 x 1,000lb bombs and 2 rocket pods - that is pathetic!    :angry::angry::angry: 

 

This image from the RAFG BUC topic shows what could have been done - with the new tool Airfix Buc you cannot fill the bomb bay, even their old tool Buc had 3 separate sprues of ordnance!

10-1.jpg&key=0c2bc60fd55b301281606b2a176

 

 

 

That must have been a joy to fly (not).

 

Dos bombas is a bit anaemic, unless there's an extra FAA-related sprue in development.

Who knows? Airfix's moulding subcontractor might fluff it the way they did with the Phantoms and release some FAA boxings with a bulged bomb bay door, Pave Spike and Martels.

 

I would like to see the recce pallet, which would stretch me to two FAA S.2s. Am guessing Alleycat or Aerocraft will provide an S.1 backdate, which would push it to three. But I really want 1/48 or bigger to adorn with artwork of women and brands of single malt. 

 

Tony 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tony.t said:

but it's wise to buy one for joy assessment before committing to multiples

You're not wrong TBH, how many of us have bought multiples of a kit only to find its a dog?  I'm sure that's why my stash is so big (well that and not having the time to do any modelling)!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stores do seem a bit limited, but the under wing things from two unbuildable ( at least by me) CMR kits and several of the red box version of the old Airfix Bucc should fill the gap nicely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎4‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 2:26 AM, Uncle Dick said:

There's just no pleasing Uncle Dick when it comes to ordnance loads in new tool Airfix kits -

(except the WWII RAF Bomber re-supply set ☑️ ☑️ ☑️ 🏋️‍♂️ 🏋️‍♂️ 🏋️‍♂️ which Uncle Dick rates a 7 out of 10) 

 

If the sprues are correct - looks like not even a half bottom attempt on the armament; only 2 x 1,000lb bombs and 2 rocket pods - that is pathetic!    :angry::angry::angry: 

 

This image from the RAFG BUC topic shows what could have been done - with the new tool Airfix Buc you cannot fill the bomb bay, even their old tool Buc had 3 separate sprues of ordnance!

10-1.jpg&key=0c2bc60fd55b301281606b2a176

da_blackburn_buccaneer_royal_navy_a06021

OLD TOOL ORDNANCE SPRUES BELOW

airfix_4049_parts3.jpg

 

airfix_4049_parts4.jpg

 

airfix_4049_parts5.jpg

 

 

 

 

🤣No pleasing Uncle Allan either Dick! I agree, it IS pathetic - especially when you consider the range of ordnance that could be carried.  We really should not have to resort to expensive aftermarket frippery and spend more than the cost of the kit on items that should be included. I was not impressed with the Airfix suggestion that we fork out another £15.99 (as it then was) for the Bomber resupply set on top of the £24.99 cost of the Lancaster just to put bombs inside it. I would be equally unimpressed with having to buy  a hypothetical "Cold War RAF resupply set" just to arm my Buccaneers!. Given the economies of scale, would a couple of sprues of whizz bangs really add that much to the cost of the kit? I don't think so.

 

Other than the above, the kit looks great and, I will still buy it but, low marks to Airfix on this one aspect which I think  does slightly spoil the ship for the proverbial "ha'porth of tar". My thoughts only of course. Others will disagree and I respect that.😀

 

Allan

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those mithering about the lack of bullets and bombs present in the Airfix kit, perhaps Airfix are concentrating on the stores that were routinely carried versus those that could hypothetically be carried.

 

Has anyone compared photos of FAA Bucc's in-service and then compared to what Airfix have offered?

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not long ago we used to spend big dollars on After Market Decals, Seatbelts, Wheels etc - now Airfix kindly provide useable options for all these areas within the basic kit.

Yes, it would always be nice to see extra 'nasty bits' however would you be prepared to spend the extra money to see this happen? 

Anyway, I'm actually all for a Cold War RAF Resupply set, so if this is likely to be in the offering - I'm sold. 

 

Cheers.. Dave 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/04/2019 at 02:26, Uncle Dick said:

This image from the RAFG BUC topic shows what could have been done - with the new tool Airfix Buc you cannot fill the bomb bay, even their old tool Buc had 3 separate sprues of ordnance!

10-1.jpg&key=0c2bc60fd55b301281606b2a176

 

Nice pic of a proper Bucc' showing off, how often was that load carried in service?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Wez said:

Nice pic of a proper Bucc' showing off, how often was that load carried in service?

Probably never but,I think that is beside the point. The capability was there and could have been used if needed. It wouldn't invalidate providing a better load of ordnance in the kit

 

Allan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Rabbit Leader said:

Not long ago we used to spend big dollars on After Market Decals, Seatbelts, Wheels etc - now Airfix kindly provide useable options for all these areas within the basic kit.

Yes, it would always be nice to see extra 'nasty bits' however would you be prepared to spend the extra money to see this happen? 

Anyway, I'm actually all for a Cold War RAF Resupply set, so if this is likely to be in the offering - I'm sold. 

 

Cheers.. Dave 

Personally yes.I would spend a bit extra because, it would be very unlikely to increase the cost of the kit to the extent that a  load of aftermarket extras would. I wasn't impressed with the notion of having to spend an extra £16 for a Bomber resupply set  on top of the £25 cost of a Lancaster just to hang bombs in it. Then of course one was left with a collection if unwanted vehicles!! No, sorry but I think that's a bad idea and, will result in a very expensive model

 

Allan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Albeback52 said:

Probably never but,I think that is beside the point. The capability was there and could have been used if needed. It wouldn't invalidate providing a better load of ordnance in the kit

 

Allan

But then Allan, it would push the price of the kit up a price point or two, something which YOU would be the first to complain about.

 

There would likewise be plenty of people complaining about all of the unused stores.  You can't please all of the people all of the time :fraidnot:

 

Personally, I'm happy with what I see, I'm more concerned about getting an accurate, relatively inexpensive (compared to the CMR versions), mainstream Bucc', I'll live with the stores options offered, they'll match typical loads for an in-service aircraft, rather than one showing off for press purposes with a load it would only carry for a couple of circuits of the airfield before needing to refuel!

 

I'm another one who would be happy to see a hypothetical Cold War Weapons set, it would go nicely with Jag's, Tonka's, Tooms and Harriers - bring it on Airfix is what I say!

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a standard FAA weapons load, not RAFG, Gulf War or other, the correct weapons for those including the bulged bombay, Paveway etc and different sized slipper tanks etc will follow in later releases, this is a FAA only release. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Wez said:

More's the pity!

Why its a Fleet Air Arm aircraft designed and built for the Navy just like the Phantom, both of which the RAF had to adopt as their grand expensive plans failed to materialise (TSR2, P1154, F-111K, AFVG), at least you know a 2nd and possibly third RAF boxing will appear next year or so. It's bad enough that the aftermarket sheets for this new kit have got a Crab bias and have failed to adequately cover the FAA units that actually used the type, as the kit for the S2B will follow on next year with yet more RAF aftermarket options that are bound to follow.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Geoff_B said:

Why its a Fleet Air Arm aircraft designed and built for the Navy just like the Phantom, both of which the RAF had to adopt as their grand expensive plans failed to materialise (TSR2, P1154, F-111K, AFVG), at least you know a 2nd and possibly third RAF boxing will appear next year or so. It's bad enough that the aftermarket sheets for this new kit have got a Crab bias and have failed to adequately cover the FAA units that actually used the type, as the kit for the S2B will follow on next year with yet more RAF aftermarket options that are bound to follow.

It's a pity because I'm ex-RAF.

 

By the time I joined the RAF, the aircraft had long retired from FAA service.

 

The aircraft was in-service longer and in greater numbers with the RAF.  I could have actually worked on it during my time in the RAF (I didn't).

 

It actually saw proper combat with the RAF.

 

And just to remind you, I'm ex-RAF, :tease: to Captain Pugwash's Flying Circus.🦀🦀🦀

Edited by Wez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely FAA Buccs routinely carried tiddly practice bombs on those dual ferkins ?  Not that I particularly would wish to fiddle with them in 1/72, assuming I could free them from the sprues intact.

 

A recce pallet would be nice. Can skip on nukes (if ever the S.2 carried them). 

 

Just realised the lower outer wings are cut off and discarded for the origami configuration, there being specific unblemished lower parts to fit under the top outer wings. It looks like a really nice kit.  

 

Tony 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, tony.t said:

Just realised the lower outer wings are cut off and discarded for the origami configuration, there being specific unblemished lower parts to fit under the top outer wings.

Which should make the wing nice and robust in the pread configuration.  That doesn't always happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Enzo Matrix said:

Which should make the wing nice and robust in the pread configuration.  That doesn't always happen.

According to a mate who was on 237OCU, towards the end of their career, wing fold wasn't an option so a lot of them had it disabled.

 

Personally, I've no inclination to show one with wings folded so I'm pleased the wings spread option will be robust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Wez said:

According to a mate who was on 237OCU, towards the end of their career, wing fold wasn't an option so a lot of them had it disabled.

Wing folding was regularly used right up to when Buccaneers were retired in 1994.

Link to comment
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
×
×
  • Create New...