Jump to content

Short S.1 Cockle flying boat, Avis 1/72nd


Recommended Posts

Another attractive civil release by Avis, again combining nice detail, good engineering, affordable price and appealing subject in short-run form. The box has alternate parts and even offers the perks of beaching wheels, a fuselage resting scaffold and a bench, all with multiple parts. How's that for a little kit?

The Short Brothers S.1 Cockle (first named Stellite) was a one-off endeavor commissioned privately. First flying in 1924 it shows another effort by Short to master the intricacies of metal airplane building (seen also in the S.4 Satellite), having an aluminium hull and frame.

The very small twin engine arrangement reminded of a scratch I did time ago, the Gnosspelius Gull, and what do you know, Mr. Gnosspelius was indeed attached to this project as I found out doing some research for this build.

The prototype had some difficulty trying to separate itself from the water, and being marginally powered -to put it mildly- it was no surprise, but finally achieved flight by making some changes to the airframe. The original tail was later replaced by a larger and differently shaped one, and it ended up being used for some trials and experiments (The kit has both tails for you to chose from).

Instructions tell you to paint the hull bottom and wing floats black, which is not unusual, but at least one clear photo shows the plane with no color whatsoever on those areas, having the hue of the rest of the plane, aluminium. A very unreliable small card drawing with the wrong registration found on the net shows those areas on red. The choice is yours. 

With all the recent Avis releases I am (flying) in heaven.

It is not often that I get on a roll regarding manufacturers products, but after completing the Satellite, working now on the final stages of the Bristol Racer, and getting this one, I just had to start it. It calls you.

IMG_5280+%25281280x986%2529.jpg

 

Again, even as a short run offering effort is made to keep things clean, sprue gates small, and detail satisfying:

IMG_5281+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

IMG_5282+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

Two horizontal and two vertical tails are offered:

IMG_5283+%25281280x955%2529.jpg

 

The detail is convincing:

IMG_5284+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

Even the minuscule Blackburne Tomtit engines are rather convincing for this scale:

IMG_5285+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

Decals for the two versions and the usual Avis film windshields:

IMG_5286+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

I will go back to the Bristol Racer for a little while, but I'll be back, as it was once famously said.

 

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To paraphrase the description of the B-36 and regarding @Martian Hale 's comment, "six turning, four burning, and twelve blinking!"  Re your comments about the S1  colors, I'm assuming you found this website in your initial research? I was wondering what you thought the colors were in the photo that showed it from the rear quarter taxying on the water. The fin and upper wings appear to be either yellow or international orange, which was commonly applied to classic flying boats/seaplanes. The  the wing floats, planing surface of the keel, and the bars on the upper wings appear to be black. What do you think? If so, that would be one colorful little seaplane!

Mike

 

https://www.nevingtonwarmuseum.com/short-s1-cockel.html

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, 72modeler said:

To paraphrase the description of the B-36 and regarding @Martian Hale 's comment, "six turning, four burning, and twelve blinking!"  Re your comments about the S1  colors, I'm assuming you found this website in your initial research? I was wondering what you thought the colors were in the photo that showed it from the rear quarter taxying on the water. The fin and upper wings appear to be either yellow or international orange, which was commonly applied to classic flying boats/seaplanes. The  the wing floats, planing surface of the keel, and the bars on the upper wings appear to be black. What do you think? If so, that would be one colorful little seaplane!

Mike

 

https://www.nevingtonwarmuseum.com/short-s1-cockel.html

 

Hi Mike

Yes, I saw that site, I have been after this fella from some time now, but I don't see what you see. Interpretation of B&W photos -this has been many, many times before said and will be said again, no doubt- it's difficult to say the least.

To me the plane looks aluminium, like the Satellite. Other images clearly show, as said above in the intro text, no black or dark paint whatsoever on those areas:

https://previews.agefotostock.com/previewimage/medibigoff/d6449fd3a949a74771787e094c9dea45/mev-10847002.jpg

Even in mil. guise there are no dark areas (but that's sort of unrelated):

824-2.jpg

 

The Short Mussel, a subsequent Short product, is clearly seen in movies with perfect aluminium color under the floats.

What you are seeing, in my humble opinion, is just reflection hues and shadows, no color.

 

Now, I have engaged in this type of color assertion exchanges before, and of course, all ends up, lacking firm evidence, being subjected to interpretation , subjectivity, and educated guessing.

In most cases (very) long discussions ensue, and only in a few cases a consensus is achieved (mostly...). So for me it's not worth the time and energy involved.

I surely welcome evidence, and to a certain degree speculation, but not if it becomes (and sometimes does) a super-long thread that sort of asphyxiates the build, or renders it paralytic because no clear consensus is achieved and the modeler looses confidence or just steam.

I am (personally) confident, though, that in this particular case, an based on the photo above -the one on the link showing the Cockle aside the other big plane- and extrapolating from the Mussel, that this is an all-aluminium case (white background on fus. regs, of course).

But fortunately there are many kits, to cater for diverse interpretations from different modelers.

Hope this helps with your query.

Cheers

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those interested here is a good 4-page article at the Flying Magazine archives:

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1924/1924 - 0220.html

(for those not familiar, once there, use the small arrows at the top of the page to go to other pages)

 

another

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1924/1924 - 0778.html?search=Short s.1

 

and another

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1925/1925 - 0824.html?search=Short s.1

 

more

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1926/1926 - 0908.html?search=cockle

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moa,

 

The photo I was talking about is in the link below; sure looks like black to me, and not shadow, but the upper wings and fin could be yellow/orange; did you have this photo? In the others, it sure looks like overall aluminum. as you said. When it comes to civilian aircraft from the Golden Age, I quote Butterfly McQueen in Gone With The Wind "Lawsy, Miss Scarlett- I don' know nuthin' 'bout birthin' no babies!"

Mike

 

https://www.nevingtonwarmuseum.com/short-s1-cockel.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, 72modeler said:

Moa,

 

The photo I was talking about is in the link below; sure looks like black to me, and not shadow, but the upper wings and fin could be yellow/orange; did you have this photo? In the others, it sure looks like overall aluminum. as you said. When it comes to civilian aircraft from the Golden Age, I quote Butterfly McQueen in Gone With The Wind "Lawsy, Miss Scarlett- I don' know nuthin' 'bout birthin' no babies!"

Mike

 

https://www.nevingtonwarmuseum.com/short-s1-cockel.html

Yes, i saw the photos.

No, I don't agree with your interpretation. 

But again, mine is just an interpretation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Moa said:

To me the plane looks aluminium, like the Satellite.

 

11 hours ago, Moa said:

Interpretation of B&W photos -this has been many, many times before said and will be said again, no doubt- it's difficult to say the least.

I'm in general agreement with Moa on his interpretation of the Cockle as built in 1924.

Standard practice for fabric covered structures at the time was a silver dope finish as this offered the lightest and best UV protection for the fabric, most photo's appear to be consistent with this finish for all flying surfaces.

The fuselage registration is clearly painted on a white panel, so the fuselage as built isn't white.

The fuselage was duralumin monocoque construction, and may possibly have been left bare metal, but I suspect not. The fuselage shows considerable tonal variation between photographs (typical of bare metal) but consistent tones across panels in the same photograph (untypical of bare metal, but possibly consistent with an aluminium painted finish?)

This photo of a Short Bros duralumin hull under construction (not the Cockle) shows clear evidence of some sort of corrosion protective coating being applied on the joints between panels.

There was a lot of concern at the time over the suitability of duralumin for airframe construction, in particular its corrosion resistance (and the Cockle ended up as a test sample to determine it's suitability).

It would appear, therefore, that the hull was completely painted for corrosion protection as evidenced by the overall even tones, despite marginal performance expectations due to weight.

After modification to the tail in early 1925 (new enlarged fin and rudder, and enlarged elevator) the Cockle is photographed on Rochester slipway with an RAF roundel on the fuselage, and it appears to have arrived at Felixstowe MAEE in this condition.

There is a very clear photo of the Cockle after arrival at Felixstowe p84 of Tim Mason's The Seaplane Years, from this it is evident that:-

The wing has not been refinished, the civil registration is still evident and it appears to be silver dope overall.

The tailplane has the same tonal finish as the wings, if these also haven't been refinished they may still carry the earlier G marking (position obscured by wing float)

The new fin and rudder also have the same tonal finish, these are most likely silver dope overall as well - no sign of the MAEE script on the fin or rudder stripes as per kit decals, these may have been added later but I haven't seen any photo to prove it.

The fuselage has a large RAF roundel immediately aft of the wing, and the RAF Serial "N 193" in black? midway between the roundel and tailplane leading edge.

The fuselage and wing floats have the same all over light, even finish. This is lighter than the wing silver dope, and very close in tone to the white of the roundel. These have obviously been refinished from the civil scheme my feeling is overall white, but it could possibly fresh aluminium paint.

Planing bottoms are the same as the hull and float overall colour.

The wing and tail centreline struts have the same finish as the hull, but the outer struts from hull side to wing and tailplane underside are very dark (not shadow whencompared with centreline struts), these are most likely black enamel. These may have been black in the earlier scheme, but none of the photos are clear enough to determine if this is shadow effect or not.

 

Hope you find the above as circumstantial evidence/informed speculation, I'm really enjoying your light plane builds especially the British ones, and have no intention of strangling the life out of the thread.

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

12 hours ago, Moa said:

No, I don't agree with your interpretation. 

No sweat- all I know about the airplane is what you and Dave have posted anyway- the  fact that the darker tone/shadows on the hull  did not follow the curvature of the planing surfaces, but were in a straight line above them led me to think the wetted surface, for want of a better term (See, I told you I didn't know nuthin' about golden age airplanes!) was painted with an anti-fouling coating of some sort. It reminded me of the bottom portions of the floats on the He-51b, which had been described in print sources as being painted with anti-fouling black, green, or clear lacquer, but hard to determine in photos. Regardless, I am following your build with great interest and expectation, as always.

Mike

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dave Swindell said:

Hope you find the above as circumstantial evidence/informed speculation, I'm really enjoying your light plane builds especially the British ones, and have no intention of strangling the life out of the thread.

I do, Dave, thanks for your informative contribution.

Cheers

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, 72modeler said:

No sweat- all I know about the airplane is what you and Dave have posted anyway- the  fact that the darker tone/shadows on the hull  did not follow the curvature of the planing surfaces, but were in a straight line above them led me to think the wetted surface, for want of a better term (See, I told you I didn't know nuthin' about golden age airplanes!) was painted with an anti-fouling coating of some sort. It reminded me of the bottom portions of the floats on the He-51b, which had been described in print sources as being painted with anti-fouling black, green, or clear lacquer, but hard to determine in photos. Regardless, I am following your build with great interest and expectation, as always.

Mike

Hi Mike

This area of the hobby (the interpretation) is a sensitive one. Having been built (and mainly scratchbuilt) for decades obscure types, and therefore having to resort to all kinds of sources (mainly photos, but also written sources, extrapolations from contemporary practices, and the like) to obtain data, I am more and more humbled by the difficulty of the task, and instead of having grown more confident, I learned that having a very cautious approach to the matter of color is the way to go.

I do, sincerely, my best at the time I am building the model, to render what in my mind is a faithful replica, with a -hopefully- fair level of accuracy.

New material is always emerging, new sources appear (one example, the French "Gallica" digital repository, where I have spent uncounted hours) and here and there I realize I didn't get it right in some way or another. Fortunately, most of the times, the choices stand the proof of time, which in a way pays for all those hours spent on research and not actually building.

I research now with the same passion that I build (that was not the case when I was young-er 😄) and I owe that mainly to late friend and mentor James Schubert, of Puget Sound, Washington State.

Kit makers can do so much for us, we have to pick the line and go the extra mile most of the times.

Sometimes the choices are made on solid data, sometimes there are grey areas that won't get resolved, no matter how hard you try. So at some point, if you want to build that arcane, obscure, off-the-beaten-path spawn, you take a leap of faith.

I learned to cultivate a healthy skepticism, but also learned not to be paralyzed by excessive doubts.

But you have now tapped on another source of joy for this hobby, really getting to know those types we are not so familiar with. That's a wonderful thing!

Cheers

 

P/S: (don't tell anyone, but I would also love for many of them to be very colorful, and not that dull metal hue :happy: )

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Main parts separated and cleaned up, you can see that there is some detail in the cockpit area:

IMG_5294a%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

The engine fairings have nice detail, but this (fuel/oil caps) I will obliterate for the moment to be able to clean the seam. Later on punched out parts will be made:

IMG_5295+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

As said, nice detail, where other manufacturers may give you just a plain volume:

IMG_5296+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

The features that came halved are glued together:

IMG_5294b+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

 A nice addition by the manufacturer: a sawhorse-tail support and a nose support were the chin goes. I love these details, because they show me that there are people at Avis that care:

IMG_5298+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

Built already:

IMG_5300+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cockpit assembly and the rest of the useful bits.  Very nice props, inst. pan. and the like. The engine cylinders even have minuscule cooling fins. I love this one:

IMG_5301+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

 

The rest dozen or so parts. I per norm shun all "rod" and "strut" parts form the kits, since precious time is wasted in cleaning them to only obtain a so-so, uneven shape of generally dubious cross-section, and instead use styrene or metal rod, stretched sprue and strut material. The exception may be those L and V small parts that hold the wing, we'll see. By the way, the kit doesn't provide the lower horizontal tail struts, same as with the Satellite, and you have to make them (which is no big deal, whatsoever):

IMG_5302+%25281280x960%2529.jpg

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The instructions call for white ailerons, which unfortunately also seems not to be accurate.

Look here:

https://www.agefotostock.com/age/en/Search.aspx?query=Short s1

There are four photos of the Cockle. Neither these nor all the other photos I have show that.

This mishap is most likely based on the observation of another photo that can be seen on the Net (marked in small lettering at the bottom "H76(d)" which only shows a tonal difference, most likely produced by the fact that the Cockle's ailerons could be deflected down, in unison, to lower alighting speeds, and help with take off (i.e. what some call flaperons), thus making light bounce at a different angle.

Again, B&W interpretation, tricky stuff, especially with "metal" finishes (silver dope in this case).

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Moa said:

Stuart, I think if refers to the number of times the small pieces fall from the building and you have to retrieve them from the carpet.

Its his own fault. I told him to squish that baby carpet monster but did he listen to me? Oh no; he knew it all...….:blah:

 

I Told You So of Mars 👽

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Martian Hale said:

Its his own fault. I told him to squish that baby carpet monster but did he listen to me? Oh no; he knew it all...….:blah:

 

I Told You So of Mars 👽

We all know who planted those in the first place here on Earth on modelers' carpets, don't we?

Your biological plot to make models on Mars from the parts your genetically-altered lackeys steal from us here on Earth must be proven silly by know. All you get is joysticks, control horns, windshields, tailwheels and the like.

Well, good luck with those, I say!

 

  • Haha 4
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...