PeterB Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 (edited) Hi, As I have just about finished the Bv138 I was building for another GB, I thought I might add this "problem child" to my rebuild of the Revell Frances I have already entered. Like many modellers I have an interest in post war British aircraft, particularly naval ones, but for many years there were gaps. I managed to get the Frog Attacker (very basic), Sea Venom (not bad) and Sea Vixen (shape problems but looks reasonable), together with the old Airfix Seahawk (needs work) but the only Scimitar available for a long time seemed to be the Contrail Vacform, which I built. So when Xtrakit produced their injection model I grabbed one at once, but then began to have second thoughts. It is a bit Jekyl and Hyde - not too bad a cockpit, considering it won't be seen anyway, with a resin ejector seat and side consoles, but little or no wheel bay detail (although the main gear doors are closed on the ground). I can live with that, together with the massive ejector pin marks in the wings and elsewhere, but then I saw some reviews! One said there were major shape and size problems with the wings, nose, vertical and horizontal tail and exhaust fairings so I was discouraged. Another I have seen more recently acknowledges these potential faults but says they have been overstated, and are capable of a fairly easy fix, except for the "area ruled" fuselage. As I recall I started on the cockpit a couple of year ago and then abandoned it, but I think I might dig it out and see what I can do - got to be better than the Contrail one anyway and I am not splashing out megabucks on the resin ones even if they are still available. I have got a fairly accurate Attacker kit to build now so I might as well see if I add the Scimitar to the Supermarine stable. It was a brute of a plane in some respects - big, heavy and agressive looking, and with the Sea Vixen it makes up the penultimate generation of what I think of as "proper" RN planes, with only the Buccaneer and, Phantom to follow on the "conventional" carriers, everything after that being STOL/VTOL. Together with the Swift it represents the end of an era as Supermarine faded out of existence. Assuming I can find the kit, I will post pics before long. I may regret this but what the heck. Incidentally at least one review says this was made for Hannants by MPM but I can no sign of that on Scalemates so I have no idea who exactly made it. I know my Xtrakit Meteor F8 was ex MPM, and their Vampire is ex Special Hobby, but both the Scimitar and the Swift are shown as Xtrakit "new tool" although another review says that the Swift was also made by MPM - anybody got any more info? Pete Edited December 1, 2019 by PeterB 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinxman Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 Looking forward to seeing this hit the bench - if you can find it. You have my full support and I will watch on avidly as you fettle it! I thought it was an MPM kit as well, but I don't have any confirmation that it is actually the case. cheers 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterB Posted December 2, 2019 Author Share Posted December 2, 2019 If I am reading it correctly, the Meteor and Vampire were re-boxings of existing MPM/Special Hobby kits, but the implication seems to be that Hannants got MPM to mould the Scimitar and Swift just for them - could be wrong. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Swindell Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 8 hours ago, PeterB said: If I am reading it correctly, the Meteor and Vampire were re-boxings of existing MPM/Special Hobby kits, but the implication seems to be that Hannants got MPM to mould the Scimitar and Swift just for them - could be wrong. Pete My understanding is that the Scimitar and Swift were produced by MPM exclusively for Hannants, but the Meteor and Vampire were produced for Hannants with an agreement that the manufacturers could produce their own versions (marks) of the kit. In the latter case, both the Xtrakit boxings are of what could arguably be said to be the most popular mark, ie the Meteor F8 and Vampire FB5, MPM/Special Hobby haven't released standard kits of these marks. Scalemates doesn't list the Xtrakit kits as the "new tool" version of the kit, but they were released at the same time as the MPM/Special Hobby kits that are listed so. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterB Posted December 2, 2019 Author Share Posted December 2, 2019 (edited) Hi Dave, That sounds sensible, though it looks like MPM have released versions of the Meteor F8, but their Vampires are different marks. Interestingly, in his 2014 review for Hyperscale, Roger Hardy refers to an earlier and highly critical review on the "Thunder and Lightnings" site which apparently said amongst other things that the horizontal tail was a scale 3.5ft too wide but he says it was far less than that on his kit and wondered if Hannants had asked MPM to make changes - possible I suppose but maybe not very likely I would have thought - did they allow for the anhedral I wonder? As to the wings they are about 2mm each short, so that is not too bad. He did a bit of trimming and reshaping but said it was not that much of a change and would probably not be that far adrift if built OOB. I will perhaps do a bit of fettling but nothing too drastic as I do not have any good scale plans - heavy hint if anybody has any they wish to share! Incidentally, one of the things I find irritating with the kit is the total lack of armament - it has just 4 drop tanks on what Hardy descibes as "the later style of pylons" so that needs looking into as well - it could carry bombs, Sidewinders, Bullpups, probably rocket pods or even a Nuke in real life, and the version Xtrakit provide as a refueller needs buddy pods. Whilst researching the Scimitar I see that the Swift was progressively derived from the development of a swept wing version of the old Attacker which I did not realise, but that although Supermarine were experimenting with area ruled fuselages in 1952, they do not appear to have applied that to the Swift, but certainly did with the Scimitar, which I suspect must be one of the earliest if not indeed the first British production aircraft to have that feature but no doubt somebody will have more info on that subject. You may have gathered that I have decided this is in fact not as bad as I though a couple of years ago, so I will get up into my roof and see if I can find the ruddy thing. Who knows, I might even dig out my Xtrakit Swift as well which also is in hibernation. Pics before too long hopefully! Pete Edited December 3, 2019 by PeterB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bentwaters81tfw Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 Is it only me that tackles these supposedly 'unbuildable' kits? Get stuck in, the only fiddly bit is the splitter plates inside the intakes. The underwing serials are a bit oversize, and they go on before the pylons. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterB Posted December 2, 2019 Author Share Posted December 2, 2019 Good to know - thanks for that. Bullpups I see! As I recall there was a time when virtually every Hasegawa/Frog boxing of post war jets came with them - F100 etc. They were crude and I replaced them with other ordnance, but I do have the Hasegawa weapons set with 3 versions so perhaps they will make an appearance at last - need to find out what sort of pylons/rails they went on though. Your tail markings are the same as I hand painted on my Contrail vacform many years ago! I believe "R" was for the Ark Royal and "E" for Eagle? Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bentwaters81tfw Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 Hasegawa Bullpups, and Model Art Decals. Yep, correct letter idents. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterB Posted December 3, 2019 Author Share Posted December 3, 2019 Underwing serials etc are no big problem as I can always print my own - can't find any decals currently available so might have to! Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterB Posted December 3, 2019 Author Share Posted December 3, 2019 12 hours ago, bentwaters81tfw said: Is it only me that tackles these supposedly 'unbuildable' kits? Get stuck in, the only fiddly bit is the splitter plates inside the intakes. The underwing serials are a bit oversize, and they go on before the pylons. Don't suppose you remember how much ballast you put in the nose - instructions unhelpfully just say "add weight". Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bentwaters81tfw Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 No. I tend to go ott with ballast. It's all between the splitter plates IIRC. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterB Posted December 3, 2019 Author Share Posted December 3, 2019 (edited) Just partially answered my own question about who made it. Whilst the Meteor and Vampire boxes both actually say MPM, the Swift and Scimitar boxes I have just found say "Produced for H. G. Hannant Ltd by Vision Sword s.r.o. Senov Czech Republic". I know MPM, Special Hobby, Azur and CMK are all related but the only "Vision Sword" I can find is a Czech company with fingers in many pies, including accounting, electronics, electrical equipment and "inn services" - probably a holding group but the Sword model people appear to be in the same town Senov, possibly the same road, and say they have made models for other companies so perhaps they are related to "Vision Sword". Pics shortly when I get time - my wife has decided I need to do something else for a while! Pete Edited December 3, 2019 by PeterB 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted December 3, 2019 Share Posted December 3, 2019 2 hours ago, PeterB said: Just partially answered my own question about who made it. Whilst the Meteor and Vampire boxes both actually say MPM, the Swift and Scimitar boxes I have just found say "Produced for H. G. Hannant Ltd by Vision Sword s.r.o. Senov Czech Republic". I know MPM, Special Hobby, Azur and CMK are all related but the only "Vision Sword" I can find is a Czech company with fingers in many pies, including accounting, electronics, electrical equipment and "inn services" - probably a holding group but the Sword model people appear to be in the same town Senov, possibly the same road, and say they have made models for other companies so perhaps they are related to "Vision Sword". It is 'that' Sword company - they made a few of the Xtrakit range - others include the Canberra PR9 and the Hunter T7 (basically the ones that weren't MPM kits). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterB Posted December 3, 2019 Author Share Posted December 3, 2019 (edited) Although a contemporary of the DH Sea Vixen, the Scimitar is perhaps rather less well known outside the circle of FAA modellers, so I thought I would start with a short history of the plane. Following the end of WWII the RN was looking at using planes with no undercarriage on a so called “flexible deck”, and although this was a dead end, it did result in the Supermarine Type 505 powered by twin RR Avon engines and with a straight wing. The 505 had a temporary fixed undercarriage and had a butterfly tail, but was in effect the first step towards the Scimitar. When the flexible deck scheme was scrapped in 1947, the type 505 became the type 508 with a proper nosewheel undercarriage and changes to the wing but retained the butterfly tail. Type 508. A similar 2nd prototype was the type 529, but the third prototype, the type 525 had swept wings and a conventional tail with 10° of dihedral on the horizontal surfaces and this was extremely similar in appearance to the Scimitar. Type 525 The final step was the type 544, aka the type N113 which had modifications to the wing and the tail changed to 10° anhedral to correct handling problems and the fuselage was “area ruled” which was apparently a first in UK service aircraft as were its blown flaps to reduce landing speed. It first flew in January 1956, being given the name Scimitar. Transonic in a dive it was used as a single seat fighter, later equipped with Sidewinder missiles to supplement the built in 4x30mm Aden Cannon, and as a fighter bomber equipped to carry bombs or rocket pods, and was also intended to carry Bullpup air to ground missiles and even nuclear bombs. An alternative camera nose could be fitted for recce work and later it was fitted with buddy packs for refuelling Buccaneers in flight. It flew with 2 training and 4 operational Squadrons from the carriers Victorious, Ark Royal, Eagle, Hermes and Centaur – 76 were built and it served from August 1957 to October 1966 – 3 have been preserved I believe. By comparison the 114 Sea Vixen FAW1 entered service in the same year and in its FAW2 form (29 new, 67 converted from FAW1) was not retired until 1972. Which was the better aircraft – I don't know. Both were fighters/fighter bombers, but the Scimitar was about 70mph faster and could carry twice the bombload according to the Putnam's book on RN planes but by all accounts it was a bit of a maintenance nightmare. More Sea Vixens were built and they lasted longer so it seems the Navy preferred it to the Scimitar, perhaps because it had a crew of 2 and an air intercept radar (I think) whilst, although designed for one it was never fitted to the Scimitar. Actually, I have now read that the Vixen was considered a better interceptor for fleet defence etc, and the introduction of the Buccaneer S1 in 1962 replaced the Scimitar as a bomber, so it was redundant, although it lingered on for a while as a refueller for the Buccs! Pete Edited December 4, 2019 by PeterB 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bentwaters81tfw Posted December 4, 2019 Share Posted December 4, 2019 12 hours ago, PeterB said: Which was the better aircraft – I don't know. Both were fighters/fighter bombers, but the Scimitar was about 70mph faster and could carry twice the bombload according to the Putnam's book on RN planes but by all accounts it was a bit of a maintenance nightmare. More Sea Vixens were built and they lasted longer so it seems the Navy preferred it to the Scimitar, perhaps because it had a crew of 2 and an air intercept radar (I think) whilst, although designed for one it was never fitted to the Scimitar. Pete Regarding speed. A comment from the Americans regarding the Scimitar. 'All that power to go subsonic.' Speaking to the Vixen pilot when it wore Red Bull colours at Fairford in 2003. He told me it would still do Mach 1.3, in fact they flew it that fast outside controlled airspace over the Channel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterB Posted December 4, 2019 Author Share Posted December 4, 2019 Actually I had heard suggestioins that the Vixen was a fair bit faster than the references quote but not that fast! Probably a bit lighter than a service machine but have they put more powerful engines in? Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterB Posted December 4, 2019 Author Share Posted December 4, 2019 (edited) Well, here it is in all its glory! As you can see I did not get very far. I had painted the various parts of the cockpit and the intake bulkhead together with the exhausts. Don't think I have seen ejector pin marks that big since I built the Special Hobby/Azur Vought Vindicator so the next thing I do will be to get rid of them. Not sure Humbol 62 leather is quite right on the seat so I might give it a wash to tone it down. Part 52, the yellow and black striped handle that goes on top of the seat has gone missing so I will have a go at scratching one from thin wire, but not until I am close to finishing as it will be very fragile. By all accounts the seat is wrong anyway, but as I have already painted and glued it in place I will not be buying a replacement MB Mk4. I can see why the intake splitter plates etc could be a fiddle as Bentwaters said, so there is going to be quite a bit of dry fitting and adjustment I guess, but once that is done there are not that many parts to sort out. The wing and particularly the horizontal stabs could be difficult to get lined up according to the review but I will cross that bridge when I come to it. Unless I can source some plans I will not be making too many "improvements/corrections". More as and when I can find time or my wife goes out! Pete Edited December 4, 2019 by PeterB 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehnz Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 Peter, in reading about these, there are some fit issues around the intake area. This build in the Modelling Man Cave on Tapatalk has some fixes that I thought were quite practical if slightly agricultural. Either way they seemed to work quite well. I'm sure a modeller of your skill could adapt them accordingly. I think you'll need a tapatalk login to use it, easy to do & useful over quite a few modelling sites. Steve. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterB Posted December 5, 2019 Author Share Posted December 5, 2019 (edited) Hi Steve, Thanks for that - could prove very useful, although if I had read it earlier I think the kit would have stayed in the roof! I have now read 3 different reviews and at times it as if they were each building a different kit. They all agree on things like the vertical tail, stabs and "pen knib" exhaust fairings, though there are considerable differences in how far they think the stabs are oversize. Two also say the nose is too short and the wrong shape, one says the wings are bad, another says they only need a little filler to reshape the tips, and one says they are about right! I think the problem is the lack of accurate plans and indeed the chap in the review you mentioned does say he has two sets of plans which don't even agree with each other let alone the kit - I don't have any plans so I will not be doing very much reshaping. It is possible that the plans and moulds were based to some extent on the earlier and slightly different prototypes. The first two say the fit of the wings and stabs is a bit poor but this last chap seems to have had rather more problems, and he is apparently the only one to have had major problems with the intakes. Looking at photos, there are very few that show a good view of the intakes and most have covers on, but I think he may have gone a bit OTT, though his idea of splitting the backing plate into two halves is good. I suspect I will be doing a little less surgery than him. He is also the only one who mentions problems with the jet pipes and the tail hook. They all say it was moulded by MPM but mine seems to have been made by Sword, though I suppose they could be related. That or maybe they did make changes in light of the initial bad reviews. The only way to see which review is right is to build it so we will find out more as I go along. This could be a little less fun than normal - fingers crossed. I have removed the ejector pin marks so let the battle commence! Pete Edited December 5, 2019 by PeterB 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bentwaters81tfw Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 The stab problem is caused by people not allowing for the anhedral, the stab is the right size. An amount of fettling is required around the splitters and the compressor face bulkhead. Once that is sorted, the rest is a doddle. Too many excuses from people who prefer to criticise rather than build. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterB Posted December 5, 2019 Author Share Posted December 5, 2019 (edited) Beginning to form the same opinion as the intakes on mine look fine - just need a little trimming. As I don't have any plans I will not be indulging in much modification - might reduce the chord of the stabs slightly, drill out the cannon troughs and possible some of the small intakes, and modify the lower back of the tail to make it vertical. I have just put some filler on to rebuild the "lip" on one of the splitter plates which I carelessly filed off when removing one of the ejection pin stubs. I like things to look right whenever possible, but am not a full blown perfectionist - life is too short! I have asked Hannants if they wish to comment on the suggestion it was revamped in the light of the critical reviews - they might even reply. Pete Edited December 5, 2019 by PeterB 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterB Posted December 5, 2019 Author Share Posted December 5, 2019 Quick update, Nigel Hannant has confirmed it was only the one production run without any modifications, and that it was made by Sword, so any variations between kits are either down to the moulds ageing, or are in the imagination of the reviewers. I have got the jetpipes in, and am about to glue in the intakes/splitters after a little bit of filing. I have also started work on the guns. The Scimitar was built with 4x30mm Aden, but some had 2 blanked off when "a sort of radar" was fitted, and at least one of the museum exhibits is in that condition. Judging by review comments about the markings being wrong for a service aircraft, it seems the kit was based on the one in the FAA Museum which has only 2 guns. I am opening out all 4 gun troughs with the end of an old pair of compasses heated over a gas flame, and will clean up with a drill and file. Pics in a day or so I guess. Pete 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 I would expect the Scimitar to have been like the Hunter and other day fighters of this period, in having a small gun-ranging radar in the nose. This bears little or no relationship (other than in principle!) to the much larger Airborne Intercept radar carried by Javelins, Sea Vixens etc, which required a second crewmember to take advantage of. There was the slightly later, smaller, one man AI radar used in the Lightning: I don't know whether this was tried in a Scimitar, but it would have meant a very different nose so I doubt it. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bentwaters81tfw Posted December 5, 2019 Share Posted December 5, 2019 There was a proposed Super Scimitar with 2 crew in tandem, and AI 23 and reheat, but nor proceeded with. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterB Posted December 5, 2019 Author Share Posted December 5, 2019 As Graham says it had gun ranging radar, hence the small black tip on the nose. One of the reviews I read said some had "a form of radar fitted" but not exactly what. However I have a recollection of reading somewhere that for the nuclear role they had the LABS gear fitted for toss bombing and think that was given as the reason the 2 guns were removed - could be wrong. Unfortunately, as might perhaps be expected for a relatively unknown type, there does not seem to be a whole lot of info out there - other than the usual brief entry in things like Putnams RN Aircraft, the only thing I have is an Ian Allan book on the Attacker, Swift and Scimitar and I can see no mention of why the guns were removed in that. Pete 1 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