Trumpeter 1/48 RA-5C Vigilante

[Alan P]

Hi everybody,

 

this is my first in progress-thingy on this fine site - the Trumpeter RA-5C Vigilante. It's a great kit, looks fab. I am planning to build it mostly out of the box but anything could happen. It's quite pricey if you can find one and looks like just the sort of thing I can botch beyond belief, which is why I was afraid to touch it.

 

I am going to try and take my time building it, rather than hacking through it at my usual pace, cos it's for my dad, who is a great bloke and served in the Navy for 25 years. He got me into modelling as a kid and the Vigilante is his all-time favourite plane - he remembers one blasting past his ship (HMS Blake) at below deck level on Exercise Midlink 74 while they were in the Indian Ocean with USS Constellation. 

 

So - the version I am building uses Aeromaster decals for a RVAH-11 Vigi on board Constellation in 1975. I will also be using some artistic licence to correct some egregious Trumpy errors, but it won't be an exact replica or whatever.

 

Here's what's in the box, plus a set of Aeromaster decals:

 

This is a little something I spotted while looking for Revell 1/72 U-boat accessories - a Nautilus Models wooden brace for the slightly mis-fitting fuselage halves:

Let's see how this thing turns out...

Edited March 20, 2019 by Alan P

[Mike]

This looks interesting I saw that Nautilus brace when the kit first came out - apparently, it's to stop the kit from collapsing during/after building, as it's not very well engineered in that department. Looks like it's got the potential to be a scorcher... what's the size of that thing in 1:48?

[Phil @ Flory Models]

I built mine many years ago, It was one of the first test run of the kit. No box, no instructions and a tone of flash and release agent to boot.

Makes a fine model thou.

Theres a few photos of the one I did <<HERE>>

She it a real dirty Bird

[Alan P]

So...started already!

 

I think I must have been kidding myself about OOB - Everything looked a little plain when I test fitted the cockpit. I haven't any decent cockpit photos either apart from the instrument panels and ejector seats so I used a bit of licence (ie. I just made it all up) using wire and bits of sprue:

 

The canvassy tops of the parachutey-bits on the seats are just tissues soaked in PVA glue. Looked ok to me.

More to come after I've been for a swim!

Al

Edited March 20, 2019 by Alan P

[Guest snipersmudge]

fantastic looking aircraft, looking forward to seeing more pics

[Bandwagon 106]

Its a beautiful aircraft, and the kit is very good. I'll post some pics of mine. Size wise, it's similar to a Tomcat or Eagle, huge compared to a Skyhawk though. I had few problems putting mine together, and it hasn't fallen apart yet. You migh find it easier to put the main landing gear in place before glueing the fuselage halves together. I'll get those pics for you

Joel

[Alan P]

Ok went a bit nuts with the detailing (by my standards anyway!) - I suppose I now have to do the whole model to this level...

 

Cockpit walls are done with silver foil, wire, and stray photoetch:

 

Here's how it all fits together (pretty well so far - it's a nice kit)

next: priming and painting!

Cheers,

Al

Edited March 20, 2019 by Alan P

[Mike]

That's lookin' reet smart Al

[Alan P]

Mike don't you have anything better to do?!! (I mean, thanks!)

I'm going to bed now!

Nighty night

Al

Edited August 6, 2007 by PHaTNesS

[Mike]

Mike don't you have anything better to do?!! (I mean, thanks!)

I'm going to bed now!

Nighty night

Al

I'm just waiting for the bathroom to come free, so I can brush my teeths & then slip into a deep slumber... hopefully just after I reach my bed

Harumpf!!! You give a guy a compliment, and he tells you to go to bed <stomps off>

[Alan P]

Teeths? Do you keep a spare set then?

I'm pushing my luck here arent I?

Edited August 6, 2007 by PHaTNesS

[Mike]

Teeths? Do you keep a spare set then?

I'm pushing my luck here arent I?

I'll put it down to you being oooover tired

[Bandwagon 106]

Here is my Vigilante

AG-604 from RVAH-14, the Eagle Eyes onboard the USS Independance. Decals by Aeromaster

With a few friends

Its the biggest on here out of this group, length wise its similar to a Tomcat, spanwise, its very close to an Intruder!

Comparison with a Skyhawk

Its huge!

Quite a few things can fold on the kit, wings, tail and radome. I never had any construction issues that made me want to curse it or bin it. It required a little more patience than some other kits, but the result is well worth it. It will definately not be the last one.

Joel

Edited August 7, 2007 by Bandagon 106

[periklis_sale]

Oh, mate the cockpit looks fantastic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Imagine what you could have done if it wasn't an OOB build!!!!!!!!!!!

Keep us posted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[entlim]

Nyshe!

[Mike]

Here - what was the role of the Viggi? I notice a few people have compared it to the Skyhawk... was there any relevance to that comparison?

[entlim]

Here - what was the role of the Viggi? I notice a few people have compared it to the Skyhawk... was there any relevance to that comparison?

originally, supersonic , shipboard tactical bomber- used for very short time in vietnam/ korea

failed and relegated to stategic recce, didn't do much better

Ed

[Mike]

originally, supersonic , shipboard tactical bomber- used for very short time in vietnam/ korea

failed and relegated to stategic recce, didn't do much better

Ed

Still... it looks nice

[Oliver]

The Vigilante was originally a tac strike bomber with a nuclear cababilty as Ed said, under the designation A3J/A-5A, it was a replacement for the A-3 Skywarrior tac bomber. It didn't fail in this role as it was never truely tested in it, its only major short coming was that it was a difficult aircraft to land on a carrier and this coupled with rookie pilots led to quite a few ramp strikes.

Around this time the Navy's nuclear polaris missile submarine fleet came on line, as such it was deemed by the powers that be, that the airbourne element of the Navy's nuclear force was no longer needed by 1963.

With the new improved A-5B already on the production lines, its airframe differs a little in places such as it now has the distinctive humpback that wasn't on the A-5A, the decision was made to convert them into recon aircraft and so the RA-5C was born. Though secretly it still rertained the ability, with a few hours in the hanger, to deliver nukes.

In Vietnam the only Vigilante to see service was the RA-5C, it flew over a target before and after a strike package had been to its target to take pre and post bombing mission photos. This happened as regular as clockwork and once the North Vietnamese air defences cottoned on this they accounted for quite a few Vigilantes. So its not to say it was a failing of the airframe but rather, as with the majority of the air combat in Vietnam, a failing of strategy.

On an interesting note, the Vigi' which introduced several firsts (intake design, internal bomb carriage etc), many believe that the Soviet MiG-25 was directly influenced by many of the Vigi's features, save for the bomb bay obviously.

Oh and lovely work on the cockpit phatness.

[Alan P]

The Vigilante was way ahead of its time (1962) and featured the first ever digital fly-by-wire system, active autothrottle, and computerised fire-control system. It was Mach 2.5 capable and the A-5B/RA-5C version had a very long range due to the extra fuel in the humpback. It was withdrawn as a strategic bomber after the introduction of Polaris in 1963, but the recce version was regarded as very successful by the US Navy and led to further production orders.

 

It had the highest loss rate of any jet in Vietnam, as Oliver says this was due to the predictable flight pattern of following in the main bomb run at low level 10 minutes after the attack, by which time the North Vietnamese gunners had reloaded and were ready and waiting. With only 4 planes per squadron embarked on carriers, to lose 3 in three months was staggering.

 

(If anyone is interested in the Vigi's Vietnam record and some interesting anecdotes about the experience of flying it, I would recommend you go have a look at Bob Jellison's site (ex-Vigi pilot) here). It is very interesting and reveals a lot about the capability of the aircraft, which was in many ways America's TSR.2.

 

The Vigilante story demonstrates that truly world-beating aircraft appearing ahead of their time rarely get a decent chance to shine due to short-sighted strategists.

Worth commemorating methinks!

Edited March 20, 2019 by Alan P

[Bandwagon 106]

Not much more to add what Oliver and PHaT said really, but the RA-5 had a considerable conventional attack capability, it could carry all types of bombs, rockets and missiles, but seldom used. They were too precious and irreplacable in the recon role to do a job which deck fulls of Skyhawks, Corsairs, Intruders Skyraiders and Phantoms could do. At the time the A3J was replaced by Polaris, the strategy was nuclear or nowt. Had the switch occured a couple of years later, we could well have seen more vigis used in an Intruder type conventional role A version was considered by the USAF for use an an ADCOM interceptor, this had three engines, and it was considered for the Blue Angels at one time! The US Navy has never had anything to match the capabilities of the RA-5 or RF-8 since they retired.

The comparison with the Skyhawk is for size Mike(ooerr!), the smallest and the biggest. (I know the A-3s were heavier, and E-2s / A2Js had a bigger wingspan, but hey)

Joel

Edited August 7, 2007 by Bandagon 106

[Alan P]

Progress!! This is going at a snail's pace for now, getting about an hour every few days been so busy at work:

Finished the cockpit: (I think it looks better from a reasonable distance away, the closeup photos always look harsh!)

 

 

 

 

I added seatbelts, seat wiring, electrical wiring, air and hydraulic pipes, air vents and circuit breaker panel, plus radar console visor for the backseater. (All completely unnecessary as most of it will be hidden under the canopy!)

Wheels and wheelwells next - should get a decent crack at it soon as I've got some time off next month!

Cheers for looking,

Al.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Alan P

[Stephen]

looking good so far Al!

Stephen

[Gary West]

Finished the cocckpit: (i think it looks better from a reasonable distance away, the closeup photos always look a bit cr@p!)

well that pit must look pretty impressive from a distance, because it looks pretty good up close and personal. Know what you mean though

[periklis_sale]

The pit looks fantstic mate..... only 1 thing if i am allowed mate... i think that the escape handles over the head are on the big side? I am not familiar with the aircraft but they look a bit big to me!!!!!