Jump to content
  • entries
    115
  • comments
    210
  • views
    48,951

Another Naval Build - Supermarine Attacker FB.2

Hot on the heels of the Tempest and defying my normal convention of posting a cameo of my next build - as I have three unfinished (and I'm unmotivated to finish them yet), I opted for a quick and simple build instead.

 

I've had the Attacker in my stash for nearly a year, so I thought what the hell let's build it. 

 

Up first here's what's in the box...

 

attacker_01.jpg.bdfbe5a53cccc5ffdc3466d7c666cdac.jpg

 

attacker_02.jpg.0415fbd601c41adf3aa9ed8fe219bd09.jpg

 

attacker_03.jpg.ef321f763eaa571d5d047abbb86aee5c.jpg

 

attacker_04.jpg.596f3e209049fce19655d1e8f27e834c.jpg

 

attacker_05.jpg.5f500ccd6e33c52659c365ced56d09a3.jpg

 

attacker_06.jpg.65af89770847e45b5e031193dd80c96c.jpg

 

The sprues a clean a crisp, no shorts or burring and a minimal flash.

 

I assembled the cockpit and jet pipe, I opted not to paint them as on test fitting within the fuselage the tolerances a very tight - so painting before will cause problems..

 

attacker_07.jpg.ea9cb9f7d528887e8291e67d21a599d4.jpg

 

The ejector seat is dry fitted, as this can be fitted after painting.

 

attacker_08.jpg.6e2a012aae4eb032e4e9bcec1b8e7b82.jpg

 

Something of note - fit the intakes, before gluing the fuselage halves together, as it makes getting decent fit easier.

 

attacker_09.jpg.db887f8c7ca416f555b5f2cf31a7b488.jpg

 

Fuselage glued together, it needs only minor filling.

 

attacker_10.jpg.dea27db4476a1094ef21b0e2bcbbd791.jpg

 

Wings and tail planes assembled - no issues though some minor filling is needed around the cannon.

 

attacker_11.jpg.77d5bd1d76b4b7e8b8e014da3b8a9025.jpg

 

Tail-planes fitted with no issue. However the wing need so fettling to fit and then to remove the anhedral - nothing major.

 

attacker_12.jpg.8857983b6069cfe36ea3ecc0ea7c8755.jpg

 

Wings corrected a few lumps and bumps added.

 

attacker_13.jpg.177cba79950985e7099802dd85fe8c2d.jpg

 

Belly auxiliary fuel tank* and arrestor hook fitted. * The tank doesn't have to be fitted, but it covers a lot of joints ;) 

 

attacker_14.jpg.1d0a75a5ed3d54153b8e4b0dfac35e12.jpg

 

Flaps fitted and ready for some Mr Surfacer 1000.

 

That's all for now

 

TBG

  • Like 9


25 Comments


Recommended Comments

In the early fifties there was a line up of them at Stretton, though I never did see one fly. 

The main runway at Stretton is now under the M56.

 

Looks like a good build

 

Cheers

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
16 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

I don't think I've seen a tail-dragging jet before.

Pretty rare I'll agree. The Heinkel 178 and Caproni Campini N.1 (both experimental) were also tail draggers as were Messerschmitt 262 prototypes V1 to V4. The Attacker and the Yak 15 are, to my knowledge, the only operational military jets with this type of undercarriage, both having origins in propeller driven aircraft (Yak 9 for the 15). The Yak 15 was developed in to the 17 which had tricycle undercarriage.

  • Like 2

Share this comment


Link to comment
2 hours ago, 2mm Dabbler said:

Pretty rare I'll agree. The Heinkel 178 and Caproni Campini N.1 (both experimental) were also tail draggers as were Messerschmitt 262 prototypes V1 to V4. The Attacker and the Yak 15 are, to my knowledge, the only operational military jets with this type of undercarriage, both having origins in propeller driven aircraft (Yak 9 for the 15). The Yak 15 was developed in to the 17 which had tricycle undercarriage.

 

Technically the U2 could be considered a tail-dragger, as could the Yak-28 - though they have bicycle type undercarriage.

Edited by toboldlygo

Share this comment


Link to comment

Hopefully you will tackle the dreadful Scimitar at some point, one of the worst post-war platforms procured by FAA. It held the uneviable record for man hours per flying hour as well as a tragically high accident rate. It constantly leaked fuel and only found favour as a tanker (replaced by NA39) before well deserved retirement

to FRU.

 

JB

Share this comment


Link to comment
11 hours ago, Jack Benson said:

Hopefully you will tackle the dreadful Scimitar at some point, one of the worst post-war platforms procured by FAA. It held the uneviable record for man hours per flying hour as well as a tragically high accident rate. It constantly leaked fuel and only found favour as a tanker (replaced by NA39) before well deserved retirement

to FRU.

 

JB

 

So dangerous in fact they armed it with a nuclear bomb :O

 

If someone does a decent 1/72nd kit, I might tackle it one-day 

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 08/11/2019 at 21:48, Barry Ten said:

I don't think I've seen a tail-dragging jet before.

The Fleet Air Arm experimented with a ‘belly flop’ form of carrier landing in the early days of jet aviation using strengthened airframes and a rubberised deck so the whole fuselage dragged ..... that was never going to work was it ;)

  • Like 2

Share this comment


Link to comment
16 minutes ago, griffgriff said:

The Fleet Air Arm experimented with a ‘belly flop’ form of carrier landing in the early days of jet aviation using strengthened airframes and a rubberised deck so the whole fuselage dragged ..... that was never going to work was it ;)

Sorry .... wrong link

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this comment


Link to comment
41 minutes ago, griffgriff said:

Sorry .... wrong link

 

 

 

I had a colleague at Dunsfold, who as an Apprentice was involved in the tests..

Share this comment


Link to comment
14 hours ago, Jack Benson said:

Hopefully you will tackle the dreadful Scimitar at some point, one of the worst post-war platforms procured by FAA. It held the uneviable record for man hours per flying hour as well as a tragically high accident rate. It constantly leaked fuel and only found favour as a tanker (replaced by NA39) before well deserved retirement

to FRU.

 

JB

Apart from the Spitfire, Supermarine's fighters were a pretty rubbish lot. The RAF and FAA seem to have had very few 'duds' post-war, and almost all of them came from Supermarine. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
8 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

Apart from the Spitfire, Supermarine's fighters were a pretty rubbish lot. The RAF and FAA seem to have had very few 'duds' post-war, and almost all of them came from Supermarine. 

 

I don't blame the Manufacturer, it was very much a transition era from prop to jet and the Government at the time didn't seem to have a clue what they were doing (as it was on the Railways to be honest), so requirements & specifications were ever changing to what they wanted - especially from a carrier-borne aircraft and the manufacturers couldn't keep up. Ironically the Spitfire outlasted a number of it's replacements in Service..

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
46 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

Apart from the Spitfire, Supermarine's fighters were a pretty rubbish lot. The RAF and FAA seem to have had very few 'duds' post-war, and almost all of them came from Supermarine. 

Most of the problems the RAF and FAA had were with the early versions of the Avon; they were awful. The US wouldn't touch it with a bargepole preferring the much more reliable Sapphire for license  production. The US wouldn't finance the Hunter for export to Europe until it had got to Mk4 because of anxieties about reliability.

 

Basically the RAF made a premature decision that the Avon was to be the future engine in the late forties and got it wrong and didn't have the courage to say so.

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
5 hours ago, toboldlygo said:

 

So dangerous in fact they armed it with a nuclear bomb :O

 

If someone does a decent 1/72nd kit, I might tackle it one-day 

The Scimitar did not actually 'carry' the WE177, it was merely 'capable of' such was the level of confidence. The list of 'duff' aircraft procured post-war is not limited to Supermarine. The 'Firebrand' went straight from production to reserve deployment and the Gloster Javelin as a Fighter All Weather was something of an embarassment. 

 

Apart from the Canberra Lightning, Harrier and Bucc 2 were there any truly successful post-war smaller British military aircraft? 

 

*The Hunter was not successful until the mk4

 

JB

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Jack Benson said:

The Scimitar did not actually 'carry' the WE177, it was merely 'capable of' such was the level of confidence. The list of 'duff' aircraft procured post-war is not limited to Supermarine. The 'Firebrand' went straight from production to reserve deployment and the Gloster Javelin as a Fighter All Weather was something of an embarassment. 

 

Apart from the Canberra Lightning, Harrier and Bucc 2 were there any truly successful post-war smaller British military aircraft? 

 

*The Hunter was not successful until the mk4

 

JB

 

The Firebrand was basically a Navalized version of the Typhoon fitted with the engine in the Sea Fury.

 

Well I'd count the Sea Fury as a success - it was the last hurrah for piston engine fighter (and a MIG killer with numerous versions sold overseas), the Sea Hawk, the Hawk, the Jet Provost (Strikemaster as it was overseas), the Vampire, Venom, the Meteor, the Hunter (the US* where scared of the UK aircraft industry and interfered, much like they did with the TSR2 and corrupt UK officials helped in that interfering).

 

I know a lot more, but I'm still bound by the Official Secrets Act, so I can't disclose certain things. Lets just say Wikipedia isn't 100% accurate ;)

Edited by toboldlygo

Share this comment


Link to comment
22 minutes ago, toboldlygo said:

 

The Firebrand was basically a Navalized version of the Typhoon fitted with the engine in the Sea Fury.

 

 

Utter tosh- Firebrand was a Blackburn design not a Hawker product. No connection with the Typhoon design process.

 

However the Sea Fury was a Hawker product.

 

JB

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Jack Benson said:

Utter tosh- Firebrand was a Blackburn design not a Hawker product. No connection with the Typhoon design process.

 

However the Sea Fury was a Hawker product.

 

JB

 

 

 

No it's not utter-tosh, don't forget that during WW2, multiple manufacturers were building parts of aircraft for other manufacturers. So design proposals would have been shared around. The Firebrand does look re-markedly like a Hawker aircraft.

 

I worked for Hawkers - so don't insult me!

  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
5 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

The US wouldn't finance the Hunter for export to Europe until it had got to Mk4 because of anxieties about reliability.

Which is ironic, as the US military is now the largest user of Hawker Hunters (albeit through a civilian contractor). 

 

3 hours ago, Jack Benson said:

Apart from the Canberra Lightning, Harrier and Bucc 2 were there any truly successful post-war smaller British military aircraft? 

 

As has already been mentioned, the Hawk/T45 Goshawk is definitely worthy of being on that list (in production for 45 years, 1000+ built including about 300 for the US Navy). Ironically it got some stick in the early 1970s for 'duplicating' the joint European Alphajet, but is still in production nearly 30 years after the last Alphajet appeared. 

 

The Gnat was also quite successful. The Indians seem to have used it to great success in their wars with Pakistan. 

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
12 hours ago, toboldlygo said:

 

I worked for Hawkers - so don't insult me!

No one is insulting you, you are merely wrong. Hawkers also made aircraft batteries, was there any connection? 

 

JB (45year FAA veteran)

  • Agree 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
2 hours ago, Jack Benson said:

No one is insulting you, you are merely wrong. Hawkers also made aircraft batteries, was there any connection? 

 

JB (45year FAA veteran)

 

I worked on Harrier's and Hawks, plus various other aircraft including the FAA Historic Flight at Yeovilton and a Sea Harrier that's in the museum there. 

 

Worth noting too that were part's common to Sea Harrier FRS1, where the drawings for the parts were first used on the Typhoon then re-issued for the Firebrand, Sea Fury, etc.

  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
18 minutes ago, toboldlygo said:

 

I worked on Harrier's and Hawks, plus various other aircraft including the FAA Historic Flight at Yeovilton and a Sea Harrier that's in the museum there. 

 

Worth noting too that were part's common to Sea Harrier FRS1, where the drawings for the parts were first used on the Typhoon then re-issued for the Firebrand, Sea Fury, etc.

TBG,

 

Good for you, none of the platforms that were in my care are in service today. The Hawk was never really a FAA type as it was/is a FRADU type and civilian operated.

 

Apologies for forgetting the Hawk and to a lesser extent the Gnat, training aircraft were never under my care, unfortunately the 'duds' seemed to have outnumbered the 'stars' by an inordinate amount. 

 

In terms of how and why I disliked the duds, it was a mixture of maintenance man hours per flying hour and attrition rates. As previously mentioned, the Scimitar managed to accrue a thousand to one flying hour and over half of the airframes were lost to accidents. That level of intensity can be compared with the Lynx Mk3 that managed just double figures in the late 80s when deployed (I didn't have any qualms transiting in a Lynx) 

 

Anyway, that's enough nostalgia.

 

JB

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

Incredible (to me) that Sydney Camm worked on everything from biplanes to the Harrier precursors:

 

Sydney_Camm_1915.jpg.a2e09921a9a6bed477dc34624f1f89c1.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this comment


Link to comment

His younger brother, Frederick (FJ) Camm shared an early interest in model aircraft, and then went on to be instrumental in the technical education of the British public.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_James_Camm

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
19 hours ago, Jack Benson said:

Utter tosh

 

7 hours ago, Jack Benson said:

o one is insulting you, you are merely wrong.

 

Tim, you are straying into rubbing people up the wrong way again.

  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this comment


Link to comment
On 8 November 2019 at 22:49, PenrithBeacon said:

In the early fifties there was a line up of them at Stretton, though I never did see one fly. 

The main runway at Stretton is now under the M56.

 

Looks like a good build

 

Cheers

 

I live in Stretton.  There are a number of Naval graves in the churchyard including a number of young ladies from the base that were killed on the road one night either to or from a dance in Warrington.  Very sad.

Share this comment


Link to comment

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...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.