Author Topic: Supermarine's Attacker in 1/72  (Read 4839 times)

Pen-Pusher

  • Guest
Supermarine's Attacker in 1/72
« on: May 13, 2017, 10:54:05 PM »
In 1944, the British Ministry of Supply (MoS) issued specification designated E.10/44 for a single-engine jet fighter powered by the Rolls-Royce RB.41 / Nene centrifugal-flow turbojet. A design team at Supermarine led by Joe Smith decided to come up with a design based on the laminar-flow wing and wide-track landing gear of the Supermarine Spiteful -- an enhanced derivative of the famous Spitfire -- with a new fuselage housing the Nene engine.

Development was approved of the aircraft as the "Type 392 Attacker". The initial prototype, tailcode TS409, performed its initial flight on 27 July 1946, with test pilot Jeffrey Quill at the controls. The machine featured a prototype Nene engine with 19.1 kN (1,950 kgp / 4,300 lbf) thrust, fed by inlets on either side of the cockpit, with the exhaust in the tail. Since the Attacker had a tailwheel landing gear configuration, the exhaust tended to tear up the landing strip, so the tailpipe was canted slightly upward to deflect the exhaust flow, without disturbing flight trim.

The MoS issued a second requirement designated E.1/45 for a carrier-based fighter, and so the next two prototypes were navalized "Type 398" machines, using technology derived from the Seafang, the carrier-based derivative of the Spiteful. The second prototype, tailcode TS413, performed its initial flight on 17 June 1947, with test pilot Mike Lithgow at the controls. It was powered by a Nene 3 / Mark 101 turbojet with 22.7 kN (2,315 kgp / 5,100 lbf) thrust. Unlike the first prototype, it featured a Martin-Baker Mark 1 type ejection seat, plus a yoke-style arresting hook, long-stroke landing gear, attachments for a catapult strop in the wheel wells, provisions for rocket-assisted takeoff gear (RATOG), and lift dumpers / spoilers. The third prototype was build to a similar specification, but had larger and improved engine inlets and the wing moved back 34 centimeters (13.5 inches).

Production of the navalized Attacker was authorized in September 1948, with the first "Attacker Fighter Mark 1 (F.1)" performing its initial flight on 5 May 1950, and the Attacker F.1 entering service with the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm (FAA) in August 1951. The F.1 featured all straight flight surfaces, with the wings folding upward in the mid-span. The main landing gear, with single wheels, retracted upward from the wings toward the fuselage; the tailwheel was retractable. The tailfin had a forward fillet, added after initial prototype flights demonstrated yaw instability. Armament consisted of twin Hispano Mark V 20 millimeter cannon in each wing, for a total of four cannon. A conformal belly fuel tank with a capacity of 1,136.5 liters (300 US gallons) could be fitted. The canopy slid back to open.

A total of 43 F.1s was built, along with 16 "Fighter-Bomber Mark 1s (FB.1s)" that could carry a weapon load of two 450 kilogram (1,000 pound) bombs or eight "sixty pounder" unguided rockets. They were followed in turn by 84 "Attacker FB.2s" -- much the same as the FB.1 but with a framed instead of clear canopy and the Nene 102 engine, with the same thrust as the Nene 101 but with technical improvements. 36 de-navalized Attackers were built for the Royal Pakistan Air Force as well, giving a total production of 3 + 43 + 16 + 84 + 36 = 182 Attackers, including prototypes.

Best known for their model of the Attacker was Frog, with more recently Novo, Donetz Models and Red Star issuing the same moulding. This is early 1956 era Frog stuff that those of us of a certain age remember with some joy. Simple build and only 15 parts including ‘plug-in’ undercarriage (Which inevitably got lost after several deck landings on the dining room table!).

CRM do a good resin alternative with 46 parts that enable you to build either the FB Mk.1 or FB Mk.2 and includes the familiar belly tank, rockets and pylons for underwing stores. Two vac-form canopies are also included. CRM's kit though understandably more expensive, makes up to a very attractive model.

However, starting with the venerable Frog kit, a fair bit of work is involved if you wish to bring this up to a standard compatible with the rest of your collection. The first step is to ‘excavate’ those wheel wells and create a cockpit basin after removing the all-in-one moulding of pilot head and seat top. Both these tasks require a fair selection of tools and a bit of brute strength as the plastic overall is pretty thick (More on this problem later)….
« Last Edit: May 14, 2017, 10:14:43 AM by Pen-Pusher »

Pen-Pusher

  • Guest
Re: Supermarine's Attacker in 1/72
« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2017, 10:55:39 PM »
First results are promising but a good deal of work lies ahead...

Pen-Pusher

  • Guest
Re: Supermarine's Attacker in 1/72
« Reply #2 on: May 14, 2017, 09:09:47 PM »
I shy away from building an entire Nene engine for this model but have put a couple of  scratch-built bulkheads in to support the facsimile mesh fan at the front and a section of tailpipe (yet to be fitted) at the rear. The almost circular cross section of the fuselage from the rear pressure section rearwards makes fitting relatively easy. Through the intakes it looks the part anyway!

Pen-Pusher

  • Guest
Re: Supermarine's Attacker in 1/72
« Reply #3 on: May 15, 2017, 10:13:25 PM »
With cockpit and interior finished (see previous) I can now assemble the major components. I added a belly fuel tank from a Matchbox meteor kit but will need to work on the nose of the tank as this was quite rounded on the FB Mk.1.

bridlufc

  • Guest
Re: Supermarine's Attacker in 1/72
« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2017, 11:16:12 PM »
I like to see parts from the 'spares box' being used on a kit as most modellers would have an extensive range of spare parts available for obvious reasons, I know I have. But the problem is where to use 'em!!
Fascinated by the intros to your builds by the way, adds to the character of the model.

Bridlufc

Pen-Pusher

  • Guest
Re: Supermarine's Attacker in 1/72
« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2017, 11:26:43 PM »
Kind words, thank you. A comprehensive 'spares box' (or in my case carefully itemised plastic bags) is essential. With so many kits now including optional parts the supply is almost endless. Still, as you can see here, a good dollop of home made goo will eventually enable me to mould a more rounded nose to the belly tank.... I hope?

Pen-Pusher

  • Guest
Re: Supermarine's Attacker in 1/72
« Reply #6 on: May 18, 2017, 10:49:47 PM »
Having spent HOURS reshaping the nose of the belly tank I have now found the tank I didn't use fro the Airfix Swift! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Pen-Pusher

  • Guest
Re: Supermarine's Attacker in 1/72
« Reply #7 on: May 19, 2017, 10:06:50 PM »
...........but a first coat of duck-egg-green looks as though it will cover a multitude of sins?

bridlufc

  • Guest
Re: Supermarine's Attacker in 1/72
« Reply #8 on: May 19, 2017, 10:26:41 PM »
Looks good to me, marvellous what a coat or two of paint will do.

Bridlufc

Pen-Pusher

  • Guest
Re: Supermarine's Attacker in 1/72
« Reply #9 on: May 20, 2017, 02:10:20 PM »
A sign-writer friend of mine recently showed me how to paint straight lines without using masking tape. The secret is a medium flat brush, thin paint and a lot of luck.... quite pleased though!!

Haddock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2323
    • View Profile
Re: Supermarine's Attacker in 1/72
« Reply #10 on: May 21, 2017, 08:38:21 AM »
I've always admired the work of sign-writers. I used to watch them re-instate the names and reg numbers on fishing boats after a coat of (usually) black paint. They make it look so easy.
Haddock.

Pen-Pusher

  • Guest
Re: Supermarine's Attacker in 1/72
« Reply #11 on: May 22, 2017, 09:32:08 AM »
Decided to do this one in the colours of 1833 Squadron (FAA). A couple of small aerials to add before tail fin and cockpit painting and that will be it. This aircraft later saw its guns removed and rocket rails fitted below each wing... but not this time around?

Pen-Pusher

  • Guest
Re: Supermarine's Attacker in 1/72
« Reply #12 on: May 23, 2017, 09:22:34 AM »
Another one for the shelf of dust.... For a 1950's kit, this was a rewarding build.

Haddock

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2323
    • View Profile
Re: Supermarine's Attacker in 1/72
« Reply #13 on: May 23, 2017, 04:48:07 PM »
Another neat one!

Pen-Pusher

  • Guest
Re: Supermarine's Attacker in 1/72
« Reply #14 on: May 23, 2017, 08:19:54 PM »
Thank you Sir.