That is a nice looking kit. You pointed out the position of the jet turbine which is rather too rearward. Also I noticed that the intakes look to be blocked off at the joint with the fuselage which could be quite visible. I think I would do some cutting and internal detail to lengthen the intake tracts. With all that panel lining I would recommend giving the Flory Models clay based weather wash a go. This is really easy and safe to use. I just paint it all over the model and allow it to dry. I then wipe it off with very slightly dampened tissue and cotton buds. It leaves very good panel marking. If you get creative wiping it off you can get excellent dirt and grime effects too. If you mess up it can be washed off with water.
Might give it a try, although the panel lines and rivets were very carefully as flush as could be, they tried to emulate the wing's laminar flow on the fuselage.
Mine is lurking on top of the bookcase in the stash, it might be next on the 1/48 build list (currently mid Sea Fury), but the Hunter GA11 and Gannet are on the Xmas/Birthday list and may nudge it out. Really impressed with the box contents, thank you for the review.
What I find amusing is that the Attacker was, essentially, the Last, dying gasp of the Spifire line. Those wings are the same planform as the Supermarine Spiteful! (Which was a Laminar flow wing sitted to a very late Spitfire fuselage!) The Attacker was a new jet fuselage fitted to a redesigned - for the heavier and longer Undercrarriage Mainly - Spiteful wing.
A few pilots said they wished that Supermarine had kept the elliptical wing instead of the laminar flow wing. The whole project started life being called the "Jet Spiteful" and the "Jet Seafang" for the naval version until the name "Attacker" was adopted.
Hi Gary, as I've probably mentioned before, my uncle was FAA in the fifties at lossiemouth and blamed his subsequent hearing loss on the Attacker in particular. Hellishly noisy and could melt the tarmac if left for more than a very short time in dispersal when spooling up. Cheers James.
I think the Navy heaved a collective sigh of relief that our carriers had armoured decks. Someone once said an Attacker travelling over open ground would blast a furrow deep enough for a rating to lie down in! That combined with a perilously short fuel range, an extra tank fitted to the belly (twixt hot engine and deck in a bad landing) and that the laminar flow wing wasn't really as good as the old Spitfire elliptical wing meant the Attacker was certain to have a short service life. 800NAS must have wondered who they upset at The Admiralty - sent to war with a frankly second-line fighter (Seafire FR47) then on return to Blighty given this thing to bring into service. Whatever it was, 803NAS must have made the same transgression because they joined 800NAS on HMSEagle for the first commission. Oh, and the first trip was to an exercise off the coast of Norway. My dear late father always said the Fifth Sea Lord had a sense of humour...
The Attacker was a strange one, for sure. Seeing one for the first time in the film, 'The Sound Barrier', it was, to put it mildly, a surprise to see a jet with a tail-wheel. It almost seemed a bit of a mish-mash. I believe it utilised the laminar flow wings originally fitted to the Spiteful/Seafang fighters. Add swept wings and tail surfaces and it's not too hard to see the family resemblance with the Swift either. Very glad there is one at Yeovilton, though.
@garys_stuff Indeed. The 510 was, in essence, an Attacker with swept wings and, strangely, retained the tail-dragger undercart configuration, if I recall correctly. This experimental type did eventually lead to the Swift and, in doing so, inherited the 'family lines' of the original Attacker.
The tailplanes are too low. Just fill the existing slot for them and attach them immediately above the filled area and the model will look a whole lot better. That aside, it's a nice kit,
Not a bad looking kit. Good eye about the turbine wheel. In addition to being too far aft, it is not accurately depicted. The center cone of the actual turbine wheel is of significantly larger diameter, and consequently the blades are concentrated further out around the perimeter. In these educational respects, Trumpeter receives an 'F'. It adds nothing. Thanks for the review.
@@whtalt92 Spot on. In a way, the Spitfire lineage can be traced incrementally all the way to the Swift. Spitfire Mk.22 > Spiteful (tail similar to Mk. 22) > Attacker (jet, using Spiteful wings) > Type 510 (Attacker fuselage with swept wing and tail, still a taildragger) > Type 535 (tricycle gear adopted) > Swift, operational jet.
That is a nice looking kit. You pointed out the position of the jet turbine which is rather too rearward. Also I noticed that the intakes look to be blocked off at the joint with the fuselage which could be quite visible. I think I would do some cutting and internal detail to lengthen the intake tracts.
With all that panel lining I would recommend giving the Flory Models clay based weather wash a go. This is really easy and safe to use. I just paint it all over the model and allow it to dry. I then wipe it off with very slightly dampened tissue and cotton buds. It leaves very good panel marking. If you get creative wiping it off you can get excellent dirt and grime effects too. If you mess up it can be washed off with water.
Might give it a try, although the panel lines and rivets were very carefully as flush as could be, they tried to emulate the wing's laminar flow on the fuselage.
I love that the Attacker knew that it was going to be the only jet tail-dragger, and doubled down with two tail wheels.
Mine is lurking on top of the bookcase in the stash, it might be next on the 1/48 build list (currently mid Sea Fury), but the Hunter GA11 and Gannet are on the Xmas/Birthday list and may nudge it out.
Really impressed with the box contents, thank you for the review.
What I find amusing is that the Attacker was, essentially, the Last, dying gasp of the Spifire line. Those wings are the same planform as the Supermarine Spiteful! (Which was a Laminar flow wing sitted to a very late Spitfire fuselage!) The Attacker was a new jet fuselage fitted to a redesigned - for the heavier and longer Undercrarriage Mainly - Spiteful wing.
A few pilots said they wished that Supermarine had kept the elliptical wing instead of the laminar flow wing. The whole project started life being called the "Jet Spiteful" and the "Jet Seafang" for the naval version until the name "Attacker" was adopted.
Hi Gary, as I've probably mentioned before, my uncle was FAA in the fifties at lossiemouth and blamed his subsequent hearing loss on the Attacker in particular. Hellishly noisy and could melt the tarmac if left for more than a very short time in dispersal when spooling up. Cheers James.
I think the Navy heaved a collective sigh of relief that our carriers had armoured decks. Someone once said an Attacker travelling over open ground would blast a furrow deep enough for a rating to lie down in! That combined with a perilously short fuel range, an extra tank fitted to the belly (twixt hot engine and deck in a bad landing) and that the laminar flow wing wasn't really as good as the old Spitfire elliptical wing meant the Attacker was certain to have a short service life. 800NAS must have wondered who they upset at The Admiralty - sent to war with a frankly second-line fighter (Seafire FR47) then on return to Blighty given this thing to bring into service. Whatever it was, 803NAS must have made the same transgression because they joined 800NAS on HMSEagle for the first commission. Oh, and the first trip was to an exercise off the coast of Norway. My dear late father always said the Fifth Sea Lord had a sense of humour...
Wish they would upscale it to 1:32.
Nice Trumpeter kit. I got the Mig 29 from that brand.
The Attacker was a strange one, for sure. Seeing one for the first time in the film, 'The Sound Barrier', it was, to put it mildly, a surprise to see a jet with a tail-wheel. It almost seemed a bit of a mish-mash. I believe it utilised the laminar flow wings originally fitted to the Spiteful/Seafang fighters.
Add swept wings and tail surfaces and it's not too hard to see the family resemblance with the Swift either.
Very glad there is one at Yeovilton, though.
Adding swept wings to the Attacker gave the Supermarine Type 510, possibly the oddest jet I've seen...
@garys_stuff Indeed. The 510 was, in essence, an Attacker with swept wings and, strangely, retained the tail-dragger undercart configuration, if I recall correctly. This experimental type did eventually lead to the Swift and, in doing so, inherited the 'family lines' of the original Attacker.
I'd say keep away from the exhaust as well as the intake Gary
The tailplanes are too low. Just fill the existing slot for them and attach them immediately above the filled area and the model will look a whole lot better. That aside, it's a nice kit,
Not a bad looking kit. Good eye about the turbine wheel. In addition to being too far aft, it is not accurately depicted. The center cone of the actual turbine wheel is of significantly larger diameter, and consequently the blades are concentrated further out around the perimeter. In these educational respects, Trumpeter receives an 'F'. It adds nothing. Thanks for the review.
Should be easy enough to extend the jet pipe forward. You might still be able to see the jet blades with a penlight, if needed.
Different subject for a change,and 1/48. So for me, just for what it is interesting.
i wich they made the Scimitar, as i can´t get my hands on the DBMK one...
Probably about a year for the Scimitar from DBMK.
Horizontal stabilizer is totally wrong, both placing in fuselage and dihedral...
Odd looking aircraft- Jet taildragger and straight planform as well.
Spiteful wing design was reused on this one.
One could say this is the ultimate outcome of the Spitfire lineage in that regard...
@@whtalt92 Spot on. In a way, the Spitfire lineage can be traced incrementally all the way to the Swift. Spitfire Mk.22 > Spiteful (tail similar to Mk. 22) > Attacker (jet, using Spiteful wings) > Type 510 (Attacker fuselage with swept wing and tail, still a taildragger) > Type 535 (tricycle gear adopted) > Swift, operational jet.
Must say it is not a very attractive aircraft with or without a belly tank 😄 but the Navy jet age needed to start somewhere 👍
I guess they very soon learnt what they *didn't* want! Tail wheels being one of them...
@@barrywalker8790 I think it looks pretty good. Wonder what a jet powered Blackburn would have looked like...
Another ghost pilot? Shame.