As the war in the Pacific dragged on into the late 1940s, after the US decided not to drop the Bomb, the British Air Ministry decided it needed a flying-boat fighter to support forces fighting from island to island toward the Japanese homeland.
A contract had been awarded to Saunders-Roe in 1944 to develop the SR/A.1 flying-boat fighter but, frustrated by delays in flying the aircraft, the Ministry in early 1947 awarded a second contract to Supermarine to develop a floatplane version of the Attacker, which had flown in July 1946.
The SR/A.1 finally flew in July 1947 but, by modifying an existing aircraft, Supermarine was able to move quickly and flew the float-equipped Attacker just two months later in September 1947. The floats were developed from those that had been tested on the Spitfire in 1942 and 1944.
Although developed rapidly, the "Floattacker" was significantly different to the carrier-based version. The fuselage was stretched to house a bigger, 6,500-lb.-thrust jet engine and extra fuel, and the horizontal and vertical tails were significantly enlarged to improve stability and control with the floats.
Replacing the Attacker's 5,000lb-thrust Rolls-Royce Nene, the engine was an uprated version of the Metropolitan-Vickers F.2/4 Beryl used in the SR/A.1 and a precursor to the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire. Metrovick exited the jet engine business in 1947, Armstrong taking over and developing the Beryl into the Sapphire.
The success of the Floattacker led to cancellation of the heaver, slower SR/A.1 - and caused a problem. The SR/A.1 had been developed for the Royal Air Force, but the Attacker was a Royal Navy aircraft. After a tussle between the services, the Fleet Air Arm won the right to operate the floatplane fighter.
It was to be a short-lived victory. Japan surrendered in 1949 and the island-to-island battles ceased. But by then several small wars were being fought as the liberated British colonies sought independence, so the handful of operational Floattackers were kept on in the Pacific theatre for a few more years.
The surviving aircraft ended their lives back in the UK being used as personal transports by a handful of Royal Navy admirals who had once been FAA pilots. They would be spotted from time to time at naval bases around the country up to the early 1960s, when the Floattacker was finally retired for scrap.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1212.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc446%2Fagwarwick%2FFA-09.jpg&hash=bebd58ae86071072d7498f743435b7824b12f522)
When I first came across a three-view of a Supermarine Attacker floatplane project, I thought it would be just:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1212.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc446%2Fagwarwick%2FAttackerSpitfire.jpg&hash=d23d4325c48cfe6eb2246325cc17f0bad96ccce9)
I was looking for a quick build, and what could be easier? Take one Novo/Frog Attacker kit, glue on one pair of PM Models Spitfire floats and, hey presto, Floaty McFloatface is your uncle.
But then, when I scaled the 3-view drawing up 1/72, I discovered there was quite a bit more to it than that. Not least, I had to stretch the Spitfire floats by about a third in length. Through no skill of mine, they both turned out about the same shape.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1212.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc446%2Fagwarwick%2FFloattacker%2520anotated.jpg&hash=24e044738d96c20280757614bd71325e73287c91)
I also had to stretch the fuselage forward of the intakes and make the tails bigger by enlarging both fixed stabilizers and control surfaces, separately. And being an early Frog mould, I had to make a cockpit. The canopy is Falcon vacform.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1212.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc446%2Fagwarwick%2FFA-12.jpg&hash=0a7ca4a2d8d6ec0c05fc3058337f33bcefe0b802)
But, surprisingly, it didn't fight me. I swithered for ages over the color scheme. I wanted to do a Fleet Air Arm aircraft (not remembering the SR/A.1 was RAF), but couldn't face having to hand-paint most of it in Sky.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1212.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc446%2Fagwarwick%2FFA-13.jpg&hash=db9e7af2eab85a80cba9c9a804a5fd92b13b1152)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1212.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc446%2Fagwarwick%2FFA-14.jpg&hash=bb5c75468aa70054fc53d2be6c3fb2a10ef0e14e)
Then I saw some old Flight magazine ads for the SR/A.1 and a follow-on project, Saro's P.121, in a late-war mostly Dark Sea Grey scheme that I could do with a Tamiya spray can, and only the undersides by hand in Sky.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1212.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc446%2Fagwarwick%2FFA-16.jpg&hash=3201966a01fd2121670bafa422daf3eb5c940c50)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1212.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc446%2Fagwarwick%2FFA-20.jpg&hash=72d5e0c999f5283329f6f059f8cfbdefb6979e01)
In the end, the Sky went on smoothly - it's Floquil paint, which I am told is good stuff, but not longer available, which is a shame. Luckily I have a tin or two. The markings come from an Xtradecal Hawker Sea Fury sheet.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1212.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc446%2Fagwarwick%2FFA-21.jpg&hash=459b60be5302c79a825bed493fd160a2c6d12dd3)
The floatplane ramp comes from Coastal Kits, www.coastalkits.co.uk, and looks fab. I finished this one a while ago, but was waiting for better weather to photograph it, but kept forgetting. So finally I said, what the heck, and took pics yesterday. Now today is sun is shining...Oh well, all in all, this one came out way better than I expected.
Oh yes, an excellent job there. The colour scheme really suits it too. :thumbsup:
Never enough floaty jetplanes, especially when they're as nice as this :thumbsup: The extensions are subtle and done really well!
Very clean crisp job there C-N, a creditable effort.
Just to be picky though, ought the roundels not be 'D-type', given the timing?
& the R-R Nene being a centrifugal turbine dictated the porky barrel fuselage a la MiG 15,
but wouldn't the change to an axial turbine allow/require a 'coke-bottle' shape re-profiling?
( Check the relative differences in Meatbox engine nacelles when so equipped).
Edit: fixed typo.
That looks perfect ! Love the extension to the fuselage, it really makes it look good as a float plane.
:wub:
I can only agree with the others :thumbsup:
That is very nice :wub:
Subtly done to.
Regards
Keith
:wub:
The head-on shot with the dark colour, cockpit canopy, straight wings and the floats reminds me of a U-2S with the long wing pods.
Quote from: Snowtrooper on May 07, 2017, 02:23:15 PM
Never enough floaty jetplanes, especially when they're as nice as this :thumbsup: The extensions are subtle and done really well!
Hmmmm, yes. We should have a floaty GB ;D ;D ;D
Good job CammNut.
:thumbsup:
Nice one, esp. when you know the Attacker kit "behind" this build. Well done! :thumbsup:
Very interesting and well done build. I had no idea a "real" project for a floatplane Attacker did exist.
Thanks folks.
James W - I postulated that the change to D-type roundels would have waited until after the delayed ending of the war (to avoid having to do a mostly Sky scheme). And, as Supermarine did with the Swift, I also postulated that it stayed with the porky fuselage even when changing to an axial-flow turbine engine.
Quote from: CammNut on May 08, 2017, 04:30:18 AM
Thanks folks.
James W - I postulated that the change to D-type roundels would have waited until after the delayed ending of the war (to avoid having to do a mostly Sky scheme). And, as Supermarine did with the Swift, I also postulated that it stayed with the porky fuselage even when changing to an axial-flow turbine engine.
Yeah C-M, actually the red centre roundel of whatever numerical code - was right out, far east in the orient - its just too much like the Nippon 'meatballs'..
& re: with the Swift that was a major fail though, & Supermarine was finished.. compare Nene Sea Hawk to Sapphire Hunter..
Excellent. Thanks for detailing the work with that pictorial showing all the changes.
David
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
I suspect you are a closet real-world modeler, James W, but you are correct. However, I found enough pictures of Fleet Air Arm aircraft in the Pacific late in the war still with the original roundels to stick with them. And, yes, the Swift was a dud, but nowhere in the Whifland Constitution does it say a whiffed aircraft has to be a good design.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on May 07, 2017, 01:58:15 PM
Oh yes, an excellent job there. The colour scheme really suits it too. :thumbsup:
My thoughts exactly, which worries me slightly :angel:
Great build :thumbsup:
Quote from: zenrat on May 08, 2017, 02:28:03 AM
Hmmmm, yes. We should have a floaty GB ;D ;D ;D
One's on the way. It better be as I'm one of the mods for it...... ;D
Having just read your resume CammNut (in another thread), is there any truth to this wonderful project :-\ just looks right -- :thumbsup:
Quote from: James W. on May 07, 2017, 07:04:52 PM
Very clean crisp job there C-N, a creditable effort.
Just to be picky though, ought the roundels not be 'D-type', given the timing?
& the R-R Nene being a centrifugal turbine dictated the porky barrel fuselage a la MiG 15,
but wouldn't the change to an axial turbine allow/require a 'coke-bottle' shape re-profiling?
( Check the relative differences in Meatbox engine nacelles when so equipped).
Edit: fixed typo.
James, CammNut is pretty bang on for the model for one based in the UK at St Merryn in the late 40s - low demarcation and Type C markings. The back story gives the requirement and service for far east based aircraft, his just happens to be one of the early ones that stayed in the UK. His reasoning with regards to the fuselage shape works for me too.
I'd like to see the three view it's based on.
:thumbsup: (congratulations!)
Nice!! :thumbsup:
Quote from: The Wooksta! on May 08, 2017, 10:08:54 AM
James, CammNut is pretty bang on for the model for one based in the UK at St Merryn in the late 40s - low demarcation and Type C markings. The back story gives the requirement and service for far east based aircraft, his just happens to be one of the early ones that stayed in the UK.
I'd like to see the three view it's based on.
W, 'according to Hoyle' - the type-D roundel was promulgated in June `47, & while existing aircraft likely had to wait until scheduled overhaul for a repaint,
new-build machines - such the subject of this thread - would've surely had 'em applied, as factory-fresh..
Adit: Found this 'Naval Attacker' in 'Flight', check the date, & sporting what appear to be, D-type roundels.. bit hard to be certain - is it in NMF or camo?
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1947/1947%20-%201141.html
Quote from: James W. on May 08, 2017, 06:12:35 PM
W, 'according to Hoyle' - the type-D roundel was promulgated in June `47, & while existing aircraft likely had to wait until scheduled overhaul for a repaint,
new-build machines - such the subject of this thread - would've surely had 'em applied, as factory-fresh...
Only in real life.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on May 08, 2017, 08:21:54 AM
Quote from: zenrat on May 08, 2017, 02:28:03 AM
Hmmmm, yes. We should have a floaty GB ;D ;D ;D
One's on the way. It better be as I'm one of the mods for it...... ;D
Once again we really need a sarcasm smiley. :o
Quote from: zenrat on May 09, 2017, 02:18:08 AM
Quote from: James W. on May 08, 2017, 06:12:35 PM
W, 'according to Hoyle' - the type-D roundel was promulgated in June `47, & while existing aircraft likely had to wait until scheduled overhaul for a repaint,
new-build machines - such the subject of this thread - would've surely had 'em applied, as factory-fresh...
Only in real life.
Ah, no Z, you appear to be falsely conflating the 'what if' technical aspect - with the assumed 'plausible setting' - its not like the decals are NCC- 1701..
Jimbo, you appear to be unfamiliar with the concept of building the model and then making up the back story to fit, adjusting any inconvenient "facts" on the way.
Quote from: zenrat on May 09, 2017, 04:17:06 AM
Jimbo, you appear to be unfamiliar with the concept of building the model and then making up the back story to fit, adjusting any inconvenient "facts" on the way.
Ok, but I reckon you'd best change your moniker to 'Goose' then Z, if you're gonna be just about as bloody 'loose as'.. one.. with the proverbial 'trots'..
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lh1sve2s9d1qg3ycwo1_500.jpg&hash=eaa5e56485fd2be638a0c5ffbfb81d5ecc782af1)
Goose is asked:
"What happened!", & naturally replies.. "Dunno man, just got here myself.."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh2MX0EftaU
Quote from: zenrat on May 09, 2017, 02:18:08 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on May 08, 2017, 08:21:54 AM
Quote from: zenrat on May 08, 2017, 02:28:03 AM
Hmmmm, yes. We should have a floaty GB ;D ;D ;D
One's on the way. It better be as I'm one of the mods for it...... ;D
Once again we really need a sarcasm smiley. :o
I got it mate ;)
A great - looking model; very convincing! Good work. :thumbsup:
Very nice! That Frog model isn't exactly state of the art, but it goes together well and is a good base for some whiffery, and you've done a cracking job! :thumbsup:
Apologies for the delay in responding. Have been on travel, in the land of unmanned aircraft, vertical lift and urban air taxis...
Here is the real Attacker floatplane three-view. I hesitated to post it as I cannot for the life of me remember where I found it - so if anyone claims ownership, I apologize in advance.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1212.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc446%2Fagwarwick%2FAttacker%2520floatplane_2.jpg&hash=94fd8b73b756273a39ddef8cbae182e52ab78359)
And thank you, Wooksta, for a way out of my conundrum - of course it is an early aircraft still the in the UK and therefore lacking its Pacific markings. Why didn't I think of that? Phew!!!
It doesn't look like it in your model, but looking at the drawings, it looks like it would need more wing surface to drag that lot off the water :-)
David
Bearing in mind your back story has the war ending some years later, that pushes back the Type D roundel by an equal amount, ditto the late 40s RN scheme, so the model is doubly correct.
Quote from: The Wooksta! on May 12, 2017, 11:11:42 AM
Bearing in mind your back story has the war ending some years later, that pushes back the Type D roundel by an equal amount, ditto the late 40s RN scheme, so the model is doubly correct.
No, & no, W..
1stly, the O.P. back story has the war against Nippon continuing, & makes no mention of V.E. day, so Blighty-wise, = same-same in R.W..
& 2ndly, C-type roundels weren't used in the Far-East - while there was a war on anyhow..
Okay, my next whiff will involve time-travelling Venusians from Mars, which should be more believable to everyone...
Quote from: CammNut on May 12, 2017, 04:53:00 PM
Okay, my next whiff will involve time-travelling Venusians from Mars, which should be more believable to everyone...
Ok, C-N, but make sure the serial numbers don't actually belong to a Angel Interceptor.. unless of course - it is a 'Q' craft - in sneak mode..
Quote from: dwomby on May 12, 2017, 10:56:28 AM
It doesn't look like it in your model, but looking at the drawings, it looks like it would need more wing surface to drag that lot off the water :-)
David
That's why I put some JATO/ratog bottles on the belly of my Suez striped float attacker! :thumbsup: (ancient Frog mold)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1193.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa360%2Fsandiego89%2Fsuezstripes.jpg&hash=03b17068642e46db87d102784e1603a1f82bd3dd)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1193.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa360%2Fsandiego89%2Fattackeronfloats.jpg&hash=4f79c64b2fe4fa71ae9d7578e7cf7fb8acc6ccfc)
Yeah, that skimpy 210 sqft wing area was already noted as marginal in the Spiteful, per comparison with the more generous Spitfire..
(& nice D-type roundels on your tidy effort there, too S-89).
lovely ! :thumbsup: