Supermarine Attacker MkI

[TallEng]

The Supermarine Attacker was originally designed to Air Ministry Specification P.27/32 as a two-seat day bomber by R. J. Mitchell, to replace the aging Hawker Hart and Hind biplane bombers, and to act as an insurance policy in case heavier bombers were banned by the 1932 Geneva Disarmament Conference.The Attacker emerged as a single-engined, all-metal monoplane, equipped with a retractable tail wheel landing gear and the trademark Supermarine elliptical wing. (later used to great effect on the Spitfire) Mitchell designed the Attacker's distinctive elliptical wing to have the thinnest possible cross-section; this thin wing enabled the Attacker to have a higher top speed than several contemporary fighters, including the Hawker Fury II. Its clean design with its long and slim fuselage and cockpit for three (pilot, navigator/bomb aimer and gunner), was similar to a large fighter rather than a bomber. The Attacker's standard payload of four 250 lb (110 kg) bombs was carried in the fuselage bomb bay and an additional 500 lb (230 kg) of bombs could be carried on underwing racks. As the engine took up the nose area, the bomb aimer's position was under the wing centre section, sighted through a sliding panel in the floor of the fuselage using the Mk. VII Course Setting Bomb Sight. The prototype Attacker first flew on 1st April 1935. When the RAF embarked on the pre-war expansion programme, the Attacker became a priority production target, with  an initial production order placed for 155 Attacker's built to Specification P.23/35. to be powered by the Rolls-Royce Merlin I. The first of these aircraft was completed at Supermarine's factory at Woolston in June 1936. Replacing the RAF's Hawker Harts and Hinds when it entered service in 1937, the Attacker was obsolescent even then as fighter technology had outstripped the modest performance gains that the light bomber possessed over its biplane antecedents. The Attacker was armed only with a single Browning .303 machine gun fixed ahead and a remotely operated turret with two .303 Brownings in the back; this was desperately inadequate. Moreover it lacked an armoured cockpit and self-sealing fuel tanks. The Attacker was obsolete by the start of the Second World War, but remained a front-line RAF bomber owing to a lack of a suitable replacement. It was hopelessly outclassed by Luftwaffe fighters, being almost 100 mph (160 km/h) slower than the contemporary Bf 109 at 14,000 ft (4,300 m).

Right that's the back story (cadged/bodged shamelessly from Wiki) I hope you lot approve?, any mistakes will be mine
And here is the start of the Hardware





This was a Matchbox He 70 which I started some years ago (the original putty I smeared on to fair in the wing fairing was Humbrol Green putty)
So that should give some indication of how old (its also part of my new years resolution to finish one Old/pre-started/shelf of doom kit for every two-ish new starts )

Regards
Keith

[sandiego89]

Well I immediately thought of the much loved (by perhaps only us enthusiasts) early Fleet Air Arm jet, but this is looking promising.   

[Dizzyfugu]

Well I immediately thought of the much loved (by perhaps only us enthusiasts) early Fleet Air Arm jet, but this is looking promising.   

Same here - but I am curious how another pre WWII single engine light bomber without future takes it to the hardware stage... 

[TallEng]

Well I immediately thought of the much loved (by perhaps only us enthusiasts) early Fleet Air Arm jet, but this is looking promising.   

Same here - but I am curious how another pre WWII single engine light bomber without future takes it to the hardware stage... 

I thought the name might cause some confusion
In case anybodies interested, I got the name from Looking up Battle in a Thesaurus (for those that don't know what a Thesaurus looks like
there used to be one next to the Brontosaurus in the Natural History Museum in London)
Of course later on it was moved into the same exhibition hall as the Blue Whale... (anybody ever try and flip a penny onto the Blue Whales tail from
the Gallery? )

That gave me Attack as on alternate to Battle, simples really

Regards
Keith

[PR19_Kit]

That gave me Attack as on alternate to Battle, simples really

By similar logic shouldn't the Fairey equivalent have been called a Battler? 

[TallEng]

Small update before i go on nights again



Engine now faired in (need to make room for the exhaust)



with turret (ex Airfix Invader) and canopy





probably should change the prop for a three bladed type?

Regards
Keith

[sandiego89]

probably should change the prop for a three bladed type?

Looks wise, for the era with a first generation Merlin I think a two bladed prop looks just fine, has good company with the early Hurricanes and Spitfires with a two bladed prop.    Performance wise would likely want a third blade, like a Defiant.  Likey a bit of a dog with the fuselage size, drag, extra weight, etc.   

[PR19_Kit]

Looks very sleek, later Marks could have done with a Griffon and a contra-prop I'm sure. 

[DogfighterZen]

That's looking great, the turret suits it very well! 
About the prop, i'd go with the 3 bladed, IMHO it looks better.

[Captain Canada]

Now there's a neat idea ! Looks great so far !

[Devilfish]

Looks great so far.  Just a couple of small points though....

The 2 blade prop certainly ties in with the era, but maybe one with a wider chord and a fixed pitch? 

Also, whereas the turret looks good, it's probably a bit too advanced for the era.  Powered turrets were in their infancy, so a remote turret would have been pure science fiction back then.

[Dizzyfugu]

Looks great so far.  Just a couple of small points though....

The 2 blade prop certainly ties in with the era, but maybe one with a wider chord and a fixed pitch? 

Also, whereas the turret looks good, it's probably a bit too advanced for the era.  Powered turrets were in their infancy, so a remote turret would have been pure science fiction back then.

Second both statements. It's a pretty big aircraft - a three- or even four-bladed prop (wooden examples were in use in WWI, with fixed pitch) would be more suitable, and the turret looks rather modern, a remote-controlled barbette would have been ahead of the era. But it's whifworld, after all. 

[TallEng]

Also, whereas the turret looks good, it's probably a bit too advanced for the era.  Powered turrets were in their infancy, so a remote turret would have been pure science fiction back then.

Not quite
you see I got the idea from Supermarine themselves, who where going to use a remote turret in their submission
(The Supermarine Type 305 see here http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=402.0 for details)
To Specification F.9/35 in August 1935 (eventually won by Bolton-Paul with the Defiant)
I see now that I can legitimately have a four bladed prop!
Interestingly my spell checker suggested 'Blatantly' for Bolton-Paul

Regards
Keith

[steelpillow]

It's too-small Merlin reminds me of the Fairey Battle light bomber, which suffered from being grossly underpowered by its single Merlin. The planned Fairey P24 "double-I" engine with a contraprop driven from two independent crank shafts was cancelled. Perhaps the Attacker lost out to the Fairey design because Supermarine were being told to concentrate all their effort on the Spitfire?

[NARSES2]

Also, whereas the turret looks good, it's probably a bit too advanced for the era.  Powered turrets were in their infancy, so a remote turret would have been pure science fiction back then.

Not quite
you see I got the idea from Supermarine themselves, who where going to use a remote turret in their submission
(The Supermarine Type 305 see here http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=402.0 for details)
To Specification F.9/35 in August 1935 (eventually won by Bolton-Paul with the Defiant)

Very much so. As soon as you started this I checked my Putnam's and the drawing does have what looks to be a remote turret. I've never seen that detailed drawing so I can see how it worked now. Ta