Aircraft History

The McDonnell F2H Banshee was a development of the FH Phantom, the first U.S. Navy jet fighter to operate from an Aircraft Carrier. The FH had a very limited frontline service life, being essentially an interim design - jet fighter design was still an evolving art, and carrier-based designs were an especially complicated area. The first version of the Banshee - the F2H-1 - also had a relatively short active career, quickly being superseded by the -2. This was the first important production variant, and featured variants with specially modified and extended noses for use as night fighters (-2N) and photo-reconnaissance aircraft (-2P). Both the regular and photo versions saw extensive action in Korea, mostly with the US Navy. Only one Marine unit (VMJ-1) was equipped with the Banshee during the Korean War.

The F2H-3 represented a major development of the basic airframe. In order to produce an all-weather fighter, the fuselage was lengthened by over 8 feet. The nose was lengthened to incorporate a Westinghouse radar, which meant that the rear fuselage had to be also stretched to compensate. The resulting modifications meant that the new aircraft could carry a lot more internal fuel. The capacity of the wingtip tanks was reduced, but these were apparently rarely used in actual missions. The tailplanes were also altered, and the battery of 4 x 20 mm cannon had to be relocated further back to accommodate the radar. The -4 was basically an improved version of the -3, with newer radar and uprated Westinghouse J-34 engines. These aircraft were standard USN all-weather fighters up until the end of the 1950's. Although withdrawn from US service by 1962, some aircraft were still in service with the Royal Canadian Navy, and the Banshee was allocated the designation F-2 under the new US tri-service designation scheme.

In total, some 985 F2H's were built. Compared to the Grumman F9F Panther, the Banshee was not as robust a design - an important consideration for any aircraft used in the close support and interdiction roles. However, it was a 'pilots aircraft', being very easy to fly. The Banshee became known to the general public through James Michener's famous novel The Bridges at Toko-Ri. The name Banshee is originally an Irish one - the English name is just a direct phonetic equivalent. In the tradition of McDonnell fighter names, it represented something from the spirit world. The bean sí was a female spirit whose wailings warned of an impending death in the household. Just the sort of thing that used to frighten the lives out of impressionable Irish youngsters during Halloween in years gone by!!

The Kit

As most people will know, this is not a new Academy tooling, but another reboxed Hobbycraft kit. The old Airfix kit represented the older, shorter F2H-2 version (with the camera nose for the -2P variant as well). This seems to be the only passable tooling of the stretched versions. The Academy box is larger than usual to accommodate the Hobbycraft mold. This is standard light grey plastic on three main sprues, with the canopy and windscreen on a separate transparency sprue. Everything is neatly packaged in clear plastic bags in line with Academy practice. There are only about 50 parts in total, with just four HVAR's for external stores. The list price is STG £ 8.00 from Hannants, or about 14 Euro.

The 8-page foldout instruction leaflet is quite comprehensive. Some of the colours are just listed generically, but the important ones have FS codes included. Translating these to your favourite paint manufacturer (Humbrol in my case) is easy. There is a large and typically glossy decal sheet for two subjects. Both of these are for Banshees of VF-11 based on the USS Coral Sea in March 1956. One is an F2H-4 painted overall dark gloss blue (127564) - the aircraft shown on the box artwork. The second is an F2H-3 painted in the newly introduced grey/white scheme (126455). It was common at this time to find aircraft with the old and new schemes operating side by side. Externally, there was no difference that I am aware of between the F2H-3 and -4 versions.

The tooling has recessed panel lines, but they are not up to the quality of Academy's own recent toolings. The engraving is more like Italeri than Revell or Tamiya. This is not an outright criticism, but more an attempt to convey the quality of the tooling in terms that most modellers will understand.

Building the Kit

The first decision I was faced with was the undercarriage. I wanted to build a wheels down model (which would have required some nose ballast), but the complete lack of detail in the wheel bays was not encouraging. Worse than that was the fact that the bays themselves lacked any realistic depth. I know that the main bays in particular had only a small open area when the plane was on the ground. However, the much larger nose wheel bay would fully reveal this shortcoming. I tend to work on the principal that wheel bays should have the same level of detail and accuracy as the kit in general - otherwise they detract significantly from the finished model. So wheels up it was.

The cockpit was a lot better. The main 'bath' had side panels, but no instrument decals or engraving. The instrument panel itself did have some minimal engraving. The seat and control stick were quite good, although they would probably have been better reproduced if this were a new tooling. The 'bath' is designed to attach only to the starboard fuselage half, and positioning it properly was proving difficult until I decided to add the instrumental first - as the instructions had recommended. After that, the fit was obvious. There was a gap between the top of the rear cockpit bulkhead and the fuselage, but this was hidden once the seat was in place. Most of the cockpit was painted FS34151 interior green (Humbrol 151). The seat was painted mainly dark gull grey (FS26231/Hu 140), with the fabric covering given as just 'khaki' - that could be a whole range of colours, but I think I used Hu 72 khaki. The equipment behind the pilots seat should have been painted interior green, judging by model photos on the side of the box. However, the instructions gave no guide at all. I painted these items black, and only realised my mistake after the canopy had been glued in place. Doh!!

The box artwork of the Hobbycraft kit. This looks like exactly the same aircraft as the one in the Academy kit. Just how lazy can a company get?

Before cementing the fuselage halves together, I should have attached the arrestor hook - presumably so that it could be fixed in any position or be left free to move up or down. I forgot to do this, but it was easy to add later. There was no instruction to paint the unit black and white, even though this is shown on the artwork. The artwork also shows a cover that opened down when the hook was deployed, but this is not included in the kit. Perhaps it was often left off the aircraft during actual operations. The fit of the fuselage halves was excellent, as was the canopy and windscreen parts. The tailplane units were fitted with a considerable amount of dihedral (on the earlier shorter F2H's, they were set flat and were mounted higher up). In service, the tailplanes on both the -3 and -4 aircraft were retrofitted with a large triangular leading root extension, and this is included in the kit. As is often the case, there was enough 'give' in the tailplane fit to make it a tricky affair. There was a small diagram to assist, but some angle figures would have been welcome - 10 degrees is apparently the correct setting.

The next step was the wing/engine assemblies, which should have been a doddle. The problem was not with the splitter plates or the engine exhaust parts, but with the engine intake bulkheads. They were a very poor fit, and needed considerable trimming before the wing halves would fit together snugly. Even when this was done, the wing units were not a perfect fit onto the fuselage. This would have been the case even if the bulkheads were omitted, as I did plenty of dry-fitting before assembling anything. The wheel bay doors were fitted in a couple of minutes, as were the wingtip tanks. Viewed from above, the wingtip to tank join looks perfect. From the underside, however, there is a gap between the wingtip and tank. If anything, this looks like an error in the design of the hollow in the tank where it is supposed to fit over the wing root.

The pylons and rockets seemed to present no problem - the kit correctly has the outer pylons positioned ahead of the inboard units. I cemented the pylons in place first, and add the rockets later. When I began to do this, I realised that the rockets were pointing upwards to an alarming degree. I certainly followed the instructions properly - the rocket attachment points on the pylons are positioned more to the front of the pylons, so there would be no excuse for making a mistake. Looking at the completed model photos on the side of the box, it appears certain that this is indeed the way the kit pylons were meant to be fitted. It still seems strange.

Painting and Decals

I had decided to complete the kit as the gloss-blue F2H-4 shown on the cover. The subject aircraft in question sports a large red area lined in white, surrounding the cockpit. Academy's solution is to provide sixteen decals (yes, that's correct) to be applied around this area - half in red, and half for the white edging on the fuselage, canopy and windscreen. I painted just the forward part of the fuselage using Hu 181 (the correct match for FS15042) so that I could safely manhandle the rest of the kit as I struggled to attach all the decals. However, after attaching the first couple of decals (the large red areas on either side), things began to go pear-shaped. You are required to attach both red and white outline decals to each panel of the windscreen, and as I struggled with these, I realised that this was just not going to work. One of the problems is that Academy decals are a bit like an overdone steak - just a little too tough and inflexible (apologies to any vegetarians!). I decided to apply the rest of the markings by hand, using standard red and white gloss paint. This way took a lot more time, but I figured that the results would be more accurate and realistic looking.

A picture from the side of the box of a completed kit with all sixteen decals in place around the cockpit. Whoever managed to do this has a lot more patience with Academy decals than I have!

Having painted the rest of the kit, I applied the rest of the decals with little difficulty. Academy decals are actually very good, if a little thick and glossy. That was no problem given the paint scheme. Adhesion is also excellent, even though the decals would typically soak in hot water for several minutes before being coaxed off the backing paper. Of course, the painted surface was gloss, which always aids adhesion, and I didn't use any setting solution. The box artwork shows the red marking around the intakes as being on the underside as well as on top. However, this seems in error as the decals and instructions clearly envisage markings on the upper surface only. The box artwork also seems to show a silver leading edge on the tailplane units. This is not in the instructions, but it is shown on the Hobbycraft artwork, which seems to be showing the same aircraft. Who's correct here? The Hobbycraft artwork also has the radome as being painted some shade of dark grey, whereas in this kit it is painted Radome Tan (FS33613), which is what one would expect.

Accuracy

Based on quoted figures, the basic dimensions seem fine. It's harder to comment on other issues such as shape, contouring and panel lines. One striking feature of the -3/-4 is the way the repositioned cannon caused the shape of the forward fuselage (in cross section) to change dramatically. Instead of being circular or elliptical in cross section, the fuselage actually goes straight on down almost to the end before finally turning in and up. This is captured very well in the kit.

Final Comments

I was actually a bit disappointed with this kit. The abiding feeling was that a lot more could have been done with this subject - things like more stores options, better wheel bay detail, better cockpit detail and (perhaps) folding wings. Ideally, the surface detail could have been a bit more crisp as well, which I something I mentioned earlier. However, one has to be a realist about these matters: Academy probably wanted this kit in their catalogue to go with other subjects of a similar vintage (Thunderjet, Scorpion, Sabre, etc.). Although they produced a superlative tooling for the F-84, they probably did so in the knowledge that they could source some other molds from the likes of Hobbycraft. Producing brand-new molds is both an expensive and risky business, and if this tooling wasn't already available, Academy might have given the Banshee a miss altogether.

As an afterthought, I should also mention that building of this kit straddled two other projects: the Revell P-47D Thunderbolt, and the Hasegawa S-3A Viking. In company such as this, a lot of products will suffer from the inevitable negative comparisons! It is a really nice and straightforward kit of a neglected subject, but you're left still looking for that little bit more.

References

As is usually the case for a US subject, the best detailed background information came from Joe Baugher's site. The Banshee pages are at this address.

Another useful link is from the Kithobbyist site. This site hosts (among many other resources), a large set of aircraft walkarounds, although most don't seem to be available through the normal links on the site. Use this URL to access a directory of US aircraft walkarounds. The F2H-4 Banshee pages are here.