|
|
|
AIRFIX 1:72 BUCCANEER S.2B |
The all-new (almost.. ) S.2B kit, original late 1980's boxart.
Reviewer:
Kevin Ronayne (Kevin.Ronayne@nuigalway.ie)
Kit Review submitted:
8 March 2003
The Buccaneer originated in the NA.39 requirement for a carrier-based attack aircraft designed to fly at low level. NA.39 was issued back in 1952 (!), and the contract was eventually won by Blackburn. It was 1958 before the first flight of the NA.39 prototype (Blackburn B.103), which would eventually become the Buccaneer. However, at this point the story gets exceedingly complex. One factor was the attitude of the UK Ministry of Defence, which in 1956 took the position that manned combat aircraft were a thing of the past! Another complication was the existence of the GOR.339 requirement for an RAF Canberra replacement. This would eventually materialise as the ill-fated BAC TSR.2, in whose demise the Buccaneer would unwittingly play a part. Despite the fact that the two designs seemed to be completely different, the UK Government put forward the view (not unreasonably) that perhaps the NA.39 design alone could meet both requirements. The result was that the RAF steadfastly ignored the NA. 39/Buccaneer for years, for fear that any sign of interest might be used as an excuse to kill off GOR.339.
As everyone knows, the TSR.2 programme was eventually terminated in 1965 by the Labour government, which had won the UK General Election in October 1964. During the Election campaign, Labour had targeted the TSR.2 programme on the grounds of excessive cost (among other things). Moves to equip the RAF with US F-111 K's would come to nought. Thus, when the decision was taken to phase out the UK's conventional aircraft carriers (yet another story in itself), the Royal Navy Buccaneers were transferred to the RAF. These were converted to launch Martel missiles, and called S2.B's. The RAF also ordered additional S2.B's with new avionics and a refuelling probe. Over the years, gradual avionics improvements were applied wherever limited budgets allowed.
The RAF eventually came to appreciate the qualities of the aircraft that they had tried to ignore for so long. By the late 1980's, the RAF's opinion could be expressed in the statement that "The only thing that can replace the Buccaneer is another Buccaneer, with next generation avionics!". The Buccaneer was regarded as among the best low-level strike/interdiction aircraft in the world. The Buccaneer force was reduced to 60 aircraft in the early 1980's following wing fatigue problems. In 1985, BAe was appointed prime contractor for an update programme to extend the aircrafts' service life.
Although Buccaneers in the latter half of the 1980's were deployed in the maritime strike role, the 1991 Gulf War would see quite different mission profile. 'Operation Granby' was to be both the Buccaneer's combat debut in UK service - bombing the grounded oil tanker 'Torrey Canyon' in 1968 doesn't count - and it's swansong. Some 12 Buccaneers with TIALD pods were used to designate targets for Tornado GR.I's. As some Tornadoes were also fitted with TIALD equipment, the Buccaneers sometimes dropped LGB's themselves. 216 missions were flown without loss. With the belated introduction of the maritime strike Tornado GR.1B, the last Buccaneer was retired from frontline service in March 1994. South Africa, which had used its Buccaneers in the Angolan conflict for years, had already retired its force by 1991.
This kit was first issued in the late 1980's. Some of the known inaccuracies in the mold are generally blamed on the fact (or belief) that the tooling was a development of the old Blackburn Buccaneer kit issued in 1960. Although later marketed as a 'Mk.I', the original tooling was a kit of the NA.39 prototype aircraft. This meant that any portrayal of the kit as a production aircraft was inherently unsound, given the changes that occurred (as usual) between prototype and production. However, any comparison of the original kit and this tooling would confirm that the later mold is not just a revised tooling - it is really a quite different kit altogether. That said, it is probable that the old tooling was used as one source of measurements and other information, which means that some errors have been duplicated.
The original kit of the N.A. 39 prototype, issued in 1960 - the Buccaneer would not enter service for several years!
Even though the kit has about 78 parts, it is really a simple affair. One gets the impression that the Airfix product development team were told: "produce a new Buccaneer tooling - but make it simple, as we don't have that much money to spend!". There is probably an element of truth in this - remember that Airfix went into receivership in 1981, and encountered more trouble in 1986 before eventually being bought out by Humbrol. When I got an urge to build the 'Bucc' a few months ago, I had a choice of two kits from my unbuilt reserves: this kit, and the Matchbox kit from the mid 1970's, albeit in a Revell-style packaging with 'Desert Storm' markings - but no external stores. The Matchbox kit is supposedly more accurate in some respects, but marginally less accurate overall - and it does have some of those horrible Matchbox trench-lines. By comparison, this kit has very restrained raised panel lines. Neither Buccaneer kit is currently a 'live' catalogue item, but the Airfix kit will hopefully resurface in the next couple of years.
The NA.39 kit magically becomes a Buccaneer Mk. I!
The two subject options represent two machines based at RAF Lossiemouth in the 1980's - one aircraft from 208 Squadron (1988), and one from 12 Squadron (1985). Both feature the distinctive RAF 'wraparound' green/grey camouflage adopted in the early 1980's, differing only in unit markings and aircraft serials. With Humbrol paint codes, there should have been no problem interpreting the paint scheme, but I did have cause to pause and scratch my head!
By re-using the basic Martel missile body with different nose sections, with additional intake fairings for the air-breathing Sea Eagle derivative, the kit offers a reasonable set of stores options.
As the Webmaster himself has produced detailed inbox and construction reviews for this kit, I really can keep this review simple. The construction was simple, the level of detail basic (but generally adequate), and the fit mostly very good. The bulk of the kit was completed in a day, after which gradual interruptions (this was during the Christmas Holiday break!) slowed down the painting and decaling work, which accounted for at least 80% of the time expended on the kit - that is not unusual.
My intention from the outset was to build an aircraft in the following configuration:
For the very basic cockpit - which was an integral part of the upper fuselage half - the cockpit colour recommended was Humbrol 27 mid-grey. I used Hu 166 instead (BS 627), and also used this for the light lining around the edge of the canopy. Had I been building the kit with extended undercarriage, I would have used this for the wheel wells, doors and legs, and not Hu 40 as specified. As basic as the cockpit was, I still left the pilot figures out. The seats were not bad, with seatbelts molded in place. Construction of the fuselage, nosecone and tail unit was a breeze. However, as reported by Mark Braithy, the two-piece rear tail cone/airbrake was ... well, pretty brutal. The two halves fitted each other fine, but the connection to the fuselage was horrible. The best solution would be to first cut off the upper and lower fins on the tail cone. Then, sand down the edges of each half to produce a narrower tail cone assembly. Hopefully, this will mate better with the fuselage. The fins can also be cemented back on to the new tail cone unit. Note: as the tail cone parts are completely lacking in interior detail, it would make sense to assemble them in the open position unless you have a good idea of what the innards look like.
The basic airframe was completed with the outer wing sections and the 'slipper' tanks. Only very small amounts of filler were required here, or throughout the kit in general. As the basic kit took shape, I began to realise just how graceful an aircraft the Buccaneer is. Mark had the same experience building the Airfix kit of the Hawker Hunter. It must be something to do with the styling and design of British jets, which tended to be quite different from American jets. The Buccaneer is also a deceptively large aircraft, at over 19 m (63 feet) in length.
Possible stores layouts. Note that the Sea Eagle did not enter service until 1985 or 1986.
I didn't think that the supplied missiles parts cut the mustard, so I used Sea Eagles from the Airfix 'Hi- Tech' Weapons kit (AKA the RAF/NATO Weapons kit). The set includes a wide variety of modern ordnance, with a bias towards RAF ordnance. More information on the Weapons Set is supplied below. The two Sea Eagle missiles were of a very high quality, with front and rear fins supplied as photo-etched parts. Another source is the Hasegawa Sea Harrier FRS.1, which also includes a pair of Sea Eagles of equal quality - save for the marginally thicker plastic fins.
© Kevin Ronayne 2005
The basic paint scheme is a bit confusing. Each of the two camouflage colours are referenced with matt and semi-gloss shades - Hu 30 or Hu 163 for green, and Hu 27 or Hu 164 for mid-grey. The two shades of grey recommended by Humbrol are reasonably close to each other, but Hu 30 and Hu 163 are utterly different shades of green. The painting instructions (which are otherwise very good) make no reference to the finish of the individual paint shades, or the overall finish of the aircraft, or to the BS codes. Normally, I would have just applied a standard semi-gloss finish of Hu 163 and Hu 164 without question, to represent the standard BS641 green/BS638 grey scheme. However, the IPMS Stockholm colour charts had something interesting to say: from the mid 1970's, the finish on this camouflage scheme did apparently change from semi-gloss to matt. The green shade may also have changed, even though the BS codes do not seem to have changed. In the end, I decided to go ahead and apply the standard Hu 163/Hu 164 scheme with the normal semi-gloss finish. These are the most accurate shades in my view. Mark has a slightly different take on the paint finish of Buccaneers, and the way in which the RAF finish changed due to weathering.
The instructions call for all the missiles to be painted gloss white, which the cover box art agrees with. The cover of the Airfix weapons set also appears to show a white Sea Eagle. However, the weapons set instructions say that the missile was painted Hu 164 (i.e., BS638). This would make the missile blend in with the aircraft's standard RAF camouflage. Even for a maritime strike aircraft that would spend a lot of mission time hugging the wave tops, this still makes sense to me. The box art shows the engine intake interiors painted white, but the kit says they should be Hu 30 green (Hu 163 might be more realistic). After reviewing a number of photographs, I think that both white and green were used.
Based on prior experience with newer Airfix decals, I knew that they would blend in perfectly with a semi-gloss paint finish - no varnish required. Despite rough handling of some of the delicate upper fuselage markings (maintenance walkway markings?), the decals showed excellent adhesion. Some of the smaller markings were not in proper register, and I corrected this as best I could by touching up the decals and surrounding areas afterwards.
Everyone seems to know by now that the nose is inaccurate. As mentioned in Mark's construction review, a resin upgrade kit is available from the UK aviation modelling magazine, Scale Aircraft Modelling - the website is www.samnet.co.uk. In fact, there are two upgrade sets - one for the basic airframe corrections (mainly the new nose and tail plane), and one 'Gulf War' upgrade set, with stores, correct pylons and wingtips.
At STG £ 7 plus p+p, the nose/tail plane upgrade is actually more expensive than the Airfix kit - if you can find the kit at present. The Gulf War set is more expensive still!
I drew on a material from a range of sources for this review. For example, the RAF quote about a Buccaneer replacement came from the Wings of Fame journal article on the TSR.2 (Vol. 4, author Bill Gunston - sorry, Sir Bill Gunston). On the web, the wonderful Thunder and Lightnings site has an excellent section on the Buccaneer, with lots of pictures to gaze at.
I'm not sure what prompted me to build this kit, but it certainly left me wanting to build the Buccaneer another couple of times. As with a few other British jets, the best kit of the Buccaneer would seem to be the 1/48 scale Airfix product - great if you're a quarter scale modeller, and it should look extremely impressive in the larger scale. In 1/72 scale, there seems to be little chance of a brand new tooling from anyone in the near future. However, this kit would be more than adequate for me if only Airfix would do the obvious thing and upgrade it themselves. A new kit with the required accuracy 'fixes', greater detail (particularly in the cockpit), and more stores/subject options (maybe a separate Gulf War version) would be just fine. This would also be an awful lot cheaper than using the resin upgrade sets. Let's hope someone at Airfix is thinking along the same lines!
© Kevin Ronayne 2005
This weapons set was issued around ten years ago. Like the Buccaneer kit, it is not currently a 'live' Airfx item, but you might still find it if you're lucky. It is the only 1/72 weapon set that I know of that deals mainly with RAF aircraft - the Hasegawa modern weapons sets seem to be all US-centric. The Airfix set includes most weapons used on British jets over the last 25 years (regardless of where the weapons came from). Many of these are usable on US jets as well, and the instructions include a table indicating what stores can be used with what Airfix 1/72 scale jet kits (British, European and American aircraft). Some 'standard' items such as general-purpose bombs or rocket pods are excluded, as a ready supply of these can probably be built up with spares from a whole range of kits.
The general quality of the set is very good - every item has a detailed painting guide and decal set, and many of the missiles and bombs have some or all of their fins supplied as photo-etched parts. Obviously, for some stores, the paint scheme may differ depending on the circumstances. For anyone wondering about what the set has to offer, here is a list of the contents:
| Store | Quantity |
| AIM-132 ASRAAM | 4 |
| AIM-120 AMRAAM | 4 |
| AIM-9G Sidewinder | 2 |
| AIM-9L Sidewinder | 2 |
| AIM-9P Sidewinder | 2 |
| ALARM anti-radar missile | 2 |
| Kormoran anti-shipping missile | 4 |
| Sea Eagle anti-shipping missile | 2 |
| AGM-84 Harpoon | 2 |
| AGM-65 Maverick | 2 |
| Sea Skua anti-shipping missile | 4 |
| AGM-88 HARM anti-radar missile | 2 |
| Mk. 13 Paveway LGB* | 4 |
| BL-755 CBU | 4 |
| AN/ALQ-101 ECM pod | 1 |
| JP-233 munitions pod | 2 |
| Cerebrus pod | 1 |
| AN/ALQ-119 ECM pod | 1 |
| BOZ-107 pod | 1 |
| Phimat dispenser | 1 |
| TIALD laser designator | 1 |
| Linescan reconaissance pod | 1 |
| AN/AVQ-23E 'Pave Spike' pod | 1 |
| Sky Shadow pod | 1 |
* The Paveway LGB designation is actually given as CPU-123/B. This should possibly read GBU-123/B. It is based on a 1,000 Lb. bomb - possibly an RAF bomb in this case, as the store is only listed for British aircraft. The 'Mk.13' is an RAF designation visible on the stencilling.
Related Reviews:-
Airfix 1/72 HS Buccaneer S.2B (Mark B - SMAKR)
Related INBOX reviews:-
SMAKR Home
| What's New | Submissions
| Information Requests | News | Links
| Reference Corner | Site
Info
1/72 Reviews | 1/48
Reviews | INBOX Reviews
