I grew up building jet models. However, at the time, I only knew the stuff I’d seen at airshows; F-4s, A-4s, F-15s, F-16s and so forth. I didn’t really know that much about the earlier jets. As I grew up and found out more about them, I got interested in the really early stuff, finding it fascinating. However, one plane I could never find a kit of was a Supermarine Attacker. I know there was a FROG, but I’ve never seen it.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I saw the Trumpeter 1/48 Attacker listed as a “coming soon”! I still can’t understand why Trumpeter went ahead and did this one, let alone in a large scale, but it was too cool to pass up. Since I got the urge to go “fat and slow” on my next build, I thought that it was entirely appropriate to take a closer look at this model.

Check out my out of box review for the Attacker at the link below. Looking at it, it sure seems nicer that I think the Attacker deserves!

http://adamrehorn.wordpress.com/model-kits/out-of-box-reviews/trumpeter-148-supermarine-attacker-oob/

The Attacker is such an interesting plane though, it just looks so strange. I mean, how many other tail dragger jets were out there?

It must have been entertaining to land it on a carrier.

Oh, it's interesting, I agree. That's why I'm glad to see a kit of it in the mainstream! To my knowledge, other than the He-178 and prototype Me-262s, there weren't any other pure-jet taildraggers out there, ever!

I don't know; landing it might have been okay; you've got to come in a bit nose high on a carrier anyway... I'm just wondering how it would have fared in a fight!

It was like someone replaced the "useful" in an F-80 with a boatload of "suck".

Except for the Yak-15, you mean

Adam,
Your review was really quite well written, and contained enough history for those of us unfamiliar with that aircraft to learn a thing or two of it's roll in British Naval Aircraft history.

Like you, I've waited what seems like forever, for the major players to produce quality 1st generation jets. We're now seeing them at a healthy rate.

Looking forward to your build blog.

Joel

Oh man! How could I forget the Yak-15! I even have the (highly terrible) Eastern Express kit of that jet tadpole!

Thanks, Jessie, for reminding me of that one!

I'm still waiting for a nice 1/72 Scimitar. (Sounds like something Airfix should be doing, no?) That, and nice kits of the early Russian stuff, like the Yak-15 and La-15. I don't always trust AModel.

Thanks for the compliments!

Cmr does a very nice scimitar.

Yeah, but I personally don't build resin. I know there are some nice kits out there, but I just like to stick to plastic injected kits.

I think there's an Xtrakit Scimitar, isn't there?

I remember reading of an anecdote that Attacker pilots wished it had Spitfire wing...

Let’s not forget this wonderful example of early jet design: the Caproni Campini N.1. The compressor was powered by a liquid cooled engine. Valom has released a model of this in 1/72.

You also have to remember that this was also an era of mind bending change, something similar to what happened during and after WW1 when previously and relatively unheard of concepts were being developed (aircraft, bombs and tanks etc).

There was even the attempted development of jet seaplanes that could take off from water. The concept was binned eventually.

As well as the modern carrier force and space flight these times also produced the Hovercraft, the Ekranoplan (the Caspian Sea Monster) and the ICBM.

The "Cold War" (these days, "The WHAT?") was another time of incredible change and development producing some incredible, and some truly weird, ideas.

Yeah, I know that there was a lot of change going on what with the advent of the jet engine, but the Attacker still looks like a half-arsed attempt at best.

I mean, the Germans had swept wings (BOTH directions) on their jets, and the Americans had the P-80, after figuring out the P-59 was a dog. The Brits had the Meteor, which while not groundbreaking was solid and had a tricycle undercarriage, at least!

I'm afraid there's really no excuse for something like the Attacker.

I can see why pilots would have wanted a Spitfire wing... it likely would have helped!

Yes but the 262's wing was swept as a quick fix to move the centre of gravity. The British had Vampire, which became Venom. And was superb. But quizzically they adhered to a policy of Meteor being an air superiority fighter and Vampore/Venom an attacker. Which completely contradicted the two aircraft's strengths. Having said that Vampire performed ground attack nicely by all accounts in the Malaya Emergency.

Moreover Vampire landed on a carrier before any attacker and would have been a much better single seater at the time for FAA!

I agree with you as per the Meteor and Vampire/Venom, for sure.

However, the Germans did understand swept wings better than anyone else at the time. The Komet and 262 were both swept, there were Crescent wings in the planning for the Blitz (later used on the Victor) and the Ta-183 was wind tunnel tested with swept wings. The Ju-287 was flown in V1 form with forward swept wings, and Junkers did a lot of reasearch on them before ever committing them to flight.

Swept wings in Germany were not just expedient fixes.

That having been said, the Attacker was sad even as a straight winged jet! There are many straight-wingers that were adequate or better (F-10, F-84, Banshee, Panther to name a few), so it can't find an excuse there!

The Germans were very interested in swept wings, consider the Horten Ho 13-A with 60 degrees.

This is my theory on the Attacker. It was built for the Royal Navy who used small(ish) carriers, jets of that period did not have the ooomph todays units have and steam catapults were only just being introduced. In order to get safely into the air from a carrier you need the aircraft to attain lift asap consequently you need a high angle of attack. Later aircraft would use either an extending noseleg (Phantom, Skyhawk) energy absorbing (Tomcat) or sit back on the tail (Buccaneer). At the time the Attacker was developed carrier aircraft were usually taildraggers and so it seemed obvious to make the Attacker the same as you automatically had the corrct angle of attack. I don't think being a taildragger adversely affected landing as the tailhook could be made long to suit.

I think that's about right, actually!

It's funny, because you'd think adapting the wings of a prop plane with a jet engine would be a good, and rather immediate, solution to the problem of building a jet fighter, but it never worked. Whether it was the British or the Russians, adapting a Jet Engine to a Prop body/wings just was NOT successful.

I mean, the P-80, Meteor, Me-262 and Ar-234 were all "clean sheet of paper" designs, and they were very successful.

I guess the problem with cutting corners is, that, sometimes you just end up missing the boat altogether!

I understood the Attacker had the Spiteful wing, and the Spiteful was a Spitfire with a new laminar flow wing. And the Spiteful was not that popular due to the new wing.

Oddly enough I read somewhere I can no longer find that of all the WWII aircraft the Spitfire ended up with having the highest limiting Mach No. If this is so the basic Spitfire wing design was very very good indeed.