FROG F179 Blackburn Shark

NEW AND IN VIEW
AIRCRAFT KITS

FROG. Following the Shackleton will be a 1/72 scale P-38J Lightning, then a Lysander kit from which both the Mk. I and Mk. III agent dropper may be assembled. After this will come the Blackburn Shark on floats or wheels, alternative markings for both types being included in the kit. All these kits are due before or shortly after Christmas.

The IPMS magazine, Vol.5 No.10, OCTOBER 1967

NEW AND IN VIEW NEW AIRCRAFT KITS

Frog (Rovex) showed their new 1/72 scale Blackburn Shark at their London Trade show, and at 3/1 Id. this beautiful kit must offer some of the finest value for money ever. A Lysander is due about April, and their 1968 catalogue depicts box top illustrations for the Mosquito, Beaufighter, Blenheim 1 and Tupolev SB-2. All are to 1/72 scale and all will have optional parts or alternative markings and finishing details.

The IPMS magazine, Vol.5 No.3, MARCH 1968

MODELLING
W R MATTHEWS
A TRIO FROM FROG

Frog kits at their best are very good indeed, and the best of this month's three 1/72nd scale releases from this company, the Blackburn Shark, is a superb kit in the world-beating class of Airfix's 'Trimotor'. The value that it offers for its modest UK price of 3s 11d is astounding—it comprises no fewer than 98 component parts! Sharks were operated from both wheels and floats, and both are offered with this kit. Like those of most Naval aircraft, the wings of the Shark folded, so Frog has provided alternative centre sections permitting the wings to be fitted in either position. The ailerons, elevators, and even the slots are separate movable parts, and a selection of bombs and a torpedo are included. The model is extremely neat and possesses a wealth of detail. The component parts fit together well, although some care is understandably necessary during assembly. The decal sheet, which provides four alternative sets of markings, including those of a Portuguese Air Force aircraft, is outstanding, being beautifully printed and semi-matt finished.

It would be surprising if there were not one or two minor points for criticism. One of these is that, owing to the design of the alternative centre sections, there is an ugly triangular gap below the trailing edges of the upper and lower wings when these are fitted in the extended position. The operating mechanism of the elevators is unsatisfactory, and the elevators are, in fact, better cemented in position.

Frog's other offerings comprise an A-7A Corsair II and a Northrop F-5A. Both are good kits, though not up to the standard of the previously-described Shark. Both are generally accurate, although the nose cone of the A-7A is too blunt, and both are finely if sparsely detailed. The fit of the component parts is good, but both models need a considerable amount of fitting and filling at the joints, the fin of the F-5A and the wing roots of the A-7A demanding particular attention in this respect. Perhaps the best feature of either kit is its decal sheet. That for the A-7A provides the colourful markings of two USN attack squadrons, while that of the F-5A offers the markings of an F-5A(G)-NO-25 of the Royal Norwegian Air Force, and out-of-date markings for a Canadian Armed Forces CF-5A (the Canadian roundel is now red and white only, the blue outer ring having now given place to a red outer ring). At UK prices of 3s 11d and 6s 6d, these kits are fair value, though neither can be considered cheap, and this is particularly so in the case of the A-7A, despite the formidable array of underwing stores.

RAF Flying Review June, 1968, Vol. 23, No. 10

TRADE NOTES
New items in the Model Shops
tried and tested by A/M staff members

From Rovex Industries we have no less than nine new Frog kits to 1/72nd scale; Westland Lysander, with a nicely accurate outline, a Phantom with Royal Navy markings, but representative of the F4B and not the series to be seen in British colours, Lockheed Starfighter, Mig 21, Northrop F5 Freedom Fighter, Vought Corsair A7A, Canadair Sabre, F105 Thunderchief, and Blackburn Shark. Featuring extremely nice canopy moulding the kits are in general well finished, marred in some cases by excess flash on smaller parts. The Sabre, Starfighter and Shark are at present under construction and comments to date include below average fits on Starfighter, and no U/C wells on the Sabre. Coloured drawings are featured on the back of the boxes give a variety of markings in most cases — full marks to Frog for this useful guidance.

AeroModeller DECEMBER 1968 Vol.XXXIII No.395

Thirty years of BLACKBURN SHARKS
W. Bruce Hamilton compares old and new Frog plastic kits, with photos by J. Mucha

THE IDEA for this article came when I first read that Frog were planning to release a new kit of the Blackburn Shark torpedo bomber. The reason for my special interest in this particular kit was that I already had a plastic model of the Shark, manufactured by Frog. However, it was some 30 years old! This was one of the original series of plastic kits, the Frog Penguins, which were introduced in 1937. It seemed a good idea to compare the two kits, the old and the new.

It is not the place of this article to go into many details about the Frog Penguin kits in general. This has already been done by Bill Matthews in an excellent article on the subject published in the December 1963 issue of Aeromodeller. Here, as well as in the directory of plastic kits (published with December issue) may be found a complete listing of these first plastic kits. However, a few general notes about the range might provide an appropriate background for this article.

The series began in 1937. Models were added to it until the outbreak of the Second World War. These models were the best in the range. After the war, production started again, and new models were added, production on only a few of the pre-war kits being resuified. Most of the kits introduced for the first time after the war were quite inaccurate. I have the post-war Frog Penguin model of the P51-D Mustang, and it makes the rather poor Revell 1/72 scale model of this aircraft look quite good! Production of all models in the Penguin series ceased in 1950. These original plastic kits were moulded of acetate, not polystyrene. The properties of acetate gave some advantages in moulding the kits, though, otherwise it is not as satisfactory as the more modern plastic. This is because it tends to warp easily with age, being a softer plastic. This is apparent in the accompanying photos of the Frog Penguin Shark.

The Frog Penguin Shark came to me because it had been sent to my father before the war by an acquaintance in England. If the model looks just a bit shoddy in the photos, it is because the kit was built when received, and has thus been finished for about 30 years without restoration! So, since I possessed this Penguin Shark, I felt that the new Frog Shark would provide a really excellent graphic report on the advances of the state-of-the-art of the plastic model, especially as both kits came from the same company! Here are some notes of comparison, as well as a few comments on the new Frog kit, to supplement your own observations from the photographs.

Generally speaking, the new Shark model is a considerable improvement over the old one. Fabric-covered surface representation is more realistic, and certain small details, such as the exhaust stacks, are more detailed on the new model. But then compare the machine guns in the aft cockpit! On the new model, this is a rather unconvincing lump of plastic. But the Frog Penguin possesses a machine gun (a one-piece moulding, by the way) which surely must be far better than any found in current kits. And then notice the engines. In the old Frog Penguin, this is a nicely detailed, two-piece moulding of the twin row Armstrong Siddeley Tiger, fully as good as those found in many current kits. The engine in Frog's new kit, on the other hand, has to be the worst feature of the model.

The disc of plastic with a few lines moulded on provided in the kit is a very sorry excuse for an engine! Finally, it may be possible to discern from the photos that the arrestor hook on the Frog Penguin Shark is fine wire. This is something which I feel manufacturers of today should face up to: Some parts just cannot be moulded delicately enough or strong enough in plastic. Many weak or 'clumsy' parts existing in today's kits would be much improved if they were fashioned out of metal. But today, the inclusion of metal parts in a plastic aircraft kit seems to be strictly taboo! Thirty years ago, Frog recognised these short comings of plastic and made parts accordingly. Today, it seems to be too much trouble, or something.

When researching, I found that photographs of the Shark were rather scarce in publications. Thus, it is somewhat difficult to determine whether one Frog kit is more accurate than the other. I wonder if the Frog Penguin Shark is modelled after a different version of the aircraft than the new Frog is? This is because it possesses the following differences: a spatted tailwheel, a large space between the fuselage and fin/ rudder which is not apparent in photos, and three separate cockpits. The new Frog has the pilot's cockpit and then a single, elongated, two-place aft cockpit. Windscreens were probably just not included in the Frog Penguin kit.

In overall size, the Frog Penguin model is noticeably smaller than the new Frog (both are supposed to be 1/72 scale). As the newer kit's dimensions check out just about exactly, this makes the Frog Penguin somewhat under-scale.

I would like to,make a couple of comments about the new Frog Blackburn Shark which may be useful to those purchasing the kit. First, Frog include a torpedo, four bombs and a target-towing winch and indicate to put them all on the model, as has been done in the model in the photos. However, it is doubtful that a Shark ever struggled into the air prepared for so many purposes, or indeed would have been able to! So, I would suggest that the inclusion of any one of these three types of loads on a model would be most accurate (bombs, torpedo, or winch). Also, I found that, when attaching the upper wing to the model, this was easiest accomplished by attaching it with the inner 'N' struts first, allowing this to dry, and then cementing in the remaining cabane and interplane struts. The oil cooler should be cemented at right-angles to the position shown on Frog's instruction sheet, with the ribs running fore-and-aft. One omission from an otherwise excellent decal sheet is the underwing 'buzz' numerals. These should be added, facing forward under the starboard lower wing, and aft beneath the port lower wing.

Happily, I am able to report that the new Frog Shark is an improvement over, the 30-year-old model. The several poor points about the kit, especially the engine, are peculiar to this model, and luckily few other modern kits suffer them. However, after looking at these photos of the Frog Penguin Shark, I doubt that few would deny that it is a remarkably good kit for 30 years ago. Indeed, were it to have been issued today instead of Frog's new kit, I doubt that it would be criticised.

Scale Models No.20 1971 MAY Vol.2. No.5
_________________________________________________

NEW AND IN VIEW

The Blackburn Shark needs little introduction to modellers or enthusiasts. Frog'Penguin'kits included the Shark in the pre-war range (K4206/"740") and the present Rovex Company added this aircraft to its programme a few years ago.

The Rovex/Frog kit is basically accurate and an interesting comparison between the pre-war and present day kits appears in Scale Models Magazine May 1971 issue, with photographs of both kits in made up form. From comparison with photographs of the real thing we do feel that the current kit is more 'representative' of the type particular in regards to the 'sit' of the model.

The panel detailing is somewhat heavy and careful sanding down is suggested, for reference on correct positioning of panel lines, etc. (see the 1/72 scale plans by Peter Cooksley and article by John Taylor in 'Model Aircraft Magazine, December 1963 issue).

One weak point of the Rovex/Frog kit is the very elementary representation of the 'engine' (supposedly a Tiger Vic of the Shark II) this is a simple disc inserted inside the front of the cowling with rather crudely moulded cylinder and crank case details moulded thereon. This can be improved by careful painting and highlighting using basic Gunmetal with the cylinder rods in silver, etc., or, of course, by recourse to the bits box.

The kit includes optional land or float undercarriage and markings for '652' of 820 Sqdn. R.N., H.M.S. Courageous, a shore based wartime Shark Trainer or with the float version, in Portuguese decor.

Sharks were finished in the official scheme for naval aircraft of the mid-30's, silver doped overall except all metal areas which were finished in a gloss material known as Sky Grey as described for the Skua.

One very noticeable feature about Shark paintwork was the application of Black paint along the upper surfaces of the fuselage but not usually extending over the cowling. Some sources quote this area as being in Dark Green but conversations with ex-Sharkee'$ and also reference to contemporary magazines, etc., indicate that Black was/is the normally correct finish.

Our photo page shows representative Sharks on both wheel and float undercarriages and individual marking/colour details are quoted elsewhere. Humbrol Light Aircraft Grey HX. 5 should be applied (unless stated otherwise) to the entire fuselage/cowling and undercarriage and wing struts including the interplane struts. The 'hub' and centre of the propeller blades were polished laminated wood, the remainder of the blades front and rear were Sky Grey Gloss except for the leading edge of the blades which had Slate Grey edges—probably applied over fabric doped in place to reduce splintering or chipping on the leading edge of each blade caused by small stones and surface irregularities on shore establishments, etc.

The interior of the vast cockpit was in Aircraft Grey Green (Humbrol Cockpit Colour No. HD.1).

The identification markings on R.N. Sharks followed the standard of the period 1935-1939.

The Shark was used by Nos. 810 and 820 Squadrons flying from H.M.S. Courageous (1936 till replaced by Swordfish in 1938) and also with 821 Squadron, H.M.S. Furious as well as 753 and 754 Training Squadrons. The latter were shore-based at Lee-on-Solent where they also had a floatplane flight of Sharks. Markings followed current practice with the Carrier being identified by coloured diagonal bands around the fuselage (Roundel or Medium Blue for Courageous and Red on H.M.S. Furious' aircraft) over which White numerals were applied indicating purpose and squadron by which the aircraft were used . . . i.e. it is believed that 810 used the range 640's and 820 used 650's during their service on Courageous. Wheel and float Sharks from 821 H.M.S. Furious used 690's range.

Roundels carried above the wings and on fuselage sides only (not below the wings) were pre-war style with the Red area being 1 /5th of overall diameter and the White 3/5ths of same. Serials were in Black carried on the rear fuselage and also on the fin of each aircraft but unlike markings seen on other contemporary naval biplanes the i/d fuselage numerals were not repeated under the upper wing tips on Sharks.

Sometime after entering service on board Courageous, Sharks of 810 Squadron adopted a fin marking (unofficially perhaps?) which as can be seen by reference to photographs, appeared in the form of a Red painted device rather reminiscent of the B.O.A.C. Speedbird motif but with the 'wings' parallel. If any reader can give us more precise details of this marking it would be appreciated.

Wheel hubs were often in Flight colours, Red, Blue or Yellow. On the Frog/Rovex kit Blue squares are provided on the decal sheet for the centre section of the upper wing, however, no official explanation exists giving details of such markings but unofficially ex-Sharkees said that such markings were often based upon naval Flag signals (!) and that in the case of '652' it could have been the aircraft flown by the Flight Leader of 'Blue' Flight as they recalled, when pressed, that they'thought' that on '651' the making was in Red which would tie in with Leaders' identification for 'A' FNght flying '651'-'650' (of which we have seen one very blurred amateur air-to-air shot) carried no upper wing marking which suggests that as '650' would logically have been the aircraft of thQ Squadron CO. His machine by the very absence of such wing markings was conspicuous when in formation, etc., again readers' views on this point also would be welcomed. 810 carried no such markings nor did 821 Squadron, at least as far as contemporary photographic evidence suggests.

Despite considerable research into pre-war R.N. finishes and markings there are many gaps in regards to unit/individual/carrier i/d markings, etc., and we are hoping to fill some of these in a later issue as it appears that we may well see more kits of inter-war types including R.N. machines.

Editor's note.

I have examined the 'mystery' marking on the Sharks of 810 Squadron, and I am of the opinion that this marking is a version of the double handled 'punch' dagger used on the Indian Continent. It is possible that such a marking denoted service in this part of the world ... Trinco-malee, for example. I believe this weapon is called a 'kadar'.
    
A.M.L.K.

The IPMS magazine, july 1973