1/48th Hunter, we need a new release.

[Wez]

55 minutes ago, 71chally said:

I didn't say that they couldn't be converted, just stating that they did have different centre sections, and that the smaller engined Avon airframes pretty much remained as such.  Apart from the wing structure and possibly the cockpit section, there wouldn't be much of the original F.4 left.

 

This is true, you didn't.

 

Obviously it could be and was done, as with anything on aircraft everything is possible (and replaceable), it's just a matter of the time, effort and expense involved and whether you're willing to bear that.

 

I don't know enough about the Hunter structure to know what would be retained.  I know the rear fuselage was detachable for engine changes, I don't know how the wing structure was carried through the fuselage and whether it was simply a case of attaching new mainplanes to get the later, strengthened wing?

 

Regarding engines, we talk about small bore and wide bore Hunters, but really we're only talking about differences in the exhaust for layman's purposes.  If you look at pictures of Avon 100 series engines as used on small bore Hunters, they are quite portly aft of the compressor due to its use of a cannular combustion chamber, whereas the Avon 200 series used in the large bore Hunters used an annular combustion chamber and is quite svelte in comparison to the earlier version.  I don't know what the difference in diameter is between the two, it may well be that the engine bay of the earlier aircraft was big enough to accommodate the later engine and it was just a case of changing the tail cone to allow for the larger exhaust?

 

I would be interested to know what Hawkers actually did to upgrade the earlier airframes that went for export.

 

Given that the cockpit section was replaced on some Mk4's to create T.7's, any kit manufacturer could wisely do likewise (c'mon Airfix, do us all a favour).

[71chally]

The centre sections are different for the two engines, not just a case of size, but accommodating different shape, not to mention the various vents etc.

The latter is the externally most visual diffrences, again nothing a decent kit manufacturer couldn't work around I would have thought.

[Truro Model Builder]

The Hunter was a remarkably modular aircraft.

 

The F.2 and F.5 were not modified as they were the Sapphire-engined variants, and I believe the F.1s were largely scrapped as Hawker had not put a buy-back option into the contract as they had with later aircraft.

 

[Wez]

26 minutes ago, T7 Models said:

The Hunter was a remarkably modular aircraft.

 

The F.2 and F.5 were not modified as they were the Sapphire-engined variants, and I believe the F.1s were largely scrapped as Hawker had not put a buy-back option into the contract as they had with later aircraft.

 

 

A mistake they obviously learned from, although I wonder if that was down to MAP funding for the original buy of aircraft?

[Denford]

On ‎18‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 11:19 AM, Shaun said:

I know this has been asked numerous times but why have Airfix not looked at doing a 1/48th Hunter series?

For all we know they have.   'Airfix proper' number less than 10 persons, staff left in 2016, and like anyone else they are limited (now even more so) in their output.  To produce a Hunter, Scruggs Wonderplane or any other subject can only be at the expense of something else.

The long requested Spey Phantom is now due in 2017, but there are still many, many other subjects either long overdue for retooling or to yet to be added to the Airfix range. 

A 1/48 Hunter is just one of many such subjects.

[Paramedic]

Digging this up...

 

 

I guess there is no news on new-tool 1/48 Hawker Hunters? :/

Thinking of making the Academy one finally but figured I should check out if there were any rumours....

[PLC1966]

You've waited this long, just give it till after Telford and any end of 2017 announcements first.

[Paramedic]

Good idea I guess..

..but if I do not.. Any idea on Neomega vs Aires cockpit?

[bentwaters81tfw]

Airfix are aware of the gap in the market. What they do about it remains to be seen.

[Ossington 2]

I have never bought an Academy Hunter. I was going to, indeed planned to buy at least three, but after reading the reviews at its release, (skinny undersized wheels etc.) decided not to bother. The kit is dear enough as it is without the faff of having to purchase after-market goodies three times. Today, I am still tempted from time to time by the decal sets now available, but really don't understand why Academy/Italeri hasn't improved the mould in the interim. Do they think so little of the 'enthusiast' market for them not to bother? If they had a crisp model available in the first place we would all be happier and I'm sure A/I would relish the extra sales, knowing that a competitor would find it difficult to invade any of the market. Instead, I feel as though I am still being been palmed off with an inferior product despite the new box art.  

[Paramedic]

Yeah.. It definitely needs new wheels and a ´pit to be decent in my humble opinion... But since it is basically the only game in town it probably sells so no need for the manufacter to improve it, is there?

[ReccePhreak]

On 10/30/2017 at 3:10 PM, Paramedic said:

Good idea I guess..

..but if I do not.. Any idea on Neomega vs Aires cockpit?

I would recommend the SBS set.

http://www.sbsmodel.com/model/SBS-48018/hawker-hunter-detail-set-for-academy-kit

 

I haven't used it, but my friend did, and it really turned out nice.

 

Larry

[At Sea]

I'm delighted that Airfix made the Javelin.

 

No-one else would have and it is a truly British subject.  As was the Vixen.

 

Hunter and Lightning are the obvious post war Fighters.

 

I am sure it will happen, as will the new Vulcan.  

 

Just when.

[Radfan Hunters]

Hope you don't mind but I thought I would expand on some of the comments that have been made about small and big bore Hunters.

 

Over 100 small bore Hunters (F.4, T.7, T.8, GA.11) were converted to large bore for resale to overseas air forces in both single- and twin-seat configurations. My knowledge of exactly what changes were required to fit the 200-series Avon in a 100-series aircraft are minimal but the centre fuselage was not replaced during a conversion, it was modified. I am pretty sure that the wings did not need replacing either. If they came from a basic F.4, mod 228 would need to have been applied to enable the carriage of a second pylon along with a certain amount of wing strengthening. The saw-tooth leading edge was a modification to the standard wing. To my knowledge, the conversion of a single-seat Hunter to twin seat involved the exchange of forward fuselage sections only with very little modification required. Unless of course a single seat small bore Hunter was being converted to a big bore twin seater when the other mods would need to be applied to the centre and rear sections.

[Guest]

the 48c  90's academy hunter is so-so ?

[Wez]

29 minutes ago, italian intruder said:

the 48c  90's academy hunter is so-so ?

Cockpit has issues, too shallow and an ejection seat that's closer to 1/72nd than 1/48th.

 

Mainwheels undersized in diameter.

 

Fin bullet too long and tailplane is in the wrong place.

 

None of this is unfixable but you really shouldn't have to resort to aftermarket wheels and cockpit just to get the basics right.

 

The wings really need to be fixed to their respective fuselage halves with plenty of superglue on the inside (well mine did).

 

The Academy kit is alright, but that's just it, it should be so much better, it should be so good that we're not wishing Airfix (or anybody else for that matter), do the decent thing and bring out a new kit.

[Guest]

thnx wez ,very enlightning

[stever219]

42 minutes ago, italian intruder said:

the 48c  90's academy hunter is so-so ?

Very.  The cockpit and seat are closer to 1/72nd scale, the canopy shape is incorrect (the "hump" is too far aft) and it has a moulded frame at the rear where isn't one on the real jet.  All three undercarriage legs are too long and the wheels too small, giving a correct overall height.  The outer edges of the engine intakes are too pointed and the fit of intakes and wings to the fuselage has been known to make grown men modellers cry.  The wing leading edge dog tooth is too far inboard.  The tailplanes sit too far aft on the fin by 1/10" and the fin/tailplanes bullet is too long by the same amount.  The shape of the rear fuselage is incorrect; the datum has been aligned incorrectly so the overall shape is "off".  There are after-market upgrade and improvement sets; I'm lucky enough to have some of the sadly long-out-of-production Aeroclub sets, but insufficient to deal with my pile of as yet unbuilt Academy Hunters.

[Paul J]

7 minutes ago, stever219 said:

Very.  The cockpit and seat are closer to 1/72nd scale, the canopy shape is incorrect (the "hump" is too far aft) and it has a moulded frame at the rear where isn't one on the real jet.  All three undercarriage legs are too long and the wheels too small, giving a correct overall height.  The outer edges of the engine intakes are too pointed and the fit of intakes and wings to the fuselage has been known to make grown men modellers cry.  The wing leading edge dog tooth is too far inboard.  The tailplanes sit too far aft on the fin by 1/10" and the fin/tailplanes bullet is too long by the same amount.  The shape of the rear fuselage is incorrect; the datum has been aligned incorrectly so the overall shape is "off".  There are after-market upgrade and improvement sets; I'm lucky enough to have some of the sadly long-out-of-production Aeroclub sets, but insufficient to deal with my pile of as yet unbuilt Academy Hunters.

Thanks for all that!  I just completed one but still need to decal it for which I am asking about in the wanted column.  Now I know why nobody wanted to buy this one when I had it in my for sale list. Even though I was aware of some of the faults you mention. I have corrected the rear bullet best I can and moved the tailplane forward.I had Aeroclub improvement sets for the jet pipe, cockpit ,seat, and undercart all used on this build. Didn't know about the dog tooth bit but also unaware of the reaer fuselage but with the Aeroclub FGA9 pipe it looks better. Any way it will do for now until the much prayed for Airfix 1/48th and 1/72nd kits appear in 2018, 19, 20,........