Jump to content

1/72 - Ilyushin Il-10 "Beast" by Fly - released - new masks set


Homebee

Recommended Posts

On 27.08.2017 at 3:15 PM, vozdushniy said:

Hey, 

you attached drawings of different airplane, that is IL-10M. Well, LiftHere! has that one in plans. IL-10M is larger, with bigger engine and completely different wings. 

Oh, now I have lost  the advantage of working in secrecy... 

I hope this one would be ready during winter... 

Of course Il-10M has different wings, tailplanes, rear fuselage, armament, a.s.o. but the engine is still the AM-42 and only few cowling panels are modified leaving the outline unchanged. Thus the cowling section and windscreen height are the same.

Nevertheless comparison of the Russian drawings (the crude sketch by Z. Szajewski isn't worth bothering with) and pictures with the photos of FLY kit confirms my suspections.

If we take the fuselage length (without spinner) as 10.4m the total fuselage height is 1.50m at the windscreen lower edge, 1.83m at the mid-canopy and 1.27m at the wing trailing edge just behind the canopy. Using my best knowledge of descriptive geometry the respective data for the FLY kit looks like 1.47m, 1.88m and 1.24m, making the whole fuselage 0.4mm too low and the canopy 1.5mm too high. Not so much, but when you look every day at the real bird it hurts a little :(

Moreover the 1.50m fuselage section height should continue forward up to the 4th exhaust stack, where the curvature starts to meet the spinner backplate. The FLY kit nose is too pointed, being some 2mm thinner at the mid-exhaust. And that's really bad...

Of course this is only the picture interpretation. Let's hope that my eye is wrong and the kit follows the drawings almost spot-on.

Cheers

Michael

Edited by KRK4m
cosmetics :)
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a plug in the front fuselage, the nose is a bit longer:

 

Il-10: http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/6/3/9/0497936.jpg

 

Il-10M: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/Ilyushin_Il-10M_Soviet_AF_Monino_29.08.94_edited-3.jpg/800px-Ilyushin_Il-10M_Soviet_AF_Monino_29.08.94_edited-3.jpg 

 

But, the curvature is distictive. Exceptionally elegant aircraft, indeed.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course some curvature of the kit part can make comparison difficult, but here you can see the picture containing (from the top) the noses of: Il-10M, a little shorter original WW2 Il-10 and the Fly kit of above put into the same scale.

il_10m

My hopes of getting the definitive Il-10 in 1/72 diminished almost to nil :(

Cheers

Michael

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KRK4m said:

My hopes of getting the definitive Il-10 in 1/72 diminished almost to nil :(

Cheers

Michael

 

 

1 hour ago, JWM said:

the hope dies the last...

 

I haven't given up - after all, I've been living in hope of a new 1/72 Yak-9 and/or Yak-1b for years, decades even, so I've got an infinite stockpile of hope. Hope, and filler putty. That said, I will admit that I'm currently attempting to buy up every available Dakoplast/EE/Modelist Yak-9 in the whole world, so maybe an element of despair is starting to creep in, but however - back to the Fly Il-10 - it appears from Michael's images that the slot for the exhausts is simply too wide, but can be corrected by narrowing it with a strip of plastic inserted at the bottom edge of the opening and blended in. This isn't too difficult, although of course it is disappointing, and why should it be necessary with a brand-new kit? More concerning is the possible too-flat curvature of the upper cowling which Michael identified as well...

 

I really want to get my hands on this kit - does anyone know how close the release date is now?

 

John

Edited by John Thompson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, I think that the exhaust is one thing but what Mike is talking about is general slope of engine which should not start right from the cockpit. But you are right: some putty can help a lot here :)

Cheers

J-W

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7.9.2017 at 9:02 AM, Redboost said:

While Michael is done with his magic red lines despite not touching up the real kit, the normal part of modelling community is enjoying the approaching release date which will take place on 23rd September.

 

Great news, will have some IPMS members collect the kit for me at E-Day!

Thanks for info, Libor.

On 7.9.2017 at 0:40 AM, John Thompson said:

 ... I've been living in hope of a new 1/72 Yak-9 and/or Yak-1b for years, decades even, so I've got an infinite stockpile of hope. Hope, and filler putty. That said, I will admit that I'm currently attempting to buy up every available Dakoplast/EE/Modelist Yak-9 in the whole world ... 

John, good luck with buying up all available Dakoplast/EE/Modelist Yaks.

Indeed they've become rare, I used to see them at swap meets and model shows for years, but hardly any pop up now.

(Found an EE Yak-9 in the second hand pile of my hobby shop earlier this year and yes, I grabbed it)

But isn't it always like this: you're hoping for a special kit that never seems to materialize, and just as you've given up hope (or bought up all remaining examples of that old kit) a new kit is announced, not only by one, but by two different manufactuers.

We should sign a petiton and send it to Zvezda, probably the only model company who would lay their hands on a new Yak.

Since their Yak-3 was superb, I'd like to see a 72scale Pe-2, an all-new Il-4, maybe even a Tu-2 (not that the ICM kit is bad).

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Roman Schilhart said:

John, good luck with buying up all available Dakoplast/EE/Modelist Yaks.

Indeed they've become rare, I used to see them at swap meets and model shows for years, but hardly any pop up now.

(Found an EE Yak-9 in the second hand pile of my hobby shop earlier this year and yes, I grabbed it)

But isn't it always like this: you're hoping for a special kit that never seems to materialize, and just as you've given up hope (or bought up all remaining examples of that old kit) a new kit is announced, not only by one, but by two different manufactuers.

We should sign a petiton and send it to Zvezda, probably the only model company who would lay their hands on a new Yak.

 

 

Do you want to sell that to me?! Ha ha - just joking - enjoy, Roman!

 

A bit off-topic, but I fail to understand why there's a complete absence of decent 1/72 kits of the VK-105-powered versions of the Yak-9. Again and again I see announcements of new kits of obscure types which I've never even heard of (okay, there's a lot that I've never heard of) and everyone goes wild (yes, yes - good for them - well done), and yet the most significant Russian fighter aircraft of WWII, the Soviet equivalent of the Spitfire and Mustang, is completely ignored. I just don't get it!!!

:angrysoapbox.sml:

 

Anyway, I'm sorry for that digression; at least, thanks to Fly, we have this quite decent new Il-10 to look forward to!

 

John

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At last I've got it! The 1:72 Fly 72035 Il-10...

When you look at the photos you'll se the problem I have been expecting weeks ago when the first pictures of Fly sprues had appeared here.

When compared to the Russian drawings the nose in Fly kit is too thin in vertical dimensions (too pointed) - the curvature of both top and lower engine cowling should be more convex.

 

1710041928

 

Of course you can live with this - the difference above the exhaust is just about 0.8mm (1/30"), so less than 2.5" (65mm) on the real plane. However the overall shape is disturbed...

 

1710041929

 

Under the engine it is more serious - the difference here is some 1.2mm (1/20"), thus 3.5" (90mm) on full size bird... But still not this is the main fault - have a look below:

 

1710041931

 

The cockpit canopy of the Fly model is exactly 9.0mm high (4.9mm of this protruding above the nose panel), whereas on Russian drawings I refer to it is just 7.1mm (with 3.9mm above the cowling). And this is something I can't ignore :(

For tomorrow we (with JWM from this site) have the session arranged at the Polish Aviation Museum. We'll try to measure the real aircraft and decide which drawings are good - the Russian ones or the ones used by Fly when designing the kit. Only one of them can be true :)

Cheers

Michael

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KRK4m said:

For tomorrow we (with JWM from this site) have the session arranged at the Polish Aviation Museum. We'll try to measure the real aircraft and decide which drawings are good - the Russian ones or the ones used by Fly when designing the kit. Only one of them can be true :)

Cheers

Michael

 

That's excellent - thank you (and JWM) very much! I just received my 2 Il-10's yesterday, and it's certainly a beautifully-molded kit. I'm really interested to read your conclusions after you complete your measurements. Thank you again for taking the time to do this investigation!

 

John

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just so I can feel involved, if only in a small way, and because the nearest Il-10 or B-33 is thousands of kilometres away, I checked the Fly fuselage against the drawings in the Wings and Wheels Publications book "Il-2 type 3 and Il-10/Avia B-33 in detail (Special Museum Line No.2)", and found that the kit's nose profile matches these drawings almost perfectly. Now let's see what Michael and JWM learn from their measurements for comparison - if the kit is incorrect, then so are the WWP drawings.

 

John

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So here they are. Three sideview drawings of the IL-10 forward fuselage, all to the same scale.

Upper horizontal red line is fuselage datum line, lower red line is thrust line (parallel one to another, some 7" apart).

Green vertical lines are spaced at 40cm apart (except for the last ones on the right, where "nothing happens", so 50 or 60cm distance is enough).

Top row of red numbers is distance in cm from fuselage front wall, middle one is height of fuselage upper contour above the (horizontal) side cowling panel hinge line.

Data in parentheses appears in mid-fuselage part, where the horizontal line runs 13cm (~5") higher.

Bottom row of red numbers is vertical distance between fuselage lower contour and the mentioned side cowling panel hinge line. 

First is the drawing by Muratov, published in Soviet Krylia Rodiny aviation monthly and used (perhaps) as the base for vintage KzP and recent Fly 1/72 kits.

 

krirod

 

Next is another Russian drawing, published in Modelist - Konstruktor Soviet modellers monthly. It's incredible how different does the same plane look here. And this is not just a visual illusion - look at the numbers describing the outline shape.

This is the drawing I have used in my analysis of the Fly kit last month - I thought it's OK. But it isn't, too...

 

modkon

As there's no chance that "good" drawings could differ so much I decided to take the measurements from the real Il-10 myself.

Today we (with JWM) went to the Polish Aviation Museum and the effect of our two-hour job is below:

 

AVIA

Thus neither of these published drawings is good - one nose is too pointed, another has both red lines too high (upper contour too horizontal, lower too convex).

In the end I tried (although the result is mediocre) to place the Fly port fuselage half on my laptop screen with my drawing scaled to 1/72.

Of course with some help of the software you have you can do it yourself to see it better. Anyway the vertical section of fuselage at stations 80 and 120 is full 1mm too low and the cockpit canopy is a full 1mm too high. And these are only the major faults...

 

1710082020

For those who like exact numbers: the pilot side window is 26cm long and 30cm high - should be 3.6 and 4.2mm respectively. The kit features 4.1 and 5.8 (!) mm.

And there is more than one Il-10 existing till today in Czech Republic. Pity :(

Cheers

Michael 

Edited by KRK4m
misprint
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all your efforts Michael and JWM,  I started on the KP kit about 30 years ago, still do something occasionally, probably last time was 10 years ago.

I have always treated plans by anyone with a great deal of suspicion, you just showed why that should be. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And still one more comparison for those who prefer numbers to drawings. Below you have vertical measurements (in cm) from yesterday's drawings compared with the same dimensions taken from the Fly kit (multiplicated by 72 of course). I have been afraid that the kit follows Muratov drawings (from Krylia Rodiny) - it doesn't...

The truth is even worse - it is still more slim :(

 

 

Up 0

Up 40

Up 80

Up 120

160

200

240

290

340

Lo 0

Lo 40

Lo 80

Lo 120

o/a 0

o/a 40

o/a 80

o/a 120

KRK

46

63

73

81

85

88

91

95

128

30

43

54

61

76

106

127

142

MOD

47

60

71

79

83

86

88

90

118

28

45

55

61

75

105

126

140

KRY

47

60

70

78

84

88

91

92

131

31

43

51

57

78

103

121

135

FLY

46

59

69

73

77

81

85

90

135

30

39

48

55

76

98

117

128

Up = dimension above the front panel lower hinge line                                             

Lo = dimension below the front panel lower hinge line

o/a = overall height of fuselage transverse section in given place                             0, 40, 80....340 = stations (in cm) with 0 at the fuselage front wall

Now it's clearly visible that the kit upper outline falls more than 1 (scale) mm lower than real craft one at stations 120, 160 and 200. The kit canopy protrudes 45 cm (scale) above the fuselage - should be just 33. And the fuselage section o/a height at stations 80 and 120 is respectively 1.4 and 2.0mm too low. Good times for the putty manufacturers :)

Cheers

Michael

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would add, that it is not a very big problem to correct those shapes, even to draw the lines again. Anyway the FLY model has very nice surfaces and detailing...

J-W

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...