mhaselden Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 I have an old CA Hudson in my stash that I'm plucking up the courage to build. I understand there are some shape improvements that can be made but I'd appreciate the input of the assembled Britmodeller masses to identify what "could" be done and from there I'll select what I "might" achieve (where "might" < "could"). Thanks in advance, Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leyreynolds Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 Give the kit the flick and choose another subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhaselden Posted February 14, 2017 Author Share Posted February 14, 2017 4 minutes ago, leyreynolds said: Give the kit the flick and choose another subject. You mean like the Special Hobby Maryland or the Czech Model F3D-2 Skynight? I appreciate your consideration of my mental health but, as you can see from the above, my marbles went bye-bye a LONG time ago. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie22 Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 Mark, It depends on how far you want to go!! The major problem is the fuselage which is incorrect in both profile, (particularly the curvature on the top), and plan (way too slab sided).. That is very difficult to correct. I did a fair bit of cutting to get a better plan shape and bog to correct the upper line. Of course this means the cockpit transparency no longer fits! There are quite a few other problems which can be 'corrected' with a lot of time. You really need to want a Hudson!!! Otherwise, accept the kit as being a caricature of the real thing, or take Ley's advice and toss it. If you decide to take the hard way, drop me an email and I can help with a few drawings I made from Lockheed originals - when I find them that is. Cheers, Peter M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAVY870 Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 A Classic Airframes kit thats inaccurate? Well I never! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 2 hours ago, NAVY870 said: A Classic Airframes kit thats inaccurate? Well I never! And yet they're still the accurate option compared to Trumpeter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhaselden Posted February 14, 2017 Author Share Posted February 14, 2017 11 hours ago, Magpie22 said: Mark, It depends on how far you want to go!! The major problem is the fuselage which is incorrect in both profile, (particularly the curvature on the top), and plan (way too slab sided).. That is very difficult to correct. I did a fair bit of cutting to get a better plan shape and bog to correct the upper line. Of course this means the cockpit transparency no longer fits! There are quite a few other problems which can be 'corrected' with a lot of time. You really need to want a Hudson!!! Otherwise, accept the kit as being a caricature of the real thing, or take Ley's advice and toss it. If you decide to take the hard way, drop me an email and I can help with a few drawings I made from Lockheed originals - when I find them that is. Cheers, Peter M Thanks Peter. Appreciate I have my work cut out...and some of the potential fixes will be beyond my abilities. However, I'd like to know the full list of recommended improvements/corrections so I can decide which ones might be feasible for me to implement. Cheers, Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don McIntyre Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 Is there anything from the Revell Ventura that could be useful? I know that it's a VERY different aircraft, but maybe the turret or other details could be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Puff Posted February 14, 2017 Share Posted February 14, 2017 You could talk Mr Airfix into doing a new one ... (says he, with some Australian civil ones in mind!) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russ c Posted February 15, 2017 Share Posted February 15, 2017 I bet you could use the turret off the Revell Ventura if nothing else, the kit one always looked odd to me . I might have one if you want it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie22 Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 12 hours ago, russ c said: I bet you could use the turret off the Revell Ventura if nothing else, the kit one always looked odd to me . I might have one if you want it. Theoretically, the turret from a Ventura I could be used. I don't have that kit so can't comment on the accuracy of its turret. The turret in the CA Hudson kit seems to based on the premise that it is circular in planform cross-section. The real turret isn't. The rear half is circular, but the front is 'bulged' out. That's why it looks 'odd'. Alternatively build one of the early RAAF A/C, ( in Singapore or OZ), before the Brits finally managed to meet their contract and supply some turrets over a year after the aircraft were built. Peter M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 Presumably the top of the Ventura fuselage could be used, together with the canopy, in order to improve the cross-section problems. Seems like a bit of an awkward job, but you could perhaps work along the top of the window line to make it easier? You seem like a modeller who fancies a challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 Darn it, Graham, now I'm going to have to dig out a Hudson and a Ventura to have a look-see. (I don't have any of the "British Ventura" boxing, but can still compare fuselages.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 What's the chance that the fuselage diameters are the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caerbannog Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 Hmmm... I only knew about the tail planes beeing wrong so far. OzMods had a correction set for these. I have the CA in stash and a vac from Ventura. I have not started either because I just cannot decide on the livery - civil/experimental camouflage/FAA. Will follow this discussion with interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhaselden Posted February 16, 2017 Author Share Posted February 16, 2017 19 hours ago, russ c said: I bet you could use the turret off the Revell Ventura if nothing else, the kit one always looked odd to me . I might have one if you want it. Hi Russ, That's very kind of you. I'd be willing to take you up on your kind offer. Do you have the complete turret or just the canopy? Also need to work out postage etc since I live in the States. Feel free to PM me so we can work out a plan of attack. Kind regards, Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhaselden Posted February 16, 2017 Author Share Posted February 16, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, gingerbob said: Darn it, Graham, now I'm going to have to dig out a Hudson and a Ventura to have a look-see. (I don't have any of the "British Ventura" boxing, but can still compare fuselages.) Please do share your findings. I don't have a Revell Ventura so it would be a tad 'spensive to get one just to mod the CA Hudson...but if that's what it takes (and it can be done within my modest modelling skills), I might be game. Cheers, Mark Edited February 16, 2017 by mhaselden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnT Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 From some reviews I read before selling my CA Hudson at a nice price I gather installing the fuselage side windows can provide hours of "interesting times". OZ Mods do a bomb bay as well as the tail planes. From photos I think you could do as well scratching that though. You are aware of the eighth rule of modelling? Just as you start to modify and correct a difficult hard to find expensive model when there is no alternative an accurate mainstream state of the art kit is announced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhaselden Posted February 16, 2017 Author Share Posted February 16, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Caerbannog said: Hmmm... I only knew about the tail planes beeing wrong so far. OzMods had a correction set for these. I have the CA in stash and a vac from Ventura. I have not started either because I just cannot decide on the livery - civil/experimental camouflage/FAA. Will follow this discussion with interest. I'm thinking of doing a machine from 1 Sqn RAAF. The theatre of operations interests me and I'm a fan of early British markings (Type A and A1 roundels), particularly those with big fin flashes that add a touch of colour as a contrast to the camouflage. I'm currently debating between 2 airframes that took part in the first air attacks against Japanese invasion forces on 8 Dec 41 operating from Kota Bahru airfield: A16-19 'US-B' was shot down with only one member of crew, Donald Dowie, surviving. Donald spent the rest of the war as a POW but was reunited with the engines of his Hudson after both were recovered by Malaysian fishermen long after the war. I understand the engines are now on display at the Australian War Memorial which is one of many places on my "must visit before I die" list. A16-52 'US-M' was also involved in the first attacks on 8 Dec 41. Flown by Flt Lt Diamond it was damaged but returned to Kota Bahru where it collided with a 243 Sqn Brewster Buffalo (W8196). Both aircraft were damaged too badly to be repaired before the airfield was abandoned. Cheers, Mark Edited February 16, 2017 by mhaselden 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhaselden Posted February 16, 2017 Author Share Posted February 16, 2017 4 hours ago, Caerbannog said: Hmmm... I only knew about the tail planes beeing wrong so far. OzMods had a correction set for these. I have the CA in stash and a vac from Ventura. I have not started either because I just cannot decide on the livery - civil/experimental camouflage/FAA. Will follow this discussion with interest. Can you provide any details on the issues with the tailplanes? I see the OZMODS conversion kit which seems to replace the entire tailplane, fin, elevator and rudder but I'm not sure how the kit falls down in these areas. Any insights? Many thanks, Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 I think the kit gives left and right elevators, while the real thing was all the way across. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnT Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 33 minutes ago, gingerbob said: I think the kit gives left and right elevators, while the real thing was all the way across. That's my understanding and what the OZ Mods set does. Had it and parted with my CA kit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhaselden Posted February 16, 2017 Author Share Posted February 16, 2017 Right....I think I can fix that myself. Thanks for the info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 Well, I did manage to get the fuselages near each other, but it is awfully hard to get them in a position to photograph the cross-section. Eyeballing it, I can't see much difference between the Hudson and Ventura- the curve aft of the cockpit glass looks the same. The length difference might cause some trouble if you're wanting to transplant. The yellowish fuselage is a "Fox 3" Lodestar conversion. It was intended to go with the Hudson, but I thought I might use a Ventura wing, which I believe has the right "extended chord" planform. The nacelles would take some fiddling, but I really haven't given it any in depth study yet. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhaselden Posted February 16, 2017 Author Share Posted February 16, 2017 Thanks Bob. That clearly shows how different the Ventura was from the earlier Hudson. To my uneducated eye, trying to combine Ventura and Hudson fuselage components looks like more trouble than it's worth. At least my rescribing skills will get a workout on the CA Hudson, though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now