Classic Airframes Hudson - Recommended Improvements?

[gingerbob]

You're welcome.  Yeah, when I first had the chance to compare the two I was rather surprised how different they were.  On some "evolved" types it is easy to see where depth or length was added, and so on, but with these you can tell they're related, but it is hard to find anything that comes into alignment and makes you think, "Ah, now I see..."

 

That's assuming that the kit parts are even close to accurate, of course!

 

The wings, on the other hand, agree quite nicely, and it is very obvious how they scabbed on a bit more chord.

[mhaselden]

Of course the other option would be to build the Ventura, paint it to look like a Hudson and claim the scale as 1/43-ish.

 

Yes...I'm kidding.

[Magpie22]

16 hours ago, gingerbob said:

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.

 

 

Two things that are immediately obvious are that the wing on the Hudson is too far forward and it also too thin. The kit has the wing LE at about STN 125, when it should be at about STN135. The Lockheed 14 used a NACA 23018 airfoil at the root. That on the kit scales out less than 15%, not 18%. The Lockheed 18 Lodestar and Lockheed 37 Ventura used the same section but with the the TE extension. The wing thickness on the Ventura looks to be very close to 18%, and its in the correct position.

 

Theoretically, you could use the Ventura I fuselage back to about STN 300, (approx the wing TE), for a Hudson. Of course you would still need to add all the windows and a rear fuselage. But, not having the Ventura kit, I am only talking through my hat.

 

Peter M

 

 

[Caerbannog]

Not sure about the leading edge position. I think it could be correct:

 

Ups... fancy - I only posted the links and the pics show. Nice feature :-)

 

René

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

Having not compared it myself, how does the wing chord measure out compared to plans? The trailing edge looks to be in roughly the right place. If the chord was too broad it would simultaneously account for the leading edge being too far forward under the cockpit glazing and the aerofoil section measuring out at 15% instead of 18%. At a glance, I wouldn't want the section any deeper, so I'd propose that the chord may be too broad.

[gingerbob]

3 hours ago, Magpie22 said:

The Lockheed 14 used a NACA 23018 airfoil at the root. That on the kit scales out less than 15%, not 18%. The wing thickness on the Ventura looks to be very close to 18%, and its in the correct position.

 

Jamie, I think that the chord is about right- I'll try to get a wing comparison up soon.  (Edit: well, a bit fuzzy, but...)

 

 

The inboard end of the aileron is a little bit different, but basically I'd say for two different companies' kits they agree pretty darn well.

 

Peter, I just checked the Hudson fuselage (wing root) and get 15.7% thickness (not sure of the engineering tolerance!)  So, you're close to right.  The Ventura IS deeper, and to give an idea of the difference, you can see (if you squint at the monitor) a narrow line around the inside of the wing recess on the Ventura (the Vent is an innie, the Hudson is an outtie).  The difference in thickness is about the width of ONE of those narrow bands (top or bottom, not both).

 

While I'm all for dimensional precision when it comes to assessing kits, that's not an error that's going to trouble me.  Well, it might when I try to mate the Ventura wing to the Lodestar fuselage, but that's different!

 

As for the cross-section of the Hudson, that's not something I've yet tried to compare to photos.  Are you saying that the whole thing should be more of an egg shape, or is it confined more to a particular part of the fuselage?  Incidentally, rightly or wrongly, the Ventura is a bit deeper forward of the windscreen compared to the Hudson (and also MORE slab-sided)- I get the impression (comparing halves) that Hudson's top surface might be somewhat lower, rather than (or in combination with?) the overall depth (spine to belly) being different.  Comparison made more difficult because the cockpit cutouts don't obviously agree- I'm not assuming that the vertical "back end" of the clear parts should line up between the two kits.  I guess maybe I have to try to get the roof in place to see.

 

And just in case anyone takes this as argumentative, I hasten to remind you all that these are not aircraft I've put any rigorous study into, so I'm just trying to check out some different kits and types and figure out what's what (or what could become something else, eh what?)

Edited February 17, 2017 by gingerbob

[mhaselden]

So...just for starters, I need to push the wing back by 10 scale inches, make the wing fatter (I'm thinking shimming the LE is the easiest way to achieve that) and then fill/sand/fill/sand A LOT(!) once it's all glued together.  Oh...and swap out the turret for the item in Revell's Ventura kit.

 

Sounds easy when I say it like that!

 

Unfortunately I understand changes may also be needed to the fuselage which will be trickier for me to implement.  Any others I need to worry about?

Edited February 17, 2017 by mhaselden

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

I reckon shimming the leading edge will cause you more engine/nacelle fit hassles than the slightly thin wing is worth?

[mhaselden]

Oh yeah..good point, Jamie.  Hadn't thought of the impact on the nacelles (clearly!).  May need to go back to the drawing board on that one...must pull the kit out of the stash to see if inspiration strikes.

[gingerbob]

Just a quickie (maybe?)  I did get out the ol' clear parts, and the Ventura glass is narrower than the Hudson glass, while the Hudson glass appears to be narrower than the Hudson fuselage.  This leads me to speculate that some careful narrowing of the fuselage might help make the clear blend in better, and might also then give a more rounded impression to the fuselage.  BUT what would that do to the fit/alignment of other parts?  (Especially the nose, which is split top and bottom.)

 

You boys!  If I'm not careful I'm going to have another alleged build project on my hands. 

 

bob

 

p.s. The clear parts do look "about" the same- as if they were intended to look the same.  The slope of the Hudson part's windscreen "point" (in the middle) is a bit flatter.  Does anyone know whether the dimensions of the cockpit glass are, in reality, the same for the two aircraft?  That is, are they common parts?

Edited February 17, 2017 by gingerbob

[mhaselden]

Maybe if you and I both build our kits, Airfix (or someone) will put us out of our misery with a new-tool kit?  Maybe??

[gingerbob]

I'm willing to do that IF I can sell my other ones at extortionate prices before the new kit is announced!  (The bottom fell out of the CA Meteor 8 market.)  Actually I've already got a Hudson scheme picked out (not that it would be hard), but I'm afraid mine is "Up Over" as opposed to Down Under.