Jump to content

If you're one of the gradually reducing number of folks that aren't currently receiving notifications to topics you've subscribed to, or PMs you're receiving, first check you've got the correct address in your profile, then drop in and post your experience in this thread, remembering to tell us your email provider's details, which is the part after the @ in your email address.

This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

JackG

Italeri Hurricane Mk.I Trop boxed with wrong wing set?

Recommended Posts

Someone elses build on another forum, but it looks Italeri boxed MIIc wings in their Mk.I tropical version?

 

kIH6CR.jpg

ML03XQ.jpg

9oSOKd.jpg

k57xZE.jpg

 

 

 

regards,

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it can be fixed either with the existing parts, as some surface detail should be different between mg and cannon armed versions?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JackG said:

Someone elses build on another forum, but it looks Italeri boxed MIIc wings in their Mk.I tropical version?

 

kIH6CR.jpg

ML03XQ.jpg

9oSOKd.jpg

k57xZE.jpg

 

 

 

regards,

Jack

If these are someone else's pictures, you should provide at least a link to acknowledge their authorship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The kit shown in the Cybermodeler review seems to have the correct wings based on the position of the gunports:

 

https://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/it/kit_it_2768.shtml

 

However, the panel immediately ahead of the gear well that the carb intake attached to looks like it is from the Mk.II. The Mk.I panel is noticeably shorter, as seen in this Aeroscale review

 

http://aeroscale.kitmaker.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=Reviews&file=index&req=showcontent&id=6962

 

Based on that, I would conclude that Italeri used the wrong mold insert for that part of the wing, which differs between the Mk.I and Mk.II. You shouldn't have to do it, but at least the part is larger than it needs to be so it could be reshaped rather than waiting for Italeri to supply a replacement.

Edited by VMA131Marine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes if you are going to link to someones work on another forum please give them a credit for it, and the forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rest easy there VMA131Marine and  Julien, it's not like I claimed them to be my own, and the owner is more than happy to get this problem sorted it out.  Anyhow, here is the link to the group build over at Finescale Modeler (of which I'm also taking part of, and the owner Steven is aware I posted the help question here).   Where is Tony  and Troy??

http://cs.finescale.com/fsm/modeling_subjects/f/29/t/174060.aspx?page=70

 

---------------------------

 

Thing is, the Cybermodeler review is just a first look, and really needs a build review to find fit problems like this example.  Italeri has already acknowledged the mistake, and is sending replacement sprues to Steven.

 

regards,

Jack

 

 

 

Edited by JackG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition, the photo of the fuselage appears to have the extended forward wing/fuselage fairing of the Hurricane II, not the -I version as well as the longer forward fuselage (at least there are fasteners molded on the cowl 'a la' the -II)

Edited by Chuck1945
makes more sense after the edit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whatever else, it's NOT a IIc, this is an A wing

hurri21.jpg

 

http://aeroscale.kitmaker.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=Reviews&file=index&req=showcontent&id=6962

 

Pretty irrelevant given how blinkin awful the Italeri kit is if you actually want a decent Hurricane kit , see here for the litany...

 

 

The only interesting things  is it seems Italeri have tooled up a  IIA wing....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all.

Troy, I think you got it with the IIA wing.  Wonder how that got in there, as Italeri have not released a boxed version.

 

regards,

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, JackG said:

Thanks all.

Troy, I think you got it with the IIA wing.  Wonder how that got in there, as Italeri have not released a boxed version.

 

regards,

Jack

Apparently, there were 451 Mk. IIa's built; a lot more than I would have thought and one of which is this aircraft ( https://www.maltaaviationmuseum.com/hawker-hurricane-mk-iia---z3055 ). Italeri may have inadvertently made a very collectible mistake since it seems improbable that a dedicated IIa kit will be released and this variant has not been produced by any other manufacturer that I am aware of. Of course, you will also need an Italeri Mk.IIc kit to get the correct fuselage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an update on Steve's build over at Finescale.  It took 14 weeks to receive a replacement wing sprue from Italerie - unfortunately  they sent identically what he already had.  He might try obtaining the fuselage replacement sprue, but his interest is waning on this one.

 

regards,

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same here, might just hack it to pieces and build a downed plane or something. Was too expensive (in 1/48 terms), to just bin it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2017 at 06:17, Drift said:

Same here, might just hack it to pieces and build a downed plane or something. Was too expensive (in 1/48 terms), to just bin it. 

the only issue is the  lower front wing

kIH6CR.jpg

 

You just need to trim the excess length, and then reshape the sides to match the fuselage.    Very annoying but hardly difficult to fix.   

the carb intake is further back on a Mk.II,  but if built as a tropical version, the air filter will cover that.    

 

Do try to get a spare DH prop, the new tool Airfix has two types, and the the most obvious eyesore in the Italeri kit is the spinner....the one shown in the marking profiles is the right shape..

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Troy, thanks for that.

 

Is it known if the Italeri fuselage is correct, or is there no outer difference with the XX merlin engine that equipped the Mk II?

 

Because of the new engine the bay immediately in front of the cockpit was lengthened by 4 inches (100 mm). The carburetor air intake under the forward center-section was redesigned and moved back 3 inches (76 mm). The more powerful engine was cooled by a 70% to 30% water glycol mix, rather than pure glycol used for earlier Merlin versions. This and the increased cooling requirements required a larger radiator and a redesigned, circular oil cooler housed in a deeper, slightly wider "bath".  - compliments of wiki

 

regards,

Jack

 

 

Edited by JackG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi....I've got both the Mk.I Trop and the Mk.IIc kits at home, and comparing them, I'd say that that Mk.IIc fuselaje is about 4/5 mm. longer....can't say nothing about the wings, but they looked quite similar in size to me....

It would be a shame, as we're not talking about a cheap kit at all. Anyway, with the new Airfix kit on the shops, the Italeri kit is not worth the money, nor the time to correct it.....

Best regards...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than the nose and details described by Troy, the usual distinguishing features of the Mk.II (and later variants) are the standardised "bullet" Rotol spinner and the tailwheel with a knuckle.  However the spinner did appear on late production Mk.Is and (I think) the tailwheel did too -either that or a few Mk.IIs had the straight leg.  Either way these features cannot be used by themselves to distinguish between the two Marks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JackG said:

Is it known if the Italeri fuselage is correct, or is there no outer difference with the XX merlin engine that equipped the Mk II?

The Italeri IIC fuselage  is longer. the wing shown above is longer at the front undercowl, which is where it should be.  

The Mk.II is 4 inches longer then the Mk.i,  see here for more on Mk.i vs Mk.II

 

11 hours ago, Artie said:

Hi....I've got both the Mk.I Trop and the Mk.IIc kits at home, and comparing them, I'd say that that Mk.IIc fuselaje is about 4/5 mm. longer....can't say nothing about the wings, but they looked quite similar in size to me....

It would be a shame, as we're not talking about a cheap kit at all. Anyway, with the new Airfix kit on the shops, the Italeri kit is not worth the money, nor the time to correct it.....

the basic wing stayed the same apart from armament on all the metal wing Hurricanes.

The Italeri IIC maybe worth working on as it is a Mk.II as far as I remember, and making a Mk.I into a Mk.II is not that easy (see above link) but I'd need to pull it out and run through the checklist.  I know they got the wing access panels wrong.

 

11 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

the usual distinguishing features of the Mk.II (and later variants) are the standardised "bullet" Rotol spinner and the tailwheel with a knuckle.  However the spinner did appear on late production Mk.Is and (I think) the tailwheel did too -either that or a few Mk.IIs had the straight leg.

Early Mk.II's did have the straight tailwheel,  like these early IIc's

115208516006fd5617a2040ffdad74d7--hawker

 

Some Mk.I's later got the knuckle tailwheel in service, P2617  at Hendon still  has from from training command days, along with a 'bullet' Rotol.

Share this post


Link to post
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


×