stevehnz Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 The Bilek ones appears to be a Airfix kit. Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 Yes, it is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galgos Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 My build of a Battle target tug a few years ago was the Classic Airframes 1/48th scale offering, but there may be some useful references in amongst my incoherent ramblings which may be of interest to you 1/72nd blokes. Max 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandy Posted January 11, 2018 Author Share Posted January 11, 2018 (edited) On 1/10/2018 at 6:22 PM, hendie said: there's a few on the usual bidding site today. An airfix version currently sits at $1.25 and is due to finish tomorrow. There's also a 1/72 version from a company called Bilek which is listed at $21 (with free shipping), but are also accepting offers I'm on the first of those Hendie, we'll see if I get it.....the Bilek is the same kit. I ordered a Falcon canopy and Xtradecals 12 Sqn sheet yesterday, now I just need the kit! Also ordered Ian Huntley's book. Ian Edited January 11, 2018 by limeypilot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.C. Bahr Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 I think I've seen three different builds where the Caruana drawings were used and the most glaring of the visual problems with the Airfix/Bilek kit seems to be the too short nose, the mis-shaped rudder and the outer wings not being thick enough in chord and the ailerons in the wrong location. All the builds utilized the Falcon vac canopy, added plastic/putty to the wings/rudder and extended the engine with sandwiched plastic or utilized the resin nose that was (still is?) available. One of them was right here on this site: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnd Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 I don't believe the resin nose is still available. It was by Heritage Aviation Models (aka Kits for Cash) but has now disappeared from their website. I had my eye on their Tempest metal undercarriage set and when that disappeared from the site I enquired by email: sadly, they'd not only discontinued them but melted them down. I fear the same fate befell the Battle nose. There was an article in one of the monthly mags on updating the kit and the author sorted out the wing chord by sandwiching a piece of plastic card between the two halves and building up the wing thickness with plastic and filler. John. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehnz Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 (edited) Valiant Wings used to do replacement noses for the Battle & old Airfix Defiant, I have both, not listed on their website now though. Steve. Edited February 8, 2018 by stevehnz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tempestfan Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 On 10.1.2018 at 1:04 AM, stevehnz said: Scale Models International had what appeared to be quite decent plans sometime back in 70s or 80s, I'll look mine out & let you know which issue it was. I could scan them but I reckon the scanning & printing would be likely to introduce inaccuracies. Steve. SMI reprinted the Merrick drawings in IIRC 1984 along with a number of photos, including a near perfect plan view, that showed the wing tips were wrong, the wing to fuselage as well, the radiator intake shape too... All shape faults immediately noticeable when looking at pics, in contrast to an odd mm here and there. The CA kit followed the drawings to the letter - it was the most expensive kit I had bought at the time, close to 100 Deutschmark, a huge sum for a student, and I was hugely disappointed. I don't know if the MPM is based on the same research, but it's likely. Ian Huntley did drawings for SAMI or a sister publication, and I think there was a booklet similar to the Mod's Datafile but slimmer. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Mc Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 The Bilek release is the Airfix kit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehnz Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, tempestfan said: SMI reprinted the Merrick drawings in IIRC 1984 along with a number of photos, including a near perfect plan view, that showed the wing tips were wrong, the wing to fuselage as well, the radiator intake shape too... All shape faults immediately noticeable when looking at pics, in contrast to an odd mm here and there. The CA kit followed the drawings to the letter - it was the most expensive kit I had bought at the time, close to 100 Deutschmark, a huge sum for a student, and I was hugely disappointed. I don't know if the MPM is based on the same research, but it's likely. Ian Huntley did drawings for SAMI or a sister publication, and I think there was a booklet similar to the Mod's Datafile but slimmer. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying the Merrick plans are not accurate? I've nothing else to compare them with. Steve. Edited February 8, 2018 by stevehnz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tempestfan Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 I can't comment on their overall accuracy, but comparing them with the picture suggested they have some issues. As Ian Huntley was something like the keeper of the Fairey archives, he seems to have had access to a wealth of original material, so I am inclined to believe his drawings are very close to the truth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 The reference to get is Scale Aircraft Modelling Vol 9/1 October 1986, which has Ian Huntley's article on correcting the Airfix kit 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 Merrick? I thought the comparison was between Caruana and Huntley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tempestfan Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 Steve brought up the SM/SMI/Aeromodeller drawings - those were by Kenneth Merrick, first published in (then) SM ca. 1971. I do not have those by Mr Caruana, so can't comment whether he received input by Ian Huntley, which would have been logical as they were working for the same stable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selwyn Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 On 10/01/2018 at 11:22 PM, hendie said: there's a few on the usual bidding site today. An airfix version currently sits at $1.25 and is due to finish tomorrow. There's also a 1/72 version from a company called Bilek which is listed at $21 (with free shipping), but are also accepting offers Bilek is the airfix kit reboxed Selwyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 Thanks for that, fortunately I have all three and have just been comparing them. The Huntley article only includes sketches, not to 1/72 scale, which give an indication of what is wrong with the Airfix kit. The other two plan sets appear to be effectively identical in external shape, and the MPM kit is clearly based on neither. It has excessive leading edge aft sweep, coupled with a similar but more minor flaw on the trailing edge, which also begins curling to the tip earlier than on the plans, reducing the chord of the outer aileron. So not so far different in principle from the Airfix kit, which has excessive trailing edge forward sweep (I can't compare it in detail in other ways because I no longer have one). So now to the 1984 reprint: I am always critical about reading too much from a single photograph, despite unsupportable claims of minimum distortion; but the plan view is a beauty, and probably is pretty reliable for the wing planform - perhaps not the tail, but fortunately that's not in question. I suggest that the drawings do perhaps understate the forward curl of the trailing edge of the aileron near the tip (but no more than a simple file swipe) but I think the plans have captured the wing/fuselage meeting well. Of two decent side view photos, in one the radiator shape may have had the position of maximum depth slightly further aft than appears on the drawings, whereas the other looks about right. In summary, I think the Merrick and Caruana drawings are reliable, are not contradicted by the Huntley sketches, and are not to blame for the flaws in the kits. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 Is the Bilek release modified at all? They also did the Airfix Hampden as well and if I remember rightly it had recessed panel lines. Trevor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 1 hour ago, Graham Boak said: Thanks for that, fortunately I have all three and have just been comparing them. The Huntley article only includes sketches, not to 1/72 scale, which give an indication of what is wrong with the Airfix kit. The other two plan sets appear to be effectively identical in external shape, and the MPM kit is clearly based on neither. It has excessive leading edge aft sweep, coupled with a similar but more minor flaw on the trailing edge, which also begins curling to the tip earlier than on the plans, reducing the chord of the outer aileron. So not so far different in principle from the Airfix kit, which has excessive trailing edge forward sweep (I can't compare it in detail in other ways because I no longer have one). So now to the 1984 reprint: I am always critical about reading too much from a single photograph, despite unsupportable claims of minimum distortion; but the plan view is a beauty, and probably is pretty reliable for the wing planform - perhaps not the tail, but fortunately that's not in question. I suggest that the drawings do perhaps understate the forward curl of the trailing edge of the aileron near the tip (but no more than a simple file swipe) but I think the plans have captured the wing/fuselage meeting well. Of two decent side view photos, in one the radiator shape may have had the position of maximum depth slightly further aft than appears on the drawings, whereas the other looks about right. In summary, I think the Merrick and Caruana drawings are reliable, are not contradicted by the Huntley sketches, and are not to blame for the flaws in the kits. My mistook, Huntley's plans were released in Aviation News Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 I sold on my Av News plans some years ago - I dare say that there was some gold amongst the dross. So can anyone compare the Huntley plans to either the Caruana or Merrick? I suspect we are into small differences territory. Dodgy models historically have been blamed on the Aircraft of the Fighting Powers plans. We know the source of the problems with the Airfix kit, but could the AFP plans have been the source of the errors in the other kits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogsbody Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 What about A. Granger's drawings? Chris 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galgos Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 Granger's drawings look pretty good to my eye Chris. Below are drawings by Huntley (Scale Aircraft Modelling April 2000) followed by Caruana (Aviation Guide Fairey Battle written by Ian Huntley (SAM Publication) dated 2004). Huntley was obviously prepared to put his name to a book containing plans by Caruana so one presumes he didn't have too many issues with them. In these two extracts there are slight differences, most notably with the lower radiator fairing but how significant would they be in 1/72nd scale? Max 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
occa Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 Just now, galgos said: Granger's drawings look pretty good to my eye Chris. Below are drawings by Huntley (Scale Aircraft Modelling April 2000) followed by Caruana (Aviation Guide Fairey Battle written by Ian Huntley (SAM Publication) dated 2004). Huntley was obviously prepared to put his name to a book containing plans by Caruana so one presumes he didn't have too many issues with them. In these two extracts there are slight differences, most notably with the lower radiator fairing but how significant would they be in 1/72nd scale? Max IMO errors can be recognized from the proportions, doesn't matter which scale ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted February 8, 2018 Share Posted February 8, 2018 (edited) I suspect that the upper view shows the prototype (and possibly early production standard) radiator cowling whereas the lower one shows a (later?) production standard. Photos of the prototype show this flatter profile. Eyeballing, Merrick's drawing is perhaps somewhere between the two (where's my tracing paper?) It turns out that this is what I was unknowingly referring to in post 41. However. if it is enough to notice in a photograph then it is enough to notice in 1/72. I shall now have to go digging again for the April 2000 issue. I've just put all the boxes back! PS It's 1/48, which makes x-checking more difficult. Edited February 8, 2018 by Graham Boak 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandy Posted February 9, 2018 Author Share Posted February 9, 2018 On 2/8/2018 at 4:56 AM, stevehnz said: Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying the Merrick plans are not accurate? I've nothing else to compare them with. Steve. Steve, I have compared the SMI drawings you sent me with the Caruana drawings in Ian Huntley's book. The wings are the same in both, with the exception of the rear wing root fairing. That is wrong in the SMI plans and should be a continuation of the straight line of the trailing edge. It should not angle inwards at 90° to the fuselage centreline. The rear edge of the radiator is also not deep enough in the SMI drawings as shown by Max's post (#46) above. Other than that, they appear to be almost identical, although it's difficult to judge exactly as the SMI plans were on two pages and the scale is upset a little by the curve down the spine. Granger's drawings (post #45 above) are also incorrect on the rear wing root and rear edge of the radiator fairing. Thanks so much everyone for all the feedback! The build, or rather, the destruction, of the kit is in progress! Ian 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
galgos Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 An illustration: 1 1 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