Trumpeter Sea Hornet - rambling on, just can't let it go... :(

[jannie]

Good Day All

 

Sorry to resurrect an old and much discussed topic - I missed out on the original fun back when the 1/48 Trumpeter Sea Hornet kit was released. Problem is that I really want one on my shelf. I have the Trumpeter kit in my stash - the Classic Airframes kit is pretty much 'Unobtanium' out this way (would be easier to mine Bitcoins at this late stage than finding CA kits of this subject). So.... knowing that it is considered by many to be only an approximation of a 1/48 Sea Hornet due to dimensional errors, I took the only set of drawings I have of it in order to try figure out for myself 'How Bad is it REALLY?'. The drawings are from the old Warpaint Series - De Havilland Hornet F.Mk.1 and Sea Hornet NF.Mk.21 and was done by Ian Huntley - not sure this means he did it PERSONALLY or he commissioned someone working for him.

 

I scanned the drawings as well as I could and then started applying magnification factors until I hit what seemed to be 1/48th - could not apply the "magnify by 150% for 1/48" as the drawings suggested as my accursed scanner already seems to enlarge very slightly when you scan at a 1:1 ratio, hence I did not trust the scanner to properly follow the "official" adjust. My basic rule was that if the starboard fuselage half fits the scanned and printed starboard view 100% lengthwise I'll assume it's close enough. My purpose to all this was that I was more interested in relative positioning of cockpits (pilot and observer), wings relative to tailplane etc. I am now wondering if the Ian Huntley drawings are ALSO completely inaccurate - as it seems like the Trumpeter kit may have been based on these drawings?? Here are some observations + some suggestions for fuselage corrections (haven't looked at the wings yet):

 

1. The tailplane follows the Huntley plans for the NF.21 pretty closely without major deviation - I find this to be somewhat baffling as the general consensus is that the Trumpy kit has the shorter-span F.Mk.1 tailplanes, which my example definitely does not have. Perhaps the CA NF.21 tailplanes are too long, creating this impression when compared? In any case, the elevators need to be replaced with suitably-thin Evergreen plastic & scribed, OR alternatively the crazy Starving Cow fabric effect needs to be filled in somehow (seems easier to me to just scratch-build new ones, and ditto for the rudder)

 

2. The observer's cockpit's relative position is spot-on. The pilot's cockpit position is ALMOST correct. If if is moved forward by approx. 1.0 - 1.5 millimeter (at the most)  it would be spot-on as well. Someone on Britmodeler suggested that it needs to be moved forward by a whopping 5 millimeters - that cannot possibly be done as it would place the forward edge of the windscreen almost right where the "Pinnochio's nose" radome starts, resulting in a pretty silly-looking model and not to mention turn it from a mildly-inaccurate into a wildly-inaccurate representation (Beaufighter + bird strike comes to mind). My initial feeling was that moving the cockpit + complete canopy forward by only say, 1.5 mm should be doable by applying some nifty sanding and needle-file work on the front edge & filling in on the back, however that probably will cause other issues in regards to the dimensions and curves of the forward canopy section not being able to meet / blend-in with the respective nose area without difficult-to-hide filling.

 

3. Somewhat baffled as well by the strange slope of the lower forward canopy section where it meets the fuselage - way too steep, seems to be caused by the pilot's cockpit coamings / edges been too deep... Or perhaps some dimensional error that I can't quite place my finger on. It would be challenging to fix and IMHO is a bigger issue than real or imagined fuselage dimensional errors ("real or imagined" - depends on what reference material was used)

 

4. A well-known model builder mentioned that the Observer's cockpit interior is mainly conjecture. I have to agree, no sign of the radar scope that is pretty prominent in all images of the the NF.21 observer station (Pinterest is a good source of reference images).

 

5. Using a plain ol' steel ruler and some simple arithmetic to figure what the fuselage length should be in 1/48 indicates that the kit's fuse length is fairly close to correct (amazing how difficult it is to find the correct length for the NF.Mk21).

 

All in all I don't think this kit is quite the Train Wreck it is made out to be, but it's not a Shining Example of Model Kit Designer's Art either. I may be totally wrong of course, but then I would have to blame the Ian Huntley drawings for my poor judgment. I'll try to publish some pics (fuselage half superimposed over the Huntley drawings etc) over the weekend if I can manage to restrain myself from jumping in and just building the darn kit! The strangest part of it all to me is that the paint scheme drawings and box art seems to be closer to correct than the kit itself... They really need to get the different departments at Trumpy talking to one another. I also need to stop buying Truimpeter kits, there is always something wrong - my 1/32 A-7 Corsair II had to get the Zactomodels treatment, and I had to drop some $$$ a couple of weeks for a corrected 1/200 HMS Hood funnel from Model Monkey.

 

 

 

[Artie]

Is the Classic Airframes an accurate kit...????? Is it so difficult to find???

Got a few of them in my stash...

Cheers...

[Britman]

Might I suggest the Dynovector kit. Although they are vacform and metal they are top quality. Being in Vancouver you might find some on the Japanese market. Good luck wherever you end up with this quest.

[jannie]

On 1/28/2018 at 12:50 AM, Artie said:

Is the Classic Airframes an accurate kit...????? Is it so difficult to find???

Got a few of them in my stash...

Cheers...

Hi Artie

 

My understanding was so that it would sell for crazy prices on eBay, but I just checked - there are a couple available at the moment and the prices seem not much different from what you would have paid in a hobby store a few years ago. So I stand corrected - serves me for not checking my facts at CURRENT time. I am guessing that I will just go with one of the eBay kits. Britman's suggestion to see if I can find the Dynovector kit locally is a good one as well - but as they say, a bird in the hand (eBay) is better than...

[ththtttu7]

Hi jannie,
 

To answer your question in your opening post: "I am now wondering if the Ian Huntley drawings are ALSO completely inaccurate - as it seems like the Trumpeter kit may have been based on these drawings??"

 

Unfortunately, YES the Ian Huntley drawings are innacurate, and I believe Trumpeter based their kit on them too. It is however unfair to point the finger at Mr.Huntley. When he did the drawings, the only reference material were innacurate line drawings in earlier publications, a confusion of dimensions that were written down in the late 40's (based on tail up/tail down/F.1/NF.21/different length tail cones too) and then re-published with errors ad infinitum. The same went for tail plane widths, undercarriage leg position, and nacelle length! With no complete airframe to physically measure, no-one could tell what was correct either.

 

This all changed however in 2010 when three members of this forum, myself included found some original accurate DH documents for each mark, and were able to publish them in the DH Hornet and Sea Hornet book.

 

The Classic Airframes kit is the most accurate, but it still requires a 6mm plug in the rear fusealge. The easiest place to add this is just ahead of the tail wheel, but make sure you move the fin and tailplane back with it. I posted a thread on this a few years ago, using an NF21 Classic Airframes kit.

 

 

Edited February 5, 2018 by David A Collins

[k5054nz]

@David A Collins, if I may hijack the thread slightly: which kit would you suggest to represent TT193?

[ththtttu7]

6 minutes ago, k5054nz said:

@David A Collins, if I may hijack the thread slightly: which kit would you suggest to represent TT193?

Hi,

I'd still recommend the Classic Airframes sea hornet kit to make an accurate model.

However, if you aren't worried about the following differences to the original, build the Trumpeter kit: fuselage too wide and short; nose and canopy wrong shape; main undercarriage legs out of position, and bays not deep enough; wing and fuselage have panel lines on doped fabric woodwork; flying surfaces are shown fabric covered. You can still make something that resembles a Sea Hornet.

If I ever build mine un-corrected I will photograph it next to the CA kit to compare.

[Guest]

Zac, if you're doing it in 72nd, the best basis is the Skybirds '86 kit - IF you can find one!

[71chally]

Just out of interest, how does the Dynavector Sea Hornet stack up against the others?

[ththtttu7]

2 minutes ago, 71chally said:

Just out of interest, how does the Dynavector Sea Hornet stack up against the others?

Hi 71chally,

 

The Dynavector kit was also good. I think it had the same smaller issues as the Classic Airframes kit, but no way as incorrect as the Trumpeter one.

 

Its a tough choice now. The Dynavector and Classic Airframes kits are fairly scarce, and being vac form and mixed media respectively, probably aren't for the beginner either. The Trumpeter kit on the other hand is easier to build, being injection moulded, but has so many dimensional differences to the original it is not worth trying to modify.... you should just make it, and enjoy the results just like we used to do with the 1/72 Frog kit.

[triumphfan]

I have displayed both my NF.21 and F.20 Sea Hornets (used two kits to build the F.20) at many shows. Both are Trumpeter kits built almost OOB. I did fill the flying surfaces flush though.

 

Interesting to note that many people ask which kit I used and are still complementary after the awful truth is revealed.

 

Atb, Steve.

[71chally]

Thanks David, I must admit that though I fear vacforms generally, I do enjoy Dynavector kits - when I can find them!

Edited February 7, 2018 by 71chally