steh2o

Small progress.... Finally I was happy with the weathering process and I applied the clear coat. I tried two different mixtures, both sprayed at 1.5 bar: 1part Gunze H102 (premium clear semi gloss) + 1part Gunze H20 (flat clear) +1part ethilene alcohol 1part Gunze H102 (premium clear semi gloss) +1part ethilene alcohol The first mix gives a very nice eggshell finish, while the second is an acceptable semi-gloss. I decided for: 2parts H102 + 1part H20 +2parts alcohol.... and, instead of a a "more shiny eggshell", I've got a "more than flat, less than eggshell" effect... At least I could remove the canopy masking tape: Nice! I like it! Mmmmmhhh... i forgot the top frame of the rear part of the canopy, I will paint it together with the sliding part's frame... The cockpit is nice-looking but I didn't spend much time in detailing it. Next time I'll do better. When I built the cockpit I followed the idea that the Sutton harness infamous Y stripe passed over the seat back, instead than through the seat back slot. While researching the Mk. XII I changed my mind about it, see so I will add the Y strap now, with a finished cockpit... I painted the wingtip lights and red/green downward identification lights under the wings. spray painted with one coat Clear Red (Green) + one coat Clear Gloss The fuselage Amber downward identification light remains somewhat of a mistery. According to the Pilot notes, Spitfire Mk.XIV an Mk.XIX (april 1946) should be there Looking at the photographs, it seems that RB146 and RB159 (wartime) didn't have one, while SG-57, SG-64, SG-108 in BAF post-war service had it

I re-read this topic while researching Mk.XIV-Mk.XII things Extracted from Pilot's notes, Mk IX And from Pilot's notes, Mk XII Red arrows point the Y strap; I would think that if Mk.IX and XII had it running through the seat slot, Mk.Vc at least had it too. Stefano

Good save Tony! Excellent as always!

Beautiful! Great build!

A look at the wing; measurement here becomes more complicate, but it is still possible to check most of the relevant features of it. Wing span: My copy of the kit has a span of 168,9mm, a 0,4mm difference to the 169,33mm figure for 40' wing span of the real a/c. Further measurement shows that the 0.2mm difference is better added to the wing root than to the wing tip and considering that the kit has one-piece top and bottom wings this is troublesome. Here below is a picture showing the kit's wing aligned with the drawings at the tip and root leading edge: The lines of significant features in the drawing have been extended to show if big discrepancies exist with the kit's part. The overall shape is fine; the positions of the wing joint fairing and of the inner aileron border are both pretty accurate. The gun ports look to be a bit too close to the fuselage; the landing light recess is too far outside; the wingtip panel line is too inwards and as a result the aileron seems a bit short at the wingtip. I have checked some more figures according to the wing back/front view below: The gun ports seem to be slightly inwards (0.2-0.3mm), the wingtip seems too long by about 0.6mm and the aileron short by 0.4mm (averaging the error, I'll move the panel line 0.5mm outwards to compensate the aileron length issue) The wing thickness: at the root should be 6,75, I measure 6,6, at the aileron inner border should be 5,0, I measure 4,93 at the tip should be 2,6 and I measure 2,65 (but the panel line is misplaced in the kit so it could be less). Take all this meaurements as approximate +/- 0.1mm; the wing thickness is in my opinion quite accurate. Wingroot measurement at the joint position, half-fairing line Same measurement on the drawing, good match Aileron inner border, good match Landing light window position... no match The measurements I took span-wise are always referred to the wing tip; if I had to adjust the wing length at the tip, I would introduce a +0.2mm to all of these measurements (gun ports too inwards by 0,4-0,5mm, aileron inner border inwards of 0.2mm and so on...). If I want to adjust the span I have to do it at the root. For sure, I want to modify the following: -wing tip panel line position + aileron extension -landing light position -slight adjustment of gun ports (they're small in diameter and their position can be refined while adjusting the bore size) I will evaluate the span adjustement but I'm more inclined to leave it as it is (the actual 0,2% less seems quite acceptable considering that the error in the fuselage length is about 1%)

Following the advice of Troy, I modified the area in front of the main wing spar which in the Arma kit is represented as a curved wing-to-fuselage fariing. In the real a/c this fairing has a more complex shape due to the fact that it covers a V-shaped reinforcing structure connecting the main wing spar with the engine bearer structure. It is rather simple to modify the Arma underwing part to get a better shape, here following some pics showing the procedure I applied. The key point to a successful modification is having the main spar (front of the wheel well) glued to the lower wing part because you will soon cut away a part of the wing-to-fuselage fairing. The main spar will keep the remaining parts in the correct reciprocal positions during the operation. Now it's time to use the faithful razorblade and cut away the wing to fuselage fairing using the two panel lines as cutting lines Here is the result: the two parts are neatly cut while the wing and the center panel keep their reciprocal position thanks to the main spar (not so neatly cut, the rear part of one would not separate from the spar and was broken, hence the glue to restore it to its original form). Now, more surgery: you have to divide the fairings according to the diagonal line defined (in the real a/c) by the V struts underneath Now, you I re-attached the leading edge of the fairing in its original position: this is easily done because the razor blade cut does not substantially modify the shape of the cut elements. The re-attached parts fall more or less in the same place as before the cut! In the real a/c the triangular panels are almost flat and lay in the same plane as the centerline panel surface. I bent the panels to more or less a flat surface, then I used a fingernail steel file to really flatten them at their final shape. At this point, the triangular panels can be re-attached this way: The fit is very precise, and you get the flat underside and the "step" so evident in some photographs The inside part has this look now: it will be reinforced as usual with CA+flour Finally, the step is filled with epoxy putty; at a later stage I will sand it a bit to get a more rounded edge And it's done! At this point I think I managed to adjust all of the major shape issues to transform the Arma little gem in a Bentley-compliant thing. In the next post, I'll spend a few words and photographs about flying surfaces (which to my opinion are pretty accurate) then I will start the next level, that is detailing the model surface.

Very nice!

Nicely done!

Beautifully done Lanc!

When comparing it to photographs of the real airplane and to the Bentley's drawings it seems that the kit's lower fuselage panel it is too flat toward the radiator instead that gently curved. The same consideration applies to the panel just behind the radiator housing. We then can adjust the fuselage depth by simply bending down and curving a bit the lower fuselage panel. Because this is a very small quantity (0.3mm?) over a width of about 7mm, the bend doesn't significantly reduce the fuselage width, it simply introduces a tiny gap to be filled when joining the fuselage halves. Here the result on RHS fuselage half and a comparison with the untouched LHS (black-marked to better show the difference) Here below they are both modified Obviously this action has its consequence... ....now the fuselage has a mild curvature, while the underwing panel is dead-flat. I did what follows... Now the fuselage depth is corrected according to the drawing and the curvature seems to match the photographs To keep everything in place, the interior was reinforced with a plastic sheet ordinate reinforced with sprue sections and much CA+flour (my favourite recipe...) The RHS fuselage keep in shape the LHS one through a couple of styrene protrusions Good! Next step: correcting the fairing near the carburettor intake, as per Troy indication

Hump correction. That's quite unnerving because I had to work in close proximity to the fuselage spine and the very delicate rendering of the fabric effect there. Arma cut down a bit the horizontal part of the hump keeping the right slope for the fuselage spine. So all is needed is restoring the correct height and extending a little bit the sloping part toward the cockpit. I choose to do it in the following way: -first I defined the cut position with a pencil (vertical line); the small horizontal line is the level at which the side wall of the hump structure turns from flat to curved Then I cut with a fresh razor blade (so that no material is removed in the operation), stopping at the horizontal mark I've bent outside and up the flap so generated until reaching the correct hump height I repeated the operation for the other fuselage half and when happy with the hump height I froze the new position with MetilEthilKetone (any other styrene cement will do). I finished up with the correct height but as a side effect there is a gap on top and a stepped side The gap was filled with a thinned-down and holed-through (to conserve the pin reference) sprue tab. The steps were sanded down to restore the right shape. I filled the step behind the headrest with 0.5mm styrene sheet cut and filed to match the missing part Glued in place and sanded flat with the kit's hump the side steps required a bit of filler, here is not yet sanded flat A look at the side profile now: Bentley-zation is progressing nicely! Now I have to care the fuselage underbelly issue.

Hello again! Some progress.... I thought that this Hurricane could be a relaxing project but it is not. Here the process to fill the cowling gap: wanting to keep the alignement pins/holes functional, I proceeded by producing a couple of 1mm holes (spaced as the top cowling pins) in a 0,25mm-thick styrene sheet then roughly marked the fuselage profile with a pencil. Using the first profile as a reference I generate its twin Then I tapered the front part of both elements and glued the first one to the LHS fuselage Then I took the LHS fuselage, inserted the second styrene wedge (guided by the pins) applied the RHS fuselage and glued the second wedge to the RHS fuselage only. File to shape the upper contour, and add reinforcing CA+flour Not bad, the junction line will be refined after gluing the fuselage halves together Let's check the fuselage length after trimming the nose cone I have lost 0.4mm already. Careful dry-assembling of the fuselage and the horizontal stab and a bit of sanding of the rudder post area... Still an optimal fit.... And the fuselage is now acceptable with Bentley's dimensions

Thank you for the heads-up Troy! And welcome to this thread!

My idea is showing a way to enhance the still beautiful Arma kit; on with some work then! The front cowling cone is too long I reduce its length a bit being very careful to keep the cut as straight as possible Right side done: I aligned the fuselage with the aforementioned panel lines, then used the squared aluminum block as a reference for the cut, while the squared copper block is a reference of the wing root leading edge. Remove the fuselage and... ... a very good match. Same thing for the left side, cut and file the front fuselage lip... And again a good match. Now it's time to address the upper cowling profile shape (in the photograph above the left side is still modified). To do this, I applied some upwards bending force to the area behind the ehausts opening, first the left fuselage, comparing it to the plan until the profiles match. LHS and RHS fuselage halves are put together to show the difference (I accentuated the LHS border with a black marker) Now bend the RHS fuselage And the result is quite good at first sight..... ...but consider that the bending raises the profile affecting the plan view and you find yourself with... But this is no problem because the next thing you want to do is..... ....bend the fuselage halves one time at the back of the cockpit area outwards to get this.... ...and then do this.... ...to get this... ....which at the end produces... which is fairly good!! -profile matches; -fuselage width is OK -fuselage sides in plan are straight instead than bottleneck shaped -canopy rails are much more parallel than before. Next: I must fill the 0.5mm gap!!

Hello Graham, I'm using the ones of Model Aircraft Monthly, november 2005. I understand that basically the plans went unchanged over time and there could be some trouble with proportion in printing. I addressed this point checking some known elements like roundels and wingspan so I hope that they are OK within a +/-0.2mm which is close enough in most cases.

I measured some features in the plan view. Please note that -the measurements taken on Bentley plans are subject to error due to scaling down a printed 1/48 copy and due to my eye! In the photographs below I show what my caliper reads after the measurement of the particular feature shown. -the measurements taken on Arma kit regard MY particular copy and may vary. Let's start with some key fuselage features Fuselage width at the cockpit, about 14mm full-width Canopy width at its widest point (closed) about 8,5-8.6mm Arma fuselage at its widest point Arma at the instrument panel Something is not OK in my sample: looking at the photograph above, it is fairly clear that the fuselage width is fairly good at the hump position, then squeezes down by about 0,4mm instead of increasing to 13.9-14mm. The cockpit's canopy sill lines are strongly convergent and they should not be. Perhaps my sample is distorted but still the engine cowling lacks material to reach the correct width. This point has to be modified. Arma maximum canopy width (measured over the canopy rails Slightly more than due, but it could be the rails are too prominent Resuming what I see: Green: I like Red: I don't like and I want to correct Paler green: acceptable

Great progress Cookie! Eurofighter is coming along nicely!

Great couple of aussies! Bravo!

I think the same; moreover this technique requires to adjust very thoroughly distortion of the reference picture. Though, I think that it can provide some hint of what is right and what is not, at least in quality if not in quantity. Today's kit designers use more and more this technique, but it has to be supported by engineering drawings to be accurate enough. As I say in the text, I'm proceeding in my build looking more at Bentley's drawings than at Arma's!

Just a magnification of the overlay above in the windscreen area, angles of windscreen cockpit sill and panel lines match well, and the fuel cover panel seems to match the Bentley lines (even if this is a Mk.II it should be the same). Again, this is no proof and has MANY approximations but the angle seems in this picture more favorable to Bentley's work

Let's start with the hump height. Aligning the fuselage's cockpit sill to the drawing line (I use squared mechanical parts for that) it is pretty clear that the hump was deliberately cut in height to allow clearance for the sliding canopy element. As pointed out by Troy White in a very early review, the hump should be higher by about 0,3-0,4mm. If you compare the "knee" between the sloping spine and the hump in A and B, you can see that A effectively truncated the slope at a lower level than due. This will help in the correction phase (had they chosen to lower the spine overall and respect the position of the knee would have been very hard to correct). The cutout for the canopy part is very evident. Here, Arma could have done better (providing an optional part f.a.e.). Let's have a look at the nose section In the photograph the fuselage is aligned to the panel lines near the windscreen and rear exhaust opening. I tried to center the photograph perspective to this last line too. It is rather clear that the engine cowling perfectly follows the Bentley plan in the lower profile. There is a discrepancy in the upper profile, B having less slope in front of the windscreen and a having a more pronounced curvature in the top engine cowling panel. This discrepancy is difficult for me to understand. Knowing that Arthur Bentley based his plans on actual engineering drawings, I tend to trust him. The fuel tank cover panel is a simply arched sheet metal (providing a straight line in profile) which position is constrained by the instrument panel frame at the rear and by the firewall at about 3/4 of its length on top (see sketch below) Now, I believe that Bentley had access to quoted drawing of the tubular frame, instrument panel, and firewall frame, so the position of the thin blue line in the sketch should be unambiguous. From Arma point of view, there is this picture published shortly before the appearance of the kit In which they show how the outline of the cowling was matched to the outline of a real aircraft! If we now overlay Arma+Hawker (above) and Bentley we have the following Again, the profile discrepancy! Worst of all, there is a distinct difference in height at the firewall itself, which should be a very precise reference for fuselage height. In 1/72 the difference is a few tenths of a mm and can be disregarded. I decided to adjust the cowling profile to the Bentley drawing because that area still requires a major corrective action due to an insufficient fuselage width (more of this later) and this profile correction comes almost free. If I'm not happy with it I can file it down to the original Arma profile when the fuselage halves are assembled together. The above picture shows other interesting points. The lower fuselage profile behind the radiator seems much deeper in the B drawings than in the real airplane. Why? Look at this other overlay (B vs real a/c) And this one, too The overlays are done with tele-photos which have a limited amount of distortion; they are obviously not 100% accurate but show anyway some discrepancy between Bentley plans and real aircraft (you decide if true or not) -fuselage depth of the real aircraft seems less that in Bentley's profile -ventral fin front slope is more accentuated than in B's -spine is more arched (concave) ... and these are exactly the features evidenced in the comparison between A & B, see below It is clear to me that Arma matched its design to photographs of the real airplane; it is also clear that this design and Bentley's work have some discrepancies; it is also very clear that you can consider those as minimal and disregard them. Going back to the "A vs B vs Hawker" overlay above, it is clear that the three match almost perfectly in the nose lenght, from windscreen to propeller, so my assumption here is Arma=Bentley in the nose area, except for the upper cowling profile. If I align the A fuselage to B behind the propeller, I get three panel lines DO NOT MATCH: front of the exhaust opening , rear of the exhaust opening, windscreen. If I match the windscreen line ...the three panel lines match Bentley's and we have an interesting discovery: the front, conical part of the cowling starting from the front of the exhaust opening is too long by about 0.3 0.4mm. This is confirmed by measuring the distance between propeller base and exhaust opening. This can be easily corrected, good news! This is almost all about the fuselage profile. In my W.I.P. I'm going to modify the following: -reduce length of the front cowling cone -reduce the overall fuselage length to a value closer to the Bentley's profile view -adjust the hump height and fill the horrible cutout -modify the top cowling profile -possibly modify the fuselage depth (I'm still not convicted who wins here, Arma or Bentley) but keep the ventral fin as it is (angle seems favorable to Arma) Next I'm going to take a look at the fuselage plan view, wings and horizontal stabilizer

I'm opening a new W.I.P. topic while my work on the 1/72 Spitfire Mk.XIVe is slowly progressing toward (hopefully) a happy ending and BEFORE the Spitfire devil possesses me again in the form of a Mk.XII build. I bought the Arma Hobby Hurricane Mk I some months ago in the hope of building it with minimal modification. As it happens I started to build up info, pics, books and really I could no more consider an out-of-the box build. Worst of all I put my hands on a copy of Arthur Bentley's scale plans (considered to be the most accurate out there) and here I start this WIP. Please consider it as a guide to some modification work which is not really necessary, but could be an improvement of the still beautiful Arma Hobby kit. I sincerely hope not to be misleading to the reader so I plea for some help by contributors like Troy White who know a LOT more than me about Hawker Hurricane. I start with a comparison between the Arma fuselage and the Bentley profile view as well as a measurement of the fuselage length with my faithful Mitutoyo caliper I do not have the original 1:24 plans and I make reference to the scaled-down plans of Model Aircraft Monthly (november 2005) In reducing the size of the scan I took care to respect the dimension of the RAF roundels depicted in the plans (gives you the right proportion for both x and y directions). The resulting measured length should be 113.95-114.00mm- with all of the approximation, it seems that the fuselage is slightly long (0,75mm?) More on this argument later. With reference to the first picture, the main difference in profile between Bentley (B) and Arma (A) could be summarized as: -"hump"height (B is higher) -"hump" shape (A has a recess for the closed canopy which doesn't exist on the real a/c -upper engine cowling profile (B is more convex than A) -lower fuselage depth (B is deeper than A) -tailwheel fin shape (the B fuselage being deeper, its slope is less than in A) -fuselage spine (A is more arched than B, being slightly concave). For your pleasure, in the next post I'll examine these points one by one.

Very nice!

Thanks for the answer Tony I should have read more carefully! Excellent job!

Très beaux Jean, complimenti!