Jump to content
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. :)


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

17 Good

About HKR

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Spitfire 4ever.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. IBG words: IBG Models 1/32 PZL P.11c will hit the stores in the very last days of February, so depending on your location you can expect it then, or in a first days of March. The model will be available in 2 editions: - standard, full plastic + PE parts, 3 sets of markings - limited, as standard set with additional 4 turned metal barrels for the machine guns (Master production), resin figure of a pilot and 1 extra set of markings. Final, exact price will be revealed in a couple of days, preorders on IBG webstore and other model shops should be opened around that time too.
  2. AaCee, Your assumptions are all correct. But, shouldn't that be discussed in an separate thread? This is about Brengun. I mean, subject may be confusing. First, facts and my own comments. Speaking only on wings (so far): - yes, all Yak-1/3/7/9 family is evolved from yak-1. Yak-3 aside, it is smaller, redesigned version of the wing. Yak-9 had redesigned wing tip with straight trailing edge almost to the end of wing, so again aside. Yak-1, Yak-1b and Yak-7 had the same outline, differing on the wheel wells/landing gears, fuel tanks and flaps. Especially Yak-1 and Yak-1b had the same outline and there is no reason to guess it. I am very surprised Arma Hobby crew (here, represented by Grzegorz) does not know that. - there is Yak-1 factory drawing published in at least few books, two main are: Eksmo (2009) - Yakowlew Yak-1 [Як-1. Наш лучший истребитель 1941 года] (by Sergei Kouznetsov) Kagero (2017) - Yakovlev Yak-1 Vol. I & II (by Sergei Kouznetsov and Alexander Rusetski) as you see, Arma Hobby has factory drawing in the book they used. Kagero monograph vol. I treats on Yak-1 and does not contain Rusetski drawings, so vol. II is on focus. However, factory plan can be found in the vol.I of the book. - drawings from the Kagero Book are drawn by Alexander Rusetski, not Sergei Kouznetsov. Both are co-authors of that (excellent!) monograph, however. - drawings are very detailed and really well researched, but does contain small errors. One of them is a wing tip shape. Pictures speaking itself. They are posted on imgur/clickable. Kagero structure plan (red) on the factory structure plan (blue) Kagero Ouline plan (green) on the factory structure plan (blue) Speaking about Arma Hobby Jak-1b you should divide issues to at least two - if the kit shape is compatible with a book drawing (it is almost perfect) - if a book drawing is compatible with factory drawing (it is not) AH wing with Kagero plan (red) - is lays very good AH wing with factory plan (you judge) All my opinion is subjective of course - I am writing it because Arma Hobby crew is oversensitive on any criticism of their job. This is not my intention, I am trying to help you understand that subject. I believe we could discuss on the other issues of the kit, but I strongly feel this is not a right place.
  3. Indeed. I am talking about completely different problem, and not strictly about fuselage construction. Well, I took an impression the only you proved is fact you are not reading carefully. I am talking about general length of both models P.11c and P.24 and "45cm extension" which does not apply to serial P.24 - basic fuselage except engine, was not longer than P11c. At this point all this explanation has no connection to the internal structure overall, and no connection to 45cm truss before cockpit. My intention is to explain that change of the cockpit section structure has not affected the length, that's all. There are no doubts about construction system used for the cockpit skinning in P.24. At this point I have no idea what do you want to say, or prove here. You are just repeating me and stating you proved... the same already written: And yes, of course this means P.24 construction is specific only to this type, what I mention later: Because I started to believe you tend to think P.24 was build from the lego blocks and particular sections were taken from specific versions, I emphasize that above. So let's say it again: of course P.24 fuselage was new and one of a kind. It used best solutions from the previous versions, i.e it was not pure 11c or 11a and a mix of them (as stated above in my previous post). It still does not connect to the length. Facts are not so simple as you describe, unfortunately. From this point of view, I'd say this above is an opinion, not a fact. So, where is disconnection in opinion? Mainly where you state P.24 is closer to P7/11a and I state as all Polish historians, that it is closer to P11c. I'll try to clear it up. P11a used stressed skin in the cockpit section and in the fuselage section behind cockpit. It used specific-type tail, with specific horizontal and vertical stabilizers. The support truss in P11a was used from the front of the cockpit to the main truss. For the purpose of discussion we can consider it as shorter section of the P11c truss. Of course chronologically it was designed first. Cockpit arrangement in the cockpit section was used in a "low" position. It was standard construction inherited from P7 family. P11c used truss in the cockpit section and stressed skin in the fuselage section behind cockpit. It also used specific-type tail, with specific horizontal and vertical stabilizers, different in comparison to P11a. The truss in P11c extended from the cockpit forward, to the next (main) truss. In other words, we can consider it as an extended section of the P11a truss. Cockpit arrangement in the cockpit section was used in a "high" position. It was new construction and yet another change in opposition to P11a. Please remember it was not simple as it seems and definitely not just pilot seat installation 5cm higher. All arrangement has been changed as floor, control stick etc. P24 used mix of the solutions: cockpit section with stressed skin as in P11a but with arrangement in high position as for P11c, before cockpit short truss connecting to the main one. Fuselage behind cockpit together with whole tail has been adopted from P11c, not from P11a. All this made it unique, however technically said, it used more from P11c than from previous prototypes (and P7/P11a). At the end I'd only quote Mr. Glass: "One can risk a claim that the serial P.24 took more from P.11c than the prototype P.24/II. From the prototype P.24/II took over mainly the front part of the fuselage, engine and cannon." I really don't think there is any historical confusion about it, unless you don't read it carefully again.
  4. Well, I'd say, to deny commonly accepted information, that you should prove it wrong? But, of course, take my hand: it is good to start with reading books. It is not strange than most books about P.24 were written the same author, Mr. Glass - so if you take one, you have the same information included in the other ones. You can choose what to read: Andrzej Glass - Militaria no. 2 - PZL P.24 Andrzej Glass - Kagero no. 3007 - PZL P.24 A-G (it is the same as Monograph no.66) Andrzej Glass - ZP Grupa - Polskie Konstrukcje Lotnicze no.1 - Samoloty myśliwskie PZL P.11, PZL P.24 Andrzej Glass - Stratus - Polskie Konstrukcje Lotnicze vol. III Taking the last one, for example on the page 61, you would read (it is polish text, so let me translate): "Since the PZL Aircraft Factory, after relocating in 1935 from the Mokotów airport to the Okęcie airport, no longer manufactured PZL P.7a aircraft, but a seriously improved aircraft PZL P.11c, it was decided to modify PZL P.24 so parts from P.11c could be used in PZL P.24 production. In autumn 1935 the construction of a prototype PZL P.24/III was started, which was to become a model for the serial version. From P.11 adopted wings, with a slightly longer span than P.7, as well as the rear fuselage and the tail." Finally, you can take one more position: Przemysław Skulski - ACE Publication - Seria Pod lupą no.14 - PZL P.24 which contain exactly the same information. Regarding to scheme you show, I am not sure what you want to say. It is showing what I wrote earlier above: both P11 and P24 were developed paralely from P.7 construction. It does not show impact of them to each other. In the books I listed you can easily find that impact marked. As I already mentioned, at the time P.24/III raised, there were no other fuselages produced than P11c. So you're asking why to call P11c fuselage being in production, as P11c? Because they named it P11c, ... or maybe there were no other than P11c, who knows. Or maybe due to fact the last produced P11a was finished on summer 1934, and over one year later, when P24/III was born, P11a fuselages could not be found? I can't judge.
  5. Grzegorz, It is generally accepted information P.24 used P11c fuselage rather than P11a which was an older solution with cockpit arrangement in lower position. However semi-skinned cockpit part system has been chosen for P24, it would be oversimplification to state whole P11a fuselage was taken. It is an mix of P11c fuselage geometry with cockpit arrangement (pilot seat in higher position) and it's (P11c) tail together with P11a cockpit skinning construction system.
  6. Gents, Let me explain where the "45cm insert problem" lies. Book mentioned above is excellent and is also the best source about P.24 ever written. Without doubt Mr. Glass (author) is one of most important experts on the history of Polish aviation. Of course information included there is correct according to all current historical knowledge but - and - of course it does not mean it can't contain errors, especially in drawings. Problem lays in your understanding of author words. To correctly understand this book, you have to know the genealogy of both projects: P.11 and P.24 (covered in the book btw). Both projects are based on P.7 fighter. The information on fuselage extension by 45 cm refers to P.7 fuselage and not to P.11c. Let's leave the wings and focus on the fuselages: the main culprit of the misconception I'm writing about is the too literal and sometimes overzealous interpretation of the book content. Let's start with basic information: 'P.24 is an evolution of P.7'. This is only the information corroborating the idea that the project was developed in parallel with P.11 (as better, export version). This should be understood literally: P11 was created from P.7, and P.24 was also created from P.7 with both development projects following parallel paths. And remember, P.11 was first and P.24 used it's features already developed. That is to say: a) both P.11 and P.24 originate from the same line, namely: P.7. b) they were developed in parallel and follow the same ideas: improved visibility for the pilot (5cm seat elevation), and stronger and heavier engine (45 cm extension of fuselage) in comparison with P.7. It is necessary to follow the history of P11c first, and understand/observe what changes have been introduced on P11c in relation to P.7. Fuselage has been extended, and the pilot seat has been raised. Sounds familiar? Please note that the P.24 had three prototypes, and trace them all, with emphasis on the one that has become a production model. - The first P24/I was created from the one of P.7 (produced at the time) and it was necessary to change the geometry in the same way it has been done in the P.11c - lengthen the fuselage (45cm), give a higher pilot seat (5cm). The vertical stabilizer was also used as in P.11a. Most people remember this entry and tend to think that this 45 cm applies to all P.24. This is a cardinal error, as this description refers only to the first and second (see below) prototype. - The second one, P24/II, had a fuselage based on the one from P.7, similarly to the first one, but due to numerous changes (i.a. wings I am omitting here) it was named 'Super P.24'. - In the autumn of 1935 the P.24 a third prototype was created. At that time the factory was no longer producing P.7, but it was producing P.11c and this is why fuselage of P.11a/c* was used for the construction of the third prototype - which became the production model for P.24. P.24 mid (under-wing) section was used as in the previous prototypes and external dimensions were the same as in P11c - both models were already extended in comparison to P.7. In other words, there was no need to extend or raise the fuselage of P.11c, because it contained the same geometric changes as P.24, introduced in the parallel path of development. Of course, for P.24, the internal structure was changed to withstand greater forces, the engine bed was welded from pipes, and so on. And this plane, called Super P.24 bis, (with further modifications) became a model for serial machines. Differences in length between all P.11c/f and the versions of P.24 result from the engines and their housings and propellers used, and not from the extension of the fuselage. Please remember this checking models, books and writing anywhere about this 45cm... *edits: to make it more clear I removed duplicates and changed term/name from P.11c to P.11a/c* in one place - which I mean that P11a mid part fuselage construction system was used together with P11c geometry and tail. Difference between P11a and P11c fuselage construction generally lays in the cockpit part as P11a used semi-skinned construction and P11c used frame with removable paneling. Also, tail section was different between versions P11a and P11c.
  7. Ok, I read that Bentley text and I find it very important, moreover it is universal, IMHO all factory plans should be treaten carefully with distrust to some extent. BUT. Considering only that part we're speaking, it is on the one drawing and lays very good on the plane pictures when compared. I think it can be enough to modeller's consideration, but I am not finding there answers to my questions, that's why asking here. So let's put Hawker plan aside. digression #1 - Arma Hobby is proud with fact their model has been designed on Hawker plans basis. Considering Bentley text citated above, does that means AH is incorrect in shape? (I don't believe so) digression #2 - Bentley plan show that sliding hood with parallel edges when closed, so incorrect in that area? (I don't believe so too) Great pics on the spitfirespares. Thanks for pointing SAM Article (and drawings posted above) My observations are similar, but I am still unsure about the rail/hood shape. SAM article (and drawings) state rails were narrower in front, and stright and parallel in mid/rear. This does not correspond with pictures I've seen and Hawker plan (and Arma Hobby kit too ) - in reality I see that the rail is narrower in front, wide behind pilot and again narrower in rear. As mentioned earlier, and if I am not mistaken, Bentley plan show sliding hood when closed stright, or even narrow in rear (instead wider as seen on warbird pic posted above in this thread, so wrong?). On his plan, rails are narrow in rear section (correct in my opinion), not sure about front (straight-incorrect?). At the end, most of the sources/plans totally omit that part and show slidig hood with stright/parallel bottom edges. Looking at original hood pictures (on spitfirespares site), I would rather disagree it was thin and flexy. Of course it was relatively thin, comparing to the other airframe parts. But considering hood alone, it should be rather stiff waffle (metal/perspex/metal - any ideas about frame thickness?) and secondly, look at the front: there is L-shaped reinforcement and I hardly believe that part could change it's shape easily. In this area only "free" part would be corner, since L-reinforcement isn't attached to the whole cross-section. On the rear indeed, hood can be "compressed or expanded" by the rollers in the rail - as there is no real reinforcement. Don't get me wrong, it is mystery for me and I am looking for the truth. Any thoughts?
  8. Gentlemen - thank you for wide explanation about canopy, very nice shot of the warbird. My assumption is, that only bottom part (to be precise: bottom corners) of the hood changed wideness, and top (curved part above two horizontal bars) of the hood stay unchanged during operation. Is that correct? On the Hawker factory plan of the rails, dimensions are shown, but they are obviously not the same as a hood dimensions. Drawing of the hood show it in a neutral position, i.e. with parallel bottom edges. Do you have knowledge about hood external dimensions when atached in place? According to the plastic models, I agree it is very hard to produce that shape in the plastic, hovewer I believe it is not impossible. It just require very good tooling and clever design. Anyway, we can always change canopy to vac formed and that solves most (if not all) of the problems.
  9. One quick question. From Arma Hobby topic: So we have quite nice model, and most commented part was canopy. I noted strange shape of the "open" canopy part, but "closed" variant is making me suspicious as well. Q: can anybody explain HOW sliding hood changed during operation on the real thing? I mean, how it looked like when closed, how when open, what part (of it) changed shape, and how changed. I looked at many pictures and they are inconsistent, also fact that all restored flying machines have that part modified does not help. In the AH model, closed part has narrower front cross section and wider rear, open part is even more wider in front and slightly narrower in rear. I would expect closed rear and front open should be the same, but due to specific design in that model they differ. But how it was in reality? Asking about real plane.
  10. You should note here that "both above and under the wing" is incorrect and "on underside they are totally omitted" is correct. To my best knowledge FLY kit does have flat fairings over wing connection (on top, bottom are correctly "totally omitted" too), so your comment about above/under wing placement as well as cross-section is missed or misguided?
  • Create New...