New Tiger Moths and Hurricanes IIc in 1/72 by AZ model

[Nick Millman]

Well, Graham, the drawing caption specifically says it is not re-drawn, but even so if you think the canopy roof line is asymmetrical I suggest you check the photos on page 87 (especially), 123 and 151 (far right). Since the canopy rails either side of the cockpit are level I can see no reason why the canopy should increase in height at the windscreen when closed. Incidentally there is an almost perfect plan view photo of the prototype on page 50 where I also search in vain for the canopy rails being as curved as some would have us believe. The fairing narrows towards the rear and there is the impression of a very slight curve to the rail but I can't see that distorting the canopy much as it slides back.

As to the fuselage fabric the same "knife edge" stringers and concave "gullies" are quite visible on the 111 Sqn machine on page 123 - hardly an old hack - so we will just have to agree to disagree. All the photos in post # 30 also appear to me to show the same effect. The stringers are sharply delineated with a narrow highlight above and a narrow shadow below proving absolutely that the surface between them cannot be perfectly flat. The code letter 'Y' even evidences this too as the slight undulation can just be made out where the straight line edge rises and falls over the stringers.

I concur about the details agonised over in 1/72 though. No disrespect to the model but I can't see much difference between the made-up AZ kit and the old Heller kit, other than the heavily framed canopy of the former.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Nick Millman

[Test Graham]

The curved canopy rails have been found by those who looked at the aircraft itself rather than relying upon photographs or plans. Once the canopy flexes then the cross-sectional shape will change. It has to. The size of that change is another matter.

Having seen and used real aircraft master GAs, the appearance on the page is not how they appear on the drawing paper. For a start, they would be in landscape format not portrait. It is not a straightforward copy or reproduction, whatever the claim. (I suspect that at this time copies would be blueprints.) It may perhaps be a reproduction of some copy made earlier by Hawkers, for some other purpose, but the comment about unreliability in detail stands, irrelevant of source.

I think there is a simple misunderstanding here. There may indeed be a slight ridge/knife edge at the stringer, but between them the fabric is flat. The fabric does not simply rest against the stringer but is stitched to the underlying structure. Therefore it may not lie at quite the level of a straight-edge laid on two adjacent stringers. A taut fabric is flat, except where it is attached to structure. It does not curve inwards.

We have previously discussed elsewhere how the pencil nose of early Hurricane models does not represent the width of the cowling at the front required to fit a Merlin in. The Heller kit has (like many others) an excessively tapered nose. The AZ kit has a convincing bulk to this area, with a rapid change of section from the spinner to the "shoulders", similar to the Hasegawa, Revell and Sword. The Heller kit also has too-thin propeller blades. I would point out that by representing the rear fuselage fabric by a flat surface with raised lines, the Heller kit is more convincing than most in this area, if contradicting your own approach.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Graham Boak

[Work In Progress]

I disagree with the comments about the canopy being a different height at front and rear. I think that is an effect of the photographic angle. I am referring to Hawker's own GA drawing as reproduced in Sydney Camm and the Hurricane (page 130 and rear cover) which shows the canopy perfectly constant in depth (and a little more proud of the rear fuselage fairing than most kits seem to show).

From my own close-up observations of airworthy Hurricanes, when the canopy is shut it is taller at the front than at the rear. I'll try to get some pictures from square on next time I have the opportunity.

I am not sure which of Hawker's GA drawings of the Hurricanes you refer to as I don't have that book, but at least one factory-supplied Hawker GA drawing of the Hurricane is known to deviate in several ways from the actual aeroplanes, such as the shape of the wooden 'doghouse', which the GA drawing shows flowing in a smooth curve into the upper rear fuselage spine, like the prototype, whereas all the production machines have a distinct flat section followed by a sharp change of direction.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Work In Progress

[Nick Millman]

Thanks for that. After checking the geometry it does appear as though the top and bottom lines of the canopy hood in profile are not quite parallel - even when not closed as shown here. Quite subtle in 1/72nd scale though! The inset shows the problem with the AZ canopy. It might be better not to even mold the canopy frames in 1/72 but for them just to be added to a plain hood with very fine decal strip.

[Seahawk]

The inset shows the problem with the AZ canopy. It might be better not to even mold the canopy frames in 1/72 but for them just to be added to a plain hood with very fine decal strip.

Thanks, Nick. Pleased to discover that I'm not the only one disappointed by this aspect of what looks to be otherwise a very fine kit.

[Work In Progress]

It might be better not to even mold the canopy frames in 1/72 but for them just to be added to a plain hood with very fine decal strip.

Definitely, and that is by far my preferred way of doing it - and for me the same holds true in 1/48 too.It is not hard to cut decal strips with the required curves to accommodate the rake of the not-quite-verticals as they continue over the top of the canopy.

I accept of course that non-framed canopies would make things harder for the casual kit builder, so on commercial grounds I can see why kit designers mould in the frame lines quite heavily, so that people have a fighting change of painting them in by hand with a brush.

[John Thompson]

It's probably counterproductive to continue the debate about fabric surface shape, but I'll do it anyway. Bear in mind that the fabric is in tension in two directions, not just one. Where the longerons or wing ribs (the structure supporting the fabric) have longitudinal curvature (again, wing ribs are a good example, where "longitudinal" = chordwise), tension parallel to the structure will cause the fabric to bow inwards. This is clearly visible on many, many photos of fabric-covered wings and empennage.

John

[Jan Polc]

Let me inform you, that very agile Czech company MARABU design started co-operation with AZ model and released very nice photoetch set for Hurricane Mk. IIc. Published are the first photos of prototype. If you are interested in, contact directly producer at [email protected]. More info ASAP

Jan

[MarkoZG]

I think this topic is the best place to post the following question.

Can somebody please provide a sketch (like we had for canopies) to explain in detail the difference in the wing root between Hurricane Mk.I and Mk.II?

I have a distant memory of seeing such a debate, but with photos only, elsewhere on Britmodeller, but not only that I can't find it now yet it was not entirely clear to me from that topic.

The reason for asking this is that I just compared the parts of AZ Hurricane Mk.I (ex-Sword kit) with recent AZ Hurricane Mk.II and there was no difference whatsoever in this area, meaning that at least one of these two is inaccurate in this part.

Looking forward to your answers.

Thanks in advance.

[Test Graham]

I don't have the AZ Hurricane Mk.IIc, but I do have their Mk.IV and the Sword Mk.I. The two are not the same in this area. Sorry I do not have the skills to post drawings, but I shall attempt to explain the difference in words, referring to these two kits. There is a curved line on the nose, running from above the leading edge of the wing onto the bottom of the engine cowling. This represents the fairing between the wing and the nose. The cowling is the same size on all production Hurricanes. The distance from the nose to the start of this curve is the same on both kits. The difference between the start of this curve and the leading edge is about twice as far on Mk.IIs, than it is on Mk.Is. This is correctly represented on the two kits. The vertical line marking the rear of the cowling is further from the leading edge on the Mk.II, and this is indeed so on the kits.

The reason for this is because the Merlin XX had a two-speed gearbox on the rear, making the engine longer, so this had to be moved forward on the aircraft. The panel between the engine cowling and the canopy is longer on the Mk.II (and later variants) to allow for this gearbox, and has an extra fastener which can be seen in many photos.

I hope this is now clearer, and perhaps you could check again? I would expect the AZ Mk.II to be a match for their Mk.IV, but if the representation of this fairing actually matches that of the Mk.I kit then it is wrong.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Graham Boak

[John Thompson]

I think this topic is the best place to post the following question.

Can somebody please provide a sketch (like we had for canopies) to explain in detail the difference in the wing root between Hurricane Mk.I and Mk.II?

Is this any help? I forget where I got it, but all thanks, praise, and salutations to the original source:

John

[MarkoZG]

Graham and John, thank you both for your contribution.

Graham, re-your post, let me ask more precisely. Was this difference only present on the fuselage, as different paneling, like on the sketches John pasted here, or what is also visible from top view at wing roots?

Namely, I compared the wing parts of AZ Mk.I and Mk.II kits and in their leading edge outline where fuselage joint is, they are the same.

This is what puzzles me. If the wing root was different, then I would expect it to affect top view of the wing as well.

[Test Graham]

I see your point. On the aircraft, the wings are identical in shape and only the fairings between the wing and the nose differ. Dealing with the kits: from the top the fairing is on the side of the fuselage, and I agree the two kits should show more difference. On the underside the fairing is part of the wing and does not differ significantly between the two kits. The addition of a small piece of putty should correct this on the Mk.IV - presumably also the Mk.II.

It is perhaps worth adding that the shape of this fairing is quite subtle, and I'm not sure which if any of the kits actually capture it well. It is best judged from looking at as many photos as possible.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Graham Boak

[Cheshiretaurus]

Any more news on the Cessna 150?

[Peter AZmodel/Admiral]

Any more news on the Cessna 150?

Yes, Cessna C-150/152 is ready for production. It will be in production in 1Q/2014.

Now we begin to collect interesting markings. There are about a million-horror.

Greeting

[Cheshiretaurus]

Thanks for the quick reply Peter,

Brilliant news! cant wait, have plenty of 150/152s I have flown that I'd like to build.

Mark

[CarLos]

Yes, Cessna C-150/152 is ready for production. It will be in production in 1Q/2014.

Now we begin to collect interesting markings. There are about a million-horror.

Greeting

My wallet will suffer badly...

[jasper]

Fabulous news on the 150/152 Peter , will the C180 /C185 and Piper J-3 follow soon ?