Airfix 1/72 Hawker Typhoon Mk.Ib Sprue Shots

[Chris Thomas]

For those of you who read Ben's review and pick up on the lack of 'cuckoo doors' for ZY-Y take comfort from the fact that although it very probably had such a filter in the intake when he acquired the aircraft in August 44, the device had probably been removed by the time it was shot down on 5 Dec 44.

Although the intake detail is obscured in the crash photo of his aircraft, other photos of aircraft of Typhoons of this Wing (No.124) and the RCAF 143 Wing also at Eindhoven at this time, show it was common practice to remove the filter (no dust, just spray!). Logical, as the filters did have an adverse effect on performance. The cuckoo doors reappeared in the early months of 1945.

Chris

[Work In Progress]

Hey, Chris,

Luuurve your avatar. Is there anywhere it can be seen at a larger size?

[ben_m]

if you are able to edit the article to correct that, you might also want to note that you have misspelled S/L Stapleton's nickname as 'Stampe' - it should be 'Stapme', based on a well-known expletive of the era.

Unfortunately I am not an editor on Aeroscale, but I will collect up the typos into one edit for one of them to make. In my defence, on the Stapme issue, I was lazy and copied from the Airfix web site.

Chris: thanks for the note on the intake filter for ZY-Y, I'll add it to the corrections. Ever since I saw your profile of that nose-art, I've wanted to build it, but there are so many other worthy options too.

Edited April 15, 2013 by ben_m

[Chris Thomas]

Hey, Chris,

Luuurve your avatar. Is there anywhere it can be seen at a larger size?

Not easily. I'll see what I can do. The original was drawn in a Dutch Typhoon pilot's logbook - Robert van Zinnicq Bergmann who flew with 181 and 182 Sqns.

[Test Graham]

Re rockets, there'd be no need to change them for the dihedral but it was certainly common practice on some rocket-firing aircraft to adjust individual rails to provide a spread of hits. I think this was perhaps commoner on Mosquitos, but can't rule it out on Typhoons. If you've seen signs of it, I believe it.

[ben_m]

Looking back at the photo I was thinking of, it was of a 12 rocket-armed Typhoon, and I guess the inner pair of rails were moved closer to the wing because of that.

ROYAL AIR FORCE: 2ND TACTICAL AIR FORCE, 1943-1945.. © IWM (CL 3838)IWM Non Commercial Licence

Interesting paint fading on that trailing edge, where the edges of the panels look lighter than the middles, and the edges between the light and dark areas are quite sharp. If a model was painted like that, I guess a lot of people would think it was very badly done weathering.

ROYAL AIR FORCE: 2ND TACTICAL AIR FORCE, 1943-1945.. © IWM (CL 3839)IWM Non Commercial Licence

This leading edge view is also a good reference for a covered landing light.

Editted to add inline images

Edited April 15, 2013 by ben_m

[ben_m]

A photo on IWM that is inspiring me at the moment is this:

ROYAL AIR FORCE: 2ND TACTICAL AIR FORCE, 1943-1945.. © IWM (CL 1783)IWM Non Commercial Licence

I bought the MMS de-icer van, as per this thread, today.

[Test Graham]

Ben: I finally managed to measure the fuselage lengths on different Typhoon kits. The measurement is taken from the nose (no spinner) to the rudder post - or the edge of the moulding anyway! Rounded to the nearest 0.5mm - two of them are assembled fuselages anyway so it's more difficult to be precise with those.

Old Airfix and original Frog - 116mm

New Airfix - 116.5mm

Cabdoor Frog, Academy and Hobbyboss - 117mm

Nothing in it.

[Navy Bird]

Interesting paint fading on that trailing edge, where the edges of the panels look lighter than the middles, and the edges between the light and dark areas are quite sharp. If a model was painted like that, I guess a lot of people would think it was very badly done weathering.

Condensation (dew), perhaps? Above the left gentleman's head, it looks like there are some rivulets, indicating a fluid run-off. When you're looking at such a low angle of incidence like that, it's hard to say for sure what it is.

The second photo has very clear round objects underneath the leading edge. Water drops? I can't tell, but the shadows do make it look like the sun is not high in the sky, rather low I think. If this is morning, all of this could be dew, or it could be the aftereffects of a shower.

Or it could be paint wearing off and bubbling. I don't think there is a way to know for sure.

Cheers,

Bill

[Test Graham]

I'd go with moisture. I don't think I've ever seen any examples of paint behaving like that, and I'm equally sure that if it did, it wouldn't be in such a consistent manner with bubbles all the same size and at the same state. Water droplets of some kind. There appears to be a particularly reflective pool/patch just above the innermost rockets, on the underside of the flap, that surely has to be moisture.

[GMK]

Enjoying the reviews and discussion; very informative!

Seeing as there's an option for the cannon bays to be portrayed open on the kit, what's the consensus on the bay interior colours?

Greg

[Murph]

No, but I would like to start one...

Richard

[Work In Progress]

I'd go with moisture.

Me too, it's most likely condensation I think.

[ben_m]

Enjoying the reviews and discussion; very informative!

Seeing as there's an option for the cannon bays to be portrayed open on the kit, what's the consensus on the bay interior colours?

Greg

Instructions say aluminium paint, but this colour photo shows a chromate?-yellowy-orange colour for the panels, with aluminium ribs.

Graham: thanks for the measurements. For the record, that dimension in the plans in Chris's Aces book is nearly spot on 118 mm, and the Brengun is the same.

[Chris Thomas]

Instructions say aluminium paint, but this colour photo shows a chromate?-yellowy-orange colour for the panels, with aluminium ribs.

I have wondered about those tan/yellow/brown panels visible in the RCAF Typhoon rearming photo and also a CE Brown shot taken at Warmwell in May 1943. Saw some photos of inside the gunbays of MN235 recently. The structure is aluminium paint but the coloured panels are .... wait for it ... natural leather!

Chris

[JosephLalor]

Not easily. I'll see what I can do. The original was drawn in a Dutch Typhoon pilot's logbook - Robert van Zinnicq Bergmann who flew with 181 and 182 Sqns.

That's interesting to hear, Chris. I'd have assumed it was by your partial namesake, Mr Wren.

Joseph

[ben_m]

Leather! Very interesting! I guess it makes sense, the leather may prevent sparks if tools were dropped (but aluminium doesn't really spark?) or maybe just absorb energy from small shrapnel to prevent penetration, without being very heavy.

[mike romeo]

Chris,

Thanks for the information. It was also nice to see Airfix giving you credit on the instruction sheet.

regards,

Martin

Edited April 16, 2013 by mike romeo

[Navy Bird]

Instructions say aluminium paint, but this colour photo shows a chromate?-yellowy-orange colour for the panels, with aluminium ribs.

Graham: thanks for the measurements. For the record, that dimension in the plans in Chris's Aces book is nearly spot on 118 mm, and the Brengun is the same.

Ben,

Can you provide the measurement from the actual plane? If not, can anyone else? I believe the figures quoted for the models and this set of plans are from the nose (no spinner) to the rudder post, is that correct? If we know that measurement from the actual plane, then we can make proper comparisons.

Cheers,

Bill

[stevehnz]

Quick, someone whip along to Hendon & sort this out please.

From what I've seen of this kit on here & other forae, its going to do me just fine, the more I see of it especially Martins shots above, the more I like the look of it.

Steve.

Edited April 16, 2013 by stevehnz

[Test Graham]

I understood that AL Bentley had worked from the aircraft. However, dealing with such small differences opens the question of how any reproduction may have stretched his original drawings, something which was all too common. He does now sell correctly sized copies of his drawings, but I don't know if that includes the Typhoon.

Ben: did you check the overall length spinner tip to rudder trailing edge and how that matched the stated dimensions? Differences in the core fuselage of the models may have been due to/compensated for by the size/shape of their rudders and spinners. I can add that aligning the model fuselages tip-to-toe did result in some considerably different positions of the cockpit, and I didn't even look at the wing positions.

[ben_m]

Graham: I'll measure those things on the built new Airfix later this evening. Interestingly, putting the Brengun and new Airfix halves alongside each other, the cockpit location matched perfectly. I don't think the length will be noticeable, so I am not worried. The forward rotation of the fin, so that it appears steeper at the front is more concerning, if true; still not concerned enough to do anything about it though

[John Thompson]

The issue of the forward rotation of the fin is interesting - since I don't have the kit in hand (yet), is a correction (if desired) as simple as reshaping the leading edge of the fin, then adding a shallow wedge of plastic between the rudder and the rudder post to rotate the rudder backward to the correct position?

John

[occa]

Just change the direction of rotation for the propeller

^^ J/K ...

Has the Brengun this detail correct?

[Test Graham]

I've dug out the Nov 1974 copy of Scale Models with AL Bentley's plans. Checking the overall length against the quoted 31ft 10in gives 134mm which is spot on. Checking the fuselage nose to fin end gives 117.5mm, which compares to Airfix 116.5 and Brengun 118. I've no problem with that overall, no-one's going to see that. I don't think the fin is rotated (in pitch, not in yaw) but the leading edge is too curved, and a little reduction in curve will help a lot. That will spoil the little parallel panel line but you can't see that on the aircraft anyway so tough. Fill it.

Looking for why the Airfix is a little short is illluminating, and in the end a bit disappointing. It is not a little bit of shrinkage on everything. If you line up the nose, then the fin is too far forward and the rear fuselage too slender. If you line up the rear of the fin, then the fuselage is about right (perhaps marginally slim, but only the thickness of the lines), the wing and the canopy are in the correct places, and all the difference is at the nose. Measuring the radiator, it is at least 1mm short if not slightly more, which over the distance concerned is almost 6% and so could be perceivable by some. The difference from the nose to the first panel line is perhaps slightly less than 1mm. I doubt that anyone would want to lengthen the engine cowling anyway, but doing the same with the radiator would be a lot more difficult, and I'm not going to bother.

In the end, this is a measurement against a plan not necessarily against the real thing - though draughtsmen don't come better recommended.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Graham Boak