Hurricane IIc landing lights

[johnd]

I'm working my way through the latest Airfix Hurricane IIc in 1/72 and correcting its little problems as I go. The only plans I have are for the Mk I, though so there are some things I'm unsure about. The landing lights on the kit are in a different place to those on the plans. Is this to be expected - were they in a different position on Mk Is and IIs?

Thanks,

John.

[Test Graham]

They are certainly in a different position on fabric-winged Mk.Is to metal-winged Mk.Is, so which one are you comparing?

[johnd]

The plans show a metal winged Mk I. They are marked 'A L Bentley, 1980'.

[Troy Smith]

Hi John

the AL Bentley Plans are considered the 'gold standard' in Hurricane drawings. Note, there are plans on there for a cannon armed wing, which is the same on the IIC.

the IIC is 4 inches longer than a MkI, there are threads here on this, with drawings BTW.

If it's the new Airfix IIC, note also that they they seem have used a a Corgi diecast the fuselage side panels layout...so who knows what else is wrong with it, but as Graham says, same landing light position after the fabric wing planes, this difference is shown on the Bentley drawings as well

HTH

T

[johnd]

Ok, thanks, that confirms it then, that the landing lights on a MkIIc are in a different position to those on a metal winged Mk I. Looks like Airfix got that right!

I was aware of the side panel issue and have filled/rescribed (one of my better efforts too!). I've also reduced the panel lines generally, filled the step in front of the 'doghouse', enlarged the rudder and fin and widened the tailplanes. Valiant Wings supplied a new prop and PE interior set. All in all, more work than I was expecting...

John.

[Test Graham]

It sounds even worse than I thought. You have of course widened the top of the engine cowling behind the spinner?

I'm interpreting Troy's comment as the landing light being in the same position on metal-winged Mk.Is and Mk.IIs. This is also how they are shown on the AJPress plans. The outer edge of the light is in line with the inboard aileron chord line (or near enough). This is how it is presented on the Hasegawa wing: the Airfix one has the lights considerably further out. It looks as though Airfix have got it wrong.

[Work In Progress]

Graham is right.

Proof:

Hurricane II

Hurricane I with metal wing

[johnd]

Oh. If the lights are meant to be in the same position for a metal skinned Mk I and a Mk II then Airfix have indeed boobed. I overlayed the wings from an Airfix Mk I and a Hasegawa Mk I over the top and it appears that the Airfix IIc has it's landing lights too far outboard by about 2mm. Easy to fix though, I guess.

I didn't widen the nose. I've started to do just that with the Airfix Mk I but the IIc looks ok to me when compared to the Bentley plans and the Hasegawa nose. It wouldn't be quite as easy, at any rate, in the IIc as you wouldn't get away with bending, everything would have to be cut and reassembled.

John.

[Test Graham]

I do feel that it is every bit as needed, as the kit tapers too gently and lacks the "shoulder" at that first vertical panel line. Although the wall thickness is a bit off-putting, the job is still fairly straightforward. You cut off the top: along the top of the exhausts and down at the rear of the cowling, then position the two upper parts slightly separate at the front. Fill and smooth.

[johnd]

Could the same effect not be achieved with a couple of Milliput sausages?

[Test Graham]

The problem with that approach is avoiding damaging the small bulges which are in just the wrong place (by which I mean they are in the correct position but will be covered by the new "sausages").

[johnd]

I think it's too late to do now, the fuselage halves are together and the wings are on. I'll certainly try it on the next one though.

[Test Graham]

I wouldn't bother with another Airfix one; the Revell kit is better, the AZ better still, and the Hasegawa probably best of all. The new Airfix Mk.I, now, that looks to be in quite another class - from what we've seen so far.

[johnd]

I don't think I would bother but I already have it waiting in the queue...it might slip down the list a little though, depending on how this one turns out.

I'm not convinced about the Hasegawa one, there's still work to be done there (heavy fuselage detail, wrong wheel well, undercarriage doors wrong size, nose/fuselage proportions). Plus they're impossible to find at a reasonable price. The others are worth a punt though.

[Work In Progress]

The Airfix Hurri II is along with the 109G one of the rare failures of the "new Airfix" line. The Academy one has joke tailplanes and various other problems. I don't think that much of the Hasegawa 1/72 Hurri: the rear fuselage is practically corrugated, rather than faceted!

The Revell is ok, the Heller is reasonable too though the wing planform is off a bit. I haven't seen any of the AZ ones at first hand.

[Test Graham]

Nothing wrong with the Hasegawa nose/fuselage proportions in my opinion (we are talking about it as a Mk.II) and it has the finest nose of all, though agreed the fabric effect is overdone. It is more accurate on overall shape than any of the others barring the AZ. The Revell has a number of problems including wing size, canopy, spinner, prop and bomb racks. The Heller was the nicest of the old generation but doesn't match modern standards especially around the nose.

[johnd]

I have the Late BoB Hasegawa Mk I (AP38?) and I keep seeing conflicting advice as to what I need to cut and extend to build a Mk I. I think I have to take a scale 2" off the fuselage and add a scale 2" to the cowling (via Airfix Model World) . Or would it be easier to build a IIa and just extend the cowl?

Out of interest, what is wrong with the Academy one? I know it needs widening and I now know about the tailplanes but is there anything else?

Oh, and ta for the pictures above, they've reminded me to sort out the non-existent navigation lights...

John.

[Test Graham]

With the standard kit AP38 then the cowling is the right size for either Mark and the fuselage is the right length for a Mk.II. The fuselage is the same for all kits. It will make a Mk.IIB almost as it comes, but for the need to get the later "bullet" Rotol prop - Quickboost do all three spinners/props. (DH, Mk.I Rotol and Mk.II Rotol - the last is sometimes seen on Mk.Is.)

For a Mk.I take 2mm (scale 4 inches) from the front of the fuselage and the wing root fairing. Strictly you will need a smaller radiator too, with a more purely elliptical inlet. I've a feeling the Hasegawa radiator may be a trifle small for a Mk.II anyway, I'll need to check that myself. For either mark, Rob Taurus do replacement canopies specific to Hasegawa and Revell kits, to help get around the rear problem common to all Hurricane kits (and unavoidable, I feel). Remove the outer guns and panels for a Mk.I or Mk.IIA, and the oil spill ring for most Mk.Is. The Mk.Is and Mk.IIs have the carburettor intake in different places, and of course the tailwheel differs. You may need different exhausts, depending upon subject.

Other Hasegawa Mk.I boxings have a too-short nose cowling to end up the correct overall length - but a bodge. The cowlings should be the same length on all variants and the one in AP38 is right.

I hadn't previously noted any problem with the wheel doors, but have now, thank you. They do have the inner fairings which are missing from most, so I suggest making 10thou plasticard pieces the right size and gluing them onto the kit parts.

The Academy one - it just looks awful. Sorry about the lack of detail, but I just looked at mine and sold it on more or less straightaway. I disliked the shape of the fuselage and the pencil nose, but don't remember it in any more detail. I've made enough dodgy Hurricanes in my time - still some to go - and I rather wish I'd done the same with the Airfix one.

[johnd]

Thanks for that Graham, packed with useful info, and a good suggestion on the u/c doors - in fact the (suitably sanded) 'wheels up' doors in the Airfix kit might suffice.

What's different about the Rob Taurus canopies that compensates for the step behind the cockpit?

[Test Graham]

They're vacform and therefore thin - but the problem is (I think) pretty well insoluble.