KRK4m Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 BTW the short tailplanes are identical to the Beaufort ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 I do recall there being talk that the Hasegawa kit was a little off shape wise around the cockpit, I could never see it. It is apparently quite often available at quite low prices in shops in the States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brewerjerry Posted October 18, 2013 Author Share Posted October 18, 2013 BTW the short tailplanes are identical to the Beaufort ones. Hi yeah most of the rear fuselage/ tail is the same as the beaufort and apparently a lot of other things are as well. handy as I am using a donor beaufighter to help build a vacuform beaufort in 1:32 cheers jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 Beau tailplanes started out short and flat and ended up (TF.X?) long and with dihedral (canted up from root to tip). I don't know if there were intermediate stages (ie dihedral and short) but I'm sure someone can tell us. regards, Martin IIRC (I'm without my references ATM), the chage from short span to long span tailplane occured during Mk.VI production so it's possible to see early Mk.VI's with the original short span and later ones with the longer span tailplane with dihedral. Regarding the Hasegawa Beau', I always felt it was overpriced for what you got, when it came out you could buy the Tamiya 1/48th kit for only a few quid more, I remember being completely underwhelmed at the level of detail in the cockpit and wheel bays (the surface detail and airframe are great however) - fortunately Aires have come to the rescue here but I've always been loathe to hack about what is still a relatively pricey piece of plastic to get all that to fit which means it remains in the stash! I'm one of those hoping Airfix will replace their aged current Beaufighter with a new kit, I wouldn't wince at hacking it about if needed! Wez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike romeo Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 I'm one of those hoping Airfix will replace their aged current Beaufighter with a new kit, I wouldn't wince at hacking it about if needed! Wez Wez, Great idea! You should suggest that on the Airfix 2014 thread . . . regards, Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike romeo Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 (edited) I thought you might like to see the differences between another contentious area on Beau kits: the cowlings. L to R: Airfix, FROG, Airfix Halifax, Matchbox and Aeroclub. It's possible to get a reasonably shaped cowling by cutting the front off the Matchbox version (at the rear 'step'), glueing on one of the spare collector rings from a Hasegawa kit and wrapping the sides of the cowling in thin styrene sheet. That's what I used on my build of the Airfix kit. Of course, if you do that, the nacelle looks very 'wimpy' and I built mine up with milliput. Doing that of course emphasised that the wing is short in chord and span - a very good reason imho to steer clear of the Airfix kit. regards, Martin Edited October 18, 2013 by mike romeo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo the Magnificent Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 As an incidental, what's the difference between the two other than angle? I believe that the flat and dihedral tailplanes have exactly the same span when seen from above. However that means that the dihedral tailplanes are longer than the flat ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col. Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 That photo isn't a pretty sight Martin. Yet another compelling illustration why Airfix need to tool up a nice new Beaufighter kit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike romeo Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 (edited) I believe that the flat and dihedral tailplanes have exactly the same span when seen from above. However that means that the dihedral tailplanes are longer than the flat ones. Enzo, I'm not convinced this is true. The flat tailplanes are ~35mm long and the dihedral tailplanes are ~42mm long (approximate - I measured using a mm scale rule from completed models). If what you are saying is true then the dihedral of the tailplane would be calculated by finding the angle whose cosine is 35/42. I did this in an Excel spreadsheet, and the angle came out as ~33degrees. I think the dihedral angle was 12degrees in reality (it definitely wasn't greater but can anyone confirm the 12 degrees number?), so I can only assume that the original statement is incorrect (I don't think that measurement error would account for the difference). However, none of my Beaufighter references has much on the dimensional differences of the different tailplanes, so if anyone else wishes to add more information / contradict with evidence, please do so! regards, Martin Edited October 18, 2013 by mike romeo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike romeo Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 That photo isn't a pretty sight Martin. Yet another compelling illustration why Airfix need to tool up a nice new Beaufighter kit. Quite! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Test Graham Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 (edited) The intention was to increase the directional stability by adding side area aft, without reducing the longitudinal stability. So the plan area would need to remain unchanged. An increase in the total span would mean a desire to improve the longitudinal stability too. Which may indeed be the case, given the additional store carriage being considered, but I'd like to see it stated in terms of aircraft dimensions rather than model parts. In the Putnam history of the company, C.H.Barnes describes the aircraft as suffering from low frequency longitudinal instability, which was more pronounced on the tail-heavy Mk.II. A 12deg dihedral tailplane was tried on R2057, which was successful but Fighter Command thought it made the aircraft too stable so preferred to remain with the original defect (as the lesser of two evils?). He says nothing about an increased tailplane span. My earlier understanding was that the two tailplanes were identical, except for the increase at the stub to allow for the dihedral. I'm not sure that's correct. EDIT: Aircraft of the RAF since 1918, Owen Thetford says 12deg The British Fighter since 1912, Peter Lewis ssays 12 deg These three sources are from much the same time, late 50s. In the more recent The British Fighter since 1912, Mason says 15 degs Edited October 18, 2013 by Graham Boak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo the Magnificent Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 I'm not convinced this is true. The flat tailplanes are ~35mm long and the dihedral tailplanes are ~42mm long (approximate - I measured using a mm scale rule from completed models). If what you are saying is true then the dihedral of the tailplane would be calculated by finding the angle whose cosine is 35/42. I did this in an Excel spreadsheet, and the angle came out as ~33degrees. I think the dihedral angle was 12degrees in reality (it definitely wasn't greater but can anyone confirm the 12 degrees number?), so I can only assume that the original statement is incorrect (I don't think that measurement error would account for the difference). Dunno where I picked that up from, but I reckon you've quite conclusively disproved it. Mind you, I had to go and check it myself. I thought that you might have forgotten that Excel works in radians rather than degrees. Turns out that you hadn't... The dihedral of the tailpanes is quite clearly around 12 degrees. No way is it 33. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike romeo Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 I thought that you might have forgotten that Excel works in radians rather than degrees. Turns out that you hadn't... Enzo, It did take me a while to get the equation right in Excel. I don't get the opportunity to do much Engineering maths any more . . . regards, Martin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vppelt68 Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 Un-scientific measuring of original Frog tailplanes gives the lengths 35mm (straight) and 40mm (slanted). Using arc cos 0,875 as Martin above it gives about 29 degrees of elevation. What it actually was, I don't know but that was how Frog saw it :-) V-P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Test Graham Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 By "dihedral tailplanes" do you mean the entire length 40/42mm or just the angled part? The stub length should not be factored. I dunno what difference it would make, but it would reduce the effect claimed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo the Magnificent Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 I don't get the opportunity to do much Engineering maths any more . . . That's a shame. Engineering maths is just so much fun! I love maths! My job is as a commercial trainer but my dream job would be teaching degree level maths to mature students. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike romeo Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 That's a shame. Engineering maths is just so much fun! I love maths! My job is as a commercial trainer but my dream job would be teaching degree level maths to mature students. That does sound interesting! Teaching motivated and enthusiastic students; that'd be a buzz! By preference and experience I am an aircraft performance engineer, but I mostly act as a technical reviewer these days, asking the bright young things, "the difficult questions" about their results. I can guess what they think . . . regards, Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now