Jump to content

Airfix new 1/72 Hurricane - best Hurri of epic fail ?

AlCZ

By AlCZ
in Aircraft WWII

 Share

Recommended Posts

AlCZ Obsessed Member

AlCZ

Posted
Posted

When i saw first photos i was happy ! Looks gorgeous ! When coming in Czech, i bought two. But - i read a opinion: "It is a crap! Hurricane is british legend, national treasure, this is newest kit from british national company and have too many lapses and errors ! But is cheap and - you - as "airfix sheeps" say - goooogeous Hurri - and in really it is a crap and parody to Hurricane. I don't know where is true... In my eyes looks newest airfix kit relative good, with nice rendition of cockpit and fabric...

New hurricane may have a bad wing - with dihedral on upper part of wing - but on actual aircraft may be straight.

Trailing edge was too fat.

I think - a metal prop looks "suspiciously".

Upper and down part of wing don't fit ideal - it's bit outlined....

I'm not Hurri expert, but in my eyes still looks as relative ideal rendition of this famous fighter. What is your personal opinion ? It is a really best Hurri in small scale, or epic fail ? Can anybody here make a comparison with drawings ? I'm very surprised i can't found any complete Hurri :( My is still in construction phase.... And i don't know where is truth...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Edgar Completely Obsessed Member

Edgar

Posted
Posted (edited)

It looks as if we have to repeat this over and over again; the outer sections of the Hurricane wing have dihedral of 3.5 degrees. IT IS NOT FLAT.

It's also worth bearing in mind that fabric is usually joined (i.e. sewn together) at the trailing edges of wings, so a sharp edge is not very likely.

Reading that so-called "criticism," it appears that the author is more interested in bashing Airfix kits (that old dinosaur refuses to die) than making an objective survey.

I suggest you read assessments by people who don't have an axe to grind. and do know something about the Hurricane.
Edgar

Edited by Edgar
  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Panzer Vor!!! Very Obsessed Member

Panzer Vor!!!

Posted
Posted

When i saw first photos i was happy ! Looks gorgeous ! When coming in Czech, i bought two. But - i read a opinion: "It is a crap! Hurricane is british legend, national treasure, this is newest kit from british national company and have too many lapses and errors ! But is cheap and - you - as "airfix sheeps" say - goooogeous Hurri - and in really it is a crap and parody to Hurricane. I don't know where is true... In my eyes looks newest airfix kit relative good, with nice rendition of cockpit and fabric...

New hurricane may have a bad wing - with dihedral on upper part of wing - but on actual aircraft may be straight.

Trailing edge was too fat.

I think - a metal prop looks "suspiciously".

Upper and down part of wing don't fit ideal - it's bit outlined....

I'm not Hurri expert, but in my eyes still looks as relative ideal rendition of this famous fighter. What is your personal opinion ? It is a really best Hurri in small scale, or epic fail ? Can anybody here make a comparison with drawings ? I'm very surprised i can't found any complete Hurri :( My is still in construction phase.... And i don't know where is truth...

If you DONT LIKE IT DONT BUY IT !!!!!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Driver66 Established Member

Driver66

Posted
Posted

When i saw first photos i was happy ! Looks gorgeous ! When coming in Czech, i bought two. But - i read a opinion: "It is a crap! Hurricane is british legend, national treasure, this is newest kit from british national company and have too many lapses and errors ! But is cheap and - you - as "airfix sheeps" say - goooogeous Hurri - and in really it is a crap and parody to Hurricane. I don't know where is true... In my eyes looks newest airfix kit relative good, with nice rendition of cockpit and fabric...

New hurricane may have a bad wing - with dihedral on upper part of wing - but on actual aircraft may be straight.

Trailing edge was too fat.

I think - a metal prop looks "suspiciously".

Upper and down part of wing don't fit ideal - it's bit outlined....

I'm not Hurri expert, but in my eyes still looks as relative ideal rendition of this famous fighter. What is your personal opinion ? It is a really best Hurri in small scale, or epic fail ? Can anybody here make a comparison with drawings ? I'm very surprised i can't found any complete Hurri :( My is still in construction phase.... And i don't know where is truth...

Well the Christmas spirit didn't last long .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Edgar Completely Obsessed Member

Edgar

Posted
Posted

OP are you shilling for a certain group of manufacturers lol?

To be fair, he's simply quoting what someone else has written, and at least has had the courtesy to come here and ask questions, rather than blindy following along behind.

A simple head-on photo is unlikely to be enough (even downright misleading,) since the dihedral is measured along the line of the front spar, but with the tail raised, so that the fuselage datum line is parallel to the ground. Arthur Bentley's drawings would be a better bet.

Edgar

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gingerbob Completely Obsessed Member

gingerbob

Posted
Posted

I would recommend looking at the couple of builds already on "Ready For Inspection" section, and making your own assessment. I don't have the kit, I doubt it is "perfect", but it sure looks pretty to me, and even though I seldom have any interest in 1/72, I'm probably going to get one.

bob

p.s. Fabric trailing edge overlap isn't likely to be very thick when reduced to 1/72!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stew Dapple Completely Obsessed Member

Stew Dapple

Posted
Posted

I'm getting close to finishing my second; I think it's a lovely kit and a good representation of an early Hurricane. I'm sure if you look long enough and hard enough you can find problems with it and I'm equally sure you can ignore them if you wish and it will still be a good representation of an early Hurricane.

I think I'll be building at least two more, I have found it an enjoyable experience.

Cheers,

Stew

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Test Graham Completely Obsessed Member

Test Graham

Posted
Posted

I'm of the "best 1/72nd kit, but..." opinion. It has its faults, but fewer than other Hurricane kits. Missing the early mainwheels is a straightforward mistake, hopefully to be put right by the aftermarket people. The oddest thing is the mismatch of upper and lower wing spans, but that's easily put right. The trailing edge needs attention, as on many other kits, and a bit below the overall standard of the kit. There's a couple of other points about the nose and the prop that depend upon just which aircraft you are modelling, as these things differed surprisingly much (well, it surprised me).

None of these are any reason not to buy the kit: it is certainly not "crap" nor "a parody".

I haven't looked at the DH prop yet to pass comment on it. However, if it is wrong there are plenty of alternatives around, though perhaps not always with a Hurricane spinner.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Greenshirt Very Obsessed Member

Greenshirt

Posted
Posted

I've completed one, and like the kit. I had one very minor fit problem with the wing uppers to lower that was easily corrected with putty and a swipe or three of the sanding stick. The trailing edge appears thick in hindsight, but during construction seemed okay. Any other issues I had are my own doing. My only complaint are the wheels, which are the wrong type.

I'll make at least 4 more and view it as the best rag-wing Hurricane in 72nd scale; I've built the AZ/Sword kit yet AIrfix's kit is easier to build and looks better, plus is less expensive.

Tim

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnd Very Obsessed Member

johnd

Posted
Posted

Although yet to build it, I can only agree with the comments above in support of the kit. Some people like to criticise Airfix for the sake of it and not give credit where it's due.

I suppose I am an 'Arfix sheep' as I buy and build their offerings in preference to others but that doesn't mean that I believe they are faultless. One of my favourite completed models is the old 1/72 Spitfire IX which I bought and built when I got fed up waiting for the new tool to appear. I'm under no illusions regarding its accuracy, it just reminds me of a few enjoyable hours. It was cheap and cheerful. What we have now are models that are still cheap but stand comparison with those from any other manufacturer and I for one am grateful for that.

John.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chuckb1 Established Member

chuckb1

Posted
Posted

Ok I am a complete Hurriophile of the first degree, mine is in the holding pattern as I am now on my chrissy prezzie of a 1/32 Curtiss P40 however I think this is the best rendition so far. (haters brace yourselves) and better than the AZ version I built early this year. That had a few problems, probably me though. :weep: As for the wing judiciously filed the trailing edge and to me it does not appear flat. Drawings wise I had to go retro as the ones I had date back to the 80's from Scale models however it all matched up. I had the Battle of Britain Scale Models Magazine as I dont have anything newer. Wheels wise I will live with it. I am using the two bladed prop as mines being built as a WIF from the book "A piece of cake"

Mainstream manufacturer makes best kit of Mk1 to date. Makes my old Mk1 of Bob Stanford Tuck look positively stone age.

IMHO! :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Work In Progress Completely Obsessed Member

Work In Progress

Posted
Posted (edited)

Sadly that's really not head on enough - nose up/down is more important than nose left/right for this purpose and if you can see the whole of the under-wing roundels then the sweep back of the leading edge is confusing the picture.

The visual question is not about the dihedral angle as measured at mid thickness of the wing (which is as Edgar describes), but about the upper surface spanwise along the maximum thickness of the airfoil. It is a common fallacy that the top surface of a Hurricane wing is flat, measured at max thickness of the airfoil. In reality there is a small spanwise upwards kink on the top surface where the outer panels join the centre section, as can be seen on this pic (too big to post here but follow the link)

http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Air/Hawker-Hurricane-Mk2C/1366715/L/

Edited by Work In Progress
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gary C Obsessed Member

Gary C

Posted
Posted

It looks as if we have to repeat this over and over again; the outer sections of the Hurricane wing have dihedral of 3.5 degrees. IT IS NOT FLAT.

It's not as easy as that. The Granger plans I have show the DATUM line of the outer wing section has a dihedral of 3.5 degrees. But the Hurricane wing is pretty thick. That means the underside of the wing has a dihedral of a good deal more than 3.5 degrees, and, correspondingly the upper surface is much less than 3.5 degrees. It's not quite zero but it's not far off and should be barely visible to the naked eye. I had to put a ruler to the plans to see it at all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Work In Progress Completely Obsessed Member

Work In Progress

Posted
Posted (edited)

It is definitely visible on the full size aeroplane. See also this pic. Just hold a ruler or sheet of A4 paper up to it.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Hawker-Hurricane-Mk2A/0582242/M/

Also on this one

http://www.redbubble.com/people/stocktrekimages/works/7101019-hawker-hurricane

And it is totally unambigious on this one, which is absolutely head on.

http://www.deroeck.co.uk/plane-pictures-ww2/Hawker-Hurricane-01.jpg

Edited by Work In Progress
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Work In Progress Completely Obsessed Member

Work In Progress

Posted
Posted

I'm quite surprised you can;t see it without putting a ruler across it, tbh. However, I know from experience that a lot of people perceive a genuinely flat wing as somewhat droopy so I suppose that there is something of an illusion going on for many folk.

However, we're in danger of missing the point, which is that the top of the Hurricane wing is definitely not flat, and any model that has it flat is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AlCZ Obsessed Member

AlCZ

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Do you know - i read this on CZECH model forum. And CZECH modelers are a BIG purist. I'm a weekend modeler, not so skilled, without competition ambitions. Yes, it is a problem with fat trailing edge and bit fitting (outlined upper part) . But when i can compare fix Hurri with Hasegawa overprized metal wing kit - Airfix look as best deal. Hurri is little cursed type - Academy or Airfix Mk. IIC ("Old Kut" machine) are very ugly... I like Revell for Mk. II. I'm very surprise with this strict resultate on new Airfix - Bad kit, with many errors. Or "Have dihedral as Lancaster - and this is wrong.... I have a one rule - when you build it - a complete model must looks on first look as actual aircraft. Big innacuracy hit you on the eyes in pair second... And Hurricane have a typical hunchbacked look.

Edited by AlCZ
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
occa Very Obsessed Member

occa

Posted
Posted

Is this one any good? I've added a straight line above the wing to show the dihedral.

........

Ah thanks Andy, that's more than good enough to give an impression and to prove the OPie wrong.

Cheers

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites
occa Very Obsessed Member

occa

Posted
Posted (edited)

It is definitely visible on the full size aeroplane. See also this pic. Just hold a ruler or sheet of A4 paper up to it.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Hawker-Hurricane-Mk2A/0582242/M/

Also on this one

http://www.redbubble.com/people/stocktrekimages/works/7101019-hawker-hurricane

And it is totally unambigious on this one, which is absolutely head on.

http://www.deroeck.co.uk/plane-pictures-ww2/Hawker-Hurricane-01.jpg

If one forces the wing halves a bit to get together at the center the wing looks exactly like in the photos with a very slight bend on the uppersides

Edited by occa
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tango98 Obsessed Member

tango98

Posted
Posted

For those who disbelieve, the following data for the main planes (not the centre section) is taken directly from the Hurricane MkI rigging instructions (as of November 1937) with the aircraft in flying attitude and the aircraft datum horizontal :

Incidence 2 degrees

Dihedral 3 degrees 30 minutes on datum

Sweepback 3 degrees on main spar

and if you're wondering about the fin offset, it is given as 1 degree and 30 minutes.

Cheers

Dave

:

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...