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

[chuckb1]

When its all put together does it look like a Hurricane, smell like a Hurricane and in the main measure up like a Hurricane?

Er Yes!

Mine looks good, just waiting for decals to arrive and it will have been a "Piece of Cake" to build.

I will post up a picture when its finished, hopefully next weekend. Back to work Thursday Boo!

Im with Rabbit leader and others, if Mr Bentley was good enough for me back in the 80's he still rules the roost for me today. My Eastern European friend as long as you are happy that is what matters. Its down to the builder.

As I said what do you expect for under £8.00, bit of a bargain for me. Better than paying over a tenner for a Gucci Eastern European kit again

Flame me now people!

[ben_m]

ben_m asked: What is the source of your information that the top surface has a dihedral of 3.5 degrees?

Ben,

from my earlier post:

.......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.

Dave

Yes, I read and quoted your post, but it doesn't state that the top surface of the wing has that angle- I've never heard of a dihedral stated as an angle of the top surface.

[Gary C]

In Aero eng terms the wing datum is a plane that runs from the middle of the trailing edge to the furthest forward point of the leading edge and depending on the aerofoil shape should pass somewhere near the centreline of spar. It's not a physically marked point on the real thing, it only exists as a line on plans to take measurements and angles from. Viewed head on it will give you the specified dihedral/anhedral and in side view the true chord which will also give you the incidence. Measurements are NOT taken from the top or bottom side of the spar.

[Gary C]

Even if there is an incidence angle? Anyway, this is purely academical because the differences are really tiny.

In terms of engineering drawings, no. Incidence, sweep and dihedral/anhedral are three different modifications to a wing in three separate axes. One has no effect on the view of another. You can still measure dihedral regardless of the sweep or incidence. The only thing that could affect the visibility of the dihedral is washout.

[mike romeo]

Folks,

I hesitate to set my size 9s into this debate, but while I would not choose to disagree with people who have source documents to hand, I just think that visually, the top of the mainplanes does not look to have a 3.5 deg dihedral. It may be my eye, but it looks barely above zero along the top surface. Of course on the bottom surface it's quite clearly positive and measured along the chord line (the straight line between leading and trailing edge in a streamwise direction ) it'll be somewhere in between.

I have been wondering where I have a picture of a Hurricane in an as near as dammit 'full frontal' attitude. The best I could do was from the cover of the film "The Battle of Britain", specifically in the "Repeat, please" scene with one of the Polish squadrons mentioned above. If I can get my wife away from "Death Comes to Pemberley" anytime soon, I may be able to check it. However, in advance, here is the cover of the BoB DVD, showing a Hurri*. Again, I'm aware that the view is not square in any axis, but if anything, I would have thought this view would slightly accentuate any dihedral on the outer wings. The upper surface still seems pretty 'flat' to me.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Battle-Britain-Disc-Special-Edition/dp/B0001P1BOI

Standing by to be savaged . . .

regards,

Martin

* I'm assuming this is a photoshop of a real Hurri as depicted in the film.

Edited December 28, 2013 by mike romeo

[ben_m]

So, the three models (Airfix, Sword, Hasegawa) have been shown to have very little angle at the top surface (I'll stop calling it dihedral), the plans show the same, and the real thing obviously doesn't have more than 1 degree here either: so there, shouldn't be any issue!

[MilneBay]

On balance I'll take Edgar's and Tango 98's posts as giving the correct information. Mark1 eyeballs are wonderful instruments but so easily deceived.

[AlCZ]

I have to apologize. I was warned a drawing are probably not in scale. In this case is my measurement complete irrelevant. I must found (or buy) 1/72 scale. But it looks a rumors what say - oh boy,this isn't a Hurricane - are - only rumors. With high probability as dihedral on upper part of wing. When i say my judgement - are this Hurricane a caricature ? Probably not ! They are a dihedral ? Probably not ! Looks it as Hurricane ? And i must say - yes ! This is my result... Thank you for your patience and help.

[stevej60]

I have to apologize. I was warned a drawing are probably not in scale. In this case is my measurement complete irrelevant. I must found (or buy) 1/72 scale. But it looks a rumors what say - oh boy,this isn't a Hurricane - are - only rumors. With high probability as dihedral on upper part of wing. When i say my judgement - are this Hurricane a caricature ? Probably not ! They are a dihedral ? Probably not ! Looks it as Hurricane ? And i must say - yes ! This is my result... Thank you for your patience and help.

Don,t apologise,build it and enjoy it! it,s been an excellent thread but at the end of the day it is an £8 piece of plastic,thank you mr,Airfix for giving us it!put it in front

of anyone remotely interested in aircraft and they will say ah! Hurricane,nice one.

[Edgar]

What is the source of your information that the top surface has a dihedral of 3.5 degrees?

Pre-war, wartime, and post-war official files, which include original manuals and parts lists, held in the National Archives; in the three most relevant collections there are only 248 "pieces" to go through, so, at 21 per day (Kew's daily limit) it will only take 12 working days to check my findings.

Edgar

Edited December 29, 2013 by Edgar

[baldeagle]

I'm confused.- Is this a constructive criticism thread,or is it an introduction to a new replacement for the old sport of rivet-counting?Can anybody find a time-machine to transport some of these people back to the late 1950s or early 1960s.The Hurricane kits on offer then did not match any drawings or photographs accurately,and the early Revell offering wasn,t even the right size.(At least it was better than the P51D,and didn't have a sideways opening canopy like the Ki61 kit.The box art was pretty!)I wonder how such kits as the Aurora "Mig19" would be greeted.Modellers are now spoilt for choice,where quality is concerned,but nothing will be quite perfect.If you can't fix it,give up and take up something constructive like marquetry.

I have the Airfix kit,and I am enjoying building it.I also have the Sword kit,and will enjoy building it.Dare I say that I prefer the Airfix offering?-Not because I think that it is more accurate,though it may be,but,because it is so easy to assemble.I hope that I may be able to correct any minor errors during the builds,but I am not too worried t

hat they may be there.If anybody comes and criticises the end product,I hope that they possess a good dictionary to interpret the response.

When I started modelling,references were nowhere near as good as now.I used to have to learn to make contour gauges,and often found that drawings did not match photographs.I am sure that this is still the case in some instances,but that is part of the fun,and the learning process,in building models.

Bill.

[occa]

So, the three models (Airfix, Sword, Hasegawa) have been shown to have very little angle at the top surface (I'll stop calling it dihedral), the plans show the same, and the real thing obviously doesn't have more than 1 degree here either: so there, shouldn't be any issue!

I second this. ^^

I don't really care how much exactly the dihedral in ° should be, plans and photos match the models and especially the Airfix kit.

Good enough for me.

If I could find my set square I would check the angles on Bentley's drawing but it's nowhere ATM.

The wing incidence reduces the visual angle indeed when seen from the front but only very minimally, sine and cosine laws come into effect so all could be calculated.

Edited December 29, 2013 by occa

[Kari Lumppio]

Hello!

I bought the new Airfix Hurricane Mk I fabric wing kit and managed to do some work and checks before Christmas holidays. Now back at home and reading this thread. I must say I wonder if we all have same kit in our hands. In my opinion this Airfix Hurricane is the best. There simply is no competition in 1/72. And I am rivet counter, especially on something used by Finnish Air Force.

The wing dihedral

I put the upper wing half on straight aluminium bar like the picture below shows (hopefully). Clearly the wing top is not straight.

The gap measures more than 1,5 mm and less than 2,0 mm (photo below). Let's say it is 1,7 mm.

Outer wing panel upper half height at root is 3,6 mm and 1,6 mm at the tip where the aileron ends. Distance between the measurements is about 58 mm. Wing datum line is the mould line between the kit wing upper and lower halves. The dihedral angle can be calculated as arcus tangent (or arcus sin as the angle is so small):

Dihedral angle = arctan ( (3,6 mm + 1,7 mm - 1,6 mm) / 58 mm ) = 3,65 degrees ( arcsin 3,66 degrees)

(Datum line height = 0 at root, at tip the height is root thickness + 1,7 mm - tip thickness = (3,6 + 1,7 - 1,6 ) mm

My measurements and arithmetics show that dihedral is too much if anything (correct is 3,5 degrees). I would say Airfix nailed it. I have thinned the trailing edges with curved scalpel blade from the inside surfaces. Don't know if that makes any difference.

Comparison to scale drawings

The only Hurricane drawings on which I have trust are by Pentti Manninen. He works from manufacurer drawings, measurements on real item, archival documents etc. the same way as for example mr. Bentley. The Manninen Hurricane drawings are published for example in book Lentäjän näkökulma II (ISBN 951-96866-0-6). Compared to these:

• Fuselage matches exactly, even on lenght although it does not photograph well (see the photo below)
• Wing planform matches
• Horizontal stab and elevator are good
• Rudder is good

One deviation from the drawings I have found is the landing light position. Landing lights are one bay further out in on the Airfix kit. Like they should be for the fabric wing. Manninen's drawings are for the metal wing. On starboard side Manninen's drawings do show additional hatch not on the Airfix kit.

Airfix also got the canopy rails right, distance between them coming narrower on the windshield compared to the hump behind cockpit. The sliding canopy height should be more at windshield end than rear when canopy is shut. It is not much, but should show. My measurements gave the Airfix sliding canopy being of equal height throughout. The difference might still be there, only finished model will show the truth.

Fin is canted the right way in Airfix kit. Another detail often missed. Undercarriage wells are excellent for this scale. Yes the wheels should be with five spokes. Kuivalainen has sorted this, too. CMK too?

Above all Airfix should be thanked of the great fabric effect on the fuselage. Correct number of formers in right positions. No starving cow or "lets glue half round sticks on" - look. Faceted is the right thing for this kind of fuselage structure. On fuselage top half of the formers end at the right position. On wing underside the fabric effect could have been more restrained as the CLARK YH airfoil is flat for most of the span chord on underside. The concaveness radius should be about the same as the wing rib (or any other perpendicular) local curvature radius. No curvature > no concaveness a.k.a "fabric effect". This is true for even - or actually especially for - tautened fabric covering.

I hope that Airfix will provide the same excellent quality with their Blenheims. Keeping fingers crossed.

Cheers,

Kari

PS I hope the photo links work for all. Google has messed the Picasa albums as a part into their account and nothing is the same any more. Had to create the ****** account, too. I genuinely hate these "share with everyone" -type virtual face shows.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Kari Lumppio

[gingerbob]

Comments on certain points made in the body of the "quote":

bob

My measurements and arithmetics show that dihedral is too much if anything (correct is 3,5 degrees). I would say Airfix nailed it. I have thinned the trailing edges with curved scalpel blade from the inside surfaces. Don't know if that makes any difference.

Comparison to scale drawings...

On starboard side Manninen's drawings do show additional hatch not on the Airfix kit.

*** Comment: which is correct- the additional hatch was added along the way, if I remember the sequence correctly. How does the dihedral on the drawing compare? I don't see that mentioned. Personally I don't think the 3.5 degrees is meant to be at the upper surface, but that remains to be precisely pinned down.

Airfix also got the canopy rails right, distance between them coming narrower on the windshield compared to the hump behind cockpit. The sliding canopy height should be more at windshield end than rear when canopy is shut. It is not much, but should show. My measurements gave the Airfix sliding canopy being of equal height throughout. The difference might still be there, only finished model will show the truth.

***Comment: good point. I'd use a vac hood, personally. I haven't checked carefully (and don't yet have the kit) but might the windscreen be a little "tall"?

I genuinely hate these "share with everyone" -type virtual face shows.

***Comment: me too, and the photos worked fine for me.

[Kari Lumppio]

How does the dihedral on the drawing compare? I don't see that mentioned. Personally I don't think the 3.5 degrees is meant to be at the upper surface, but that remains to be precisely pinned down.

bob

Hi!

Not easy to measure with the devices I have at home. Manninen's front view shows wing top line dihedral as about 0,5 (half) degree and underside line a hair more than 4 degrees (4.1 - 4.2 degress). This says to me that datum line is at airfoil leading edge tip. The gap I measured as ~ 1,7 mm in Airfix kit is about 1 mm on the drawing. I can not explain the difference. Did Hurricane have any twist (washout) in the wing? In any case Airfix looks just fine.

BTW According the book Hurricane had CLARK YH, root airfoil is 19% and tip 12,2% thick. Thickness is calculated from wing chord at the point (or sometimes virtual/projected point). No word about twist. Dihedral angle 3,5 degrees.

Cheers,

Kari

[gingerbob]

Hi Kari,

I'm sorry, now I see that you "adjusted" your measurements to calculate dihedral angle at the datum- I'd misread that you were calculating from the wing upper surface.

bob

[Troy Smith]

One deviation from the drawings I have found is the landing light position. Landing lights are one bay further out in on the Airfix kit. Like they should be for the fabric wing. Manninen's drawings are for the metal wing. On starboard side Manninen's drawings do show additional hatch not on the Airfix kit.

Hi Kari

very useful post.

The Starboard hatch is correct for all planes built after early 1940, fabric winged and early metal winged [eg N**** serial batch] do not have this hatch, as the preserved Finnish and Science Museum Hurricane show.

I'm glad any concerns over the fabric effect are misplaced.

cheers

T

[Radpoe Spitfire]

What I have seen of the kit is good enough for me- its aimed at the full spectrum of modelling abilities & it may have fault, but its well priced.

But while I respect opinion, can we keep the xxxxx word out- my 8 year old sometimes reads threads with me. Call me over protective if you like, but a forum like this is not the right place for such words.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Greg B
Swearing removed.........

[AlCZ]

It's a one question - have fabric wing, metal plate around MG hatch or no ? On bentleys drawing i can't say it. http://www.albentley-drawings.com/drawings/hawker-hurricane-mk-i/hawker-hurricane-mk-i . Here look it as a metal plate, not fabric...IMHO. But maybe it is a only ilusion...

Edited December 31, 2013 by AlCZ

[Iain Wyllie]

nt

Edited August 4, 2014 by Iain Wyllie

[Edgar]

During his researches, Peter Cooke found that every drawing of the Hurricane's spine was oversized, in depth, by 2", and he ascertained that this was caused by the repositioning/realignment of the hood, when they had to stop it 1/. chattering open in flight, and 2/. jamming solid, and being immovable at high speed.

He (Peter) reckoned that Hawker had never amended the drawings, and, since many draughtsmen start at the canopy, and go from there, that's where the mistake occurred; Arthur took Peter's findings on board, and his latest drawings have taken that into account. Between us, Peter and I measured about 10 aircraft, preserved and rebuilt, and found all of the spines to be 2" "thinner," top to bottom, than Arthur's drawings. I don't know of any other changes that Arthur might have made.

So far, I've found no mention, in any official files, that the dihedral was measured at the datum, only on the top surface of the line of the front spar. There is talk of a "dihedral board," but no part number (unlike those of the Lancaster and Spitfire,) so it's been (so far) impossible to find out what they looked like. If the board turns out to be shaped like that of the Spitfire, everything might change, but that's for the future.

Edgar

[Troy Smith]

During his researches, Peter Cooke found that every drawing of the Hurricane's spine was oversized, in depth, by 2", and he ascertained that this was caused by the repositioning/realignment of the hood, when they had to stop it 1/. chattering open in flight, and 2/. jamming solid, and being immovable at high speed.

He (Peter) reckoned that Hawker had never amended the drawings, and, since many draughtsmen start at the canopy, and go from there, that's where the mistake occurred; Arthur took Peter's findings on board, and his latest drawings have taken that into account. Between us, Peter and I measured about 10 aircraft, preserved and rebuilt, and found all of the spines to be 2" "thinner," top to bottom, than Arthur's drawings. I don't know of any other changes that Arthur might have made.

Hi Edgar

I posted this before, and note Bentley's comments about the spine and canopy, and using photographs as the exact length of the sliding canopy is known.

The protoype certainly has a deeper canopy, this can be seen in photos.

I compared my enlarged to 1/48th from 72nd Bentleys from 1980 Scale Models, with the revised set from MAM in 2005, which were adjusted, as the revised B type roundel on the wing shows [the original set has the wrong proportions] and could not see a 1mm difference [ 1mm being approx 2" in 1/48th] between the drawings.

Given that Bentley mentions the problem with the spine, and using photographs to determine the length, along with the need to check all the Hawker supplied GA drawings, as well as mentioning the lack of revsied production drawings in this specific case, would he have missed this detail?

My ability to check these is basic, but along with using some calipers, I also held both sets up to the window, and could not see the difference in the spine between both sets.

Possibly the revised drawings in MAM do not have a revised spine?

Without going a long trawl for photos...

The prototype

Early production

I'm not trying to prove you wrong, and your and Peter's contribution to the MkI vs II length, and I read Peter's Hurricane Veracity article with interest, and I have no doubt other drawings do get this wrong, but would Bentley have missed this?

I can see the difference between these two hoods, as 2 inches is a sizeable proportion of the total hood height.

Since you know both Peter and Arthur personally, perhaps it maybe worth rechecking, if nothing else, to find out if the 2005 Model Aeroplane Monthly drawings do have a revised spine or not?

Since the Hurricane Veracity article is 1998 IIRC they should be?

I'm really not trying to be clever or prove you wrong, as I greatly respect your research and the generous sharing of information here and on other forums, but in this case i am asking you to double check this, as you can.

Thank you

Troy

[Iain Wyllie]

Edited August 4, 2014 by Iain Wyllie

[AlCZ]

Look on this picture and panel around MG bay/hatch ! Is smooth ! And on kit are in these place ribs under the fabric...

Edited December 31, 2013 by AlCZ

[Edgar]

I assume that any supposed 2" decrease would be from the top of the canopy to the top of the rail, it being unlikely that the position of the latter was altered, since this would also alter the width at the rails, leading in turn to changes in the windscreen area and elsewhere. I would certainly be interested in seeing proof of this.

Peter found that the discrepancy was in the depth of the fuselage just in front of the fin, which is what I measured, and passed on the information. As I understood it, the whole line of the spine was out by that 2", but I didn't get involved in the minutiae, since, at the time, my interests lay elsewhere. My involvement was nothing more than as a wielder of a tape measure, since I was also using the opportunity to take photos and measurements of Spitfires, to verify some changes due to the engine variations. I will ask Peter, when I next see him, but not by phone, since he has completely retired, and seems to have put all of his work and research behind him, so I have no desire to cause friction.

Edgar