Jump to content

As a result of the close-down of the UK by the British Government last night, we have made all the Buy/Sell areas read-only until we open back up again, so please have a look at the announcement linked here.

This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Homebee

1/72 - DHC-1 Chipmunk by AZ model - released - new boxing in 2020

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Paul J said:

Fantastic!!!  But I don't get the 'T.30' designation for the UK and RCAF one!!!  The Uk based Civvy ones I'm sure were T.22.    Anyway I don't really care 'cos I am gonna get me some !!!

 Yes dont recognise the "T30" ?British military Chipmunks were T10's and British made exports were T20's with civil variants in the 20 series so a bit confused by the AZ boxings. Am sure they will be good kits though and welcome replacements for the Airfix ones. Look forward to this release as plenty of nice colour schemes.

Cheers, Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really chuffed about this as I assumed the kit was dead in the water. So many schemes, so little time.  That S & M trainer decal sheet is going to be in pretty short supply soon, I would imagine.  Wonder if I'll be able to find a pic of a Liverpool UAS aircraft from the 50s that my dad flew. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

V much looking forward to this, and building at least one of the aircraft I flew in. Xtradecal crack open your colouring pens please!

 

Justin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder when the 1/48th version will be available?

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loving it! But no raised rivets  uh?  There loads on the real aeroplane. Hope they do the correct undercart legs for the RCAF ones and the slightly narrower chord rudders for early models. However there seem to be the anti spin strakes as separate parts for those that had them. Nice touch. But I still would like to know where they got the 'T30' designation from! I have the book 'DHC-1 Chipmunk, The poor man's Spitfire' by various authors with full history of the type but no mention of  a T30 that I can see?????

 

Oh, I hope that Xtradecal do some schemes with silver or LAG and dayglo strips like they did with the JP sheet.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Paul J said:

Loving it! But no raised rivets  uh?  There loads on the real aeroplane. Hope they do the correct undercart legs for the RCAF ones and the slightly narrower chord rudders for early models. However there seem to be the anti spin strakes as separate parts for those that had them. Nice touch. But I still would like to know where they got the 'T30' designation from! I have the book 'DHC-1 Chipmunk, The poor man's Spitfire' by various authors with full history of the type but no mention of  a T30 that I can see?????

 

Oh, I hope that Xtradecal do some schemes with silver or LAG and dayglo strips like they did with the JP sheet.

 

Common Paul you have got to be kidding about the rivets....yes we know they are there but really I think that they are not really required. Also to replicate them as raised rivets that in my estimation would have to be no higher than about 0.08mm or 3 thou maybe as little as 2 thou in 1/72 scale is asking a huge amount.

Also the patterns have been hand made so therefore even more 'almost' impossible, added to the fact what happens when the parts are assembled and the joints need sanding etc. how do you replace the rivets that have disappeared?

 

57 minutes ago, jaw said:

I wonder when the 1/48th version will be available?

 

John

John, let us hope it follows on soon after

 

 

Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Ali62 said:

Common Paul you have got to be kidding about the rivets....yes we know they are there but really I think that they are not really required. Also to replicate them as raised rivets that in my estimation would have to be no higher than about 0.08mm or 3 thou maybe as little as 2 thou in 1/72 scale is asking a huge amount.

Also the patterns have been hand made so therefore even more 'almost' impossible, added to the fact what happens when the parts are assembled and the joints need sanding etc. how do you replace the rivets that have disappeared?

 

 

 

Ali

Yeah , I was having a 'jape' Of course I realise it would be impractable to replicate those rivets.;) Regardless, I will still buy a few anyway as I love the little aeroplane.  

By the way, I have just been studying my book and it seems the main designation for RCAF Chipmunks was DHC-1B-2-S3 and S5 for late production aircraft for the RCAF that had various little mods. But no sign of the T30 being mentioned anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As did Airfix on their Chipmunk in 1970. However, raised rivets are no longer the fashion even where they are correct and highly recognisable characteristics of the aircraft concerned. The Ju87 is a classic example where the new 1/48 Airfix kit may be what the majority of today's modellers want to see when they open a box (and therefore commercially a smart decision by Airfix), but the older 1/48 Airfix kit is far more realistic in its surface treatment. 

 

Never mind, they are easy enough to add. Rows of rub-down transfer dots is one method, and those can be bought from http://www.archertransfers.com . In 1/48 and above they can be added with a fine hypodermic and well judged dots of PVA or similar adhesive. If you get it wrong you can remove them without any real difficulty and try again. In 1/72 I probably wouldn't bother, but then I'm a lazy modeller.

Edited by Work In Progress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am with all of the comments above, and I do agree, however unless done really well (and the kits mentioned above are way overdone), I would rather not have rivets.

Some of the new high quality high tech manufactured kits have amazing surface details raised or scribed, I am all for that, especially in larger  scales but for small 1/72 or 1/48 scale kits I would far rather have a neat accurate (hopefully) model than trying to replicate every minute detail.

If AZ is going to make good and accurate Chipmunks (patterned) by hand for low run injected plastic kits then I will be happy, and so will most modellers.

With all due respect as I have, and I still make, hand made patterns myself I can see asymmetrical shapes and rivets and panels that are already there on the shown patterns, can you imagine what it would look like if a few thousand 'lumps' / rivets were added, the model would be ripped apart by all of us say that it does not look correct.

 

Well done to AZ models for bringing us some new models that if are done well, should sell very well.

 

Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2017 at 0:21 PM, Paul J said:

But I still would like to know where they got the 'T30' designation from! I have the book 'DHC-1 Chipmunk, The poor man's Spitfire' by various authors with full history of the type but no mention of  a T30 that I can see?????

 

According to AJ Jackson in Putnam's "DH Since 1909", the RCAF production was designated Mk 30; although "T 30" may be a misuse.

 

On 2/17/2017 at 1:13 PM, Ali62 said:

However there seem to be the anti spin strakes as separate parts for those that had them. Nice touch.

 

My Dad was instructing on Hull UAS in the early '50s when the Chipmunk spinning issue arose. He met a chap from CFS who was going around the country spinning every Chipmunk in the RAF to establish the differences between individual airframes, as there had been cases of proficient students spinning in. After a morning's flying all the aircraft on the UAS, it was clear that some aircraft could be put into a spiral dive which mimicked the true spin, and obviously, the recovery would be quicker. If the student later entered a real spin, he might not apply the correct recovery action (or at least for long enough). The added anti-spin strakes fixed the flow separation during spinning so that, amongst other things, there was no confusion between the spin and the spiral dive.

 

As an aside, many years ago, my brother Chris and I once did a series of spins on the RAE Aero Club Chipmunk, culminating in a 22-turn spin from 10 000 ft to establish any variation in characteristic as the spin developed. After 8 turns, there was no detectable further development, we were spinning at 40 kt on the asi and all was very quiet and peaceful, losing about 300' per turn. The reason for all this was to gather some data for the Cranfield A-1 aircraft, on which Chris was doing some test/development flying.

 

Kevin

 

Edited by KevinK
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Source: http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235010228-kpaz-central-discussion-questions-answers/&do=findComment&comment=2654071

 

Quote
Dear gentlemen, I have just got the info, that Chipmunk release date 18th March will be postponed. Delay will be some two weeks due to the problems with canopy moulding. Problem is solved but mould needs some changes.

 

V.P.

Edited by Homebee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck with that. Please produce the canopy in two parts though (i.e. separate windscreen). I could certainly wait a bit longer for that!

 

Justin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gonna have to make room to build a few of these thats for certain sure!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like it might need a heavy prime and sanding down, unless they intend to polish the moulds before full production. It looks very Chipmunk-like but the surface texture appears surprisingly rough on those pics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder when the 1/48 version will be available?

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite being a Chipmunk enthusiast, I must confess to just discovering this thread. May I post some comments?

Homebee's 23 March post:

Frankly those CAD images frightened the hell out of me; it's clearly a T.10 (note the cowling shape, faired undercarriage with lamp, strakes etc with a Canadian bubble canopy grafted on top. That's the same mistake that Airfix made...

 

Paul J:

T.30 was the occasionally used designation for the 60 DHC-1B-2-S5 ordered specifically by the RCAF for their service. Mind you, DH supplied Mk.21's (built from the ground-up as civil aircraft) to the Indonesians and sometimes called them T.21's!

 

Homebee Feb 18 - sprue shots:

 

There's a rather disappointing black of detail here; missing are the ovaloid access panels on the aft rear fuselage, battery compartment access panels on the upper rear fuselage, the triangular NACA-type vent under the fuselage and the downward i/d lamp to name a few.

 

Homebee March 24 sprue shots + test build:

 

Again some details missing. A good effort on the cockpit sidewalls, although the prominent floor-mounted P.11 compasses are missing. Note here that when the "Airpath" compass was fitted on the coaming (1984) the forward floor compass was removed.

 

Homebee posted today boxtops:

 

I guess it's what's IN the box that matters but there are errors with all of them!

 

Chipmunk T.30 box - most of the details are there, except that all bubble-topped Chipmunks (both DHC-1B-2-S3's and -S5's) have much shortened stalling strips (inboard leading edge) while none of them have the "spot" ground power plug on the LHS immediately aft of the firewall.

 

Chipmunk T.10 box - all are shown with the upper UHF "blade" antenna, but they've missed the ventral one. The top drawing shows a Chipmunk with the more vertical "Canadian" exhaust, yet the side profiles show the thinner/more raked exhaust, which is correct for all four aircraft.

 

Chipmunk T.20 box - shows an Iraqi aircraft with the ground power plug on the RHS (no!) and fitted with the "Canadian" exhaust/heater intake. Now these didn't appear on UK-built Chipmunks until 1977, yet the Iraqis got their aircraft in 1951-52. i bet they never wanted cockpit heaters either!

 

Kevin K Feb 19:

Not to do with modelling - forgive me - but the entire Chipmunk spinning/strake issues remain often mis-understood.

 

The purpose of the strakes was to assist spin recovery, despite DH calling them "anti-spinning strakes". How did they work? CAA's CAP562 describes them as increasing the aerodynamic drag of the tail, damping rotation in yaw and steepening the spin (which is what Kevin was alluding to). This doesn't really make sense if you think about it and differs from the RAF's explanation which is that at the high angle of attack of the spin, they act as a vortex generator and re-energise the airflow over the rudder making it more effective.

 

Note that there is no mention of them preventing the aircraft entering a spiral dive.

 

As a co-operative effort along with the RAF and DH, the Australian regulator (then the DCA) conducted a programme of spinning every Chipmunk here. Their conclusions mirrored the UK organizations; some Chipmunk were reluctant to spin, while failure to recover was because of poor technique. Unlike most training types, the Chipmunk has several "gotchas" for the unwary (or poorly briefed) when it comes to spin recovery.

 

The Australians also trialed the strakes, and were obviously unimpressed. "... they did tend to shorten the recovery time slightly on an aircraft normally slow to recover, but it was only a reduction in the order of three quarters of a turn in the worst case" (my italics).

 I believe they were fitted to RAF Chipmunks as a political expedient. It's interesting that the Canadians never bothered to fit them.

 

This has gone on long enough!

 

Cheers,

 

Rod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Rod,

 

The best would be to address your remarks to AZmodel:

Jan "Jean" Polc

marketing@kovozavody.cz
j.polc@centrum.cz

 

Regards,

 

V.P.

 

Edited by Homebee

Share this post


Link to post
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

×
×
  • Create New...