Jump to content

New 1/48th Airfix Hurricane vs Bentley...


Recommended Posts

sacre bleu, I 'ave been posezzed by ze spirit of Gaston Marty.... ze 'fatal flawz' are all around me!....

I am once again 'Joyless Hurricane Nazi'

I finally bothered to clip the main parts of the new Airfix Hurricane from their sprues and stuck them over the plans of Arthur Bentley...

New%20Airfix%20Hurricane%20vs%20Bentley%

Oh dear I said.

I wiggled the bits about but it looks like Airfix, or their CAD chaps have stretched the first fabric access panel a bit, note pencil lines and full panel shown bottom right...

My camera does funny stuff to angles, but the nose is all lined up, and i checked the access panel and that's too long.

same problem on the other side, on the same panel, which is different shape though (check pic below for the shape)

This could be a problem inherited from their old 1/48th Hurricane, which is also a little bit too long in the rear fuselage.

in the real world I think it's not going to notice but the more obsessive amongst us (who me?) could do some careful surgery to correct this, as cuts could be done on panel lines and the smooth 'doghouse' area and canopy rails to disguise cuts needed.

The other pencil line on the cowling is where you would put in a splice if you wanted a Mk II if anyone is curious.

To forestall questions as to the provenance of the plans...

.this is the background to them

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234954758-hawker-hurricane-scale-plans/

HurricaneBentleynotescrop_zpsc6a2675f.jp

Before anyone bleats on about Hasegawa, their kit has overdone fabric and some totally spurious 'bands' on the edges of the fabric panels, like this, plus fantasy panel line behind the cockpit and no shaped edge to the canopy opening.

Hurricane_Mk1_build08.jpg

compare, note the Hase kit has 'bands' at the edges of the panel and where it joins the rear fuselage. The real thing does not, the line of the stringers are unbroken. Also gives you a good idea about the Hase fabric representation. And there should not be a panel line behind the cockpit, this is a strip of fabric reinforcement, where the fabric covered plywood 'dog kennel' ends and the stringers begin. Annoyingly Classic Airframes also copies this error[as do Pegasus and AZ...]. Not an easy fix.

lewis3.jpg

lewis1.jpg

accurate restoration.

7.jpg

I have a Hase fuselage I've been trying to sand in the correct shape. Made more tricky by butting up against a metal panel. I'm not sure how best to correct this.

As can also be seen the fabric effect is not great, a bit 'skinny cow' the real thing has fabric taught between the stringers.

and the other side, which well shows how the fabric should look, in particular look at the '7' and the highlights.

look carefully at the yellow in the roundel, and you can just make out the tapes applied over each stringer.

060717_rfoster_mp_warfare_016.jpg

Now you know what too look for, here's a restoration, and you can see this clearly. Also note the spurious panel line on the Hase at rear of doghouse.

70.JPG

from
The above show what a good job Airfix have done on representing the fabric though.
more checking and looks like there is a problem with the DH spinner...right shape but too long, but looks fixable...
more later...
PS - the 'other' new 1/48 kit was the Italeri one, which is an exercise in spot the amount of errors we can make.
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Troy, can you check the link you provided to the picture of the kit part lined up with the drawing? Doesn't work for me.

In any case, thanks for all the information. I'll undoubtedly build the model regardless.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Troy, can you check the link you provided to the picture of the kit part lined up with the drawing? Doesn't work for me.

In any case, thanks for all the information. I'll undoubtedly build the model regardless.

this should be a direct link

http://postimg.cc/image/ilfyfzt1x/

I've been using postimage as photobucket is such a PITA. It's about 2mm too long if the pic is not showing up... which is about 4 inches in 1/48,

interestingly the Mk II is actually 4 inches longer than a Mk I....

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I must try and do is get the CA fabric wing kit out of the loft stash and see how the wings line up with the new Airfix fuselage. Want a Finnish rag wing and having just finished the CA Defiant and trying to finish the Meteor F8 I need a break from CA kits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya Troy,

It doesn`t stop the Airfix kit from still being the best 1/48th scale Mk.I Hurricane available on the market and having built a few it certainly looks the part to me anyway! What is to say that the plans are not out a bit anyway,.....regardless of who draws them I never trust plans!

Cheers

Tony

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is nice to know, and does make me want to go back to an original with a tape measure to just double check that I didn't have a set of drawings that have stretched in one dimension at some point during their reproduction. But I am sure you have already done that.

It's not something I'll try to fix, because personally I can't see it without direct reference to the plans, so it won't nag me when I look at the finished model.

The fabric treatment is delightful, isn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Troy,

those are the new, not the old plans? and reduced to 1/48 from the originals by you? Verified the scale bar? I had thought the Hurricane was one of the kits they used the LIDAR process for, which should render things like length pretty exact.. Have you measured the plans and kit against known dimensions? That will show which is closer to reality. FWIW, I don't plan to stress if it is off a bit, its a nice kit, and nothing's perfect. As you fellows would say "it looks the part", but I am curious!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's the proof that Bentley's drawings are dead right? I know of his reputation, of course, but it wouldn't be the first time something held in esteem had been in error.

It could as easily be a draughting error, or a mix of drawing and kit errors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bentley worked from Hawker's production drawings, showing the size of the individual parts as built. So yes, they have been compared against known dimensions. They've been around for many years now and have borne up under more-or-less continuous study - other than the faulty reprints, and (I think) some minor changes to the rear cockpit fairing. I agree that everyone makes errors - Bentley's Bf110G is one example - but this set is as near gold standard as is possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the responses.

I posted up the story behind the plans as in this case i think Mr Bentley had to check and recheck.

The plans in the photo are from the 2005 reprint from Model Aircraft Monthly, and a set of the original issue plans from Scale Models I had copies up also match these.

New%20Airfix%20Hurricane%20vs%20Bentley%

I wiggled the bits about but it looks like Airfix, or their CAD chaps have stretched the first fabric access panel a bit, note pencil lines and full panel shown bottom right...and compare to the photo below. The panel looks too long. The pencil line on the fin shows the line of the fin underneath.

lewis3.jpg

The DH Hurricane type spinner is too long, and as result too wide at the base, but flat sanding this back about 1mm and deepening the blades slots and some scraping back of the back plate will cure this.

I over cut mine back, so a photo won't help much.

More on Hurricane props and spinners here

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234980181-hawker-hurricane-propellers-and-spinners-a-modellers-guide/

Regarding Hurricane dimensions, these have been the subject of controversy as well, with different lengths quoted, and the one regarded as correct are to the tip of the engine prop boss, presumably due to the ability to fit different propellers, so I don't know of accurate station drawings, though Steve Smar maybe able to shed some light on this.

As Tony says, even if this in error, it is still the best Hurricane in 1/48th and most certainly looks the part.

cheers

T

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy, the photo link didn't work again. This is also true of your last post in the Seafire III thread. It may only be my end, but I know you've been getting used to a new host system.

bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

bob, Malcolm, Image now up on photobucket, so should work? They were on postimage, which is easier use, to much bloat and ads on photobucket.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy... I would put out a few things...

One. I know from personal experience the level of research Airfix tries to put into their latest kits...tha they want to do it right

Two. Bentley and accuracy of his drawings are well known and Airfix would have known that and I would say with a high degree of confidence Airfix knew of these drawings.. and would make their life so easy just to use them...if it WAS that easy

Three. The drawing are from 2005 printed in a magazine...the kit is from 2015 done direct in CAD it from the data points, the measurements......so question if you took the drawings and measure the measurements to see if they responded?

If something says it a foot, or if something said it measures 30 feet 6 inches, oes it actually measure a scale foot or scale 30 feet 6 inchs on the drawing?

Airfix is no slouch in doing the research and im sure they knew this resources so there if there's a discrepancy there's may be a good reason

They may of had later data or work from an actual hurricane or the drawing from 2005 is not reproduce correctly

bottom line I'd be really shocked if Airfix didn't talk to Al Bentley during the research for this kit...

So while it legit question why there's a discrepancy I'm inclined to think there's a legit answer..

I could be wrong and Airfix didnt do their homework... but it just doesn't sound like the Airfix of late

They seem to one of the few model companies that really does their homework

I'd withhold judgement at this point and have an open mind as to what the reasons are for the discrepancies

Edited by HBBates
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Airfix is no slouch in doing the research" - well they must have had an off day with the 1/72 Blenheim. But in any event I'm with Tony on this kit.

Edited by leyreynolds
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Airfix is no slouch in doing the research" - well they must have had an off day with the 1/72 Blenheim. But in any event I'm with Tony on this kit.

So, what's wrong with the Blenheim?

Nick

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what's wrong with the Blenheim?

Nick

The Airfix Blenheim is fine if you want to build a Bolingbroke. Airfix LIDARed the flying Bolingbroke, which purports to be a Blenheim, and forgot (or didn't twig) that some changes were needed, e.g. the shape of the nacelles above the wings.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One. I know from personal experience the level of research Airfix tries to put into their latest kits...tha they want to do it right

I could be wrong and Airfix didnt do their homework... but it just doesn't sound like the Airfix of late

That sounds like Airfix only started to do proper research in the Hornby era. I may be biased, but I'd say there are enough examples of Airfix doing their homework as well in the 70s (at least).

As great a thing as LIDAR may be, it yields results only as good as the original it is used on. If that's a restoration, the results obviously depend on the qulity of the restoration. If the restoaration used some compromises for whatever reason, e.g. to obtain a CoA for a flying example, that will be faithfully replicated unless sorted out by someone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HBBates: Whilst what you argue is entirely sensible in general, this is not a new debate. The matter of how the published drawings scale has been gone into ad nauseam over these Hurricanes drawings in particular. The originals published in Scale Models magazine were done properly, but some of the later reprints were not, suffering from "printer stretch". This led to considerable debate in modelling circles, and he redrew them to avoid this problem with his own sales. However, when last year I asked him about buying new plans in 1/72 scale, he assured me that if I had the originals, then they still stand up.

Moral: model in 1/72.

Most model companies do their homework, then and now, but it is partly a matter of what references they study, how much time they have to spend on it, and who is doing the work. I've no doubt that AL Bentley has, over the years, spent more time on those drawings than Airfix has put into their Hurricanes. Let's also bear in mind he was professionally employed within the industry so was taking genuine engineering experience of how aircraft are shaped with him when he studied the originals to create his drawings. Something generally lacking inside the model industry, hence the continued appearance of model aircraft with impossible shapes - as we're talking Hurricanes look at all older kits with noses that were not wide enough to fit a Merlin inside! To find these we only have to go back to the fairly recent Airfix Hurricane Mk.IIc/b kits, and this year I have seen a photo of a new resin nose with the same fault!

Re LIDAR: this is an magnificent measuring tool, but you can't go straight from a data cloud to a finished model. Surely it has helped enormously in getting real shapes into the design process, but in the end it is just one more reference that needs to be placed in context. The Blenheim/Bolingbroke is an excellent example of this. The shape of the engine nacelles is perhaps not immediately obvious, but the air intakes on the cooling rings are just not visible in any Blenheim photo. Here Airfix have relied upon viewing, with LIDAR or even not, one restored single example of the type without cross-checking against other references (like any Blenheim photo). Had they done so then possibly alarm bells would have been set ringing, but after all it is human nature not to notice something you are unaware of! These intakes have been removed from the Duxford airframe, and are very easily removed from the model.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy... I would put out a few things...

One. I know from personal experience the level of research Airfix tries to put into their latest kits...tha they want to do it right

Two. Bentley and accuracy of his drawings are well known and Airfix would have known that and I would say with a high degree of confidence Airfix knew of these drawings.. and would make their life so easy just to use them...if it WAS that easy

Three. The drawing are from 2005 printed in a magazine...the kit is from 2015 done direct in CAD it from the data points, the measurements......so question if you took the drawings and measure the measurements to see if they responded?

If something says it a foot, or if something said it measures 30 feet 6 inches, oes it actually measure a scale foot or scale 30 feet 6 inchs on the drawing?

Airfix is no slouch in doing the research and im sure they knew this resources so there if there's a discrepancy there's may be a good reason

They may of had later data or work from an actual hurricane or the drawing from 2005 is not reproduce correctly

bottom line I'd be really shocked if Airfix didn't talk to Al Bentley during the research for this kit...

So while it legit question why there's a discrepancy I'm inclined to think there's a legit answer..

I could be wrong and Airfix didnt do their homework... but it just doesn't sound like the Airfix of late

They seem to one of the few model companies that really does their homework

I'd withhold judgement at this point and have an open mind as to what the reasons are for the discrepancies

Perhaps someone can explain to me that with all this research and LIDAR technology Airfix have missed out the upper fuselage I/D light, as well as the pilot's rear view mirror ?

I know that not all Hurricanes had mirrors fitted, but it would have been nice to have them included in the kit.

Also, according to Airfiix the cowling fasteners are prominent round "Rings" which look nothing like the actual items. Perhaps I'm being a bit "Picky" but since we're discussing the finer details I thought I'd mention it. I'll now get me coat !

Edited by Starfighter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on Troy's first photo, is the fin chord not also at odds with Mr. Bentley? Or am I missing something obvious?

I will still have to own the kit though...it looks wonderful overall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't build 1/48 scale so I don't have much skin in this game, but I'm not unsymphathetic to Airfix.

In my own line ofwork, all the data and observations are collected by trained staff, supervised by experts. All those data are checked by a different staff member after collation.

The expert assesses all of the data, compares it with previous findings, considers deviations/differences, accepts or rejects the data.

Final, accepted data is auditted by an independent expert.

The whole process is subject to external monitoring within a legal framework.

And errors still get reported.

Bottom line, people will make errors, other people won't pick them up at the time or for some time afterwards. It's infuriating, but at least in this case it isn't life-threatening.

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...