Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Well, in the light on the latest information, I better extend my fuselage again by the 2mm I removed!


So it looks that all the kits (I know) before the new 1/48 Airfix kit have a rear fuselage which is 10 cm (in 1/1) too short. And this includes the new 1/72 Airfix Hurricane Mk.I which is a 100% match on the Bently drawings I reduced to 1/72 scale.


I found it amusing that after 3 pages of talking about how we shouldn’t rely on drawings to compare models, the copy of the drawing Edgar used is then seen by some as the holy grail of all Hurricane drawings.


Nonetheless, some great information here and the post on HS was a good read.

Peter


Just as a reference, Peter Cooke's article and drawings is published in Scale Aircraft Modelling Volume 21 Number 8 October 1999.


But when I line-up the fuselage with the panel line just in front of the cockpit on the drawing (extended by a pencile line), I get this result.

Airfix-Hurri-8.jpg


And the same with the Italeri fuselage.

Airfix-Hurri-9.jpg


Just some food for thoughts - Maybe I wait a bit with lengthening the fusealge again.

Edited by Basilisk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a reference, Peter Cooke's article and drawings is published in Scale Aircraft Modelling Volume 21 Number 8 October 1999.

If I can't see a scale bar on the x axis at least, I don't know whether the magazine (SAM in this case) has reproduced the plans correctly to scale. With the best will in the world to try and present accurate plans, magazine editors still have printers who slightly reduce or enlarge scale plans to properly fit the page or that are stretched or reduced in only one axis.

For myself, that drawing could have been drawn by God himself, but without a scale bar I don't know if it's correct. Can we all see the bar as well as the model? Otherwise, it didn't happen.

Shane

(edited for spelling)

Edited by Shane
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I have a set of Arthurs drawings crisply printed for me about 2 years back. No I am not going to get them out. I am building the new Airfix Hurricane and its a sod just getting the cockpit together. I don't care if its slightly out. I am absolutely defy anyone to tell me that they can spot the fault when completed. I did not enjoy the Hasi and I am selling my stash of 12 as fast as I can. Troy your a mate and I think you need help :)

PS. I think its great that airfix are back in the game with their recent releases in 1/48 and 1/24

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I can't see a scale bar on the x axis at least, I don't know whether the magazine (SAM in this case) has reproduced the plans correctly to scale. With the best will in the world to try and present accurate plans, magazine editors still have printers who slightly reduce or enlarge scale plans to properly fit the page or that are stretched or reduced in only one axis.

For myself, that drawing could have been drawn by God himself, but without a scale bar I don't know if it's correct. Can we all see the bar as well as the model? Otherwise, it didn't happen.

Shane, valid points, but this is the same drawing Edgar used.

Well I have a set of Arthurs drawings crisply printed for me about 2 years back. No I am not going to get them out. I am building the new Airfix Hurricane and its a sod just getting the cockpit together. I don't care if its slightly out. I am absolutely defy anyone to tell me that they can spot the fault when completed. I did not enjoy the Hasi and I am selling my stash of 12 as fast as I can. Troy your a mate and I think you need help :)

PS. I think its great that airfix are back in the game with their recent releases in 1/48 and 1/24

Sean, so why did you buy the drawing if you not using it :shrug: I fully agree, it is great to see what Airfix is releasing. I said before that it is a great kit, but that shouldn't stop us from discussing possible errors in a model.

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for previous staff measuring kits, they obviously had a wonky measure based on the number of inaccurate kits released (Nimrod, Sea Harrier, Hurricane II to name 3)

There's no good measurement that can't be spoiled by the mould designers...

Link to post
Share on other sites

All this righteous indignation, regarding Arthur's work, is all very well, but we have yet to see one of his latest drawings, reworked by him after he got them back from Nexus. If there is a suspicion that a magazine reprint might not be all it's supposed to be, then anyone should have the right to say so.

When Peter Cooke produced his "Hurricane Veracity" article, he included 1/48 drawings of the fuselage, something that has been missed (or ignored.) I dug out my copy of the article, and laid the Airfix fuselage halves on top; the panel line, under the windshield, the swoop of the spine, and the shape of the fin all match perfectly, in fact the only "error" I could find was at the rear of the fin, where the fairings, surrounding the rudder hinges, were fitted, and that appears to be about 1mm.

We now have two men, both at the pinnacle of their chosen professions, who appear to have produced material which is at variance; I suggest that someone revert back to the methods we employed when this hobby was in its infancy, and get to some real airframes (preferably Hawker Restorations and Peter Vacher, whom Hornby used,) with a tape measure, then report back. My days of crawling under and over airframes are long gone.

PICT0008_zpso5dmll3b.jpg

I do hope this will be accepted as the requisite evidence.

Very Well said Edgar!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

For myself, that drawing could have been drawn by God himself, but without a scale bar I don't know if it's correct. Can we all see the bar as well as the model? Otherwise, it didn't happen.

No, because there isn't one, so it obviously didn't happen.

However, I can show you the bar on the set of Arthur's drawings by which so much store is being set. Metric aficionados will be unhappy with this, but, in 1/48 scale Imperial, 2" (should) = 8', but it's about 1/16" short (and, yes, I have tried it with two rulers.)

PICT0008_zpsnsfmkoqo.jpg

The saddest part of all this is the huge delight taken in finding an apparent fault in an Airfix kit, followed by an apparent reluctance to acknowledge that maybe further research might be needed.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

"huge delight"? Sorry, seeing precious little evidence of that.

I do find it surprising that we didn't immediately get a clear "from this to that" length (as we have for Spitfires) with which to do a direct check. Or did I overlook/forget that? And little attention paid to Troy's original observation of the inspection panel, and how that compares when using the Mk.I eyeball against photographic evidence.

"...maybe further research might be needed." Well, yeah, isn't that why Troy put up his observation for us to discuss?

bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me Edgar, but who was excited about "finding the fault"?

I for one wasn't and I sincerely doubt (from past correspondence on the subject of 1/48 Hurricanes) that Troy also wasn't.

This thread has been enlightening on many levels, and I'ts all about what modeling forums (fori?) are for.

And thanks to a similar thread on HS, I got me a new signature line.

Vedran

The milimeter brigade

Edited by dragonlanceHR
Link to post
Share on other sites

What strikes me as odd is that such a fuss is being made by people who may or may not be seeing an error in the Hurricane that may or may not be there when compared to drawings that may or may not be accurate!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

What strikes me as odd is that such a fuss is being made by people who may or may not be seeing an error in the Hurricane that may or may not be there when compared to drawings that may or may not be accurate!

I totally agree

Cheers

Terry McGrady

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, because there isn't one, so it obviously didn't happen.

However, I can show you the bar on the set of Arthur's drawings by which so much store is being set. Metric aficionados will be unhappy with this, but, in 1/48 scale Imperial, 2" (should) = 8', but it's about 1/16" short (and, yes, I have tried it with two rulers.)

PICT0008_zpsnsfmkoqo.jpg

The saddest part of all this is the huge delight taken in finding an apparent fault in an Airfix kit, followed by an apparent reluctance to acknowledge that maybe further research might be needed.

I recall being informed a few times previously that photocopying can 'adjust' the size of the original slightly and if copies are made of copies, then the error is compounded. Could that be the root of the phenomenon seen here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I am still curious about the length of the Airfix DH spinner.

I dug out a Hase sprue W for a quick comparison. Sorry for the less than perfect angle here, I don't really know why I didn't bother to remove the Hase spinner from said sprue...

7A6733C5-C531-42F7-9939-0D97B0685E6D.jpg

Any thoughts appreciated. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

vicount806x - totally agree - I work with cad all day drawing up buildings at 1:1 scale, put the model file on a drawing sheet and scale it down to 1;5, 1:50 or 1:500 print it and scale off the print and you will almost never get a true scaled dimension. That's why we always use scale bars so people can see if the print is true to scale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I am still curious about the length of the Airfix DH spinner.

I dug out a Hase sprue W for a quick comparison. Sorry for the less than perfect angle here, I don't really know why I didn't bother to remove the Hase spinner from said sprue...

Any thoughts appreciated. :)

If it's not too much trouble, the comparison/contrast would be a lot clearer if you could cut off both the spinner and the backing plate and pose them beside the Airfix assembly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall being informed a few times previously that photocopying can 'adjust' the size of the original slightly and if copies are made of copies, then the error is compounded. Could that be the root of the phenomenon seen here?

There is no photocopying involved; it's the original set of plans (as used at the start of all this,) taken from the magazine in 2005, and overlaid with a steel ruler, photographed from a range of about 2 feet.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The saddest part of all this is the huge delight taken in finding an apparent fault in an Airfix kit, followed by an apparent reluctance to acknowledge that maybe further research might be needed.

Please don't exaggerate Edgar, I didn't see any huge delight - all I saw was an interesting discussion about the dangers of using a drawing as a template. The discussion appears to have vindicated Airfix so where's the harm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The discussion appears to have vindicated Airfix so where's the harm.

Maybe in driving at least one modeller to hack his kit about unnecessarily? The Hurricane might only be £16.99, but it represents quite an investment for some.

If there's one lesson, I've learnt, in my several years of research, it's that it pays to be absolutely certain of your facts, before dashing off some piece of deathless prose.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe in driving at least one modeller to hack his kit about unnecessarily?

Well with all respect perhaps the modeller should have been aware of the dangers of using reproduced drawings as a template. Many of us are already aware of that and it isn't as if the matter hasn't been discussed before here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's not too much trouble, the comparison/contrast would be a lot clearer if you could cut off both the spinner and the backing plate and pose them beside the Airfix assembly.

You're quite right, here goes.

277CD0CB-7AE5-452A-81BE-43F443519772.jpg

As they build up differently I found that they are about equal in length once assembled.

Edit: The Airfix spinner is certainly wider at the base and (right or wrong) perhaps a little bulbous in shape.

I have no intention of breaking out my calipers so I think the Airfix spinner is close enough to work for me. Good thing, as I very much prefer the look of this spinner compared to the Spitfire Rotol type. :)

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

Well with all respect perhaps the modeller should have been aware of the dangers of using reproduced drawings as a template.

Such a pity that you never thought to point that out at the time, but 20/20 hindsight is such a useful tool.
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no photocopying involved; it's the original set of plans (as used at the start of all this,) taken from the magazine in 2005, and overlaid with a steel ruler, photographed from a range of about 2 feet.

I think you misunderstood - I wasn't suggesting you had photocopied the plans. I was pondering whether the suppliers had done it at several stages along the way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall being informed a few times previously that photocopying can 'adjust' the size of the original slightly and if copies are made of copies, then the error is compounded. Could that be the root of the phenomenon seen here?

Older copy machines certainly did this, I was told to avoid a black frame/line if the original was not perfectly placed. Newer machines with percentage point zooms should be somewhat better.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe in driving at least one modeller to hack his kit about unnecessarily? The Hurricane might only be £16.99, but it represents quite an investment for some.

If there's one lesson, I've learnt, in my several years of research, it's that it pays to be absolutely certain of your facts, before dashing off some piece of deathless prose.

I guess that is me. I shortened the fuselage before I came across Troy’s post and just showed the way I removed the extra 2mm if anyone feels inclined to do so too. But did I really hack my model unnecessarily? I think this verdict is not out yet!
Let me recap how I see it. We had a lengthy discussion about the danger of reproduction drawings which are certainly valid, but this doesn’t provide the answer we are looking for.
Until now, the Bentley drawings had been seen as accurate in representing the Hurricane and nowhere did I ever read that the Classic Airframe, Hasegawa and Italeri Hurricanes are too short. And now suddenly after Troy pointed out his finding, the new Airfix kit has to be right and all the other are 2mm too short!?
The argument that Airfix did so much research before making this kit is a bit far fetched. The same was said when the 1/72 scale ragwing Hurricane came out which has nonetheless several well known inaccuracies.
Yes the extra length is only 2mm, but this represents a difference of 10cm on the real aircraft which is certainly more than a rounding error. Sure, the 2mm difference are difficult to spot on the finished model (if at all). But that is not the point. I prefer a model accurately representing the original and it would be nice if there will be a conclusion eventually.
Unfortunately I don't have a Hurricane in my garage, so I can’t help with measuring the real thing. The published length of the Mk.I is 31ft 5in (9.576m) with a wingspan of 40ft 0in (12.192m) Unfortunately the length measurement doesn't indicate which spinner it is measured with and the length difference between the early Spitfire Type Rotol and the later production standard Rotol spinner is over 2mm in 1/48 – could that where the difference is coming from? Does anyone know with which spinner this length relates to?
I go now working on my Airfix Spitfire Mk.I – at least no length issue there. :winkgrin:
Cheers, Peter
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...