Jump to content
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. :)

Troy Smith

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

Recommended Posts

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. :)

What spinner is fitted when is a matter of common confusion.

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

Regarding the baseplate, the DH Hurricane unit should be a touch smaller than the nose ring.

The spinner fitted to L1592 in the Science Museum is the DH Hurricane unit, and this walkround should give you an idea of how it should look.

http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/mark_hayward/hurricane_mk1_l1592/

this is how it should appear on the nose

http://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/mark_hayward/hurricane_mk1_l1592/images/hurricane_mk1_l1592_10_of_26.jpg

note it being slightly smaller than the nose ring.

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

Been working on a response, which needs some photos, but in short, the length may refer to the tip of the prop shaft, and i have seen different lengths quoted.

But, the standard Mk I externals side of the 2005, when a ruler is laid over the wing it is bang on 10 inches, which is what 40 ft in 1/48th is.

I will add a proper response later with some other findings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for your input, Troy. I forgot to say I had read that topic, very good information there.

I am indeed a bit confused regarding the different spinners, but this may very well mean I need to take another look at the above topic.

Still, makes me wonder if the Airfix spinner may be the Spitfire DH type?

Either way, I hope I'm not adding any confusion here and I'm quite happy with the look of Airfix spinner as it comes in the box. :)

Also, I will soon doublecheck to see how the kit spinner sits on the nose and if there is a small step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to the idea that "The argument that Airfix did so much research before making this kit is a bit far fetched"... I think you could be missing a point

All the the source your looking to that went before...were avaible to Airfix before they even started... the simpliest low cost path for them would of been to follow the well know commonly accepted drawings.. and producted something that matched the other... same references, same assumptions, same results

But they didnt...they came up with something diffrent

So if they did not follow the same references and get the same results

Then they either blew off all the previouse information and got an error

Or they added new original information to revalidate previous information (no assumtion), found an error and corrected.(However let me add the bigger the new diffrence you find from the past data the more you must double check yourself, else you get Eduards 109;)

I worked for years troubleshooting telcom... I dealt with what is called "chronics" things that never seem to get resolved and I resolved them.

The way you do that is to toss out all the assumptions in the old trouble tickets going back to day one .. all the conclusions ...and just look at the data and revalidate everything ... basically tear down and reassemble it again and you would alway find errors in the past that were the cause, the source of the problem...

Edited by HBBates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
my Airfix Spitfire Mk.I – at least no length issue there. :winkgrin:
Cheers, Peter

Famous last words.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for your input, Troy. I forgot to say I had read that topic, very good information there.

I am indeed a bit confused regarding the different spinners, but this may very well mean I need to take another look at the above topic.

Still, makes me wonder if the Airfix spinner may be the Spitfire DH type?

Either way, I hope I'm not adding any confusion here and I'm quite happy with the look of Airfix spinner as it comes in the box. :)

Also, I will soon doublecheck to see how the kit spinner sits on the nose and if there is a small step.

Hi Anders

The linked topic was my attempt to give a clear visual guide for the modeller.

I would be surprised if this meant to be the DH Spitfire type, as that had relatively short use, being used until the Hurricane type became available, from early 1940 it seems from photos.

The DH Spitfire type AFAIK was only used on on L**** and N**** serial planes, and OOB the Airfix kit will not build these. The DH Spitfire unit was made to fit the Spitfire, and thus is slightly wider at the base as the Spitfire has a bigger nose ring, same as the Spitfire Rotol unit.

This is what is shown in this photo

http://s23.postimg.cc/ml3chcjuj/Hurricane_DH_Spinner_comparison.png

the DH Hurricane unit had much longer service use, in the Middle East and on Sea Hurricanes, both of which are options in the Airfix kit if you have decals, and I presume will be options in future boxings, or if you have AM decals, as Tony O Toole has been demonstratiing to good effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such a pity that you never thought to point that out at the time, but 20/20 hindsight is such a useful tool.

Actually Edgar I have on several occasions when I have posted gentle comments citing the notation "do not scale" in this thread and others. In fact I note that when I have done so I have received likes from those who can see what I meant.

Edited by MilneBay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been a very interesting thread.

To recap, it gives me no pleasure that there maybe an error in the new Airfix Hurricane at all, as Vedran correctly surmised.

I wanted the thing to be perfect. I also wanted it tooled up for a Mk II as well.....

If there are faults, fortunately it seems to be 'invisible' as far as the fuselage goes, except for the funny shape of the port fabric covered access panel.

The DH spinner needs further research work, not helped by my initial careless hacking, but I think it's fixable with some patience and skill.

I have asked a member here to clarify when drawings are what from Arthur Bentley, and am waiting a response.

I'm trying to be 'scientific', in as much as I'm describing my methods and sources, which should be reproduceable for other with the same source material.

Edgar is correct about the scale bar not reading properly on the Bentley 2005 plans.

so, are the 2005 Bentley plans, or any other magazine reprints badly distorted?

Using a widely accepted Hurricane dimension, the wing span, which is 40', in 1/48th is 10 inches, or 254 mm.

There have been numerous post here about being wary of drawings, how way should one be if the drawings when measured give the correct dimensions?

OK. lets see. 2005 Bentley

AF%20Hu%20wings%20on%20plan%20DSCF0288_z

The camera distorts, but this is very close match, especially given the relatively large size involved. The underside view on this panel is the same. Is this reasonable to assume this at least is close enough? If you have the plans, please try this at home.

The Airfix wings measure 10"/254mm as well.

I should be noted on the flip of this print the front and back view of the wing are 1/16th inch short though.

The length of the fuselage is debatable, and the best dimension are to tip of prop shaft, which I don't know the length of accurately sticking out.

Steve Smar sent me a bigger version of the image he posted here.

HH-fuselage%20frame_zpscobuqqpj.jpg

I believe this is a construction drawing, note the various dimensions, both lengths and of tube diameters.

At the top just visible on the large version is the figure of 254", (21'2") , 2nd figure past the crease, top right. If this is in error, what follows will be in error.

This is a figure for the fuselage frame from the centre of the front spar to the end of the structure not including the rudder post.

254" x 25.4=6451.6 mm / 48 = 134.4 mm

As the fuselage length has been a matter for debate, here are the 2005 Bentley drawings with a ruler, we are looking for 134.4 mm from main front spar centre to end or rear fuselage frame. I added a pencil line to the ruler at 134.5 ish
Bentley%20main%20frame%20ruler%20DSCF029
Bentley%20external%20ruler%20DSCF0294_zp

This looks to be a good match to the construction dimension.

Airfix Hurricane using same reference points

Af%20Hu%20Fu%20ruler%20DSCF0307_zpsf4cyt

Af%20Hu%20ruler%20top%20DSCF0311_zpsbxew

I am wondering if this maybe a silly glitch like the length being correct to the 'cut out' which is not a feature of the real airframe, but is of the model, and the CAD matching this, and not the trailing edge of the fin?

Also, going back to what I originally suggested as being the area that was too long, around the first fabric covered access hatch, if you line the fin leading edge with with the Bentley drawings, the rear of the wing to fuselage fillet matches, line the nose up and it further back the same amount as the tailplane.

The first fabric access hatch on the port side is longer than both the Bentley and Cooke drawings, with a shorter front edge as a result.

Hurricane_dimensions.jpg

The Cooke drawings in 'Hurricane Veracity are very useful, but the 3rd starboard access hatch is show as a parallelogram rather than a rectangle.

WhiteRusskieHurri002.jpg

from

http://sovietwarplanes.com/board/index.php?topic=23.30

I wanted to this earlier today, but life got in the way.

as usual, errors in methodology or corrections are much appreciated. I am not trying to score points or anything else, just find out what is 'correct' within reasonable limits.

I will also send a polite email to Hawker Restorations and see if they could be kind enough to supply some other dimensions to work with, or confirm any of the above.

EDIT - this is my 3,000 th post here. maybe I should be more worried about that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve Smar sent me a bigger version of the image he posted here.

HH-fuselage%20frame_zpscobuqqpj.jpg

I believe this is a construction drawing, note the various dimensions, both lengths and of tube diameters.

At the top just visible on the large version is the figure of 254", (21'2") , 2nd figure past the crease, top right. If this is in error, what follows will be in error.

This is a figure for the fuselage frame from the centre of the front spar to the end of the structure not including the rudder post.

254" x 25.4=6451.6 mm / 48 = 134.4 mm

As the fuselage length has been a matter for debate, here are the 2005 Bentley drawings with a ruler, we are looking for 134.4 mm from main front spar centre to end or rear fuselage frame. I added a pencil line to the ruler at 134.5 ish
Bentley%20main%20frame%20ruler%20DSCF029
Bentley%20external%20ruler%20DSCF0294_zp

This looks to be a good match to the construction dimension.

The top picture shows a length of 254" from the middle of the front spar to the end of the tubular framework. The bottom drawings show the same length to the rudder hinge line. But, these are NOT the same dimensions;

Take a look at the images of the rudder on the hurricane under restoration at the following link about 1/3 of the way down the page ( http://www.jneaircraft.com/am274/2008-2/ )

At the end of the framework there is a vertical post that serves as the spar for the vertical fin. It appears that the 254" dimension is to the middle of that vertical post. The rudder hinge line is at least a couple of inches aft of the center of the vertical post. This means, to me, that the dimension to the rudder hinge line that you show as 134.4ish mm on the general arrangement drawings, should be longer, and therefore closer to the dimension of the Airfix kit.

Edited by VMA131Marine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The safest approach is to use the measurements and other important data actually printed on a drawing not the drawing on its own. The Bentley drawings no matter how detailed are simply a line drawn picture of the aircraft not a guide to construction. One cannot guarantee that any drawing will not be distorted by the printing and copying process due to the nature of paper. I can understand the attraction of simply placing a kit component over what purports to be a drawing in the scale one is building in but it simply isn't a safe means to verify whether that component is correctly depicted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe Troy should rename this post to “the danger of using scale drawings”.
MilneBay, what you say is true, but the Bentley drawing is a scale drawing, showing the outline and proportions to scale and it does not have dimensions, only the scale bar. The accuracy of the reproduction is an other issue already talked about over and over. But it looks like the Model Aircraft print is ok in the Y axis and slightly under scale in the X axis.
The length of the fuselage is debatable, and the best dimension are to tip of prop shaft, which I don't know the length of accurately sticking out.
I found an official looking drawing in the Haynes Hawker Hurricane Manual and it shows the overall length from tip of the spinner to the end of the navigation light on the rudder.
There are two length shown for the Mk.I 31ft 5in (pre mod 730) and 31ft 2 5/8in (mod 730). My guess is that this mod 730 has something to do with the spinner.
Hope you will receive a reply from Hawker Restorations.
Cheers, Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It says here (a pretty good Hawker Hurricane site) that

Length (propellor-shaft to rear fin-post) 28ft. 10.5in.

Now it doesn't say which version, but since the overall length given is 32 ft 3in - Hurricane IIc.

So if we subtract the Mk.II extension of 4in we come to 28ft. 6.5in.

But!

How long is the propellor-shaft protruding from the fuselage?

What fun, eh? :winkgrin:

Vedran

The milimeter brigade

Edited by dragonlanceHR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know how to get more images like this (from the website that was linked to on page 4(?) of this thread.)
image.jpg1_zpswykbhrcr.jpg
I love seeing the renderings of the 3D model Airfix used.
(I thinks the above is from Airfix's 1/72 scale model)

(Not sure if I agree totally with the suggestion that Troy rename his thread "The dangers of scale drawings"...
Might I suggest "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Sprue's"
Or "Pride and Prejudice, experiments in determining dimensions in a world ruled by Heisenburgs uncertainty principle")
(Hope my sense of humour doesn't offend...)

Edited by StevSmar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just remembered an interesting piece of info about Hawker's tolerances, 'the acceptable tolerance in trueness of the fuselage was 2 inches" (my wording) I think it's in the repair manual or maintenance manual.

That seems a HUGE tolerance to me, but it does illustrate how even though we are very good at making things to fine tolerances, once you start putting all the bits together there will be variations... Especially for hand built things like the Hurricane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know how to get more images like this (from the website that was linked to on page 4(?) of this thread.)

[image]http://i1298.photobucket.com/albums/ag43/StevSmar/image.jpg1_zpswykbhrcr.jpg[\image]

I love seeing the renderings of the 3D model Airfix used.

(I thinks the above is from Airfix's 1/72 scale model)

(Not sure if I agree totally with the suggestion that Troy rename his thread "The dangers of scale drawings"...

Might I suggest "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Sprue's"

Or "Pride and Prejudice, experiments in determining dimensions in a world ruled by Heisenburgs uncertainty principle")

(Hope my sense of humour doesn't offend...)

And Kipling who said "There are no bad men, only bad officers" Were he alive today, besides being an avid follower of Brirmodeller, he would have said "There are no bad kits, only bad plans."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just remembered an interesting piece of info about Hawker's tolerances, 'the acceptable tolerance in trueness of the fuselage was 2 inches" (my wording) I think it's in the repair manual or maintenance manual.

That seems a HUGE tolerance to me, but it does illustrate how even though we are very good at making things to fine tolerances, once you start putting all the bits together there will be variations... Especially for hand built things like the Hurricane.

HI Steve

well, I tried to be funny with the Joyless Hurricane Nazi comment.

I was looking at a response to Vedran, but what is needed is some better actaul dimensions, though in light of the above...The dimensions quoted on the K5083 site are from the facsimile reprint of the Hurricane II manual, the length for the Mk II is actually listed as 32' 3" approximately when I dug it out...

Lucky I didn't tell him about the dirty knife!

for those puzzled....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dirty_Fork

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joyless Hurricane Nazi

Sorry Troy, I totally missed the humour, I though that all Nazi's were joyless? If you had said "Happy Hurricane Nazi" my slow witted brain would likely have picked it up immediately.... :bobby::bouncy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know how to get more images like this (from the website that was linked to on page 4(?) of this thread.)

Thank-you Mr Goggle and Mr Airfix:

a05127-detail-2_zpsdx683k0u.jpg

a05127-detail-3_zps2nc8ffjw.jpg

a05127-detail-1_zpsfbcxt87c.jpg

a05127-detail-4_zpselqedony.jpg

I hate to say this but I checked the above images against my scale drawings and it looks like a Hurricane to me.....

The scale drawings don't match with the thickness of the gun access panels. I suspect that the ______ are in error and the _____ are correct, :bouncy: though the jugs look spot on.

(I better get some more sleep, before I :hanging: myself with bad humour)

Edited by StevSmar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know how to get more images like this (from the website that was linked to on page 4(?) of this thread.)

image.jpg1_zpswykbhrcr.jpg

I love seeing the renderings of the 3D model Airfix used.

(I thinks the above is from Airfix's 1/72 scale model)

Err, I think '© Not for Reposting' means the photo owner doesn't want that posted anywhere other than where it was posted (POssibly because Airfix have limited it to that?)

Edited by Dave Fleming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've had a complaint from a member about this thread, but on balance, having read through it it seems to have stayed on-track, and hasn't been subject to the histrionics that sometimes accompany this sort of subject. I doubt that anyone has an "agenda" to prove, but I have noted an occasional exaggeration of the reactions to the finding of an error that could be seen as trollish, so let's have no more of that eh?

I enjoy seeing sensible discussions of subjects like this, although I sometimes roll my eyes a bit when someone cries "It's 0.3mm out and unbuildable!!!!", but happily that doesn't often happen here, and when it does, the wringer of hands doesn't usually get much credence. Stay on topic, keep it light, and above all don't take a razor saw to anything unless YOU think it's the right thing to do. That way you've got no-one to blame but yourself ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just remembered an interesting piece of info about Hawker's tolerances, 'the acceptable tolerance in trueness of the fuselage was 2 inches" (my wording) I think it's in the repair manual or maintenance manual.

That seems a HUGE tolerance to me, but it does illustrate how even though we are very good at making things to fine tolerances, once you start putting all the bits together there will be variations... Especially for hand built things like the Hurricane.

It's called tolerance stacking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerance_analysis

Related to what I mentioned earlier, Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing (GDT).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_dimensioning_and_tolerancing

It's all very technical :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I cared enough to dig out the old Airfix kit from the attic, and taped it to the new Airfix beauty.

It required some wrangling since the new plastic is so pliable, I believe this accounts for some excess lenght when pressed onto the drawing.

7Guoa2c.jpg

xqB7Gqm.jpg

C2cbMJm.jpg

Anyhow, please note the position of the bumps in the nose and that the tail is just over 1 mm further back... long live the new 1/48 Hurricane king.

The Platz Hypercut saw has left the building.

Vedran

The milimeter brigade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...... (and, yes, I have tried it with two rulers.)......

Reminds me of a problem I had..... I was building some elevators for a full-size aircraft (now sold, long story..) and something wasn't right, eventually after much head scratching I realized that the problem was that my 1200mm and 900mm steel rulers were out by 1mm at around the 600mm mark. No problem, I'll purchase another steel rule and throw out the one that's wrong. Wouldn't you know it, but the third bugger of a ruler split the error and now I had three rulers which were out by 1/2 a millimetre....

I still don't know which one is wrong....Luckily there is medication you can take which helps you not care, plus as an added bonus it makes your eyes wonky so you can't read millimetres anyway- problem solved !

Edited by StevSmar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who Cares.

Lots of people as 7 pages of interesting and well mannered discussion has shown.

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...