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

a really proper response will take me a an hour or two work, but a few points,

.........The new 1/48th Airfix Hurricane is basically a scaled up version of their 1/72nd fabric wing kit.

.........Now, comments on paper stretch, plans varying and the like are all well and good, but the bottom line is that there are errors in the Airfix kits, and these are visible from photos, so a small length error is quite possible (and actually not visible) where the other problems, like the side panels, spinner and wheels are......there is also the problem the thick trailing edge, thick Rotol spinner backplate, (easy fixes) and one piece ailerons, which is tough, though Basilisk did it,

........To sum up, Airfix's A team did the Spitfire Vb/I kit, the B team did the Hurricane.

T

I cannot understand why at this stage after so much discussion of the correct use of drawings that some people still seem to think that you use them as templates over which to lay parts or to make parts.

..........These days the process is all done on computer software but the principles applying to paper copies are still the same. And paper copies are still produced and used for quick reference but no one with any understanding is using those as simple templates, so why are some modellers still clinging to the idea that printed drawings no matter how beautifully done are safe templates for accurate modelling.

Don't get me wrong- I have no issue with the use of scale drawings. I think they're great for picking up things like the wrong size panels etc. I think everyone is in agreement that they're a bit stretchy for scaling dimensions from- but if you have nothing else why not use them for that?

I tried drawing up the Hurricane in 3D from the Hawker drawings I had and quickly realized that:

- my computer sucked and needed more horsepower.

- 3D drafting in anything other than a solid modelling program sucks.

- 3D drafting sucks. It sucks less if you have a 3D mouse, but it still sucks.

- I didn't have enough drawings to make any sensible conclusions on gross dimensions of the Hurricane.

There are published dimensions for the various marks of Hurricanes, so we should probably use those until better info is available.

It really gets down to what you're trying to do:

- If you're building plastic models- if it looks like it does in photos (or even reputable scale drawings) then you're golden.

- If you're drawing the Hurricane in 3D then you are unlikely to be making models- cause 3D drafting suck big time- or is that sucks time big....

- if you're restoring a Hurricane, then you'll likely have enough pieces of junk to guess the dimensions you don't have.

I personally think this topic has run its course- that is unless we forget about plastic models and start on the real work- comparing Mr. Bentleys drawings to Unrestored Hurricanes(!) so we can help him make a more accurate revision 3 of his wonderful drawing set!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 for Troys last post!

I guess you would need some way of taking measurements from a known reference point and reference plane (mathematical not aero-plane....)

I would ask around companies who have restored airplanes to see if they have an idea on how to field measure.

Maybe you could interest a University in using LIDAR?

Currently looking for the website where they LIDAR'd the Hawker Tempest, I think it's somewhere in here:

http://www.typhoonlegacy.com/

From the News page:

17 October 2015

Thanks to the permission and assistance provided by the Canadian Aviation and Space Museum and the Royal Air Force Museum, we were able to complete the scanning of MN235's wing. The data is still being processed, but once complete it will be used in conjunction with known data in an effort to reverse engineer new wings for JP843. During the visit with MN235, several measurments were also taken from the forward monocoque section of the fuseage; these measurments will be used to help with the ongoing work of this area for JP843.

You can also look at another Typhoon website:

http://www.hawkertyphoon.com/

Both of these sites appear to have a more active Facebook presence than website presence.

Edited by StevSmar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fine Malcolm

You are making the same point, again. ....

How about instead of absolutes, the focus is on relative error, How close is 'good enough'

right, it's late, can I end on a request, I asked at Hendon if it was possible to measure P2617, their Mk I Hurricane, this was given a tentative positive answer.
what are the tools, techniques and pitfalls of measuring an existing airframe, and I'll go and measure if it I can.
TIA
T

Is close enough good enough satisfactory in modelling terms? To some yes and to others no.

I probably fall, like most modellers, in the close enough good enough group and I have no problem especially as in the common modelling scales the differences can be pretty insignificant if the overall dimensions etc. appear to be pretty near to correct. But as we have seen many people still cling to the idea that a paper print of a drawing is the benchmark and it isn't. Mr Bentley's drawings are well done etc. but as I pointed out they are no more a template than a painting of some object by a painter of the photo-realist school or for that matter an actual photograph of an object (we all remember Gaston Marty's use of photographs). And when the behaviour of the medium on which the drawing is printed is taken into account then the variables are exacerbated.

So no matter how much we proclaim how wonderful a drawing by someone is, the reality is that it is the measurements quoted and not the artwork that is important. I used the Bentley drawings when I converted the old Airfix 1/48 Hurricane to the prototype's appearance on its first flight. But only as a visual guide to the placement of panels, fabric etc. for which they were excellent backups for what I could discern from photographs - that's all. They are an excellent guide to be sure but templates they aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

......so a small length error is quite possible (and actually not visible) where the other problems, like the side panels, spinner and wheels are.

there is also the problem the thick trailing edge, thick Rotol spinner backplate, (easy fixes) and one piece ailerons, which is tough, though Basilisk did it,

To sum up, Airfix's A team did the Spitfire Vb/I kit, the B team did the Hurricane.

T

Nice links Troy!

Well, I am now a bit more disappointed with the Airfix Hurricane, some of the errors are quite glaring...

But there's always a bit of gold in our lumps of coal... I think I'm now more happy with the Italerie Sea Hurricane. Maybe I won't get rid of it after all.... LOL.

I should maybe get a Trumpeter 1/24 MkI for the collection? Or probably the MkIIc? Then I'd have all major Mk's in 1/24? Both Airfix and Trumpeter.

I just gave away my 2nd Airfix 1/24 Hurricane- the joy of my friends daughter n receiving this and the other Hurricanes from my collection was very gratifying, even some friends have agreed to provide some spare paints for her!

Edited by StevSmar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.....Drawn by a reputable draughtsman, who specialises in aircraft, from the DIMENSIONED MANUFACTURING SUB ASSEMBLIES

as described in the cutting belowHurricaneBentleynotescrop_zpsc6a2675f.jp

I don't expect them to be 'perfect', but they are the best we have,

.....the relationship between panel lines and shapes on the drawings is consistent with the study of many photos,

.....The plans and photos agree, a major given actual dimension and the plans agree to within a small error, (and we still don't really have a good overall fuselage dimension.)

the kits don't.

......As noted in the cutting, there are some bloody awful Hurricane plans out there, in respectable books, it should be noted on which the Airfix 1/72nd Hurricane IIc was based, and matches those well, which is why its a caricature.

.....T

Ah....., Mr Bently used the 1/8th key plans! I'd forgotten about that. These are the drawings which Hawkers used to reference which major assemblies are used to make up each mark of Hurricane! Without these you don't know what assemblies to use- a most interesting technique (to me....).

These are, by wartime necessity I guess, not really to scale. There's so much detail drawn in that I bet the best draftperson by necessity scaled down the assembly drawing and made it fit into the 1/8th key plan/master plan!

Once again some thoughtful posts have led to some interesting conclusions! Thanks to all who contributed to the lively discussion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solid works student edition- only $150 US!!! Plus $3000 for a laptop capable of running it...LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is close enough good enough satisfactory in modelling terms? To some yes and to others no.

I probably fall, like most modellers, in the close enough good enough group and I have no problem especially as in the common modelling scales the differences can be pretty insignificant if the overall dimensions etc. appear to be pretty near to correct. But as we have seen many people still cling to the idea that a paper print of a drawing is the benchmark and it isn't. Mr Bentley's drawings are well done etc. but as I pointed out they are no more a template than a painting of some object by a painter of the photo-realist school or for that matter an actual photograph of an object (we all remember Gaston Marty's use of photographs). And when the behaviour of the medium on which the drawing is printed is taken into account then the variables are exacerbated.

So no matter how much we proclaim how wonderful a drawing by someone is, the reality is that it is the measurements quoted and not the artwork that is important. I used the Bentley drawings when I converted the old Airfix 1/48 Hurricane to the prototype's appearance on its first flight. But only as a visual guide to the placement of panels, fabric etc. for which they were excellent backups for what I could discern from photographs - that's all. They are an excellent guide to be sure but templates they aren't.

shame you didn't follow them slavishly, as you didn't pay attention to them,or photos it seems

from

http://www.network54.com/Forum/578046/thread/1355716807/WIP+-+Airfix+1-48+Hurricane+Prototype,+finished+%26gt%3B

your model

HurricanePrototype11.jpg

as you would have then got the engine and fuselage panels right, and the higher cockpit hood.... all clearly shown on the Bentley drawings. You just rescribed the kit panel lines.

To show what I mean, these diferences are clearly seen here.

hurr1-1.jpg

at the risk of being bitchy, for someone whose banging on about paper stretch and vagueness of drawings, you failed to notice some pretty major differences.

I still didn't get an response to what about drawings, paper stretch and all, that are a near as dammit match to a set of known dimensions, as this shown here?

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

remember, wingspan in 1/48th is 10 inches, and thus the centreline is 5 inches, as seen in the photo. And this makes them 'a charicature'?

so, drawings from a reputable source, with a background in aviation engineering, with background info as to why they got rechecked, which then are a match to stated actual dimensions, are still suspect.

While not 'perfect' they are within acceptable limits to assess a model kit of the same subject.

as for paper stretch, I have a set of Bentley plans xeroxed up to 1/48th, 30 years ago, requiring 2 enlargements, as the machine would enlargement in one go, done the from the original Scale Models magazine print, which are a match to the 2005 reprint, when held up over a window over each other.

could just be chance, or I got lucky.

Steve, I shall respond to your posts later.

So no matter how much we proclaim how wonderful a drawing by someone is, the reality is that it is the measurements quoted and not the artwork that is important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep that damned hood was a real problem - so I went for the close enough is good enough approach. One day I may redo it. :weep:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been following this thread with much interest but I've not seen mention of this book:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Scale-Plans-No-26-Hawker-Hurricane-Mk-I-by-Mushroom-Model-Publications-/301837037209?hash=item4646e3ae99:g:j5UAAOSw71BXPqCs

Are there any opinions on it worth commenting on at all? I'm sure Troy must have devoured it immediately!

Nige B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there any opinions on it worth commenting on at all? I'm sure Troy must have devoured it immediately!

Nige B

Depends upon who made the drawings.

I have no idea about this book, but i know that their A-36 book has excellent scale drawings by Juanita Franzi.

Pity that the text is riddled with ancient inaccuracies that just won't die.

Vedran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep that damned hood was a real problem - so I went for the close enough is good enough approach. One day I may redo it. :weep:

Nice job on the Hurricane prototype model!

http://www.network54.com/Forum/578046/thread/1355716807/WIP+-+Airfix+1-48+Hurricane+Prototype,+finished+%26gt%3B

It's on my list to make once I retire....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Steve - the whole thing came about because I had a spare Airfix old mould 1/48 Hurricane sitting in the pile. So I just thought well what the hell I'll have a go at it. Not the greatest model of all time as has been pointed out but it was fun. :pilot:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at the risk of being bitchy...

Well, butting in, I think you have gone well over that "line" with that last post, Troy. And a pat on the back to MilneBay for a gracious response (at least in public :winkgrin: )

Now, just an observation: While working on my Spiteful project, I got out my large-paper drawings, which are copies of Supermarine engineering drawings, put on "slides", printed out on paper at the RAF Museum. Then I measured some dimension, figured the necessary reduction (to nearest percent, all the copier would take) to reduce to approximately 1/48. To my surprise, once they were shrunk down to scale (often in pieces because of the starting drawing size) they seemed to be about right, with any draftsman's error (or "close-enough-ness") shrunk to a small distance from what should be. They ended up being useful references for figuring corrections to kit parts (allowing me to get within my personal definition of "close enough"!)

None of that is meant to say that using plans as a target shape is a perfectly safe and accurate thing to do, and I did have one wing drawing where it seemed that while the span was right, the chord had "stretched" along the way- I'm not entirely convinced that was the case, but it seemed to be. I also had one where the leading edge had a definite "S-curve" to it, instead of being a straight line- I think this was from some slop in the large-sheet printer at the museum, but don't know for certain. Bottom line remains that dimensions are the key, but the shape of the drawing can potentially be a useful ballpark tool, if the drawing has some basis on reality, and not just an artist's "that looks like a Hurricane to me" attempt.

As the saying goes (with my modification), "Measure a whole bunch of times, and then cut about there."

bob

Edited by gingerbob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been following this thread with much interest but I've not seen mention of this book:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Scale-Plans-No-26-Hawker-Hurricane-Mk-I-by-Mushroom-Model-Publications-/301837037209?hash=item4646e3ae99:g:j5UAAOSw71BXPqCs

Are there any opinions on it worth commenting on at all? I'm sure Troy must have devoured it immediately!

Nigh B

I liked the book, I found it quite comprehensive for the number of pages. I haven't done an in-depth review of the accuracy of the drawings- I'll leave that to others.

Don't order it from eBay unless you're either getting a good deal, or sure it's the second edition that was recently released...

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...