Hasegawa MC.202 fuselage problems?

[MDriskill]

Didn't want to hijack the excellent Italian fighters in Sicily thread currently nearby, but I see there an often-repeated reference to accuracy issues with the fuselage of the Hasegawa Macchi C.202 kits in 1/72 and 1/48.  I've seen this comment before, but never a detailed description of said issues?

 

My personal feeling is that Hasegawa actually got closer than most of the published drawings of this aircraft I've seen (weird geometry around the canopy being a persistent issue there), but stand ready to be enlightened!

[gingerbob]

Yes, I have the impression that the Tauro, despite its shortcomings, was considered more accurate in shape than the Hasegawa (1/48).  I'd have to go do some searching to support that, though, which I don't have time for this moment.

 

bob

Edited October 7, 2016 by gingerbob

[Graham Boak]

I hadn't read of any problems, so I'm looking forward to finding out.

[daniele0865]

From what I could find in Italian modellling forums some time ago, Hasegawa fuselage is 2.5-3 mm too short near the tail compared to the plans in Ali d'Italia (considered as the most precise and reliable plans published). In addition, the fairing aft of the head rest lacks 1 mm in height, so the the whole canopy results reduced in height. Also the cross section of the fuselage where it meets the wing root it's not correct: the wing to fuselage fairings should be more rounded resulting in a thicker wing roots near the fuelage.

Here: http://www.stormomagazine.com/ModelArticles/MC205/RiccardoTrotta/MC205_1a.html

you can find a description of the works involved in correcting the Tauro Model macchi.

Other modellers chose to try and correct the Hasegawa kit cutting the fuselage near the tail and inserting a 3 mm shim to get the right lenght and reducing the height of the cockpit side walls to hide the fairing height problem. No one, seems to have tackled the wing root problem.

 

Daniele

[gingerbob]

Great article, thanks Daniele!

[Giorgio N]

Daniele has posted the important information, so there's very little I can add. I first became aware of the problems of the Hasegawa kits when I bought their 1/72 kits and started discussing this on an Italian forum. It was then that Riccardo Trotta, the author of the linked article, mentioned me these problems, later confirmed when checking the kit against Brioschi drawings.The fuselage sections in particular would be quite hard to correct, so when I started building the kit I decided to just build it as it is without correcting any shape error

[MarkoZG]

Regarding the Hasegawa 1/72nd scale kit, please take a look at my old thread here, where I did all the neccessary surgery and photos show what should be modified:

 

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234918677-172-hasegawa-macchi-c202-folgore/#comment-1035539

 

I used the plans from Ali d'Italia book as I checked them and confirmed their accuracy.

It is not only the fuselage lenght but also the height of the spine and the shape of vertical tail leading edge.

There should be also minor contour adjustment with engine cowling sides and correction of starboard wing because Macchi fighters had wings of unequal span.

[Nick Millman]

Maybe I'm missing something but in the linked article the Hasegawa fuselage looks like a better fit to the plans than the Mister Kit replacement!

 

Nick

[MarkoZG]

They are the same in dimensions, Misterkit upgrade has improved cross-section of the spine behind the canopy, separated control surfaces, carved out fuselage bottom side and slightly different vertical tail.

It is just the angle of photographs that make it look different.

[Graham Boak]

Thanks to you, very informative, but I'm afraid that the sections didn't appear for me.  Sadly I don't have those Ali d'Ialia books but will dig out what I do have.

 

I do have the Supermodel MC205, though not the MC202.  I notice that comparison is made to a Tauro model, which I haven't seen.  Is this the same tooling, or does the Supermodel kit have its own problems?

[JackG]

All great information, thanks for the contributions.

 

The members have presented fixes for two different aircraft.  As I understand it, the lineage towards the 205 included a larger tail, redesigned cockpit and hump, larger antenna mast, and some changes to the wings - wiki source does not mention exactly what.

 

There is a review here, that indicates Hasegawa has combined both the 202 and 205 wing surfaces details (among other things), and essentially just grafted a larger tail onto the 202 mold to produce their 205.

http://hyperscale.com/features/2002/c202ws_1.htm

 

So ti appears Hasegawa has left the door open for someone to produce a more accurate 202 and 205.

 

regards,

Jack

 

 

 

[Giorgio N]

Marko, thanks for posting the link to your build, very interesting ! However I'm not sure about the wing, my 1/72 kit correctly has wings of different span

 

Graham, the Supermodel kit was 1/72, the Tauro is 1/48. The 1/72 Supermodel kit has a long list of inaccuracies, including a wrong position of the cockpit, wrong hump, wrong wing profile and a few others. I have an article in an old Italian magazine showing all the modifications required, it's really only a work for those who love doing major surgery.

 

Jack, the MC.205V is actually little more than a late series 202 with a new engine. The different engine required a different arrangement of the radiators and the 205 received a retractable tailwheel, however most of the structure was the same, including the hump and the tailplanes, so much that a number of 205s were actually rebuilt 202s. Think of it like the evolution from the Spitfire V to the Spit IX. Other modifications included different wing details to allow the carriage of 2 20mmguns, a modification that however did not appear immediately. The Veltro was intended as a stopgap while Macchi developed their "proper 205", the 205N Orione. This was a totally new aircraft and only 2 were built.

However the 202 saw the introduction of a large number of modifications during its production, and these reflect in a number of details. The horizontal tailplanes for example at some point changed to a type with larger compensation horns,type that was used on both late 202s and the 205s. 

The wing was modified too during the production of the 202, with the introduction at some point of the provision for wing mounted machine guns. As said before, the 205 at some point received 20mm guns in the wings and yes, Hasegawa made a bit of a mess in the details of the wings of their 1/48 kits. Interestingly, Italeri did the opposite error in their 1/72 kits and their 205 has no sign of the details of a proper 205 wing...

In order to build an early 202, the modeller has to modify a few things like well illustrated in the link posted. The same applies to the 1/72 kit.

[Graham Boak]

Thanks Daniele, Giorgio and Marko.  It turns out that I do have Ali d'Italia 2, with 1/48 plans only.  However I do have another booklet by Giorgio Apostoli, which reproduced side-view cutaways of the MC202 and MC205V.  These appear to be official Macchi drawings, and those for the MC202 are the ones reproduced in Riccardo Trotta's article linked above.  The problem here is that although they both scale to 8850mm overall (despite different spinners), the canopies are different and in slightly different positions.  Indeed, the Hasegawa MC202 kit matches the MC205V drawing well, both as to canopy depth and position, whilst showing the misplaced undersized canopy as shown above when placed on the MC202 drawing.   However, the Macchi MC205V canopy on the plans doesn't seem to match the photographs, and as you say they should be the same.  Riccard Trotta's page Brioschi is quoting an overall length for the MC205V of 8810mm, which because of the blunter spinner would seem to be compatible with the 8850 shown on the Macchi drawings for the MC202  (but not the same number for their MC205V).  So we have contradictory drawings from the same official source.  I suspect that the MC205V drawing has been incorrectly scaled to 8850, but this is a fairly small alteration and wouldn't explain the other disagreements.  

 

I would also say according to these plans the Hasegawa kit is the correct length overall, so any extension in the rear fuselage would need to be matched by a reduction elsewhere.  Could it be that the canopy is simply in the wrong place (and too small)?  

 

Just to be awkward, the Supermodel MC205V fuselage places its larger canopy in the same place as on the MC202 drawing and the fuselage has the same depth (ok, maybe a little tall).  The Italeri MC205V however does have one wing shorter than the other.  Not having unsealed it before today, I hadn't noticed the missing 20mm cannon but am now rather peeved about that.  So perhaps if I could use the Italaeri wing on the Supermodel fuselage (assuming it fits, and I could carry out other alterations) to end up with a better model?  I suspect it is easier just to trim the wings on the other kits.

 

I've yet to take and convert lots of measurements off the 1/48 Brioschi drawing I have, but have checked a few without finding anything surprising.

 

 

[Giorgio N]

I've finally found the Ali d'Italia drawings I knew I had placed somewhere. The ones I have are in 1/72 scale so I compared the parts directly.

These plans were drawn by the late Angelo Brioschi based on a number of sources and I would trust these over any factory drawing. Sadly Angelo passed away last year, it was a terrible day for the modelling community and those who had met him, as often happens with those who work hard in this hobby he was a true gentleman.

My check confirmed the lack of length after the hump, these mm can be added as Marko did in his model but this will not change the problems in the sections, especially around the hump. The Italeri kit is the same, as said before I could have glued one of their fuselage halves on the Hasegawa part and have a perfect fit.

 

Graham, if you're happy to sacrifice an Italeri wing you'll sure improve the Supermodel kit. Among some of the errors of this kit is an incorrect wing profile, so you'll have to work on the wing root to join the parts from the two kits. The Supermodel fuselage also seem to suffer from a lack of length (seems to be the same as the Hasegawa one, as my Supermodel 205 was built years ago I had to compare an assembled model, never too easy) and the hump shape is suspicious.

The lack of the 20mm gun in the Italeri 205 kit can be sorted by building one of those aircrafts that didn't carry them as these were introduced during the production. However some representation of the panel lines related to the presence of wing machine guns should be added, nothing difficult really.

 

Just for curiosity, I also compared the old Delta 2 MC.205V kit with the plans. Oh dear... the wings are the same span each side, the fuselage is longer than the Hasegawa but still a tad short, the hump and cockpit shape are wrong. It's a kit that really can just be built as it is, maybe sorting the wing span just for the sake of it but the rest is of very little value.

[MarkoZG]

Hi Giorgio,

I also adressed the issue with the hump and vertical tail leading edge by augmenting them with Milliput and bringing back to shape. I intend to compensate this increase in height on the clear part by adding plasticard to the bottom of it and by careful grinding and polishing of the clear part in order to remove its former panel lines. In that way I intend to "free" more clear plastic on the bottom of the hood which will be compensated with added plasticard.

 

Edited October 11, 2016 by MarkoZG

[tempestfan]

May I suggest that the Macchi factory drawings possibly suffer from a similar phenomenon as the Hawker large scale ones for the Hurricane, as Arthur Bentley reported almost 40 years ago. As the Macchi drawings would likely be for illustrative purposes only, they 'd not need to be 100% to scale. IIRC the Aeromodeller portfolio included drawings of the 202 by some Italian gentleman, how do those fare? 

Is there a bouquet for post 1k, which will be the next?

[MDriskill]

On ‎10‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 1:40 AM, tempestfan said:

 

 

MANY THANKS for the many super responses here!  Lots of great study material for some time to come...

Edited October 13, 2016 by MDriskill

[Giorgio N]

Tempestfan, I am now aware of the aeromodeller plans, do you remember who the author was ?
At the moment I'm only considering the Ali d'Italia plans as reliable, the Macchi drawings may well be as every other factory drawing of the kind, useful as general arrangement but not necessarily drawn to an exact scale. I'll have to dig further into this though, I remember mentions of some Macchi drawings with figures showing the distance of each fuselage station, something like this would be much more useful.

In any case, congratulations on your 1000th post !

 

Marko, sounds like you're making a great job, I hope you'll show us the results once the model is completed, I'm looking forward to it.

 

In the meantime I'm going to get the Mister Kit correction set, I understand that it retains the original length of the Hasegawa fuselage but should have a differently shaped hump. In any case it will be interesting to see how they approached the shape of the fuselage.

[Giorgio N]

I managed to lay my hands on the Misterkit correction set for the 202 and the conversion for the 205. A quick check of the fuselage shows that the length remains the same of the Hasegawa kit, the shape of the hump however is quite different and sure more correct. I'll post pictures later to show this detail

[MarkoZG]

Not to open new thread, can anyone confirm the correct color for cockpit backplate in Folgore? It was either Aluminiata or Verde Anticorrosione, but I am not sure which one it was. Out of the color photos, both can be seen applied and I suspect one of these was applied by mistake in restauration process on museum's example. On period black/white photos it is impossible to tell the difference between these two.

[JackG]

Can only guess at the pilot armour colour, and I don't know how much restoration was done to the Folgore at the US Nation Air and Space Museum, but it looks green to me.  It is on the backside of the plate, so am assuming the front would be the same:

 

 

Also period colour photo, the edge of plate looks green:

 

 

 

I think the example in the Italian museum may have been repainted (grey?) as even the interior of the canopy frame looks grey?

 

Then when looking at b/w, it is like a curve ball thrown at you.  Pilot armour looks lighter than than canopy frame work - maybe interior canopy painted same as outside, or is just shadow??

 

 

http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/682532-1/MC202-PILOT-3

 

regards,

Jack

 

 

Edited October 18, 2016 by JackG

[Giorgio N]

The problem is that the colour may have well depended on the timeframe and the manufacturer of the individual aircraft you're interested in !

After the introduction of the "Tavola 10" colours, the interiors were supposed to be completely in Grigio Azzurro Chiaro. Before that Macchi was known to use a grey-green primer, Breda on the other hand seem to have used both green and grey primers. Macchi also used black canopy frames, Breda didn't and this can alter the perception of how dark the rest of the caopy is in B/W pictures. And the use of aluminum painted structural components is also known...

 

[tempestfan]

The Aeromodeller drawings are by a Mr P. dell'Orco. They are somewhat enigmatic in as much as they do not Show one of the wingtips (IIRC stbd.) in both the top and underside view, at least as reprinted in the Aircraft Archive book. No idea if that is down to the draughtsman or the layouter of the book, but this takes away one of the more significant aspects of the design.