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. :)

Homebee

1/48 - Hawker Hunter F.Mk.6 & 6A by Airfix - released - T.Mk.7 conversion set by Aerocraft Models - CMK resin sets

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, rayprit said:

For Airfix to rectify the fault in the tool, the production run would have to be stopped and the tool makers modify the tool, removing metal isn't a problem, but adding or filling in a void on a tool takes a fair bit of time, I cannot see Airfix stopping the production run for a week or so(that's being optimistic) of a hot selling kit for a slight modification when all it takes is a few rubs on a sanding stick

Or they could have just got it correct in the first place :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Col. said:

Or they could have just got it correct in the first place :shrug:

When that tool first went into production, they would have thought it to be 100% perfect...………..to look for a miniscule fault is like trying to do quality control on a 1000 piece jigsaw...…….are we modellers or assemblers?  Try doing a vac form with hundreds of faults...When I built the latest hunter, a sanding stick presented no problems, I shall not bother on the next as its not even noticeable unless you count rivets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/23/2019 at 12:01 PM, Work In Progress said:

Die-casts are available for people who don't want to do their own work

It's not supposed to be work, it's supposed to be a hobby.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, rayprit said:

For Airfix to rectify the fault in the tool, the production run would have to be stopped and the tool makers modify the tool, removing metal isn't a problem, but adding or filling in a void on a tool takes a fair bit of time, I cannot see Airfix stopping the production run for a week or so(that's being optimistic) of a hot selling kit for a slight modification when all it takes is a few rubs on a sanding stick

Yes I know a couple of swipes with a sanding stick does the trick, but the point I was trying to make is that Airfix should not have made the mistake in the first place? Poor research??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People make mistakes, nobody is infallible. Does the mistake make the kit unbuildable? Nope, just fix it and be happy we have the kit in the first place - how many decent alternatives are there in this scale?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/24/2019 at 7:36 PM, jaw said:

Yes I know a couple of swipes with a sanding stick does the trick, but the point I was trying to make is that Airfix should not have made the mistake in the first place? Poor research??

Editing this as my original comment was rather bare and looked like I disagreed rather than that I was trying to provide context.

 

Yes, of course they should have got it right, especially since it's one of those irritating things that would have cost no more to get right, but at the same time please show me the kit that has no errors, fit problems or over-simplifications whatsoever. There are none: it's just a case of what those faults are. Even with Tamiya, generally regarded as the best of the mainstream for quality, even at the top of the price range for mass produced kits.

 

And I'd much rather have an error that is trivially easy to fix than something that involves significant skill or expenditure on after-market parts to rectify. Given the scale of the advance of the Airfix kit over the gross shape inaccuracies of the Academy and AMT Lindberg kits, it's really not a problem that matters.

Edited by Work In Progress
accuracy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2019 at 3:58 AM, sloegin57 said:

.....and the Saudi Hunters with roundels on all four mainplane surfaces......

 

Very similar to the much earlier Cutting Edge decals which I have in front of me .........just saying !!

 

Did Saudi Hunters not have insignias on all four wings?  Were they missing from the lower surfaces?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/28/2019 at 8:35 AM, Work In Progress said:

Given the scale of the advance of the Airfix kit over the gross shape inaccuracies of the Academy and AMT kits, it's really not a problem that matters.

Meaning there's a 1/48th scale Hunter kit by AMT? :hmmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, got myself crossed up there. 

 

It was Lindberg did the terrible 1/48 Hunter

 

1106547-12192-28-pristine.jpg

 

 

It was AMT who did the terrible 1/48 Meteor 

265374-10571-37-pristine.jpg

 

 

Edited by Work In Progress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Work In Progress said:

Yeah, got myself crossed up there. 

 

It was Lindberg did the terrible 1/48 Hunter

It was AMT who did the terrible 1/48 Meteor 

 

The Lindberg Hunter  is a 60's toy, the 70's AMT 1/48th kits were a retro step even then, though I think the Meteor is at least the right basic shape.( I donated mine some years ago)   There is a thread here about the problems of the Tamiya Meteor kit, apparently to narrow at the front.  

On 28/12/2019 at 11:35, Work In Progress said:

Given the scale of the advance of the Airfix kit over the gross shape inaccuracies of the Academy

I did have a quick compare of the Airfix and Academy Hunters,  and the Academy wasn't that horrible,  but I have not had a really good look and get the camera out. 

Was meaning to retrieve my Aeroclub one as well, I even have the Lindberg one stashed.

Yeah, years of collecting records has meant I turned into a kit collector in turn.... :banghead:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Troy Smith said:

I did have a quick compare of the Airfix and Academy Hunters,  and the Academy wasn't that horrible

The Academy Hunter does have some good points, like the fine and crisp panel lines. Also the flaps are more detailed than Airfix, and the wing pylons have better proportions. However the whole kit suffers from weird shapes and dimensional inaccuracies, from the underscale cockpit to the bulbous nose, the windshield, air intakes, etc....

 

I won’t be buying any more Academy Hunters that’s for sure. Airfix anytime for me!

 

G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, guillaume320 said:

However the whole kit suffers from weird shapes and dimensional inaccuracies, from the underscale cockpit to the bulbous nose, the windshield, air intakes, etc....

I got my Academy F.6 and FGA.9 kits to convert them to two-seat trainers, so I wasn't bothered by the shape inaccuracies/underscale cockpit/bulbous nose/windshield. Air intakes tho; what's wrong with them in the Academy Hunter kit again?

Cheers,

 

Unc2

 

PS: Hola, Troy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Uncle Uncool said:

Air intakes tho; what's wrong with them in the Academy Hunter kit again?

I find them way too rounded on the outer point. Also the splitter plate with the fuselage is pure fantasy.  It's doable to fix it, but as I'm a 'serial Hunter builder' I'm glad those days are over!

I agree converting the Academy to two-seaters gets rid of some of the most obvious issues 😀

 

G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask a couple of basic questions:

 

1. How long was the T7, i.e. how much longer was it at the front than the fighter version?

2. And did the front leg remain in the same position, or did that move forwards too?

 

Any wisdom gratefully received.

 

Justin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2020 at 6:05 PM, Uncle Uncool said:

I got my Academy F.6 and FGA.9 kits to convert them to two-seat trainers, so I wasn't bothered by the shape inaccuracies/underscale cockpit/bulbous nose/windshield. Air intakes tho; what's wrong with them in the Academy Hunter kit again?

Cheers,

 

Unc2

 

PS: Hola, Troy!

If I remember the reviews correctly, the bullet fairing in the tail is wrong (not sure why) and there’s something wrong with the wheels.

 

Trevor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2020 at 3:52 PM, Bedders said:

1. How long was the T7, i.e. how much longer was it at the front than the fighter version?

2. And did the front leg remain in the same position, or did that move forwards too?

Justin

I believe the wheel base is the same on all Hunters.  The T.7/8 is definitely longer than the fighters ahead of the nose gear bay, but don't know by how much,  about two foot difference in overall length is in my mind, but cant be definite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Max Headroom said:

If I remember the reviews correctly, the bullet fairing in the tail is wrong (not sure why) and there’s something wrong with the wheels.

Hola, Trevor! How's it hanging, brah?

Yeh, the bullet fairing in the tail need shortening, same as the stabilator tabs. And the undersized wheels in the Academy kit are sorted out fantastic by the Heritage Aviation Models T.7 set.

Yeh, they are...

Cheers,

 

Unc2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/01/2020 at 15:52, Bedders said:

Can I ask a couple of basic questions:

 

1. How long was the T7, i.e. how much longer was it at the front than the fighter version?

2. And did the front leg remain in the same position, or did that move forwards too?

 

Any wisdom gratefully received.

 

Justin

My references give dimensions plus or minus an inch or so but the most reliable comes from my ancient copy of "Aircraft of the Royal Air Force 1918 - 58" by Owen Thetford :-

 

F.1 to F.6 45ft 10.5inches

T.7 48ft 9inches.

 

All my other refs appear to have rounded the figures up by half to one inch, e.g SAM's "The Hawker Hunter a comprehensive guide" by Paul Bradley.  This is understandable as the datum line for the aircraft was .5 degrees nose up when normally loaded and at rest.  

 

The drawing in the official AP gives a length of 48ft 10.5inches for the T-bird :-  

spacer.png

 

Knowing "Official" AP's as I do, I am not even going to take that as gospel !!  as personally, I am going with Thetfords well ancient book.

 

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for those numbers. What they mean, however, is that my 1/72 Revell + PJ Productions conversion project is a whole 4mm too short. I'll now need to find where those 4mm should go...

 

Justin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha I've found a couple of mm. Should have measured from the nose to the tip of the tailplane rather than only to the end of the jet-pipe. Doh!

 

Justin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent news and all on one sheet, very sensible. Good to see the triple Assegais correct. I’ll be picking up a set. 
Cheers.. Dave 

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...