New 1/72 metal-wing Hurricane I from Arma Hobby -- Released!

[rickpeck]

Can't wait for this one.

[IanC]

On 12/5/2018 at 2:25 PM, Procopius said:

Hannants has both boxings in their future releases section: https://www.hannants.co.uk/futurereleases?scale_id=956&search_direction=asc&manufacturer_id=362801

 

That's good. The price seems reasonable too for what you get in the box.

[caughtinthemiddle]

A good inbox available here

[PhantomBigStu]

See its now available to preorder, nice to see theres a cheaper boxing for us plebs who don't want the fancy extras...can see one making its way here in the new year

[caughtinthemiddle]

1 hour ago, PhantomBigStu said:

See its now available to preorder, nice to see theres a cheaper boxing for us plebs who don't want the fancy extras...can see one making its way here in the new year

If you look at the inbox linked above, it seems that one fancy extra (PE instrument panel) is a must have if the plastic one looks the same on all sprues

[Graham Boak]

A PE instrument panel is hardly a "must have" on a Hurricane, where so little of the cockpit can be seen through the canopy.  You may of course be able to see more with the canopy open, but because of the way it slides on the Hurricane this will give a worse appearance to a 1/72 model than any more basic instrument panel.

 

We aren't all slaves to super-detail, and here there is good reason.  You want to do it that way go ahead, but don't tell me what I "must" do.  I might - but don't count on it.

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

We'll be stocking them @ MJW Models when available. Looking forward to seeing what they are like.

 

thanks

Mike

[caughtinthemiddle]

2 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

A PE instrument panel is hardly a "must have" on a Hurricane, where so little of the cockpit can be seen through the canopy.  You may of course be able to see more with the canopy open, but because of the way it slides on the Hurricane this will give a worse appearance to a 1/72 model than any more basic instrument panel.

 

We aren't all slaves to super-detail, and here there is good reason.  You want to do it that way go ahead, but don't tell me what I "must" do.  I might - but don't count on it.

But have you seen the photo of the actual part, or are talking just to talk? The sink mark is rather prominent. And your rant sounds rather surprising given the comments you've made about this kit in the past f.e. on the Arma blog, which would indicate a different approach than described in your post above.

 

Edited December 11, 2018 by caughtinthemiddle

[Graham Boak]

I grant you does look bad there but this is expanded to how many times real size?  What will it look like hidden under the coaming?

 

I don't follow the rest of your posting: my previous comments have been on whether the kit matches the actual shape of the real thing.  The problem with an open canopy on Hurricanes is that the real thing changes shape as it goes back and this is not possible to match in scale model tooling, but this is completely generic and not specific to any one kit. 

 

If you are more generally equating the visible accuracy of external shape with adding lots and lots of tiny detail even when this cannot be seen, then I don't agree that they are the same thing and have no problem approving of the first whilst restraining any enthusiasm for the latter.  In practice I will sometimes use such p.e. as adds to the accurate appearance of the made up model - torque links on the undercarriage for example, and even sometimes the instrument panel if just for the hell of it.  I admit feeling that perhaps I should use seat belts more - but in the end I am interested in modelling aircraft not cockpits.

 

After all, the most obvious feature in an aircraft's cockpit is the pilot, and this is the one plastic part regularly omitted!

 

 

[lasermonkey]

You know what? I reckon I can live with that instrument panel. Once it's installed and painted, I very much doubt I'd be able to see much of it and anyway, I really don't get on with etched brass. If I were to do anything at all, I'd scratch it with plastic card.

[Dave Fleming]

36 minutes ago, lasermonkey said:

You know what? I reckon I can live with that instrument panel. Once it's installed and painted, I very much doubt I'd be able to see much of it and anyway, I really don't get on with etched brass. If I were to do anything at all, I'd scratch it with plastic card.

 

I think flat black paint will hide a lot of it

[stevehnz]

10 hours ago, Mikemx said:

We'll be stocking them @ MJW Models when available

Thanks Mike, saved me asking.

Steve.

[Graham Boak]

It was handed over by the postman a hour ago.  First impressions are very favourable.  If it fits as well as it looks then this is the best 1/72 Hurricane kit of any mark.  I liked the linked elevators and particularly the correct tropical filter for a Mk.I ( at last).

 

I can even see myself using several pieces of the etched brass... Although probably not the eight part instrument panel which seems OTT to me.

[Jeff.K]

even with the cockpit open i'd be wary of spending so much effort on an instrument panel. if yahu don't have one yet i'm sure they will, these are easy and look great... 

 

experten... anyone got one to look at? how's the shape? 

 

[Graham Boak]

I'm surprised that no-one else has leapt in - waiting to get home to see their post, perhaps?   

 

I have managed to lay it onto the Bentley plans, and it matches well.  Doing this does inspire a certain amount of pickiness, so I'll point out that the wings are perhaps 1mm short in span (the width of the metal edging on both tips) the fuselage a little less than that too long, the gun muzzle holes don't quite align with the plans, and the hump behind the cockpit is perhaps a little low.  I'm think you'll all agree just how shocking these are.  I suspect that last point is caused by the separate provision of a slid-back canopy, different in shape to that of the closed one (points awarded there, but it still isn't as thin as required).  The kit does hit all the points usually dodgy:  the "shoulders" on the cowling ahead of the exhausts, the taper downwards on the upper wing. the taper down to the rudder post below the tailplane, and the fabric effect on the fuselage is beautifully taut.  Quite nice fabric effect on the elevators too, there but restrained.  Etched panel lines are finely done.  There's a fairly good effect on the front of the radiator, but you are provided with p.e. mesh anyway.

 

The fuselage halves match beautifully, it is tempting to say perfectly, and fit equally well into the assembled (well, put-together) wing.  There is a disappointing feature in that the centre-line of the wing is too flat fore-and-aft, so that the wing extensions fore-and-aft of the fuselage will need pushing up and holding in place until the glue has held.  Two of the lesser parts appear at first to have flash (the control column and the port wing leg - on looking more closely it seems that one half of the mould tooling is fractionally smaller than the other so you only see what appears to be flash on one side.  A sharp knife should clear that, and every other part appears perfect in that respect.  And the fairing in front of the tailfin onto the fuselage is fractionally short - I told you that looking a plan makes people picky!

 

Lots of tiny p.e. for those who like such things.  Notably the step at the rear of the wing, and the handles on the canopy.  I don't think you get the actuator links that haul up the radiator flap, but as you don't get a separate flap that's understandable - personally I'd have preferred the option of an open flap.  Easy to fix - with or without actuators.  You do get a rear-view mirror and rear-facing louvres for the fuselage above the wing which aren't shown on Bentley's drawings, so check whether your subject had them. 

 

You only get the windscreen with the external armour, so again check your subject, but you do get alternative canopies for open or closed.  The p.e. includes lights for behind the leading edges.  Two sets of props are provided, DH and Rotol, with three convincing spinners.  The only other optional part is the tropical filter, so I'll finally be able to use the ModelArt transfers for that Alsace example.  So someone else will have to comment on the transfers, although I will add that it is very warming to find a set of 4-colour RAF roundels with the yellow properly aligned - they are definitely going to end up used elsewhere.  Oops, on a last check I spot anti-glare shields for above the exhausts.

 

Overall, a great little kit.  In advance of actual full assembly, very highly recommended.  I don't foresee that opinion changing much as the kit progresses.

[MarkoZG]

Graham, would you be so kind to compare its shape against Airfix' rag-wing Hurricane Mk.I?

What I discussed here few years ago is that I didn't find the exact match between the Airfix' kit and Bentley plans so I wonder if Arma got it better.

Some basic outlines seem to be better matched by previous Airfix' Mk.I.

Edited December 12, 2018 by MarkoZG

[Graham Boak]

My Airfix kit is assembled so I can't readily compare the two kits.  However my opinion on the match between the Arma kit and the Bentley plans is expressed above -  it is pretty good.  I don't recall checking the Airfix kit against them.  My memory of the Airfix kit is largely limited to its problems of fit (the wings not matching top and bottom, to be precise) and some detail quibbles rather than any overall problems of accuracy, and I liked several aspects of it.  However, I'm no fan of earlier Airfix Hurricanes.

[Dave Fleming]

I have a couple of copies of the bentley plans, and they are slightly different sizes (One in an issue of Scale models, one in the Aviation Archive series) so I'd not be too bothered by 1mm out in span (1mm in total?)

[Dave Fleming]

2 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

I'm surprised that no-one else has leapt in - waiting to get home to see their post, perhaps?   

 

 

 

 

maybe being near the start of the alphabet you got yours first!

[Graham Boak]

I know that he was very annoyed that the later issues of his plans were not accurate to scale, which is why he reissued them himself.  However the original SM plans were accurate, and that is what I was using.  However, as I implied in my comment, I'm not exactly that bothered myself.  I don't believe that such a difference, over the wingspan, would be noticed by anyone.  But irony is a difficult humour to get across on the net.

 

My personal rule of thumb is that 2% difference is ok to the eye - more than that is visible.  I know that I've picked out 1/75 kits as being "underscale" by eye alone (LS Judy and Peggy), and of course the difference between 1/76 vehicles and 1/72 is usually clear (5%) except maybe when you get down to jeeps, although I know that some people are fussy even then.  The human eye is astonishingly good at determining small differences.

[Troy Smith]

5 hours ago, MarkoZG said:

Graham, would you be so kind to compare its shape against Airfix' rag-wing Hurricane Mk.I?

What I discussed here few years ago is that I didn't find the exact match between the Airfix' kit and Bentley plans so I wonder if Arma got it better.

Some basic outlines seem to be better matched by previous Airfix' Mk.I.

I'm pretty sure the Airfix kit is a little too long,  both the 72nd fabric wing and 48th kit are the same amount out compared to the Bentley plans,  note the rear cutout in the rudder line is in the right place.

what this means is the fin is too far back, and the fuselage looks a little slim just in front of the fin. 

both kits have the same and much harder to correct fault, no flare of the fuselage side panels where they meet the wing.

the other 72nd faults are the too high canopy, I've asked in the WW2 section if anyone has the Rob Taurus replacements and if the correct or replicate the error

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235047694-rob-taurus-hurricane-canopies-for-airfix-72nd-fabric-wing

the other glitch, the wheels, yes, should be 5 spoke, but they are too big, try fitting them through the wing opening, same in the 48th kit.

3 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

My Airfix kit is assembled so I can't readily compare the two kits.  However my opinion on the match between the Arma kit and the Bentley plans is expressed above -  it is pretty good.  I don't recall checking the Airfix kit against them.  My memory of the Airfix kit is largely limited to its problems of fit (the wings not matching top and bottom, to be precise) and some detail quibbles rather than any overall problems of accuracy, and I liked several aspects of it.  However, I'm no fan of earlier Airfix Hurricanes.

the 1979 era 72nd Mk.I is well shaped,  but lack the 'shoulders' over the front end of the merlin ( a common fault on older Hurricane kits) and is basic nad has raised panel lines  all the other Airfix 72nd kits have a various problems,  the early  70's one is salvageable if you get a new canopy, raise the spine, fix the nose and get rid of the battleship rivets.... 

the 50's era Mk.IV is , erm, well, a 1957 Airfix kit.... the 2005 ish Mk.IIc is a bang on match to the drawings in the FK Mason 2nd edition Hawker Hurricane book, shame the drawings are wrong in almost every way... and thus the kit is if you want a decently shaped Hurricane kit,  rubbish. Valaint wings dio a correction kit, but that's lipstick on a pig.

 

Regarding the Arma kit,  I was thrilled and honoured to get an email asking for my address to send me one too review, it turned up today,  I've not had chance to do what Graham has done, but apart from few nitpicks aside that Graham mentions, this is "the best in 72nd"  and one of the best Hurricane kits in any scale, really good overall package, very impressive.

 

I have too applaud Arma Hobby for the care and effort they have put into this project,  and the brave move to share CAD images and take on board feedback from the forum, showing changes made from posted comments. 

It looks like this has worked for them,  and  by the orders this has generated, and i hope this leads to further variants too.   

 

I'd better have a go at building this soon,  i did have a rummage in my drawers and have possibly enough vintage (1981 or so) Humbrol enamel that even appears usable, and while I don't like the smell,  i know I was pretty good at using it 'back then' though I prefer the lack of fumes from acrylic....  

I digress and need to wrap up for the night now.

 

cheers

T

 

 

 

 

[Procopius]

In-stock at Hannants now, and currently #13 on their list of top-selling items. Looking forward to mine hitting the 'States. 

[Dave Fleming]

Mine still somewhere between Poland and the UK according to Royal Mail tracking (has been since early Sunday morning), but I know from other packages that Track and Trace is a little overloaded at the moment and it may appear at the local office!

[johnd]

1 hour ago, Dave Fleming said:

Mine still somewhere between Poland and the UK according to Royal Mail tracking (has been since early Sunday morning), but I know from other packages that Track and Trace is a little overloaded at the moment and it may appear at the local office!

Mine too, if it's any consolation. 

 

2 hours ago, Procopius said:

In-stock at Hannants now, and currently #13 on their list of top-selling items.

Thanks for the tip-off. Only the expert set so far though, the junior set is still under "future releases". A bit more hanging on, then...

 

John.

[Heraldcoupe]

2 hours ago, Dave Fleming said:

Mine still somewhere between Poland and the UK according to Royal Mail tracking 

How did you get your tracking number? I've not received one...

 

Cheers,

Bill.