Arma Hurricane fuselage shape question

[Basilisk]

Not sure where to bring this up, but here is as good as any other sub forum I guess. I finally got a sample of this kit yesterday and I was impressed of the quality and what is in the box.

 

I was looking at fitting the Airfix "ragwing" to the Arma fuselage as the Arma kit apparently has a better canopy shape and the fuselage to wing fairing is also correct. It looks like doable but I am undecided if it is a worthwhile exercise.

 

But I did notice that the Arma fuselage has a strange fuselage width  shape when looking from above

The width in front of the cockpit is narrower and the widest part is behind the cockpit (0.5 mm wider than in front of the cockpit). This doesn't look right to me as all plans I know show the widest part in front of the cockpit and then gradually getting narrower towards the tail.

 

Or is the Arma representation correct?

 

I also noticed a discrepancy with the wing span compared to the Airfix kit as the Airfix wing has a 2mm wider wingspan compared o the Arma kit. Interestingly, the diffrence to the upper Airfix wing part is only 1mm (the wings are flush on the other end).

 

But compared with the lower part it is 2mm!

So the lower Airfix wing is actually 1mm wider than the Airfix upper part.

 

But which is correct? Well, the Hurricane wingspan is 40 feet or 12.2 meter which is 169.4 mm. On the picture below the two pencil lines are 169.4 mm apart.

So it looks to me that the Arma wing is slightly under by 0.5mm and the Airfix wing is 1.5mm to wide, assuming that the metal and rag wing wings have the same wing span.

 

But all in all a great kit and I look forward building one.

Cheers, Peter

[Graham Boak]

The Hurricane canopy does widen as it slides aft.  Slightly.

 

The Airfix Hurricane wing halves do not match.  If you align the tips then the guns and ailerons do not agree.  So don't use it as a guide.

[Basilisk]

Thanks for your comments Graham.

 

56 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

The Hurricane canopy does widen as it slides aft.  Slightly.

That may be so, but does the whole fuselage widen too?

 

54 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

The Airfix Hurricane wing halves do not match.  If you align the tips then the guns and ailerons do not agree.  So don't use it as a guide.

Yes that is correct. But I don't use the Airfix fuselage as a guide. The two pencil lines are my guide.

 

Cheers, Peter

[Work In Progress]

The fuselage does not swell out like that. If I were building one of these I would block it back and probably end up having to rescribe some lines. The widening of the canopy towards the rear also looks exaggerated compared to the real thing in your photo. But then it's not an area where you can do everything to perfect 1/72 scale in injection moulding. Every small scale model is a compromise: it's a question of which compromises the mould designer chooses.

 

Edited February 23, 2019 by Work In Progress

[Troy Smith]

2 hours ago, Basilisk said:

It looks like doable but I am undecided if it is a worthwhile exercise.

Hi Peter

Don't know if you saw the thread on later Mk.I hurricanes with fabric wings,  but cross kitting would mean you get  the early style fuselage without hatch on a metal  wing and the late style with a fabric wing...

 

Note,  as far as I can see. Airfix scaled up their 72nd fabric wing data for their 48th kit,  note both fuselages have the same length 'error' compared to the Bentley plans.

 

This glitch is a feature of the original Airfix 48th kit as well IIRC.

 

For the records the other glitches in the 72nd fabric wing are oft commented fabric behind gun bays, oversize 4 spoke wheels (won't fit through the UC openings!) too high canopy and too long spinner.  These are all quite visibly wrong on finished models. @Graham Boak has mentioned the wing detail not lining up,  it also has a very thick trailing edge. 

Easy enough to thin, the Arma has a very thin trailing edge.

 

smaller glitches are the too narrow seat and  too big control column.   The Arma kit seat is better, the control column is shorter, but the hand grip is again oversized. 

 

I did just compare some of the Airfix vs Arma parts,  and the original printing of the Bentley plans from 1980 Scale Models. 

Both are slightly longer than the plan,  but again we have the problem of published lengths,  and the different spinners...

A more careful look shows the Arma to be shorter than the Airfix, the Airfix kit has almost a 'wasp waist' before the fin, and it is noticeable once pointed out.

 

FWIW, it's easier to shorten the Arma, as the fin and tailplanes are separate,  so just needs some carving and rescribing.    

I  did start hacking up an Airfix fabric wing fuselage, and it's doable,  just needs careful cutting in front of the fin, and the carving away under the fin fillet,  the difference is very small, and for the non obsessed, trivial.   

 

The bigger visual issues I mention above.

 

37 minutes ago, Basilisk said:

That may be so, but does the whole fuselage widen too?

 

AFAIK, no.  As shown by  @Work In Progress  above.

 

 

[gingerbob]

49 minutes ago, Work In Progress said:

The widening of the canopy towards the rear also looks exaggerated...

 

I think that they might have the canopy track "arc" about right, but notice that the (false?) cockpit "sills" seem to get wider near the front, which I think makes it look like more of an angle than it really is along the skin of the aircraft.

 

As for the fuselage width, that's a weird one!  I'd first see if I could just force the fuselage to be more parallel- making sure that the waist didn't just squeeze in too.  Have you checked to see how the cockpit aft bulkhead fits?  That would be an obvious thing to use as a corset.

[Basilisk]

47 minutes ago, Work In Progress said:

The fuselage does not swell out like that. If I were building one of these I would block it back and probably end up having to rescribe some lines. The widening of the canopy towards the rear also looks exaggerated compared to the real thing in your photo. But then it's not an area where you can do everything to perfect 1/72 scale in injection moulding. Every small scale model is a compromise: it's a question of which compromises the mould designer chooses.

Thanks for the pictures. I too thought that the fuselage does look a bit odd. Of course every scale model is a compromise and the Arma kit is a great improvement over all the existing Hurricane kits.

 

Thanks Troy for your input. I am aware off the shortcomings of the Airfix kit which is why I consider using the Arma fuselage and backdate it to an earlier build standard.

 

In regards to the length, have you ever received an actual dimension from one of the existing Hurricanes? I thought the Arma kit is more or less the same length as the Airfix kit and as Mentioned, the largest difference I noticed was the wing span between the two kits.

 

I guess best to build an Arma kit first and trying to correct the fuselage shape and then see if using the fuselage for the rag wing is a worthwhile exercise.

But then the fuselage issue is only noticeable when looking from the top which is not a common viewing angle of a model.

 

7 minutes ago, gingerbob said:

As for the fuselage width, that's a weird one!  I'd first see if I could just force the fuselage to be more parallel- making sure that the waist didn't just squeeze in too.  Have you checked to see how the cockpit aft bulkhead fits?  That would be an obvious thing to use as a corset.

It is a difficult area to correct. I thought the easiest way would be to remove some material from the top behind the cockpit which then should eliminate the extra width. But the canopy will most likely then not fit properly. Maybe best just not to worry about.

 

Thank you all for the comments.

Cheers, Peter

[ClaudioN]

20 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

I did just compare some of the Airfix vs Arma parts,  and the original printing of the Bentley plans from 1980 Scale Models. 

Both are slightly longer than the plan,  but again we have the problem of published lengths,  and the different spinners...

A more careful look shows the Arma to be shorter than the Airfix, the Airfix kit has almost a 'wasp waist' before the fin, and it is noticeable once pointed out.

 

FWIW, it's easier to shorten the Arma, as the fin and tailplanes are separate,  so just needs some carving and rescribing.

Hello Troy,

my understanding from previous discussions here on BM was that in the original Bentley plans the fuselage was actually too short and that it was later amended.

I have just received my Arma Hurricanes 😍 and have not yet found the time to check so carefully. To me, fuselage length appears to match Airfix rather closely, which I took to be a good thing... or am I wrong?

I was rather considering whether to hack the Hasegawa Hurricane rear fuselage to lengthen it.

 

Claudio

[Graham Boak]

My understanding, and I have spoken to the man himself, is that the original article was right, the reprints from the magazine were wrong, and the copies he sells himself are right.  So which set says the Arma and Hasegawa are wrong?

[warhawk]

On 2/23/2019 at 1:19 PM, Troy Smith said:

the Airfix kit has almost a 'wasp waist' before the fin, and it is noticeable once pointed out

 

Hello, @Troy Smith, could You please elaborate what You mean by 'wasp waist'?

I cannot seem to find anything odd with my Airfix kit fuselage just by looking at the assembled halves...

[Ed Russell]

On 2/24/2019 at 9:46 PM, Graham Boak said:

the original article was right, the reprints from the magazine were wrong, and the copies he sells himself are right

Maybe anyone like me, who is unsure of the provenance of his Bentley Hurricane plans, should follow me and run them through the shredder!

[Graham Boak]

I don't recall any need to lengthen the Hasegawa rear fuselage. The key problem is that it has the correct forward fuselage for a Mk.II.

 

The rear fuselage under the tailplane has a rapid change of section as it narrows to the rudder post.  I think that this is on all three.

 

Sorry I can't be more precise but my model room/library/loft is under rehab after the ceiling fell in because of a roof leak.  Things are currently stacking in the clear area (thankfully most) and access is awkward.  My copy of SM with the Bentley plans was damaged but should be ok.  I have however lost Monforton's Spitfire tome... And probably the more useful back issues of IPMS mags, but things could have been a lot worse.

[Dave Fleming]

I wouldn't have noticed that bulge on the fuselage if it hadn't been pointed out - but it is there. I can live with it!

[dogsbody]

13 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

I don't recall any need to lengthen the Hasegawa rear fuselage. The key problem is that it has the correct forward fuselage for a Mk.II.

 

The rear fuselage under the tailplane has a rapid change of section as it narrows to the rudder post.  I think that this is on all three.

 

Sorry I can't be more precise but my model room/library/loft is under rehab after the ceiling fell in because of a roof leak.  Things are currently stacking in the clear area (thankfully most) and access is awkward.  My copy of SM with the Bentley plans was damaged but should be ok.  I have however lost Monforton's Spitfire tome... And probably the more useful back issues of IPMS mags, but things could have been a lot worse.

 

So sorry to hear this, Graham. I, too, recently lost a few older SAMI magazines when my basement water heater decided to start leaking heavily during the night. A small stack of the mags, that were sitting on a plastic bin, decided that was a good time to slid off into the water. Nothing else of any real value was lost, except the nearly $1800.00 CDN it cost for a replacement heater.

 

 

Chris

Edited March 12, 2019 by dogsbody
Can't type