1/48 Tamiya Beaufighter tailplanes & elevators

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

Hi folks,

 

With these late tailplanes and elevators off to the casters now:

 

... I am curious to find out whether anyone is bothered enough by the confused proportions of the standard dihedral tailplanes of the kit parts sufficiently to warrant a similar direct-replacement correction?

 

From looking around on Scalemates etc, there are existing products offering separate control surfaces etc, but as far as I can see they all copy Tamiya's confused dimensions. I understand that 99% of modellers simply don't care and that's fine, but would appreciate honest feedback about how fussy I'm being to determine if it's actually worth the effort of making a set of correction parts

[gingerbob]

I'd have been more interested before Revell's Beau, which includes both early (dihedral) and late, and thus gives me a replacement set.  If I could get yours for a low enough price, I'd still be interested.  I definitely am NOT interested in a set that doesn't actually correct them!  While I don't know what other options exist, a non-dihedral set would probably be (in our very small pond) popular, too.

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

Fair comment. I had the late type almost finished for a long time but waited until I could see a Revell one in person. It's a nice kit but the tailplanes at least don't compare well with the scale drawings at all (even in outline - span and chord different) so I at least have politely declined adding the new kit to my stash and will stick with the Tamiya kit which is otherwise very good apart from this specific area.

[Work In Progress]

I have at least one Tamiya kit left in the stash so will have a set of these

[gingerbob]

14 hours ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

Fair comment. I had the late type almost finished for a long time but waited until I could see a Revell one in person. It's a nice kit but the tailplanes at least don't compare well with the scale drawings at all (even in outline - span and chord different) so I at least have politely declined adding the new kit to my stash and will stick with the Tamiya kit which is otherwise very good apart from this specific area.

 

Also a fair comment.  I have a Revell (finally), and gave the tailplanes only a cursory first comparison to the Tamiya ones.  I need to have another look. 

 

While this is a tangent, the other thing the Revell does that I hoped it would is fix (or should I say "change"? 😉 ) the depth/ profile of the aft fuselage and height of rudder.  I'd have to build both to really say whether that's "visually significant" to me, but now that I know, I can't unsee it. 

[Admiral Puff]

I'd definitely be interested - I have three Tamiya and a Revell to build as various RAAF ones.

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

Thanks folks.

 

As I need a couple myself and my father wants too, I will make the masters. Between here, another forum and our Facebook page there's probably half a batch's worth of people interested so I can go ahead and justify it to myself on the basis of not having to make 2 or 3 sets - I'm not good with repetition. Having to make a left and a right side is bad enough 😂

[Work In Progress]

Having on two occasions managed to build two right-hand fuselage sides for flying models, rather than a right and a left, I sympathise

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

1 hour ago, Work In Progress said:

Having on two occasions managed to build two right-hand fuselage sides for flying models, rather than a right and a left, I sympathise

 

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry with you! It's not something I ever did myself in r/c modelling, but other peoples' horror stories kept me wary!

[Retired Bob]

2 hours ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

As I need a couple myself and my father wants too, I will make the masters. Between here, another forum and our Facebook page there's probably half a batch's worth of people interested so I can go ahead and justify it to myself on the basis of not having to make 2 or 3 sets - I'm not good with repetition. Having to make a left and a right side is bad enough 😂

Don't start building tanks with individual track links is my advice.  As someone that has a Tamiya Beau in the stash I would be interested, up to now I was unaware there was a problem.

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

16 minutes ago, Retired Bob said:

Don't start building tanks with individual track links is my advice.  As someone that has a Tamiya Beau in the stash I would be interested, up to now I was unaware there was a problem.

Hi Bob!

 

I too was unaware until I laid the cut-out paper plan for the larger late elevators which I need to convert to anyway over the kit parts and thought "Curious - the big elevators are smaller than the kit's small elevators"

[viscount806x]

Jamie, you can put me down definitely for a set too. Just drop a PM if and when you do them.

 

Cheers, Nige

[Magpie22]

Hi Jamie,

 

I’ve come into this thread rather late. I don’t know what drawing you are using for your tailplane info, but I believe it to be incorrect.

 

Below is a copy taken from Bristol drawing, S86E, titled “Beaufighter Aerodynamic Diagram”. I’ve reproduced it in 1/48 scale for downloading, but it's the dimensions that matter. It's not a good idea to scale from a drawing, but I think this one is fairly accurate. It shows pretty much what you have already discovered re the oversize elevators in the Tamiya 1/48 kit. Of particular interest is the radius for the tips. This is given as 28 3/16 inches, meaning that the chord where the curvature starts is 56 3/8 inches. (Tamiya have very conveniently put a chord-wise panel line at this station). On the Tamiya kit the chord is 60 inches at this station. You will need to increase the forward sweep of the elevator trailing edge, as well as modify the position of the shroud at the rear of the tailplane. And, of course, correct the fairing inboard of the elevator, as I see you did for the 'big elevators'. I like the way you have depicted the servo tabs in the up position, which means, of course, that we must rig the elevators in the down position, which they often assumed if the control lock was not fitted. I also note the panel lines on your tailplane drawing are incorrect. Tamiya got that right. The leading edge is skinned back to the front spar, and the rest is a single panel. There are rivet lines, between front and rear spars, over two span-wise stringers under that panel.

 

 

I’ve stuck the tailplane drawing over Tamiya’s part to show what I mean.

 

 

 

I agree with Bob’s comments re the rear fuselage and rudder being too deep. I cut the rear fuselage at the max breadth line and take out two triangular pieces before joining the bottom section back to the main fuselage. I also modify the rudder by taking a bit off the bottom and modifying the shape at the top to conform with the Bristol drawing. The photo below shows a modified fuselage and fin above an unmodified item. The modeler can judge for his or her self whether the mod is worth it, or not. To me the deep fuselage of the kit stands out like ‘dogs balls’, and the rather easy mod is worth the little time it takes. I also thinned out that ridiculous 1" thick rudder shroud.

 

 

 

 

The other major error Tamiya has made is to rig the wing with the centre plane parallel to the aircraft datum. It should be set at +2.5 degrees. The engine thrust line is correct, being parallel to the aircraft datum, so if you were to try and re-rig the wings to the correct angle, then you would also have to cut out the engine nacelles and bring them back -2.5 degrees to get the thrust line correct. Now, that is getting into the ‘too hard’ basket. 

 

Bob, did Revell get the wing angle of incidence correct on their kit? If so, I may be persuaded to buy. I haven’t purchased one to check – retired and on fixed income 🙁  – particularly after having seen the mess they made of the Ventura. I’ve still got three un-built Tamiya kits in the pile.

 

Jamie, I'd be interested in several of those castings when you have finished them. Hope the above is of some help. PM me if I can help more.

Peter Malone

[gingerbob]

Great post, Peter.  Drawings stolen saved for future study.  I had speculated about such a tummy-tuck for the Tamiya, but couldn't imagine anything that didn't seem like a lot of risky work.  You've certainly taken out the "banana effect" that bothered me.

 

A quick comparison of the fuselages suggests that Revell does indeed have a greater angle of incidence for the wing.  I didn't try to measure degrees or anything! 

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

9 hours ago, Magpie22 said:

Hi Jamie,

 

I’ve come into this thread rather late. I don’t know what drawing you are using for your tailplane info, but I believe it to be incorrect.

 

Below is a copy taken from Bristol drawing, S86E, titled “Beaufighter Aerodynamic Diagram”. I’ve reproduced it in 1/48 scale for downloading, but it's the dimensions that matter. It's not a good idea to scale from a drawing, but I think this one is fairly accurate. It shows pretty much what you have already discovered re the oversize elevators in the Tamiya 1/48 kit. Of particular interest is the radius for the tips. This is given as 28 3/16 inches, meaning that the chord where the curvature starts is 56 3/8 inches. (Tamiya have very conveniently put a chord-wise panel line at this station). On the Tamiya kit the chord is 60 inches at this station. You will need to increase the forward sweep of the elevator trailing edge, as well as modify the position of the shroud at the rear of the tailplane. And, of course, correct the fairing inboard of the elevator, as I see you did for the 'big elevators'. I like the way you have depicted the servo tabs in the up position, which means, of course, that we must rig the elevators in the down position, which they often assumed if the control lock was not fitted. I also note the panel lines on your tailplane drawing are incorrect. Tamiya got that right. The leading edge is skinned back to the front spar, and the rest is a single panel. There are rivet lines, between front and rear spars, over two span-wise stringers under that panel.

 

 

I’ve stuck the tailplane drawing over Tamiya’s part to show what I mean.

 

 

 

I agree with Bob’s comments re the rear fuselage and rudder being too deep. I cut the rear fuselage at the max breadth line and take out two triangular pieces before joining the bottom section back to the main fuselage. I also modify the rudder by taking a bit off the bottom and modifying the shape at the top to conform with the Bristol drawing. The photo below shows a modified fuselage and fin above an unmodified item. The modeler can judge for his or her self whether the mod is worth it, or not. To me the deep fuselage of the kit stands out like ‘dogs balls’, and the rather easy mod is worth the little time it takes. I also thinned out that ridiculous 1" thick rudder shroud.

 

 

 

 

The other major error Tamiya has made is to rig the wing with the centre plane parallel to the aircraft datum. It should be set at +2.5 degrees. The engine thrust line is correct, being parallel to the aircraft datum, so if you were to try and re-rig the wings to the correct angle, then you would also have to cut out the engine nacelles and bring them back -2.5 degrees to get the thrust line correct. Now, that is getting into the ‘too hard’ basket. 

 

Bob, did Revell get the wing angle of incidence correct on their kit? If so, I may be persuaded to buy. I haven’t purchased one to check – retired and on fixed income 🙁  – particularly after having seen the mess they made of the Ventura. I’ve still got three un-built Tamiya kits in the pile.

 

Jamie, I'd be interested in several of those castings when you have finished them. Hope the above is of some help. PM me if I can help more.

Peter Malone

 

 

Hi Peter,

 

That's great stuff. I'd rather use these. That outline is even further off the Tamiya outline! The drawing I had planned to use is on Avieology's decal sheet accompaniment. I'm always wary of factory GAs but the dimensions should be solid. I'll drop you that PM over the next week or so.

Thanks!

[Jim Kiker]

Hi Jamie,

 

Please count me in for one set of correct tail planes for the the Tamiya kit.  I'm only doing one of them but I have a collection of improvement sets to give her full justice; correct tails will polish her off nicely!

 

Thanks, Jim

[Paul Rourk]

Hi Jamie

I would like a set of these please 

 

Regards

Paul

[SleeperService]

On 6/25/2019 at 10:07 AM, Magpie22 said:

I agree with Bob’s comments re the rear fuselage and rudder being too deep. I cut the rear fuselage at the max breadth line and take out two triangular pieces before joining the bottom section back to the main fuselage. I also modify the rudder by taking a bit off the bottom and modifying the shape at the top to conform with the Bristol drawing. The photo below shows a modified fuselage and fin above an unmodified item. The modeler can judge for his or her self whether the mod is worth it, or not. To me the deep fuselage of the kit stands out like ‘dogs balls’, and the rather easy mod is worth the little time it takes. I also thinned out that ridiculous 1" thick rudder shroud.

 

 

Your lower fuselage modification looks very effective indeed. Any chance of a sketch to show exactly where you cut? I have several Tamiya Beaufighters in various stages of assembly that joined the 3 Boxes of Doom when I saw that fish belly error and lost interest for a while.

 

As you seem to know your stuff are any of the published plans accurate for the fuselage shape?

 

BOT I'll be up for some as well Jamie.

[Jim Kiker]

Hi all,

 

Hope it is OK to reopen a thread every now and then.  I have a Beaufighter build in the future and have decided to switch from a Mk IC to a Mk VI.  I think I will need the canted tail planes (versus the early flat ones).  I would like to grab a set of the late corrected tail planes that Jamie put out.

 

So, two questions for Jamie.  First, will the late TFX tail planes you produced also work for the Mk VI?  And if so, it looks like you have some (one?) in stock at Sovereign Hobbies.  Correct?  If so, I'll put an order it ASAP.

 

Thanks to all, Jim

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

Hi Jim,

 

Unfortunately not. For a Mk.VI you need the mid-build tailplanes which Tamiya attempted and botched up. These have the dihedral as per our late tail conversion, but inboard of the big outer hinges they lacked the extended leading edge.

 

Tamiya's attempt to portray this but they've made their elevators the full chord of the later type then added the extended leading edge horns again.

 

This needs a mid-build correction which I haven't finished yet.

 

There are lots of sets on the market providing replacement elevators but unfortunately they have all copied Tamiya's initial mistake of making the smaller type elevators bigger than the largest (late) type!

[Jim Kiker]

Hi all,

 

Thank you for the information and pictures provided here, and especially to Jamie for the explanation.  Time to drop back and punt, will have to review the material to get to a choice about whether to correct the kit tail planes on my own.

 

Cheers all, Jim