Jump to content

1/72 AZ Models DH Hornet announced!


Recommended Posts

Sorry Martin, but having the kit in my hand cannot see how its better than MB5, its the same " quality", as for dihedral you'll find same problem with AZ kit as well,

but yes its more accurate regarding canopy issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mike romeo said:

 If people want me too, I'll continue to post pics, and I'll point out things I find, good or bad

 

Martin

Martin, yes please.

I begin the SH but was disappointed with the canopy, it's sleeping in the stash :((

Manuel

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mike romeo said:

Thomas,

 

The SH, if you can get it together, has some very difficult to correct errors in outline around the canopy, which the AZ does not have.  Spinners too small for the cowling, anyone?  10° dihedral?  Yep, that's the SH kit.  If people want me too, I'll continue to post pics, and I'll point out things I find, good or bad

 

Re quality, the AZ is a step up from the MB5, and a step down from the Bf109G-14/AS, imho.  It is what it is.

 

Rgds

 

Martin

Martin. Please do post pics as you go.

I'm just glad AZ have given us a new tool of a lovely aircraft (and I live  in hope of one day having a new tool 1/72 Spitfire PR XI as well!)

Mine has been dispatched and I'm looking forward to having a  DH Hornet built and on display (my SH kit being long consigned to a forgotten storage box in the stash).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a look here https://www.modelforum.cz/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=95280&start=27075 page 1806, the photographic part.

 

Yes, it is in Czech. Yes, I agree, some people posting there are not exactly fans of AZ/KP. However, the photos show rather surprising (or even bewildering) similarity between the parts of "old SH" and "new AZ". I do not have any of the kits in hands, so I am not passing judgment myself. But I guess that some you, in possession of both, could possibly compare the parts and share their findings with the community here.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

From a brief view, are you suggesting AZ may have taken a SH kit and corrected some of its issues? This would of course save the modeller some time and effort.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, gunzo said:

From a brief view, are you suggesting AZ may have taken a SH kit and corrected some of its issues? This would of course save the modeller some time and effort.

No, I am not. Would be unfair without the kits in hand. But the photos do suggest so in a way, so we would benefit from someone (who has both kits in hand) making independent evaluation.

Concerning the second part of your post. Frankly, I have not thought about it in this way before, and you are of course right. But then it is not only the modeller, but also the kit manufacturer, who saved time and efforts. And I am not sure I like it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not wanting to open a can of worms, but does the SH owe anything to Classic Airframes  1/48 rendition and does that owe anything to the very similarly dimensioned Dynavector?? If manufacturers were to make a product to the best available reference sources then 'reverse engineering' becomes a redundant exercise. Clearly there is still room for improvement over the AZ efforts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, gunzo said:

Not wanting to open a can of worms, but does the SH owe anything to Classic Airframes  1/48 rendition and does that owe anything to the very similarly dimensioned Dynavector?? If manufacturers were to make a product to the best available reference sources then 'reverse engineering' becomes a redundant exercise. Clearly there is still room for improvement over the AZ efforts.

Classic Airframes did not make their own kits, it was MPM/Special Hobby who produced the kits for them. For this reason it is very likely that the CA and SH kits were based on the very same drawings 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mike romeo said:

I make no assertions, but would share some observations on similarities and differences btwn SH and AZ.

For me the $64000 question is: are the spinners too small for the front of the engine nacelles?  This was what brought my SH builds to an abrupt halt.  The only solution I could think of was using FROG props and spinners and I didn't have enough of them.  The excessive dihedral I felt I could cope with (though the evidence on that point was admittedly not altogether inconclusive).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rant...,lets be frank, most of the companies " consult "  kits from other manufacturers when tooling their own, some do it as too see what can be improved, some blatantly copy.

As for Hornet, take it as my highly subjective-non objective opinion, full of all disclaimers possible, take recent P-36, Cr.32 and D.500, in my highly subjective opinion

P-36 is Monogram, Cr.32 Supermodel,D.500 Heller copy, with improvements mostly down to scribed detail, analogy wise Hornet?

 

Now personally don't have anything against copying if it results in better product, aside from improvements in and around canopy, cannot see any other area where "new"

AZ kits batters old SH kit, as I said before AZ/KP does produce kits in " high quality tech.", why Hornet did not deserve to be produced in better short run tech don't know,

step down quality wise from "HQT" they produced DH Comet, Hornet is nowhere near that level of quality.

 

I love and buy AZ/KP mostly as an idea, new boxarts and subjects are very nice, but when you look closely one finds (aside from Kora) lowest end of Cz. spectrum of 

short runs, very Poor fit ( aside from HQT ), highly imaginative decal options, but I also do remember initial kits like Fokker C.X, Breda 65 etc...that were produced to much higher standard.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Thomas V. said:

cannot see any other area where "new"

AZ kits batters old SH kit,

The AZ does seem to have the requisite longer fuselage and what appear to be reworked nacelles and landing gear position. Unless I'm beaten to it I'll post the spinner dimensions when my kit is delivered. Should the drawings for the CA Hornet be the/a primary source, those nacelles were decidedly skinny up front.

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

For me the $64000 question is: are the spinners too small for the front of the engine nacelles?  This was what brought my SH builds to an abrupt halt.  The only solution I could think of was using FROG props and spinners and I didn't have enough of them.  The excessive dihedral I felt I could cope with (though the evidence on that point was admittedly not altogether inconclusive).

Yep, clearly an important area.

 

I am getting on to starting the nacelles. 

 

As these appear to have been significantly altered (cf SH), and as the build shots by AZ earlier in the thread seem to show the spinners matching the cowling front diameter, I think they'll fit ok.  We'll see!

 

Rgds

 

Martin

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

 The only solution I could think of was using FROG props and spinners.

From memory, the FROGgie props were on the contrary too large for the SH cowlings.  2 Revell P-51B spinners were the right size* - but the Revell was much cheaper and more available then.

 

Rgds  

 

Martin

 

*although probs slightly blunt in shape.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It wouldn't surprise me if the Frog spinners were the more correct diameter- that model was  mastered at a time when the deHavilland could be contacted with a phone call. The plan shape of the Merlin top end needs to be borne in mind and the CA (SH too?) nacelles taper forward too soon for an engine to fit. Reduce the taper and you get a larger  spinner (which then starts to' look right')

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, gunzo said:

It wouldn't surprise me if the Frog spinners were the more correct diameter- that model was  mastered at a time when the deHavilland could be contacted with a phone call. The plan shape of the Merlin top end needs to be borne in mind and the CA (SH too?) nacelles taper forward too soon for an engine to fit. Reduce the taper and you get a larger  spinner (which then starts to' look right')

It would me.  There are a number of annoying shape issues with the FROG kit.

 

Rgds

 

Martin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if they are to do corrected moulds we could add;

 

- erroneous upper wing panel lines

 

- missing underwing cooling slats (these are shown on the AZ painting guide so perhaps some decals?)

 

- suspect depression  at the rear of the tail wheel bay

 

Interesting to note the EZ box art does show more correctly shaped nacelles so maybe they were already aware of this issue?

Link to post
Share on other sites

gunzo - from what reference do you have info, that our panel lines on top of the wing are wrong? If it is a plan by Ian Huntley or Richard Caruana, these two are wrong. Our lines

correspond with factory facsimiles provided to us.

underwing cooling slats - have you any imagination about their size in the scale? and, it was closed when aircraft on the ground

do not understand clearly where is the problem with tail wheel bay....

also diameter of the spinner is correct according the drawings provided to us..., some 9.5mm, information that it has to be 11mm is not correct

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jan

 

Your mention of the Huntley and Carunna drawings is pertinent as for several years these have been known to be misleading and plain wrong in many important visual repects- including upper wing panel lines, nacelle profiles and spinner dimensions, fuselage length, fin orientation, nose/cockpit profiles etc etc.

 

I would strongly advise you to contact David Collins (of The Hornet Project) on this site for accurate and authoratative information.

 

Les

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

gunzo- it was Mr. Collins and Mr. Askett who gave us information and many photographic and drawn references, which were followed very carefully... our Thank you can be found in the instructions

Thats why I am asking, because I know that panel lines were checked more than once.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The spinner diameter was verified to me a matter of days ago - I suggest you look for crossed lines of communication. Consider whether there were any Merlins with cam boxes tapering from rear to front. Consider then the close fitting of the cowls.

 

 

Les

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jan

 

I would invite you to take measurements from a frontal photograph such as on page 27 of the Dalrymple DH Hornet and Sea Hornet. If we can agree a prop diameter of 12 feet (which your model bears out) you will discover the 32 inch spinner diameter holds true.

 

Les

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plans are just what the name says namely plans.

Cross checking with photos is never wrong and would safe the manufacturers from errors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I am still in the firing line,  page 42 of the same book has a very good oblique overhead colour shot which clearly shows the metal panel areas of the upper wing and which should be the only panel lines, the remainder being fabric covered wood.

 

Les

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone oblige me with the "eating popcorn" emoji?

Rgds

 

Martin

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...