Jump to content

Hawker Typhoon


Recommended Posts

Academy if you want to do a small tail / 3 blade prop aircraft, Airfix if you want a 4-blade prop aircraft with the Tempest tail.

(The Academy comes with a spare 4-blade prop but only has the small tail. Airfix is big tail / 4 blade only)

 

The Academy is probably an easier build than the Airfix. The Brengun kit is also good, if you are an experienced modeller. The Hobby Boss one I would steer clear of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also concur with WIP's comments; IIRC, I think I recall reading in some reviews that the upper nose contour is too straight close to the spinner, and needs to taper down to meet the spinner backplate.

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep - as on the Academy.  And a few other older kits.  Standard problem of a kit designer not understanding that the shape of a cowling is dependent upon the shape of the engine inside it, so drawing a nice simple curve.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t recall any. Typical modern Airfix build with tight tolerances. As a bonus it also comes with optional open gun bays.

 

Trevor

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2020 at 5:31 PM, Work In Progress said:

Academy if you want to do a small tail / 3 blade prop aircraft, Airfix if you want a 4-blade prop aircraft with the Tempest tail.

(The Academy comes with a spare 4-blade prop but only has the small tail. Airfix is big tail / 4 blade only)

 

The Academy is probably an easier build than the Airfix. The Brengun kit is also good, if you are an experienced modeller. The Hobby Boss one I would steer clear of.

If you choose the Academy, be sure to fix the overlength undercarriage, otherwise it's a very easy build.  The Brengun has some issues with panel lines that at places are raised and need fixing.

 

/Finn

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was comparing the Brengun and Airfix fuselages.   Airfix is shorter, and height wise/shape don't match one another.

 

Also something funky going on with the Airfix fishplates on the tail.  Top area looks fine, but as they go around the bottom, they become progressively narrower.   Looks like the CAD designer wasn't paying attention, nor did anyone check his work?

 

regards,

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

In spite of my minor dimensional complaints in the linked thread above, IMHO the Airfix Typhoon kit is far superior to the Academy one. More accurate, more detail, and a really fun build. If I made one change, it might be to shave the fin leading edge down a bit to match the Bentley drawings - easy to do and improves the overall proportions of the rear fuselage. But hey, I'm weird that way...normal folk would not notice the difference.

 

The "tip-toe" landing gear stance and cartoonishly over-sized canopy in the Academy kit are deal-breakers to my eye, and as already mentioned it only correctly depicts the early "bubbletop" with small tail and 3-blade prop. The Brengun kits are the most accurate of all, and offer every version of the aircraft as well, but are rather pricey, and as with most limited-run kits require more time and swear words to construct.

 

I find the engineering of the Airfix kit particularly ingenious. The wheel well/radiator bay/cockpit floor insert looks great and guarantees the correct dihedral angles; and the option to do one or both gun bays opened is a wonderful bonus in such a simple and inexpensive kit.

Edited by MDriskill
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MDriskill said:

The "tip-toe" landing gear stance and cartoonishly over-sized canopy in the Academy kit are deal-breakers to my eye, and as already mentioned is only correctly depicts the early "bubbletop" with small tail and 3-blade prop.

3-blade prop and small tail configuration  was however the majority of the aircraft built, so you would presumably criticise the Airfix kit for being more constrained than the Academy one.

The undercarriage and canopy are both very easy to change, with plenty of vac-form Typhoon/Tempest canopies around in 1/72, so I don't know why they'd be deal-breakers.

Edited by Work In Progress
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

3 hours ago, MDriskill said:

In spite of my minor dimensional complaints in the linked thread above, IMHO the Airfix Typhoon kit is far superior to the Academy one. More accurate, more detail, and a really fun build. If I made one change, it might be to shave the fin leading edge down a bit to match the Bentley drawings - easy to do and improves the overall proportions of the rear fuselage. But hey, I'm weird that way...normal folk would not notice the difference.

 

The "tip-toe" landing gear stance and cartoonishly over-sized canopy in the Academy kit are deal-breakers to my eye, and as already mentioned is only correctly depicts the early "bubbletop" with small tail and 3-blade prop. The Brengun kits are the most accurate of all, and offer every version of the aircraft as well, but are rather pricey, and as with most limited-run kits require more time and swear words to construct.

 

I find the engineering of the Airfix kit particularly ingenious. The wheel well/radiator bay/cockpit floor insert looks great and guarantees the correct dihedral angles; and the option to do one or both gun bays opened is a wonderful bonus in such a simple and inexpensive 

Personally, I completely agree with your conclusion.

 

The upper nose contour of the Academy also puts me off, even if the canopy were good straight out of the box..

 

Rgds & Happy modelling

 

Martin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm no comments on the Airfix fishplates -  elephant in the room, or maybe the plastic detail in my kit is short shotted?   Looking at the drawings provided in the Valiant publication on said subject, they should all be the same size...

 

MJpyxxi.jpg

 

regards,

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2020 at 6:09 PM, 72modeler said:

I think I recall reading in some reviews that the upper nose contour is too straight close to the spinner, and needs to taper down to meet the spinner backplate.

 

To me, the entire Academy nose (also the vertical fin) look a bit under-nourished (provided You align the cockpit opening with the plans)

 

spacer.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

@warhawk,

 

If your drawings are accurate, it appears the nose is too short- do the firewalls and/or exhausts line up so the location of an extension would be indicated? I think I can pull my Airfix and Academy kits and see how their fuselages compare.

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, the photos I posted are nearly a decade old, and I no longer have the Academy kit to make a finer assessment.

Traded mine for a Brengun mould long time ago, which does fit to these plans, found in Warpaint publication, drawn by D. Howley and based on A. Bentley drawings, almost perfectly (much better than Academy).

 

Regards,

Aleksandar

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately there isn't a perfect 1/72 Typhoon kit and the Academy kit has lots of issues. I have a comparison build on the Airfix and Brengun kit HERE

 

As mentioned in my build, here is the list of the kits shortcomings.

Brengun:

- No Fishplates

- Radiator Air Filter location looking odd

- Cockpit vents on the large side

- Representation of engine panel fasteners too large

- Many panel lines need to be re-scribed

- No navigation lights

Airfix:

- Wings too thin

- Fit not the best

- Cockpit vents too small

- Representation of engine panel fasteners at wrong places and too many.

- No landing and navigation lights

- Radiator opening too small

 

The biggest issue for me is the thin wing on the Airfix kit which looks more like a Tempest wing and is nearly impossible to correct. This makes the Brengun kit more accurate but but is a more difficult build.

spacer.png

 

Cheers, Peter

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2020 at 9:52 AM, Work In Progress said:

3-blade prop and small tail configuration  was however the majority of the aircraft built, so you would presumably criticise the Airfix kit for being more constrained than the Academy one.

The undercarriage and canopy are both very easy to change, with plenty of vac-form Typhoon/Tempest canopies around in 1/72, so I don't know why they'd be deal-breakers.

No argument here...the Airfix isn't perfect, and the Academy can be built to look very good (c.f., Libor Jekl's rendition in the Valiant book). But the original question was only which do I think is better. I stand by my conclusion (though as is often the case for me, possibly it was a bit too pontifical 😬 ).

 

Philosophically speaking, the most perplexing issue with the Airfix 1/72 Typhoon may be that it has any issues at all!  Did it not stem from the same research effort that produced their amazing 1/24 kits...?

Edited by MDriskill
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Basilisk said:

Brengun:

- No Fishplates

- Radiator Air Filter location looking odd

- Cockpit vents on the large side

- Representation of engine panel fasteners too large

- Many panel lines need to be re-scribed

- No navigation lights

Airfix:

- Wings too thin

- Fit not the best

- Cockpit vents too small

- Representation of engine panel fasteners at wrong places and too many.

- No landing and navigation lights

- Radiator opening too small

Great post and link, thanks much! Duly added to my Typhoon/Tempest reference file.

 

Quick thought - the Airfix radiator bath looks to be about the right size, with room to enlarge the opening a bit, so maybe that fault at least can be improved.

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

No argument here...the Airfix isn't perfect, and the Academy can be built to look very good (c.f., Libor Jekl's rendition in the Valiant book). But the original question was only which do I think is better. I stand by my conclusion (though as is often the case for me, possibly it was a bit too pontifical 😬 ).

Not for me, dear chap.

 

I thought you were very clear that what you were providing was your personal opinion, which seemed to be what the op was asking for.

 

Rgds

 

Martin

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2020 at 4:48 PM, Stressy said:

Which is the better 1/72 scale kit to start with, Airfix or Academy? 

Every true-modeller must heroically starting FROG...and throw it half way!

(Joke, just a joke!)😉😁😁

20 hours ago, 72modeler said:

If your drawings are accurate,

Best accurate drawings it's factory theoreticall drawings or practical measurements of a real aircraft (the only one in the case of the Typhoon), everything else can contain (and often does!) errors, unfortunately.

🤗

 

B.R.

Serge

 

P.S. Hawker Typhoon it's also not my thematic ... but  some in GB FROG could see something ...🤔😏

P.P.S.

My vote, as a person who collects Jet fighter -

Airfix, but it's just at the level of emotions, without sober analytical calculation.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2020 at 2:52 PM, Work In Progress said:

3-blade prop and small tail configuration  was however the majority of the aircraft built,

Is that true of 3-blade, small tail, AND bubble canopy?  I suspect not.  Any model will only represent a minority of the production run, given the variables involved.  Solid rear canopy or transparent on a cab-door Typhoon?  Raised surround to exhausts?  12 guns or four?  Bomb racks or not?  However the point is not that needing a new canopy is iniquitous, just that it will require additional expenditure and is a way of differentiating between the two kits.

 

As for accurate drawings - we are talking about AL Bentley drawings.  Which does imply quality unless there is very strong evidence otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

As for accurate drawings - we are talking about AL Bentley drawings.  Which does imply quality unless there is very strong evidence otherwise.

With ALL my really respect to AL Bentley (

old school, this is old school!  ...and yes, old school is cool!)

, there are drawings of AL Bentley that personally raise many questions for me, such as drawings of the Me-263, so for me personally, any, even the most famous and respected, name on the drawings is absolutely not a guarantee of the absolute correctness of these drawings, if these drawings have not been checked with the factory  theoretical drawings and measurements of real aircraft.

 

 But this is my personal point of view.

 

B.R.

Serge

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course no-one is perfect, and you could also have mentioned his Bf 110G.  However the quality of his work is why he is so famous and respected, particularly when it comes to something so "close to home" as the Typhoon.  He is one of the few for whom such respect should be given, and good reason required for doubt.  Not just, well he's only one of several to create such drawings and they are all to be regarded with equal respect .  Not that all the others are actually disreputable...

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...