BUILDER Opinions on Better 1/48 Hurricane Mk1 Kit

[Tokyo Raider]

Hi Guys-

 

I am planning more Brit planes to build.  I have built a Hasegawa Hurricane Mk IIc, so enjoyed that alot, but the inserts in fuselage were a challenge but did work out ok...

 

I am think about trying the Airfix Mk1 1/48 Hurricane, and have two in the stash, but not a fan of the soft plastic.  What are your thoughts on the Italieri Hurricane kit Mk1?  They did a recent Battle of Britian kit 80th anniversary.  What are your thoughts on the italieri kit?  It has nice PE harness and good detail...

 

Thanks for your help...

 

 

[gingerbob]

Troy will be along in a bit, but I'll summarize: Airfix currently most accurate, but if that other company that starts with A does a Mk.I that might be the way to go.  Italeri a bit of a mess, and you already know what you'd be getting with Hasegawa.

[Tokyo Raider]

Yea, i may wait for the Arma.  I see they are doing a IIc and would wait for a mk1.

 

I just read all the posts Troy had on the hurricane kits and should have read them, but that all convinced me to wait for the new Arma 1/48 Hurricane kit.

[85sqn]

Out of interest, what's the issue with soft plastic? It does build into a lovely model. There are some inaccuracies along the way that can be resolved without too much bother.

[Tokyo Raider]

The soft plastic and mis shaped parts that need alot of clean up just is not my preferance.  I have built several airfix kits, mostly in 1/72, but liked them all.  The soft plastic they used just resulted in very brittle parts.

[Troy Smith]

6 hours ago, 85sqn said:

There are some inaccuracies along the way that can be resolved without too much bother.

There are some inaccuracies that are a right PITA to sort out.    The lack of curve in the wing/fuselage join,  and the one piece thick ailerons, thinning the two piece wings is easy.  

It's also too long.  All inherited from the 72nd fabric wing kit.  Now I know Airfix read here, and ask here, I'd have gone over the 72nd kit thoroughly  then, and that does not have the ailerons problem. 

  

For the less obsessed, I'd venture the ailerons is the worst,  as it's really makes the trailing edge clunky, and no AM ones AFAIK.   Does need some new tyres, as the kit ones are too balloony  

@Basilisk fixed both of these big glitches back in 2015, as well as other tweaks, see here

 

but I have not got some natty little saw and vice to saw the ailerons down middle.....  Comparatively, adding some plastic strip, shaping it, and redoing all the fasteners is not to bad for a one off.   

The length thing is fixable I think.   

I kinda ran out of modelling enthusiasm last autumn at some point... but see here, I was about to get to it.

 

I think the comments on the Airfix plastic is fair, it's seems to be 10% soap, being both a bit rubbery and brittle......

 

Final anorak  final points. 

The Seat is too narrow, and too high.   

the tyres are too big.

the Dh prop looks a little too long.

the lack ability to be able to fit either set of blades to either spinner allows the less observant builder to make another error...  I've seen it a few times....

 

The instructions, and construction method, along with the rubbery plastic, make it far to easy for builder induced error.  using the upper and lower wings to align the wing spars really helps, both on the 48th and the72nd fabric wing. 

I really don't like the split cockpit, yes, it shows the Hurricane construction, but it's just a faff, and again, liable to cause problems.   It should all be in the fuselage.   I'll work on how to do this when I pick up the IIA build again.

 

From what I can see of the 72nd Arma, and that they do learn lessons,  the 48th are going to be THE kit in scale.    I don't see a Hurricane Mk.I for a while.

The only possible competition is if someone at Trumpeter realises how well shaped the 1/24th kit is, and scales it down, and even then, Arma will get the details right, as they read here, and see all the Hurricane trivia posted  

 

7 hours ago, Tokyo Raider said:

What are your thoughts on the Italieri Hurricane kit Mk1?  They did a recent Battle of Britian kit 80th anniversary.  What are your thoughts on the italieri kit?  It has nice PE harness and good detail...

I call it the 'where's wally' kit.  The more you look, the more glitches you find....

this is as far as i got on the glitch list...

 

The hase kit has a different series of faults, the hardest is the fuselage fabric,  and that under belly join.... ironically, fixbale by useing the Airfix belly, which also allows the to slab sided rear fuselage to be fixed.

 but also has the wing tips wrong (easy fix) and a too flat upper colw curve(again easy fix) and the wheel hubs are too small, easy fix, drill out, use leftover Eduard Spitfire IX hubs.   

 

yes, i need to do, finish  and document all the above....  I intend too...  

 

Any questions?  

 

HTH?

[Tokyo Raider]

Wow...  thanks for all the feedback guys...  i will keep my hasegawa IIc for now and wait for Arma...

[WrathofAtlantis]

I sure hope they fix the insanely thick wingtip thickness of all current 1:48 kits, including Hasegawa and Italery.

[Troy Smith]

On 24/02/2021 at 08:09, WrathofAtlantis said:

I sure hope they fix the insanely thick wingtip thickness of all current 1:48 kits, including Hasegawa and Italery.

Arma  have had this detail stressed to them.   The 72nd kit has them a bit thick.

 

Even if they don't, it's not big problem,   In the case of the kits mentioned, it's the least of their problems.

 

Can't recall the italeri tips, the kit depresses me,   the Hasegawa ones are the wrong shape head on.   

In the case of the Hase kit, not a difficult fix, it's some filing and scraping, an easy fix.    I had this discussion, on ARC, in Ju-88 thread of all places, with the legendary Gaston Marty a few years ago.

 

Hurricane wingtips are one of those subtle details Hurricane hard to see in photos, unless you know what you are looking for, (along with the nose contours and the flat triangle underneath caused by the lower engine bearers)  as it only really shows up at certain angles.   

 

they curve with the aerofoil, but are otherwise flat.  This was described in Peter Cooke's 'Hurricane Veracity' article, which is when i became aware of this.  

 

the site walkround of the Shuttleworth Sea Hurricane  here

is really an invaluable reference, as they are airframe has not been extensively rebuilt, and has a far more authentic feel than most warbirds from the way Shuttleworth operate.

 

this head on shot shows the actual tip to be very thin triangles

 

this is visible in the shape of the light perspex

 

now, look at this, the tip part starts outboard of the aileron, and in defined by a line of screws. those lines of rivets on the tip are flat.  the only double curve part is the edge strip.  

 

 

I'm kicking myself i didn't get some pics last time I was at Hendon, as you can get really close to the tips.   In the flesh if you know too look, it is very very obvious. 

 

 

[Grey Beema]

I’m hoping Arma bring out a 1/48 IIb.  I have a couple of Airfix 1/48 Sea Hurricane loser fuselage inserts and would hope to marry the two to build a couple of Op. Torch 1/48 Sea Hurricane IIbs.  

[Alex Gordon]

@Troy Smith Thanks old chum,with your usual perfect timing you've brought to light the bits I wanted to know while I'm working on my Airfix 1/48th offering.Here's the unmodified  port wingtip

 

 

The port wing trailing edge which I glued together and then cut along it with a Tamiya 0.4mm saw to get it to a decent thickness,I did the same with the ailerons too but the Milliput hasn't cured on the glue induced sink marks on those yet.The wing root curve has been made with Milliput shaped with a paintbrush handle 

 

 

The front wing to fuselage joint had a step which had to be cured by cutting the wing upper and lower half joint out as far as the first panel line.

 

 

Out of morbid curiosity here's the Airfix fuselage offered up to the Ark item,rudder post aligned.Ark is the upper one in this piccie.

 

 

 

If the nose ring is aligned everything matches up as far as the aft end of the rear fuselage.I didn't try this with the wings. 

 

Tokyo Raider,apologies for the hijack.The Airfix kit is a bit of both.The fit has been reasonably carefree and good as far as the front of the lower wing.I'd recommend it apart from the above snags and the price.I'll keep quiet about the Ark kit until I've finished its construction. 

Edited March 2, 2021 by Alex Gordon

[Troy Smith]

11 minutes ago, Alex Gordon said:

I'll keep quiet about the Ark kit until I've finished its construction. 

I messed about with one. the main airframe is copied off the OLD tool Airifx Mk,I, this means the wing is too thin seen head on.

 

I think the only way to deal with it would be to add the upper wings to the fuselage, and then add cross spars, and assemble the lower wing to this, otherwise  it won't really work.... (Or use an old tool Airfix one piece lower wing, that would help alignment.)

If only they had just copied the Airfix fabric onto the Hase kit, which they used for the interior.   

 

I may try to just build one 'as is' someday to test my theories, rather than messing about on fixes.... it's an odd kit, both better and worse than it's reputation.

One day is moot, i have been going through my kit stashes, and trying to collate them in one place.... which has been fascinating and depressing, I foresee major sales ahead... (I have 6 Ark Hurricane's...)

I was planning on making up a master centre section for the Ark, to fix the awful Airfix inherited wheel well,  and make for the a part that would allow a thicker wing and sub spars and blah blah blah, it's in a box with various other such part done projects.   

 

pity your not nearby Alex,  we have a great time nattering and being able to see fixes, I'm sure you'd suggest ways/techniques/solutions I'd not thought of, I'm really impressed with that Milliput fillet you have made, i went for adding plastic strip and shaping that (see link at end) 

 

 

One point, if anyone has an Aardvark(later Heritage)  resin fabric wing conversion, designed for the old tool Airfix,  the Ark fuselage is a drop fit in this.  the resin wing has engraved panelling, as does the Ark. 

 

12 minutes ago, Alex Gordon said:

If the nose ring is aligned everything matches up as far as the aft end of the rear fuselage.

My theory is this, the new tool Airfix fuselage is the right length to the cut out in the rudder post, but the actual post is a little bit further back, and I suspect it's a CAD error, using the cut out for the absolute length.  

What is of note, both the 72nd fabric wing and new tool 48th show the same discrepancy with the Bentley plans printed in 72nd (Scale Models 1980) and the MAM 48th plans from 2005.

 

I started butchering mine, this shows the cut out for those not aware of the kit.  

 

it's a lot of work for a change that is hard to see BTW.

see here for more on fixes

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235077619-airfix-hurricane-iia-in-148th-gaffa-tape-here-we-come

 

And hopefully the new Arma Hobby kit will make all this irrelevant...

16 hours ago, Grey Beema said:

I’m hoping Arma bring out a 1/48 IIb.

They did in 72nd.  Do the C and B wing (easily backdate to a A) and you have covered most of the Hurricanes built.  That's a lot of potentail  Tooling up a separate under panel is a good idea in 1/;48thk, as allows it to be moulded properly, (one very good feature of the Airfix kit IMO) and easy to tool up a Sea Hurricane (or use Airfix leftovers)

A IID and IV are  easy enough conversions from a IIc, and if these are too nice for them, I can see AM being for these. 

Canadain ones can be done (Ultracast do a conversion)  though no-one as yet does the Canadian pattern radiator. 

AM could do a little kit for the VVS modifications if Arma don't do a special boxing,  which would be neat, as the VVS had nearly 3000!

 

The big question is if Arma will do the Mk.I?   i suppose it will depend on how the Mk.II's sell,  and there is a gap for a fabric wing kit as well...  the problem with the Mk.I is to cover all the variations you need two starboard fuselages, two wings, an insert windscreen part (to allow for curved and straight lower edges) two belly panels, two rudders, 4 and 5 spoke wheel hubs, 2 blade prop, DH blades and Rotol blades, 4 spinners (2 DH, 2 Rotol) 

two or three types of exhaust and a few other bits and pieces.

 

That would allow basically ANY Mk.I Hurricane, and a lot of marking possibilities.   (I'd be pushing for a special mid 1940 production fabric wing boxing,  as there are at least 5  now photo documented examples) 

 

It is exactly the sort of thing Eduard do,  and the Arma chaps are not stupid,  as they would then 'own' the  1/48th Hurricane market,  not that the competition is exactly strong, The Hase kit are pretty much unavailable, and tend to be expensive in Europe, the Italeri kits are expensive, and not good either both accuracy wise or as  kits, and Airfix have not set their kit up to be anything other than a standard Mk.I 

 

The Hobbycraft moulds seem to have disappeared,  most of the Hobbycraft mould ended up with Academy,  a few ended up in China with Kitech-Zhengdfu (Sea Fury, Spitfire XIV, Seafire XV all came out in Kitech boxes)  but they seem to have disappeared,  but the Hurricane I have only ever seen from Hobbycraft,  which was a copy of the old tool Airfix, but done as IIC with engraved panel lines, it has a neat pair of 40mm guns and very neat ES/9 spinner BTW.

Final note, the Monogram kit is no use as decent Hurricane kit, but does come with what look like reasonable versions of 40mm guns, drop tanks, bomb carriers and maybe OK rocket blast plates (I'd need to double check) 

 

HTH

 

[woody37]

I built one of the airfix ones last year and thoroughly enjoyed it. Ignoring the issues mentioned above, it goes together well. I have another couple and will build them, great for overcoming modellers block and you can never have enough Hurricanes on the shelf!

 

[Alex Gordon]

8 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

I messed about with one. the main airframe is copied off the OLD tool Airifx Mk,I, this means the wing is too thin seen head on.

 

I think the only way to deal with it would be to add the upper wings to the fuselage, and then add cross spars, and assemble the lower wing to this, otherwise  it won't really work.... (Or use an old tool Airfix one piece lower wing, that would help alignment.)

 

pity your not nearby Alex,  we have a great time nattering and being able to see fixes, I'm sure you'd suggest ways/techniques/solutions I'd not thought of, I'm really impressed with that Milliput fillet you have made, i went for adding plastic strip and shaping that (see link at end) 

 

My theory is this, the new tool Airfix fuselage is the right length to the cut out in the rudder post, but the actual post is a little bit further back, and I suspect it's a CAD error, using the cut out for the absolute length. 

Thanks for the heads up on the Ark kit wing thickness,presumably a fillet of plastic card added into the leading edge joint would cure that snag,what thickness would be required?While we're at it do we think that the Ark fuselage is the right length and proportions?  

 

I tried adding the upper wings to the fuselage first,my usual method, but the glue contact area wasn't enough and the curvatures don't match up well.The glue didn't take too well (Humbrol Liquid Poly,it's actually reasonably effective) and both wings fell off with minimal handling.I'm now cobbling together the lower wing to use as a support when I try again.

 

I thought @Basilisk had a splendid method of sorting the fuselage length,it's not too late to try that with mine.

 

It's always good to chew over fixes to snags,simple methods are usually the last to surface.I do enjoy reading about this stuff out here where many minds mull it over and come up with ideas.

 

Tokyo Raider,sorry old chum I'm hijacking again.The Airfix plastic reacts well with the Humbrol glue that I've been using and joints set up fairly rapidly.That is probably a benefit of the softness of the plastic.

[Troy Smith]

2 hours ago, Alex Gordon said:

Thanks for the heads up on the Ark kit wing thickness,presumably a fillet of plastic card added into the leading edge joint would cure that snag,what thickness would be required?

From memory, about 1mm,  only visible head on.  If you have some calipers measure the new tool Airfix wing against the old too.   Harder to do an the Ark due that damn multipart lower wing.

The problem is that adding a spacer is easy, but it then drop the wing against the lower cowl line, which is OK,   so you really then need to thicken wing, and then fair in on the upper wing/fuse joint.   More bother than it's worth I suspect, or maybe easy enough with some Milliput, I'm a bit lazy about the using it, even though when i do it's great....

last time I used it was some old stuff I recondtioned in the microwave to fill a hole in windowsill,   I have even started to use CA/Talc for small DIY filling jobs now..... I have one window sill that gets a real hammering from sunlight, and requires regular attention.   

And now back to our normal programming

2 hours ago, Alex Gordon said:

 

While we're at it do we think that the Ark fuselage is the right length and proportions?  

from memory, yes.  It has the lower edge curve, but the bottom panel line is too high,  but the wing is slightly too low, as described above.   As i said, i I think this is where the law of diminishing returns kicks in,  ends being being a load of work for a minor visual improvement.  This is theoretical,  from much examining, dry fitting,  adjusting, and pondering, and being a bit too precious to just 'do it'  , along with sometime just not having everything in place, the desire to dig it all out, do it and document it..... 

I'm in the process of collating all my projects in   

2 hours ago, Alex Gordon said:

I tried adding the upper wings to the fuselage first,my usual method, but the glue contact area wasn't enough and the curvatures don't match up well.

what i meant was too add spar pieces, perhaps of metal,  front and back of the well, much as in the real plane,  to the underside of the upper wing to fuselage joint, too add support and rigidity.    

The Ark plastic is soft, try simply flexing it a bit,  soft plastic can be permanently shape changed with cold manipulation, flex it a bit more than you need, and it will then stay the new shape you wanted.  I did the on the Hase upper cowl contours, flex up to make a greater curve,  leaves a small gap, but that's a simple filling job.  I even did this to a Airfix Spit 22/24,  flexing up the spine with round nose pliers, to make a high back,  another stalled project.

I don't know if enough modellers are aware of the possibilities of cold reshaping. 

 

No idea about the glue, i use a mix of superglue and Tamiya Xtra Thin mostly. 

If you do a WIP on this,  I'd then dig out the projects box, (as I'm in the process of collating all my model stuff in one place)  and make a bit more effort. 

 

Year ago I got as far as getting an Aires resin wheel well, making a mould of it, so I could then make my own to order,  but it was for the Hase kit, and finding that the rear leg supports didn't line up with the old Airfix/Ark well cut outs.....  

A LONG time ago I started a old Airfix  detail up build,  and trying to sort out the wheel well was a right pain.  The mid line joint was an awful bit of design..... which Ark duly copied. 

 

HTH

 

 

[Troy Smith]

7 hours ago, woody37 said:

I built one of the airfix ones last year and thoroughly enjoyed it. Ignoring the issues mentioned above, it goes together well. I have another couple and will build them, great for overcoming modellers block and you can never have enough Hurricanes on the shelf!

Indeed. I think for the non AMS obsessive, it's a great kit, the most annoying glitch from that perspective is the wing trailing edge, specifically the ailerons.   I really enjoyed the 72nd fabric wing I forced myself to build OOB and finish, and this basically that upscaled.

 

I've also seen a quite a few examples of modellers not realising the precision of the tooling, and the need to make sure all that framework is trued up correctly,  easy enough if you tape the wings halves together as jig at the start, but the cause of many woes later,  bit like the Airfix Spit VB and the cockpit/fuel tank.   

 

That's a great model as well.   

[Alex Gordon]

On 3/3/2021 at 1:47 PM, Troy Smith said:

From memory, about 1mm,  only visible head on.  If you have some calipers measure the new tool Airfix wing against the old too.   Harder to do an the Ark due that damn multipart lower wing.

You'll never guess what I've done while waiting for some paint to dry.

 

Airfix wing buttoned up,Ark wing trailing edge glued leading edge taped together.

 

 

Thickness measurements taken in mm using a digital vernier at the panel lines indicated in blue.The thickest part of the wing seems to be where the green line runs. 

 

 

That's going to be easier to deal with than I thought.

 

[Troy Smith]

40 minutes ago, Alex Gordon said:

Thickness measurements taken in mm using a digital vernier at the panel lines indicated in blue.The thickest part of the wing seems to be where the green line runs. 

 

OK, so the Ark wing is thinner at the root, but thicker further out.  Interesting. Note, the centre section is flat head on, so should be same thickness.  But seems my 1mm is out, more like 0.5 mm.  OK, I'll need to examine mine again closely.   Thanks for the input.

cheers

T

[V Line]

A really interesting thread. On the matter of the wing root curve, the deficiency  is quite apparent when one looks for it.

 

Apologies for moving slightly O/T.

 

This caused me to look again at the PCM and Fly Hurricanes (1/32). The former is actually very good on this. The Fly, not so good and will need some rectification.

 

The wing fairing/ fuselage junction is actually a complex thing with various panels and joins.

 

A wing under construction with the fairing panels absent:

 

 

 

Here is a photo of an early Hurricane with the starboard fuselage panels removed and which augments the photos posted above by Troy in highlighting the contour on the wing created by the fairing panels:

 

 

 

Airfix seem to have a habit of not getting the Hurricane wing quite right. The 1/24 version is well known as being a ‘creation’ although I believe this is ‘fixable’ with a fair degree of work which I am half – way through on a very slow build. Here, I think Airfix get the fairing curve ‘right’ although from the forward end of the ‘walk board’ to a point just aft of the wing leading edge the junction with the wing is too high. My solution is to carefully cut this section away and with sanding/shaping of the residual section on the fuselage , it should be ready to receive the adjusted wing (and consequentially, the wheel bay).

 

As is well known, the wing thickness, most noticeably at the leading edge (particularly from the fuselage join to a point close to the landing lights) needs to be reduced to a scale level and I have used the Trumpeter wing measured in the style of  Alex’s  post above as a benchmark.

 p.s.

The 1/48 Airfix dH prop – which I scale out as 10ft 8ins - is below the correct diameter (11 ft) for a mid/late Mk1 rather than being too great. Basic faults such as this are somewhat annoying.

As Troy suggests the spinner is too long – I suggest by approx 3 or 4 inches in scale.

 

[gingerbob]

59 minutes ago, V Line said:

A wing under construction with the fairing panels absent:

 

What is in the photo is outer wing panels- remember that the center section was built integral to (or "was thoroughly integrated with") the fuselage.  Or did I misunderstand your meaning?

[V Line]

5 hours ago, gingerbob said:

 

What is in the photo is outer wing panels- remember that the center section was built integral to (or "was thoroughly integrated with") the fuselage.  Or did I misunderstand your meaning?

I didn't get the first photo right for some reason. In answer to your query, the glib answer is ‘framework’ but that would be unhelpful so here are some additional photos and links which with some study may better illustrate my observation that the wing fairing/ fuselage junction is actually a complex thing with various panels and joins. There is it seems, some overlapping.

 

This one is very good as the two wing fairing panels and single fuselage fairing panel that have been fitted in this restoration are clearly identifiable:

 

Starboard junction framework showing fastener receivers (and possibly some pre-drilled holes for fixing?):

 

 

 

Fuselage panel fitted – no wing fairing panels yet-link:

 

http://www.hawker-restorations-ltd.co.uk/_images/_completed/g-hury/22.jpg

 

Production line:

 

 

 

Production line good views of framework at junction of wing and fuselage:

 

 

Stbd. view of junction:

 

Useful view of framework awaiting panel/fairing fixing-link:

 

http://warbirdsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Hawker-Hurricane-Mark-XII.png

 

Posted here on a recent thread. Aircraft in foreground only has rear fairing panels fitted:

 

 

 

HTH