Thoughts on the new 48th Airfix Chipmunk T.10 kit

[wellsprop]

On 20/09/2021 at 02:27, Rod Blievers said:

Usually half hidden on the black anti-dazzle panel, here's the longeron bracing plates, mandatory for ALL U.K.-built Chipmunks after 1983, yet omitted from the kit.

 

I still haven't figured out the best way of scratchbuilding this little part for my Chipmunk build! 

 

Good spot on that strange circular scoop aft of the NACA duct though - as it's well hidden, I haven't bothered to remove it....

[wellsprop]

On 20/09/2021 at 02:27, Rod Blievers said:

228442745_10158310012368123_7427968296585233670_n by Rod Blievers, on Flickr

 

The kit's nether regions - great to see the NACA-type scoop, but what's that circular strip supposed to represent?

 

 

 

According to a recent discussion on the Dh Chipmunk Appreciation page on Facebook, its mod H210, which is described in TNS117, Deflector for the newly introduced fuel vents.

[Rod Blievers]

I was aware of mod H.210, but the final iteration of TNS 117 states that  "H210 is no longer mandatory, only optional" which perhaps explains why this item is so rare.

Edited August 1, 2023 by Rod Blievers
Delete text

[Adam Poultney]

On 21/09/2021 at 07:12, T-21 said:

Has anybody a good photograph of the rear glider towing hook please ?  When attaching the aero-tow rope  from the rear we lifted the elevators to signal to the pilot to open the release to attach the rope then gently lower the elevators after the rope was attached.  Due to prop wash and engine noise it was the only way apart from using a handheld radio.

Bit late but do you still need the photos?

[gingerbob]

I know this was discussed sometime, somewhere, but what are the "V" shaped things under the wing? (one pointing outboard, one inboard each side)

[Paul J]

27 minutes ago, gingerbob said:

I know this was discussed sometime, somewhere, but what are the "V" shaped things under the wing? (one pointing outboard, one inboard each side)

I think they are inspection ports and opened by unzipping them.

[gingerbob]

Yeah, I had a vague possible memory of that, thanks.  I got one of these kits about a month ago, and finally started playing with it a little today.  First impression, mightily impressed!

[Work In Progress]

On 11/22/2023 at 6:55 PM, Paul J said:

think they are inspection ports and opened by unzipping them.

correct

[Rod Blievers]

In addition to what I wrote earlier about the differences between the UK-built Chipmunk T.10 and the Canadian DHC-1B-2, I've recently come across a photo clearly (because the aircraft is in stripped-back bare metal) showing that extra nose cowl panel that completely alters the shape of the lower port nose. I've also added a comparison photo (I tried for the same angle and then fell off the ladder!) of my T.10. I've also attached some profiles from Ole Rossel's drawings from Bill Fisher's "Chipmunk - the first fifty years book".

 

Apart from the nose, there are many differences visible here - for example the shorter leading edge stalling strips, positioning of the cowling intakes, the subtly different narrower shape of the large nose intake, re-positioned brake lines and the narrower (more pointy at the top) cross-section of the windscreen - oddly this is more apparent from the photos than the drawings.

 

 

 

As a comparison, I attempted an identical view of a Chipmunk T.10 - until I fell off the ladder, anyway!

 

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by Rod Blievers

[Rod Blievers]

..and here's the drawings:

 

Dare I say this, but I think the depiction of the windscreen is incorrect? The flatter top on the T.10 is more obvious in real life...

Edited November 25, 2023 by Rod Blievers

[Scooby]

On 9/24/2021 at 4:34 PM, Rod Blievers said:

Effectively a complete new set of mouldings, Paul! I'm sorry to bang on about this but it's a largely mis-understoofd topic..

 

Many seem the to think that overall yellow RCAF Chipmunks are identical to the UK-built T.10, but with a bubble canopy. This is simply NOT TRUE; they are very different airframes.

 

 Bubble canopied Canadian Chipmunks comprise two versions. The first was the DHC-1B-2-S3, which was ordered by the Canadian Dept of Defence for distribution to Canadian aero clubs and hence only much later some wore the overall yellow scheme. Subsequently the RCAF ordered the DHC-1B-2-S5; this was specifically intended for service use. They differ considerably from the UK (or Portuguese) built T.10/Mk.20/Mk.21/Mk.22 series; they are structurally different and use different sub-systems to the extent that many components are not even interchangeable. As an example (and alluding to the popular myth), the Canadian bubble canopy cannot be fitted to a T.10 (due to the different windscreen cross-section and lower mounting rails).

 

Please note the correct Manufacturer's designations; despite what's been written earlier the RCAF did NOT call them "Chipmunk T.30's" - they were CT-120's. The "T.30" nomenclature grew out of an article in a  certain UK modelling magazine many years ago. This myth has been repeated by many ever since (and, I'm ashamed to say, by me also).

 

Keep in mind that Chipmunks built in the UK, Portugal and Canadian DHC-1B were parallel developments of the earlier Canadian-built DHC-1A, the changes intended to produce a more practical military primary trainer. Both used the beefed-up centre section (permitting the aircraft to be fully aerobatic) and both used higher powered (although different versions) of the Gipsy-Major engine. Both of these engines supported a generator and vacuum pump, allowing a full electrical system and a complete sets of blind-flying instruments to be fitted. The earlier criticisms of the narrow canopy and lack of headroom were also addressed, although rectified on either side of the Atlantic in starkly different fashions.

 

The subject is further confused in that while there are some small differences between the -S3 and the -S5, private owners have subsequently painted both types in that attractive overall yellow RCAF scheme. Further, there are now Chipmunks painted and fitted with the bubble canopy so as to represent the Canadian-built aircraft; closer examination reveals their true identity as T.10's.

 

 However, as this is intended for modellers, I'll limit myself to how this affected the external appearance of the aircraft and to how the DHC-1B differed from the T.10.

 

Engine area.

 

1. Identical profile props and spinners, although the -1B spinner had a two piece assembly with a prominent join line.

2. The cowl front of the -1B lacked the cupped intake on the lower LHS but had a vertical "slot" intake directly under the spinner. Note that all -B's left the factory with the heater intake (lower RHS) and the short, almost vertical exhaust stack, whereas these only started appearing on the T.10 in 1979.

3. The LH cowl front is re-profiled with the effect of "pushing" the lower outboard side of the large intake forward, so that when viewed from the side/front quarter the lips of the intake appear parallel (on the T.10 the outboard edge sweeps down/aft).

4. To accommodate a shrouded (and thus dimensionally larger) oil tank, the Canadian cowling is deeper, producing a distinct "step" where it joins the lower fuselage (as viewed from the side) and carries another intake low down on the LHS.

5. Scoop on top (slightly RHS) of cowl not fitted (replaced by the lower LHS one).

6. No hole/slot (for engine priming) on the LH cowl, no cartridge starter exhaust (aft edge of cowl on RHS).

 

Centre fuselage/cockpit.

 

7.  The tiny cockpit air cooling flap, upper RHS, immediately ahead of the windscreen, was not fitted.

8.  Canadian Chipmunks were never fitted with the longeron bracing plates (a prominent horizontal "T"-shaped plate on the upper fuselage sides immediately behind the firewall) which featured on all UK-built Chipmunks after 1983.

9.   Circular black ground power plug (lower fwd LHS) not fitted, replaced by a hatch on the LHS immediately ahead of the doubler frame.

10.   Prominent air scoop on RHS, below rear cockpit (a 1962 retrofit item applicable mainly, but not exclusively, to the -S5).

11.  Doubler frame has a small horizontal frame mounted over (upper fuselage).

12.  Windscreen has narrower "pointier" profile at the top (when viewed in cross-section), while the glazing meets the fuselage in a straight horizontal line, not curved (as viewed from the side).

13.  Cockpits differ in many details,

            - electrical switch panel mounted on coaming, not the LHS front cockpit wall,  i.e. where the pilot can actually see it.

            - the magneto switches are also on the LHS of the coaming, i.e. where the ground crew can actually see them.

            - coaming glare shields overlap the instrument panels, but remain parallel to the panel and do not taper aft as they meet the cockpit sill.

            - instruments are rather more modern, have prominent eyebrow lighting, while the layout is subtly different.

            -control column has a pistol grip while the throttle/mixture assembly is much bulkier

            -shoulder harnesses mount to a prominent lateral rail behind the seats.

            -the general appearance is less cluttered/claustrophobic (possibly helped by being painted yellow/silver).

14. That gorgeous "blown" bubble canopy - note the first aid kit is carried on the rear fuselage decking immediately aft of the rear cockpit.

 

Rear fuselage/tail group

 

15. Lacks the two battery compartment access panels (upper rear fuselage). The batteries are located where the UK version has a baggage compartment (directly behind the rear seat).

16. Lacks the UHF "blade" antennae.

17. Lacks the oval shaped inspection panels immediately aft of the upper antenna, (both sides).

18. The lifting rod hole is now installed immediately aft of the vertical panel line (rear fuselage).

19. Prominent mounting base for VHF whip antenna on the dorsal spine.

20. Spin recovery strakes never fitted.

21  Small access panel under LH tailplane not fitted.

22. Upper surface of tailcone incorporates longitudinal bracing corrugations (-S5 only).

23. Tail light mounted directly on cone, lacks the fairing piece resulting in a subtly "blunter" appearance (i.e. the fuselage length is thus marginally shorter).

24. Elevator horns are much angular (pointed) and effectively increase the tailplane span.

25. Fitted on production with the broad-chord rudder (easily recognized by the "kink" at the lower trailing edge), whereas this was retrofitted to RAF T.10's in the period 1953-1956.

 

Wings/undercarriage.

 

26 Stalling strips are reduced to about 1/3rd the length (inboard leading edge of wing).

27. Undercarriage legs are not faired, and are mounted slightly further aft and raked more vertically (in full size, the ground contact point is 4 inches aft - it sounds miniscule but the different stance is obvious, particularly when you see both types parked together.

28. Landing light is a retractable unit mounted outboard/aft of the undercarriage (left wing).

29. Navigation lights fitted on the outboard of the wingtips, at about 1/4 chord.

30. Slightly longer, "L"-shaped pitot mast.

31 Downward identification lamp (under inboard RH wing) not fitted.

32. First aid kit  with access strap (upper LH wing) not fitted.

33. NACA vent under centre-section not fitted (Canadian Chipmunks have a L/R/Off fuel selector).

34. Fuel caps/gauge assembly sits flush with the wing uppersurface (i.e. not on the T.10's rather clumpy plate), fuel gauges are now inboard of the caps while the tank vent mast is mounted further outboard.

 

Feast your eyes on this recent comparison photo, Paul, particularly with reference to the differences I've listed.

Cheers,

Rod.

 

 

 

 

 

I read last night that the first four serial numbered Chipmunks delivered to the Canadian military were the framed a canopy type, they were delivered to 444 AOC Squadron in Canada, one later found its way to 1 Flying School. I believe these four were identical to what the British military purchased.

[wellsprop]

On 24/11/2023 at 19:40, Rod Blievers said:

Dare I say this, but I think the depiction of the windscreen is incorrect? The flatter top on the T.10 is more obvious in real life...

 

Its very obvious in the T.10. 

 

 

[Rod Blievers]

Scooby:

 

Three Chipmunks went (initially) to 444 (AOP) Sqn, RCAF c.1948. These were c/n 23, 24 and 25 which became 18001, 18002 and 18003. Around 1955 they went to 1 FTS and were re-coded as DA001, DA002 and DA003 respectively. They left RCAF service in 1957.

 

These were all DHC-1A-1's, so they were NOT identical to British Chipmunks. Even the canopy framing was different; thinner, no jetisonable side panels and access handles on the centreline.

[MikeC]

Of course, there is one way you can put a RCAF scheme on the Airfix Chippie:  model the example at the Shuttleworth collection.  http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/dux-126.jpg

[Rod Blievers]

On 3/19/2024 at 7:08 PM, MikeC said:

model the example at the Shuttleworth collection. 

Quote

 

A wolf in sheep's clothing. What were the Shuttleworth people thinking?

[MikeC]

9 hours ago, Rod Blievers said:

A wolf in sheep's clothing. What were the Shuttleworth people thinking?

That it's a cool scheme, perhaps? Hope it doesn't cause complete apoplexy if I mention that the cockpit interiors are light grey.

[wellsprop]

There's always this beauty...

 

 

A UK built Chipmunk wearing a Portuguese colour scheme which is completely incorrect - I really like it!

[Rod Blievers]

Quote

Hope it doesn't cause complete apoplexy if I mention that the cockpit interiors are light grey.

Anything would be less claustrophobic than Coal Hole Black!

Regarding the "Portuguese" Chipmunk scheme, that's beyond my knowledge.

[stringbag]

10 hours ago, wellsprop said:

There's always this beauty...

 

 

A UK built Chipmunk wearing a Portuguese colour scheme which is completely incorrect - I really like it!

Previously G-BARS wore a very smart cream and black livery when with the HSSandC flying school here in Hawarden. Spent many hours in  G-BARS and sad to see it humiliated in fancy dress.

 

Chris.

[wellsprop]

12 hours ago, Rod Blievers said:

Regarding the "Portuguese" Chipmunk scheme, that's beyond my knowledge.

 

Quite simply, it was painted incorrectly at some point (I believe in the 80's). I know the current owner(s), they bought it in that colour!

 

8 hours ago, stringbag said:

Previously G-BARS wore a very smart cream and black livery when with the HSSandC flying school here in Hawarden. Spent many hours in  G-BARS and sad to see it humiliated in fancy dress.

 

Chris.

 

Despite the funky colours, it's one of my favourites!

 

Apologies, slight thread drift....