Revell Hurricane IIB 1/32

[k5054nz]

5 hours ago, cmatthewbacon said:

The real thing from dead ahead on the ground looks like this:

 

I'm not sure that famous "dihedral" is that evident at a glance....

In that picture it is, to me at least.

 

On 11/18/2022 at 9:19 AM, Troy Smith said:

Dropped flaps are dumb, as they are almost never down on the ground. 

Key word almost - check your references 😉

(photo by me, Warbirds Over Wanaka 2006)

 

So, understandably, a IIa wing is good news to me! But very poor form on Revell's part to advertise a IIb...

(photos by my dad Dave Yates, Warbirds Over Wanaka 2004)

Edited November 18, 2022 by k5054nz

[VMA131Marine]

2 minutes ago, k5054nz said:

So, understandably, a IIa wing is good news to me!

True!

 

Except the kit is being sold as a Mk.IIb. 
 

I’m guessing there will be a IIa and Mk.I in due course.

[k5054nz]

Just now, VMA131Marine said:

True!

 

Except the kit is being sold as a Mk.IIb.

 Very poor form on Revell's part to advertise a IIb...one wonders what that's all about!

 

Some more, occasionally self-indulgent, dihedral evidence:

(photos by my dad Dave Yates, Warbirds Over Wanaka 2004)

[Flintstone]

Looking at various drawings from the back of the aircraft showing the wing dihedral, they do not show the underside of the horizontal tailplanes. The underside of the tailplanes in the Revell image is visible and so I wonder if we are seeing other parts of the wing form due to the slightly different angle? I hope this is the case as this will be a really welcome model.

[cmatthewbacon]

In those pictures, not to me, at least. All I see is a horizontal upper surface and an end to end taper in the outer panel. And none of them give the perspective you'd need to decide if the Revell kit is "Utterly wrong, terrible and awful..."

 

'course, if you've already decided it's an unbuildable heap of do-do before seeing the real kit, then nothing I say is going to change your mind.

best,

M.

[Troy Smith]

33 minutes ago, k5054nz said:

Key word almost - check your references

I can think of 3 period photos with lowered flaps, and one of those was a test aircraft.   And a Sea hurricane with wedged flaps.   Pilots who forgot to raise them got 'fined' a round of drinks.   So dropped flaps are not a sensible feature IMO.   

 

If they have dropped flaps, but no tropical filter that will be silly, as lots of IIA/B were tropicalised. 

If you wanted some new bits, bomb carriers and drop tanks,  a Canadian bare prop, spinner and radiator intake would have been really good optional parts, given the amount of Canadian built warbirds.   

Optional CM/1 and ES/9 spinners  would be neat as well,  but that there are two different spinners on the Mk.II is not a well know detail.

I'm sure AM will provide in time.

 

Anyway, I await more images with interest.    Still waiting for some shots of the Hobby Boss 1/48th kit as well.....   

 

[tony.t]

1 hour ago, cmatthewbacon said:

Really? Where’s the camera? If it’s below the mid line and the plane isn’t pointing front and centre then ports parallel to the ground point up. If it’s above, the ports point down. The leading edge is raked back from the  image plane. If the camera is above the plane the leading edge centreline is steeper; lower and it’s shallower.

(Etc etc)

Compare this to the Revell kit from all the angles and see…

best,

M.

 

Hence the optical illusion in the Revell photo.  I suspect that by masking the camouflage at the leading edge the dihedral will be satisfactorily restored, and that Radu may have been right all along. 

The gunports look "off" because of photo perspective, making the wing look flatter. I am so looking forward to getting this kit.

 

Tony 

[cmatthewbacon]

At the risk of derailing a thread about the merits of a kit, I’ll share something that occurred to me about why we might look at the same pictures and see something different…

 

As a teenager, I did art as a hobby, quite seriously. I studied, practiced, and did qualifications. But I was good at maths and physics, and read engineering at university. When I was drawing in my teens, I learned perspective, I learned the theory, drew horizon planes, perspective lines and vanishing points, and drew and painted a lot of images of architecture. When I went to Uni, one of our foundation courses was technical drawing: three views, plans, projections and isometrics. For months, isometrics just looked wrong. After what I’d learned as teenager, I couldn’t see the picture as what the 3D real thing would look like, because perspective told me something different.

Eventually, I reconciled the two. I can draw a picture and read a technical drawing.

But I do wonder whether if you’re trained one way or the other, you don’t see the same picture in the same way. Neither is wrong, or right, just different.

 

Hmmm….

best,

M.

 

 

 

[New Tool]

2 hours ago, alt-92 said:

This is their own FB pic from rear (and the tail wheel is slightly crooked).

 

If it all turns out good, fine. 
They've not exactly taken the most advantageous of pictures though if that is the case.

 

Photo of Hurricane; front view. There are many similar photos if you Google them (or if manufacturers were to google them).

 

[Tbolt]

9 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

I can think of 3 period photos with lowered flaps, and one of those was a test aircraft.   And a Sea hurricane with wedged flaps.   Pilots who forgot to raise them got 'fined' a round of drinks.   So dropped flaps are not a sensible feature IMO.   

 

If they have dropped flaps, but no tropical filter that will be silly, as lots of IIA/B were tropicalised. 

If you wanted some new bits, bomb carriers and drop tanks,  a Canadian bare prop, spinner and radiator intake would have been really good optional parts, given the amount of Canadian built warbirds.   

Optional CM/1 and ES/9 spinners  would be neat as well,  but that there are two different spinners on the Mk.II is not a well know detail.

I'm sure AM will provide in time.

 

Anyway, I await more images with interest.    Still waiting for some shots of the Hobby Boss 1/48th kit as well.....   

 

 

I don't have a problem with dropped flaps, sometimes it's nice to see things like this deployed on a model. Yes they were not normally parked up with them dropped as they would only be dropped for maintenance but then engine cowls or certain other panels were only removed for maintenance but no one complains about those being inappropriate.

[John Laidlaw]

And as yet, I haven't seen a single example photo taken from the same angle, same relative distance, using the same relative focal length or lens design, with an equivalent sensor/film. There are so many variables associated with the test shot photo that they simply cannot be compared with any others. If you use GIMP (or Photoshop, or Affinity Photo, and I'm sure a number of other image manipulation software packages), you will be able to apply lens corrections to any image, based on what was used to take the original photo. You would be amazed at the changes made when you compare an iPhone 11 to a Nikon D40 with an 18-55mm lens. You end up with different images even when all other settings are equal.

 

The publicity images are not good. The build of the model is not good. Wait until a decent builder builds the thing properly and takes decent photos, then judge. Until then, it's all speculation based on little if any evidence. I am grateful that no-one's started drawing red lines on the image, though. That would be cause for drink.

[New Tool]

It isn't straight is it?

 

 

 

From Wikipedia:

 

Edited November 19, 2022 by New Tool

[brewerjerry]

Hi

     Yep fatally flawed, 😂😂 so i will have to buy two at least 😂😂

 

  just means a bit of modelling, instead of just assembling it 

 

   cheers

     jerry

 

  

[HL-10]

I think I'll wait until the kit is released in it's final form before passing judgment

 

[alt-92]

10 hours ago, cmatthewbacon said:

Feel free to play here:

https://hum3d.com/360-view/?id=160760

Compare this to the Revell kit from all the angles and see…

 

you can't because the 3D viewer only does pan, not tilt.

[cmatthewbacon]

Try this one:

https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/hawker-hurricane-71b1571d857d412ea390867912be47e5

best,

M

[npb748r]

have a look at the heated debate on LSP site, one of the people involved in the development of the kit has posted pictures of an early build of the kit and it shows the wing is correct I think. 

[Troy Smith]

9 hours ago, New Tool said:

It isn't straight is it?

 

10 minutes ago, npb748r said:

one of the people involved in the development of the kit has posted pictures of an early build of the kit and it shows the wing is correct I think. 

Radub AKA Radu Briznan

 

as some folks don't seem to read links, this is what Radu posted

 

Which I hope settles the storm in a teacup over a wonky photo matters.   

 

I'm impressed that they represent the engine front.  which will make a spinnerless Canadian Mk.XII a lot easier.

 

Still look like an A wing,  await to see if they have the panels for the B wing

 

HTH

 

 

[Tbolt]

1 hour ago, Troy Smith said:

 

Radub AKA Radu Briznan

 

as some folks don't seem to read links, this is what Radu posted

 

Which I hope settles the storm in a teacup over a wonky photo matters.   

 

I'm impressed that they represent the engine front.  which will make a spinnerless Canadian Mk.XII a lot easier.

 

Still look like an A wing,  await to see if they have the panels for the B wing

 

HTH

 

 

 

I's clearly unbuildable! Look at this accurate drawing showing the real dihedral on the Hurricane wing 😜

 

 

 

[alt-92]

3 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

this is what Radu posted

 

Which I hope settles the storm in a teacup over a wonky photo matters.   

 

That looks a lot better. 
I feel kind of sorry for Radu he has to dig up these at all, just because the publicity shots are misrepresenting the subject.. 
Avoidable. 
Although... maybe it was planned with the "Eye of the storm" title. /runs

 

 

3 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

I'm impressed that they represent the engine front.  which will make a spinnerless Canadian Mk.XII a lot easier.

Next episode: the Search for Spock a 1/32 Battle prop

 

[Troy Smith]

33 minutes ago, alt-92 said:

a 1/32 Battle prop

No need. The Battle props were only on some engineless Mk.I's in Canada, when it was decided to use Merlin III engines and props from Battles.

see https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234980181-hawker-hurricane-propellers-and-spinners-a-modellers-guide/

 

And scroll down, has images of both.

 

The kit is a Mk.II,  (were are awaiting to see if an A or B wing, but it's an easy mod to be the B wing)   and they used a Hamilton Standard prop.  There must be suitable donors or AM for this...   

and this prop and the unique Canadian spinner are used on many warbirds, so I'd not be surprised if this get offered as AM at some point.

 

 

Fly do a Mk.I Hurricane, be interesting to see what other versions Revell do,  the safe bet is to do a IIc, as that gets you most of the way to D wing, and a Mk.IV,   if you have the bits..

Interestingly the Fly IID kit contains most of the parts to do a Mk.IV and Mk.V .....   

[VMA131Marine]

52 minutes ago, alt-92 said:

That looks a lot better. 
I feel kind of sorry for Radu he has to dig up these at all, just because the publicity shots are misrepresenting the subject.. 
Avoidable. 
Although... maybe it was planned with the "Eye of the storm" title. /runs

That photo does look a lot better. But that is not what Revell’s promo photos show. Revell is a modelling company right? Apparently their marketing department still has not figured out that if they put out photos of future release they are going to get picked apart. They aren’t marketing to kids anymore.

[npb748r]

3 hours ago, VMA131Marine said:

That photo does look a lot better. But that is not what Revell’s promo photos show. Revell is a modelling company right? Apparently their marketing department still has not figured out that if they put out photos of future release they are going to get picked apart. They aren’t marketing to kids anymore.

I think Radu corrected the view that the picture was wrong as well, stating that it's the angel and an optical illusion. I think people just got this wrong and made a mistake. 

[alt-92]

16 minutes ago, npb748r said:

I think people just got this wrong and made a mistake. 

I'm inclined to disagree. The pictures were just not good. And that's what we had to look at, not later additions. 

[Phas3e]

Im glad to see the updated photos of the wings because the original ones didnt do it any favours, hopefully its the same with the cockpit and wing guns.

 

I already had my scheme picked out for this kit and was keen to get into it but was worried about those test shots.