Jump to content

Revell Hurricane IIB 1/32


IT_Man

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Flintstone said:

ends with a video showing assembly and test.

 

there are 4 reels up on youtube, no sound, with a lot more detail.

16 hours ago, Flintstone said:

Most went to Russia, some of which were apparently lost on route due to convoy losses. Some were diverted as RAF replacements.

Some ended up in SEAC,  I think there are a few photos. 

One quirk of the Longbridge production,  visible in the film was the use through out the internal airframe of (presumably)  interior grey green,  as opposed to aluminium paint, apart from rear cockpit bulkhead and upper cockpit sidewalls,  used on most of the production run. 

for a rundown on this, and links to the 4 reels of film

see here

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2022 at 6:38 AM, Matt_ said:

 

I'm not entirely convinced. The picture showing the dihedral has a perfect straight line across the upper surfaces, whereas tips should be slightly above the root. At least they are on Arthur Bentley's drawings. :shrug:

 

AL9nZEV_6PmBYyuQe10op0yUB5LC6Ppc_ZjRGFjw

 

However, overall the detail does look really nice.

You aren’t wrong!

 

Hurricane-GA3.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2022 at 6:38 AM, Matt_ said:

 

I'm not entirely convinced. The picture showing the dihedral has a perfect straight line across the upper surfaces, whereas tips should be slightly above the root. At least they are on Arthur Bentley's drawings. :shrug:

 

AL9nZEV_6PmBYyuQe10op0yUB5LC6Ppc_ZjRGFjw

 

However, overall the detail does look really nice.

 

Just now, VMA131Marine said:

You aren’t wrong!

This is a photo of the model. It is therefore subject to perspective and lens distortion (unfortunately the file does not include its EXIF information, or we could see focal length, focal distance, f-ratio, sensor size, etc., which would assist in determining the actual distortion introduced). Arthur Bentley's drawings, by the very nature of technical drawings, are orthographic. You cannot compare the two. Sorry if I'm coming across as grumpy and/or angry - I am not. I am just trying to explain why red-lining orthographic features across a perspective rendition of a 3-D object can never work. It's like comparing apples to chalk.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2022 at 1:37 AM, KevinK said:

So now the dihedral issue appears settled, the question remaining is:

 

"IIB or not IIB"

 

..:coat:

 

Yes, but the mortal coil is the wrong size.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

there are 4 reels up on youtube, no sound, with a lot more detail.

Some ended up in SEAC,  I think there are a few photos. 

One quirk of the Longbridge production,  visible in the film was the use through out the internal airframe of (presumably)  interior grey green,  as opposed to aluminium paint, apart from rear cockpit bulkhead and upper cockpit sidewalls,  used on most of the production run. 

for a rundown on this, and links to the 4 reels of film

see here

 

Troy, Thank you for the links and the SEAC info.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, John Laidlaw said:

 

This is a photo of the model. It is therefore subject to perspective and lens distortion (unfortunately the file does not include its EXIF information, or we could see focal length, focal distance, f-ratio, sensor size, etc., which would assist in determining the actual distortion introduced). Arthur Bentley's drawings, by the very nature of technical drawings, are orthographic. You cannot compare the two. Sorry if I'm coming across as grumpy and/or angry - I am not. I am just trying to explain why red-lining orthographic features across a perspective rendition of a 3-D object can never work. It's like comparing apples to chalk.

Yes. I agree. My point was more that the original photo was posted as proof that there was no dihedral issue, but imho it does not irrefutably show that. It was not my photo to prove the dihedral was wrong. I stated that I was not convinced it was evidence it was definitely correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Matt_ said:

Yes. I agree. My point was more that the original photo was posted as proof that there was no dihedral issue, but imho it does not irrefutably show that. It was not my photo to prove the dihedral was wrong. I stated that I was not convinced it was evidence it was definitely correct.

Gotcha 🙂.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Matt_ said:

Yes. I agree. My point was more that the original photo was posted as proof that there was no dihedral issue, but imho it does not irrefutably show that. It was not my photo to prove the dihedral was wrong. I stated that I was not convinced it was evidence it was definitely correct.

 

Thank the Lord for that. We don't want anybody starting any rumours here do we?! 🥺

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all.

 

Relatively new member here (albeit lurker for years) - intro in the new members section.

 

Not wanting to put any established noses out of joint, but for those comparing the model with airborne photographs - you’re comparing apples and oranges.

 

Wing shape changes when it has load through it. This load is variable due to weight, speed, and g-loading (amongst other factors) - so a heavy aircraft pulling a tight turn will have the wings flexing more.

 

During testing the Boeing 787 wing had 25 feet of flex at the wingtips put through it. And at normal take off weights, a piece of string tied between the wingtips would clear the fuselage.

 

Now, that wing is composite, very long, with a high aspect ratio, and so nothing like a hurricane, but it serves the point well. Any aircraft will exhibit wing flex when the wind is loaded.

 

So really, if you’re modelling the aircraft on the ground, or even airborne but at low speeds/weights/g-load - say coming in to land, you probably need to be looking at static drawings, or photos of the aircraft on the ground. Not airborne pulling a tight turn…

 

My two penneth? I thought the original photo looked odd, but I think it was a bit of an optical illusion. It might not be perfect, but it’s actually not bad.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2022 at 8:17 PM, Troy Smith said:

There was also a Soviet made air filter, used later 

36332051936_bedd7c8f4f_c.jpg

 

Hurricane Soviet air filter_zpseti9uhtf by losethekibble, on Flickr

I’ve not see that photo before. Does anyone know what book that is from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2022 at 8:28 PM, John Laidlaw said:

 

This is a photo of the model. It is therefore subject to perspective and lens distortion (unfortunately the file does not include its EXIF information, or we could see focal length, focal distance, f-ratio, sensor size, etc., which would assist in determining the actual distortion introduced). Arthur Bentley's drawings, by the very nature of technical drawings, are orthographic. You cannot compare the two. Sorry if I'm coming across as grumpy and/or angry - I am not. I am just trying to explain why red-lining orthographic features across a perspective rendition of a 3-D object can never work. It's like comparing apples to chalk.

This post should be a mandatory read for everyone before entering any modelling forum 😊

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

Trop filter 

52524595705_a2b86d89f5_b.jpg

,

and a separate Sea Hurricane belly panel,

 

 

and a cannon... part 171 at right

52524116046_b8b79b5e59_b.jpg

indicating a IIC and Sea Hurricane are due...

 

 also multiple exhausts 

 

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=8387229291348952&id=450176221721005&set=a.542875059117787&source=49&eav=AfbW5OyVFpHIFxgrC5UC6nzX1spPtvhzsYrrODqxRgWd_KQ_o037NXhS1WFJMFWz5mA&paipv=0

 

What seems to be lacking are some clear flat laid out sprue shots, but from what can be seen it all very impressive, and set up for multiple versions, as the separate fuselage and wing sprues indicate

 

So, easy to change wing to a C, or   add and A wing, new fuselage, radiator, air intake, spinner, and you have a Mk.I

 

All looks very impressive. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, tony.t said:

I hope we get the Sea Hurricane parts in the first edition. But I'll buy a second boxing in any case.

 

pay attention at the back! ...sorry being flippant...  the hook recess belly part is on a main tree that has to be in the kit....

y4mSiZ88YhpQIN_ZJZVpjps63s8FggFy5um6UUyw

 

 

BUT MOST Sea Hurricane II's were C winged,

the only ones with the B wing are the JS*** serialed Canadian built ones,  and the only markings I know of for them are the Torch photos.

JS355

Fleet-Air-Arm-Sea-Hurricane-XII-JS355-du

 

these 2, both listed as JS327

but I think these are different,  as on is on a beach, 

Hawker-Sea-Hurricane-XII-RAF-JS327-force

the other is on a field

Sea_Hurricane_Mk_XII_JS327_shot_down_194

 

 

Being Canadian they would have a different radiator intake shape.  All Canadian built Hurricanes I have seen where you can see the serial and radiator show it was retained, and you do see both in photos.

 

eg this HMS Vindex Hurricane,  has the Canadian radiator,  (curved sides) but has been rewinged with C wings

large_000000.jpg

 

this is the British type, more of a rectangle

b19ea5fe028dfe8636a823d65ab4e424.jpg

 

The above is very interesting  shipboard conversion with rockets for their Swordfish

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I intend to build JS355 just after Christmas but in 1/48 combing the Hasegawa IIB and the Airfix belly insert (the aircraft was flown by Lt Cdr JM Bruen).  

 

AG334 was flown by Lt M Crosley during Torch also off HMS Biter so I assumed it was also a IIB - but was it?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trop filter, arrester hook, 20mm guns, separate radiator, fuselage and wing sprues... Revell is going to be making Hurris for a long time it seems.

 

While the cockpit detail is pretty soft the price point means it wont sting to bad too add aftermarket, you know there will be plenty coming.

Edited by Phas3e
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, I wonder if new Revell has figured out there’s no point in doing 1/32 Mustangs if Tamiya has a dog in the fight, but a Hurricane is a very “European” aircraft with a solid UK market, but also Eastern European and Russian, if that existing partnership goes both ways…

best,

M.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grey Beema said:

1/48 combing the Hasegawa IIB and the Airfix belly insert

This works,  and fixes that terrible join at the same time.  Note, the Airifx belly is more accurate, being slighgtly cruved, the Hase kit is too flat, and the fuselage is a bit slab sided behind the wing, if you remove the entire Hase belly,  which is easy, just score from inside, the Airifx will drop in if you make a couple of cuts in the fuselage wing root, and then bend the plastic in, over bend it and it will keep the new curve in and the Airfix belly will then be pretty much a 'drop fit' 

 

make the cut at the the fillet to wing line, the one directly above the rear of rad to wing

Sea%20Hurricane-007.JPG

 

It makes more sense if you dig them out and compare. 

this shows what I mean about the fuselage curving in , look at the bottom of the L and the lower edge of the roundel.   The Hase kit is straight down from the bottom of the L.    This is the bit you bend in to match the Airfix belly. 

sh23.jpg

 

also study

sh26.jpg

 

note the bend in lower yellow of the roundel

sh22.jpg

 

this shows it really well 

sh15.jpg

Sea%20Hurricane-023.JPG

 

Also worth doing is bending the upper cowling up in the middle, it's too flat, but overbend it, it will keep the new curve, and just leaves a small gap to make good.

The wing tips are wrong, 

note the real thing, they are very thin triangles from the front, the lower edge same as lower wing line, upper goes down sharply. Only obvious from a few angles, which why kits often get this wrong 

sh19.jpg

 

once you know, now look at the shape of the tip light.  

sh50.jpg

I suggest adding some tape at the win to tip join, and then filing flat, other photos in the below show the shape

sh24.jpg

 

this shows how the tip is curved front to back, but is flat along the rivet lines.

 

the upper cowl line on the Hase is a bit flat in the middle, if you overbend the plastic in the centre, you can make a new higher curve, and this just leaves a little gap to fill.   it's not a lot, but it's an easy fix.     

Hawker_Hurricane_Mk_II_C_KZ466_2.jpg

again, note the wing tip. 

 

If you have some leftover Eduard Spitfire 4 spoke wheel hubs,  you can drill the Hase hubs out with a 6 mm drill and replace them.

 

detail pics from 

1 hour ago, Grey Beema said:

AG334 was flown by Lt M Crosley during Torch also off HMS Biter so I assumed it was also a IIB - but was it?

Air Britain has it Conv to IIB, Admiralty 2.9.42.   a serial list has "converted to IIC?" 

Interestingly World War Photos as this as AM277, also note the upper cowling line

 

Hawker-Sea-Hurricane-XII-RAF-JS327-force
 

HTH 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Troy Smith said:

This works,  and fixes that terrible join at the same time.  Note, the Airifx belly is more accurate, being slighgtly cruved, the Hase kit is too flat, and the fuselage is a bit slab sided behind the wing, if you remove the entire Hase belly,  which is easy, just score from inside, the Airifx will drop in if you make a couple of cuts in the fuselage wing root, and then bend the plastic in, over bend it and it will keep the new curve in and the Airfix belly will then be pretty much a 'drop fit' 

 

make the cut at the the fillet to wing line, the one directly above the rear of rad to wing

Sea%20Hurricane-007.JPG

 

It makes more sense if you dig them out and compare. 

this shows what I mean about the fuselage curving in , look at the bottom of the L and the lower edge of the roundel.   The Hase kit is straight down from the bottom of the L.    This is the bit you bend in to match the Airfix belly. 

sh23.jpg

 

also study

sh26.jpg

 

note the bend in lower yellow of the roundel

sh22.jpg

 

this shows it really well 

sh15.jpg

Sea%20Hurricane-023.JPG

 

Also worth doing is bending the upper cowling up in the middle, it's too flat, but overbend it, it will keep the new curve, and just leaves a small gap to make good.

The wing tips are wrong, 

note the real thing, they are very thin triangles from the front, the lower edge same as lower wing line, upper goes down sharply. Only obvious from a few angles, which why kits often get this wrong 

sh19.jpg

 

once you know, now look at the shape of the tip light.  

sh50.jpg

I suggest adding some tape at the win to tip join, and then filing flat, other photos in the below show the shape

sh24.jpg

 

this shows how the tip is curved front to back, but is flat along the rivet lines.

 

the upper cowl line on the Hase is a bit flat in the middle, if you overbend the plastic in the centre, you can make a new higher curve, and this just leaves a little gap to fill.   it's not a lot, but it's an easy fix.     

Hawker_Hurricane_Mk_II_C_KZ466_2.jpg

again, note the wing tip. 

 

If you have some leftover Eduard Spitfire 4 spoke wheel hubs,  you can drill the Hase hubs out with a 6 mm drill and replace them.

 

detail pics from 

Air Britain has it Conv to IIB, Admiralty 2.9.42.   a serial list has "converted to IIC?" 

Interestingly World War Photos as this as AM277, also note the upper cowling line

 

Hawker-Sea-Hurricane-XII-RAF-JS327-force
 

HTH 

Thank you @Troy Smith.  Now to print this out and put it up in the cave..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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...