1/72 - Miles M.2 Hawk Major by Kovozávody Prostějov (KP) - released

[Paul J]

3 hours ago, Ed Russell said:

Do you mean a What-if?

I don't see any pictures of it even as a restored plane in RAAF markings.

There is some evidence the rudder should be two tones of blue not red/white/blue.

https://www.goodall.com.au/photographs/chipmunks/chipmunks.html (VH-BWB and K)

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Royal-Aero-Club-of-S-A/Victa-Airtourer-100/2768080

The links you sent are all mainly to do with the  Chipmunk, nothing to do with the Miles at all.

 

[Ed Russell]

3 hours ago, Paul J said:

nothing to do with the Miles at all.

Read line 3 of the post - the links are evidence that the tail stripes are two shades of blue not red/white/blue but dark blue/light blue/dark blue. I have sent a communication to the SAAM who have a lot of historical items from the RSAAC which folded in 1981 to ask about the colours.

Have you got a picture of this "restored plane" in RAAF markings?

 

Edit - 1. We have a teeny piece of evidence that it might have been repainted but not in what scheme. 2. I gather AZ are going to release it in that scheme even if they acknowledge it is probably wrong. Que sera sera........

[Meatbox8]

I wonder if the parts break-down will allow for a future release of the Hawk Speed Six.  An Art Deco beauty.

[Homebee]

Released

- ref. KPM0282 - Miles M2H Hawk Major - Over Spain - https://eshop.kovozavody.cz/10619,en_miles-m.2h-hawk-major-over-spain-.html

- ref. KPM0283 - Miles M2H Hawk Major - International - https://eshop.kovozavody.cz/10620,en_miles-m.2h-hawk-major-international-.html

- ref. KPM0284 - Miles M2H Hawk Major - In military Service - https://eshop.kovozavody.cz/10621,en_miles-m.2h-hawk-major-in-military-.html

- ref. KPM0285 - Miles M2H Hawk Major - https://eshop.kovozavody.cz/10622,en_miles-m.2h-hawk-major.html

 

 

V.P.

Edited March 30, 2022 by Homebee

[TEXANTOMCAT]

Hooray!

 

TT

[lasermonkey]

I’m going to have to get at least a couple of these. 

[k5054nz]

Forgive me if this has been discussed - can one build an M.2F from this kit?

[stevehnz]

Afaik Zac, there haven't been any photos of the sprues released & by that art work, you'd need to modify the M.2h quite a bit to get ZK-ADJ, at a quick look, the rear cockpit will need moving back & maybe the front one forward, I'm guessing a fuel tank went in between them?, so unless there is a separate fuselage insert taking this into account, its is going be be a scratched modification. Looking at this photo, even the Plastic Passion resin kit has the cockpits too close.

Steve.

[k5054nz]

On 3/31/2022 at 1:04 PM, stevehnz said:

you'd need to modify the M.2h quite a bit to get ZK-ADJ

Fortunately I'm doing ZK-AFM 😉

Wanganui Aero Club 50th pg48 by Zac Yates, on Flickr

Untitled by Zac Yates, on Flickr

 

But I have a feeling the same issues you pointed out are relevant here.

[fightersweep]

On 3/30/2022 at 4:49 PM, lasermonkey said:

I’m going to have to get at least a couple of these. 

 

Yeah! Ditto. Somehow just managed to accidentally click the pre order button on Big H's website for a couple.

[CarLos]

I acquired the attractive box with the nice red & green Shell colours, and just as I opened it I had a strong feeling that something was very wrong. A comparison with scale drawings - the ones from "The Book of Miles Aircraft" and the profile included in the instructions of the kit - shows clearly the main problem: the fuselage height is off by 2 mm in about 14.5 at the talles point - it's about 14% less!

 

If you think that 2 mm is not much, take a look:

 

(Drawings from the book)

 

(Profile from the instructions, scaled to 1/72)

 

I even scaled a profile of a Gipsy Major engine to 1/72 and, contrary to my impression, it fits inside - barely!

 

 

Not only the fuselage is very wrong, the wing is also too thin. It measures 3.45 mm at the centre section against 5 mm and 4.85 in the RS and Frog Magister kits (same basic wing).

 

 

I am yet to check the decals for dimensions and general accuracy - I hope I can use them in a conversion from a Frog Magister. But nothing more can be used, not even the wheel pants! Or, maybe, the seats and the prop. Not worth the 19 euro I paid for the kit.

 

Sorry for bringing bad news, but this is the sort of review I would have liked to read before buying the kit. I just can't understand how so glaring mistakes can be made in such a subject. After all, when you Google for "Miles Hawk Major drawings" one of the first hits is Alfred Granger's plans!

 

Unfortunately the simple existence of this kit will prevent another manufacturer to offer the same subject in plastic. We have the SBS resin kit (don't have it but models have the looks of an Hawk Major) but many modellers don't like resin. We can always convert a Magister, but there is some scratch building involved.

 

Please KP, stay away from Miles, Percivals, Cessnas, Pipers and other beauties... or please invest a little in references.
 

Carlos

 

 

 

[lasermonkey]

Well, that’s disappointing.

[k5054nz]

Very disappointing. Damn. Thanks for taking the time to document this, Carlos.

[Roger Holden]

16 hours ago, CarLos said:

 

I just can't understand how so glaring mistakes can be made in such a subject. 

Carlos,

Many of AZ's recent kits seem to be lifted off unavailable resin kits. In the case of the Hawk Major, there was an old Czech kit produced by Alliance Models I suspect may be the origin.

Those parts are certainly poor.....the aerofoil section of the wing looks like it's on upside down !

And the decals for the vintage civil subjects they provided are just as inaccurate as the parts. Nothing usable there ! 

Fwiw the SBS kit (ex-Plastic Passion) doesn't look much better, with a too shallow fuselage and too long landing gear....

[CarLos]

54 minutes ago, Roger Holden said:

 

And the decals for the vintage civil subjects they provided are just as inaccurate as the parts. Nothing usable there ! 

 

 

Oh well... At least I have one prop and two seats...

[Paul J]

Great shame.

[Ed Russell]

I suspect @CarLos is quite correct in his evaluation but has anyone verified the Granger drawings? I have compared a couple of his drawings to photos, other plans and measured dimensions and they are not always accurate.

The kit could probably be fixed up by splitting the fuselage horizontally and using packers to deepen it but you might be as well off scratch building one. You would have to be a devoted Miles fan though!

[CarLos]

9 hours ago, Ed Russell said:

I suspect @CarLos is quite correct in his evaluation but has anyone verified the Granger drawings? I have compared a couple of his drawings to photos, other plans and measured dimensions and they are not always accurate.

The kit could probably be fixed up by splitting the fuselage horizontally and using packers to deepen it but you might be as well off scratch building one. You would have to be a devoted Miles fan though!

 

Ed, I compared the KP kit with drawings from "The book of Miles Aircraft". The book was published in 1944, I think, "with the co-operation and approval of Miles Aircraft Limited". The same drawings are included in Peter Amos books, and can also be downloaded from the website of the Museum of Berkshire Aviation. This per se doesn't make them perfect, and as with any other drawings must be checked against published dimensions and photos. Granger's plans are probably based on them.

 

 

 

 

Here are both plans side by side:

 

 

You may notice some detail differences but the general aspect is the same. Granger plans were used in my unfinished conversion from a Magister. Some pics here.

 

Carlos

[Graham Boak]

Given the age of the reference, have you cross-referenced this with more recent plans for the Magister, and indeed compared the kit to Magister kits?  Just as an independent check (or two?)  There is also a Hawk Major in the Museum at Montrose, so it may be possible to obtain measures of the fuselage depth.  I used to work with Pete Amos at Dunsfold, so know that he is (or was) a keen modeller, so it is unlikely that he will just have copied the early plan for his magnum opus without having done some checking.  However given the size of his task it is possible that such things creep in.  I know that errors in KP kits are not exactly unknown, and entirely agree about warning fellow-modellers, but it would be best to rely on more than one source before risking damaging sales of the smaller producers - or indeed anyone else!

[CarLos]

12 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Given the age of the reference, have you cross-referenced this with more recent plans for the Magister, and indeed compared the kit to Magister kits?  Just as an independent check (or two?)  There is also a Hawk Major in the Museum at Montrose, so it may be possible to obtain measures of the fuselage depth.  I used to work with Pete Amos at Dunsfold, so know that he is (or was) a keen modeller, so it is unlikely that he will just have copied the early plan for his magnum opus without having done some checking.  However given the size of his task it is possible that such things creep in.  I know that errors in KP kits are not exactly unknown, and entirely agree about warning fellow-modellers, but it would be best to rely on more than one source before risking damaging sales of the smaller producers - or indeed anyone else!

 

Graham, I remember to confront both the Frog and the RS kits with plans from "the book of Miles" and from the 4+ monograph. From memory, both fit reasonable well. 
In this case the difference is so glaring that can be readily apparent just watching to photos. 

 

I don't need a "perfect" kit. In fact, I like the challenge of correcting an inaccurate kit. However I also like to know in advance the quality of what I am buying, and I just did the review that I wish I had read before buying the kit. Everybody is free to ignore it or take it into account. In my opinion this is a kit to avoid as the the work involved to correct it is greater than build one from scratch.

 

Unfortunately it is not the only case with kits by AZ/KP. The Sopwith Triplane, the Vickers FB-19 are other cases of bad kits. Kits that have awful mistakes (the Vickers) or that are worst than the Revell kit from my youth.

 

Carlos

 

 

[k5054nz]

13 hours ago, CarLos said:

Unfortunately it is not the only case with kits by AZ/KP. The Sopwith Triplane, the Vickers FB-19 are other cases of bad kits. Kits that have awful mistakes (the Vickers) or that are worst than the Revell kit from my youth.

Off-topic, but what are the issues with KP's Triplane?

[Paul Thompson]

4 hours ago, k5054nz said:

Off-topic, but what are the issues with KP's Triplane?

Amongst others, the fuselage has seen a lot of work (based on the Revell kit) including widening it, but the wings remain much the same as the originals and so the middle one is too wide. Unless you want the struts to bow outwards about the only solution is to remove material from the inner ends of the middle wings. Many other small niggles which I now forget, but there's a build review in the GWSIG free newsletter Cher Ami. The decals are all over the place accuracy wise, and perform terribly. I was later told that one option I had thought wrong was in fact okay, but that's just one out of 6 that I looked at.  In box review comparing to the Revell kit, volume 9, issue 3, and construction in volume 10 issue 2. Previously when I posted links my posts in the thread were removed and some comment made about advertising 'your own' magazines or websites (which may not have been aimed at me, but I dunno) so I can only  suggest you find the GWSIG website, where there's a link to all past issues. HTH.

 

Paul.

[CarLos]

1 hour ago, Paul Thompson said:

I can only  suggest you find the GWSIG website, where there's a link to all past issues.

 

Fortunately it's easy to find 🙂 First hit from a google search.

[essjay]

Sadly inaccurate compared to Alf Granger and Harborough Miles Aircraft 1944 plans.  Too short, cowling wrong, fuselage too shallow and wing aerofoil too thin. Did they use undersized or distorted plans? I measured my plans and their dimensions are accurate.  The wing fillet should be above the lower line of the fuselage.

I will see if Novo Magister bits will improve things...  Hope the decals work.

 

SBS one disappointingly has its faults too: fuselage too chunky at rear and doesn't taper enough towards the tail.  The tailfin and rudder look a bit too big as well.

 

Very frustrating!

 

PS sorry to duplicate others' comments.  More haste, less read!

Edited May 17, 2022 by essjay
typos and omission

[Homebee]

A test fit: https://www.ipmsnymburk.com/forum/viewtema.php?ID_tema=41281

 

 

 

 

 

V.P.