Jump to content

1/48 Armory Dragon Rapide


Recommended Posts

Hi all

So I've seen on scalemates that Armory do a 1/48 dragon rapide kit: https://www.scalemates.com/kits/armory-ar48tbd-dh-89a-dragon-rapide--1355204

I have been unsuccessful thus far at finding retailers that actually sell this kit, and the WIP box art makes it seem to me that the kit has yet to be released

does anyone know an update on this its whereabouts, and if it will ever make an appearance in any retailers?

Thanks in advance

Edited by William_The_Legend
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
On 6/25/2022 at 12:25 AM, Branky said:

Taras Karabyn of Armory told me he plans to release his 1/48 kit in Autumn 2022 if the little boy in Kremlin lets him 

Here's hoping ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Going by the publicity photos, this is the most accurate Rapide kit yet, in any scale or medium. It actually, for the first time, gets the shapes and proportions of the cockpit glazing and first cabin window right! The angle at the top of the nose cone is sharper and higher, and the windscreen pillar less deep, than other kits show.

 

George Cox's very inaccurate (okay. let's face it, fantasy) Aeromodeller drawing from the 1950s has deceived most illustrators and kit makers, but not Armory. They seem to have referred to de Havilland factory and maintenance manual drawings, and it shows. Crucial details such as the rake of the trailing edge of the cockpit side window and the depth of the windscreen are accurately captured, though the cockpit bulkhead oddly doesn't seem to slope back enough! This is easily corrected, and may just be due to hurried assembly of the demo model. Heck, it's more like vertical on most kits... 😉 

 

The wings look good, with scale rib spacing and (if we are lucky) without the excessive anhedral on the stub wings which the Cox drawing got so wrong. I haven't yet seen a front or rear view of the model taken from the exact angle needed to check this properly (the wing taper makes it difficult), but it looks reasonable. The anhedral should be 25 minutes, just under half a degree, measured on the top of the front spar. I've tried to gauge the thrust line separation from the photos, and it looks like the correct 11'6" rather than Cox's 12 feet (why on earth?), but I'll reserve judgement until I get a kit to examine. 

 

If interested, I've posted several manufacturer's and manual drawings on Microaces' thread about a new 1/24 electric flying kit under development. https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?4153575-In-development-DH-Dragon-Rapide-(1-24th-ish)

 

Armory, if you plan also to produce a DH 89, as opposed to the 89A which the present kit represents, note that the 89 (i.e. most of the pre-war Rapides) has a shorter tailplane, with different elevators. This is visible in so many photographs, but few, if any, modellers seem to have picked up on it. The nav lights on the 89 and the first few 89As were different too, being on the fuselage rather than the wings and rudder.

 

Airfix, the bar has been raised! Time for a decent 1/72 Rapide after all these Heller years, methinks... 😀

Edited by Welsh Dave
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just had a look at the flaps, and the news is not so good: the inboard flap is much too long, and I'm not quite sure about the outer one! If that's the only problem, it's quite easily fixed with a knife and a bit of filler, but it does raise doubts about the engine spacing, which could be more serious. The ghost of George Cox hovers,... 🤔

Edited by Welsh Dave
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'the inboard flap is much too long' and the 'engines are definitely too far apart.'

 

Just how big do you believe these errors are?  As there appears to be no truely accurate drawings how do you know?  Are talking rivet counter incorrect or will it be significantly incorrect?  I am just looking for a kit that looks right.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I refer to DH factory drawings in the Rapide maintenance manual, which is easily available on line. The correct engine spacing is 11' 6" as opposed to the 12 feet of the Cox (and Granger copy) drawings. Superimposing the official rigging diagram on the Armory front view shows that the spacing appears to be 12 feet in scale. It's only 3 inches a side out, say a quarter of nacelle width; that's livable-with - as you see, I was very impressed with the first view of the photos -  but once we know that detail, it's clear that wing research has been skimped, or the need for it not recognised.

 

The model does space the adjacent ribs either side of the nacelle more accurately than any other kit, but that then squeezes the ribs outboard together up to the stub wing joint. Again, you'd have to know about it to notice it, but the full-size wings have significant features which all kits so far have missed completely. Both upper and lower wings change incidence at the roots, the rear spar bending up over the innermost two rib spaces. Think Halberstadt CL.II, though not quite as obvious. All wings have serrated ply sheeting on the leading edges, Fokker style but rounded instead of angular, and this ply extends to form the whole surface (under the fabric, of course) at the tips and around the outer interplane strut attachment points. This is very noticeable indeed, The Armory photos don't show the ribs on the outer panels very clearly - not enough contrast - so I can't honestly say whether they have captured this feature. So far, all kits - Frog, Rareplane, Veeday, Heller/Airfix, Aero Club, Lukgraph - have just slapped heavy ribbing across the whole span, as often as not with poor spacing. This is beyond rivet-counting.

 

DH's packing diagram in the manual gives the flap dimensions as: inboard 2' 05" x 14", outer 3' 4" x 14". Both are way too long on the Armory kit, the inner ones being as long as the outers! They seem to have taken them inboard a rib space too far, additionally extending the flaps up to the ribs instead of insetting them. Actually, the flaps may have been "drawn" on the photos, so to be fair we must wait for the definitive kit to come out. I refer again to the thread at https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?4153575-In-development-DH-Dragon-Rapide-(1-24th-ish) , where I've posted official drawings and photographs of Rapides under restoration.

 

I'd say the Armory kit is well worth getting for the beautiful fuselage and nacelles, but for an accurate model there's quite a bit of work to be done on the wings, with some surgery if you want scale engine spacing. In any case, Armory are to be applauded and encouraged for their original choice of subjects.

 

Meanwhile, there is still room for a wholly accurate Rapide/Dominie kit in any scale. Lobby Airfix, I say!😀

Edited by Welsh Dave
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great thanks for that explanation.  Personally I'm dubious about diagrams in manufacturers manuals as they are included to illustrate components and maintenance locations etc, not to be accurate reference drawings. 

Edited by dcrfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair comment about drawings in manuals, DH in particular tended to mix drawings from various stages in the development of an aircraft design. For example, the Rapide nacelle drawings, while they show all the panels in the right places, have deeper wheel fairings than the eventual items. No problem if it gets the essential info across. You have to compare drawings and try to conclude which are the most reliable in conjunction with photographs. Btw, I worked at the RAF Museum for 12 years, and had access to all the aircraft manuals.

 

A good video on YouTube shows views from all angles, far enough away effectively to eliminate parallax. The front and rear views match the rigging diagram exactly.

 

Edited by Welsh Dave
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's good news! It explains the accuracy of the fuselage and nacelles. Nearly all the drawings in the manual are actual factory drawings, scaled down for printing with figure numbers added.

 

The tail-down perspective and slight barrel distortion on the publicity photos do make it hard to gauge just how far apart the engines/wheels are. Shots from further away with the tail supported to bring the fuselage level would have been very helpful! How about it, Armory? Comparing the photos with the above video, though, the flap proportions are still way out!

 

Looking at the rear view again last night, based on the nacelle top blisters the spacing seemed closer to scale. Waiting with baited breath... I'll buy at least one in any case, especially if Armory do an alternative DH 89 version in early airline markings with the DH 84 tailplane. Really pushing it, how about the "Tainui" racer from 1934? Plus a Comet to go with it... 🙃

Edited by Welsh Dave
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Maybe the Armoury Dragon Rapide kit will be available at the SMW show at Telford next month?  Meanwhile, for references,the latest Warpaint Series book on the Dragon Rapide will be available at Telford from the Guidelines stand written by ' Yours' truly'  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
  • 3 months later...

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...