Hasegawa Hawker Hurricane IIB

[neilfgr2]

Hi guys,

Can anyone tell what i would have to do to back date this Hurricane to a Battle Of Britain Hurri????

Cheers

Neil

[Test Graham]

1. Shorten the nose - take the front 2mm off the fuselage halves and reshape wing-nose fairing. Keep cowling.

2. Smaller radiator

3. new prop and spinner - either the DH or Rotol depending upon the subject

4. remove outer gun positions.

5. Remove oil spill ring from cowling

6. No Vokes filter under nose - standard carburettor intake

7. No underwing carriage of weapons

8. Change tailwheel to Mk.1

Edited July 17, 2010 by Graham Boak

[AnonymousFO98]

Obviously it is your call Neil but personally it seems a waste of a Hase kit

is it 1/72?

my advice would be buy an AZModels kit

[Steven Eisenman]

Just buy a Mk. I in your scale.

[phat trev]

I have been looking to do this also but with a 1/72 Revell MkIIc (just need some B wings...)

Where exactly does the 2mm from the nose need to be removed, the very tip where the spinner meets or nearer the engine firewall?

[Edgar]

At the firewall, just under the windshield; it involves reshaping the front portion of the wingroot fairing as well.

Edgar

[neilfgr2]

Bugger that, to much work for a jet jockey.. looks like its a Harrier GR7 then next after my Hunter..

Cheers guys,

Neil

[phat trev]

[Test Graham]

The 2mm that needs removal is not at the windscreen, which would indeed be too difficult. It is behind the engine, at the front of the long panel (fuel tank)that runs from the windshield to the back of the cowling. On the original. it was a longer engine because of the gearbox at the rear, so it had to be mounted that much further forward. The cowling was retained, so the forward fuselage panelling was extended. The Hasegawa kit is split at this very point, with a separate cowling. making the shortening quite straightforward. I have done it. Finding a correct radiator and tailwheel would be much more difficult - props are easy.

Doing the same to the Revell kit is more difficult, as the entire fuselage comes in one piece.

Hasegawa do a Mk.I, or rather a number of Mk.Is, but on all except the basic "Mk.Ib" (sic) kit the engine cowling has been shortened, which gives the correct overall length but the wrong panelling and root fairing. The AZ kit is better, but has a fabric wing so is inappropriate for the BoB.

[neilfgr2]

Yes good idea... have you tried finding one of these ..

[AnonymousFO98]

Sorry

For some reason I thought the lastest options from AZModels were metal winged.

Didn't realise it was just a change of decals.

[Test Graham]

It never occurred to me that the latest AZ release might be metal winged. I doubt it, but don't know.

Hasegawa does come with the right tailwheel, on at least one of the options - if it is on the basic kit someone might have one spare. Aeroclub might do one, so check there when John gets everything up and running again. I don't know of a radiator - perhaps you could just take a bit of depth out by sawing one in half, rubbing down and regluing? I've only recently realised that the Mk.I had a smaller radiator, and I'm not sure than any of the older kits recognise that. If so, someone might have a spare from an Airfix Mk.I?

[Edgar]

The 2mm that needs removal is not at the windscreen, which would indeed be too difficult. It is behind the engine, at the front of the long panel (fuel tank)that runs from the windshield to the back of the cowling. On the original. it was a longer engine because of the gearbox at the rear, so it had to be mounted that much further forward. The cowling was retained, so the forward fuselage panelling was extended.

No, I'm afraid not; the extra 4" was added at the back of the "fuel tank" cover. This pushed the front (engine cover) panel forward, together with its attendant "panel line," which, in turn, pushed the downward-curved line at the front of the "fuel tank" cover forward, as well, causing a forward extension to the l/e root fairing. If you compare side photos, of a I versus a II, you'll see that the II's root fairing is longer in front of wing's l/e.

When Peter Cooke was researching for his 1/24 resin models, he asked for help, so I measured half a dozen Is & IIs, and the findings were published in th IPMS magazine 4/99. The engine panels remained at 7.5"-8", for the section covering the glycol header tank, then 42.5"-43", for the engine section (giving an unchanged average length of 50.5" - 51",) while the section covering the fuel tank/supercharger controls grew from 41" to 45".

Peter used the measurements, with drawings, in an Aeroplane Monthly (date unknown,) which included his findings on hood rails, spinners, wingtip panelling, and (most significantly) fuselage depth at the fin l/e (this led to Arthur Bentley redrawing his Mk.I plans.) Peter included drawings of the root fairing variations, in that article. He also showed that the carburettor intake moved back 3", as well (same thing happened to the Spitfire V, compared to the I/II, but that's another story.)

Edgar

[Test Graham]

Thanks for that comment, but it doesn't matter for modelling purposes. The front of the fuselage can be cut back, with the wing to nose fairing. I didn't mention the latter, because you already had. The only detail point to note is the position of the fasteners on the side panel. There is no need to cut the fuselage in front of the cockpit.

I would however query your description of the original changes, for the fuel tank stayed in exactly the same place, as therefore must its attachment to the main fuselage frame and indeed the frame's attachment to the wingspars. Changes to the frame were all forward of the tank and leading wing spar. These changes are therefore all below the centre-line of the aircraft. Above the centre line, there are only access panels attaching to light sub-frames. The Hurricane has no solid firewall/rear engine bulkhead for these panels to fix onto. Those panels around the engine remain unchanged, aft of the engine the detachable top and side panels between the cockpit and the engine rear are slightly longer.

The aircraft was made longer by structural changes forward of the front wing spar. The access panels were then altered in length to fit, and the appropriate light subframes they mount onto were also slightly modified in spacing. The changes can be seen from the fastener positions. However, the fasteners nearest the cockpit are identically placed on the Mk.I and the Mk.II, showing that there were no changes in this area.

Edit. Taling about the side panel above the wing leading edge, you say "which, in turn, pushed the downward-curved line at the front of the "fuel tank" cover forward, as well, causing a forward extension to the l/e root fairing. If you compare side photos, of a I versus a II, you'll see that the II's root fairing is longer in front of wing's l/e."

The root fairing is indeed longer, but also a different shape. The panel is not just pushed forward, but is a new design. The rear is the same, the front is longer.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Graham Boak

[Edgar]

Well, I can only go by measurements that I took from the real thing (subsequently checked, and verified, by Peter measuring the same area on other airframes.) We concluded that Hawker's chose the (easier?) option of adding 4" to a flat surface, at the rear, rather than a curved one, at the front. Peter found that, if he laid a Mk.I cowling over one from a Mk.II, the shapes matched, perfectly, except for the extra 4" poking out at the back. The extra length was caused by the Merlin XX being 4" longer than the III, and, with the impeller housing already tight against the mainspar, everything had to go forward. The fact that the fasteners were in identical positions was because the receiving sockets remained in the same place, so the fasteners had to stay put, relatively speaking, as well.

Edgar

[Test Graham]

The top piece isn't flat in side view, anywhere along its length, and indeed has to have been an entirely new shape to retain a smooth curve between cockpit and cowling. Or should all the Hurricane drawings have a kink in them? I haven't seen any in photographs, but if placed near the cockpit this could be difficult to see. I believe that it is flat/straight in plan view, that is where it meets the side panel. There seems to be no reason for, or sign of, of the fuselage narrowing along this section. Do your records indicate anything different for the width at this point? If it is narrower at the front, then I agree that the sensible thing to do (in concept) is to redraw it with the same shape at the front and extend the rear, repositioning all the fastener holes. He will be repositioning any internal strengtheners anyway.

Therefore I presume you are talking about the side piece. Does this have similarly have a curve in plan view? If so, as above. However, the only curved part of it I can see is the fit to the wing leading edge to nose fairing, which is not the same shape on the Mk.I and Mk.II. The Mk.II is not the Mk.I shape slid forward, but a new curve. The side panel cannot (in design terms) have been simply slid forward with extra length provided at the rear, and the fasteners repositioned. This is also a new part altogether. I suggest that the draughtsman would have found it easier to redraw if all the changes were at one side of the drawing, that is at the front.

The measurements that you quoted would apply in either case. The ones key to this discussion are the width of the fuselage at the front and rear of these panels.

In modelling terms, the junction between the cowling and the fuselage is four inches further back on the Mk.I. Given a Mk.II fuselage, the easiest way to represent this is to shorten it at the front, whatever was done on the design board.

[Edgar]

I'm not interested in drawings, I measured the real thing, so I suggest unbelievers go and do the same thing.

[neilfgr2]

Cheers guys for your help.. i will leave it at that .... children.

Cheers

Neil..

[Edgar]

And thank you for the final gratuitous insult; I'm sure that we shall do our very best to help, in future... or not.

Edgar

[MilneBay]

And thank you for the final gratuitous insult; I'm sure that we shall do our very best to help, in future... or not.

Edgar

Well at least it was free - if I had paid good money to be insulted I'd be demanding a refund.

(only kidding)