Jump to content

Hurricane noses and the Hasegawa 1/72 kits


MDriskill
 Share

Recommended Posts

First let me say that I've read with great interest the recent strings on Hurricane nose lengths, and the associated detail differences between the Mk I and Mk II. The Hurricane has been a favorite since childhood for me, and it's truly a relief to get that one straightened out! (Thanks to the gent who patiently measured both marks in the flesh, one must consider the case closed at a 4-inch extension for the Mk II).

A question about the real Mk II: reportedly, its longer nose had less to do with the introduction of the 2-stage Merlin XX, than to more general CG issues. My best reference on this issue is an article by Paul Fontenoy in "The Batsman," the now-defunct IPMS-USA specialist publication devoted to FAA subjects. Mr. Fontenoy makes three points in support: 1) the Mk I tended toward tail-heaviness in flight (especially with a tailhook, which required use of the deHavilland prop specifically because it was the heaviest available); 2) the extra length gave a wider range of trim and CG adjustment for heavier underwing ordinance as the Hurricane moved over to the attack role; and 3) two production versions did in fact incorporate the Merlin XX in the original Mk I "short nose" architecture (the Mk IIA Series 1, and Canadian-built Mk X).

Does current research still support those three points? If the Merlin XX was mounted in the short nose, how exactly was it done...a bit of spare room in the rear of the Merlin II/III installation...differently shaped firewall panel...or??

To the pesky Hasegawa 1/72 kits--Issue 3 of "Airfix Model World" is only now making it to the hills of Tennessee, and with it Len Thomson's lovely builds of the Mk I and Mk II. I was very surprised to see the photos showing that the separately-molded nose in his kits have DIFFERENT lengths--because over here they all seem to be the SAME length! I own two copies of the Hasegawa Mk I, and two of the Mk II. All four kits have a cowl measuring about 55 inches. They are truly exactly the same--you can perfectly mate halves from different kits--the only apparent difference being the oil collector ring added to the Mk II's. This is quite strange...is it possible that the kit was later revised, or that different iterations were sold in the UK and the US?

Edited by MDriskill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Hasegawa Mk. I is kit AP38, "Battle of Britain" 'Mk.I Late type.', then for some reason, it had sprue E, which is the Mk. II nose. All other MK.I kits had sprue D, the Mk.I nose. But it won't help you very much, as to make a correct Mk. I, you would have to shorten the fuselage nose before the wing, as you already know. So you'd be right with the sprue E.

List of Hasegawa 1/72 HurricNE Mk. I and Mk.II kits.

AP38 Mk.I Late Type 'Battle of Britain' 1995. DT*A, JX*B

AP39 Mk.IIC 'Last of the Many' 1996. PZ865, QO*P

Ap132 Mk.IID 'Fox Hunter' 1996. JV*Z, BN795 "Our John' Aeromaster decals and Sprue Q, 40mm guns.

AP135 Mk.IIB 'Red Star' 1995. VVS SF Z5252, 01, Kuznetsov, 78 IAP VVS SF 80, Adonkin

AP140 Mk.I 'Finnish Air Force' 1996. HC-451, 1, HC452, 2

AP145 Mk.IIC 'Night Fighter' 1997. LK*A, ZY*S

AP150 Mk.II 'Eagle Squadron' 1997. Royal Navy JS327, XR*D Aeromaster decals. No arrestor hook provided.

AP152 Mk.I 'Night Fighter' 1998. LK*A, all black. LK*A temperate scheme.

AP155 Mk.I 'Douglas Bader' 1998. LE*D

00122 Mk.I 'I. R. Gleed' 2000. LK*A, GZ*V

00620 Mk.IIC 'No. 3 Squadron' 2003. QO*Q, QO*R

00648 Mk.IIC 'S.E.A.C.' 2003. EG*N, A*A

00733 Mk.IIC 'North Africa' 2004. AK*W, GO*J

Haven't picked this one up yet.

?? 247 Squadron desert scheme with the flash on each side of the roundels.

Best wishes,

Grant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of points here.

Firstly the kit - the Hasegawa 1/72 kit has the correct fuselage length for the Mk.II. The nose provided with the initial, basic, kit is the correct shape for any Hurricane (very early Mk.Is excepted behind the spinner). This release is captioned as a Mk.Ib (no such thing) and required the fuselage shortening to make a Mk.I. Later kits listed as Mk.II had this fuselage and this nose - quite correctly. Later kits listed as a Mk.I had a shortened nose piece which is wrong but makes a model of the correct length overall - ideally you should fill the join and rescribe a new one slightly further back. I suspect you have two of the standard "Mk.Ib" releases, rather than the later limited production dedicated Mk.I releases. Otherwise I have no explanation, nor for the lack of an oil spill ring. I thought I'd taken mine off....maybe I didn't need to? What are the nose sprue codes for your models - and which variants are they?

In his recent Airfix magazine Len Thompson also thinks the fuselage is a little short in front of the canopy, whereas I recall it as being right. As I have great respect for his skills and judgement I really should go and check this, but haven't as yet. This can be regarded as a separate issue.

Secondly, the Sea Hurricane Mk.I which did have an aft cg problem but because of the arrester gear, catapult spools and strengthening. This required the DH prop/spinner rather than the lighter Rotol unit, as you say. The Hurricane Mk.II series I did not have a shorter nose. There seems to be considerable confusion in the sources about the early Mk.IIs - this is may partly be because people have seen photographs of short-nosed Hurricanes with the later "bullet" Rotol and assumed them to be Mk.IIs. Although the Canadian Mk.X did have a shorter nose, that was because it had the Merlin III. It is not physically possible to fit the Merlin XX in the Mk.I nose because of the longer gearbox at the rear.

The standard Hurricane Mk.I did not have an aft cg problem, or at least not that I've seen. The addition of seat armour does not seem to have bothered the characteristics, and the larger 3-blade props would have counteracted any cg movement. Weight growth does often create problems with time, and perhaps that's true here. However, the redesign to take the Merlin XX was not done for wider weapons use but to gain as much performance as possible in the fighter role, particularly at higher altitude. The Mk.XX provides little benefit at low-level, after taking account of the extra weight and drag. The reallocation of the aircraft to ground attack followed later, partway through Mk.II production. The bombs were mounted on the wing close to the cg to reduce the trim change on release. If anything, weapons tend to be mounted slightly ahead of the cg, to avoid unwanted nose drop after release at low-level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and it's truly a relief to get that one straightened out! (Thanks to the gent who patiently measured both marks in the flesh, one must consider the case closed at a 4-inch extension for the Mk II).

A question about the real Mk II: reportedly, its longer nose had less to do with the introduction of the 2-stage Merlin XX, than to more general CG issues. My best reference on this issue is an article by Paul Fontenoy in "The Batsman," the now-defunct IPMS-USA specialist publication devoted to FAA subjects. Mr. Fontenoy makes three points in support: 1) the Mk I tended toward tail-heaviness in flight (especially with a tailhook, which required use of the deHavilland prop specifically because it was the heaviest available); 2) the extra length gave a wider range of trim and CG adjustment for heavier underwing ordinance as the Hurricane moved over to the attack role; and 3) two production versions did in fact incorporate the Merlin XX in the original Mk I "short nose" architecture (the Mk IIA Series 1, and Canadian-built Mk X).

Does current research still support those three points?

I thought you said we'd gotten it straightened out! Graham's mostly got it answered, but I'll add to that.

If I remember right the patient gent you refer to was Edgar Brooks, but I vaguely think that someone else was also mentioned as having done it at some point?

In my investigations (and remember, I'm primarily a Spitfire guy) the 4 inches has never really been in doubt- the problem arises when we accept the muddle-headed interpretations of other people, including some otherwise respected writers.

I think we must assume that Mr. Fontenoy is writing of Sea Hurricanes, and not the land-lubber RAF models. That being the case (I hope):

1) the Sea Hurricane Mk.I would have additional weight aft compared to a Hurricane Mk.I, so the CG shift would have to be addressed somehow.

2) moving the engine would have no significant impact on the CG shift or trim change from underwing ordinance, including when bombs were carried and then dropped.

3) the Merlin XX was 4" longer (one Spit III document said 3.99", which I found amusing- let's see, in 72nd the difference would be...). It seems perfectly reasonable that this would force the engine to move forward that amount. The Hurricane (not Sea) Mk.IIA Series 1 was an 8-gun Hurri with the Merlin XX. I've got Rolls Royce memos listing the changes required to fit the new engine, and a new engine mount is one of them. The Series 2, and I sure hope I'm remembering this right, was still an 8-gun but could carry long-range tanks under the wings.

One point I'll challenge Graham on: "The Mk.XX provides little benefit at low-level, after taking account of the extra weight and drag." Remember, we're comparing to a Merlin III now, not a Merlin 45 (or even XII). I think it did help, more-or-less at all altitudes.

bob

Edited by gingerbob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grant and Graham, many thanks to you both for your well-researched replies! I never come to Britmodeller without learning something new and today is no exception.

On the real Mk II--I strongly suspected my decade-old references had fallen behind the current curve and you have confirmed that! It just makes a lot more sense that all Mk II's and their relatives would be different from Mk I's.

On the Hasegawa 1/72 kits--Grant you are exactly right, my kits are 2 copies of AP38 and one each of AP39 and AP132, and all have the "sprue E" nose. I'll be on the lookout for one of the "sprue D" variants. How ironic that Hasegawa "corrected" the Mk I kits to be less correct. For what it's worth, I've checked these kits against Arthur Bentley's drawings of the Mk I and I agree with Mr. Thomson's assessment--the bay between the engine panels and cockpit is a bit too long for a Mk I and and bit too short for a Mk II. Thanks also for the list of variants, I'm not sure I knew there were so many!

Again many thanks. The Hurricane was really the aircraft that kicked off my modeling obsession more than 40 years ago...my school library had a copy of Paul Gallico's "THe Hurricane Story" that I checked out about 15 times! The first kits I remember building were the ancient Revell 1/72 and Monogram 1/48 renditions of this ultra-classic warbird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...my school library had a copy of Paul Gallico's "The Hurricane Story" that I checked out about 15 times!

My public library had it, and I read it more than once. I eventually matured and realized that it wasn't exactly a reliable modeling reference (or history)- but when I eventually came upon a hardback in a used book shop I had to give it a respectful home in my own library!

bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's still much searching to be done, on this one, but, certainly, the Hurricane was touchy, regarding the CoG. Aircraft with wooden airscrews could not have the pilot's armour fitted, unless the radio or flare chute were removed, to regain the CoG to an acceptable point (addition of the armour moved the CoG aft a mere .28", and that took it beyond limits.).

Before the armour was fitted, if a 3-blade V.P. airscrew was fitted, fixed ballast had to be added to the tail.

Everything I have says that the Merlin XX physically grew by 4", over the Merlin III, and that was the cause of the longer nose (measurements of the engines confirms this); it isn't always recognised that the Spitfire III, with the Merlin XX, also had a fuselage 4" longer, which is probably the reason for the raked-forward u/c.

As an aside, the Merlin 45 also grew in length, in relation to the Merlin III, but, because Supermarine had allowed enough space in the Spitfire, aft of the engine, to fit the carburettor controls, by swinging said controls through 180 degrees, and tucking them under the supercharger housing, the engine could still be fitted into the available space, so the Spitfire V remained the same length as the I/II.

One of the reasons for the abandonment of fitting the Griffon into the Hurricane, was that the centre section needed the mainspar angled forward, to bring the wings forward, and with them, the CoG, to keep it within limits. When they added in the small increase in overall speed, due to the Hurricane's construction, the Ministry decided it wasn't worth it, even though Camm had prepared the necessary drawings, and told him to concentrate on the Tornado/Typhoon airframes.

Edgar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Bob. A couple more points.

The Mk.I and early Mk.II could carry fixed ferry tanks - they were used on early Mk.Is to get to Malta via France. One is recorded as going u/s en-route, and there is a photo of it after capture by the Germans. I forget when the droppable tanks were introduced, at the introduction of Mk.II or with the "bomb" wing.

Moving the engine would bring the cg forward, and thus change the amount of cg shift permissable. However, as the cg is behind the aero centre, adding weight/moment forward would reduce the permissable range not increase it. (Wish I'd remembered that before last posting.)

At school I used to use the local village library (I had to wait some time for a bus home) I read the Gallico book out of there. Until recently I had a paperback, but think I passed it on to a charity fairly recently. Let another generation enjoy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, all,

The key is the number of fasteners... the long noses have one more. Hases' Hurris in 1/48th have on of the two noses (or both, in some boxings) completely correct from the start. Not in 1/72nd, it seems.

Graham, may be I lost the train, but... did an "intermediate" spinner exist? I have seen some pictures (like the one of "NJ-x" on top of the CAM cat) which do not show the short spinner, but it doesn't look like the bullet shaped either.

Fernando

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mk.I and early Mk.II could carry fixed ferry tanks - they were used on early Mk.Is to get to Malta via France. One is recorded as going u/s en-route, and there is a photo of it after capture by the Germans. I forget when the droppable tanks were introduced, at the introduction of Mk.II or with the "bomb" wing.

Hi, Graham,

Another use of the ferry tanks was in the deployments to Burma. They were (in)famously non-droppable.

Fernando

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Factory ballast kits were produced to improve the CG situation which are basically great chunks of shaped lead which are bolted to the engine bearers. These can be seen currently fitted to the Sea Hurricane I at Old Warden, which also has a dH prop, and furthermore has all the metal hookery replaced by dummy lightweight fibreglass in an additional effort to improve the pitch stability to an acceptable level.

Fact is that *all* Hurricanes are a bit more rearward of CG than is ideal for an aeroplane which has such a small tailplane in relation to its wing area, and a highly cambered airfoil which demonstrates considerable centre-of-pressure shift with variations in angle of attack. This makes the breed somewhat weak in pitch stability as a result, especially at high power settings. Some Hurricanes, of course, are worse than others, and the longer Mark II nose undoubtedly helps the beast, while any equipment fitted aft of the CG makes it worse.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fernando: A more obvious comparison is the fairing between the wing leading edge and the nose - this is almost circular on the Mk.I and twice the length and more elliptical on the Mk.II. This is very easy to note when you have the two to compare, of course.

I had some doubts about Hurricane spinners, particularly Sea Hurricanes, but this was cleared up in a recent thread. If, like me, you were used to the shape of the Spitfire DH spinner, then the Sea Hurricanes look odd - for me it was the Pedestal Mk.Ib that set me wondering. The DH spinner designed for the Hurricanes is smaller in base diameter than that designed for the Spitfire, so appears "longer and sharper". A number of early 1940 Hurricanes have the DH prop with the Spitfire spinner, which overlaps the nose - unlike the "correct" one.

Re cg: I wonder a little about the armoured radiator on the Mk.IV - or was this linked to engine armour as well? The Spitfire is also said to have benefitted from a larger tailplane (or would have done, had Quill convinced Smith) and the Typhoon grew one in order to cope with the 4-blade prop. The Fw190 chose to lengthen the fuselage, which would have been fairly easy to do on the Spitfire but less so on the Hurricane.

Edited by Graham Boak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proper fix for the Hurri would have been a bigger tail - tha nose ballast was only really a band-aid, as would a longer nose have been. You can improve the stability of anything by moving the CG forward but you do so at the expense of control authority. The sure sign that the Hurri needs a bigger tail is that most people have difficulty getting the tail all the way down when landing.

Hawkers were chasing that problem all the way through the Torndado / Typhoon / Tempest family and didn't really get it right until the Sea Fury, which had the double fix of (a) less winger area than the Tempest, *and* (b ) replacing even the enlarged second version of th Typhoon / Tempest tailplane with a fine new enormous one.

Supermarine also had an embarrassing little design fault on the Spitfire, not that it really mattered the slightest in terms of military effectiveness, which is that the tailplane is set at slightly at the wrong incidence. This is why on every picture you will see of a Spitfire from Mark I to Mark 21 in straight and level cruising flight, it is carrying a significant down-elevator angle. Usually most visible by looking at the tips of the elevator balances versus the tailplane leading edge.

Ideally they would have re-tooled it with the tailplane incidence increased by about one degree, but they were busy, there was a war on...

Edited by Work In Progress
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A more obvious comparison is the fairing between the wing leading edge and the nose - this is almost circular on the Mk.I and twice the length and more elliptical on the Mk.II. This is very easy to note when you have the two to compare, of course.

The Spitfire is also said to have benefitted from a larger tailplane (or would have done, had Quill convinced Smith)...

(from earlier post):

The Mk.I and early Mk.II could carry fixed ferry tanks - they were used on early Mk.Is to get to Malta via France...

Moving the engine would bring the cg forward, and thus change the amount of cg shift permissable. However, as the cg is behind the aero centre, adding weight/moment forward would reduce the permissable range not increase it. (Wish I'd remembered that before last posting.)

OK, time to catch up! Taking them in order:

That leading edge fairing may be obvious to you, but I seem to have a deuce of a time "seeing" it. I have tried, but maybe I just need to try harder!

The Spitfire did indeed benefit from a larger tailplane (and fin), with the "Spiteful" tail. Unfortunately this didn't come until too late for wartime. Joe Smith does seem to be primarily to blame- the RAE had warned him, but Supermarine's calculations (or empirical comparisons) seemed to suggest otherwise. On the other hand he had the pressure of production to consider, and a "simple" tweaking seemed about to do the job- trouble is it didn't turn out to be so simple, so a lot of time was spent that might have been more profitably spent getting on with the big tail. [Various Spitfire marks also carried ballast in front or in back (I wouldn't even be shocked to discover that one carried it in both places simultaneously!) so the Hurri wasn't alone there.]

Hurri Mk.II Series 1 vs. Series 2: quoting the Hurri Mk.II Manual (as reproduced by RAF Museum) introduction. "The main dimensions... are span 40', length 32'3". [Note no mention of a different length on the Series 1. Also, the manual uses Roman numerals, but I'll stick with these for clarity.]

"The Mk.IIA has the Hurricane I 8-gun stressed-skin main plane [it later says that they are interchangeable], and there are two versions: the Series 1 can only be fitted with the 8-gun main plane, but the Series 2 has a fuselage incorporating strengthened longerons which enable conversion to a later Mk. to be made, by substitution of the appropriate main plane. In the case of the Mk.IIA Series 2, Mk.IIB and Mk.IIC two bombs may be carried, one under each outer plane." So maybe (without probing further) it is a case of fixed tanks vs. jettison tanks/bombs, in addition to the fuselage changes? But bear in mind that this is a later revised publication, so may have included retroactive mods that hadn't been initially envisioned.

CG: Would it be correct to say that moving the engine forward would reduce the CG shift when stores were added or subtracted, since the engine weight was now on a longer moment arm, therefore being a greater "force"? It has been a long time since I studied such things, either the theory or the aircraft application of calculating CG. I still don't see how it would affect the permissible CG range- wouldn't you need the bigger tailplane or longer tail to do that? After all, when all the additions and subtractions were done, you'd want to end up with the CG in the right place for the wing, which had not (for the purpose of calculations) changed. And I wouldn't think that the 4" shift would have that much of an effect, but I haven't done the math!

bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Work in Progress, you snuck in while I was checking my reply.

Supermarine did study the issue of tailplane incidence, and in fact altered it on the 22 etc (not certain exactly which ones)- with the Spiteful tail. I remember seeing the little wedge at the tail joint on the RAF Museum's late Spit. Before that they were afraid that (going on memory) changing it would have a negative effect on trim change (control forces/direction) in a dive, and that may have convinced them not to mess with it- I've only seen comments in passing, haven't really chased down that line of investigation.

bob

Edited by gingerbob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the IX, the incidence was changed from+/- 20' to +/- 10' from 15-2-43; on the 22 (and the 24, presumably) a 1 degree incidence was introduced from 27-8-47. The same 1 degree was introduced on the Seafire 46 & 47 on the same date. Sorry for this hijacking of a Hurricane thread.

Edgar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My public library had it, and I read it more than once. I eventually matured and realized that it wasn't exactly a reliable modeling reference (or history)- but when I eventually came upon a hardback in a used book shop I had to give it a respectful home in my own library!

bob

Bob, I did exactly the same thing! A friend who is an active antiques dealer found a copy of "The Hurricane Story" for me. It's really pretty dreadful to read with modern eyes, but a treasured momento nonetheless!

Edited by MDriskill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly the kit - the Hasegawa 1/72 kit has the correct fuselage length for the Mk.II. The nose provided with the initial, basic, kit is the correct shape for any Hurricane (very early Mk.Is excepted behind the spinner). This release is captioned as a Mk.Ib (no such thing) and required the fuselage shortening to make a Mk.I. Later kits listed as Mk.II had this fuselage and this nose - quite correctly. Later kits listed as a Mk.I had a shortened nose piece which is wrong but makes a model of the correct length overall - ideally you should fill the join and rescribe a new one slightly further back. I suspect you have two of the standard "Mk.Ib" releases, rather than the later limited production dedicated Mk.I releases. Otherwise I have no explanation, nor for the lack of an oil spill ring. I thought I'd taken mine off....maybe I didn't need to? What are the nose sprue codes for your models - and which variants are they?

In his recent Airfix magazine Len Thompson also thinks the fuselage is a little short in front of the canopy, whereas I recall it as being right. As I have great respect for his skills and judgement I really should go and check this, but haven't as yet. This can be regarded as a separate issue.

Again, many thanks to you all for great replies, which have increased my understanding of the Hurricane considerably the past few days!

Now, about those Hasegawa noses...this week I managed to acquire a later version of the Mk I kit, with the "short" sprue D nose. It is indeed about 5 scale inches shorter than the "long" sprue E nose seen in the "Mk I Battle of Britain," and all Mk II versions of the kit. When I sat down with my treasured set of original 1980-vintage "Scale Models" magazines with Arthur Bentley's famous Hurricane drawings, though, I got some suprises:

1. The nose length in the Bentley drawings scales about 49.5". Very close indeed to Mr. Edgar's 50.5" considering all the variables involved!

2. The "long" sprue E nose--the one which everybody seems to favor for use on all Hurricane marks--measures about 54". Both panel segments, i.e. the short bit behind the spinner and the long engine access panels, are noticeably longer than Bentley shows.

3. The "short" sprue D nose measures about 49". It fits on the Bentley drawings about as close to perfectly as one can measure with the naked eye.

So...are we using the wrong snouts on our little Hurricanes after all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the early replies here sorted that - Hasegawa made a basic error in varying the cowl length to accomodate the overall length differences between the Hurricane I and all the others when the actual extension should have been in the forward fuselage. The shorter nose is actually correct, but ...

To get the proportions right for the Hurricane II, you either have to use the correct (short) nose and add an extension to the forward fuselage or use the longer nose and rescribe the panel lines on the forward fuselage and cowl to get them in the right place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. It is the "long" nose which is the correct one. As two people have now said, the basic Hasegawa fuselage is too short. I really must go and check it myself rather than just quoting them, but I take them to be reliable sources.

Graham, thanks for your comments. Just to be clear--not always my strong suit!--my post just above refers to the cowl moldings only. I fully agree with the other comments that have been made regarding other issues of fuselage length, especially the section between the cockpit and engine.

Again, it appears to me that the Bentley drawings are extremely close to the published 50.5-inch dimension; and it appears to me that the "short" Hasegawa cowl is the better match for both.

Edited by MDriskill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I perhaps misunderstood Graham's original reply (or read it too fast ;) )

Original:

Firstly the kit - the Hasegawa 1/72 kit has the correct fuselage length for the Mk.II. The nose provided with the initial, basic, kit is the correct shape for any Hurricane (very early Mk.Is excepted behind the spinner). This release is captioned as a Mk.Ib (no such thing) and required the fuselage shortening to make a Mk.I. Later kits listed as Mk.II had this fuselage and this nose - quite correctly. Later kits listed as a Mk.I had a shortened nose piece which is wrong but makes a model of the correct length overall - ideally you should fill the join and rescribe a new one slightly further back. I suspect you have two of the standard "Mk.Ib" releases, rather than the later limited production dedicated Mk.I releases. Otherwise I have no explanation, nor for the lack of an oil spill ring. I thought I'd taken mine off....maybe I didn't need to? What are the nose sprue codes for your models - and which variants are they?
and
In his recent Airfix magazine Len Thompson also thinks the fuselage is a little short in front of the canopy, whereas I recall it as being right. As I have great respect for his skills and judgement I really should go and check this, but haven't as yet. This can be regarded as a separate issue.
and finally from the OP
1. The nose length in the Bentley drawings scales about 49.5". Very close indeed to Mr. Edgar's 50.5" considering all the variables involved!

2. The "long" sprue E nose--the one which everybody seems to favor for use on all Hurricane marks--measures about 54". Both panel segments, i.e. the short bit behind the spinner and the long engine access panels, are noticeably longer than Bentley shows.

3. The "short" sprue D nose measures about 49". It fits on the Bentley drawings about as close to perfectly as one can measure with the naked eye.

I built the original 'Late BoB Hurricane' the so called Mk Ib back when it was new (and before I ever really thought about different lengths) and that is the total of my experience with the Hasegawa Hurricane. Where does Hasegawa make the break in their nose pieces, on the panel line (immediately aft of the exhaust) or behind it?

From all I have read, the cowl length, measured from the panel line immediately aft of the exhausts is the same for all the the Hurricanes. The different overall length coming from the forward fuselage behind this panel line being shorter (Mk I) or longer (Mk II). If Bentley's drawing showing this cowl length of ~50" is correct, and if Hasegawa makes the break on the panel line, it still seems to me that the longer cowl is incorrect and is compensating for a fuselage that is too short for a Mk II.

As an aside here, both of the current 1/72 Airfix Hurricane kits, the Hurricane I and the Hurricane IIc and also the Revell Hurricane IIc have identical cowl lengths from that panel line forward, and it scales at ~50" for all of them as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From all I have read, the cowl length, measured from the panel line immediately aft of the exhausts is the same for all the the Hurricanes.

The difference is in the rear engine bearers, they are longer, because the merlin XX is longer. The added length is is in the middle of the panel in front of the cockpit, behind the exhaust panel.

The longer engine bearers need a longer leading edge fillet, it's quite subtle unless you look carefully and it's well lit, due to curves, and the camo lines, remember it's only 4 inches, a quick measure of some drawings show the rear panel on the MkI to be 39", so one a MKII it should be 43", about 10% longer.

Graham nails this point

A more obvious comparison is the fairing between the wing leading edge and the nose - this is almost circular on the Mk.I and twice the length and more elliptical on the Mk.II. This is very easy to note when you have the two to compare, of course.

These pics while not ideal, I hope show this difference.

Mk I

hurr1-7.jpg

Mk II

hurr2-15.jpg

Mk I

hurr1-12.jpg

Mk II

hurr2-13.jpg

neat shot of a IIA, this shows the extended root fillet well.

hurr2-1.jpg

compare to this one again.

hurr1-12.jpg

HTH

T

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is part of Peter Cooke's article, on the Hurricane, which (I hope) illustrates where the differences lie. I know that I'm safe over copyright, because some of the work is mine; Peter went off, and measured some airframes, while I measured 6 others, and we compared notes, coming within 1/2" of each other. As additional evidence, I checked the APs 15664A & 15664B, in the RAF Museum, which gives the length, from tip of propellor shaft to rudder post as 28' 6.5" for the Mk.I & 28' 10.5" for the II.

scan0002-2.jpg

Edgar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I perhaps misunderstood Graham's original reply (or read it too fast ;) )

Original: and and finally from the OP

I built the original 'Late BoB Hurricane' the so called Mk Ib back when it was new (and before I ever really thought about different lengths) and that is the total of my experience with the Hasegawa Hurricane. Where does Hasegawa make the break in their nose pieces, on the panel line (immediately aft of the exhaust) or behind it?

Chuck, the Hasegawa 1/72 kits are broken at the rear end of the engine access panels. Their later 1/48 kits are different, broken at the panel line just in front of the cockpit.

Troy and Edgar--THANK YOU for posting those excellent photos and drawings!

I have a lot of Hurricane reference material, but not to this depth, so it is MUCH appreciated.

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...