The basic problem has been talked about for years already: exaggerated convexity from the 10 to 2 o'clock positions looking at the model head on shifts the HK windscreen up what looks to be at least 1 and as many as 2 mm. It isn't a direct shift upward either; the window proportions are off due to changes in aspect ratio made to accommodate the convexity of the kit nose. Thus, windscreen correction must address (1) relative height of windscreen to windows and (2) absolute windscreen shape relative to reality.
Here is my juxtapositional analysis of the differences between the kit and the reality.
LOWER: in reality the lower edge of the windscreen is nearly flush with the side windows
UPPER: in reality the upper edge of windscreen is slightly lower than the windows and the roof is thicker
HOOD: the hood is noticeably thicker in reality.
If I had the kit, I think I would know what to do.
(I suspect), an effective correction accepts the location of the side windows as truth and uses their location as a reference point to shift the windscreen downward.
- Shifting the windscreen downward would require special attention to both the upper and lower sides.
- On the upper side, the gap created will need to be filled with plastic card which will thicken the roof more in line with reality. Because thickness is being added to a slope, the windscreen will shift forward by some small amount, which would need to be reconciled with the fuselage join later.
- On the lower side, the framing to which the clear plastic joins (I.e., the very front, lower part of the turtledeck piece) will need to be flattened (via thinning and bending) to more accurately reflect reality. In all likelihood, the very lower edge of the frame will need to be cut free from the rest of the turtledeck to permit its proper positioning and bending:
- The clear plastic would be sacrificed, painted over and glued with the polystyrene hood to permit accurate shaping of the windows, which would be drawn with a sharpie using good photographs, drilled out, and glassed with a clear acetate backing from the inside. At that point, the windscreen would have been corrected, and the major remaining task would be (1) flattening the fuselage and (2) ensuring a clean, accurate join between the fuselage and windscreen.
Regarding how I think the fuselage should be approached, the essential aim would be to remove the entire upper section of the nose, making a flexible "hood" that is very thin to promote flexibility, and shorter on the sides to promote flattening when the sides are re-approximated.
If I did try this, I would assemble the sections outlined in red below, and then cut them out as one unit. Before cutting, I would drill a series of parallel holes on the hood and on the lower 2/3 of the fuselage directly opposed from one another, with the ultimate goal of using a pursestring suture to perfectly reapproximate the edges. As the suture tension is dialed in, the piece flattens to meet the windscreen as desired.
Flattening can only occur using a tensing technique if the sides get shorter. Thus, I would remove about 0.5 to 1 mm from the lateral edges and then reduce the thickness of the "hood" to near paper to make it as flexible as possible. The point of removing plastic from the edges it to reduces the height of the hood as the edges are reapproximated once again. The fuselage shape is adjusted to accommodate the reduction in windscreen height and the flatness of the lower frame. It may result in a perfect level of flatness, it may not. The correction obeys the windscreen and not the fuselage. the bet is that if the windscreen shape is corrected, the fuselage will follow naturally.
Does this make sense?
One day, I will try it and share my work