Radub

As you wish:

Different sample:

For all it's worth:

Thanks again, everyone, for the birthday wishes.

Thank you all!

This is a Revell project and I hope you understand that they would like to be the ones who look after media releases. Revell will issue all necessary information in due course. Radu

Many thanks for the birthday wishes! Radu

Many thanks, everyone, for your good wishes. I am having a great day so far. Radu

The datum line of the spar runs through the center of the spar, rather than the bottom or the top of the spar. In any case, Arthur's drawings have the correct angles. Radu

According to data provided by Arthur Bentley and his drawings, the datum line of the spar is at 2.80 degrees to the horizontal. HTH Radu

The dihedral on the top of the wing is actually 0.85 degrees. The "level" difference between the highest points of the outer and middle sections of the wing is 0.53 mm (or 0.02086614 inches) in scale 1/32. Because of the wing geometry, the wing angles change depending on the viewing direction. HTH Radu

I don't think that any "difference" needed to be made. over the last few days I had some conversations with a few people about this press release from Revell and the general gist was that "Revell should have used better photos that showed the dihedral." Why? The model is the same, no matter what angle it is viewed from. One can equally say that these photos created a visual "trap" that tripped some people in their haste to issue a "hot take" and those kinds of personal choices made by others can't be blamed on anyone else. Radu

There is no "horrible angle". To me the Hurricane looks great from any angle. Radu

You do not need to worry about the correct configuration for the Mk.II. Everything is accounted for. As explained by Revell in their press release and by me in my posts, you are looking at test shots. Radu

The model shown by Revell is built correctly. Due to the breakdown of parts it is impossible to build the model with "zero dihedral". Even if there was some way to build it with "zero dihedral" by accident or incompetence, there would be gaps in all kinds of places. How can one make angles in parts disappear without repercussions? As I explained already, what you see in the photos from Revell is an optical artifact caused by the camera angle. I have the model in hand now, I can replicate that "look" just by turning it in my hand. There is nothing wrong with the Revell model, it is all geometry and optics. Radu

The Hurricane wing is a complex design that combines a horizontal middle section to which are attached outer sections that feature a dihedral as well as swept-back leading edge and swept-forward trailing edges, all of which have an aerofoil cross section that causes the wing to change from "fat" at the front to "thin" at the back. This means that by simply changing the angle of the camera, the wing will look differently. In any case, as I explained earlier in the thread, the model wing has the correct dihedral. The "flat wing" that you see in these photos is a visual artefact caused by the above-mentioned combination of the wing's many angles and the viewing angle of the camera. Here are some photos of the assembled test shot that I have in my possession. I also added a ruler to indicate the "horizontal". The propeller was removed for clarity. Please keep in mind that this is an even earlier test shot than that shown by Revell, so the final product will be different in some places. Also, this test shot was assembled in haste (test shot, not a competition model) so please ignore any assembly issues, glue blobs, uncleaned attachment points, etc that you may see. Just to give you an idea of how fickle camera vieweing angles are, have a look at the change in the angle of the wing top and bottom that happens if the camera is moved up and down just a couple of centimetres - this is caused by the fact that the wing not only has a dihedral but it also has a swept-back leading edge. It is subtle, but I am sure that you can see it. In any case, please be assured that the kit wing has the correct dihedral. I really hope this helps. Radu

This is an assembled early test shot. The model has the correct dihedral. The photo from behind is taken from below (you can see a lot of the belly and tail planes) so the view of the wings is from an angle that does not show the dihedral in the best way. In fact, it is quite difficult to see the dihedral when looking at the Hurricane from behind due to the wing geometry - see the photo below. Radu

Agreed! That should have happened the second when the discussion was made about me rather than the Bf 109. Radu

This is an OUTRIGHT LIE!!! This thread was always about the real aicraft and I tried really hard NOT to mention the ZM kit. I only mentioned the ZM kit in the end, after YOU brought up some outrageously huge dimensions on which YOU then you porceeded to create a scaffolding of outrage. This is what YOU said "on the ZM kit, the flange sits around 25 mm in scale proud of the fin, which is clearly excessive; I at least have never seen any actual airframes, or photographs, documenting a 25 mm gap." For those who are late to this discussion, this is what I am talking about: Only after you posted your erroneous statements about the ZM kit and your made-up dimenions I showed photos of what the model looks like in reality without any statements about it being right or wrong. These are just facts, read the thread. Others, especially YOU, made a big fuss about the ZM kit so please stop blaming me for other people's actions or your actions. I continue to insist (and please read this carefully!) that the photos of the real aicraft posted in this thread speak for themselves. Radu

There is another discussion on another forum where a self-appointed expert keeps telling everyone quite agresively that we MUST NOT take Luftwaffe drawings as gospel and that we need to find the "additional correspondence" and the actual drawings used in the factory which are full of "red pencil corrections" made locally. I will not go there, not my fight. Secondly, I never claimed anywhere that I am some kind of "expert" on the Bf 109 (or anything else for that matter) so please stop trying to "expose" me. I am a modeller, I work with what I got. And what I got is knowledge about injection-moulded plastc tooling. I can tell you (without attempting to put into question your intellect or knowledge) that it is not technically possible to represent a 1.5 mm item in real life in scale 1/32. Even if we were to add the 0.75 mm for the metal, a total of 2.25, in scale 1/32 that is 0.07 mm (medium thickness of human hair) which is not a thing that can be achieved with any injection-molded plastic tool. Any item has to be at least 0.1 mm to be visible under a magnifier, but preferrably more than that to be seen with the naked eye. For example the finest rivet that you can see on the best models are around 0.15 mm - it is possible to make smaller but it is hard to achieve consistency. Panel lines are around 0.15 for the finest but usually 0.2 mm wide. Any item standing "proud" from a surface (such as an overallping panel, has to be at least 0.15 mm to show up, but preferrably more than that to look "right" - most raised surface panels are at 0.2 to 0.3 mm to convince the eye. A 0.3 mm flange on a bf 109 is not beyond the expected industry standards. All models are about compromise. Every model has to exagerate any detail that is visible or eliminate any detail that is too small. Models are not "academic papers", they are "entertainment", just illusions of reality in small scale. Anyway, I stand by the many photographs shown in this thread. People can make up their own minds. Radu

"Facts" will aways win over "opinion". Read the thread. Radu

Not "defending". Explaining. I am sure that the majority of reasonable people understand it by now. Radu

Pvanroy, As the text in your document clearly explains, the figures shown indicate "tolerance" not "clearance". The text for the ailerons reads: "spalt darf ± 2 mm über zeichn. gemaßes Mäß sein", which means "Gap may deviate ± 2 mm from drawing within reason". This literally means that the allowable deviaton from the drawings is plus/minus the indicated amount in the chart. Of note is the ± sign, which means plus/minus. If those figures were to indicate "clearance" (the distance between parts), the ± sign would mean that the part could go "plus" as well as "minus" from the surface, which in the case of the flange could LITERALLY also put the flange UNDER the skin of the aircraft. The points I richly illustrated in this thread still stand. I refer again to the many photos of the real aicraft, including the superb photo posted in the thread by RBrown showing the gap between the flange and the fin/fuselage on the relatively pristine Bf 109 perserved in the Treloar Centre in Caberra, which is neither "damaged" nor "restored". Even from that distance the gap is clearly visible. Radu

This may be something to do with Google Photos. I reloaded the photos. Hopefully it works now. Radu

Here are some photos that I took this morning. I invite all of you who have to kit to do the same things that I am going to show in the next photos. So, let us start. This is the distance between the top edges of the flanges. As you can see on the calliper screen, the distance is 4.30 mm. This is the width of the fin. As you can see on the calliper screen, the width is 3.70 mm. So, simple calculation, 4.30-3.70=0.6 mm. Divide by two and that means that the width of each flange is 0.3 mm. What is 0.3 mm? 0.3 mm is the width of a regular business card. In this photo I used the calliper to measure the thickness of a business card. Now, I placed the business card on the fin, on top of the flange. You can see that the flange is actually slightly thinner than the card in this particular spot. Note that this is the widest spot on the flange, it is slightly thinner at the back. Here is a photo of the tailplane attached to the fuselage. Those of you who remember the photos of the flyable aircraft posted earlier in this thread may be able to spot the similarity. Some of you will say "Wait a minute, that is not what we were shown in the photos posted elsewhere." There are two things going on there: Thing 1: Let us remember that when the first complaints about the flange were posted on the internet, they came from people who did not know that the flange was supposed to stand proud of the fin/fuselage. To them any "step" was a "problem", a noticeable "step" was a noticeable "problem". But here is the crux of the issue: a "step" is not a "problem", it is a "feature". I think that that very many photos of the flyable aircraft I posted in this thread demonstrated clearly that the flange does indeed stand at quite a distance from the fin/fuselage. Thing 2: I can replicate the "problem" with lighting and angle. From this angle the lighting creates a shadow that exaggerates the joint line and makes the flange look huge. This is the part turned around. It changed again. here is the part photographed from above, which really shows the true thickness of the material. Here is a photo from the back: So, that is it, a 0.3 mm (less in some places) flange in scale 1/32. In real life that is 0.3 x 32 = 9.6 mm. That is just shy of 10 mm. Take a metric ruler. Look at 10 mm. Then look at the photos of the flange on the flyable aircraft shown in this thread. You make up your own minds. I hope this helps. Radu