Radub

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 

 

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 

 

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 

 

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 

 

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 

 

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 

 

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 

 

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 
 
 

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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 

 

 

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 
 
 

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

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

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

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 
 
 

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

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

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

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