HK Models Mosquito PR Mk IX

[Cheetah11]

 

I recently received two great presents from my son in Australia. One was a HK Models Mosquito which was on a sale at BNA for less than half the price of the one in a local hobby shop.

The second and priceless present was a two week visit by my three year old grandson.

So I will see how to tackle this one as I have always wanted to do a SAAF Mosquito.

 

 

 

 

 

The history of the Mosquito in the Western Desert campaign is not well known today, so I will do one of the only unit to operate the Mossie in that campaign, namely 60 Sqn SAAF.

 

More a bit later.

Nick

 

[Oldbaldguy]

Perfect timing!  I gotta build one of these for my kid.  Can’t wait to see what I need to do to make it work.

[Javlin1]

I built this one myself Nice kit did both scratch and PE in the pit.

[Cheetah11]

 

I had a look at some of the previous builds on various sites and noted all the complaints levelled at this kit. Some are easily fixable and some not. The most common complaints were:

The nose glass section being too small.

The nose side windows were angled incorrectly.

The wheels were poorly detailed.

The wing leading edge inboard of the engines sloped too much.

Strips on the wing upper surface that should not be present.

There were a few complaints about the spinners and props as well. 

 

The most serious problem for me is the fuselage length. I compared the old Revell kit to the HK fuselage and the rear fuselage of the HK kit is around 6 mm longer. A quick comparison to the Tamiya 1/48 an a call to a modelling friend with a Tamiya 1/32 kit showed them to be the same as the old Revell kit. Looking at all the side on photos seem to confirm the error( Yes photos can be problematic but a good side on photo is sometimes useful to me just as a double check). So this will have to be fixed.

 

I will endeavour to fix some of the other errors and just ignore some of the smaller errors.

Getting to grips with the kit opened a small can of worms.

There are approx. 30 surviving Mosquitos of different marks in existence today and four are airworthy. The trouble as with many models probably was the research done on restored examples which are not always in the correct config for the model depicted. Here it seems no different but more a little later. Added to this is the relatively long service, many different models and different factories from Canada to Australia and it becomes difficult to pin down all the differences between various marks. Then some aircraft in museums are not the right model such as the PR MkXVI depicted in the US Air Force Museum which is actually a B Mk 35.

 

The model I want to do was the first PR Mk IX used by 60 Sqn SAAF. Not as colourful as the later PR Mk XVI aircraft of the unit but historically more interesting.

Serial no LR 411.

 

 

There is only one  surviving PR Mk IX Mosquito today. The only other Mk PR is a PR Mk XVI  in Australia and in storage at the RAAF museum in Victoria.

 

By some great fortune the PR Mk IX is 30 min drive away from me at the Saxonwold Museum and it is unrestored, still wearing paint from 1943. It was also in a hanger away from the sun since 1946.  Only trouble is it is mounted in a flying position and the innards are not readily accessible. Still a goldmine of information.

 

Some more soon

Nick

[Cheetah11]

 

So I am slowly eating deeper into the can of works.😁

 

The first part I am going to correct or rather adjust is the wing. The plywood strips on the upper wing surface has been criticised as overscale and the wing should be smooth. So HK Models messed this up totally. Or did they?

 

Smooth wing B Mk XVI

 

 

 

Wing Strips on a B Mk 35

 

 

 

So it would seem that the later marks of Mosquitoes had the strips. Or perhaps from different factories. This actually opens up more options for the Mosquito enthusiast.

A B Mk 35 from the HK kit with 3D printed 100 Gal tanks. Or with cross kitting with the Tamiya kit a NF Mk XXX? I would like to hear what the Mossie boffins have to say. 

The only reference I could find on the net stated plywood strips were fitted to some aircraft in tropical areas after wing failures. It was thought at the time that water seeped into the joints on the top surface.

 

In the mean time I am pretty sure the PR Mk IX had a smooth wing.

 

After 5 min of scraping and sanding the front strip is smooth.

 

 

A little elbow grease and the wing is done.

 

 

I also corrected the inboard leading edge by scribing a line on the bottom and bending it up. The line was then reinforced with a plastic strip. The top was then smoothed with a sanding stick.

 

 

A small triangle added to the fuselage to match the wing.

 

 

 

 

Was the leading edge correction worth it. Looking at the photo it seems not as bad as some modelers make it out to be. How correct is the Tamiya kit to which the HK kit is compared to. You decide.

 

 

All for now.

Cheers

Nick

Edited May 7 by Cheetah11

[geedubelyer]

I'd say worth it. 

 

Neat work so far. 

Thanks for taking the time to detail the modifications. It will be extremely useful for those who come after. 

 

[Palm-tree]

J.E.Gordon of The University of Glasgow was sent out to the Far East during the war to try and determine why the wings on the mosquito were failing which was ultimately traced to water soluable glues used to bond some of the plywood wing surfaces.

The whole story of the moisture ingress, and the subsequent fix was told in his book for engineering undergraduates "The New Science of Strong Materials." 

Edited May 7 by Palm-tree
Book title

[monthebiff]

Interesting build and research Nick, I built the original boxing when it first came out and really difficult problems with the U/C legs breaking and needed lots of repairs to fix and amazingly still standing 10 years later, how I just dont know!

I've often wondered about buying this boxing you have and seeing if I can transplant the wing assembly on to my Tamiya kit which would open up a few possibilities!

 

Regards. Andy 

 

 

[Madmax]

Wonderful choice of subject, and an exciting prospect of seeing how you correct the HK kit's shortcomings. Go for it Nick! 

[Cheetah11]

On 5/7/2025 at 8:13 PM, Palm-tree said:

J.E.Gordon of The University of Glasgow was sent out to the Far East during the war to try and determine why the wings on the mosquito were failing which was ultimately traced to water soluable glues used to bond some of the plywood wing surfaces.

The whole story of the moisture ingress, and the subsequent fix was told in his book for engineering undergraduates "The New Science of Strong Materials." 

 

Thanks for the info. I read that one of the de Haviland brothers did the initial investigation and concluded water seeped into the upper wing joints, hence the strips. The MOD enquiry later found a problem with the manufacturing, probably the water soluble glue being used as you pointed out.

 

 

On 5/7/2025 at 11:33 PM, monthebiff said:

Interesting build and research Nick, I built the original boxing when it first came out and really difficult problems with the U/C legs breaking and needed lots of repairs to fix and amazingly still standing 10 years later, how I just dont know!

I've often wondered about buying this boxing you have and seeing if I can transplant the wing assembly on to my Tamiya kit which would open up a few possibilities!

 

Regards. Andy 

 

 

 

Hi Andy, thanks for the heads up. I had a look at the undercarriage and think I know how to make it stronger and easier to build. I will see a little later on in the build. With the two stage engines and wing strips HK Models have actually given modelers a lot of options eg a PR Mk 34 or B35 can be done almost OOB. Cross kitting with the Tamiya opens many more. The thing I realized researching this build is that most of the generally available history of the Mosquito is written on the first few years and not much is readily available on the later operations, such as the overall Silver PR 34 aircraft during the Malayan Crisis.

 

 

On 5/9/2025 at 10:26 AM, Madmax said:

Wonderful choice of subject, and an exciting prospect of seeing how you correct the HK kit's shortcomings. Go for it Nick! 

Thanks Sean. The kit does not have a lot of errors and actually builds well with good fit so far. Just my OCD . I will see where I can take this inside the funds, patience and questionable skill triangle. My model building is like Little Bill's carpentry (Gene Hackman in Unforgiven). My skill lie elsewhere.

 

In the mean time I am fixing the rear fuselage. All the plans I could find as well as a comparison with other kits showed the same result, the rear fuselage being 6mm too long.

 If I had to do this again I would do the cut on the rear of the bomb bay, resulting in a little less sanding to even out the two parts.

 

 

Done, quite an easy fix.

 

 

Cheers

Nick

[Cheetah11]

 

One or two more things to do and then all the basic corrections are done. This took less than a week and is thot difficult. Despite these little fixes this is still a terrific kit to build.

 

To convert the B Mk ix to a PR config the camera ports need to be added. The rear one here is not in the right position and will be moved 3 mm to the rear. 

 

 

 

Much has been written about the nose transparency being too small and I have a Tasman one for the  Revell kit. I was about to cut the nose and try and size the Tasman transparency onto the kit. Then I came across this picture.  

 

Here the nose does look rather small compared to the rest of the aircraft. I think what happened is that I looked at close up pictures where the nose section appears larger to the mind. Stepping back and seeing the aircraft from a distance gave me a different perspective.

 

But still I needed a bit more certainty.

 

I upscaled two plans to 1/32 and looked at the Revell nose and the HK nose compared to the plans. The plans I used were the Tamiya 1/48 (must be perfect) and an original de Haviland drawing.

 

Revell on the Tamiya drawing.

 

 

 

Revell kit on the de Haviland drawing.

 

 

HK Models on the Tamiya drawing

 

And HK models on the de Haviland drawing.

 

Not perfect but very close. The result for me is to use the kit part. It is close enough and adding the Revell part will actually make it too large according to the plans.

I have covered the small side windows and will soon cut the openings for them. I had a look at Martin's build and fortunately he measured them on a Canadian restoration project. 

 

 

 

Some more trouble in paradise 

HK Models, Reskit and Revell

 

So which one is correct. I would like to hear opinions before making a decision which to use.

Cheers

Nick

Edited Tuesday at 05:00 AM by Cheetah11

[crobinsonh]

Love it. All the details you are addressing are going to make this one a beauty.

[Oldbaldguy]

The nose out of whack issue has been around for so long that pretty much everybody believes it by now.  Since I have this kit and plan to build it soon, I am ecstatic to learn/see/hear that at least that one “issue” ain’t what we thought it was.  I can handle the radiator intakes and the rest is gravy.  This is a great build.

[geedubelyer]

Hi Nick. Neat work on the glazing modification so far. 

It's good to follow along with your project so future builders can see what's involved. 

I took a couple of photos of a Mosquito at RAF Cosford museum last year but they have different tread patterns. 

I'd discount the Revell version (buff coloured in your pic?) The hub doesn't look right to me unless you have reference pics that show different? 

Does either the HK part or Reskit have flat spots for weighted tyres?

You might need to assemble the gear legs to get an idea of proportion before you make your final decision? 

[Cheetah11]

 

12 hours ago, geedubelyer said:

Hi Nick. Neat work on the glazing modification so far. 

It's good to follow along with your project so future builders can see what's involved. 

I took a couple of photos of a Mosquito at RAF Cosford museum last year but they have different tread patterns. 

I'd discount the Revell version (buff coloured in your pic?) The hub doesn't look right to me unless you have reference pics that show different? 

Does either the HK part or Reskit have flat spots for weighted tyres?

You might need to assemble the gear legs to get an idea of proportion before you make your final decision? 

 

Thanks Guy, I had a look at as many wartime photos as I could and I think there might have been different sizes of tyres fitted to the Mosquitoes.

 

Tamiya seems to have chosen the slightly smaller one and the Eduard, Barracuda and Reskit is sized accordingly. This leaves me with the kit wheels as the photo of the subject I am doing have the larger (or closer to the kit) tyres. If I compare the PR Mk IX in the Johannesburg Museum to the kit  undercarriage leg it seems HK wheels are correct for the PR.  I wonder if any other Mosquitoes had the right brake painted red.

 

 

 

The Reskit tyre does not have a flat spot and the HK tyre flat spot is so small as to be almost unnoticeable. (Just visible in the photo.)

 

On 5/7/2025 at 11:33 PM, monthebiff said:

Interesting build and research Nick, I built the original boxing when it first came out and really difficult problems with the U/C legs breaking and needed lots of repairs to fix and amazingly still standing 10 years later, how I just dont know!

I've often wondered about buying this boxing you have and seeing if I can transplant the wing assembly on to my Tamiya kit which would open up a few possibilities!

 

Regards. Andy 

 

 

Andy I looked at the u/c and the different components. I also wanted to assemble it after the kit was build so I replaced the thin plastic part with a brass tube. I lined all the parts up with a steel pin and tacked the brass in place with superglue, then removed the pin and secured it with more glue. At the end of the build I will insert a .8mm steel pin and everything should hopefully line-up.

 

 

Cheers

Nick