HK Models Mosquito PR Mk IX

[geedubelyer]

That pic of the kit part in the gear leg looks favourable compared with your reference images. 

[Martinnfb]

Hi Nick , what a great choice of subject..... FOLLOWING   ..., If you need any detail pictures , or measurements just let me know. How are you planning to deal with the undersized canopy? 

Cheers

Martin

[Oldbaldguy]

Two questions:  How did they keep those reinforcement strips on the wings from screwing up the airflow over the wing?  And could those slipper tanks be dropped or was the crew stuck with once they ran dry?  Asking because I have no mosquito books.

[Martinnfb]

One:

Seals , not reinforcement. They didn't.  

Two:

Dropable.

[Elger]

7 hours ago, Martinnfb said:

Hi Nick , what a great choice of subject..... FOLLOWING   ..., If you need any detail pictures , or measurements just let me know. How are you planning to deal with the undersized canopy? 

Cheers

Martin

 

Are we sure the HK canopy is undersized? I've been playing with the idea of combining Revell and HK Mosquito parts as well and the HK canopy fits the Revell fuselage pretty perfectly, and it's also virtually the same size as the Tasman canopy I have. That is, if I recall correctly, it's been a while since I was comparing these parts.

[Oldbaldguy]

8 hours ago, Elger said:

 

Are we sure the HK canopy is undersized? I've been playing with the idea of combining Revell and HK Mosquito parts as well and the HK canopy fits the Revell fuselage pretty perfectly, and it's also virtually the same size as the Tasman canopy I have. That is, if I recall correctly, it's been a while since I was comparing these parts.

Ooooo!  The possibility of another urban myth shot in the butt?  This is grand!

[Martinnfb]

The HK fuselage is slightly wider and misshapen in the canopy section and the canopy frame itself is slightly narrower. I will take measurements for everyone to assess on Saturday.

That was the main reason why I lost my nerve at the end of my build after I sanded through the side of the fuselage . It's a can of worms. choose the level of your punishment wisely.

 

[Cheetah11]

 

20 hours ago, Martinnfb said:

Hi Nick , what a great choice of subject..... FOLLOWING   ..., If you need any detail pictures , or measurements just let me know. How are you planning to deal with the undersized canopy? 

Cheers

Martin

 

Hi Martin, thanks for the offer. I had a look at your build and could get most of the measurements from there.  I cut thru the nose section length wise since I thought it will be easier to work in the cockpit. ( I can't and never will be able to build a ship in a bottle )  The result is the fuselage is thinner by the width of the razor saw. Upon a first order inspection the canopy width now seems very close. When I am ready to join the two fuselage sides I will do a final adjustment by thinning or shimming the two sides. Or that is the plan for now anyway. 

A pity the FLAK got hold of your model

Cheers

Nick

[thierry laurent]

Hi,

 

Very interesting project.

 

With regard to the fuselage length, I've already read this error assumption. However, did you get some technical info from De Havilland or from someone who checked them?

 

I'm asking as the HK kit length closely matches some De Havilland bomber fuselage wartime plans I have. I checked some years ago and finally decided to leave the kit part as such. However, we know that plans (even wartime ones) can sometimes be dubious. Hence, I'm curious...

[Cheetah11]

18 hours ago, thierry laurent said:

Hi,

 

Very interesting project.

 

With regard to the fuselage length, I've already read this error assumption. However, did you get some technical info from De Havilland or from someone who checked them?

 

I'm asking as the HK kit length closely matches some De Havilland bomber fuselage wartime plans I have. I checked some years ago and finally decided to leave the kit part as such. However, we know that plans (even wartime ones) can sometimes be dubious. Hence, I'm curious...

 

Hi Thierry,

I picked up this discrepancy by casually comparing the old Revell kit to the newly acquired HK kit. Then the search started. The first problem was the length of the fuselage as I found at least three different lengths in various sources. I scaled up the supposed original de Haviland plans on the internet. Since I did not have a definite fuselage length it only gave a comparison between the kits. 

The next step was to look at different other kits. The measurement I used to compare the kit was from the rear of of the fuselage strap to the front bottom edge of the fin as this is the area in question.

So how do the different kits corrected to 1/32 compare.

 

Airfix 1/72 :  153mm                                 

 

Tamiya 1/48 : 156mm                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

 

Revell 1/32 : 153mm                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

 

Tamiya 1/32 : 154mm

 

HK Models 1/32   :  160.5mm

 

Unfortunately I cannot measure the real one as it is hanging in the roof of the local museum and the staff is not helpful at all. If any member is willing to check the 1/24 Mossie it might add another angle.

Bottom line : If HK is correct, Tamiya is wrong

Cheers

Nick

 

Edited May 27 by Cheetah11

[thierry laurent]

Thanks very much for the detailed reply. I'm still wondering as if Tamiya generally does a good work they also sometimes made some basic errors. I will try to have a closer look at that in the following weeks.

[Cheetah11]

Hi Thierry

 

I hope Tamiya is correct since I made the HK kit the same length. The easier way to fix this is to get the rear fuselage sprue from Tamiya and fit it onto the HK kit since the joint is in exactly the same place. That s if Tamiya is correct.

Cheers

Nick

[Winnie]

I just finished the undercarriage on mine, I'm doing the B. mk. IV straight from the box. The landing gear was a whore... no other words to describe it...

 

I DID get it together, but had to cheat, and it isn't for competition tables anymore... too many minor mistakes. 

[Cheetah11]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 hours ago, Winnie said:

I just finished the undercarriage on mine, I'm doing the B. mk. IV straight from the box. The landing gear was a whore... no other words to describe it...

 

I DID get it together, but had to cheat, and it isn't for competition tables anymore... too many minor mistakes. 

Hi Winnie,

yes the undercarriage is difficult. I modified my for that reason with a brass tube and pin so I could fit the legs after the model was build. With my clumsiness I would break the undercarriage legs a few times before finishing the model. 

 

First onto the nose section. I measured the kit side windows and they are close to the size in Martin's build where he could measure the real aircraft, so only the angle needed adjustment.

I digitised the windows with the Silhouette software and cut two vinal sections. 

 

These were then positioned onto the nose sections and the sections were painted black. After removal I had a perfect guide to cut the openings. One can see the angle that needs to be corrected on the original grey plastic.

 

After a bit of cutting and filing the windows now have a more realistic look. I will glue the sections in once all the detailing on the nose is done.

 

I also removed all the detail on the inside of the nose section so tat I could try and add the correct detail of the Mk Pr IX. As I have mentioned the Mossie in the Johannesburg museum is a great reference as the internal config is very different to the later and restored aircraft.

 

Cheers

Nick

Edited May 30 by Cheetah11

[Cheetah11]

 

Winter has arrived with a bang so a bit more modelling time.

 

I started to detail the inside of the cockpit using some of the kit parts cut from the inner wall and pasting them onto the outer skin.

 

 

Then I hit two obstacles. The photos of the museum PR ix shows a different layout to the kit and to the bomber versions in other museums.

 

I decided to use the photos I have and print some of the details. Easier said than done. The PR ix cockpit shows more flare racks and fire extinguishers than the bomber versions, so I drew up some parts in Tinkercad . The kit parts for these will also need replacement as they are a little basic.

 

The printing was done with a filament printer and a .3mm nozzle. I could not get a .2mm nozzle to print reliably.  The results were not as great as I wanted it to be, so I will have to draw all the parts I need and ask some modeler with a resin printer to do them for me. Here are the filament prints, looking good from a distance but bothersome at closer inspection.

 

 

 

 

In the mean time I fixed the wheels by using a combination of the Reskit hubs and the Revell tyres. The kit wheels are ok but I needed a bit more detail. OCD

 

 

 

A backing plate installed on the exhaust cover should hide a hole behind the exhaust. The Tamiya kit has this part. Overall the HK engines are not bad at all bur I will not detail them further as they will be closed up on my build.

 

 

 

 

All for now,

Cheers

Nick