Jump to content
Thomas Lund

1/32 Tigger (ID) Kawasaki ki-45 Nick

Recommended Posts

So here it begins. I have separated most of the parts from the backing sheet. I've gotten multiple pulls of most parts and especially the canopy is nice to have. Thanks John

 

014_zps8ae384c9.jpg

 

To give you a sense of how big it is, here is the Trumpy 1/32 P-51B on top. Not that big at all

 

018_zps9d90832a.jpg

 

Only piece of aftermarket (so far) is two vector R1830. These were very similar in appearance - a little bit with the valve pushrods, but apart from that very similar in looks and size. That will have to do

 

020_zps3ca17398.jpg

 

Smallest instructions sheet I've ever seen... :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Peterpools

Same here. looking forward to following your progress on the Nick

Keep 'em coming

:popcorn: :popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a perfect little vacform model to get your teeth into Thomas (It also looks like a very sleek Japanese design as well). I look forward to seeing this one come together.

 

:popcorn:

 

Derek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really thought the Nick was a larger aircraft than that.

 

Kev

 

Yeah me too, but 11m length, 15m span is not that much bigger than a Mustang at 9.83m length, 11.28m span.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had this kit in the stash for only a short while, so I havent really done any proper research apart from emptying the net for pictures and reading a few books. So before I actually start to build I need to figure out how to do it right. The Ki-45 is not the most well documented aircraft around so I started checking up on the drawings I found.

 

First order of business was to determine where to put the internal frames (also for locating rivet/panel lines) as some of the interior will be quite visible. I found a really nice drawing on the net that I inserted into a CAD program and enlarged it to 1:1. Then I outlined the major vertical lines in red. In the Maru Mechanic book there is a diagram showing what I think is frame distances - 'think' is because it's in japanese so it could be anything but it looks like that. Those - centered on the aft edge of the canopy - were inserted into the drawing with blue lines.

 

Firstsketch_zps9c59d342.jpg

 

I hope you can see this allright. First of all you'll notice that the nose is short, but that's allright since I'll be building the early version without the 'schräge musik' guns which had a more rounded nose. Length is about 400mm shorter and that fits with the difference between the red and blue lines. Also the distance from the aft canopy edge to the end of the plane fits nicely. I've marked the lines that match (sorta) with green. Aft fuselage fits mostly but the rest is way off, so that leaves the question - is the drawing wrong or is the book wrong...?

Edited by Thomas Lund

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only piece of aftermarket (so far) is two vector R1830. These were very similar in appearance - a little bit with the valve pushrods, but apart from that very similar in looks and size. That will have to do

 

020_zps3ca17398.jpg

 

Smallest instructions sheet I've ever seen... :-)

 

I have notice a few Japanese engines that look very similar to other engines. Of late l wonder if the Nakajima Ha-45-21 Homare 18-cylinder radial engine is a copy of the P&W R2800? This one and the one you are going to use were around before the war so l wonder if they had a couple and copied them or got a hold of a set of plans? A lot of the Japanese armaments were copies so l wonder if it applies here also

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that early on the copied at lot, I've heard that one was a 100% copy down to the P&W insignia, but I dont know how true that was.

 

You gotta consider that asians often have a different mindset from us westeners. In China copying is considered a flattery to the original. Not an excuse but merely an elaboration on that they see copying in a different light.

 

For what it's worth I think the 1830 looks similar - similar diameter, construction, # of cylinders - so viewed through that small opening it'll be allright. It does have a spinner after all. Only thing I'm thinking is that it was an expsensive solution, but what the h...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas, you are a brave man. I built this some time ago. There is almost nothing that is correct in outline on this. It is not Tigger's fault. He inherited the issues. You will need to address wing and nacelle inaccuracies in addition to the fuselage problems. My kit is about 1/4-1/3 putty-probably an exaggeration. I will be glad to give you tips to correct some of the problems if you would like..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas, you are a brave man. I built this some time ago. There is almost nothing that is correct in outline on this. It is not Tigger's fault. He inherited the issues. You will need to address wing and nacelle inaccuracies in addition to the fuselage problems. My kit is about 1/4-1/3 putty-probably an exaggeration. I will be glad to give you tips to correct some of the problems if you would like..

 

Arrrggghhhh - I was a happy man up until 20 seconds ago...

 

Ok - it's out there - let me have it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that early on the copied at lot, I've heard that one was a 100% copy down to the P&W insignia, but I dont know how true that was.

 

You gotta consider that asians often have a different mindset from us westeners. In China copying is considered a flattery to the original. Not an excuse but merely an elaboration on that they see copying in a different light.

 

For what it's worth I think the 1830 looks similar - similar diameter, construction, # of cylinders - so viewed through that small opening it'll be allright. It does have a spinner after all. Only thing I'm thinking is that it was an expsensive solution, but what the h...

 

I'm pretty certain that Japanese manufacturers did build some Wasp, Hornet or Cyclone engines in license at some point, which certainly helped them with their own engine developments...

 

...and to the best of my knowledge, that does not only apply to the Japanese... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×