Jump to content

THE EYE OF THE STORM! Revell Hurricane


quang
 Share

Recommended Posts

First, it's difficult to believe that a kit with obvious details included that they wouldn't have gotten the dihedral right.

The radiator, knuckled tailwheel fork, spinner, blades, fishtail exhausts, carb intake looks a little flat. This dihedral issue

doesn't make sense as the final product.

 

YkhfqsI.jpg

The 3.5 degree dihedral is on the top of the wing.

The bottom dihedral is obviously much more due

to the taper. The recent Revell P-51s and 262s have

wing spars as part of the landing gear bay so it's

logical they would have one here too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The oft-quoted statement that “the camera never lies” is just that, a total lie, which I’m sure is also “true” in this instance of wings and dihedrals.

 

An example from my own experience; when I did my Bf110G4 I went to extraordinary lengths to make as sure as possible that the FuG array on the nose was square and parallel in every plane…..not easy as those who have attempted it will testify. But come to taking pictures and……doh, the array looks all over the place! I believe this is a phenomenon known as parallax? Don’t trust photographs!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Radub said:

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. 

 

AL9nZEXQImBFSFtvgO1igUY3Ua-wC3jlEjS2mGHz

 

AL9nZEWDA7sXqWTQSSSYFxX_c0AcMMYkoNHXJ0Td

 

I really hope this helps. 

Radu 

 

 

That works for me.

I’m in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thought as well. While there is a lot of flak regarding the shapes of this kit, the discussion centers around the released images, for better or worse. Let's not resort to belittling others for their comments regarding said images. Discuss the images. 

As always it is best to have a kit in hand; in lieu of that, all we have right now is these images. 

To me, shapes look good, but the cockpit looks worriesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is simply impossible to make a correct and full assessment of a model kit from some pictures. I'm not saying they are not useful. They are to give hints about items requiring further investigation and may show inaccuracies regarding small details. However, never base your final assessment on a bunch of pictures to assess accuracy of the global geometry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jeff T said:

MA131Marine pointed out an issue with the example shown

 

But as Radu has very kindly gone to lengths to show/explain. It wasn't an issue. It was a matter of perception. Maybe get the full facts before going full on with scathing comments?

 

That all aside. I'm in on a Hurricane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everyone,
thanks to Radub the question on the dihedral is settled. But there remains another, in all the photos posted I see only a wing with four machine guns, the Mk-IIb had a wing with 6 machine guns. 
So question, is it a Mk-IIa or a Mk-IIb?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, morane said:

Hello everyone,
thanks to Radub the question on the dihedral is settled. But there remains another, in all the photos posted I see only a wing with four machine guns, the Mk-IIb had a wing with 6 machine guns. 
So question, is it a Mk-IIa or a Mk-IIb?


I’m sure that they’ll be doing multiple versions from the mold.  That’s just how they chose to do the build.  The kit may simply have flashed over holes in the wings that need to be opened for the two extra wing guns.  Not worried that it won’t be a IIb.

Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...