Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
November 24, 2017, 12:46:02 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with email, password and session length
 
Home Help Search Login Register
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: VMC Hurricane. K5083. Build.  (Read 3515 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Andrew Darby
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 40
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,871




Ignore
« Reply #50 on: November 08, 2017, 05:47:33 PM »

I can see the point of the lolly stick jig as it can help keep things straight and true, Lurks cradle won't do that in the same way and that's why I questioned its value.

There are no guarantees with the method used in the design of notches and locations, my point was more the fact that the third hand isn't required IMO, rather than referring to methods to avoid bow or twist.

But since you mention it, the side keels built in to the design are very rigid due to their depth (ie have a high second moment of area in scientific terms) in compassion the stringers - so bow is much less likely to happen when compared to a more "traditional" construction with just stringers each side.

But "Your mileage may vary" as they say...  Cheesy

Andrew
Logged

Hogwash I tell thee!
TheLurker
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 102


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #51 on: November 09, 2017, 02:36:20 PM »

I had considered a variation of the lolly1 stick approach suggested by ZK-AUD but using Meccano, but that would have meant scrabbling around in the loft with no certainty of finding enough usable bits so in the end decided that all I needed was something to stop the fuselage skating away from me as I worked on it so good old corrugated card cut from a box it was.  If it turns out to have been a waste of time I won't mind.

One trick I missed and I am a bit annoyed at myself for missing it, is not steaming the F4/5 bends into the stiff strip starboard longerons while I had the port side pinned down to use as a jig. Oh well, mebbe the next one eh?

Speaking of the "next one".  I'm semi seriously, providing this build turns out OK, considering building one of treble 1's early Hurricanes as fitting the smaller rudder and dropping the ventral strake would be the only changes required to the kit.  The problem is the covering.  It'll be easy enough to get the black, white and aluminium undersides done with tissue and there's good enough green tissue to provide a base for the camouflaged upper surfaces, but, short of painting, I've no idea how to get the dark earth colour.  Suggestions?  Printing tissue isn't an option.


1-Buying yer actual lolly sticks would require a trip to Swindon or Oxford. Sinks of iniquity both and no fit places for a Lurker of delicate sensibilities to be seen. Smiley
Logged
TheLurker
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 102


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #52 on: November 11, 2017, 03:46:10 PM »

Quote from: Lurk
Nah, no more than a couple of hours.....

Quote from: Andrew Darby
Fair enough, but I reckon that you can build the whole fuselage in that time!

Ermm, would you believe two weekends?  Smiley  And there's still some minor fettling , like fitting the motor peg mounts and sanding down, to do before I find out much extra weight the two extra stiff longerons has added.  Leaving aside my stupidity a nice, drama free,  build step and I appear to have a "true" fuselage into the bargain.  Quite pleased with the prototype shape fin/rudder as well.  

I still think the Hurricane has one of the nicest fuselage shapes ever designed.

BTW.  Has anyone else out there built this kit and planked the forward part of the fuselage? 
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: VMC Hurricane. K5083. Build.
Re: VMC Hurricane. K5083. Build.
Logged
F F modeller
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 51
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,003


Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #53 on: November 11, 2017, 05:20:41 PM »

Not this model in particular, but I have infilled between stringers at the nose rather than planking.
(Apologies if this is what you mean anyway?)
As well as adding strength, it does help define the nose shape too I feel.
Not sure it’s essential with the VMC Hurricane, but I would be tempted to myself.
Logged
Andrew Darby
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 40
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,871




Ignore
« Reply #54 on: November 11, 2017, 05:28:52 PM »

It's not required, but it makes a good job when you do, both in terms of smoothness of form and "handle-ability"

There are a few examples of the easiest way of doing the work on here, but I need to put my finger on them...

Andrew

Logged

Hogwash I tell thee!
TheLurker
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 102


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #55 on: November 12, 2017, 08:28:08 AM »

Quote from: F F Modeller
Not this model in particular, but I have infilled between stringers at the nose rather than planking.
I did mean, "infill", as per the attachment.  I was just being terminologically imprecise or, to be a little less circumlocutory, "sloppy".   Smiley

Quote from: Andrew Darby
There are a few examples of the easiest way of doing the work on here...
Do something the easy way!?  That would never do!  Smiley
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: VMC Hurricane. K5083. Build.
Logged
Mark Braunlich
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 52
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 934




Ignore
« Reply #56 on: November 12, 2017, 12:09:26 PM »

Lurk,
I thought you may be interested in this Peerless Hawker Monoplane kit in my collection.  From 1936, it is among the kits designed for the British market, I don't think it was sold in the United States.   It's 1/24 scale so 20" span.  The box is nothing like the Peerless kits for the American market and is plain gray pasteboard (now falling to bits) with the label shown gummed to one side.  It is complete though as far as I can tell with ultra light creamy white tissue, not silver as stated on the box label.   Similar "British Market" kits were produced by several American firms including Cleveland, Peerless, Comet, and Burd; all very rare today.  Sorry for the side track.....back to your very nice build.

Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: VMC Hurricane. K5083. Build.
Re: VMC Hurricane. K5083. Build.
Re: VMC Hurricane. K5083. Build.
Re: VMC Hurricane. K5083. Build.
Logged

Mark
TheLurker
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 102


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #57 on: November 12, 2017, 03:16:44 PM »

Mark, that is fascinating. Thank you very much.  Absolutely not a side track at all. How can it be? It's K5083.

That must be one of the first, if not the first, "Hurricane" kits ever marketed.   Interesting to see they've got the fuselage mounted machine guns which only ever appeared on a static prototype fuselage rig.   I'd love to know where they got the drawings from, because this early in its life the RAF and Hawker were being pretty cagey about details; the, wonderful, blurb on the box lid makes me think photographs and a bit of imagination, 400MPH, hah!   Also interesting to see that as late as '36 dashboard and IP were still being used interchangeably.  Oh and a rudder mass balance and accurate panel lines.  I think someone put a good deal of work into that design.  However I'm very glad to see that they chickened out on the exhaust stack and went for a "paint" solution. Makes me feel better about my defeat on that front.

The dashboard is paticularly interesting because I've been bashing one together in Inkscape for this build and of course the only extant IPs are from production machines with later versions of the Merlin and the only contemporary photos I have are from the pilot notes for 1940 airframes  so there's all sorts of gubbins on the panel that the prototype probably wouldn't have had to start with.  My guess is that is the Peerless dashboard is either speculative with a "typical" instrument set or based on the Hart, Fury or other Hawker types, but I'd love to know for sure. Smiley

Very tempted to nick a couple of ideas from that kit.  F'rinstance the tail wheel fork and I might lift the exhausts as well, much better shapes than the ones I've hacked together from the blurry photos I've got.

So what other gems have you got tucked away that you'd like to share with us?

Logged
Mark Braunlich
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 52
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 934




Ignore
« Reply #58 on: November 12, 2017, 03:47:08 PM »


So what other gems have you got tucked away that you'd like to share with us?


I have the much less rare Cleveland REP kit (all of them 20" span) plan for the prototype Fairey Battle, approx 1/32 scale.    It has similar tiny horizontal tail surfaces.  Always thought I might build it à la Doug McHard.
Logged

Mark
Mark Braunlich
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 52
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 934




Ignore
« Reply #59 on: November 12, 2017, 04:43:17 PM »

Lurk,
I have another plan of K5083 by the great Paul Lindberg which appeared in the Oct., 1936 issue of Popular Aviation magazine.  It's 1/16 scale supposedly but I've never measured it to check that claim.   Lindberg did kit several of his designs but I doubt the Hawker "Merlin", as he called it, was one of them.  It looks fairly accurate from the photos but the plan is broken down to fit on separate magazine pages.   It's the same version as the Peerless kit so I think one may be influenced by the other....not sure who was first with their model.

Here's link to a source for it: http://agelesswings.com/MERLIN.HTM



« Last Edit: November 12, 2017, 04:53:27 PM by Mark Braunlich » Logged

Mark
Work In Progress
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 275



Ignore
« Reply #60 on: November 13, 2017, 07:11:12 AM »

i've got that plan. It's not 1/16 scale (that would be 30") and not particularly accurate: probably derived from photos in Flight or The Aeroplane. It's pretty light though.
Logged
TheLurker
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 102


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #61 on: November 13, 2017, 03:38:15 PM »

The thing that struck me was that both the Lindberg plan and the Peerless kit were both dated 1936 rather than 1937.  It's also notable is that K5083 didn't fly until Nov. 6th of '36 and the Lindberg plan, according to Mark B. was published in the October '36 issue of Popular Aviation which would probably mean that the magazine was in newsagents by middle of September '36.  That would mean, as WIP suggested,  that there must have been quite a bit of moderately accurate gen in the aviation press beforehand and it would probably explain Peerless kit oddities like the Gladiator style fuselage mounted guns and the Lindberg "Merlin" type name.  It might also explain differences between the plan and K5083 as first flown if the kit lines were taken from photographs of mock-ups.

Wouldn't it be nice to get hold of back issues of Flight or The Aeroplane for '36 to see what, if anything, was published?

Logged
Mefot
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 2
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 206




Ignore
« Reply #62 on: November 13, 2017, 04:31:14 PM »



Wouldn't it be nice to get hold of back issues of Flight or The Aeroplane for '36 to see what, if anything, was published?



Flight magazine for 1936 ;

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/1936.html

Enjoy   Grin
Logged
Mark Braunlich
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 52
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 934




Ignore
« Reply #63 on: November 13, 2017, 09:46:58 PM »

Lurk,
K5083 first flew in November 1935, not 1936.
Logged

Mark
TheLurker
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 102


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #64 on: November 14, 2017, 02:36:52 AM »

Yes.  Brain fade on my part.  I'm going to blame the 5AM start.  Nothing to do with the fact that I'm a twit.  Dear me no.Smiley
Logged
Work In Progress
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 275



Ignore
« Reply #65 on: November 14, 2017, 03:08:14 AM »

Here's what I think is the first photo coverage in Flight, from 5 December 1935
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1935/1935 -2- 0624.html
and the second batch of more detailed coverage in Flight, from 12 December 1935
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1935/1935 -2- 0689.html

Edited to say that the spaces in the URLs are breaking the link protocol on this site. You need to cut and paste the whole line into your browser, right through to the .html
Logged
p40qmilj
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 25
Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 1,588


love that P40Q



Ignore
« Reply #66 on: November 14, 2017, 07:52:14 AM »

 Grin ru gonna post plans Huh

jim Grin
Logged
TheLurker
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 102


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #67 on: November 14, 2017, 03:33:20 PM »

Quote from: Work In Progress
Flight magazine for 1936 ;
Ain't the internet wonderful?  Smiley  Ta.

Quote from: Work In Progress
Here's what I think is the first photo coverage in Flight, from 5 December 1935
Ta.  The ground crew photo and head on shot are new to me.  Good view of the shutters on the radiator housing.
Logged
TheLurker
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 102


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #68 on: November 18, 2017, 05:38:38 PM »

There's a line in various VMC instruction booklets that runs something like, "...expert builders may choose to infill/plank instead of using the paper patterns" I think perhaps it should read, "...patient builders may choose..."

About 11 to 12 hours including sanding down. Almost all of the infill, barring four panels, is some beautifully lightweight stuff salvaged from the Camel kit. The other four are soft(ish) material salvaged from the Osprey kit and the Hurricane kit. There are reasons, other than parsimony, for this which I'll bore you with another time. Will need the talc/PVA trick to level off  one or two frame positions which are fractionally lower than the lines of both panels and longerons, but only one or two.

Video fragment to show off the lines of the Hurricane fuselage which I contend is one of the shapeliest designs ever and to show what a damn good job Andrew D. & VMC have done of rendering it in kit form.

 https://www.flickr.com/photos/41392773@N02/38476013112/in/album-72157687314486040/

Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: VMC Hurricane. K5083. Build.
Re: VMC Hurricane. K5083. Build.
Re: VMC Hurricane. K5083. Build.
Logged
TheLurker
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 102


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #69 on: November 19, 2017, 04:31:45 AM »

Should have attached the first pic. with previous post to show another detail of the planned scheme for fixing ballast internally, but the modification period on prev. post has expired.

The other attachment is just to keep Jack Plane happy. Wink
Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: VMC Hurricane. K5083. Build.
Re: VMC Hurricane. K5083. Build.
Logged
TheLurker
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 102


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #70 on: November 21, 2017, 12:56:51 AM »

A side effect of the build : an instrument panel for a MKI Hurricane.  See the attachment.

Copy here: www.hippocketaeronautics.com/hpa_plans/details.php?image_id=9969

Accuracy as far as instrumentation and placement goes is good for a MKI in 1938/39. Some dial and bezel colours may not be quite right for a MKI because web sources turn up instruments for later Marks without identification other than "Hurricane".  At this kit's scale you could probably use it for any Mark without anyone noticing.  I think that the level of detail will be acceptable on rescaled images for cockpit widths from 25mm to 100mm.

There is a problem peculiar to the VMC kit.  It looks as though the motor is going to foul the bottom of the panel.  Will have to suck it and see.  I twigged this a couple of weeks or so ago, but I thought "I've started, so I'll finish." and I reasoned that other rubber kits/plans have different, lower,  motor lines and it could always be used for a CO2, electric or oily build so it was daft to throw the work away.

The other, minor, drawback for this build is knowing which, other than obvious elements like the on/off switches for the reflection sight and cine camera can be deleted from the image to approximate the prototype's IP.  I am tempted to use it as is simply because detail like that gets lost at this scale.



Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: VMC Hurricane. K5083. Build.
Logged
billdennis747
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 36
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,728



Ignore
« Reply #71 on: November 21, 2017, 03:03:24 AM »

There is a problem peculiar to the VMC kit.  It looks as though the motor is going to foul the bottom of the panel.  Will have to suck it and see. 
Or lower the peg.
Logged
Andrew Darby
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 40
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,871




Ignore
« Reply #72 on: November 21, 2017, 07:44:51 AM »

Oi! I was gonna say that!  Grin Cheesy

I try wherever possible to keep the peg position such that the rubber runs directly in line with the thrust line, this is an attempt to make it less likely for the nose block to wobble or flap about.  Most of the designs have 3 degrees of down built in.

A lot of earlier designs such as the KK Spit pay no heed to this (probably as there was no removable nose block!)

As bill has commented from some of the other designs this approach does rather make for the rubber going through where the dash/pilot would be, but the thinking was a reliable flying and "trim-ability" came first, but it doesn't mean I was right, you can always put two peg positions in place and see how things pan out?

Looking good though...

Andrew
Logged

Hogwash I tell thee!
billdennis747
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 36
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,728



Ignore
« Reply #73 on: November 21, 2017, 08:04:08 AM »

I used to worry about an angle between motor and shaft but when I discussed it with John O'Donnell he said there is no problem. After all, some duration models (eg those trimmed R/L) have a lot of sidethrust, and they are using much more powerful motors. However, here some sort of detachable hook (Gray, S hook) is used and acts as a universal joint. In the Hurricane there is no problem in dropping the peg.
Logged
Andrew Darby
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 40
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,871




Ignore
« Reply #74 on: November 21, 2017, 08:27:46 AM »

I think that might be fine on duration models when you hold the block on with bands etc? and potential have much better bearings, not so sure on small scale stuff...but... Grin

One of the people I spoke to about it early doors was Richard Granger, he was pretty emphatic that it should be as in line as you can.

I suppose that it's one of those things that there are plenty and varied opinions about.

Andrew
Logged

Hogwash I tell thee!
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!