AZ Models

The Wooksta! · September 26, 2020, 11:55:45 AM

Never, ever trust wikipedia. Any encylopedia that can be rewritten by any average member of Joe Public (the majority of which are retards) is about as trustworthy as an alcoholic in a brewery.

kitnut617 · September 26, 2020, 01:27:37 PM

I don't know what all the guessing is about, but surely it would be the same as the Sea Hornet PR.22 (which there is a kit of)

PR19_Kit · September 26, 2020, 01:31:10 PM

It would be if we could find pics of a PR2 or a 22, but we couldn't...........

That pic's worth its weight in gold Robert, thanks.

And those camera ports are anything BUT rear fuselage mountings. Interestingly he only has the port engine running too.

kitnut617 · September 26, 2020, 01:43:46 PM

There was one Sea Hornet tested in Canada by the RCAF which was a PR version, it was sold to Spartan Air Service which used it for aerial surveying. Here's a photo of it and you can see where the side cameras were located which are in the rear fuselage I would say. It wouldn't have had cannon either ---

sideshowbob9 · September 27, 2020, 01:16:02 AM

Have nothing to add to the PR.2 question but have to say damn what a beautiful aircraft!

zenrat · September 27, 2020, 01:44:06 AM

Quote from: sideshowbob9 on September 27, 2020, 01:16:02 AM
Have nothing to add to the PR.2 question but have to say damn what a beautiful aircraft!

Unlike the PR Lightning sharing the last picture with it.

The Wooksta! · September 27, 2020, 02:32:07 AM

Quote from: kitnut617 on September 26, 2020, 01:27:37 PM
I don't know what all the guessing is about, but surely it would be the same as the Sea Hornet PR.22 (which there is a kit of)

You mean the Special Hobby abortion which doesn't have the wing folds or blisters over the mechanism? It's not a PR22. At best, it's a poor F3 with some extra bits.

And without accurate drawings or photographs, we don't know what the camera layout in the PR2 is. Using the PR22 is a guestimate at best. I point you towards the case of the Meteor FR5 and everyone assuming that the nose would be that of the FR9, only for Air Britain to do the research and prove that it wasn't.

As for the one Sea Hornet that Spartan got, TT193 was a Sea Hornet F20, not a dedicated PR version as all the F20 aircraft had camera ports built in but not necessarily used for PR duties. The photos of the F20s in aluminium dope show the fuselage camera ports but when they go to EDSG over Sky, the roundel moves forward over the camera port. Reference: The Hornet File, Lewis G Cooper.

NARSES2 · September 27, 2020, 05:55:53 AM

Compared it to the SH one and it's different. Parts look nicer to, although I might see if there are one or two of the SH resin parts I can use.

I like that fact that they have thanked those who helped getting the project together on the instruction sheet

All in all it looks like a Hornet to me and providing it goes together nicely that will do me, thankyou.

kitnut617 · September 27, 2020, 07:07:10 AM

Quote from: The Wooksta! on September 27, 2020, 02:32:07 AM
Quote from: kitnut617 on September 26, 2020, 01:27:37 PM
I don't know what all the guessing is about, but surely it would be the same as the Sea Hornet PR.22 (which there is a kit of)

You mean the Special Hobby abortion which doesn't have the wing folds or blisters over the mechanism? It's not a PR22. At best, it's a poor F3 with some extra bits.

And without accurate drawings or photographs, we don't know what the camera layout in the PR2 is. Using the PR22 is a guestimate at best. I point you towards the case of the Meteor FR5 and everyone assuming that the nose would be that of the FR9, only for Air Britain to do the research and prove that it wasn't.

As for the one Sea Hornet that Spartan got, TT193 was a Sea Hornet F20, not a dedicated PR version as all the F20 aircraft had camera ports built in but not necessarily used for PR duties. The photos of the F20s in aluminium dope show the fuselage camera ports but when they go to EDSG over Sky, the roundel moves forward over the camera port. Reference: The Hornet File, Lewis G Cooper.

I forgot about my copy of 'The Hornet File'. I suggest you re-read it Lee -- try pages 32 and 33. On page 33 these an inflight photo of TT187, you can see the outline of the side looking camera port in the roundel, you can also see a slight indentation in the bottom profile of the rear fuselage which coincides with one of the camera ports in that inflight bottom view photo I posted (the rear one). I pretty sure you can use that as a guide for any model built as a PR.2.

EDIT: Three Hornets were converted to PR.II, PX216, PX220 & PX249. All cannon were removed and cameras installed in the rear fuselage (page 15), and a photo of PX216 on page 21. Only PX216 remained in PR configuration.

EDIT 2: As to the Meteor FR.5, you're wrong. There was lots of documentation about this aircraft but no photo showing it's configuration. That was until an Air-Britain member had died, and another member was going through his vast photo & data collection that was donated to Air-Britain and stumbled on a couple of photos in one of the files which was for an un-published book on the Gloster Company. The photos show two aircraft configured into PR's, both clearly show the cannon were removed, even the blast tube fairings.

One was a Mk.III and the other was a Mk.IV. The Mk.III has camera ports in the nose which are reminiscent to P-38 ports, the Mk.IV has a nose just like a nose of the Mk.9 and PR.10 (in fact the PR.10 could be made into the PR.5). These photos have never been found in any official documentation so are assumed to be from someones private collection and how the deceased member came across them is a bit of a mystery (he didn't take them).

The Air-Britain article (yes, I have the magazine issue) says that this converted Mk.IV also had vertical cameras mounted just behind the cockpit, unfortunately, the aircraft crashed on it's first flight while doing a fast low-level pass across the airfield. The report says that fuselage panels began detaching which led to rear fuselage failure with the unfortunate resulting crash. The photos show that there weren't any cameras installed in the nose at the time.

PR19_Kit · September 27, 2020, 07:31:52 AM

This is Whiff World, I can put my camera ports anywhere I like.

I may have one in each engine nacelle, just for the hell of it, like the BV-155 had in its radiator pods.

kitnut617 · September 27, 2020, 07:34:35 AM

Very true Kit ---

I edited my last post. Found some info on the PR.II in 'The Hornet File' book.

The Wooksta! · September 27, 2020, 08:20:55 AM

The De Havilland Hornet & Sea Hornet Richard Franks P.96 has a close up of the underneath of production PR2 VA965 installation - one vertical on the centreline aft of the wing and one in the space vacated by the cannons, film cartridges would be located where the ammunition tanks would have been.

P.97 of the same volume has official diagrams of the camera fits for the Sea Hornet F20 and PR22. The former can carry three, the latter only 2, with no oblique camera ports and the few photos I've seen have no indication of oblique cameras.

P.127 of The Hornet file has a photo of production PR2 VA964. Decent size photo and no indication of oblique camera in the rear fuselage Same photo, smaller but better resolution, is in the Tony Buttler/ David Collins book on the Hornet.

The only two people who can confirm the correct camera installation for the PR2 are likely David Collins and Tony Buttler.

PR19_Kit · September 27, 2020, 08:34:08 AM

Mine will be a PR5............

JayBee · September 27, 2020, 08:56:44 AM

Quote from: PR19_Kit on September 27, 2020, 08:34:08 AM
Mine will be a PR5............

Oh yes, the little known high altitude one with, ah hem!, longer wings.

The Wooksta! · September 27, 2020, 10:23:30 AM

Having started with some test fits of the kit, I'm now of the opinion that there's something wrong with it. The shape is just too dainty, undersized. The fuselage, compared with a Skybirds one is too shallow, although the length is probably correct as the Skybirds one is a bit short (John Adams has stated on Britmodeller that Mike Eacock did go off incorrect drawings - he definitely got the windscreen wrong), but longer than the Frog one. The engines and u/c nacelles seem underscale too. Certainly too shallow

I've got the fuselage and wings taped up and the in built dihedral at the root is waaaaay too high - it's not a sodding Stuka!

I also stand by my earlier comments that there are panel lines it shouldn't have and no panel lines where it should actually have them. There's no spar caps and the vents/flat grilles just outboard of the engines are also missing. I also stand by my comments about the wheels. They are definitely wrong on the inboard face and best replaced with Tempest wheels. Which is what the originals were. The tailwheel looks oversized and definitely isnn't the Marstrand twin antishimmy wheel it should be. Best replaced with a nosewheel from a Heller Vampire.

And I'm going to be really picky in the cockpit, because there's no rudder pedals and I'm not entirely sure about the seat shape as it looks exactly like the piece 3D gave on their Spitfire IIa conversion.

There's an error in the instructions with the engine nacelle firewalls, with two part 17, whereas it's 1 x17 and 1 x 18, and both parts are handed and really don't want to fit.

The instructions also say cockpit green for the cockpit, but that's bollocks because all the photos clearly show that the Hornet cockpit is painted black.

There are closing pieces for the wheel well bays, again the instructions say part 50 and there's four, but two of them are clearly a different size to the other pair. The larger one is clearly inboard and the smaller outboard.