AZ Models

[PR19_Kit]

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

Well of course, and the pressurised cockpit and the special Merlins too. 

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.

It's notable that the instructions show panel lines on the various parts that aren't there at all on the model. That's specially on the drawings showing where the stores go, there's no markings on the kit parts at all to show where the drop tanks go, and the panel line that gives you a positioning clue on the drawing doesn't actually exist.........

[zenrat]

Mosquito wings?  Although the chord at the roots might be a bit too much.

[The Wooksta!]

The distructions also show the spar caps, which are sort of there on the top and part there underneath, but they're represented by two panel lines running parallel, rather than a strip running proud above the surface.  There should be two - one forward running along a line from the radiator panel and another aft just before the flap hinge and they run the full length of the wing.  They are not there correctly on ANY Hornet kit (Frog tried with some skinny raised lines in the correct place the full length of the wing and Special Hobby did the same as the AZ tool) and having tried several options to add them to the Frog kit, there is no plastic thin enough to do it and decals/tape could be pulled off when removing any masking.

Other missing panels are a rounded triangle shaped access hatch on the fuselage near the trailing edge, no cannon ejection chutes and the port underside landing light is also missing.  I did mention the grilles just outboard of the engines before the l/e supercharger intakes.  There are plenty of small circular drainplug access covers underneath missed too.

I'm also annoyed by the panel lines that are on the wing upper and lower surface that on plans are representations of where the ribs go but a close study of photographs show few panel lines on the wings other than the hatch covers near the radiators, the cut outs for the engine panels and the rear of the nacelles, and the spar caps.  Yes, I can fill and yes I can scribe, but my point is that I've paid over twenty odd quid for a brand new tool and I sodding well shouldn't have to do this.  If I can find this information, so can the pattern and tool makers and it's just as easy to get it right as to get it wrong.  FFS, they've even credited Tony Buttler and David Collins in the distructions, not to mention Richard Franks, so they have EXACTLY the same references I have yet still managed to get it wrong!!

Having got a reasonable way through component assembly, it's clear that every sodding part needs cleanup due to the sprue gates and just general flash.  The odd pieces that box off the wheel wells will not be fitted if/when I do another one, on the grounds that they're fiddly, impede fitting the upper wing surface without serious sanding and you can't really see that far in the wheel well bay anyway.  The wings will need a shim to get the inbuilt kit dihedral down to a level that's about right - as it is, the wings look like a stuka.  There's something off with the tailplanes too, but I suspect that it's due to the spigot fitting.  Whip the bugger off and either drill a new hole for the rod of your choice or butt fit with superglue.

Overall, I'm sure there's something wrong with the shape.  The fuselage feels too skinny, the depth seems out and compared to the Skybirds kit, the wings are somewhat smaller.  The engine cowlings seem somewhat undernourished.

So, am I being too negative?  No, there's lots of things about this kit I really do like.  The alternate tail surfaces for a start, which means later down the line when the kit is hard to find, the modeller has everything there for any RAF Hornet, never mind the decals or boxing (or for those with Frog/Novo ones tucked away, ideal conversion and upgrade parts).  The canopy is beautiful, the cockpit interior is really nice, better than Special Hobby managed with their resin, although I could point out what's missing in there, such as the rudder pedals and the prominent throttle box.  The panel lines are very delicate. The wheel wells have some nice detail and the tail wheel has a very nice bulkhead too.  The weapons fit is nice too and I'm very impressed with the bomb racks.  The decals are beautifully printed and the artwork for the box is stunning.

It's just despite all that, they've skimped and not looked at the research material they had properly.

[kitnut617]

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.

Read the Movement Card information on P.128 ---- none of the five production PR.2's ever reach squadron service, the first one did get as far as PRDU Benson but was only there for two months then moved to 10 MU where it stayed until scrapped two years later. Second PR.2 went straight to 10 MU and scrapped the same day as the first one. The other three were used by various testing units, mostly for crash barrier tests. Given the history, none of the aircraft would have been fitted out with cameras ---- so there wouldn't be any indication of them ---

[PR19_Kit]

But of course the PR5s were the main camera carrying variant, and served with quite a number of squadrons............ 

[Captain Canada]

That Hornet looks awesome ! Neat way to show the build as well, never seen that as an advert. Works for me !

[kitbasher]

All this Hornet talk has got me thinking.  The Skybirds 86 kits appear to be being taken as the metric/datum, yet there is recognition that these contain flaws, being based upon erroneous drawings.
Notwithstanding the relative merits of the Skybirds 86/FROG/Special Hobby Kits and observations concerning the AZ kits (e.g. missing and/or incorrect panel lines) against which set of plans should they all be judged?  In other words, which of these should be considered definitive, why, and are they readily available?
As for the AZ kits, yes I agree avoidable basic errors should have been avoided.  But it seems they are better than the Special Hobby and FROG efforts (I remember the latter getting slaughtered when first released). 
Why are the Skybirds 86 efforts considered the best (if not necessarily definitive - and I'm focusing on 1/72 here, btw)?
What degree of cross-kitting could produce a definitive 1/72 Hornet model?
Asking as having once had a FROG Hornet, with a Skybirds 86 F1 and Special Hobby FR4 in the stash and very likely going to get an AZ F1.

[kitnut617]

Supposedly, there's no surviving Hornet, so it would be difficult to confirm anything. But a couple of interesting snippets of info are around that might (that's a big might mind you) dispel that.
The Hornet that was sold to Spartan crash landed after if had an inflight engine failure. There's rumours abound that a good portion of the aircraft still exists but nobody knows where it might be. And then just yesterday while reading the Movement Card details I referred to that is in the book, there's an interesting entry. For VA965, it says '4.5.49, Authority for a/c to be S.O.C complete with engines at CTU (Carrier Trials Unit)'. There's no note saying it was scrapped and looking through UK Serials website, same thing. Now what happened to that aircraft -------

[Leading Observer]

Supposedly, there's no surviving Hornet, so it would be difficult to confirm anything. But a couple of interesting snippets of info are around that might (that's a big might mind you) dispel that.
The Hornet that was sold to Spartan crash landed after if had an inflight engine failure. There's rumours abound that a good portion of the aircraft still exists but nobody knows where it might be. And then just yesterday while reading the Movement Card details I referred to that is in the book, there's an interesting entry. For VA965, it says '4.5.49, Authority for a/c to be S.O.C complete with engines at CTU (Carrier Trials Unit)'. There's no note saying it was scrapped and looking through UK Serials website, same thing. Now what happened to that aircraft -------

IIRC the De Havilland Museum has part of a Sea Hornet on display

[kitbasher]

Rear fuselage section. And a pair of handed Merlins in their storage facility.

Must add that my previous post was not advocating the purchase of multiple Hornet kits to facilitate a perfect Hornet build (of course you can if you want!), rather what could be cross-kitted (if that takes your fancy) or used as templates to correct inaccuracies.

[kitnut617]

Well, I was just reading about that in a webpage (see below). I've also sent an email to the De Havilland Museum to see if there's any more info on VA965.

But what I've found out about the Spartan aircraft is very intriguing ---- apparently it was badly damage in the crash landing and Spartan just abandoned it in Terrace Airport, BC and left to rot. Then a couple of people realizing what it was collected all the remaining bits and took them away. There the history goes dim, but in 2017, another person spotted some aircraft parts on a farm in Alberta, near a town called Acme, which is just down the road from me, 30km away. The parts had been left out in the open beside a barn and what it turned out to be was a Hornet wing center section, from wing fold to wing fold.

Now an outfit in New Zealand called Pioneer Aero had acquired all of it and the plan is to restore the aircraft to flying condition.

http://warbirdsnews.com/aircraft-restoration/de-havilland-sea-hornet-airworthy-restoration-project.html

[PR19_Kit]

Wowee, if anyone can do it, those guys in NZ can. They've re-built more Mosquitos than anyone else in the world already.

But that news item was 3 yrs ago, and I've not heard any more about yet. Has anyone else?

[kitnut617]

I made an enquiry at Pioneer Aero to see if they have any further news, and I got a reply saying they're still working on it, but very slowly. Most of what they're doing is trying to track down additional parts and not much done physically. I was asked if I knew or found anything of use to let them know, so I'm expanding that request to here.  You never know right ---

[PR19_Kit]

Still on Hornets, I've always assumed that they were all wood construction, like Mossies, but apparently not so.

Having downloaded an umpteen view drawing of the Hornet I noted that the tailplane and lower wing surfaces were covered in rivets. So I thought 'How stupid, the Hornet's made of wood, idiot!'

Except it isn't...................

Deeper research showed that Hornet tailplanes really WERE all metal, and so were the undersurfaces of the wings! 

I suppose that means that if I was a JMN I'd have to emboss the undersides of my AZ Hornet's wings with rivets, and the tailplane too, but I think I'll pass on that.

Filed under 'You learn something new every day'.

[kitnut617]

Plus the wing spar was a composite of wood and metal Kit. I think though the metal under the wing was also bonded to the wood, so no rivets ---