|
|
|
REVELL & HELLER 1:72 HAWKER HURRICANE IIC |
Reviewer:
Kevin Ronayne (kevin.ronayne@nuigalway.ie)
Kit Review submitted:
23 December 2004
Date: 20th December, 2004
I'm not going into a long history on the Hurricane here, or even on the IIC variant. The Hurricane IIC has always been one of my favourite marks of any WW II fighter, even though it was generally outclassed as a pure fighter. The Hurricane was always more suited to night flying than the Spitfire, and the IIC was used as both a night time interceptor and intruder. As a night interceptor, Hurricane IIB's and IIC's were used in the disastrous Helmore Turbinlite experiment. The fighters were paired with Douglas Bostons/Havocs. Directed by ground radar, the twin-engined aircraft were to locate enemy aircraft with their own radar and illuminate them with a nose-mounted searchlight, so that they could then be shot down by the accompanying Hurricanes. From September 1942 to January 1943, 10 squadrons of Hurricanes were tied up in this defensive system, with hardly any success.
As an intruder, the Hurricane IIC was more successful. Flying with No. I Squadron, the Czech pilot Karel Kuttelwascher. Out of a total of 18 victories in WW II, he scored 15 victories as an 'intruder' in a two-month spell in the late spring of 1942, being awarded the DFC and bar. On one mission, he shot down three Heinkel 111's in less than five minutes, expending only five seconds of cannon fire! Although Luftwaffe night fighters are naturally the more famous, allied night fighter pilots were probably just as skilful - they just did not get the same opportunities.
The Mk IIC was also widely employed as a ground attack aircraft, combining 4 20 mm cannon with two 250- or 500-pound bombs. From there, the Hurricane was further developed in the ground attack role. This resulted in the Mk IID anti-tank version with two 40 mm cannon, and finally the Mk IV with the 'universal' wing that could carry rocket projectiles.
This did not start out as a comparative review. I had intended building just the Revell kit, but while doing research I came across some adverse comments about it's supposed accuracy or lack thereof. I had wanted to build the Heller kit for sometime, but I never got around to it for one reason or another. Now I had a reason: to see how well a 'modern' kit from Revell with recessed panel lines stacks up against a Heller kit with raised panel lines from a generation earlier. A full comparative review would also have included the Hasegawa and Academy kits, but having just completed a four-kit review of the Spitfire Vb, I did not want to go down that route again for a while. Both kits should be very cheap no matter where you live.
The Revell kit is one that most people should be familiar with. Its starting point is the Mk.IIB kit released in 1998. The Sea Hurricane Mk.IIC kit followed a couple of years later, and (finally!) in early 2004, Revell got around to releasing the 'standard' Mk.IIC kit. This newest kit is physically almost identical to the Sea Hurricane kit. Apart from the two main sprues, there are a number of mini-sprues, and all of those in 'new' kit were also found in the Sea Hurricane kit. The Sea Hurricane kit included extras such as the Vokes filter, bombs and under wing tanks which were strictly not required for that kit. Effectively, this new kit is just the Sea Hurricane kit minus the arrestor gear and modified rear ventral fairing. There are 59 parts in total.
The mold is still in excellent condition, with some flash on the propeller blades. In fact, compared to the Sea Hurricane I bought a few years ago, it's in even better condition. There are decals and paint schemes for two subjects:
Both subjects have the Vokes filter fitted, but there is nothing to stop you fitting the regular filter instead, as it is still supplied. The exhaust glare shield plates are also not required for this kit. I have deliberately omitted any mention of the paint schemes, as both are worthy of some discussion in their own right. The colours are only given as Revell colours (both normal and mixed), but it's quite easy to work out what is intended in each case.
I don't know when the Heller kit was tooled, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't at least 30 years old by now. The kit is currently available first-hand only from Smer. As well as a IIC kit, there is also a 'Hi-Tech' Smer boxing representing the Mk.IV. I had two Heller kits in the 'vaults', both of which were bought some time ago. The first was a Heller-Humbrol boxing from the late 1980's, the cover of which is displayed above. This is the kit I built. The second is a 'pure' Heller boxing from the early 1990's. The contents of the two boxings are pretty much identical, save for a better-quality decal sheet in the newer kit, plus an instruction leaflet (A4 size, naturally) that drops the Heller/Humbrol paint codes in favour of Humbrol codes only. Only the older boxing had the sprues bagged, presumably because it was a one-piece box. Here's a bit of advice: if you have any store of kits, get some food freezer bags to 'bag' those sprues that don't come packaged in this way.
The kit has 37 parts, reflecting both a simpler construction and less options when compared to the Revell kit. The raised panel detail is not as pronounced or extensive as on some other Heller kits - it reminds me more of an Airfix kit from the mid-1970's than anything else. Note: both kits feature 'fabric' detail, mainly on the rear half of the fuselage.
This kit also features two subjects:
The Humbrol-based paint schemes are easy to interpret, but the Indian subject (which I built), needs to be examined in conjunction with the Revell SEAC subject. The decal sheet is not as extensive as the Revell sheet, but I think you would have guessed that anyway!
The Mk.IIB and Sea Hurricane Mk.IIC versions of the Revell kit have already been reviewed on SMAKR and elsewhere, so I don't need to go into the build process in detail here. The kit goes together very well, so I will focus on the differences between this and the earlier kits, plus on various technical and accuracy-related issues. The cockpit looks really good, with detail on the floor and the sidewalls, plus seat belts molded into the seat. The seat is molded into the rear cockpit bulkhead, which also includes a headrest molded above the seat. This is a point of contention, as at least one reviewer (in print) noted that the Hurricane never had a headrest fitted. Perhaps, but I have certainly seen it fitted in photographs in 'Warbird' Hurricanes that are currently flying. This might explain a mistake by Revell, and if it is a mistake, it's very easy to correct. The instrument panel decal is an excellent fit, despite the relief detail that is also on the plastic. I think I might have sanded that off before applying the decal. The cockpit was painted mostly in Humbrol 78 RAF Interior Green. There is a gun sight molded onto the port fuselage half.
This being a kit of 'modern' design, you can assemble the fuselage halves and add the propeller assembly later on. However, you should deviate from the instruction and attach the rear ventral section (# 11) to one of the halves before you join the halves together. This part - required because of the difference in the Sea Hurricane - is not a perfect fit. Cement it to one side and make sure it sets at the correct angle before joining the halves together. You will then need to apply a small amount of filler to fill in the seam.
You should also ignore the instructions where they say to attach the lower central wing section (# 12) to the assembled fuselage before adding the upper and lower outer wings. Take my advice: assemble the wing completely first - upper and lower wings on either side, and then join these to the central section. Then you can mate this assembly to the fuselage. The main undercarriage bays are fully enclosed and molded into the lower wings. The roofs are very detailed, and the bays are very deep, which certainly looks realistic. However, I found that I had to cut away at the front upper edge of the bays before I could get the upper wings to fit. A second problem is that although the completed wing assembly fits very well to the fuselage, it looks wrong when viewed head on. The dihedral of the Hurricane wing is very pronounced on the lower edge, but is very shallow along the upper edge. Without modification, the wing actually has a small but noticeable anhedral (drop) along the upper edge. I had to slightly trim the wing root join of both the wings and fuselage, and then 'force' the wings slightly upwards to close the gap, giving me the result I wanted.
I will quickly skip over the tail planes, tail wheel, under wing pitot unit and wing landing lights. The main part of the radiator 'bath' fits well to the fuselage, but front intake does not fit seamlessly to this. The cannon barrels are individual parts. These are Oerlikons, distinguishable from the Hispano cannon by the recoil springs being located halfway down the exposed barrel. On the Hispanos, the springs were positioned back against the fairing. Some aircraft (particularly in the Western Desert) had a pair of cannon removed to save weight, although I'm not sure if it was always the inner or outer pair, or either. You can achieve this effect here simply by leaving the barrel parts off. I fitted the drop tanks to my kit - note that there are drill-out holes for tanks and bombs in the lower wings. The tanks assemble easily, but the fit of the pylons to the lower wing surface is poor, requiring some filler to clean things up. The two-part Vokes filter, once assembled, is also a poor fit to the fuselage, requiring some more filler.
Revell have gotten into a state of confusion about the exhaust stacks. The standard shared sprue includes both smooth (# 4 and 5) and 'fishtail' stacks (# 6 and 7). The instructions for the Mk.IIB kit say that you can use either. But for both the Mk.IIC kits, the 'fishtail' stacks are greyed out on the sprue diagrams, and the construction guide says to use parts 4 and 5 (i.e., the smooth stacks). Consistent? No, because the construction guide clearly shows the 'fishtail' stacks. The 'fishtail' stacks would appear to be the correct choice for most or all IIC aircraft.
The propeller blades are set almost (but not quite) 'flat', and this has provoked some comment in other reviews, both on the web and in print. Contrary to what some people have said, the Hurricane did have a variable-pitch constant speed propeller unit fitted. As with the Spitfire, it was introduced during the production run of the Mk.I, and as with Spitfire, it was retrofitted to some earlier aircraft. Indeed, the Hurricane had priority over the Spitfire when the variable-pitch units were in short supply. The most neutral statement that one can make is that the pitch of the blades provided in the kit is unrealistic for a flying aircraft, and perhaps for an aircraft on the ground. More than that I would be reluctant to say.
The main undercarriage assembly is quite easy, apart from the quite fiddly rear drag struts. The diagonal retraction jacks (molded onto the main legs) are too short, and will not fit fully into the provided slots. Just don't even try - concentrate on getting the main struts set at the correct angle. The legs are pretty much straight up when viewed from head-on, but the wheels point out towards the ground - the kit correctly includes this feature. The wheel wells, undercarriage door and most of the strut detail were painted Humbrol Metalcote Aluminium. The kit does in fact specify aluminium, but I had assumed Interior Green until I actually read the instructions. Apparently, many Hurricanes were actually unpainted in this area, or were painted with the underside colour. This latter option has echoes of contemporary US Navy practice, and sounds like a wartime expedient.
If you want a 'wheels-up' model, then Revell only cater for this in a half-hearted way. They recommend that the wheels be filed down so that they will fit (minus the main struts) into the wheel bays.
© Kevin Ronayne 2005
The one part of the kit that I have omitted is the canopy and windscreen. This appears to be a very serious point of contention, and it best discussed in conjunction with the same area of the Heller kit under the dedicated 'Accuracy' part of the review. Also, I used the Revell bombs (and some of the Revell decals) on the Heller kit, so we are not quite done with this kit yet. Finally, there are a few minor details missing from the Revell kit that are actually included in the much older Heller kit. Read on ...
The Heller kit was easier to build purely because it is a simpler kit: a single-piece lower wing, cannon barrels molded into the upper wings, and no rear ventral 'fillet'. The cockpit lacks much of the detail of the Revell kit, including the headrest (which may or may not be a good thing!). It's a basic enough unit, with a single 'L'-shaped part representing the floor and rear bulkhead, and with simple foot pedals molded in. The other parts are the seat, control stick, instrument panel (no decal) and a gun sight which is not molded in clear plastic and was awkward to fit. Cockpit construction was generally straight forward, as long as you glue the floor/bulkhead and instrument panel parts to one side, and just accept there may be a small gap on the other side, as happens to be the case in so many kits. The most annoying part of this phase was sanding off the Heller logo that some idiot had decided to stamp on the starboard cockpit wall!
The fuselage halves went together very well, once I'd inserted the propeller sub-assembly. The join between the spinner cone and spinner base is less than perfect, and required some work to rectify. As usual for a subject like this, I assembled the wings (upper wings to lower single wing), and then mated this sub-assembly to the fuselage. I had the exact same problem with the wheel bays as I had with the Revell kit: they are fully enclosed and very deep, to the point where the front edges have to be sanded down to get the upper wins to fit properly. The wing and fuselage assemblies were a very good fit, except at the rear wing/fuselage junction. This is another of those seemingly perennial problems. There was no problem with the tail plane/elevator units.
Before going on the undercarriage, I completed the rest of the kit. There are separate exhaust stack parts, and these are the 'fishtail type - no problems there. As usual for a Heller kit, the windscreen and canopy are separate. As with the Revell kit, the framing was undercoated twice with interior green before applying the camouflage colour. The kit has includes a small rear-view mirror positioned on top of the windscreen. This is a detail Revell missed that Heller didn't. There are two others: the retractable portside entry step (not usually visible in flight), and a small aerial right on top of the rudder. This last item is molded onto one of the fuselage halves, a how I did not manage to break it off while I was building the kit I will never know. The Vokes filter is in two halves, and is a much better fit than the Revell equivalent. Unfortunately, it appears to be much too deep. The radiator bath is broken down into two halves and a central block, which is not the best fit until you work it down to size. The under wing pitot unit is quite crude compared to the Revell equivalent. The kit only has a landing light on the port wing leading edge - the Revell kit has them on both wings. As I later discovered, the light on the Heller kit is too far inboard, but I was able to rectify this.
I used the bombs from the Revell kit. The pylons (locating pins removed) were a much better fit to the Heller kit than the fuel tank pylons were to the Revell kit. Strange that. The bombs are supplied as two parts: a body with nose fuse molded in place, and a cylindrical tail unit. Revell left the bombs hollowed out, and they are open on the upper surface. Revell probably assumed that this would not be visible once the bombs are attached to the pylons via two locating pins on top of the bomb - there is no sign of any bomb crutch detail. Just to be safe, I filled in the bombs before painting them (Hu 30 Dark Green) and then attaching them to the pylons.
Back to the undercarriage. Lest I forget to say it, there is no 'wheels-up' option provided, which again is a frequent feature (or lack of one) in Heller kits. The wheel bays are quite bare compared to the Revell kit. Each main unit has three parts: wheel, main door (with drag strut molded on) main strut. As on the Revell kit, the retraction jacks are molded onto the main legs. Generally, the strut detail is almost on a par with that of the Revell kit. The wheel spoke detail is not as good, but the inner surface of the main door is much better. Revell have depicted it as basically flat, whereas it is raised and faceted, a detail which I think Heller have captured quite well. As with the Revell kit, Heller have correctly reproduced the outward sloping wheels.
© Kevin Ronayne 2005
And that's the end of the build process! Why did it take me longer to describe the Revell kit, which has been reviewed several times on SMAKR already, compared to the Heller kit which hasn't been? Who knows?
My choice of colours for the 'desert' scheme on the Revell kit was: Hu 29 Dark Earth and Hu 84 Middle stone. For the undersides, I used Hu 157 Azure Blue. In a previous review, I had painted a 'tropical' Spitfire Vb in this scheme, but I used Hu 144 Intermediate Blue on the lower surfaces. The tin of Hu 157 that I had then was quite old, and the newer compound that I have now is noticeably lighter, and very similar to Hu 144. I don't want to be drawn into a review of RAF Mediterranean fighter colours, as it is a very complicated and confusing area, with many 'variables' involved. I will make one observation: the underside colour that other modellers have typically used (based on the photos that I have seen) seems to be too light. Maybe it is me who's completely wrong, but my conception of Azure blue is of a quite deep shade of blue: 'Azure - a deep sky blue colour'. Source: Oxford English Dictionary.
The decals are generally excellent, but I would have expected nothing less. One problem that I had with my Spitfire Vb resurfaced here. After applying decals on a matt paint scheme, I apply Humbrol MattCote over them - or maybe even most of the kit. However, MattCote can do strange things: it hardly altered the appearance of the Hu (Dark Earth) areas, but it's application darkened the Hu 84 (Middle Stone) areas, to the point that they were almost as dark as the Dark Earth areas! That would not do, so I had to overpaint the affected areas very, very carefully. I now have XtraColor matt varnish from Hannants, but I have yet to test this to see if it behaves any differently.
Before I describe how I painted the Heller kit, I need to go back to the Revell kit. The 'other' subject in the Revell kit is an SEAC aircraft based in India in 1944. I automatically assumed this had an upper camouflage of Dark Green/Ocean Grey, along with medium grey undersides. A lot of other kits of SEAC fighters specify this scheme, including the Heller kit, and it also appears on a number of plates of the Hurricane and other fighters. I read a review of the Revell kit some months back in Scale Aircraft Modelling, and the review included a picture of the completed kit with this scheme.
So where is the problem? The problem is that the kit actually specifies an upper camouflage of Dark Green and Dark Earth! The SAM reviewer never mentioned this, so I must assume that he assumed the scheme was Dark Green/Ocean Grey, and never checked the instructions! I had not bothered to check the scheme for this subject either, as I was building the 'desert' subject. However, before I began to paint the Heller kit, I decided I'd better check to see if the Revell SEAC subject was any different to the Heller SEAC subject. Initially, I noticed that the Revell paint scheme was a mirror image of the Heller one. This is perfectly possible, as right throughout the war some fighters were painted in what was called the 'A' scheme (in this case Heller), and some were painted in the 'B' scheme (Revell), which is an exact mirror image. The Revell 'desert' subject is also painted in the 'A' scheme. Once I had figured this out, I then noticed the colour discrepancy.
A search on the Internet didn't turn up much, except a few isolated statements to the effect that yes, many (or even all) SEAC fighters may have been painted Dark Green/Dark Earth. This would mean they (seemingly) used the same camouflage scheme as SEAC bombers and other combat aircraft. On one level, this makes sense, but reality doesn't always make sense, and we know that different types of combat aircraft have had different types of paint schemes from WW I onwards. Be that as it may, I decided to follow the Revell guide, although still with the Heller subject. That means I applied a type 'A' camouflage scheme of Hu 30 (Dark Green) and Dark Earth (Hu 29) over Medium Grey (Hu 64). Effectively, I just painted Dark Earth where the instructions said medium grey. Actually, all the instructions say is Hu 27, and if you do decide to apply a green/grey scheme, remember that Hu 106 is the preferred choice for Ocean Grey.
That is not quite the end of the matter. For some reason I wanted to apply a shade of brown that would be a bit redder than Hu 29, probably on the grounds that it would look more realistic - why I thought that, I'm not sure. I went ahead and used Hu 29, opening a new tin as I had just finished the last one painting my Spitfire Vb. Very much to my surprise, I found that the Hu 29 compound appears to have changed, and it is now a bit redder. It now appears to be very close to Hu 118 - i.e., FS30219 matt US Tan, used in the classic USAF Dark Green/Medium Green/Tan scheme. I have no idea quite what is going on here.
Rather unwisely, I used the decal sheet from the older Heller kit that I was building, rather than the sheet from the newer boxing that I bought some years later. Had I done so, I suspect I would have had less 'silvering' to remove. Apart from that, the decals were quite good in terms of register and adhesion. The colour reproduction looked a bit 'washed out', as is sometimes the case with Heller decals. I did not mind this, as I think it is more realistic in some ways than 'better' decals.
The decal sheet is quite limited and naturally lacks stencilling and other fine detail, such as is provided on the Revell sheet. From the Revell sheet, I borrowed the white wing, fin and tail plane stripe decals. I assume these were recognition markings to reduce the likelihood of friendly fire. Unfortunately, the decals were not opaque, so I had to overpaint them with matt white to stop the camouflage scheme from showing through. When I applied the port wing decal, I realised the Heller wing light was too far inboard, as I mentioned earlier. It was completely covered by the decal. Checking of other references showed that Heller are wrong, Revell are right. I simply painted the lights on both wings.
On the Revell kit, the fin stripe goes on to the rudder. On the Heller kit, the paint guide shows it only on the fin. I used the Revell decals, cutting them to fit on the fin only. The Revell decals include the part of the fin flashes not covered by the stripe, and they are slightly out of register. A final point is that the Revell and Heller SEAC roundels are different sizes - the Revell are smaller. I'd guess that the Revell decals are more accurate, but I still used the Heller decals.
A lot of accuracy issues have already been covered in the build sections of the review, but there is more. Perhaps the most important is the canopy and windscreen. There are definite problems with the Revell kit. First off, there should be a vertical step at the base of the windscreen. It is completely missing on the Revell kit. Secondly, the rear of the canopy is in line with the back of the cockpit. What should happen is half of the last cockpit frame should overlap the fuselage. This is a pity; the Revell canopy is very thin, and it would have looked extremely realistic if it overlapped, as it should have had. The Heller kit is a lot better, although it has the canopy too far back - the last canopy frame completely overlaps the fuselage, which is too much. Measured from the nose, the Heller windscreen is slightly further back than the Revell windscreen. Someone is wrong here (well, at least one!), and my suspicion is that the Revell kit is more at fault.
© Kevin Ronayne 2005
A final problem with the Revell canopy is that it is too short to even meet the fuselage at the back of the canopy. I had to move the windscreen back about 1mm to even get a basic fit. This didn't affect the 'step' problem, as it just isn't on the Revell windscreen. It also means that as designed, the Revell cockpit is even further forward compared to the Heller cockpit.
Here is list of other issues: some important, some not so:
"I've set myself the goal of building all Allied WWII fighter colour schemes in 1/72, but in the course of that I again got distracted by related projects! One project was building Hurricanes, in the course of which I built 13 Revell (Sea)Hurricanes IIs, 2 Hasegawa Mk Is, and a SMER Mk IIC and an Academy Mk IIc.
Please forgive me if I feel the urge to comment on your review, but I would like to make the following points:
At my request, Henk also supplied me with some very informative insights on the Academy kit, which I have yet to buy, let alone build. I will wait until I build and review that kit before including this information.
The most important conclusion is that it's dangerous to compare different kits of a well-known aircraft so closely! I should have learned that from my last review of Spitfire Vb kits. On close inspection, you will always find many subtle differences between kits from different manufacturers, even if these kits are regarded as being fundamentally accurate. In this case, it turns out that the Revell kit is not quite the world-beater that it initially appeared to be, and the older Heller kit is superior in some key areas regarding basic accuracy. One might be tempted to say that Revell could have charged a bit more for the kit and used the extra money to make sure it was accurate, and then we would all be happy! The faults in the canopy area are not that easy to correct, especially if it turns out that the cockpit is in the wrong place after all. On the other hand, the faults in the Heller kit should be easier to fix. The Revell kit does look like a Hurricane, but the Heller kit looks more like one, or at least that's the way it seems to me!
© Kevin Ronayne 2005
Issue 2 of the Wings of Fame journal includes a variant briefing on the Hawker Hurricane which proved very useful. I recently picked up (at a discount) a hardcover book called An Illustrated Anatomy of the World's Fighters, which has full 'cutaway' drawings for the major versions of over 100 fighters from WW I to the Eurofighter Typhoon. It's a really handy guide if you are researching a version of a fighter that happens to be featured - now I can identify by name many features that I would have been uncertain about. For someone short on space, you need references that cram as much detail as possible into the space available. I also used some standard texts on British WW II aircraft, and on WW II aircraft in general.
On the web, I just have to give a plug for a site called www.airliners.net. Despite the name, the site covers all military and civilian aircraft, not just airliners. If you have a broadband connection and lots of time on your hands, this is an amazing photographic resource. It is most useful for more modern aircraft, as few of the pictures date back earlier than the 1970's. Thus, any Hurricane pictures (for example) are of 'Warbirds', museum exhibits and 'gate guardians'. Even with those limitations, it is still a wonderful resource, and something than I will be using for most of my reviews from now on. Use the photos home page for easy access to the photographic database.
© Dave Godden 2005 - Photo of
Dave's Revell Hurricane IIC to add to this review
SMAKR Home
| What's New | Submissions
| Information Requests | News | Links
| Reference Corner | Site
Info
1/72 Reviews | 1/48
Reviews | INBOX Reviews
