Kit Review: Academy 2129 1:72 Hawker Hurricane IIc

Kit: Hawker Hurricane Mk. IIc Scale: 1:72 Maker: Academy (Sth. Korea) Purchased: Models and Hobbies 4U, Nunawading, VIC, AUSTRALIA Price: $AU10.50 (Approx $US7.55, GBP4.40)

The box: Ridgid cardboard two-piece box with large cover art and clear photos of completed kit detail on sides.

Packing: Heat sealed cellophane. Decals in small cellophane bag for protection

Instructions: fold-out single sheet, clear print on crisp white. No references to specific paint manufacturer's numbers, otherwise clear and concise. 2 painting options.

Molding: Clean, crisp, sharp outlines. engraved panel lines. Very clear detail. No flash. No ejector pins.

Assembly: Near perfect (99.9%) fit. clean joins, all holes pre deilled etc. everything lines up and goes together. Unusual mounting of propeller causes minor problems when painting. Canopy supplied in 2 parts but can't be mounted open due to size and shape being too narrow to fit over molded slide rails behind cockpit. (Pity, as cockpit detail is good and deserves to be shown)

Detail: Cockpit tub has floor with molded rudder pedals. Dashboard has slightly raised details suitable for hand painting, but sadly mounts out of view. Detailed and accurate control stick. Moulded gunsight. excellent canopy panel lines on crystal clear plastic. Landing lights supplied as clear plastic. M/G moulding clear with good detail. Very good detail in wheel wells.

Decals: Clear, well printed. However, very thick, slow to release and brittle. Wouldn't settle into detail even with Mr. Mark Softer.

Overall: Despite the small drawback of the propeller mounting causing some problems with painting, this is an outstanding kit in this scale for detail, quality of molding, ease of assembly and produces a great finished product. I'd recommend 3rd party decals for this to avoid stress and have them set better.

Rating: Assembly 10/10 Surface Detail 9/10 Cockpit detail 8/10 Decals 5/10

Overall out-of-box modeling experience: 8.5/10 (decals drag it down) Would like to see colour references.

Highly recommendable, would definitely try another kit of this brand.

-- _________________ Norman Lever Melbourne, Australia _________________

Reply to
Norman Lever
Loading thread data ...

Hello, thank you for the review, just a question what are the units and the camouflage in this kit?

Reply to
Jose-Manuel Estevez

Mentioning that it only looked 60% like a Hurricane might be a pertinent detail too. Despite the 'raised detailing' old tech, go for the Airfix Mark 1 or the Heller Mark 2 for more accurate looking Hurricane models in 72 scale Chek

Reply to
Chek

I largely agree with the review; the decals should simply be replaced by aftermarket--there are plenty of good ones out there. I found an Aeromaster sheet with SEAC markings that came out just great. As for shape issues, it didn't look bad to me.

Mark Schynert

Reply to
Mark Schynert

Excellent question. The 2 schemes are identical but with different colours if you know what I mean. Topside standard british 2-tone camo, single colour underside. Different colours for the 2 schemes.

Option 1: No.3 Sq RAF 1941, Dark earth & dark green (Humbrol 29 & 30) top, and according to the sheet, 'medium sea grey' underside, but more correctly RAF sky (Humbrol 90 - a greenish sky blue). Serial No ZB464, Plane QO Z

Option 2: No.87 Sq RAF 1942, Ocean Grey & Dark Green top (Humbrol 27 & 30) top, and matt black (Humbrol 33) underside. Serial No. HL864, Plane LK 7

Reply to
Norman Lever

I compared this new kit with my old Matchbox Hurri IIc and the outlines are near identical. compared with photos etc, I can't see the justification for your thinking it's not quite right.

Reply to
Norman Lever

OK, I hate doing this, because once you notice the errors, you can't un-notice them. So I'll first say that Academy make some really good kits, and all their kits are well made. I just wish they were all as accurate as they should be. If you don't mind this or aren't too familiar with the real aircraft, then read no further. The kit is a slightly undersized to scale and will miss out on a foot for span and just under same for length when converting to full size; the tailplanes do not match up to reference material; the wing is also a bit narrow and slightly out of shape; the forward fuselage/canopy/cowling area looks far too narrow. I haven't seen a Matchbox Hurricane, but if it matches the above problem areas, then it won't look like a Hurri either! Chek

Reply to
Chek

Mark, I couldn't agree with your points more. Most of the perceived 'problems' with the Academy kit I could live with (the slight dimensional differences for instance). And it is a very nicely produced kit, no argument there. But to me - and I'm the first to admit it's entirely subjective - the nose/cowling width/ canopy rendition just doesn't give the model the right 'expression' when I see it. The damned thing is whenever I see one - no matter how beautifully painted and presented it is - I just see the undernourished front end. Chek

From: Mark Schynert ( snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net) Subject: Re: Kit Review: Academy 2129 1:72 Hawker Hurricane IIc Newsgroups: rec.models.scale Date: 2003-11-24 11:33:05 PST

Yes, and the drawings I compared it against did not show these discrepancies, except for a slight wing narrowing. Short of finding a Hurricane II and taking the measurements yourself, there is no assurance that the data you are working with is any more accurate than mine. This is a recurring problem--most of us are forced to work with secondary and tertiary references most of the time, not only with regard to drawings, but also measurements, performance figures, theatres of deployment and color choices. Accuracy is a wonderful thing in the hobby, which I fully ascribe to, until it gets in the way of the hobby. Every 1/72 Hurri kit can be subjected to some level of criticism (love that exaggerated fabric corrugation on the Hase kit), but for my money there is no better cost/performance compromise than the Academy.

Mark Schynert

Reply to
Chek

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.