ACADEMY 1:72 HAWKER TYPHOON MK.IB

 

Reviewer: Trevor Boxall  (rec.models.scale)
Kit Review submitted:  10 September 2001
Addendum [on accuracy] supplied by Anders Svennevik

Aircraft:
 The Hawker Typhoon was one of a couple of aircraft developed primarily as the Hawker Hurricane replacement (the other was the Hawker Tornado) and first flew in February 1940.  The plane was troubled by engine problems, although they were not as severe as those of the Vulture engine whose failure ended the Tornado program. The Typhoon also had a structural weakness in the rear fuselage that was not fully cured until after it entered service in September 1941.

It's main role was envisaged as a fighter, but attributed mainly to its poor rate of climb, the Typhoon was very disappointing in this role and soon the RAF were looking at employing it in other tasks.  This is where the Typhoon found a niche, in the fighter-bomber role, and during the last two years of the Second World War it equipped some 26 Squadrons of the 2nd Tactical Air Force.  One of its most famous and successful tasks was as a tank buster/killer during the final defeat of Germany.  Soon after the war ended the type was retired from service after some 3,270 Typhoons were built.

The Mk.IB version was regarded as the definitive fighter-bomber variant with four distinctive wing mounted cannons, and underwing weapons including light bombs and rockets, built in three series equipped with different Sabre II powerplants, IIA, IIB and IIC.  

The Kit:
 On another Internet kit review site I was introduced to Academy by a glowing review on one of their kits, so I went out and bought it - only to find that it was severely flawed by inaccurate profile, rendering it one for the discard pile, if you were after a decent replica.  Since then my view is the company has earned a reputation for excellent engineered model kits but not always on the mark in the accuracy stakes.  I am also of the opinion that a lot of their molds are "copied" from existing molds of other companies, updated with their own research and technology advances to make it seem enough of their own design.   So you have to ask yourself, are you out to buy a miniature replica or a really nicely manufactured model that is generally a dream to put together?  If you answer the former, then give Academy a miss in my book.  

So with that preamble out the way, you can now envisage what is coming in this review!  For the Academy Typhoon is superbly engineered with crisp quality molded light grey injection molded styrene.  There are just over 50 parts plus four clear pieces making up the two-piece canopy and landing lights.  Panel lines are engraved and the overall detail is very good.  A couple of options are provided, in a three or four-blade prop, tailwheel positioning and an open/closed cockpit. 

Construction:
 The cockpit detail in the kit is quite good with both sidewall and instrument panel containing raised console, dials, detail etc.  A seat, stick and floor are provided and I painted it all British Interior Green.  Naturally it could do with some sprucing up by way of an etched cockpit set but I wanted a closed canopy so I wasn't too fussed with the extra detail.

Affixing the fuselage halves together was easy while trapping the propeller shaft, then the wings were prepared.  These are broken down into a single underwing piece and two upper halves with the large cannons already molded (and appear to be correctly positioned).  The upper halves were first attached carefully to the fuselage before the underwing piece was affixed underneath, which is just a matter of choice, the engineering is very good so adding the upper halves to the lower single piece and then attaching to the belly of the aircraft should work just as well too.  But before you do, you need to drill out holes in order to display your underwing rockets - I hate this practice, I find it much easier to fill in holes if I don't want to display stores than drilling holes if I do.  The tailplanes were then attached without any hassles. 

The canopy can be displayed open although I chose to have it close.  I found the windscreen is best added first so it flush with the mating point at the front of the cockpit before adding the main canopy against it.  The clear part is of course quite good if a little distorted, so a vacform bubble canopy would be better - in my view that's what all bubble canopies should be taken from!  There is no option to have the "car door" version depicted in this kit.  The only stores options are rockets in this kit and these easily attach to the underwings.

Next came the painting.  The canopy was masked and I chose to paint it in an overall upper Dark Green and Ocean Grey camouflage scheme over Medium Sea Grey.  You could also paint on invasion stripes, but I chose not to.  The underside scheme was applied first before the upper Ocean Grey then Dark Green camouflage scheme. 

The wheel wells contain a little bit of detail that is best described as "wooden beam" work and they are also very shallow. Construction of the undercarriage was straight forward but the tailwheel required a bit of delicate handling to sit correctly. Finally I added the propeller and spinner to complete the model assembly.

Versions & Decals:
There are two colour options in the kit, both wearing the same Ocean Grey/Dark Green over Medium Sea Grey camouflage scheme from RAF, being No.175 and No. 193 Sqns, with the first having a three bladed prop and the second the four bladed prop.  I therefore suspect that the wrong tailplanes are provided in the kit for the second version, as discussed below.

Accuracy:
The only real let down of the kit is the accuracy and this may be generally nit-picking but we do expect these basic items to be correct nowadays!  The dimensions are a couple of millimetres out in length but span was pretty well spot on and the cannons and wing landing lights appear to be positioned correctly.  The exhaust stacks look a bit wide for my liking and the tail fin looks wrong.  For the tail fin I think it is the rudder that is the problem, being too thin in profile and thus making the kit slightly underscaled in length.  The wheel wells as already mentioned are quite shallow. The rocket stores also does not match the reference material I have, in particular the rails look too small.  From top view a Typhoon buff will certainly spot the error with the tailplanes in that these are too narrow - I can only assume these are the smaller tailplanes that were offered on the early production Typhoons.  I therefore cannot comment whether it is accurate to depict this on the three-bladed prop version (since this was an earlier machine) and this could well be correct (I do not have reference photos on the plane in question to confirm) but almost certainly the tailplanes are wrong for the four-bladed prop, and are best replaced.  Having also said this, perhaps the small rudder was also apparent on earlier production machines?

Also, see addendum below, on further notes regarding the accuracy of the kit as supplied by another SMAKR reader.

Overall:
 This model went together without any hassles and is in its own right an excellent kit - BUT, if accuracy is your main vice when building models then you will be disappointed with the anomalies noted above (and there may be more as I am by no means a Typhoon expert!) - but reading one of the In-the-box reviews on this site there are some Aeroclub aftermarket sets to correct some of these anomolies.  Here is another example how Academy have put together a "great building" kit but haven't fully done the right research to follow it up into an excellent overall kit.  Recommended only for the three-blade prop version and/or for those who are not big on accuracy.

ADDENDUM: supplied by Anders Svennevik
I just read Trevor's review of the Academy Typhoon where he writes 'only to find that it was severely flawed by inaccurate profile...' and he then goes on to list the flaws of the kit and states later 'if accuracy is your main vice when building models then you will be disappointed with the anomalies noted above...'.  I am an accuracy nut, and unfortunately the kit is more inaccurate than Trevor writes. I attach what I wrote on rec.models.scale just over two years ago.

Inspired by the lastest issue of SAM I had another look at the kit to see if it was as bad as I remember. In fact it was worse. It has a number of serious flaws. As usual all my observations are based on comparison with photos, not plans.

The biggest flaws are as follows.

  1. Upper fuselage lines  :  There are two lines, or curves if you like. The one in front, i.e. the  engine, is on a higher level than the rear one. Looking carefully at photos will show that the fuselage at the bottom of the windscreen/gunsight is on a higher level than behind the pilot's seat.
    2.
  2. Radiator  :  This is too small. Compare, for instance, to the cover of the Warpaint. There is a panel line along the 'middle' of the radiator. Use this as a reference to see what is missing on the kit. If one uses the middle of the exhausts as a reference line then the height above compared to that below is roughly 3:1, in the kit it's just over 2:1  These two faults throw off the look of the kit. Compare a fuselage half to the side view photo in the latest SAM.
  3. Rear fuselage  :  The rear fuselage is too thin and the sides too flat. These three faults I am sure of, the next I am virtually certain of but haven't been able to confirm them with photos to 100%. 
  4. Front fuselage  :  This is too slim.
  5. Canopy  :  After a lot of consideration I don't think that the canopy and windscreen are too wide. Instead, because the fuselage is too slim, the canopy and windscreen straddle the fuselage, instead of, so to speak, sit on top in the middle of the fuselage. They do appear to be too high.
  6. Wings  :  They do not have sufficient chord I believe. They are the wrong shape as they taper too much towards the tips. Compare the kit wings to, for instance, the photo of the Typhoon with its nose in a ditch, it's in the Warpaint.

To sum it up, if the real thing looks like a muscular adult, then the kit is a teenager with anorexia.

Anders

 

Note: the following related reviews links have not been updated since early 2000's - more kit reviews of this aircraft may now be on SMAKR, not reflected below.  Refer to the Index for other kits of this type.

Related INBOX Reviews:-    

SMAKR Home  |  What's New  |  Submissions  | Information Requests |  News  |  Links  |  Reference Corner  |  Site Info 
1/72 Reviews  |  1/48 Reviews  |  INBOX Reviews