|
|
|
Airfix 1:72 Grumman J2F-6 Duck |
Reviewer:
Kevin Ronayne (kevin.ronayne@nuigalway.ie)
Kit Review submitted:
25 April 2005
Date: 16th April 2005
The Grumman Duck originated in a Grumman proposal to the US Navy in 1932 for a new general purpose amphibian aircraft to replace the Navy's aging Loening OL aircraft. This resulted in the prototype XJF-1 aircraft, which first flew in 1933. The first production batch of 27 JF-1 aircraft was delivered in late 1934. These aircraft were powered by the Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp engine, but later aircraft used the Wright Cyclone engine.
The name Duck was not officially adopted until 1940, by which time the basic designation of the newest versions had changed from JF to J2F, even though there were no major alterations to the aircraft design. The change in basic designation is confusing, although it may have been due to the switch in manufacturer from Grumman to the Columbia Aircraft Corporation, based on Long Island in New York. If this was the case, then the basic designation 'J2F' should not be used along with 'Grumman'. Be that as it may, the last production version (the J2F-6) was ordered after the USA entered World War II. 330 of this version were built - more than for all other versions combined. The Duck remained in service right throughout and after the war in a variety of roles. After the war, the US Air Force took over some aircraft for rescue missions, and these were given the Air Force designation OA-12.
For once, I am reviewing an old Airfix kit that I did not first build when I was much younger. This is for the very simple reason that I couldn't get my hands on the kit back then, and I only finally got it when Airfix re-released sometime in 1995. I actually built this kit about 6 years ago, some time before I started reviewing for SMAKR. However, I always wanted to give my thoughts on the kit, especially as I can remember all the important details about the kit and how it was built. So here we are. This review also marks the first time that I am including photographs of a completed kit, since I have recently bought a suitable digital camera. I am still experimenting with the best way to take photographs of my kits (and other things of course), so my first photographs won't win any awards!
This kit was first released in 1968. It comprises 68 parts, mostly molded in light grey, with surface detailing being a mixture of rivet detail (fuselage) and raised ribbed/stressed detail (wings). The rivet detail on fuselage obscures some very restrained raised panel detail, and in another time and place I might have removed the rivet detail. The mold was in good shape despite its age, which is true of many Airfix kits. Packaging is typical for an Airfix kit from the 1990's, which means that since the box is one-piece, the sprues are in a sealed bag. Instructions are on a 6-page A4 leaflet, including a 4-step instruction guide with some inserts, and full-page 4-way paint and decal guides for the two subjects. The first is a J2F-6 based at NAS Patuxent River in 1943 - this is the aircraft shown on the box artwork. The second is a USAF OA-12 of the 10th Rescue Squadron, based at Elmendorf in Alaska in 1948. This subject features a natural metal fuselage and wings, with large red visibility panels. This is the subject that I chose for this kit. Paint colours are given as Humbrol codes only.
I saw this kit on the shelf of a model shop only a week ago, so I assume that it is still available to some degree, whether or not it is actually in the Airfix catalogue at present. Any currently available examples could well be from the same production batch as the kit I bought. As a Series 3 kit, it should not be that expensive.
This kit is typical of Airfix kits from the late 1960's, and if you have any experience with these kits, then this will hold no surprises for you. The obvious point of reference would be kits of other US Navy/Marine piston-engined aircraft. If you have ever built the Airfix Corsair, Dauntless, Kingfisher, Hellcat, Helldiver, Skyraider or Devastator, then you will feel right at home with this kit. Of course, it is a parasol biplane with a very tricky looking undercarriage arrangement, and these were indeed the two main problem areas with the kit. But let's start at the beginning. The main cockpit assembly includes the cabin beneath the cockpit, fully enclosed with seats molded into the rear bulkhead. It's not much, but it's a nice touch, especially as you can see into the cabin from the side fuselage window panels. If you wanted to add extra detail to the cabin interior, then I would suggest replacing the supplied windows with something thinner and less distorting. The roof of the cabin is the cockpit floor, onto which the pilots seat (with headrest) and observers seat are attached. There is a control stick for the pilot, and an instrument panel has to be fixed to the starboard fuselage. There is also an instrument panel decal, although the dial detail is not that clear.
The internal colour is given as Humbrol 80, which I questioned at the time but still ended up using. The colour is presumably meant to be Interior Green, so the (discontinued) Hu 151 would be the shade to use. I used the supplied crew figures, partially to hide the rather basic cockpit. The observer has his legs cut off above the knees, but you don't really notice this once the canopy is finally attached. There is a separate transparency for the pilots sliding canopy section, but it looked too thick to be left in the open position. That option isn't mentioned in the instructions anyway, but why else would it be included as a separate part? The rear canopy section can be left off if the 1943 USN aircraft is being built, to allow the machine gun to be attached. Both the machine gun and semi-circular mount look crude (especially the mount), but that did not concern me.
The fuselage halves went together very easily, as they usually do with Airfix kits. The painting of the canopy framing was completed at this point, as I would have been hampered by the wings once they were attached. Next came the engine/propeller assembly, which includes a quite good attempt at a Wright Cyclone engine block. The tail plane/elevator units were also attached at this stage, with great care being taken to get them to set at the correct angle. This is standard procedure for me, as I like to use the fin/tail plane assembly to help align the main wings in the correct position.
A photograph of a USAF OA-12, with different markings to the USAF aircraft represented in the kit.
The main wing assembly has been made reasonably straightforward, thus reducing the scope for trouble in assembly of the parasol biplane wing. The upper wing is a single part, and the parasol struts have big plates at the top that fit snugly into sockets in the underside of this upper wing. Also, the interwing strut units are molded as single parts. The construction sequence was obvious, even though the instructions are not explicit on this. First, attach the parasol struts and the central strut (fuel pipe?) to the upper wing. Then attach this to the fuselage. Then - very quickly - attach the lower wings, and then add the interwing strut units. Then make sure everything is set at the correct angle (in all three planes of course!), and leave to set overnight, remembering to check regularly during the first hour or so that the parts are not moving from their intended positions.
I encountered two problems: the first is that the lower wings appeared to have far too much dihedral, compared with a small insert diagram in the instructions. This seemed to suggest that the interwing strut units were too short. After looking at various photographs (including a head-on shot), I am still not too sure. I don't think the kit is correct, but it's a question of how wrong is it? The upper and lower wings are supposed to be of equal span, and as it stands the lower wings are slightly shorter, which is consistent with them having too much dihedral. Were I building the kit it again, I think I would try to bring the wings down a bit, although it would not be easy given the design of the interwing struts. The second problem was purely my doing: not long after leaving the kit to set, I somehow knocked it off a table, causing it to fall a full metre onto a hard floor. Miraculously, the kit stayed mostly intact, with just a couple of struts popping out. These were quickly fixed, and I left everything to set a second time while I went off to prepare an offering to the Great Gods of Modelling for sparing my work!
© Kevin Ronayne 2005
I did not rig the kit, and there is nothing in the instructions about this, even though the cover artwork clearly shows it.
Lastly, we come to the undercarriage. There is little to report about the stabiliser floats, except that the starboard unit is best left off until after the under wing insignia has been applied. I did this, although the instructions failed to mention it, which is surprising for Airfix. The kit includes separate parts to assemble the main undercarriage in either position, which definitely is a feature of Airfix kits. Getting the undercarriage legs and support struts into what seemed the correct position was easily the most difficult part of the build process. When I had everything finished, I discovered to my horror that the kit was lop-sided. The lower port wingtip was almost 5mm higher off the ground than the starboard wingtip, which was caused by the two undercarriage units being attached at slightly different angles. I could not leave the kit this way, but I couldn't stomach the thought of removing the undercarriage units and rebuilding them again. So I did the next best thing: I removed about 1.25mm from the base of the port wheel, which was enough to balance everything out again. Ever since then, I have paid great attention to getting the undercarriage angles right before it's too late.
Although I did not use them, the kit includes a pair of optional bombs specifically for the USN aircraft. I did attach the under wing racks, as directed by the instructions. The background information says that the Duck could carry either 100-pound bombs or 325-pound depth charges. I assume that the units supplied with the kit are 100-pound bombs, given their size and design.
Painting was easy, as I simply followed the main paint guide exactly. This called for Hu 11 (silver) for the main fuselage and inner wings, Hu 19 (gloss red) for the visibility panels, and Hu 104 (Oxford Blue) with a semi-gloss varnish for the main float section. The USN Patuxent River aircraft is mostly Oxford Blue with all-white undersides. The upper wings, tail planes, upper fuselage and float spine have a semi-gloss varnish over the matt Oxford Blue. A few points stand out: the first is that Oxford Blue is not the correct colour. However, Humbrol would have discontinued the appropriate USN dark blue colours (in all finishes). As a Humbrol subsidiary, Airfix were hardly going to quote a discontinued colour, so they just quoted an approximate match. This has happened with a number of Airfix kits. The second point relates to what seems to be a bare metal finish on the USAF machine - surely there must have been some sort of protective coating to protect the aircraft from the harsh Northern Pacific Sea? If there was, it may have been some sort of translucent coating. Finally, the different finish (semi-gloss or matt) on the various upper surfaces of the USN aircraft is more or less consistent with actual USN practice at the time.
© Kevin Ronayne 2005
The decals were basic enough and in reasonably good register. They were a bit more delicate than most other Airfix decals I have used in recent years. The white areas on the insignia are not completely opaque, so it just possible to see a hint of red underneath the wing insignia
The lower wing dihedral is the main question mark over this kit as far as I can see. The wing design is otherwise very basic, so it was no surprise to find that the wing planform and other characteristics seem to be spot on. In terms of basic dimensions, the kit is extremely accurate. There is a small 'dip' in the upper fuselage just behind the engine cowling, and the kit captures this and other details very well. Although the wings are single-piece, the trailing edges could have been a bit thinner. However, they are still quite good, especially when one remembers that this kit is from the late 1960s! The cockpit and canopy are a bit crude. It was only when I finished the kit that I noticed a gap between two of the canopy sections, and even now I might still go back and correct it. There is no such thing as a completely finished kit!
Bearing in mind that this is a very limited interest subject, we are lucky to have what is basically an accurate and easy to build kit available at a very reasonable price. I have never seen the competition (a kit from Glencoe), but I believe that this is the superior kit. No major manufacturer would go near this sort of subject matter today. It is definitely one for the high-priced, short-run manufacturers such as MPM, Pavla and Special Hobby, none of whom seem to have shown any interest in it to date.
I had no real references to go on for this one, apart from an entry in The Concise Guide to American Aircraft of World War II, by David Mondey. This includes a very helpful head-on shot of a Duck in flight that clearly shows the lower wing dihedral.
For those who are interested in these matters, the camera used was a Samsung Digimax 3000, a 3.2 megapixel camera with 3 x optical zoom. The photographs were taken at the highest normal resolution (2048 x 1536 pixels) using the highest available quality setting. For inclusion in this review, the images were reduced to either 30% or 50% of the original size, and then cropped to reduce the size further.
SMAKR Home
| What's New | Submissions
| Information Requests | News | Links
| Reference Corner | Site
Info
1/72 Reviews | 1/48
Reviews | INBOX Reviews
