Rob de Bie Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I recently read that the Italeri 1/72 B-58 was possibly based on faulty Aviation News drawings, that had the length measurements quite wrong. Does anyone know other models based on magazine or book drawings that were faulty? I know one myself, the MPM Fokker G1 that was clearly based on Zdenek Kaláb drawings, which lead to some minor shape and detail problems. Rob Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MHaz Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Well, there's Mach 2's E-1B Tracer kit. Their radome is the wrong shape, and they didn't include the 18" fuselage extension forward of the wing, both of which can be traced, IIRC, to a drawing in a very old British aircraft mag. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Snowbird3a Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 The Revell 1/28 Fokker DVII is reportedly based on Joseph Nieto's plans from an airplane model magazine. It has some terrible shape problems. See FSM Jan '99 on how to fix said problems. Tony Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Camus272 Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 The AMT F-117 which doesn't look right at all was probably based on the original blurry Air Force photo. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Edgar Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Academy's 1/48 Spitfires and Hunters used G.A., instead of proper scale, drawings; Trumpeter's 1/32 Lightnings match the drawings in the SAM book (but not much else.) Edgar Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flankerman Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 The Fujimi 1/72 scale F4 Phantoms used accurate drawings - it was just that the mould makers forgot to 'translate' the anhedral tailplanes to the horizontal and took the 'stabilator' shape from the plan view. Result - Phantoms with stabs that were too small. I also read that when Airfix asked the Bristol Aeroplane Company for scale drawings to make their early 1/72 scale Beaufighter, they were supplied with said drawings and proceded to make a model with engine nacelles that were way too small. Apparently when the Bristol drawings of the proposed Beaufighter were first made, the drawing office simply took the existing Beaufort drawings (with Taurus engines) and superimposed the Beaufighter fuselage on them. This was fine for the PR brochure and Press Release drawings - but not for accurate scale drawings. I was also told that there is no such thing as a 'scale drawing' of the whole aircraft on paper - only General Arrangement drawings giving overall dimensions. The component parts have scale drawings - and 'loftings' etched into metal sheets to make them, but there are no such drawings of the whole airframe. Ken Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lancer512 Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I was also told that there is no such thing as a 'scale drawing' of the whole aircraft on paper - only General Arrangement drawings giving overall dimensions. That's what I figuered, too. I've had a really hard time finding references with panel lines for my project. I actually had to take measurements off the real jet. Apparently, the published length of the Tornado was wrong all the time, because Panavia incorrectly stated the wrong length in their prevoiusly published data. That was discovered only recnetly when AirDoc took measurements for new unprecedented 1/48 scale drawings for their new Tornado book. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MHaz Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I was also told that there is no such thing as a 'scale drawing' of the whole aircraft on paper - only General Arrangement drawings giving overall dimensions.The component parts have scale drawings - and 'loftings' etched into metal sheets to make them, but there are no such drawings of the whole airframe. Ken Not to shoot you down, because prior to CAD becoming the defacto way aircraft are engineered, you'd be essentially correct. However, with newer designs that have been done with CAD, any actual drawings are generated from the CAD models, so they are actual scale drawings. Having said that, I would strongly advise against calling Boeing and asking for CAD-generated drawings of anything... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
huntermountain Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 (edited) I won't name any specific models, but my pile of 'started but got stuck halfway' models must have been based on secret aircraft drawings by M.C.Escher. Edited January 6, 2012 by huntermountain Quote Link to post Share on other sites
afspret Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I believe the Airfix Fairey Battle was based on either incorrect drawings or drawings of the prototype. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Skyraider Maniac Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Wasn't the old 1/32 testors YF-22 based off some rough schematics or something? I thought I remembered hearing something about that as I heard there are several issues with the shape. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tiger 01 Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 How about monogram's 1/48 MiG-29? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChernayaAkula Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Isn't there also a problem with Italeri's 1/72 Mirage 2000? Something about the length with/without pitot tube? And I think there was a kit (I'm inclined to say Trumpeter's Wyvern, but I'm not sure) that fit one sets of drawings perfectly, but looked out of whack on another (apparently more accurate )set. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) Not to shoot you down, because prior to CAD becoming the defacto way aircraft are engineered, you'd be essentially correct. However, with newer designs that have been done with CAD, any actual drawings are generated from the CAD models, so they are actual scale drawings. Having said that, I would strongly advise against calling Boeing and asking for CAD-generated drawings of anything... Wellllll.... maybe. In theory, yes, absolutely true. In practice, not so much. Boeing's 1/100 model drawings for the 777 were produced from the original CATIA files for the real airplane, but they intentionally introduced 'errors' in them. I've got a set, and there are several areas that are greatly simplified and that don't match dimensional data contained in the 777 maintenance manuals. And then there's the god-awful Monogram A-26 Invader. I don't know what they used to produce that one, but it sure doesn't look like any A-26 I've ever laid eyes on. J Edited January 7, 2012 by Jennings Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Finn Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 There were drawings and colour profiles in numerous books of the F-105G with the D tail which may have helped contribute to the Trumpeter F-105G having the incorrect D vertical stab. Jari Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tailspin Turtle Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 There are probably very few that aren't faulty to some degree... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tailspin Turtle Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 You can't trust drawings from the manufacturer either. This is an overlay of Lockheed F-80A/FP-80A fuselage station, P-80A inboard profile, and TO-1 (F-80C) Navy SAC drawings along with my drawing of the forward fuselage of a P-80A, all carefully sized to the same scale. Note that the windshield of the P-80C was located about nine inches farther forward than the P-80A's but most comparison profiles don't show any difference. The Navy F-80C SAC drawing is wrong as well, showing it in the P-80A location, not to mention having a very approximate representation of the engine inlet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
phasephantomphixer Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Another Guesstimation kit is the 1/32 Revell Mig-29A. Lot's of carving to be done. Again supposed to have been guessed from early photos. The one that I can't figure (Due to the popularity and accessible examples to measure from) is their 1/32 F-4E's (both old and new). My Father was an Aerospace Engineer and everytime I try to share a build he says it is not accurate because no company would give up their drawings for a plastic model. I stay on the naive side and am happy if it looks right, but do correct things often. I still like most of Revell's big birds. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Horrido Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 The Fujimi 1/72 scale F4 Phantoms used accurate drawings - it was just that the mould makers forgot to 'translate' the anhedral tailplanes to the horizontal and took the 'stabilator' shape from the plan view. Result - Phantoms with stabs that were too small. Is there any aftermarket for that? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MHaz Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Wellllll.... maybe. In theory, yes, absolutely true. In practice, not so much. Boeing's 1/100 model drawings for the 777 were produced from the original CATIA files for the real airplane, but they intentionally introduced 'errors' in them. I've got a set, and there are several areas that are greatly simplified and that don't match dimensional data contained in the 777 maintenance manuals. Depends on the intended use of the drawings. For display models and such, yes, there's probably errors in the drawings, either deliberately by the manufacturer or just due to simplification for the master maker. However, for anything that goes to the shop floor, to the stress analysts or other relevant destinations, the scale drawings will be absolutely correct if generated from the CAD models. I know, 'cause I've been working with drawings of aircraft as part of my job, part of which is to make sure errors don't creep into the drawings. Not just part drawings, but the overall GA aircraft drawings as well. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Barnsleybill Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 I believe the Airfix Fairey Battle was based on either incorrect drawings or drawings of the prototype. The story goes that the Fairey rep supplied Airfix with prototype drawings. By the time the error was discovered it was way too late to amend the moulds. Airfix were apparently quite miffed!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flankerman Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 It isn't just drawings either - you have to be careful with published dimensions. Most of the kits of Su-27 Flankers are short in fuselage length - some seriously so. This stems from a misinterpretation of the published dimensions of the Flanker. The usual figure given for the overall length is for the fuselage EXCLUDING THE NOSE PITOT PROBE but most kit manufacturers have taken the length as including the probe ...... with a consequent shortness in the fuselage. Or - lets say the published overall length of a Spitfire..... Is that with the machine on all three wheels - or with the tail raised and the fuselage datum parallel to the ground?? Does a given wing span include any removable wingtip missile rails ?? It's a whole can of worms Ken Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rob de Bie Posted January 7, 2012 Author Share Posted January 7, 2012 I found two more on the interweb: Monogram/Revell 1/72 F-82 - based on: drawings in Aircraft of the Fighting Powers Volume VII (1946) - errors: outer wings are way too wide in chord and the fuselage length is very suspect Aeroclub 1/72 Sea Otter - based on: Aviation News Volume 16 Number 2 drawings - errors: seems to inherit a lot of mistakes from the Aviation News drawings And these two are the result of my own research: Italeri 1/72 X-32 - based on: 1999/2000 Jane's all the worlds aircraft - errors: wrong wing planform, angled vertical tails Italeri 1/72 X-35 - based on: 1998 Lockheed-Martin drawings - errors: wing to far aft and too small, inlets too long and large, nose shape, one-piece canopy, landing gear attached to wing instead of fuselage Rob Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Steve N Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I'm not sure if the drawings came from a book or magazine, but I understand the Valom 1/72 B-26A Marauder suffers from a noticeaby too-fat fuselage due to the kit designer relying on a faulty set of plans. SN Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.