S1581 Hawker Nimrod MkI

Are you finding it breaks up even when sanded Colin?

Danny, yes. As I mentioned earlier, the resin seems to be very brittle and simply breaks up, leaving unbonded strands of carbon which can just peel away.

glad i went for brass and steel for my wing joiners.

the rest of the wing looks fantastic sir.

Tony B

The carbon tube is a perfect fit in the brass so there are no problems, but you have to take great care to get the alignment spot on because if you don’t, trying to take a bit off the carbon fibre to get it in seems to be impossible without it shredding. I have built the centre sections first and ensured that the c/f tubes are exactly parallel. With the lower wings I built each half with the centre section in situ and brasstubes slid on, then built the first three ribs straight onto them. The lower wing is perfect and assembles accurately, the upper is being done exactly the same way.

Thanks Tony, the wing goes together really well, much better than the Chippy one eh?

Hi Colin, we will see. It initailly sands okay it is just bloody hard! I have some "other" carbon and as you say it not very good and shreds. I would suggest that it is not carbon, but black fibreglass. This stuff from Bucks is very hard indeed.

As I say the guy from Bucks Composites has said sand it in a lathe to size, and as this is his speciality I trust his advice. Well at least until I have tried it for myself The rod does go inside but it's a bit too tight to allow the model to be easily dismantled.

Cheers

Danny

I had the same problem when building my Foka4. The 10mm joiners just would not fit in the 10mm diameter tube after the spar was assembled I wrapped some 180 grit aluminium oxide paper round the soar, masked up and sanded away Lots of black dust and eventually I ended up with a smooth matt black unidirectional carbon joiner which fitted perfectly It is possible to sand these rods to size Not easy though and the dust is not pleasant

Martyn

Edited By Martyn K on 17/02/2019 21:48:51

Interesting. Mike’s Models sell it as carbon and it produces loads of fine black dust when you sand it. Also the individual strands are linear and definitely not glass fibre. Maybe I have attacked it with too coarse a paper. I have used this stuff for different purposes on models, including for leading edges and have found also that if you cut it with a saw that isn’t really sharp it will splinter longitudinally. However so far I don’t have a problem, the fit on the lower wing is perfect on both sides and everything slides together as it should. I am taking pains to reproduce that with the upper wing.

Hello gents,

In a former life, we used quite a lot of carbon joiners in full size Ultralight construction and the 'splitting' of the tube ends was a common problem, even with 3K braided fibers. A bit like the ground part of a coax cable.

Hence the trick was to insert a short end of a high density foam rod epoxied in at both ends allowing for a lot more local strength.

In this case, the 'cheapo' CF we tend to use is factory 'extruded' and with 'unidirectional' fibers making it even more fragile at the ends.

At our modeling scale, maybe worth a try with a short bit of dowel epoxied in at both ends.

Regarding the sanding, I wouldn't use sand- or Al-oxyde paper, but an abrasive pad (3M-like) used (very) wet, as the dust can't fill up the abrasive. Small bits can easily be treated in a bucket of water avoiding all of the black dust nuisances. The latter not being that easy with full scale aircraft components...

Just my two €-cents

Cheers

Chris

Thanks Chris, was going to use something else around my lathe, parrafin perhaps, and emery cloth abrasive.

But, i am in no rush, might be weeks before I tackle them.

Cheers

Danny

Danny

Thanks for the guidance on the lower wing joining. I have the same materials so will go the same way.

Regarding the aileron hinge location jigging - how does that work ?

Looks like a strip of 1/4 balsa supporting the tube with the other end resting on the spar ??

Cheers

Martin

Hi Martin, the strip of 1/4" you see in the shot was just added to the pic to check they were all the same position. I drew lines on the rib section on the plan to work out where the "knuckle" would sit, and shimmed it accordingly. It is not 1/4" in my case, you must also remember that the underside of the wing in this instance has the 1/16" capping strip along the false trailing edge.

Does this help?

In this case I sanded a block so that it put the centre of the knuckle at 6.7mm, having scribed a line 7.1mm up the false T/E and made holes for the tubing.

I am loathed to give dimensions as it will depend on the size of your Robart hinges, there are many clones around and they alter in size a little. Also the size of the tube will alter how far inside the tube the Robart sits.

But if you understand what's going on above it's easy to work out.

You could also just build the aileron and use it to allign the hinges?

Not sure how Andy did his? no doubt he found a really simple way to do it, and I will yet again have a doh! moment

Cheers

Danny

Edited By Danny Fenton on 18/02/2019 22:34:04

I've not got that far yet Danny

I used blocks in the wings as a land for the hinge points and drilled them and the aileron spars to suite. I've glued the hinges to the tubes and that is how they remain. I'm going to cover the fuselage and aileron before fitting, so the hinges won't be glued in place until then. Notwithstanding, I'll probably plagiarise your method to get the right position.

Well spent a few hours bringing the other wing panel up to the same state as the first one.

I also added the leading edges to both panels.

I sheeted the leading edges of the upper centre section and also added leading edge stock to that too. All ready for shaping.

Thought I would start on the capping strips, so sliced a sheet of 1/16 into 1/8 wide strips and got stuck in.

I run a bead of Titebond along the top of the rib and then fit the leading edge end of the capping, zapping into place with thin CA. Then bend the capping onto the rib pinning it to half way. Trim and sand the end to fit and press home. Zapping that end too. Fill in the gaps with pins, and repeat. Just the riblet cappings to do and that's the top of one panel done.

PS, don't forget to pin the panel flat, cappings add a fair bit of rigidity and will lock in a twist if you aren't careful.

Cheers

Danny

Been ruminating over the subject matter after the revelation that the Nimrod has much bigger wings and tailplane, on what subject to build.

I think I am resigned to not being able to compete with this model so will perhaps just complete it for fun and to practice silk over tissue.

So anybody got anymore details on the Yugoslav Furys?

It has what appears to be a Hurricane type radiator underneath?

Colin any thoughts as our resident Fury officianado?

Cheers

Danny

Managed to fit the starboard wing upper cappings

I must be sad I enjoy doing cap strips......

Cheers

Danny

Hi Danny,

I can imagine your disappointment in not being able to achieve your Nimrod plan.

You're stating that you will not be able to enter scale comps. Is that because you will be lacking of an existing full scale to be based on?

The three Spanish Furies were ordered following the Yugo specs but with an Hispano Suiza engine instead. They were carrying the same 'more rounded' belly radiator pod.

In fact there were 'four' Spanish ones around, as 4-4 was rebuild with the remains of two of the others. That 'fourth' one really carries a special look when captured by the 'Nationalists' in '38.

José has a lot of info regarding the Spanish ones.

What about your missing rib at the lower wing centre section???

I guess you 'll have to modify your thread title & pic as well then? ... sjeesh... ppfff...

Cheers

Chris

Hi Chris, yes a nuisance, but indeed the lack of documentation and the fact that the plan is not accurate enough makes this an unrealistic proposition for comp work. It would lose too many marks. But for flying-only it will be fine.

I can add the rib back without too much trouble

I have noticed that the radiator is more streamlined on the Yugo than the Spanis, which seems to be a progression of the MkI. Need a frontal view, have to see what I can find, or just blag it

Cheers

Danny

Hi Danny. Chris has pretty much answered your question. The radiator design is more modern and similar to the Hurricane on both Spanish and Yugo planes. From a model point of view in producing the Hispano engined version and the Yugo version the most obvious difference is obviously the Gladiator style undercarriage with Dowty sprung wheels, but although the engine cowling and spinner appear to be the same with the Hispano Suiza the exhaust manifolds are different. Also there is a useful small air intake in the underside of the cowl. There are a number of profile type coloured three views but I don’t think there is anything adequate for a scale model of competition standard, or surviving examples to work from. Apart from the differences described here, I will otherwise finish mine as the Mk1 and then differentiate it with the paint scheme.

Edited By Colin Leighfield on 20/02/2019 20:54:42

Hi again gents,

Colin pointed out the main differences, including the undercarriage, sprung wheels and radiator pod, but I tend to disagree with the cowling.

The exhaust manifold is indeed different with the 'siamese' ports for the 'middle' cylinders, but the cowling cylinder head blisters for the Hispano are nearly double as long compared to the Kestrel engined Mk1.

The side 'louvres' are also very different (larger), as are the side (carb?) intakes at the bottom side part of the cowl.

As I wrote earlier, if you want to go that route Danny, José has lots of info & documents, including historical pics of the Spanish ones.

Cheers

Chris

Chris is right about the other details, I just didn’t bother to mention them. My main concern is to be able to use the fibre glass cowl and I am satisfied that the shape is accurate enough for the Kestrel and Hispano engined versions. The detail differences are easy to reproduce. Two more photos of the Yugo version and I assume at the testing stage by the factory. The Kestrel XVI of 745 hp was used with the cleaner undercarriage and improved radiator design to give a top speed of 242 mph, nearly 20mph better than the Fury 2 and only about 10 mph or so slower than the Gladiator. The Spanish version with the 700 hp Hispano Suiza did 234 mph. Both had the improved radiator design. Photos from Putnam, the British Fighter Since 1912 and Sydney Camm and the Hurricane (Perspectives, edited by Dr. John W. Fozard). I have to say that I think the Fury looks a lot more handsome and business like with this undercarriage, but that’s just a personal opinion.