Eduard 1/48 Spitfire´s Hispano-fairings - lenght?

[Paramedic]

Hi!

Had a look at my Royal Class-boxing of the excellent 1/48th Spitfire-kit today, planning builds.. But got unsure about the Hispano-cannons´ farings.

You get three on the sprues, two of the same lenght and one shorter. The two long ones differ slightly in the tapering ("early" and "late"?). Looking at the pics and instructions there are two types of fairings for the E-wing, with the cannon outboard of the M2-browning, one of the longer and the shorter one. However, neither looks like the ones I recognize from pictures and other kits iirc. It is either too short or too long.

At first I though the very short one is some very late variant, perhaps post-war (since one of the Israeli have them) and is maybe similar to the Tempest´s Hispano V (?) - i not just a shorter fairing but also a shorter barrel.

But those IXe that should be "earlier" have a very long one, the same lenght as the C-wing´s type - is that correct? I thought that outboard cannon was positioned slightly further into the wing? I guess to clear each others belt-feed..?

Anyways, here are a bunch of photos to perhaps show you what I mean/wonder in a lot of confusing words.. Master´s excellent barrels are at the bottom with what I thought was the different lenght for inboard and outboard cannons in the C-wing.

Are Eduard´s long- E-wing incorrect?

And as a bonus-query - are those "early" & "late" fairings by the way or just different as in maybe from different factories, those with different taperings? I saw that E-wing-fairings are slightly different and of two different variations at Master.Similar in different taperings as Eduard´s.Link:

http://master-model.pl/index.php?option=com_virtuemart&page=shop.browse&category_id=3&Itemid=56

[gingerbob]

In your bottom image, ditch the inboard one, replace with the "cap", and you've got a 'e' configuration. Same fairing (near enough) but lacking the extension- the cylindrical portion- of the inboard one.

I'd have to look at how they attach to the wing, but I'd say you have two styles of inboard fairing, and the "late" type of outboard fairing. Whether that's a goof I'm not sure, without looking back at the evidence. Oh, now I see- the second Eduard planform, which I presume is your "early 'e'", is wrong- it is showing the inboard length, and shouldn't.

bob

Edited November 13, 2013 by gingerbob

[Paramedic]

A little.

There are a couple of different aircraft with those long and short outer cannon-fairings. Johnnie Johnson´s Beer-truck is one of them and since it was supposed to not have guns I thought theey were blind, long fairings at first, but there is also a few more with the same ones..

Well, is there anything I can do to make it easier to see if it is incorrect? More photos or anything? I had a quickie in my books but didn´t find anything about the different cannons in the wings - short or long barrels - or fairings..

Edit: Ohm and you meant like in these Master-barrel-pics, right? I though I knew how the different wings and cannons looked like but Eduard having as long fairings outboard in E-wings as inboard in C-wings got me confused really. Oh, and the extra-short E-wing-ones, shorter than Masters.

Master´s "early" and "late" E-wing-fairings. Both are shorter than Eduards long ones but longer than their short ones...

Edit2: Took a pic of Eduard´s plastic and a short, C-wing fairing I haven´t used yet.

Maybe the short one, Eduard´s and Master´s - end up being of the same lenght when on the wings? But the long one for their E-wing, I still cannot really say looks right (to me)..

[gingerbob]

(Note that I changed my earlier post.) I don't have an Eduard kit yet, but I'm wondering if those middle, short guns ARE actually Mk.V type, actually meant for future variants? I'd better do some looking before I further confuse you...

Oops, I'm doing it again- the conical type are earlier, the "bulged" (can't remember the word that's been used) style are later- Edgar's given some clues about that, I think- to do with allowing clearance for some gun variation? But I don't know if the inboard guns showed those variations, or just the outboard. They should be the same length, though.

bob

Edited November 13, 2013 by gingerbob

[Paramedic]

Maybe I should too..

Edit: As you said above, the long E-wing-cannon is my issue.. But I will have a closer look at the attachment as well. Just checked the pics on their drawings..

[Test Graham]

I would expect the early versions of the E wing to have the long cannon. No, I can't think of a photo of one, but I'd look for the colour shot of JEJ in Normandy.

[gingerbob]

Nope- if it's in the outboard position, regardless of what's fitted in the inboard position, the cannon has to sit back farther, so you lose the cylindrical "extension". I looked up Eduard's instructions (royal class, p.12) and they've definitely got that one wrong.

You do have to think about how it attaches to the wing, but cutting off the long ones at the appropriate spot should work fine for whichever 'e' style you need. Look at a Seafire 15/17 as an example of what that stubby one might have been patterned after (a Mk.V Hispano), but that goes in the inboard position.

bob

Edited November 13, 2013 by gingerbob

[Paramedic]

Ah, thought there was something not right.. Thanks!

I thought their plastic barrels are good enoguh for me to not switch to Master´s but for the E-wing Hispanos I might, just so I get the correct lenght.

[Edgar]

This is the reason for the change in the shape of the tapered part of the barrel, and it means that the straight taper gave way to a slightly bulged shape around December 1944, because an extra thickness of metal was added inside. This means that you should use the straight-tapered barrels on early models, and (depending on their position - 2 TAF a/c were given first priority) the slightly bulged type from 1945.

It affected the IX, XIV, XVI, XVIII, 21 & 22.

If early E-winged aircraft had kept the longer fairing, they would also have needed a longer barrel on the cannon, or there would have been nothing to stop the tip of the fairing waving about in the breeze. The cannon in the outer position had to have a shorter fairing.

I don't think there's any need to add anything to Bob's explanation.

Edgar

[Paramedic]

Thanks Edgar, very informative. I had no idea of the reason for a change.

And I think I will use Master´s for my IXes now..

[Test Graham]

When did the shorter Hispano enter service on the Spitfire? Was it not until the Mk.24? This did need a shorter fairing, and if fitted to late E-wing Spitfires this would be visible, as opposed to two different lengths of the longer fairing to allow for the gun position in the wing.

[gingerbob]

(My comments about that being what the Eduard part could be should be taken only as speculation.)

As far as I know, the Mk.V Hispano was not fitted to any 'e' wing Spits, though no doubt I'll soon be reminded. It was used on the Spit 24, but whether that's a hard-and-fast distinction between Mk.22 and Mk.24 I'm really not clear on. I think so, at least as a generalization. I do not assume that the fairings for the "20 series" Spit wing would be the same as (or fit) the standard c/e wing, but they might well.

The Mk.V gun (not Spitfire!) also came into Seafires, I believe either with or during Seafire III production, and certainly (gulp) on the 15/17. But the timing or backstory of that I know nothing about. My impression is that it is well before it showed up on Spitfires. There was talk about it not being possible to fit the Mk.V gun in the standard wing, so perhaps when the Seafire was finally settling on only one cannon per side (the inboard station), and disposing of the extra 'stub', the opportunity was also taken to alter it however necessary to suit the new Hispano. I hope to find out more!

bob

[Edgar]

Finding material on the Seafire is inordinately difficult; there's a report of trials, on a XV with the Hispano V, in January/February 1945, with the recommendation that it be accepted after certain modifications to the airframe.

On the Spitfire 24, the Mk.V Hispano was (had to be?) electrically fired, which appears to be a (the?) reason for the change to a 24v system.

As far as I can tell, the tapered fairing was standard, with an extension added to the inboard gun; when the Hispano V was fitted to the 24, the inboard gun did away with the extension, and the outboard's fairing was partially fitted inside the wing's l/e, slightly projecting inside, at least that's how it appears in the A.P., with "before" and "after" illustrations of the modification (1346.) The RAF lists the Hispano V as being fitted from 7-1-47 to the 24 (only.)

There were tentative plans to fit the V to the VIII & XIV, but they were all cancelled (all needed by the Tempest, perhaps?)

Edgar

[Test Graham]

Thanks. I recall that the rather short barrels on the KP kit of the Spitfire Mk.IXE was described as being due to the fitting of the Mk.V Hispano. It seems that this was just plain wrong.