Jump to content

1/48th Wellington PE flaps, which better, Eduard or Brengun? MK. Ic Build


Tom Zeller

Recommended Posts

Hey folks. As I mentioned in my newbie introduction I have a project starting that involves building the majority of the aircraft that took part in the Battle of Britain. One of my kits I'm about to start is Trumpeter's 1/48 Wellington MK. Ic. I was fortunate enough to be able to buy Eduard's "Big Ed" set for this kit which, of course, included photo etch flaps. In my researching of parts I discovered Brengun's flaps add-on for the Wellington that besides the PE also includes what looks like rather nice resin parts as well. Money is not a problem, but I do consider whether or not it's worth getting a part that I already have in another probably lesser form. What's of prime interest to me is historical accuracy so I'm giving this some serious thought. Anybody out there work with the Brengun flaps who might care to comment? Will I gain much by using the Brengun over the Eduard flaps? Can I use the Eduard PE if it's nicer with the Brengun resin parts successfully? For those interested in what I'm talking about here's a link to Hyperscale's page on it.

 

http://www.hyperscale.com/2013/reviews/accessories/brengunbrl48043reviewbf_1.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tom

 

If you want historical accuracy,  a brief image trawl has shown that flaps were usually raised on the ground.  

 

Having them dropped does make for an interesting model though.

 

Your thread heading might get better responses if it was "1/48th Wellington AM flaps, which better, Eduard or Brengun? "

If you use 'edit', and then 'full edit'  you can change it. 

 

Also, you may find this image of an early Wellington of interest

 

4915381509_21a324001d_o.jpgVickers Wellington. by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

 

The flickr stream is well worth a look as Etienne has collated lots of WW2 colour images.  

 

HTH

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As mentioned the flaps were usually left up, however when getting the a/c ready for it's mission they were checked as you can see in this video:

 

 

no doubt raised once the inspections were done.

 

Jari

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies guys. I do appreciate the time you took to make them. However, my questions did not include if flaps were raised or not on the ground. I'll see if I can try Troy's suggestion and rename the thread to hopefully get the answers I'm looking for.

 

Edited by Tom Zeller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Tom Zeller changed the title to 1/48th Wellington PE flaps, which better, Eduard or Brengun? MK. Ic Build
43 minutes ago, Tony C said:

To take the thread slightly left field, any idea why the early bombs painted in light colours?

 

I'd have thought that they would stand out, both in the Dump and in/on the aircraft!

 

They did! 

Have a read of this thread,  which should answer most of the above questions

IIRC buff was traditionally used for munitions, hence the colour, but not sure where I read that.  @Selwyn  may know.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

 

They did! 

Have a read of this thread,  which should answer most of the above questions

IIRC buff was traditionally used for munitions, hence the colour, but not sure where I read that.  @Selwyn  may know.

As if on cue! A quick history of Explosive colour markings.

 

in the 1880-90's the Royal Navy introduced naval gun shells that contained The first high explosives.  They devised a colour marking scheme for them, Buff was the base colour chosen for the HE filled shells.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_12_inch_Mk_X_naval_gun#/media/File:HMAS_Australia_12_inch_shells_Closeup.JPG

 

When the Royal Navy Air Service was formed in 1912  they began to experiment with bomb dropping and the aircraft bombs were painted according to regulation IAW  the RN colour marking scheme. this scheme was carried over to RFC bombs and consequently the RAF in 1918.

http://www.wwi-models.org/Photos/Various/Bombs-brit/Cooper//gsmith/Coop_2.jpg

 

This marking system system was used upto the first years of WW2  until problems with the camoflage of bomb stacks as related in the thread link above, and the external carriage of buff coloured bombs began to be seen as compromising aircraft camofllage schemes so the  base colour was changed to green. However The victorian colour hazard ring system remained in use until 1964 when the British forces adopted the NATO marking system.

 

Selwyn

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee, I hope somebody actually reads my question and answers it rather than hijacking my request for information about PE flaps into a thread about bomb color. Five replies and not a one in answer to what I was asking. .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, you did say historical accuracy was the most important thing, and got some relevant information there: That it might be more accurate not to use the dropped flap parts at all, depending on how you plan to display the aircraft.

I suspect the best way to answer your question is to compare prototype photos (e.g. from Etienne's Flickr link above) and published drawings to the parts you have on hand, and pictures of the Brengun parts. Opinions about model accuracy tend to vary quite a bit and it can be best to draw your own conclusions if you can't find a subject matter expert.

 

On the digressions: This is a discussion forum after all, so be prepared for people to do just that - personally I like it when "my" threads go off in strange directions, often I find useful information which is tangentially related to the original subject and pays dividends later.

 

Cheers,

 

Will

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it have been better if people put as much effort as your post and the others into creating their own threads about it? It takes all of two seconds and it's just simple politeness. All anyone need do in any such case is start their own thread with, "I saw such and such on someone else's thread and not to take anything away from their thread I started my discussion here." Not that hard is it? It's what happens in virtually every other web group I belong to. It's just that there have been six posts here by others none of which are in any way related to my question and now you're taking it off on yet another tangent. Additionally, I think I should say that I did thank the first two replies for at least being about Wellingtons if not my question. That and I have no issue about tangents provided they aren't the only thing in the thread at all and nothing at all about what was asked. Hijacking a thread is something very different from the occasional tangent in discussion. I don't think that's unreasonable.

 

- Tom

Edited by Tom Zeller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It always amazes me how some people go on about flaps being down on models - a model is a captured moment in time and there is nothing wrong with flaps being down on a model as they can be lowered when the aircraft is parked for all sorts of reasons. When someone is talking about opening engine cowl or other panels, people don't say "but that wouldn't normally be open when the aircraft is parked"! It's only wrong if it's physically impossible.

 

Anyway on to flaps - I don't own either set, because I don't normally do 1/48th scale aircraft that big, but from what I've seen from pictures the Brengun ones have the flaps molded in resin and the spars (or spar caps) look at little bit thick compared to the real thing, as do the ribs on the flaps where as the Eduard spars being in PE look more to scale.

 

But when it comes to the support structure on the wing, those ribs look more accurate on the Brengun set, as the Eduard ones look a little shallow.

 

Also the Brengun ones look more involved because you remove the upper surface of the wing and replace it with PE, to me getting that bit to look right will be not be easy, where as Eduard just have you add PE to the wing.

 

I'm not sure which way I would go, it would be nice to see both in person, but I would maybe lean towards the Brengun ones as they might look a bit better overall.

 

Cosford%20Nov%2010%20034.JPG

 

Cosford%20Nov%2010%20033.JPG

Brengun.

Flaps_inner_fs.jpg

 

 

Eduard

 

02.jpg

 

Brengun wing rib structure, note the larger and more open wing rib structure

 

Flaps_etch_1_fs.jpg

 

Eduard, ones look smaller than the real thing

 

2398ac70692076310ebe824f868b13fb.image.5

 

Edited by Tbolt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you so very much, Tbolt! This is exactly the kind of answer I was hoping for. You answered all my questions perfectly. I now know which way to go in my build. I'll get the Brengun flaps and sell the Eduard ones that came in my Big Ed packet. Historical accuacy is met best by the Brengun flaps as you made quite clear. I do see your point about the extra work involved in getting them to sit right on the wings but I'm up for the task. I may be new to this forum but I'm an experianced model builder having gotten my start way back in 1967.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Tom Zeller said:

Wouldn't it have been better if people put as much effort as your post and the others into creating their own threads about it? It takes all of two seconds and it's just simple politeness. All anyone need do in any such case is start their own thread with, "I saw such and such on someone else's thread and not to take anything away from their thread I started my discussion here." Not that hard is it? It's what happens in virtually every other web group I belong to. It's just that there have been six posts here by others none of which are in any way related to my question and now you're taking it off on yet another tangent. Additionally, I think I should say that I did thank the first two replies for at least being about Wellingtons if not my question. That and I have no issue about tangents provided they aren't the only thing in the thread at all and nothing at all about what was asked. Hijacking a thread is something very different from the occasional tangent in discussion. I don't think that's unreasonable.

 

- Tom

 

I was also of the opinion that this was a discussion forum and as the picture shows a Wellington, which I'm in the planning stage for Trumpeters 1/48 Mk.Ic, I felt justified in trying to keep everything in one place, for future reference, rather than having threads spread all over the place!

 

Apologies for invading your space, not a mistake to be made again :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tony C said:

 

I was also of the opinion that this was a discussion forum and as the picture shows a Wellington, which I'm in the planning stage for Trumpeters 1/48 Mk.Ic, I felt justified in trying to keep everything in one place, for future reference, rather than having threads spread all over the place!

 

Apologies for invading your space, not a mistake to be made again :blink:

 

 

I'm sorry you've taken an adversarial stance. That wasn't my intention. You express concern with having threads "spread all over the place" while I'm concerned with having to sift through a bunch of posts to find what I'm looking for. I think it better to have threads about the topic title. Silly me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...