Eduard Spitfire Mk IXe Engine Cowlings

[Sky Pilot]

I am trying to determine which of the Eduard IXe kit's cowlings (E2:E3 and E7:E8) is the Flat version and which is the Bulged. I need to be sure of this as I intend to use the appropriate Ultracast alternative.

I assume that the Ultracast Bulged alternative will be appropriate for the Eduard Mk XVI examples.

Any advice will be greatly appreciated.

Cheers

John

[Tbolt]

Well putting a rule across them, E7 & 8 appear to be the bulged cowl to me. However the Profipack instructions show E2 & 3 only being used on option B, which means all the other versions in the kit use the bulged cowl, which I'm a bit suspicious of, but maybe correct, I haven't studied the kit markings.

Yes the Ultracast bulged cowl is the Packard Merlin one which would have been the only one used on the Mk.XVI.

I went with the Barracudacast cowl for the flat one as the lower cowls I bought from Ultracast seemed to have shrunk a little and are useless. The Ultracast bulged cowl has the access panel moved to the correct place (unlike the kit one), though I can't tell from the pictures if the Barracudacast one has done this also, but knowing their attention to detail I would hope so.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Tbolt

[Sky Pilot]

Tbolt

Like you, I am suspicious about the Eduard Mk IXe subjects. For a start I can't find any "proof" that any of the a/c were In fact IXes ( couldn't find any true images). Furthermore, were any of them fitted with the Mk XVI bulged cowl. My chosen subject a/c, RK856 (CA-G), was delivered to 39MU on 2/10/44 which was during the very early days of the Mk XVI. So, possibly, no extra Mk XVI cowls were available. Therefor RK896 was "probably" a "flat" cowl job - that's what I'm going for anyway

As for the other subjects, I've done a bit of diggin' and found that SM147 (Z) (XVI cowl ?) was delivered to 9MU on 30/9/44, again in the early days of the Mk XVI.

Interestingly, the Israeli Air Force job "14" was originally SL594, delivered to 33MU on 19/7/45. It was bought by the Israelis, illegally, from the Czech Air Force and was delivered in September 1987 as part of the Velvita 1 project.

I now think that I am done with Mk XVI cowled Mk IXs. Unless or until some real evidence emerges

Perhaps Mr Brooks might have some pointers

Finally, thanks for the Barracudacast cowls info

[Edgar]

There is one item that needs to be made perfectly clear:-
THERE WAS NO MK. XVI COWLING.
A filler point, added to the (common) cowling, to make easier the filling of the Packard Merlin's coolant header tank (fitted onto the intercooler) by not having to remove the cowling, fouled the pipework leading from the IX's Rolls-Royce Merlin intercooler to the header tank (fitted on Frame 5, the engine bulkhead.)

To stop this happening, the cowling (on the IX) was bulged upwards slightly; because the cowling was a fitting common to the IX & XVI, it was seen on both, but it was designed for the IX.

Note that the XVI did not get its designation until August 4th., so the Mark did not exist before that date, and the RAF date the introduction of the IX bulged cowl as August 7th.

[Tbolt]

From what I've read IX's delivered before around the start of October '44 would have the flat cowl, so 896 could be either but I would also go for the flat cowl without any pictures that prove otherwise.

Edited July 9, 2015 by Tbolt

[HBBates]

So Edgar if i read you right both cowl tops would work for both the RR and Packard Merlin...its more early and late version of the cowl top....

the early flat one would fit both engines.. but had to be removed to fill the coolant header tank on the Packard

The later version added a filler port for the coolant header tank of the Packard Merlin and that new filler port also required the cowl top be bulged for the filler port to clear some pipeing on the RR Merlin.

relevant point is either cowl top could be on either engine..... its just an early and later version cowl top

The later being bulged with an extra fill port ....correct?

Edited July 10, 2015 by HBBates

[Graham Boak]

I recall a comment that some(?) CB cowl tops were made from two pieces with a seam running laterally about halfway. Is this related to the flat/bulged difference, introduced separately, or a false memory?

[Tbolt]

I recall a comment that some(?) CB cowl tops were made from two pieces with a seam running laterally about halfway. Is this related to the flat/bulged difference, introduced separately, or a false memory?

I don't know about half way, but the V's (not sure if it was all of them) that were converted to IX's had a lateral joint towards the rear where the cowl was extended for the extra length.

[Tbolt]

So Edgar if i read you right both cowl tops would work for both the RR and Packard Merlin...its more early and late version of the cowl top....

the early flat one would fit both engines.. but had to be removed to fill the coolant header tank on the Packard

The later version added a filler port for the coolant header tank of the Packard Merlin and that new filler port also required the cowl top be bulged for the filler port to clear some pipeing on the RR Merlin.

relevant point is either cowl top could be on either engine..... its just an early and later version cowl top

The later being bulged with an extra fill port ....correct?

I read that the other way - that all the XVI's had the bugled cowling (obviously along with all the IX's produced after 7th August), that's assuming all Packard Merlins had the filler port requiring the new cowl. Edgar clarification?

Edited July 10, 2015 by Tbolt

[Edgar]

I have a feeling you're arguing from the same sheet.

Spitfire VII, VIII & Supermarine-built IX all had the (relatively) flat upper cowling. The instruction, to add the filler point for the Packard Merlin, was made 25-5-44, giving plenty of time to discover any problems and sort them out, hence the August 9th date from RAF records for the modification.

To clarify:- the IX had to have the bulge, because of fit/fouling problems caused by the XVI's filler point; the XVI got the bulged cowling by default, as there was little point in having two different items in stock.

[Tbolt]

I have a feeling you're arguing from the same sheet.

Spitfire VII, VIII & Supermarine-built IX all had the (relatively) flat upper cowling. The instruction, to add the filler point for the Packard Merlin, was made 25-5-44, giving plenty of time to discover any problems and sort them out, hence the August 9th date from RAF records for the modification.

To clarify:- the IX had to have the bulge, because of fit/fouling problems caused by the XVI's filler point; the XVI got the bulged cowling by default, as there was little point in having two different items in stock.

I always thought it was the other way around, I didn't realise the IX had to have the bugled cowl, thanks for the clarification.

[HBBates]

But to clarfy...the the Packard Merlin aircraft COULD (in theroy) have in the field a flat top cowl with no filler port put on the aircraft with no issue other then if you needed to fill the coolent header tank you would need to remove the whole cowl top

And the RR Merlin aircraft could have the bulged / filler port cowl

So you cound have both types side by side and swap cowl ...no problem

If you needed spare cowl as a replacement and you only had one type in you spares... it would work on either aircraft type

so bottom line the cowl type you might see on a given aircraft is not an absolute to tell you Packard or RR...IX or XVI.. once in the field... correct?...

Guess I look at this as years of being a field service engineer and doing wants needed to keep equipment in operation...doing a little part swap "Frankenstein" is going to happen if parts are interchangeable...

That even the point of the bulge ...to make the Packard fillport cowl also be able to fit the RR... the bulge is a mod that only point is to make it fit both RR and Packard.

And that same cowl interchangeability could in theory go the other way..

Edited July 10, 2015 by HBBates

[NPL]

HBBates,

I believe that you will enjoy this book: Monforton, Paul H., Spitfire Mk.IX & XVI Engineered (Greely, Ontario: Monforton Press, 2007). Put together by a person like you (background), and a kind of Mk.IX Bible.

[Tbolt]

HBBates,

I believe that you will enjoy this book: Monforton, Paul H., Spitfire Mk.IX & XVI Engineered (Greely, Ontario: Monforton Press, 2007). Put together by a person like you (background), and a kind of Mk.IX Bible.

Yes it's a great book to have for the modeller, I wish there was more books like this on other types. Well worth the money.

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

Dont forget that Simmonds & Symons also made a cowling that went a lot further down, giving the Spit a deeper top line.

It was of course known to all as the "Simon Cowl"

Jonners - injecting tenuous humour

[Sky Pilot]

The above has, for me at least, been an interesting and productive conversation. Many thanks to all of the contributors, especially "our" Edgar

I have, probably, my final question on the topic :

"Did the bulged cowl incorporate both of the filler ports" ?

Edit :

Simon Cowl !!! WHO HE ??

Edited July 10, 2015 by Sky Pilot

[Edgar]

I have, probably, my final question on the topic :

"Did the bulged cowl incorporate both of the filler ports" ?

Yes, but it was apparently common for the redundant point to be blanked off and painted over, probably to avoid coolant being poured where it shouldn't

Simon Cowl !!! WHO HE ??

It's Cowell, an "entrepreneur," and he makes lots of money out of promoting "artistes" who can't sing to members of the public who can't tell the difference.

[VoyTech]

I recall a comment that some(?) CB cowl tops were made from two pieces with a seam running laterally about halfway. Is this related to the flat/bulged difference, introduced separately, or a false memory?

All cowl tops on CBAF-built Mk IXs had a transverse panel line above the first (frontmost) exhaust section (so not halfway).

The cowl tops on Supermarine-built Mk IXs (and VIIs and VIIIs, IIRC) show no such panel line.

This has nothing to do with the Mk IX/XVI issue discussed here, because the absence of panel line on Supermarine-built aircraft can be observed from mid-1942 onwards and the presence of said panel line on CBAF-built aircraft from early 1943 onwards, long before the Packard-powered Mk IX concept which then became Mk XVI.

However, I think (without a documentary proof, though) that this resulted from a slightly different curvature of the CBAF cowl tops, in which case one might argue that the CBAF cowl tops were more bulged than the Supermarine ones right from he beginning.