MigModeller Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 Hi all Please can someone explain why some IXc s have a bulbous cannon fairing such as found on the Airfiix 1/72 IXc and some a slim cannon fairing such as found on the new Eduard 1/72 IXc? I was not aware of this until I read the August edition of SAM. Pg 12 has a mini review of the new Eduard 1/72 IXc. This I compared with my, thankfully, unmade Airfix spitfire. The two 1/72 Spitfires I'm hoping to make are: IXc MJ637 (Merlin 66 engine) "DU*B" IXc MK915 (pink Recce.) "V" Any suggestions on their fairings very welcome. M.M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomBigStu Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 The bulbous one was fitted as per the mkVC the intention was to have it possible to use the 4 cannon arrangement, but this was never used so production switched to the narrow bulges Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky Pilot Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 In the Eduard "early" IXc kit one of the options, EN568 (AL) - first flown 29/3/43 - is shown with the narrow cannon blisters. The other 4 options are all shown with the wide blisters. Although I have no corroborating evidence, it is conceivable that narrow blisters could have been fitted when repairing damaged aircraft. Interestingly, EN358 is an LF (M66). I had thought - wrongly ? - that LFs were "late" IXs. Oh dear, Ow sad, Never mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 (edited) EN358 was an RR conversion from a Mk.V airframe and a Merlin 63. EN568 ditto but one of a batch of M66 aircraft which extends to June 1943. Otherwise the Merlin 66 (LF) appears with MH350 July/August 1943. (Ok, I may have missed one/some.) Presumably the first engines, in limited numbers, were kept for the RR line. Edited August 21, 2016 by Graham Boak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky Pilot Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 EN358 was an RR conversion from a Mk.V airframe and a Merlin 63. EN568 ditto but one of a batch of M66 aircraft which extends to June 1943. Otherwise the Merlin 66 (LF) appears with MH350 July/August 1943. (Ok, I may have missed one/some.) Presumably the first engines, in limited numbers, were kept for the RR line. Thanks for that Graham. Would the batch of 66 to which refer be more correctly classified as LFs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don149 Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 I think the only batch of Vc s with the 4x20 m/m fit were sent to Malta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 "M66" is short for "Merlin 66" which is the low-rated engine, so yes. Hence the LF in brackets. Four cannon were always an option (I believe the main intention) with the universal wing i.e. the C wing. It was the desired standard armament for RAF fighters at the time and initially also required by the Admiralty to cope with the well-armoured BV138 shadowers. However, it was literally a heavy armament and having weights outboard affected the agility of the aircraft. It also shortened the time of firing. There's some room for doubt about the reason why 4 cannon Spits were sent to Malta on the first two deliveries. It has been said that they were only sent in order to provide a cannon spares stock on the island, but this information does not seem have been passed on to the island. Taqali pilots found the aircraft's performance/handling reduced, and required their removal (Lucas testimony), but it seems that Hal Far pilots retained them - they can be seen on Barnham's aircraft in a well-known series of publicity photographs. If it was known whether or not they retained the outer wing machine guns on delivery, that would help resolve the matter. Several aircraft had the cannon retained in the outer position: it is said that this was because Malta used the inboard position to hold a carrier for fighter-bomber missions, although this seems unlikely to be an early priority. However although not standardised they could always be fitted, and one of the SAAF fighter units in Italy had four cannon for the ground attack role. Two RAAF Mk.VIIIs were fitted with four cannon at Darwin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
303sqn Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 (edited) The Certificate of Design for the Type 361 (ie Spitfire lX) stated: To offset the increased weight of the powetplant the armament is limited to ( a ) 2 cannon and 4 Browning guns ( b ) 8 Browning guns. This was followed by Modification 683, dated August 11, 1942 (also applicable to other marks, including the Mk.V), to standardise armament as 4 Browning .303 in. and 2 Hispano 20 mm. Guns. Edited August 21, 2016 by 303sqn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 The decision to restrict the armament to 2+4 for the Vc and the IX would explain why the thinner blisters were designed and introduced. Presumably this was also true for the Mks VII, VIII etc. However that didn't stop the SAAF or RAAF from fitting four cannon in 1944, clearly dependent upon a supply of panels with the earlier blister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 No, it wasn't initially true for the VIII, though I'm not sure about the VII. bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 (edited) Hi all Please can someone explain why some IXc s have a bulbous cannon fairing such as found on the Airfiix 1/72 IXc and some a slim cannon fairing such as found on the new Eduard 1/72 IXc U???? Both kits represent the thin cannon fairing (over one gun) rather than the wide two cannon blister. Comparing side by side, they are slightly different ( not sure which is more accurate) but both are the later type. The Airfix mk IX isn't too bad a kit. It's interesting that the Eduard one is very close dimensionally, bearing out the fact that Airfix got their length right and most earlier 60 series Merlin kits were too short. It does benefit from some of the extra parts in the Eduard kit!!! Edited August 22, 2016 by Dave Fleming 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigModeller Posted August 22, 2016 Author Share Posted August 22, 2016 Thanks everybody for your replies I'll purchase the Eduard IXc and photo both manufacturers' wings for a compare-and-contrast. Going by artists impressions and photos that tend to hide that part of the wing, conspire to confuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 (edited) Airfix upper, Eduard lower - the inner bulge on the Airfix is a post war thing connected to the undercarraige Later thin cannon bulge Early Two cannon bulge Edited August 22, 2016 by Dave Fleming 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 Just noticed, that view also shows the difference between early and late elevators as well 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehnz Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 Fwiw, I believe both the kit wings posted by Dave above show the slim cannon bulges, its just the the Airfix interpretation of it is a bit bulkier than the Eduard one. Steve. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigModeller Posted August 22, 2016 Author Share Posted August 22, 2016 Thanks Dave and everyone! Now I understand! I'll have to file off the inner bulge then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony in NZ Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 Great info guys So apart from the obvious oil cooler difference, are there any other differences from a wartime Vc to a IXc wing? Cheers Anthony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now