Graham Boak Posted August 24, 2020 Share Posted August 24, 2020 The gun had limited traverse, but the cupola is fixed. A manual open gun position has even more traverse, but equally isn't a turret. I wouldn't argue about the effectiveness as being even more limited, but I suspect that the crews preferred it to nothing. It appears unlikely to me that the draggier and heavier FN54 was much better in this respect, at least defensively. It had some value in being capable of turning to fire forward in ground attacks, although this would have been equally true of a couple of fixed guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mi Tasol Posted August 24, 2020 Share Posted August 24, 2020 Thank you Chris and Jerry This is almost identical to the parts of the Aus Beaufort ones I have seen. I got the impression many years ago that the Aus one had longer handles and was used by kneeling in the walkway from the cockpit but that may be a false impression as laying prone would be more logical. I have never seen the handle assembly but saw multiple rotten frames in the 70s. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian Boehm Posted August 25, 2020 Author Share Posted August 25, 2020 Hello I started this topic in 2018 about searching details on this gun post. Note that the deleted pictures ( oct 29 2018) in posts of W. Lindekens and/or Dogsbody showed (I believe) the same drawings sent by Dogsbody some days ago ...? And that helped me a lot to overdetail the Airfix MK IV Blenheim in 72 scale It's finished with as well a MkI ; both on dioramas See first global shots , and next I will try to zoom what I did for that gun post Note that the wrong nacelles of the "new" Airfix 1/72 Blenheim are corrected on both models ; and other minor faults as well I was angry to see in 2019 that Airfix understood his mistake (to base the 72 model on the "Duxford-Bolingbroke" ! ) and corrected this on the 1/48 issue !! see you later and thanks to comme again on this post christian 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72modeler Posted August 26, 2020 Share Posted August 26, 2020 On 8/25/2020 at 10:08 AM, christian Boehm said: I was angry to see in 2019 that Airfix understood his mistake (to base the 72 model on the "Duxford-Bolingbroke" ! ) and corrected this on the 1/48 issue !! You aren't the only one, that's for sure! I know it will never happen, but it would have done Airfix a lot of good if they either re-released their Mk 1 and Mk IV kits with correct nacelle/wings as a "revised tooling" kit, or made correct nacelle/wings available for purchase as an "upgrade" set. Other than the extra tube intakes for the revised cabin heat and fairing over the exhaust, which are pretty easy to correct, wouldn't that have allowed an accurate Blenheim to be made from the original 1/72 tooling? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian Boehm Posted August 26, 2020 Author Share Posted August 26, 2020 14 minutes ago, 72modeler said: , or made correct nacelle/wings available for purchase as an "upgrade" set. Hello Texas ! ( I have friends in El Paso) Yes I agree but (see quote) I don't think it would be possible to insert one to replace the wrong one ; anyway "high cutting in" would be necessary Actually about the nacelles I read the 2015 exchanges initiated by Slywolf ,an australian guy ( don't remember : here or on hyperscale ?) If somebody is interested I can post the links Fortunately it was just before painting and I cut the sticked wings with finished wheel wells (I watched : the MPM kit was anyway not of that level , ok Airfix but ...) I sweated but it worked with only microscopic holes to fill and no dammage inside wings ( many modellers on forums told they didn't dare to go on...) I add the round window beneath the fuselage's just on the evacuation hatch (and this exists ont the 48 as well ...) And replaced the sliding cockpit window because there was no mid-strip ( and in these case the 48 is ... false as well !!) And much work inside the wheel wells because my Pavla set is too crude and fits very bad 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted August 27, 2020 Share Posted August 27, 2020 On 8/26/2020 at 6:41 PM, christian Boehm said: Actually about the nacelles I read the 2015 exchanges initiated by Slywolf ,an australian guy ( don't remember : here or on hyperscale ?) If somebody is interested I can post the links Yes, please. There was a lot of discussion when the kit came out of the nacelles being wrong but idiot-proof instructions on how to fix them have been thinner on the ground. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian Boehm Posted August 28, 2020 Author Share Posted August 28, 2020 Ok with pleasure I searched : it was on hyperscale (although I had many exchanges on Britmodeller as well on different things) And yes it was started by Slywolf in 2015; I discovered that link in 2018 while buying 2 Blenheims together The link is : https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/hyperscale/viewtopic.php?p=2619779#p2619779 It has 3 pages; on page 2 there are many pictures with drawings of the correction. Mine were based on Sklywolf's project and I posted a picture with the 2 models, with and without modification. I was very anxious but finally the work is possible without "destruction" of the kit ! Sure better is to do it before buidling the wheel wells but I had no choice ... I posted also a quite nice Portuguese Mk IV picture taken at Telford 2018 on the competition tables. Nice done but ... wrong 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian Boehm Posted August 28, 2020 Author Share Posted August 28, 2020 About the gun post , the 7th, last, picture posted by Dogsbody shows perfectly the way of the gun's supply. The ammunition box is placed in front of the vertical bulkhead which supports the navigator's table . The supply band runs under the floor with above the cushion on which the navigator - bomber - gunner had to lie down to fire. I did my best to build this but I must admit few is seen at the end , as often ... Will try zoom pictures till I have time 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 (edited) On 10/29/2018 at 8:30 PM, Walter Lindekens said: there has been some discussion about the FN 54/FN 54A designation but Bristol Blenheim IV Modification Leaflet 1073 describes the fitting of the FN54A twin under defence gun mounting. If there ever was an FN 54B I do not know, The Air Publication for the Blenheim Mk V simply refers to the under defence gun mounting without specifying the exact type. Non-board member Les Whitehouse of the Boulton Paul Association (and considerable modelling/historical work to his credit) has asked me to point out that there was no FN.54B. The suffix letters were applied by the designer, and denoted that the A was for landplanes and the B was for seaplanes. This was first noted on the FN.4A and FN.4B. However the use was erratic at best, and not seen on AP1659A AL12 of April 1941. Despite this we see the FN.20A on AL 20 December 1941. and also mention of the FN.54 corrected on AL.21 to the FN.54A. We also see the FN.36A - the latter on a Sunderland! So the terms FN.54 and FN.54A both refer to the same turret. I have slightly shortened Les's account to save my typing fingers... Edited March 9, 2021 by Graham Boak unwanted duplication 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Lindekens Posted March 14, 2021 Share Posted March 14, 2021 Thank you Graham for sharing Les Whitehouse's comments in your above post. The A and B suffix would seem to make perfect sense that way. I made a detailed study of the FN 4 and the FN 4A is indeed intended for landplanes and the FN 4B for seaplanes (or better flying boats). As a side note, the only difference between the A and B is that the A version has oxygen provision for the gunner whereas the B doesn't. I take it the flying boats where not meant to operate above 10000 ft, altitude at which aircrew were instructed to start using their oxygen masks. Cheers, Walter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian Boehm Posted March 15, 2021 Author Share Posted March 15, 2021 Thanks Graham fort these precisions That brings me back at last spring as I built my second 1/72 Airfix Blenheim (Mk IV) I sent on August 25th 2020 a picture with 14th squadron markings but since that time I put it on a diorama with the name "Breakfast in the desert" It shows a meeting beetween a raid-returning LRDG team with desert Air Force crews Ok, ok, I know... This is quite a not very credible scene because LRDG 's missions were secret but I could not resist as, although I am specially an airplane builder, I waited a long time to find an occasion to built the Matchbox set and this rare resin mobile canteen on a dio. Specially note the shadowish extended dining room, "eggs & bacon" plates and the desert toilets behind the canteen ; I had pleasure to place many other funny details but I don't want to bore christian 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyL Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 I'm probably late to the party, but this might be of interest.. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Lindekens Posted March 21, 2021 Share Posted March 21, 2021 @AndyL thanks for sharing those FN54 A (Blenheim Mk IV) and FN 60 (Blenheim Mk V) photos. Can I ask which publication these come from please? Cheers, Walter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyL Posted March 24, 2021 Share Posted March 24, 2021 On 3/21/2021 at 5:02 PM, Walter Lindekens said: @AndyL thanks for sharing those FN54 A (Blenheim Mk IV) and FN 60 (Blenheim Mk V) photos. Can I ask which publication these come from please? Cheers, Walter They come from Armament Volume II Guns, Gunsights, Turrets, Ammunition and Pyrotechnics, issued by the Air Ministry, Air Historical Branch in 1954. One copy is held in the National Archives, Kew; file reference AIR4/82. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Lindekens Posted March 24, 2021 Share Posted March 24, 2021 Thank you Andy for those details. And for reminding me that I actually have a reprint of that publication in my collection! Cheers, Walter 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