Jump to content

Is The New Airfix 1/72 Mosquito B.Mk.XVI Under Scaled?


andyrowe
 Share

Recommended Posts

Actully I understand after reading all this posts simple nothing.

Why: Explecit call out the measures.

What are they in real? Take the original. DH drawings. 

And if one asks a question, as summary answrtes are yes, or no. 

Happy modelling 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wm Blecky said:

That's the first time I read of this, could you elaborate more on that please? 

Due to the lack of any true Blenheim airframe extant, the ones you see in museums and taken as subject for measurements in making a kit are actually the Canadian-built Bolingbroke variant which has as main distinguishing feature more bulbous engine nacelles. 
I've decided to not get bothered enough about it to correct it. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I missed it completely, but according to this thread, Airfix actually corrected the nacelle on a later edition of the kit:

 

Edit: So I did not read the entire thread when I posted this link; Airfix did not correct the nacelles

 

Edited by elger
a disturbing lack of reading comprehension :)
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 8/25/2021 at 11:00 PM, Tom R said:

This thread really needs the title changed. The OP @andyrowe seems to have taken Wikipedia as gospel which is a bit naive and it looks like an unwarranted slur on the kit.

Tom R, why should I change the title? I have not issued an 'unwarranted slur' on the kit but was just asking a pertinent question. Enquiring about something is not the same as making a statement of fact. I am not an expert so have used this forum to find out, one way or another, whether my initial thoughts were correct.

It appears that they are not and I'll hold my hands up and say 'my bad'.

As to me being 'naïve' by using Wiki to get the dimensions, it is stated that the data is from Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War II which, I believe, is a reputable source for information. Like someone has mentioned, the data has probably been inputted incorrectly and I should have cross referenced it. Again, my bad. I know Wiki can have a poor reputation for accuracy but then what web based info can you trust these days.

It seems OK for others to point out several errors of the kit but not for me who is only asking the question of scale. I haven't made it a statement of fact that it is out of scale. 

As we say in the UK, wind your neck in and if you don't have anything constructive to contribute, then please don't contribute at all. I see your comments as a personal slur on myself.

Many thanks to mostly everyone else who took the time to explain the methods of LIDAR etc and put me on the right path with regards to modelling accuracy, or the lack of it in some cases.

Stay safe.

Edited by andyrowe
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new Airfix instructions quote 44ft 6inches.  I measured the fuselage using a 1/72 steel rule  comes out at 40 ft 6inches ?? Bowyer's "Mosquito" book quotes length as 40 ft 6inches. Would welcome any other observations re the B.XVI v B.35 .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't see any reason why the B.35 was any different in dimensions to the B.XVI as the only difference I'm aware of is that the engines in the former were Merlin 113/114's instead of Merlin72/73 or 76/77's, and bear in mind the Airfix kit was based upon a TT.35 which is just a modified B.35 anyway.

 

Regards

Colin.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, T-21 said:

The new Airfix instructions quote 44ft 6inches.  I measured the fuselage using a 1/72 steel rule  comes out at 40 ft 6inches ?? Bowyer's "Mosquito" book quotes length as 40 ft 6inches. Would welcome any other observations re the B.XVI v B.35 .

 

21 minutes ago, fishplanebeer said:

Can't see any reason why the B.35 was any different in dimensions to the B.XVI as the only difference I'm aware of is that the engines in the former were Merlin 113/114's instead of Merlin72/73 or 76/77's, and bear in mind the Airfix kit was based upon a TT.35 which is just a modified B.35 anyway.

 

Regards

Colin.

 

Perhaps the longer length quote for a TT Mosquito maybe getting a TT.35 confused with a TT.39?  

8581L.jpg

14088289_800.jpg

 

Does anyone have dimensions for this? @The wooksta V2.0 ?  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Length of the T.T.39 in my reference's is 43 feet 4 inch. I think Airfix have wrongly quoted the length in the instructions should read 40 feet 6 inch, not 44 feet 6 inch.

Edited by T-21
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, alt-92 said:

Due to the lack of any true Blenheim airframe extant, the ones you see in museums and taken as subject for measurements in making a kit are actually the Canadian-built Bolingbroke variant which has as main distinguishing feature more bulbous engine nacelles. 
I've decided to not get bothered enough about it to correct it. 

The Finns have a real Blenheim. And the Bolingbroke has several noticeable differences when compared to a Blenheim IV. If memory serves the former was designed to an RCAF requirement for a GR type after which the RAF decided the extended nose was a good idea.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, fishplanebeer said:

The TT.39 looks like Dornier had a hand in it!😉

 

Regards

Colin.

Or an upside-down Ju-86R nose transparency!

Mike

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

     of interest smithsonian nasm

 

 quote the length as

12.56 m  ( 41ft 2in )

 

for their B.35  mosquito 

 

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/de-havilland-dh-98-btt-mk-35-mosquito/nasm_A19640023000

 

 

iwm qoute their b.35 as 

 

12.65 m ( 41ft 6 in ) 

 

 

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/70000101

 

 

 

cheers

   jerry 

Edited by brewerjerry
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorting out the Blenheim and Bolingbroke differences has its problems.

 

So Bristol type 142 Britain First evolved to be type 142M Blenheim I, Mercury VIII engines.  Next comes the planned type 149, the 4 place General Reconnaissance aircraft based on the type 142 to fulfill specification 11/36 issued in July 1936 for an interim General Reconnaissance type, the stop gap until the M15/35 design arrived.  Note the specification had requirements like watertight wing panels and longer range, the various additions estimated to add 720 pounds to the weight, most of which were not incorporated into the Blenheim IV.  Mercury XI engines were specified.  In order to provide the extra room and improve overall ergonomics the type 149 nose was extended by 35 inches versus the type 142M.  K7072 flew in this configuration on 24 September 1937 by which time the name Bolingbroke had probably been assigned.  A revised more conventional nose with windscreen in front of the pilot was flown in December 1937, the  asymmetric nose by late June 1938. 

 

Along with the type 149 idea came the type 150, responding to specification M15/35 for a General Reconnaissance torpedo bomber, with enough room to carry the torpedo internally.  Again Bristol was reworking the type 142M, this was rejected and the bigger 4 place type 152 proposal was instead ordered off the drawing board in 1936, to specification 10/36.  Given the name Beaufort.

 

The type 149 Bolingbroke was cancelled in December 1937.  Bristol reassigned the type number to the improved Blenheim I, for which K7072 was the prototype, which became the Blenheim mark IV, incorporating changes like the longer nose and extra fuel.  The first production Blenheim mark IV was delivered in January 1939.  The RAAF had an order for Bolingbrokes which was changed to Beauforts.  The RCAF wanted local production, already ordering 18 aircraft from Fairchild in October 1937.  With the cancellation of the 4 place design the decision was made to go the new type 149 specification, keeping the Bolingbroke name, instead of Blenheim IV.  It is reported the first 12 Canadian built Bolingbrokes were kits from Britain.  K7072 arrived in Canada in February 1941,  There were 17 Bolingbroke I  built November 1939 to September 1940, plus a mark II in August 1940.  Bolingbroke IV production began in April 1941, making changes like using US sourced instruments.  So internal changes, plus for most of the run different engines to the Blenheim IV.

 

Blenheim I Mercury VIII
Blenheim IV Mercury XV
Blenheim V/Bisley Mercury 25 or 30.

 

Bolingbroke I, II and III Mercury VIII (17 I, 1 II, no production III)
Bolingbroke IV Mercury XV (135 built)
Bolingbroke IVW Pratt and Whitney Wasp Junior SB4G (15 built)
Bolingbroke IVC Wright Cyclone G3B (1 built)
Bolingbroke IVT Mercury XX (457 built)

 

RAF orders from Bristol for
150 Blenheim I, contract 435061/35 K7033 - K7182
434+134 Blenheim I/IV, contract 527111/36 L1097 - L1530 (434), L1531 - L1546 (16), L4817 - L4934 (118) (built as 500 I, 68 IV)

232 Blenheim IV, contract 774679/38 N6140 to N6242, P4825 to P4927 and P6885 to P6961 (less blackout blocks)

 

Bristol construction number sequence, to give an idea of how Bristol saw the early orders,

start / end / No / type / Note
7986 / 8135 / 150 / Blenheim I / RAF order 1 K7033 to K7182
8137 / 8166 / 30 / Blenheim I / 8137 to 8154 Finland (18), 8155 to 8166 Turkey (12)
8168 / 8301 / 134 / Bolingbroke I / cancelled (Related to L1531 to L1546, L4817 to L4934?)
8302 / 8379 / 78 / Beaufort I / RAF order 1 L4441 to L4518
8380 / 8813 / 434 / Blenheim I / RAF order 2, L1097 to L1530 (434)
8814 / 8815 / 2 / Blenheim I / Yugoslavia, pattern aircraft
8816 / 8849 / 34 / Blenheim I / RAF order 2, L1531 to L1546 (16), L4817 to L4834 (18)
8850 / 8917 / 68 / Blenheim IV / RAF order 2 L4835 to L4902
8918 / 8949 / 32 / Blenheim I / RAF order 2 L4903 to L4934
8950 / 9221 / 272 / Beaufort I / RAF order 2 L9790 to N1186 (less blackout blocks)
9222 / 9239 / 18 / Blenheim I / Turkey order 2

9240 / 9471 / 232 / Blenheim IV /  RAF order 3, N6140 to N6242, P4825 to P4927 and P6885 to P6961 (less blackout blocks) (12 exported to Greece)

 

Rootes switched to Blenheim mark IV production in September 1939, Avro in April 1940.

Edited by Geoffrey Sinclair
2 typo fixes
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/25/2021 at 10:38 PM, John Thompson said:

 

Two strikes on them, then - one for failure to apply the LIDAR scan data accurately and the second for use of the nauseatingly-overworked adjective "ic - ic - icon - " arrrgh - I can hardly even say it myself without my tongue curdling in my mouth and my innards starting to heave...

 

John

I have similar issues with the word 'artisan', particularly when applied to bread, beer and any other consumables. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Meatbox8 said:

I have similar issues with the word 'artisan', particularly when applied to bread, beer and any other consumables. 

Clearly a good topic for a Chat forum thread - I could come up with a couple of dozen more examples of words or phrases people use without thinking about the real meaning of what they're saying, but hey, it's common usage; English is a living, evolving language... Maybe I'm just an old grouch.

 

John

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

From andyrowe:

 

Hey everyone. Thanks to you all for your input on my initial query on the length of the possible under scaled fuselage. But I think from the first half dozen or so replies, the topic has gone off kilter a bit with the other errors being discussed but not much about the fuselage length. There are other threads on this site that are discussing in some detail the other issues.

 

Yes, but that's what we do  (at least those who are capable!)

 

I'm all for a better Mosquito, but I'm really anxious for that Arma Hobby P-51B!

 

Bob C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/28/2021 at 1:39 AM, Troy Smith said:

 

 

Perhaps the longer length quote for a TT Mosquito maybe getting a TT.35 confused with a TT.39?  

8581L.jpg

14088289_800.jpg

 

Does anyone have dimensions for this? @The wooksta V2.0 ?  

If You want resemblance

somehow that lead to

Don't get it yet

 

But Mosquito TT.39 resemblance to SB-2?

Idea is the same(fast bomber).

Edited by aircro
There is vino and mosquitos around 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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...