Jennings Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 They are even shown in the plans of the Aero Detail spitfire Mk VI to IX book as a optional panel arrangement That means exactly zip. The plans in the Aero Detail books, while most of them look very nice, aren't authoritative by any stretch of the imagination. I've been deeply into the B-17 recently, and the B-17 plans in that Aero Detail book are downright lousy. They're pretty, but they're lousy in terms of accuracy. J Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JasonB Posted December 3, 2009 Author Share Posted December 3, 2009 (edited) So it would be totally wrong if I just left the wings smooth, without any bulges, bumps or swellings at all, right??? Sorry, all this talk of bulges is making me...uncomfortable! :P Edited December 3, 2009 by JasonB Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Brad-M Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Well, if you are doing an early Spitfire that requires the early larger cannon blister, you can use the ones included in the kit, but to my eyes, they are not correct for the standard large cannon blister, and are better suited for the more rare cannon blister, not commonly seen. This is my opinion, your milage may vary. Cheers Brad So it would be totally wrong if I just left the wings smooth, without any bulges, bumps or swellings at all, right??? Sorry, all this talk of bulges is making me...uncomfortable! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Well, if you are doing an early Spitfire that requires the early larger cannon blister, you can use the ones included in the kit, but to my eyes, they are not correct for the standard large cannon blister, and are better suited for the more rare cannon blister, not commonly seen. This is my opinion, your milage may vary.Cheers Brad Brad, Those were the early blisters. The tear-drop came later in the production. The first Mk IXs built with the C wing had the blisters found in the Tamiya kit. I am happy that my BS serials had those blisters. Speaking with some of the Spitfire Boffins on the web, it is thought the Tear-Drop Blisters (not in the kit) may have been introduced when Mk. Vs were changed to Mk. IX builds. The tear-drop blister was the most common blister found on the Mk. V Spitfire. It was not very common on the Mk. IX. I have eleven publications on the Spit, and I actually cannot find one image of the tear drop blister in any of them (except for line drawings) on Mk. IX Spits. The most common blister found on the Mk. IX is the second one in the kit. By June of 44 all Mk. IXs were suppose to have been changed to that blister. That is therefore on mistake in the instructions, As JEJ Spit is post D-Day and therefore should have the latter blister. This is true if what I read at Brit Modeler is correct. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
is it windy yet? Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 That means exactly zip. The plans in the Aero Detail books, while most of them look very nice, aren't authoritative by any stretch of the imagination. I've been deeply into the B-17 recently, and the B-17 plans in that Aero Detail book are downright lousy. They're pretty, but they're lousy in terms of accuracy.J No but it is one of many sources that shows there are three distinct options for the cannon covers on the Spitfire IXc. So it does mean more than zip. Ron Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Brad-M Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Hi Gary, The squared off large blisters were to my knowledge not used on operational Spits, they then switched to the tear drop large blisters, then to the narrow blisters. This info can be found in an article in Air Enthusiast 2001 by Wojtek Matusiak. Cheers Brad Brad,Those were the early blisters. The tear-drop came later in the production. The first Mk IXs built with the C wing had the blisters found in the Tamiya kit. I am happy that my BS serials had those blisters. Speaking with some of the Spitfire Boffins on the web, it is thought the Tear-Drop Blisters (not in the kit) may have been introduced when Mk. Vs were changed to Mk. IX builds. The tear-drop blister was the most common blister found on the Mk. V Spitfire. It was not very common on the Mk. IX. I have eleven publications on the Spit, and I actually cannot find one image of the tear drop blister in any of them (except for line drawings) on Mk. IX Spits. The most common blister found on the Mk. IX is the second one in the kit. By June of 44 all Mk. IXs were suppose to have been changed to that blister. That is therefore on mistake in the instructions, As JEJ Spit is post D-Day and therefore should have the latter blister. This is true if what I read at Brit Modeler is correct. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JasonB Posted December 4, 2009 Author Share Posted December 4, 2009 Hi Gary,The squared off large blisters were to my knowledge not used on operational Spits, they then switched to the tear drop large blisters, then to the narrow blisters. This info can be found in an article in Air Enthusiast 2001 by Wojtek Matusiak. Cheers Brad So if it went squared off (as included in the kit, yes?) then teardrop (like the MKV, yes?) then narrow, were the ones shown below not used?If used, where in the sequence? Or are these and the Tamiya rendition considered to be the same one, just that Tamiya messed it up? If the squared off ones (as inlcuded in the kit) were used early on or on pre-op birds, wouldn't that make it 4 styles? Square, rounded, teardrop and narrow? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
is it windy yet? Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 So if it went squared off (as included in the kit, yes?) then teardrop (like the MKV, yes?) then narrow, were the ones shown below not used?If used, where in the sequence? Or are these and the Tamiya rendition considered to be the same one, just that Tamiya messed it up? If the squared off ones (as inlcuded in the kit) were used early on or on pre-op birds, wouldn't that make it 4 styles? Square, rounded, teardrop and narrow? I have not yet been able to find any information that supports the shape of PCM blister shown above. I think that is their attempt at the square style. I think that Tamiya got the shape correct, and the PCM version is off. Now this only applies to the image quoted here as the other PCM bulges look to have the correct shape. So I still think that there were only three types of cannon covers, the Tamiya square, the PCM teardrop, and then the narrow. Ron Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Brad-M Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Hey Gary, I suppose we'll just agree to disagree and that's ok. I hope to see your Spitfire in Calgary next May, as I hope to have mine there. If you check on page 27 of Robert Bracken's vol 1, you can see a nice pic of an early Spit in the BS serial range with a standard wide blister with the tear drop shape that isn't squared of in the front. Cheerio Mate Brad Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JasonB Posted December 4, 2009 Author Share Posted December 4, 2009 (edited) Ok, now I see the quandry and confusion on my part. First, theres a difference of opinion whether the bulge as portrayed by Tamiya (squared) or the one show above from PCM (rounded) is the correct shape/actually used. Also, when I read the term "teardrop", I think of the one below, and not the one above. Thanks for your patience, I think I am clear on thngs now. Edited December 4, 2009 by JasonB Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 Ok, now I see the quandry and confusion on my part. First, theres a difference of opinion whether the bulge as portrayed by Tamiya (squared) or the one show above from PCM (rounded) is the correct shape/actually used. Also, when I read the term "teardrop", I think of the one below, and not the one above. Thanks for your patience, I think I am clear on thngs now. And the teardrop waas not found on many Mk. IXs. The squared version was on very early Mk. IXs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Edgar Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 This is not the best quality, but is listed as the Vc cannon bulge. From that, it looks as though any V converted to a IX, could/should have this shape. Edgar Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andy Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Hi Guys Here is a photo of cannon access panels I cast recently. They just drop in place. cheers Andy Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 Here is a photo of cannon access panels I cast recently. They just drop in place. And very nice bulges they are, too! J Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Brad-M Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Andy, are those made for the Tamiya kit or PCM? The work is lovely indeed. Brad Hi GuysHere is a photo of cannon access panels I cast recently. They just drop in place. cheers Andy Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 (edited) In my opinion you corrected the shape of what Tamiya got wrong on the wide early blisters but you should not have reshaped the back. I think they actuallly got that correct. Here is an image of an actual wide blister (Posted earlier in this thread). ( SAM Vol 2/ March 1996 ) I think it should be more pointed rather than rounded off at the back end and it should come closer to the rear fastener as well as the side fasteners. Sorry to be a nit pick about this, it is excellent work. Hi GuysHere is a photo of cannon access panels I cast recently. They just drop in place. cheers Andy Edited December 10, 2009 by Scooby Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Well, if you are doing an early Spitfire that requires the early larger cannon blister, you can use the ones included in the kit, but to my eyes, they are not correct for the standard large cannon blister, and are better suited for the more rare cannon blister, not commonly seen. This is my opinion, your milage may vary.Cheers Brad Hi Brad, I have been meaning to post this for awhile. I feel this is what Tamiya attempted to produce. Gary Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Brad-M Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Hi Gary, Yes I have Robert's book and have seen the pic, studying for sometime, since the Tamiya kit has come out. Perhaps that's what they tried to make, but they didn't quite get there IMO. I am sure we'll see some AM blisters shortly, but that doesn't help those who want to go OOB. What I am amazed at are the cowl panels..absolutely superb. So I have decided to do Ian Keltie's "Popeye" for my first build. Cheers Brad Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andy Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 (edited) Andy, are those made for the Tamiya kit or PCM? The work is lovely indeed.Brad Hi Brad, These were made to replace the resin earlier blisters I did. One fellow made a suggestion of casting the whole panel. So here we are. They will fit either kit as both are almost identical when it comes to the cannon access. They do require a little bit sanding on the underside as there is carrier material on the underside. I have made them available on Ebay for $16ca but if any ARC folks want a set I'll do a deal direct for $14ca plus shipping. Send a pm cheers Andy Edited December 10, 2009 by Andy Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andy Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 (edited) In my opinion you corrected the shape of what Tamiya got wrong on the wide early blisters but you should not have reshaped the back. I think they actuallly got that correct. Here is an image of an actual wide blister (Posted earlier in this thread).I think it should be more pointed rather than rounded off at the back end and it should come closer to the rear fastener as well as the side fasteners. Sorry to be a nit pick about this, it is excellent work. Thanks for the input. As I say looks good from far but far from good! :D cheers Andy Edited December 10, 2009 by Andy Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Brad-M Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Hi Andy, thanks for the reply to my query, I think they look great. Brad Thanks for the input. As I say looks good from far far from good! cheers Andy Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Iain Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 The Tamiya fairing is closest to the correct section. Bear in mind that the fairing covered both feed mechanisms which are of course the same pitch as the cannons and therefore would not be an ARC in cross section. That is, the radius at the sides would be similar to the feed mechanism and the central area flatter - as in the Tamiya fairing. As the feed mechanisms were staggered fore and aft, to match the cannon mountings, there would be no point in having a high point in the centre of the fairing. Hence the longer flatter central area. All that is required is to alter the front end of the tamiya fairing to match that in the photo of the battered Mk V fairing. Both the Mk V and MK IX fairings were the same - why would they be different, as they were designed to fit over identical twin cannon mountings and feed mechanisms? Iain Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Thanks for the input. As I say looks good from far but far from good! cheers Andy I am hoping my suggestion was taken as constructive comments. Your work is great. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scooby Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 (edited) Hi Gary,Yes I have Robert's book and have seen the pic, studying for sometime, since the Tamiya kit has come out. Perhaps that's what they tried to make, but they didn't quite get there IMO. I am sure we'll see some AM blisters shortly, but that doesn't help those who want to go OOB. What I am amazed at are the cowl panels..absolutely superb. So I have decided to do Ian Keltie's "Popeye" for my first build. Cheers Brad Good, "Popeye" will complement my build in Calgary next year. Just don't build to your normal standard, I want to win something. Edited December 10, 2009 by Scooby Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Brad-M Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 (edited) Gary, you're work is very good, I wouldn't worry about it. In Bracken's vol 2, there is a nice pic showing Popeye and the leading edge of the wing. How many .303 ports do you see on the port side? I see one for sure, but I also see a possible second one where it should be, but someone said that the outer .303's may have been removed, and the port faired over...Any thoughts. Brad Good, "Popeye" will complement my build in Calgary next year. Just don't build to your normal standard, I want to win something. Edited December 10, 2009 by Brad-M Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.