I guess I could research this myself, but I thought I might come upon something here quicker. Anyone know what the differences are between the Beaufighter Mk. X and Beaufighter Mk. VI? Not concerned about engines as much as I am structural differences, (i.e., Difference between Bearcat F8F-1 and Bearcat F8F-2 was a different tail).
I would say IV.[:D]
Yikes!!
There’s a nasty question!!! Outwardly, there wasn’t a helluva lotta difference!! There were small detail differences, but the basic airframe was pretty much the same.
Some MkVl’s had the Al MklV radar arrow transmitter, some had the little square strike camera in the nose, some had the large thimble radome, some had the dorsal DF loop above and behind the cockpit, some had horizontal stabilizers that had no dihedral, some had dihedral.
The MkX’s were pretty much identical to the MkVl’s but from mid production onwards, the MkX’s had an extended dorsal fin on the vertical stabilizer. Pretty much all the MkX’s had the horizontal stabilizers with dihedral.
I’ve got a copy of a friend’s book (which I’m treating with utmost care-in case he’s reading this!!) “The Bristol Beaufighter - a comprehensive guide for the modeller” by Richard A. Franks, published by SAM Publications - their Modellers Datafile #6.
ISBN 0 9533465 5 2. Go and get it. It’s worth whatever they charge you for it. Believe me.
Thanks Gary. These word problems always stumped me? [;)]
And thanks Lee. I recently fell victim to a bad eBay acquisition. It’s the risk I accept doing business on eBay. Ad said Mk. VI and I got sent the Mk. X. Sounds like I can salvage this one though if in fact the dorsal fin is not extended on the Tamiya Mk. X kit. Anyone know if this is the case?
Rats. Air intakes on top of the cowlings of the VI are notably longer than those on the X. That’s enough of a difference for me to notice. [:(]
I can’t find the reference right now but I saw a modelling article ( Modelling Madness or Hyperscale or…) where the guy said that you could model nearly all latest Beaufughters with any model from Tamiya ( not Mk II as for tail dihedral, for instance) I mean that differences would be very few; a word on SAM Publications though : beware of the plans as they seem not to be very accurate.
Torio;
Might be a dumb question but, what does SAM stand for in SAM Publications? I’m still a new guy and haven’t picked up on all the lingo of modeling.
Thanks
Steve
Quagmyre, according to Aeroplane Monthly, August 2003; The Mk X was basically a
MkVIC, the Torpedo Beaufighter. new engines, the hercules XVII gave 100hp more, it had dive brake flaps (maybe just an additional flap setting) & could be equipped with
ASV Mk II radar in a thimble on the nose. It was mainly for coastal command, they crammed so much gear in that the elevators had to be modified. As for the intakes, the article shows MK X’s with long & short ones, the long ones seem to be on later X’s,
the target tug version. Dorsal fins were added after late 1944.
A database gives the Mk X as 2inch less wingspan & 7 inch less in length than a Mk VI.
weight was up nearly 4000lb though, hence the elevator mod. Speed, ceiling & range were all less.
Thats all a bit more technical than you need to know, I guess. In 1/48th though, the size difference isn’t that much, If you build it as a MkVI, who’s going to know but you?
st_gorder, sampublications, I think, started out as scale aviation modeller, then expanded to other modelling magazines, then got taken over.
Scale Aviation Modeller International is probably Britains best selling magazine on the subject. With a great variety of types & features per issue.
Their resident artist, Richard Caruana, can be very good, but sometimes odd details are wrong or missing from the three view drawings.
Have a look for yourself at sampublications.com, back issues are readily available & cheap, around 3 pounds sterling.
Pete
Quagmyre, here’s a bit more for you. I’ve had a look through the files. Both the MkVI &
the X could have either length of intake. So it will depend on which individual a/c you build, I assume.
Also, I have the Tamiya Mk VI kit unbuilt (as yet). It contains both sizes of intake, have another look at yours. Instructions say to fit the long ones. Mind you, the instructions also say you can build a Mk 1 from the kit, not with dihedral tailplanes you can’t!
The Tailplanes, measured along the elevator hinge line, are each near enough 2 1/2 inches, in span. At the ‘kink’ in the hinge line, chord is just over 1 1/4 inches. If yours are the same, and you don’t fit the dorsal fin, you should be okay to build yours as a MkVI.
Pete
Sorry, Quagmyre, I just couldn’t resist!! At least you got the joke. A few months ago, someone asked about the difference between a Mirage 2000 & IIIC, so I posted 1997C. It was over two weeks before anyone got the joke. Anyway, I hope all goes well in your quest for a Beaufighter. Good Luck!
I’m not saying I think Frasier is a funny show (it’s not), but I don’t feel I need a PhD. to laugh at a clever anecdote, pun, or… awww crap blew fuse… what the heck was I talking about. [:D]
Albert - Thanks for the plethora of information. I knew I could rely on the peeps of finscale forum to come through with ample responses to my inquiries. It does come down to the plane I plan to build. A NMF and Green USAAF version of the Beaufighter Mk. VI. If I had a scanner I’d post the pic, but it does have the longer intakes and being “Senior Particular” I gotta get it right, or I’ll always have that “shoulda, coulda, woulda” echoing back to nag me once I build it.
Thanks again all.
Steve, Pete ( albersponson) gave you the reply; I would only add , and it is only my humble opinion, that SAM gives one or two great articles on every issue and the remaining of the magazine remains a catalogue; so you pay the price of a modelling magazine for a half magazine and a half catalogue; okay guys, there is a lot more to this: if you read in your favorite magazine that one peculiar kit is the greatest kit of all times, you’ll probably buy it more that if you hear that it is a piece of “caca”; is it concealed advertisement or not, or maybe a little ? Every magazine contains advertisement, but I remain thinking that the SAM mix in this domain is not very…subtle.
To Garydmason, I’m sorry, chap, but I think that your figures are erroneous as there are Mirage 2000 B, C, N and even 2000-5; so what Mirage was it, eh ? On the other hand, your evaluation on Beaufughters was rigorously exact, congratulations !