Meatbox8 Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Forgot to include this in my last post. I have quite a well known picture of a flight of 94 sqn Hurricane IICs in flight over the western desert. Of interest is the nearest aircraft BP389 GO-C, partly as it is armed only with two 20mm canons, much like those used in Burma to improve performance. What is more interesting though is that the exhaust stain appears to be 'painted' on. The other aircraft in the formation all have the usual dirty stain so prevalent on desert Hurricanes but his aircraft actually has the said stain running underneath the GO squadron codes. Most peculiar. Does anyone know why this might be? Kind regards, Tim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Jumbo Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 My guess would be that the codes were applied after the aircraft had seen some use. Could it possibly have been transferred to 94sqn after a life elsewhere? PS I think you're right about the cannons - probably removed to improve performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehnz Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 That'd be this one right? Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meatbox8 Posted May 10, 2012 Author Share Posted May 10, 2012 That'd be this one right?Steve. That's the one. Strange, isn't it? Thanks for posting the pic. My scanner is currently u/s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meatbox8 Posted May 10, 2012 Author Share Posted May 10, 2012 My guess would be that the codes were applied after the aircraft had seen some use. Could it possibly have been transferred to 94sqn after a life elsewhere? PS I think you're right about the cannons - probably removed to improve performance. Check out Steve's posting on this thread with the picture included. Exhaust stains definitely look painted to me, especially when you compare it to the a/c immediately behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehnz Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 I have to agree it looks a bit strange, hard to expain any other way but just as hard to guess why. Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Only a theory, but it was normal practice to clean areas with neat thinners; if someone got a little over-enthusiastic, with the elbow-grease, and damaged (or removed) the underlying paint, an undercoat, prior to a "proper job" could have been oredered. Looking beyond the front pair, there are instances of incomplete (even missing) codes, so there could be a repainting job going on. Edgar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meatbox8 Posted May 11, 2012 Author Share Posted May 11, 2012 Only a theory, but it was normal practice to clean areas with neat thinners; if someone got a little over-enthusiastic, with the elbow-grease, and damaged (or removed) the underlying paint, an undercoat, prior to a "proper job" could have been oredered. Looking beyond the front pair, there are instances of incomplete (even missing) codes, so there could be a repainting job going on.Edgar I think that's a pretty good theory. The codes on the nearest aircraft look pretty new and, as you say, most of the others have only partial or no codes at all, suggesting a work in progress. Presumably the exhaust stains were removed from time to time to reduce drag? Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenshirt Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Presumably the exhaust stains were removed from time to time to reduce drag? Generally should be removed between each sortie as time permits. If a hot refuel/re-arm/crew switch then no, but if shut down then while servicing most probably. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsty Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Some actual exhaust staining (or at least, some discolouration) can still be seen directly aft of the exhaust stacks. Comparing GO•G with GO•J, you can see that the latter's smudge is soft-edged whereas the former's is hard-edged, and the former's is much higher on the cowling, I suspect too high to have been put there by the exhaust flow. I like Edgar's theory but I wonder if it might not have been a deliberate over-painting of the exhaust staining, for who knows what reason? Interesting also to see the reversing of the colour layout between GO•G and GO•J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenshirt Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 I like Edgar's theory as well. Given the heavy staining on J, the effort to clean G may have required some stronger solvents and during cleaning the maintainers discovered the underlying paint had deteriorated. Next step would have been to clean and prep a larger area for repaint, but for some reason a sortie was demanded before the work was completed, yet it appears an undercoat of primer made it on. Just conjecture, of course. Yes, there seems to be additional staining over the dark painted area. Given how dark the color seems to be, it almost looks as though red dope was used to prime the area before the camo colors were to go on. Makes sense for the fabric areas, but is that reasonable for the metal areas? It would make an interesting model... FWIW, until this thread I've always seen that area on this photo as a mar or alteration to the negative, not something actually on the aircraft. I always figured it was the photographer trying to clean it up who then realized after attempting G it was a lost cause. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murfv Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 With regard to the reduced complement of weapons carried by BP389 GO-C in the picture, could this be a result of shortage of servicable 20mm cannons at squadron level at the time of the photo? Also regarding the exaust stain, could it be the result of a fluid(oil) leak, rather than regluar exaust staining, where something in the engine blew while running and resulted in fluid being blown in a exaust shaped pattern along the fueslage? Just some random thoughts!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Test Graham Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 It was common to remove a pair of the cannon, particularly in the FR units which replaced one of them with a camera, but it was seen on the fighter units too. The Hispano was a heavy cannon, and the poor Hurricane really was overloaded if required to dogfight with four aboard. Not just a matter of weight, but carrying weight outboard affected the agility too. That's why the Spitfire Mk.V (onwards) and Seafire normally only carried two. Very effective when they hit, of course. I suspect an oil leak rather than some of the more imaginative comments, but it doesn't seem to be coming from the expected places and I'd expect more splatter. It is certainly odd, if not unique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 As with most aircraft, at the beginning of the war (and earlier) the finish was all cellulose, but the Air Ministry wanted a smoother finish, while retaining the matt appearance. It was not until August 1942 that Supermarine found a synthetic finish, which seemed to fit the bill, and got permission to use it on Spitfires; this was later extended to the Typhoon (and Tempest, presumably?) and Beaufighter, but I've never seen it (yet) advocated for the Hurricane, possibly due to their larger fabric-covered areas. I hesitated to say that the area could have been red dope (didn't want to push my luck that far,) but a Hurricane Squadron would need, and use, red dope for any recovering of their aircraft (the use of silver dope, over the red, was largely done away with, on metal aircraft, but not the Mosquito, so maybe not the Hurricane, either,) and that became more frequent in hotter climes. Incidentally, it's beginning to look as though the synthetic paint, while smoother, and more aerodynamic, was more prone to fading/chalking, etc., which would explain the "multi-tone" Spitfires, which some are trying to "prove" that Supermarine painted with more than the required (by the Air Ministry) colours; certainly it does not seem to have lasted long post-war. Edgar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenshirt Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 I also considered a fluid leak, however at speed it would begin to atomize and have a similar appearance to the "normal" exhaust staining. The edges would be more feathered and not as hard as the photo suggests. To cover that large an area so completely and opaquely it would also have to be a significant amount of fluid. I'd dare say I'd be a nervous ninny flying with that much fluid on the outside; I wouldn't be posing for photos. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meatbox8 Posted May 11, 2012 Author Share Posted May 11, 2012 Some actual exhaust staining (or at least, some discolouration) can still be seen directly aft of the exhaust stacks. Comparing GO•G with GO•J, you can see that the latter's smudge is soft-edged whereas the former's is hard-edged, and the former's is much higher on the cowling, I suspect too high to have been put there by the exhaust flow. I like Edgar's theory but I wonder if it might not have been a deliberate over-painting of the exhaust staining, for who knows what reason?Interesting also to see the reversing of the colour layout between GO•G and GO•J. Didn't notice the reverse scheme. Nice one. Paint probably wouldn't adhere to exhaust staines though, would it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meatbox8 Posted May 11, 2012 Author Share Posted May 11, 2012 As with most aircraft, at the beginning of the war (and earlier) the finish was all cellulose, but the Air Ministry wanted a smoother finish, while retaining the matt appearance. It was not until August 1942 that Supermarine found a synthetic finish, which seemed to fit the bill, and got permission to use it on Spitfires; this was later extended to the Typhoon (and Tempest, presumably?) and Beaufighter, but I've never seen it (yet) advocated for the Hurricane, possibly due to their larger fabric-covered areas. I hesitated to say that the area could have been red dope (didn't want to push my luck that far,) but a Hurricane Squadron would need, and use, red dope for any recovering of their aircraft (the use of silver dope, over the red, was largely done away with, on metal aircraft, but not the Mosquito, so maybe not the Hurricane, either,) and that became more frequent in hotter climes. Incidentally, it's beginning to look as though the synthetic paint, while smoother, and more aerodynamic, was more prone to fading/chalking, etc., which would explain the "multi-tone" Spitfires, which some are trying to "prove" that Supermarine painted with more than the required (by the Air Ministry) colours; certainly it does not seem to have lasted long post-war. Edgar Interesting about the dope. Lord knows what the ground crew would have had access to in the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meatbox8 Posted May 11, 2012 Author Share Posted May 11, 2012 I also considered a fluid leak, however at speed it would begin to atomize and have a similar appearance to the "normal" exhaust staining. The edges would be more feathered and not as hard as the photo suggests. To cover that large an area so completely and opaquely it would also have to be a significant amount of fluid. I'd dare say I'd be a nervous ninny flying with that much fluid on the outside; I wouldn't be posing for photos.Tim Yes, I think it would be playing on my mind a bit too. I'd be wondering how long it would take for the Merlin to seize up. I'm still liking Edgar's theory. It would make an interesting build, although one would have to add the caveat otherwise everyone would think it was a really crap rendition of exhaust staining! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenshirt Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 ... although one would have to add the caveat otherwise everyone would think it was a really crap rendition of exhaust staining! Set it next to the photo...dare them to prove you wrong! "Paintus Interruptus" Tim 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