Jump to content

Martlet Mk.I


jabbajindrich

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, MDriskill said:

 

I don't mean to be contrary, but the difference in canopy proportions is very obvious to my eye.

 

On the Mk IV, each of the two lower side panels in the sliding portion of the canopy looks more or less "square," I.e., width and height about the same. On the Mk I, both panels seem taller than they are wide--slight difference in the front one, but quite noticeable in the rear one.

 

As for factory drawings, they may not exist. Many moons ago in pre-net days, I contacted the history departments at both Grumman and General Motors (Eastern Aircraft) in an effort to find F4F drawings better than the simple diagrams in the Pilot's Handbooks and Erection and Maintenance Manuals, but was told that all wartime documentation had been discarded. I'd love to be proven wrong on that, needless to say! We really need a friend with a tape measure at Yeovilton...

 

Apologies for once again savaging Mr. Archer's photos...Mk I

image.jpg

 

Mk IV

image.jpg

 

Hmmm...not sure I buy this.  The lower photo is clearly taken from a different angle, resulting in skewed perception of the canopy glazing.  On the central vertical frame, the corresponding frame on the other side of the canopy is visible.  This means that more of the rear-cockpit bulkhead is visible (due to the same parallax issue).  This will tend to make the 2 rear panels appear more rectangular and less square.  At the front of the cockpit, the change of photographic position would also influence the relative alignment of the instrument panel and the rear frame of the windscreen.

 

There could be differences between the canopies but it's really hard to tell from these 2 photos because the just don't line up well enough.

  •  
Edited by mhaselden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mhaselden said:

 

Hmmm...not sure I buy this.  The lower photo is clearly taken from a different angle, resulting in skewed perception of the canopy glazing.  On the central vertical frame, the corresponding frame on the other side of the canopy is visible.  This means that more of the rear-cockpit bulkhead is visible (due to the same parallax issue).  This will tend to make the 2 rear panels appear more rectangular and less square.  At the front of the cockpit, the change of photographic position would also influence the relative alignment of the instrument panel and the rear frame of the windscreen.

 

There could be differences between the canopies but it's really hard to tell from these 2 photos because the just don't line up well enough.

  •  

 

Duly noted...and respectfully disagreed with. The photographer was about half a step closer and one step farther to the right in the Mk IV pic, not enough to cause gross changes in image foreshortening. And I shan't further beat the dead horse of my opinion vis-a-vis Mr. Archer's pics!

 

Here is a nifty film clip of a Martlet Mk I, with, among other things, some superb canopy close-ups.

 

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/american-aircraft-for-raf/query/grumman+martlet 

 

The Mk I is my favorite of all Wildcat variants. With the big paddle-blade Hamilton prop, singular lack of bumps and bulges, and yes that rather sporty-looking short canopy--one could darn near call it pretty, LOL...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

 Lets get back to Martlets, please?

 

Ooooh, ok I'll withdraw! I have no skin in this game anyway as for me the Martlet/Wildcat has now joined the Spitfire (two threads, 74 pages and counting) in the unbuildable kit category due to the complexity of minor detail mark differences and apparent "fatal flaws" in most of the available kits. ;)

 

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm less worried about foreshortening and more concerned about the impact of parallax.  One must also ask why the canopy length would need to change between the variants?  I see no real benefit to a shorter canopy.  If anything, the biggest difference I can detect is the length of the coaming over the instrument panel which appears longer on the MkIV than on the MkI...but happy to disagree since Wildcats aren't really my area of expertise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, mhaselden said:

I'm less worried about foreshortening and more concerned about the impact of parallax.  One must also ask why the canopy length would need to change between the variants?  I see no real benefit to a shorter canopy.  If anything, the biggest difference I can detect is the length of the coaming over the instrument panel which appears longer on the MkIV than on the MkI...but happy to disagree since Wildcats aren't really my area of expertise. 

Hi, mhaselden,

I compare the photos considering the relationship between the various landmarks in the cockpit/canopy (coaming, sight, frames) to the bulkhead panel lines. Every frame in the canopy, exception made of the rear, is a bit forward in the IV in relationship to the panel lines. The "end" of the coaming inside the cockpit falls in the same place in both. The winsdcreen is slightly shorter in the I (look at the upper curved area) and the central frame falls noticeably behind the panel at the rear of the ventral window (while it almost aligns in the IV)

As per the advantages of moving the canopy (not the cockpit, which could have been justified in a slight CG displacement) forward, I do not know. Something relating airflow?

 

Fernando

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

8 hours ago, Fernando said:

As per the advantages of moving the canopy (not the cockpit, which could have been justified in a slight CG displacement) forward, I do not know. Something relating airflow?

 

Just thinking... allowing more space for the pilot to enter/exit the cockpit (or bail out, in case of need)?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martlet Mk.I

Image result for grumman martlet

 

Martlet Mk.I with replacement canopy

Image result for grumman martlet

 

I believe that moving the windscreen forward makes for easier access for both pilot and ground crew.  The rear panels of the sliding portion are shorter than the front panels on the Mk.I , on all later aircraft the panels are of equal length saving inventory and production .

 

  Garry c 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On July 6, 2017 at 0:05 AM, Garry c said:

 

I believe that moving the windscreen forward makes for easier access for both pilot and ground crew.  The rear panels of the sliding portion are shorter than the front panels on the Mk.I , on all later aircraft the panels are of equal length saving inventory and production .

 

Those two shots illustrate the change perfectly! In the overhead shot of the dark blue Mk I, note how much further the replacement canopy overhangs the rear bulkhead than in the wartime photo. The overhead view also shows very well the distance between the windscreen and the firewall--compare to any similarly angled view of a later Wildcat

 

The idea that the windscreen was moved to make it easier to bail out, makes a lot of sense. The revised location puts the rear frame of the windscreen roughly in line with the instrument panel; i.e., making all the vertical space between there and the rear cockpit bulkhead available to the pilot.

 

Grumman did appear to use quite glossy paint for the insignia--the photos on the FAA Museum's site of AL 246 under restoration have some very good views of the original paint's being uncovered. If my creaky memory is to be trusted, I believe Dana Bell has noted that US-standard markings colors were used on these early examples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wondered about the fuselage roundel too. To me it looks like it has been applied in the form of a giant decal. It appears to have skinned over the edge of the access panel.

Steve.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎7‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 6:20 AM, Fernando said:

Hi, mhaselden,

I compare the photos considering the relationship between the various landmarks in the cockpit/canopy (coaming, sight, frames) to the bulkhead panel lines. Every frame in the canopy, exception made of the rear, is a bit forward in the IV in relationship to the panel lines. The "end" of the coaming inside the cockpit falls in the same place in both. The winsdcreen is slightly shorter in the I (look at the upper curved area) and the central frame falls noticeably behind the panel at the rear of the ventral window (while it almost aligns in the IV)

As per the advantages of moving the canopy (not the cockpit, which could have been justified in a slight CG displacement) forward, I do not know. Something relating airflow?

 

Fernando

 

Thanks Fernando.  Appreciate the mention of the panel lines.  Looking at various pics which show them (they weren't visible in the earlier photos) it's clear there is some difference to the length of the canopy between the MkI and the MkIV.

 

 

On ‎7‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 0:05 AM, Garry c said:

I believe that moving the windscreen forward makes for easier access for both pilot and ground crew.  The rear panels of the sliding portion are shorter than the front panels on the Mk.I , on all later aircraft the panels are of equal length saving inventory and production .

 

  Garry c 

 

Hi Garry,

Thanks for the clarification.  I was getting my versions and my canopy lengths muddled.  A longer canopy on the MkIV makes much more sense.  I had it backwards in my mind...creeping senility (yet) again.

 

 

9 hours ago, stevehnz said:

I wondered about the fuselage roundel too. To me it looks like it has been applied in the form of a giant decal. It appears to have skinned over the edge of the access panel.

Steve.

 

 

Several US manufacturers did, in fact, apply decals for national markings.  When the ex-RAF P-40s were handed over to the Chinese for use by the AVG, the RAF roundels were taken off and the Chinese decals added.  Simples.  I think the use of decals explains the sheen visible on the roundels under certain conditions (eg in the video posted by ClaudioN).

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

19 hours ago, mhaselden said:

Several US manufacturers did, in fact, apply decals for national markings.  When the ex-RAF P-40s were handed over to the Chinese for use by the AVG, the RAF roundels were taken off and the Chinese decals added.  Simples.  I think the use of decals explains the sheen visible on the roundels under certain conditions (eg in the video posted by ClaudioN).

 

Thanks for the information, I didn't know such large decals were indeed possible.

Er... how many gallons of MicroSet/MicroSol?

 

Claudio

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ClaudioN said:

 

Thanks for the information, I didn't know such large decals were indeed possible.

Er... how many gallons of MicroSet/MicroSol?

 

Claudio

 

A solvent was used that fused the decal to the paint, if I could just remember where this information was posted earlier this year, here or on HS?

 

Vedran

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7 July 2017 at 7:26 PM, mhaselden said:

 

When the ex-RAF P-40s were handed over to the Chinese for use by the AVG, the RAF roundels were taken off and the Chinese decals added. 

 

According to most references (Clements, Tullis, etc.) the Chinese national markings were painted on. IIRC there is a photo of it being done. The "Flying Tiger" insignia were decals. 

 

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, dragonlanceHR said:

 

A solvent was used that fused the decal to the paint, if I could just remember where this information was posted earlier this year, here or on HS?

 

Vedran

IIRC, there was a photo and text posted somewhere on BM that showed how P-40E's  were  crated for shipment; there was a statement that each aircraft included decals for the national insignia of the intended air force as well as a can of decal solvent. I think I even commented on how they avoided silvering, but I could be wrong! Look under discussion of P-40E colors.

Mike

Edited by 72modeler
found the title of the original forum topic discussion
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 72modeler said:

IIRC, there was a photo and text posted somewhere on BM that showed how either  a  Tomahawk or Mustang Mk 1 was  crated for shipment; there was a statement that each aircraft included decals for the national insignia of the intended air force as well as a can of decal solvent. I think I even commented on how much Microsol it must have taken, but I could be wrong!

Mike

 

FWIW, take look at these photos of an RAF P40 (early type as in same/similar supplied to AVG) being un-crated in WWII Britain, and note the

RAF Roundel already applied by Curtiss (IMO "Painted On").

 

RAF P40 with Roundel 1

 

RAF P40 with Roundel 2

 

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 72modeler said:

IIRC, there was a photo and text posted somewhere on BM that showed how either  a  Tomahawk or Mustang Mk 1 was  crated for shipment; there was a statement that each aircraft included decals for the national insignia of the intended air force as well as a can of decal solvent. I think I even commented on how much Microsol it must have taken, but I could be wrong!

Mike

 

Thank you for the hint. So far, I've been able to find mention of decal markings in this thread:

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234973972-tomahawk-colour-question/&page=3

I'll look further. ...and sorry about stealing the joke, guess it comes natural to a modeller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glossiness is not always an indication of decals being used. In UK as late as September 1941 RD Materials were complaining to paint manufacturers on behalf of receiving units that the paint used for national markings was too glossy and bright. The situation resulted in contracts being modified to ensure that only matt paints were used and a ban on using "glossy" paints already held in stores on operational aircraft (but they were permitted to be used up on trainers). 

 

The interesting aspect of this is that the complaints do not refer to the pre-war bright colours but specifically mention yellow, dull red, dull blue and white as being too glossy. 

 

For US aircraft gloss paints for insignia/primary colours remained in use until the end of 1941 and beyond (as the ANA 500 series colours) but the camouflage finishes colour card Bulletin 41 of September 1940 included Insignia Red 45, Insignia White 46, Insignia Blue 47 and Identification Yellow 48. Therefore from 1940 there were matt and gloss paints of the same insignia/primary colours available. 

 

Nick  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Don't the pages just fly by .....

Back on page 3 I announced my rediscovery of the varied carb. intakes on Martlet IIIs. Well, here's another pigeon among the Wildcats. Look up

http://warbirdsresourcegroup.org/pix_for_wix/grumman/10F4F4USSCHARGER.jpg

which gives you a photo of some nice folded F4F-4s aboard Uss Charger (if it works, this one:-)

10F4F4USSCHARGER.jpg

and look at the top cowl lip behind the top propeller tip near front and right of centre. Now that's even more weird ...

Somebody, somewhere, must know what went on .... these aren't even early-production -4s, surely .... or must we man the ouija board?

(shakes head, gibbers quietly) - Bri.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BD1944 said:

Don't the pages just fly by .....

Back on page 3 I announced my rediscovery of the varied carb. intakes on Martlet IIIs. Well, here's another pigeon among the Wildcats. Look up

http://warbirdsresourcegroup.org/pix_for_wix/grumman/10F4F4USSCHARGER.jpg

which gives you a photo of some nice folded F4F-4s aboard Uss Charger (if it works, this one:-)

10F4F4USSCHARGER.jpg

and look at the top cowl lip behind the top propeller tip near front and right of centre. Now that's even more weird ...

Somebody, somewhere, must know what went on .... these aren't even early-production -4s, surely .... or must we man the ouija board?

(shakes head, gibbers quietly) - Bri.

Hi Bri,

 

I hadn't noticed that particular change on the upper cowl intake before, but it makes sense.  From early on the carb intake was found to be too weak, collapsing under the engine's suction.  There were a number of fixes, reinforcements, and modifications - this must be one that didn't turn up in the records I reviewed!  Now I'll have to go back thru the collection to see how many times I failed to notice this one!

 

Cheers,

 

 

Dana

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
×
×
  • Create New...