All the Hurricane questions you want to ask here

[Sean_M]

Many thanks. As I thought, removing it is more right than wrong for the period. Had this sudden moment of doubt. My reference books are still packed from a recent move.

[Nick Millman]

FWIW according to Hawker test pilot Philip G Lucas GM FRAeS:-

"The next stage was the introduction of the Hamilton 3-blade, two position metal propeller, built under licence by de Havillands. These propellers, though much heavier, improved the take-off run enormously but they were far from ideal because the moment one was airborne the propeller had to be put into coarse pitch to prevent over-speeding of the engine. From then on it had all the disadvantages of the wooden propeller. The Hamilton also had a very serious defect when used on single engined aircraft because it slung oil into the airstream, thus obscuring our windscreen view ahead for gunnery and landing. All sorts of devices were tried out to prevent this happening, such as slinger rings on the spinners and fitting gutters to the leading edge of the top engine cowl but all to no effect. Shortly afterwards a constant speed unit was introduced. This was a great improvement over the two-position prop because it allowed maximum continuous power to be used throughout the climb and, equally importantly, it was possible to dive to terminal velocity without over-speeding the engine. Even so the Hamilton unit still slung oil and, worse still, the constant speed unit was not powerful enough to respond rapidly to the throttle movements needed in combat. Under combat conditions therefore the engine would be constantly over-speeded. It was not until Rotol propellers were made standard for both Hurricane and Spitfire that these troubles were fully overcome. The Rotol prop did not sling oil and was much quicker in response to rapid changes in throttle settings or airspeed."

This was part of a longer lecture on Hurricane history by Mr Lucas first given to the RAeS at Hatfield in 1972 and was also reproduced in the edited book 'Sydney Camm and the Hurricane' (Airlife, 1991, pages 164-165) which contains many such interesting snippets about Hurricane design and development that I have not found mentioned elsewhere.

Btw and also FWIW the rear cover of that book has a GA drawing of the Hurricane IIC that appears to be to 1/72 scale (although not annotated as such) and matches the new and much-maligned Airfix kit almost perfectly. The only differences are seriously undersized propeller blades in the kit and a fin leading edge which is not sufficiently curved. The same drawing reproduced inside the book identifies it to be "an authentic (i.e. not redrawn) 3-view GA of the Hurricane Mk2C taken from Hawker Aircraft Ltd Technical Publication Department archives".

Nick

[Troy Smith]

FWIW according to Hawker test pilot Philip G Lucas GM FRAeS:-

"The next stage was the introduction of the Hamilton 3-blade, two position metal propeller, built under licence by de Havillands. These propellers, though much heavier, improved the take-off run enormously but they were far from ideal because the moment one was airborne the propeller had to be put into coarse pitch to prevent over-speeding of the engine. From then on it had all the disadvantages of the wooden propeller. The Hamilton also had a very serious defect when used on single engined aircraft because it slung oil into the airstream, thus obscuring our windscreen view ahead for gunnery and landing. All sorts of devices were tried out to prevent this happening, such as slinger rings on the spinners and fitting gutters to the leading edge of the top engine cowl but all to no effect. Shortly afterwards a constant speed unit was introduced. This was a great improvement over the two-position prop because it allowed maximum continuous power to be used throughout the climb and, equally importantly, it was possible to dive to terminal velocity without over-speeding the engine. Even so the Hamilton unit still slung oil and, worse still, the constant speed unit was not powerful enough to respond rapidly to the throttle movements needed in combat. Under combat conditions therefore the engine would be constantly over-speeded. It was not until Rotol propellers were made standard for both Hurricane and Spitfire that these troubles were fully overcome. The Rotol prop did not sling oil and was much quicker in response to rapid changes in throttle settings or airspeed."

This was part of a longer lecture on Hurricane history by Mr Lucas first given to the RAeS at Hatfield in 1972 and was also reproduced in the edited book 'Sydney Camm and the Hurricane' (Airlife, 1991, pages 164-165) which contains many such interesting snippets about Hurricane design and development that I have not found mentioned elsewhere.

Btw and also FWIW the rear cover of that book has a GA drawing of the Hurricane IIC that appears to be to 1/72 scale (although not annotated as such) and matches the new and much-maligned Airfix kit almost perfectly. The only differences are seriously undersized propeller blades in the kit and a fin leading edge which is not sufficiently curved. The same drawing reproduced inside the book identifies it to be "an authentic (i.e. not redrawn) 3-view GA of he Hurricane Mk2C taken from Hawker Aircraft Ltd Technical Publication Department archives".

Nick

A couple of points

De Havilland came up with a conversion kit to make the propeller a constant speed unit, which they took direct to squadrons,

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?83873-Spitfire-Mk-1-Performance-Propellers-Hornchurch-June-1940

Out of such a cauldron it is hardly surprising that on 9th June, F/Lt McGrath, an engineering officer from Hornchurch contacted de Havilland's propeller division at Hatfield directly, enquiring if it would be possible to convert their standard issue variable pitch propeller to a constant speed one, "without a lot of paperwork and fuss." Somewhat surprisingly the answer was "Yes, easily," and 4 days later an expert engineering team was sent to Hornchurch by de Havilland with newly manufactured conversion parts, along with their test pilot, Mr E. Lane-Burslam. The work started at the end of an operational day and took all of the night of 14th June. The converted aircraft of 65 Squadron was tested by several pilots and the performance found to be much superior to that of the variable pitch version of the propeller, with a shortened take off run, the service ceiling increased by up to 7,000 ft, and an improved rate of climb and manoeuvrability at height, comparable to that of 54 Squadron's remaining Rotol fitted aircraft (probably N3173, N3174, N3183 and N3184.)

So successful did the conversion prove that on 17th June Air Marshall Hugh Dowding received permission from the Air Ministry for the in-service retro-fitting of all RAF Spitfires, Hurricanes and Defiants to upgrade them to constant speed propellers. Receiving only verbal instructions on Saturday 22nd June, production of conversion sets was commenced, and from Monday 24th June teams were sent out from de Havilland to every fighter airfield. The procedure was demonstrated by the team to ground crew on one aircraft, who subsequently undertook the modifications, initially under supervision and then by themselves, throughout the hours of darkness on other squadron machines, as the early stages of the Battle of Britain raged.

So, in addition to maintaining and undertaking repairs of combat damaged aircraft each night, RAF ground crew were carrying out delicate modification work, critical to aircraft performance. By 16th August, every single RAF Spitfire and Hurricane had been converted. However, to the best of my knowledge no formal performance figures exist, or were ever established for the Spitfire Mk 1 in what had thus became its typical Battle of Britain configuration – it worked, so presumably it just wasn’t a priority. Incidentally, by 1943, the Air Ministry in Whitehall were still wrangling over the paperwork – no change there, then!

Btw and also FWIW the rear cover of that book has a GA drawing of the Hurricane IIC that appears to be to 1/72 scale (although not annotated as such) and matches the new and much-maligned Airfix kit almost perfectly. The only differences are seriously undersized propeller blades in the kit and a fin leading edge which is not sufficiently curved. The same drawing reproduced inside the book identifies it to be "an authentic (i.e. not redrawn) 3-view GA of he Hurricane Mk2C taken from Hawker Aircraft Ltd Technical Publication Department archives".

Ah, yes. Hawker's GA drawings.

from Scale Models magazine, where these drawings were originally published.

from this thread

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234954758-hawker-hurricane-scale-plans/

Before we go over the same ground.

Edgar reports * he was told that the Bentley drawings published in 1980 were modified in light of research by Peter Cooke, specifically regarding the cockpit and spine, the spine being 2" higher, and that the corrected ones were published in Scale Aviation Modeller, in 2005.

I have both, and a photo copied up to 1/48th version of the 1980 set shows no significant differences. This was a quick check. I just got them out, again, they line up as I stated.

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/52594-hasegawa-hawker-hurricane-iib/

in post # 13

When Peter Cooke was researching for his 1/24 resin models, he asked for help, so I measured half a dozen Is & IIs, and the findings were published in th IPMS magazine 4/99. The engine panels remained at 7.5"-8", for the section covering the glycol header tank, then 42.5"-43", for the engine section (giving an unchanged average length of 50.5" - 51",) while the section covering the fuel tank/supercharger controls grew from 41" to 45".

Peter used the measurements, with drawings, in an Aeroplane Monthly (date unknown,) which included his findings on hood rails, spinners, wingtip panelling, and (most significantly) fuselage depth at the fin l/e (this led to Arthur Bentley redrawing his Mk.I plans.) Peter included drawings of the root fairing variations, in that article. He also showed that the carburettor intake moved back 3", as well (same thing happened to the Spitfire V, compared to the I/II, but that's another story.)

Edgar

This being due to the uncorrected Hawker production drawings.

But, as Bentley notes canopy problem this in his 'notes on the drawings' article , and that was measureable from photos. above, and the copied up 1980 drawings held over the 2005 SAM drawings match up very well. This was done very scientifically by holding them up against a window, but I was looking at this detail, and the there was no obvious difference.

The MAP plans pack is noted to suffer from the notorious "Nexus stretch" effect from their photocopiers, but the A.L. Bentley site reports the ones published in the magazine were not affected.

http://www.albentley-drawings.com/drawings/

The early drawings from the 1970s and 1980s are now available, for the first time, in the larger size print as undistorted reproductions. While reproductions in the magazines were accurate, the large size prints were not. At that time, the process of making the duplicate master print copy from which the prints were made introduced a stretch of the duplicate master in the direction the original drawing went through the machine, and the subsequent creation of prints for sale to the public added a second stretch to the image. This was regrettable, but unavoidable, with the technology of the time, but has now been completely eliminated with the new methods now available.

Lo-res previews of all his drawings are on the above site, including the Hurricane ones.

I have asked Mr Bentley twice about buying drawings with no response BTW before any asks.

*, Note, I don't doubt Edgar is correctly reporting what he was told, but what he was told maybe incorrect. I have a great deal of respect for Edgar and his painstaking primary research, so I'm not trying denigrate him, just pointing out that my findings differ.

HTH

T

[Nick Millman]

Just to clarify I was not making a case for the accuracy of the Hawker GA drawings (which are the external ones with dimensions) but merely noting how closely the recent Airfix kit matches them to the extent that I doubt it is a coincidence!

Nick

[Troy Smith]

Just to clarify I was not making a case for the accuracy of the Hawker GA drawings (which are the external ones with dimensions) but merely noting how closely the recent Airfix kit matches them to the extent that I doubt it is a coincidence!

Nick

Hi Nick

I didn't think you were, just thought it was a useful point to make, as is your as well, and to explain why these drawings are not to be trusted.

And then get some general what are good Hurricane drawings and potential problem , then get a bit engrossed in trying to make sure what I post isn't cobblers.

Your input is always valued.

cheers

T

[Graham Boak]

Lucas's lecture is very interesting as it is usually the Rotol airscrew that is blamed for throwing back oil, which with the initial larger radius than the nose is perhaps understandable. The oil spill ring was retained after Rotol props (with a smaller diameter) were standardised. Lucas is in error in that - as said above - that the constant speed DH props were not a close follow-on to the 2-position ones, but did not appear on aircraft until the middle of 1940. This was well after the Rotol cs props were appearing on production Hurricanes - and indeed a few Spitfires. The DH cs props did however appear before the oil spill rings were adopted.

The other reference to problems with the DH props can be linked to problems during prolonged cold operation, not with Hurricanes it seems but Spitfire operation at high altitude. This was discovered during initial trials with the Mk.V, confirmed during PR operations (for which Rotol propellers were recommended, although photos don't seem to reflect this) and gave major problems for the Spitfire force at Darwin. There's also occasional reference to problems with the cs unit on Malta but with the lower operational altitudes this doesn't seem to have been of major importance.

It should be added that this story about the fitting of DH cs props omits much of the earlier part of the story. DH had been approached in 1939 about production of cs props but were involved in contractual arguments with the Ministry which considerably delayed matters. To those with engineering knowledge, it is clear that a cs prop design cannot be designed, the tools to produce manufactured, the manufacture of the parts themselves carried out in significant numbers, all in the short time usually quoted. The design must have been ready for production before Dowding's decision. All credit to everyone for the rapid implementation.

I spoke to AL Bentley on the subject of his Hurricane plans at the recent North Shields show. Unfortunately he did not have his latest Hurricane plans in 1/72. However he did state that the original plans as originally published had not been altered, and he believed them to be accurate. The contradictory messages about of the fuselage depth at the fin thus remains unsettled.

From my view, the criticisms directed at the Airfix Hurricane Mk.IIc (and variants) has not been related to problems of overall dimensional accuracy, but its crudity and nose shape.

[Work In Progress]

And the bizarre and inexplicable error in the shape of the elevator balances

http://www.britmodeller.com/reviews/airfix/hurricaneiic72/sprue3.jpg

[Nick Millman]

And the bizarre and inexplicable error in the shape of the elevator balances

http://www.britmodeller.com/reviews/airfix/hurricaneiic72/sprue3.jpg

Maybe not so inexplicable because the Hawker GA drawings I mentioned above have exactly the same shape! That was really my point - that the Airfix kit matches the drawing almost exactly, including the nose shape.

Nick

[Graham Boak]

Which underlines the message that manufacturer's GA drawings were not intended to provide a detailed accurate shape of the aircraft, and should not be taken as such. Their purpose is to give a good impression of the appearance of the aircraft; to provide a placing for relevant dimensions; and to be the top reference in a hierarchy of drawings that become more and more detailed as you proceed down the hierarchy until reaching those of production parts. They were usually drawn in advance of the detailed shape being decided, and were rarely updated to show other than gross changes.

[Work In Progress]

Maybe not so inexplicable because the Hawker GA drawings I mentioned above have exactly the same shape! That was really my point - that the Airfix kit matches the drawing almost exactly, including the nose shape.

Nick

Explicable in those terms, yes, but it's so glaring that it's inexplicable if you assume that anyone involved in the kit had ever actually looked at a Hurricane. Mind you, the doghouse error on the Hawker GA drawings is also a blatant and obvious difference from the real aeroplane (prototype apart) and Revell completely missed that in their 1/32 kit.

Edited July 5, 2014 by Work In Progress

[mackem01]

I have a question for this thread - in early '41, 85 squadron was operating Hurricanes in the night fighter role and some were painted overall black (night).

Would these machines still have the gas detection patch on the wing?

[dogsbody]

Regarding the ring & bead iron sights, many early WW2 aircraft were fitted with them, in case the reflector sight in the cockpit went u/s. Look at P-40B's and C's.

Chris

[Selwyn]

Regarding the ring & bead iron sights, many early WW2 aircraft were fitted with them, in case the reflector sight in the cockpit went u/s. Look at P-40B's and C's.

Chris

Pre war built RAF aircraft had ring and bead, but not for long as they were rapidly retrofitted with a reflector sight, as production of sights lagged behind fighter production. The first fighter aircraft to have these reflector sights fitted were gladiators, hurricanes, then spitfires.(in order of service entry), this aircraft apparently hasn't had its "bead" removed, the ring might also still be there as a standby sight?

Can't see aircraft in France 1939-40 (the front line!) not having the latest sighting equipment, after all there was a rush to get the watts prop replaced ASAP!

If you look dead centre of the windscreen of the crashed Hurricane it appears to be fitted with a reflector sight.

US aircraft P40B/C were delivered with ring and bead. The reflector sight was a British equipment addition.

Selwyn

[Black Knight]

I have photos showing the pole for the bead still fitted to IIC, IID and IV.

In a reminiscence biography I read recently, a IID pilot said they used the ring and bead sight as a reflector was not needed against stationary or slowly moving ground targets.

[Sean_M]

SEAT- Can anyone shed some light on this. There is (pm the Mk 1 at least) a small indentation which I have seen painted a similar colour to the Spitfire seats. In some kits it is absent, Italeri and Hasegawa seem have the detail in question. Can anyone shed some light on what this is and if it was indeed a different colour to the seat

[Edgar]

My apologies to whoever I pinched this from, but I hope it'll help. The Hurricane seat was metal, usually painted silver as well, and the dark patch is a piece of basil (usually - made from sheepskin) leather, designed to stop the parachute ripcord chafing on the metal:-

Edgar

[Sean_M]

Edgar

Thank you once again. Was there a switch over when the seat was painted cockpit green. I see so many modellers do this. Even in SAMS Datafile one is given this impression. I realise that those sketches are an artists interpretation. Yes I have seen the recovered photos of the Hurricane in Russia. The Ministry's directive that the inside should be green has been debated elsewhere so I hope I am not opening the same can of worms.

[Edgar]

At some stage there seems to have been a shortage (of ingredients, possibly) of silver paint, and interiors went over to green instead. Spitfires changed around the time of the IX, Tempest wheel wells went over to green where the Typhoon's were silver, so it's entirely possible that Hurricanes seats, at some time, might have gone green. Very early in the war, the interim silver, on fabric, before camouflaging, was discontinued, except on the Mosquito, so there were concerns quite soon.

I have a copy of mid-war talk on how problems were being caused by lack of accessibility to some materials for paints, so nothing should be ruled out; it's a bit unfair to pass the buck, but Nick Millman's your man for this.

Edgar

[Nick Millman]

FWIW aluminium paint (the pigment for which was often confusingly called "silver bronze") was not made as a by-product but required high quality aluminium flake powder milled from the raw material. It was mainly extracted from Bauxite, most of which had to be imported but there were various measures undertaken to try to extract it from other sources and the well-known re-cycling drive for alu pots and pans. The quantity available varied with aluminium output in the UK dropping from 25,000 tons in 1939 to 19,000 tons in 1941 then rising to a peak of nearly 56,000 tons in 1943 before dropping down again to 32,000 tons in 1945.

From the mid to late 1930s as aircraft began to be constructed predominantly from aluminium the requirement for aluminium dopes declined anyway and the practice of painting aluminium aircraft silver to protect them was viewed as wasteful as well as unnecessary as camouflage began to be introduced and the expected service life was shortened. There was also a related corrosion prevention issue which had seen the immediate pre-war development of protective chromate grey paints for the maritime environment in the USA, UK, Germany and Japan. That dovetailed with the subsequent wartime pressure on production of aluminium for its critical use in rapidly increasing aircraft production but also in the explosives industry

In UK aircraft production usage had risen from 2,828 aircraft in 1938 with an average structure weight of 3,742 lbs to 20,000 aircraft in 1941 with average structure weight increasing to 4,342 libs, By 1944 it was 26,461 aircraft with weight rising to 7,880 lbs, mainly due to the heavy bomber programme. The impact of this on aluminium requirements for paint and dope would have been powerful, although aluminium cellulose dope remained an RAF stores item for the treatment of fabric surfaces.

Whether the switch in painting practice was a deliberate response to reduce the requirement for aluminium paint or a more haphazard expediency in response to shortages of it I couldn't say.

Nick

[Sean_M]

Thanks to both Edger and Nick. I am going to stick with a mix of silver and green in the cockpit. perhaps I am not ready for competitions yet? However I think absolute accuracy will never be achieved. A good build with a reasonable rendition of the subject should be what we strive for

[JOAN]

Great plane !

found this about the Sea Hurricane :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsALBX8PIRI

sorry my french !

)

olivier

[Aidrian]

Concerning the materials used for aluminium paint, it's possibly worth mentioning that the interior finish of AFVs was changed from silver to white around 1940-1941 and remained so until the post war period. This was reportedly to save aluminium for aircraft manufacturing, though at this stage it is not clear whether the material freed up was to be used in the airframe itself or simply in the paint on the airframe. If the metal was being reserved for construction rather than painting it seems quite possible that the use of aluminium paint was reduced in aircraft production at about the same time.

Now while the steel tube and much of the other interior structure was painted aluminium in early deliveries, by the time machines in the KZxxx range were being produced another colour seems to have displaced aluminium - there's a colour factory photo of a desert painted IIC somewhere on this site which shows this, though to be honest in the photo the colour seems grey than grey green...

(??? The Malta restoration of Z3055 also has the fuselage truss and other parts of the frame finished in grey rather than grey green; I thought this might have been a mistake in the restoration process until I looked at the factory photo and started wondering why the Malta blokes would go to such extent as to finish other sections of the airframe in grey green)

The order covering the KW/KX serialled machines was produced from late 1942 to early 1943, and included Sea Hurricanes in the NF range so we can be reasonably confident that the use of aluminium paint had been largely discontinued at some stage prior to or during production of this batch.

Assuming that the restoration of Z3055 has some basis in fact rather than fancy then this possibly pushes the date back to the early part of 1941...

[Graham Boak]

Aluminium paint is still considered to have been in use for Typhoons and other Hawker fighters, for the wheel well and undercarriage. Perhaps there was some distinction between the different paints regarding their use on such semi-external surfaces.

[Troy Smith]

The Hurricane pic in question is this one

Hurricane IIc,   1943 by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

 

EDIT July 2019

Note what is visible of the rear UC bay, just behind the red bit at the top of the UC, is Azure Blue, 

Other photos that look like they are from the sequence, show the wheel well insides to clearly be the same tone as the underside.

 

 

There is another pic [saw it on the back of some DVD box set] of a hurricane centre section during construction painted a colour like middlestone, gear legs are, and there is overspray on the tyres, also seen here.

Edgar suggest this maybe Canadian. Or, part of the above sequence in primer?

Anyone have the photo I mention to post?

Quote

June 2017

Hawker Hurricane repairs,c1940 by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

"Hawker Hurricane repairs,c1940

A member of the ATS attends to the undercarriage of a Hawker Hurricane."

 

I suggest this is a zinc chromate primer, and aluminium will go over this

 

 

 

 

 

Hawker Restorations use aluminium for their interior frame work.

Now, I have not made a huge survey, but there are 3 Hurricanes, or remains of, that have not been restored, and retain enough paint to see how they were originally painted inside.

The Finnish plane, and two from Russia

in the build thread of Jon's Classic Airframes Hurricane, http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234958668-classic-airframes-hurricane-mk-1-fabric-wing/

I posted on this.

http://www.k5083.mistral.co.uk/APS.HTM

lists production blocks and manufacturer

 

EDIT.

Ver very early Hurricane Mk.I's, in the L15** serials used what look to be all grey-green

This is a 111 Sq aircraft in 1938, when they were visited by King George VI

Note the gravity header tank in aluminium, and the framework, seat and gun bay in grey-green

 

L1583 

Note wells are in Grey-green, also the dunlop stencil on the air tank and shiny bits of tubing.

 

said to be L1583 tailwheel, very early, with retractable tail wheel and no strake, tail wheel housing is aluminium (paint I presume?) with frame work in grey-green

 

fairly wreck in France, 2 blade prop (that is what the bolts showing denote) fabric wing and curved lower edge windscreen

look at the inside of the UC doors, and then compare tone of the framework, and fuselage woodwork.

 

another early plane, fabric wing and curved lower edge windscreen, but DH prop.

Again, compare fuselage bulkhead, Grey-green, with seat, and framework, and prop hub

 

unrestored examples

Finnish plane, N2394, is a Hawker plane from the 2nd batch

Quote

Block 2, Second Hawker Produced Block

Serial Range N2318 - N2367 (50), N2380 - N2409 (30), N2422 - N2441 (20), N2453 - N2502 (50), N2520 - N2559 (40), N2582 - N2631 (50), N2645 - N2674 (30), N2700 - N2729 (30) - Total 300

Built by Hawker Aircraft Limited, Kingston and Brooklands, to Contract No. 751458/38. Aircraft powered by Rolls-Royce Merlin III engines driving Rotol or De-Havilland three blade propellers. Aircraft deliveries commenced on the 29th September, 1939 and were completed on the 1st May, 1940.

Edgar has suggested that the interior colour may have been based on where built, eg Hawker or Gloster but this does not seem to be the case

.

The famous Z5252 has been salvaged in Russia

https://lend-lease.net/articles-en/hawker-hurricane-iib-trop-z5252/

 

Gloster built, aluminium tubing, more pics in link

Quote

Block 3/G, Third Gloster Produced Block

Serial Range V6533 - V6582 (50) Mk. I, V6600 - V6649 (50) Mk. I, V6665 - V6704 (40) Mk. I, V6722 - V6761 (40) Mk. I, V6776 - V6825 (50) Mk. I, V6840 - V6889 (50) Mk. I, V6913 - V6962 (50) Mk. I, V6979 - V7028 (50) Mk. I, V7042 - V7081 (40) Mk. I, V7099 - V7138 (40) Mk. I, V7156 - V7195 (40) Mk. I, W9110 - W9159 (50) Mk. I, W9170 - W9209 (40) Mk. I, W9215 - W9244 (30) Mk. I, W9260 - W9279 (20) Mk. I, W9290 - W9329 (40) Mk. I, W9340 - W9359 (20) Mk. I, Z4022 - Z4071 (50) Mk. I, Z4085 - Z4119 (35) Mk. I, Z4161 - Z4205 (45) Mk. I, Z4223 - Z4272 (50) Mk. I, Z4308 - Z4327 (20) Mk. I, Z4347 - Z4391 (45) Mk. I, Z4415 - Z4434 (20) Mk. I, Z4482 - Z4516 (35) Mk. I, Z4532 - Z4581 (50) Mk. I, Z4603 - Z4652 (50) Mk. I, Z4686 - Z4720 (35) Mk. I, Z4760 - Z4809 (50) Mk. I, Z4832 - Z4876 (45) Mk. I, Z4920 - Z4939 (20) Mk. I, Z4940 - Z4969 (30) Mk. IIA, Z4987 - Z4989 (3) Mk. IIA, Z4990 - Z5006 (17) Mk. IIB, Z5038 - Z5087 (50) Mk. IIB, Z5117 - Z5161 (45) Mk. IIB, Z5202 - Z5236 (35) Mk. IIB, Z5252 - Z5271 (20) Mk. IIB, Z5302 - Z5351 (50) Mk. IIB, Z5376 - Z5395 (20) Mk. IIB, Z5434 - Z5483 (50) Mk. IIB, Z5529 - Z5563 (35) Mk. IIB, Z5580 - Z5629 (50) Mk. IIB, Z5649 - Z5693 (45) Mk. IIB - Total 1,700

Third production batch of 1,700 aircraft built by Gloster Aircraft Co, to contract 85730/40/23a. Powered by Rolls-Royce Merlin III or Rolls-Royce Merlin XX engines, driving Rotol or De-Havilland three blade variable pitch propellers. Aircraft delivered between July 1940 and August 1941

click link to see photo

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/DETAILSITE/UK/hurricane/z2768/sovhur_cockpit.jpg

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/DETAILSITE/UK/hurricane/z2768/sovhur_seat2.jpg

For more this link

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/DETAILSITE/UK/hurricane/z2768/hurri_z2768.htm

and Z2768 was built by Hawker

Quote

Block 5, Fifth Hawker Produced Block

Serial Range Z2308 - Z2357 (50), Z2382 - Z2426 (45), Z2446 - Z2465 (20), Z2479 - Z2528 (50), Z2560 - Z2594 (35), Z2624 - Z2643 (20), Z2661 - Z2705 (45), Z2741 - Z2775 (35), Z2791 - Z2840 (50), Z2882 - Z2931 (50), Z2959 - Z2993 (35), Z3017 - Z3036 (20), Z3050 - Z3099 (50), Z3143 - Z3187 (45), Z3221 - Z3270 (50), Z3310 - Z3359 (50), Z3385 - Z3404 (20), Z3421 - Z3470 (50), Z3489 - Z3523 (35), Z3554 - Z3598 (45), Z3642 - Z3691 (50), Z3740 - Z3784 (45), Z3826 - Z3845 (20), Z3885 - Z3919 (35), Z3969 - Z4018 (50) Total 1,000

This was the fifth production batch produced by Hawker Aircraft Limited, to contract 62305/39. Powered by Rolls-Royce Merlin XX engines. Aircraft deliveries commenced on the 14th January, 1941 and were completed by the 28th July, 1941,

 

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/DETAILSITE/UK/hurricane/z2768/sovhur_seat2.jpg

 

again, original paint.

Before anyone asks, Finnish interior paint is a light grey, like Medium Sea grey, and Soviet interior paint is A-14 steel grey, similar to US Neutral gray. The above example have not been repainted.

Now, 3 examples are not conclusive, but are from 2 different manufacturers and 3 different batches over about 18 months, and all show the same interior finish.

I don't have not searched up more Hurricane wreck photos, if anyone has any, or links, showing unrestored airframes then please post them up, as i would be interested in finding out more.

A couple of well known museum planes are likely to have been repainted.

The Hurricane at Hendon has been crudely repainted at some point in grey-green, photos in the Italeri Hurricane booklet show the canvas map pocket with a thick coat of it.

The Science museum plane was restored by Hawker's in the 50's

A photo here of it on Horse Guards Parade 1950 in training command colours.

hope of interest

T

 

Aug 2020

 

Q - when was the switch over from Aluminium dope internals to Grey Green internals.

A- it seems that from the 8th Hawker built batch. 

 

The period colour image of KZ295 at the top shows all Grey Green internals, with underside colour wheel wells.

 

This image of a IId cockpit, shows Grey Green framework, 

from the Soviet NII From photos from the Soviet NII VVs test centre, of either KX171 or KX305,  both were at the NII VVS

see here for images of both, as well as more detail shots

http://aviadejavu.ru/Site/Arts/Art7497.htm

 

Still from a colour film of HW189 (7th Hawker batch) shows the UC legs to be aluminium dope. 

Hurrican HW189 B front by losethekibble, on Flickr

 

One exception, the batch built by Austin Motors, they used Grey Green, as there are films of the production line,  batch of 300, but  All the aircraft in this batch with the exception of AP516, AP524, and AP530 were shipped to Russia.

links here  

On 05/01/2015 at 23:50, Daniel Cox said:

Hi Beardie,

Although the following 4 films from British Pathé are low resolution on the links provided they may be of interest to you, since they show Hurricane aircraft being manufactured.

Hurricanes Reel 1, 1942

Hurricanes Reel 2, 1942

Hurricanes Reel 3, 1942

Hurricanes Reel 4, 1942

Cheers,

Daniel.

 

which are well worth a watch for general airframe detail alone

[Max Headroom]

Re the Science Museum example shown in Troy's post above. As a non operational type, would it have still been in Dark Earth/Dark Green upper camouflage with the C1 type markings, or else Dark Earth/Sea Grey (Medium)? If the latter it would make an interesting combination with the fabric wing.

Trevor