All the Hurricane questions you want to ask here

[Graham Boak]

I'd agree that quite a lot of lift would be lost, but then he is applying a lot of aileron!  It would seem very unlikely indeed that such panels would have been missed in any pre-flight, but the purpose of experimental trials to that effect isn't obvious.  

[mhaselden]

6 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

I'd agree that quite a lot of lift would be lost, but then he is applying a lot of aileron!  It would seem very unlikely indeed that such panels would have been missed in any pre-flight, but the purpose of experimental trials to that effect isn't obvious.  

 

I'm with you on all that, Graham.  Also, to my eyes (old and feeble though they are becoming), it appears the ailerons are configured for a roll to starboard, which is exactly the opposite of what I'd expect if the gun panels were removed from the starboard wing.  I'd have thought the pilot would be banking to port to lift the draggy, reduced-lift starboard wing.

 

Hadn't noticed what may be a P-in-a-circle prototype marking on the fuselage aft of the roundel.  It's a pretty pixelated scan so I'm far from certain that I'm seeing it correctly. 

 

If this is a trial, I'm struggling to understand why it would be done off a carrier rather than on land where the environment can be controlled a little better.

 

Replacement panels that are a different tone to the surrounding wing remains the most logical explanation.

[Troy Smith]

41 minutes ago, mhaselden said:

Replacement panels that are a different tone to the surrounding wing remains the most logical explanation.

 

12 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

 replacement panels 

 

what from is the question, as they look very dark, and is that a circled P ?  

 

note the light on the cannon door bulges.   Just dark replacements.

 

An aside,  but perhaps tying in with above  photo being a test plane,  while reading Ralph Barker's Hurricats  

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hurricats-Ralph-Barker/dp/0720709946

there is mention that the  Sea Hurricane IC  (IE SH Mk.I with 4 cannon wing)  was intended for use with CAM ships,  not for carrier use,  and was not progressed with as CAM ships were phased out, which could also explain the lack of the the  Sea Hurricane IC,  as it  was no longer  needed.

Possibly considered for  anti U-Boat use as well as anti Fw200 use? 

 

Not  got time to  dig out the bit as am skiving off  from decorating,  but will later.

 

cheers

T

[ClaudioN]

14 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

note the light on the cannon door bulges.   Just dark replacements.

I'd agree with you. My guess is the aircraft is simply coded 'P' and comes from one of the escort carriers. Maybe 825 Sqn., HMS Vindex? There seems to be a rounded forward flight deck end.

 

Found it: 825_Naval_Air_Squadron

And it's an IWM picture, too: IWM A 22735

Period: March 1944

Edited September 1, 2017 by ClaudioN
Stating the obvious...

[Max Headroom]

All fascinating stuff. I had convinced myself that what appear to be bulges were the 'internals' of the gun bay.

 

If nothing else it proves that 'if it fits, it'll fly!'

 

Trevor

[Graham Boak]

Sorry Mark, but to my eyes the starboard aileron is down, therefore he is rolling to port.  Or countering a roll to starboard.

 

The Mk.I would find four cannon heavy and cumbersome, and I don't think that any further explanation is required.  Even on the Mk.II, one of each pair was often removed on aircraft likely to end up mixing it with enemy fighters.  Given that the a Mk.V Spitfire found the 4 cannon configuration too penalising, a Mk.I Hurricane just wouldn't be acceptable.

[StevSmar]

Interesting photo of Sea Hurricanes with an "unpainted(?)" band behind the spinner.

 

[Smithy]

Those look like they could be natural metal replacement cowlings over the reduction gear. You can see this in some instances where they have been replaced after engine problems or failure, for example 601 Sqn's P3886. Although seeing as there's possibly as many as four airframes in this photo showing this, this would seem to suggest something other than engine failure, perhaps these have all had their reduction gear ungraded and the replacement cowlings have not been painted due to some particular logistic reason.

[Graham Boak]

This is 800 Sq, on its way to Operation Pedestal, although at least one of the aircraft on deck is of the two handed over by 881 Sq and still in "881 Sq camouflage", with Sky band, spinner, and 7.x code.  Note the 6.x codes on the leading edge of the wing.  As the senior fighter squadron on HMS Indomitable 800 did not see fit to use the code 6 on the fuselage side.   I believe that the band is indeed white rather than unpainted, and can be seen in other photos of 800 Squadron's aircraft.  At least one of these photos appears to show wear on the paint, which would not be right for a bare metal panel, and another shows chequers.  I'd also suggest that leaving bare metal exposed on a carrier aircraft is exceedingly bad practice because of accelerated corrosion.

[Smithy]

8 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

This is 800 Sq, on its way to Operation Pedestal, although at least one of the aircraft on deck is of the two handed over by 881 Sq and still in "881 Sq camouflage", with Sky band, spinner, and 7.x code.  Note the 6.x codes on the leading edge of the wing.  As the senior fighter squadron on HMS Indomitable 800 did not see fit to use the code 6 on the fuselage side.   I believe that the band is indeed white rather than unpainted, and can be seen in other photos of 800 Squadron's aircraft.  At least one of these photos appears to show wear on the paint, which would not be right for a bare metal panel, and another shows chequers.  I'd also suggest that leaving bare metal exposed on a carrier aircraft is exceedingly bad practice because of accelerated corrosion.

 

Are you sure the band is white? I am just interested as to why the reduction gear cowlings would be painted white. It can't be because of an informal unit identity marking as a quick look at 800 NAS's Sea Hurricanes flying from HMS Indomitable does show that not all of their Hurris were so marked. If they are painted white there must be a reason for it.

[Graham Boak]

I'm not certain it is white, but am sure it is paint of some kind.  Every SH unit of Pedestal had distinctive markings of some kind, usually in the way they painted the unit codes, which is just a measure of the individuality of FAA squadrons and almost certainly chance and not in any way preplanned.  Having a white band behind the spinner as a distinctive marking is more reasonable than only 800 Sq having multiple problems with their cowlings.  It seems that their SH came from stock that the Admiralty had spread around Africa as ready-to-use replacements, so possibly some of the aircraft were simply late arrivals and time was too tight to allow repainting.  Possibly it was a sub-unit within 800 that carried the nose band whereas others didn't.  Possibly it was a section-leader's marking.  But an out-break of multiple bare metal nose rings?  I don't think so.

 

However, it might be interesting to check whether the light rings are only on aircraft that have the oil spill ring.  The photos I have are not clear enough to make this out.

[Smithy]

7 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

I'm not certain it is white, but am sure it is paint of some kind.  Every SH unit of Pedestal had distinctive markings of some kind, usually in the way they painted the unit codes, which is just a measure of the individuality of FAA squadrons and almost certainly chance and not in any way preplanned.  Having a white band behind the spinner as a distinctive marking is more reasonable than only 800 Sq having multiple problems with their cowlings.  It seems that their SH came from stock that the Admiralty had spread around Africa as ready-to-use replacements, so possibly some of the aircraft were simply late arrivals and time was too tight to allow repainting.  Possibly it was a sub-unit within 800 that carried the nose band whereas others didn't.  Possibly it was a section-leader's marking.  But an out-break of multiple bare metal nose rings?  I don't think so.

 

However, it might be interesting to check whether the light rings are only on aircraft that have the oil spill ring.  The photos I have are not clear enough to make this out.

 

If it is paint, then it could be a flight designation identifier. Sea Hurris aren't my thing so I don't have the necessary books, primary source documents on them and their units to find out but I still think it would be interesting (if it is possible to ascertain) whether any 800 aircraft had their reduction gear replaced/upgraded whilst in transit on Indomitable.

 

One possible problem if they are indeed painted is that means it's very difficult to be certain what colour this could have been, it could just as easily be Sky as white. Perhaps someone will pop up who has access to more information or clearly detailed photographs.

Edited September 9, 2017 by Smithy

[ClaudioN]

9 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

I'm not certain it is white, but am sure it is paint of some kind.  Every SH unit of Pedestal had distinctive markings of some kind, usually in the way they painted the unit codes, which is just a measure of the individuality of FAA squadrons and almost certainly chance and not in any way preplanned.  Having a white band behind the spinner as a distinctive marking is more reasonable than only 800 Sq having multiple problems with their cowlings.  It seems that their SH came from stock that the Admiralty had spread around Africa as ready-to-use replacements, so possibly some of the aircraft were simply late arrivals and time was too tight to allow repainting.  Possibly it was a sub-unit within 800 that carried the nose band whereas others didn't.  Possibly it was a section-leader's marking.  But an out-break of multiple bare metal nose rings?  I don't think so.

 

However, it might be interesting to check whether the light rings are only on aircraft that have the oil spill ring.  The photos I have are not clear enough to make this out.

 

I agree with your colour marking hypothesis. I have the even more drastic suggestion, that it may actually be a section identity within 800 Sqn.

White (if so) appears to be on 6F, 6G, 6H, 6J (the '6' identifier is only present on the wing leading edge). Looking carefully, there seems to be some contrast between the ring right behind the spinner and the rest of the aircraft also on 6P. However, the shade of grey of the ring is darker on this aircraft, which makes me think it could be another colour.

 

Claudio

 

[StevSmar]

On 2017-08-06 at 10:15 AM, tango98 said:

Here you go Steve, "Fabric covering your Hurricane 101'!

Process devised by Camm:

.......was pulled down by a small-flanged Dural channel section. Set at a close pitch, the attachments were comprised of light alloy set screws inserted into self-locking clinch nuts fitted to the inner surfaces of the rib boom channels.

....

I've also got the fuselage fabric attachment and airframe doping process here somewhere.......................... Cheers Dave

 

Thanks Dave, My guess would have been that the channel was solid rather than a section. I'll have to look at the diagram in "Sidney Camm and the Hurricane" closer.

[Paco]

Hi everyone, I hope this is the right place to post this. It's regarding the MK.IV and the so called "Universal Wing". Apparently, it was based on the MK.IIB wing if I'm not mistaken. I have been looking for information on the subject and think I have identified where the extra armour went but the wing has me stumped! Did the universal wing carry two .303 guns as standard armament and were the landing lights on the leading edges removed? I noticed the MK.IV in Belgrade has them but period photos are not always clear. Can someone please shed some light for me on this subject? Thanks!

 

Francis

[Graham Boak]

It was based on the Mk.IIc wing, presumably to simplify production, with differences in the panels.  Yes it had the 0.303s as you say.  I suspect that rocket-armed MK.IVs will have plated over the landing lights as common on other rocket-firing aircraft, but perhaps Troy can confirm or deny this?  It may well have varied from aircraft to aircraft.

[Troy Smith]

27 minutes ago, Paco said:

Apparently, it was based on the MK.IIB wing if I'm not mistaken

no, based on the  IIc wing,   but with modified access hatches.

28 minutes ago, Paco said:

Did the universal wing carry two .303 guns as standard armament and were the landing lights on the leading edges removed? I noticed the MK.IV in Belgrade has them but period photos are not always clear.

the 0.303's were for sighting of 400mmguns and rockets, rather than armament.

 

Info on the  Mk.IV is patchy,  but only about 600 were built.

there have been threads on them before.

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/59225-hurricane-mk-iv-service/

 

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234956860-hurricane-mk-iv-asymmetrical-loadouts/

 

7 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

 I suspect that rocket-armed MK.IVs will have plated over the landing lights as common on other rocket-firing aircraft, but perhaps Troy can confirm or deny this?  It may well have varied from aircraft to aircraft.

 

from the photos in the links, they are plated over,  but I'd  presume this would be easy enough to  do (and remove)

There just are not that many published photos of operational Mk.IV's to do make any real gereralisations,  but it would make sense for them to be plated over.

But a good question, and one to be considered next time I go through the books.

 

HTH

T

PS this seems to show plated and unplated...

ROYAL AIR FORCE OPERATIONS IN THE FAR EAST, 1941-1945.. © IWM (CI 992)IWM Non Commercial Licence

 

[tango98]

Mark IV's may be seen with landing lights fitted or with them removed/plated over just as seen on many of the rocket armed Typhoons.

I've some thirty or so photos of Hurricane Mk IV's and (I would say) where the leading edge of the wing is clearly visible many of them, but not all, have the landing lights removed/plated over.

 

Cheers

Dave

[Paco]

Well those where quick responses! Thanks for the help.

 

Francis

[Tony C]

2 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

the 0.303's were for sighting of 400mmguns and rockets, rather than armament.

 

Hmmm, 400mm guns, the recoil must have been something to see 

 

 

[Grissom]

Hi everyone,

 

I'm researching BoB era Hurricanes with a view to modelling one.  Naturally, 'Willie' McNight's aircraft has a lot of appeal because of its attractive artwork.  Despite my efforts I haven't found any photos of his machine, save for a couple of 'tight' shots that show very little of the aircraft.   Most modelling and artwork renditions of Willie's aircraft depict it with a Sky coloured spinner, as opposed to the black spinners of most aircraft in the squadron.   What authority is there for this proposition?   I have found a photograph of 242 squadron Hurricanes flying at altitude (in an echelon formation) and they all appear to have Sky coloured spinners.   I don't know much about Hurricanes but the serial number on the aircraft closest to the camera seems to indicate a later variant than those that flew in the BoB.   Is anyone able to resolve this issue?

[StevSmar]

For a bit of fun, I thought I would post an image of what happens when you try to trace drawings....

 

This is the front end of the Hurricane fuselage General Arrangement drawing, which is nicely dimensioned.

The CAD tracing is lining up not too horribly, but it's not great either....

 

But once you get to the other end things start going astray. And this is after I moved the GA drawing around to make it line up better with the CAD drawing.

 

The dangers of using a non-dimensioned drawing to scale from.....

 

[Troy Smith]

36 minutes ago, Wayne Kohlmann said:

Most modelling and artwork renditions of Willie's aircraft depict it with a Sky coloured spinner, as opposed to the black spinners of most aircraft in the squadron.

the Sky spinners came in  in November 1940,  along with the tail band, and a black port wing.  

The photos would be after this point.   And, by this point the BoB was over, and there was time,and  less restrictions on photography.  BoB Hurricane pics are comparatively rare.

 

I suggest reading this as it explains what changes happened when.   

http://www.boxartden.com/gallery/index.php/Profiles/Camoflage-Markings/03-Hawker-Hurricane

it has a lot of information,   and maybe a bit much on a first go.

 

40 minutes ago, Wayne Kohlmann said:

I have found a photograph of 242 squadron Hurricanes flying at altitude (in an echelon formation) and they all appear to have Sky coloured spinners.   I don't know much about Hurricanes but the serial number on the aircraft closest to the camera seems to indicate a later variant than those that flew in the BoB.   Is anyone able to resolve this issue?

if you link or post the photo it would help... I guess you mean this?

 

captioned as IIb's, so not relevant to  the BoB

 

IIRC there are unpublished photos of McKnight's plane which show more details than in the known shots, i think @tango98  may know more on this.

ah, here we go

On 30/07/2011 at 20:59, tango98 said:

Recently, two hitherto unpublished photos of McKnight's aircraft came to light and it is my understanding that both, along with date & location info will be included in a forthcoming major work on the Hurricane.

Although I do not currently have access to the date/location info, it is my understanding that the photos showing the boot emblem were taken in the later months of 1940 rather than in the summer months.

HTH

Dave

On 31/07/2011 at 23:08, tango98 said:

Right then Gents, let's end this speculation right now eh?

I have just spent a pleasant morning being given some first hand, factual information about the 242 Sqn boot emblem which has also partially corrected the content of my initial post.

Fact No.1 The design came into existence during June 1940 shortly after Bader took command of 242.

Fact No.2 It was not a Flight marking as it was intended that the emblem would be carried by all squadron aircraft but, given the hectic activities of the ensuing months and losses/replacements it is quite possible that not all aircraft on squadron strength received the emblem until things quietened down a little in late October.

Fact No.3 It would appear that only the aircraft originally flown by Bader & McKnight carried the emblem on both sides of the nose. However, it may come to light that other aircraft carried the emblem on both sides of the nose but I'll have to wait until my next meeting in mid-August when I will be given access to surviving albums and photos from the period. By the same token I should be able to actually pin down some dates for application of the emblem

Just as an aside, some additional but relevant trivia:

1. The original artwork of the boot motif survives to this day here in Alberta.

2. Barlow Trail here in Calgary was named for Noel Barlow who was Bader's fitter on 242.

3. McKnight Blvd which like Barlow Trail, runs adjacent to Calgary International Airport, was named for F/O Willie McKnight. Both being so named at the insistence of Douglas Bader during a visit to Calgary in the early 1960's.

Cheers

Dave

On 20/10/2011 at 20:53, tango98 said:

Having now looked at the photos which I mentioned previously, additional photos of the Hurricanes flown by Bader & McKnight do have the emblem on both sides of the nose but because of their not so sharp quality and the angles from which they are taken it is impossible to tell if those on the starboard side were 'handed' or not.

I will be having another meeting in the near future when I will have more time to study the photos and quite possibly, be able to scan them. Incidentally, an additional photo that I have of McKnight's Hurricane clearly shows it to be fitted with a Rotol prop and spinner.

I'll add further info to this thread once I have concluded my second meeting.

Cheers

Dave

 

Hopefully Dave can clarify this more.

HTH

T

 

 

 

 

 

[Grissom]

Thank you for such a prompt and detailed reply, Troy - I'm much indebted to you.   Apologies for not posting the photo or hyperlink of the 242 formation - yes, that's the one I found but mine wasn't captioned/titled, hence my uncertainty.   

 

Kind regards,

 

Wayne

[tango98]

Wayne,

If you'd care to drop me an email at:  [email protected] 

I'll send you what I have on McKnight's Hurricane.

 

Cheers

Dave