SleeperService Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Hi All I'm intending to build a Yugoslav Fury II in the Lesser Built Airforces GB. I've found a lot of good information on BM especially following Mitch K's build but one thing is bothering me. The Mushroom book mentions that the fuselage was 14" longer when the Kestrel XVI was fitted. The scale plans or specifications on them don't show this although I have found a length of 8.34M online compared to 8.17M in the MMP book. Has anybody anymore information about this? 14" is a lot in 1/48th! Mushroom Model Magazine Vols 3/4 and 4/1 cover the Yugoslav Furies but I do not have these in my collection. The old Profile 18 barely mentions them at all. I'm inclined to trust Alex Crawford's words and the photographs which seem to show a different underside profile rather than the plans in the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Aero Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I've found the relevant articles and I need to read them before commenting. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleeperService Posted January 3, 2015 Author Share Posted January 3, 2015 Thank You John. I'll await developments. This is part of the build up to doing your Hawker Demon I brought at Newark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Aero Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I must admit to being a little puzzled by the suggested length increase for the Yugoslav Fury II (Fjuri) versions. The length difference between the Mk.1 and II in British service was only 1" in all the references and even the Nimrod was within a couple of inches, so 14" does seem a lot. I know that the Fjuri's (correct spelling) had an extra fuel tank but tanks are within the centre of gravity limitations as they change weight.. If the centre of gravity of the a/c needed moving this would be a reason for lengthening the nose. But this is countered by the fact that when the Fjuri's were initially flown without the aft sited radios they handled badly on landing resulting in a number of accidents. With the Nimrod, C of G changes were made by sweeping the wings in the Mk.II. I cannot find any reason why the Kestrel XVI should have needed any more room over the Kestrel V or VI. The top cowls of the Yugoslav a/c do seem to be more humped than the British versions and the crop a little deeper. So unless anyone can give me chapter and verse I'm sceptical of 14" for the above reasoning as even the Dowty beam sprung wheel u/c didn't need that amount of space. I probably haven't helped much John 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleeperService Posted January 3, 2015 Author Share Posted January 3, 2015 Hi John No, you've helped me a great deal. Accepting the Airfix under nose area is off as your other posts on this aircraft I'm happy to leave as is. Good spotting of the upper nose change now you've pointed it out I can see the difference. I appreciate your time and explaining why things happen. I'm mostly an armour model maker and my knowledge of aircraft is rather limited to say the least. Thank You again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWM Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 Here are some photos - I do not know if you know them all - I hope it may help http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=ForumsPro&file=viewtopic&t=15329&start=0&finish=15&printertopic=1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleeperService Posted May 6, 2015 Author Share Posted May 6, 2015 Hi JWM The model has stalled because I've trapped a nerve and can't do delicate work so your link is perfect. Thank You so much for posting it. My model will be a little better now! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWM Posted May 6, 2015 Share Posted May 6, 2015 You welcome! - I found this link interesting also due to other RYAF machines, there are many very unique photos there! Cheers Jerzy-Wojtek 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hényk CZ Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Yugoslav (Norwegian, Spanish etc.) version had additional fuel tank in the central part of the upper wing. This detail is missing as well in mentioned MMP plans. In addition this detail has been ommited also in Amodel 1/72 models 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Aero Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 I'm wondering if the extra fuel tank fitted to Yugoslav Fjuri's was in fact fitted into the centre section and not the fuselage.. The only really visible item on most photos is the triangular tank sump and drain under the centre section (the Nimrod has two) and the metal skinning on top. This offset tank centre section actually first appeared on the Hawker Hornet the PV prototype of the Fury but was not adopted for the RAF Furies. I have a photo of this installation. John 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) I honestly can't see that being 14" longer in the nose than an RAF one. 14" is a massive difference. It's more than the extra nose length that a Spit IX has over a V, and that is very visible - and the Spitfire nose is longer than the Fury's in the first pace, so the proportional addition would be even greater on the Fury than on the Spitfire. Edited May 12, 2015 by Work In Progress 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch K Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 I took the drawings I've got, that I used for my 1/72 build. Now, on these, there is no difference in length between the RAF and RYAF examples. I took one of the photos in Jerzy's link, and rescaled both drawings and the photo the same by using certain things that will be dimensionally fixed (wheels, propellor). The differences in length between the drawings and the photo are less than precision of my measurements, and not even close to the equivalent of 14 inches (which is equivalent to slightly more than half the diameter of the wheel). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relja Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Hello This is what Ognjan Petrović wrote on Yugoslav Fury II in his paper on British types in RYAF, published in "Military Museum Herald" in 2008: (my translation) "Unlike Britsh Mk.IIs, Yugoslav Furys had unsupported (console) undercarriage legs of the "Dowty" design, taken from Gloster Gladiator, better shaped cooler cowling, armament consisting of four Darne M.30 7.7 mm machine guns (two optional under lower wing) and an engine with more horsepower than on any other version..." There is no metion of significant difference in dimensions, nor of that extra fuel tank. This article, one in a series, is a result of an very serious research on RYAF, which sets facts apart from fiction and myths. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hényk CZ Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) I can not judge the shape of cowling but regarding the extra fuel tank in the upper wing, I would say they had one. Correct me if I'm wrong. BTW..I can see also different position lights. I found these pics on internet. Edited May 13, 2015 by David Hényk CZ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Aero Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I'm quite happy to accept the Fjuri was fitted with the extra tank as I believe I can just see the tank drain sump under the centre section on two photos. The tank detail is very difficult to see on all but the clearest photos. I am also convinced that there is no fuselage dimensional difference between the Fury, Fjuri or the Nimrod when measured over the Hucks dog and the trailing edge of the rudder. I found I have some dimensions for a Fury 1 on a drawing traced from Hawker drawing E-27567 dated June 2 1931. These are the tip of the Hucks dog to Station 0 (this is the centre of the under-carriage top pivot) =81.75". From Station 0 to the centre of the fin post 208.0". plus from the centre of the fin post to the centre of the rudder leading edge tube = 2.0" then from the centre of the rudder leading edge tube to the rear edge of the rudder (no tail light) =29.0". that all adds up to 320.75", or 26.675'(feet), which is 26' 8.75". John Edit. Excellent photos, the top one shows the tank sump quite clearly and confirms it. Edit edge of the rudder not fin. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hényk CZ Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 John may I ask if the existence of tank sump under the wing automatically means that there was fuel tank? I guess so but I'd like to have confirmation. According to my information I got recently a new book about Yugoslav Fjuri is going to be published soon. Must have for me !! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Aero Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 David, Yes, the sump is part of the bottom of the tank, so if visible then the tank is fitted. Also on the top of the wing there will be the small "question mark" tank vent. The Yugoslav Fury had a Hurricane type Carb intake were as the RAF Fury had the twin side mounted intakes. I believe also that there was an additional fin/tail plane bracing wire fitted as fitted to some Nimrods. John 1 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