HP Heyford in WWII?

[JWM]

Hi,

In net I have found photo of marvelous 1:18 scratchbuild model (by A. Clark) of HP Heyford in apparently WWII markings (it is on this web page):

http://www.modelaircraftmagazine.com/full_site/frames/events/reviews/006.htm

On the other hand I have found in IWM resources a photo of this machine (K5184) :

http://media.iwm.org.uk/iwm/mediaLib//22/media-22817/large.jpg

There is a difference in fin flashes size. Has anybody other photos of HP Heyford from WWII time to share with? - I am collecting data to do a model (converted if needed) from Matchbox/Revell kit. Besides details of markings I am interesting in hardware differences - there are differences mostly in engines, I think between the variants. I will appreciate help.

Cheers

Jerzy-Wojtek

[Graham Boak]

There was a photo of a wartime Heyford posted by Ivor Ramsden on this forum, IIRC. It appeared to have yellow not just on the undersides but on the fuselage sides too.

The tall fin flashes in the photo are in the style used when the flashes were initially introduced in May 1940. The smaller fin flashes were a few months later. Having the camouflage extended down the fuselage sides on trainers is also a later habit, about the same timescale. I don't know of any photographs showing a wartime Heyford like this, but it would match the requirements.

Determining which Heyfords survived into training units use would presumably be the best guide as to modelling exhausts - assuming this was indeed a feature of variants and not more a matter of timescale. Logically thee would be the later ones anyway. Many Heyfords did not so survive - the only photo of a Heyford carrying squadron codes is of one being scrapped, and it appears to be still in Nivo.

[Dave Fleming]

There is a better Heyford shot in the IWM archive here:

Both have been discussed previously, http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/61982-handley-page-heyford-camouflage/page-4

THE ROYAL AIR FORCE IN THE SECOND WORLD WAR. © IWM (HU 104635)IWM Non Commercial Licence

Edited May 1, 2015 by Dave Fleming

[Graham Boak]

A quick check in Air Britain's The K File shows that all Mk.Is and Mk.IIs were written off before the start of the war. Only Mk.IIIs went into the schools.

[JWM]

Thank you Graham and Dave for infos. I've just went through all four pages of fascinating talk from 2011. There is a lot of very interesting data there. Anyway - nothing is solved for sure. I have additional doubts. Lets take photo provided by Ivor Ramsden:

I agree, that top is darker for sure than sides. Although there is something on nose which can be a interepreted as demarkation line between two colours. Nose is darker. Since Heyford is biplane - shouldn't be in four colours from top? (lower wings and sides of fuselage in light earth/light green?) The rule when biplanes were two coloured from top and when four coloured is a bit mystery for me...

[mhaselden]

There's something odd about that dark patch on the upper fuselage. It looks more like a tarp than paint. That said, I can't imagine why you'd put a tarp there, particularly one that went around the windscreen, but it doesn't look "right" for paint. For example, the image copied at post #5 shows the dark area curving down to a point near the front edge of its extent while everything aft of there is dead straight. Doesn't make sense for it to be painted like that.

[Dave Fleming]

Mark, that's the shape of the nose in that area - I think it's a conduit or cable duct, but if you look at pictures of other heyford's it's there. The angle of the above shot makes it look like it's just a line, but it's actually a raised area. Now it is possible that the tone is just the difference between the paint used on the hard (Metal/wood) areas and the fabric covered areas.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Dave Fleming

[mhaselden]

Thanks Dave. The pic at post #5 is pretty blurry but it does match the overall profile. I'm not seeing some of the details at the front end of the duct which I'd expect to see given that the fuselage ribbing is plainly visible.

If the dark area was painted, I'd expect the dark area to follow a straight line along the top of the fuselage rather than follow the curve of the duct. We also need to explain why the dark area ticks upwards again in front of the duct.

[Graham Boak]

It would be a very odd tarpaulin that lay in (otherwise) a straight line back along the top of the fuselage going both sides of an open cockpit. There is also evidence of a dark colour on the uppersurface of the lower wing. Given the very low angle of the sun in this photo, could the dark area at the front of the duct simply be shadow?

[JWM]

If there would be 4 colour upperside camo the non-stright lines between them are not odd I think - at least in case of Walrus or Gladiator they are non-stright.

That is how I see possible demercation lines in 4 colour upper camo variant:

Is the concept of four colour wrong from some pronciples?

Regards

J-W

[Graham Boak]

In the diagrams and on many known examples (particularly, it seems, Gladiators), the four colours were split horizontally mid-fuselage with the darker pair of colours on the upper half of the fuselage sides and the lighter pair on the lower. On trainers, the lower part of the fuselage was Yellow rather than the lighter colours, as seen on Tiger Moths, but on older aircraft (e.g. Audax, Hardy) this was sometimes seen all the way up to the upper demarcation i.e. camouflage in plan view only. Possibly (probably?) these were previously in overall Yellow? However, older aircraft in front-line service appear just to have received the uppersurface colours (e.g. Demon, Fury, Hartbees) down to the lower demarcation at the bottom corner of the fuselage.

Neither Heyford in the above photos shows any sign of a horizontal change in colour(s) along the fuselage. It is also clear that the rear part of the port spat is much more different to the front than any difference you see on the front part. The suggestion that this is simply patchy painting, perhaps with replacement parts, seems more convincing to me than three-colour spats.

[mhaselden]

The upper line of the fuselage "demarkation" indicated by the red line on Post #10 looks to be an artifact in the image which extends into the stbd propellor. The area in the front of the port wheel fairing looks more promising. However, overall, this isn't the best quality photo - it's blurry, with varying tones and some artifacts which make it hard to be certain about camo pattern (if there is one).

It would be a very odd tarpaulin that lay in (otherwise) a straight line back along the top of the fuselage going both sides of an open cockpit. There is also evidence of a dark colour on the uppersurface of the lower wing. Given the very low angle of the sun in this photo, could the dark area at the front of the duct simply be shadow?

Don't disagree, Graham. My use of the term tarp was simply a lack of time to think of something more elegant. My immediate thought was a canvas cockpit cover...but such an item would logically sit ontop of the windscreen. Definitely looks odd, though.

Edited May 1, 2015 by mhaselden

[Graham Boak]

I think the dark colours on upper surface is visible before and aft of the propeller. The propeller itself has a photographic fault showing as a white line - the shapes above and below this line both belong to the propeller blade, which we are seeing almost at full width. Using the white line as a trailing edge to the propeller would give a very narrow blade with a straight trailing edge: this is against both theory and practice, as seen by the other blades.

I entirely agree about problems with this picture, particularly from glare, but it is possible to see that some features aren't there.

[mhaselden]

Sorry Graham - should have referenced the pic in Post 10 that I was looking at when talking about the demarkation (the top end of the red line). I've amended my previous post to clarify what was rambling on about.

[JWM]

Thank you Gentelmen for your comments and opinions. I can agree that "demarkation line " on fuselage is rather problem of photo quality. The wheel fairing I think is still open to discussion - why there are two shades of gray? The dark spots on the rear of fuselage looks for me like a shadow of upper wing and spurs - perhaps even slot is visible. BTW - this photo has also darker all corners, what is a problem of apparently poor camera lenses.

Still, on the photo in post #3 the dark top is rather beyond discussion? As well as the darker top of wing on photo #5.

However - the shade of sides of Heyford in Post #3 is of similar darkness like DE from Anson, not the yellow from Anson roundel. Only fronts of engines might be as bright as yellow... Perhaps yellow was painted thin and only once and it looked darker since background NIVO was dark?

Cheers

Jerzy-Wojtek

[Max Headroom]

My memory may be playing tricks but I recall a picture in FlyPast many years ago of a Heyford in the background of a photo showing the upper wing with A type roundels.

Trevor