Building Battle of Britain Hurricanes

[Seahawk]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

The Revell has a good nose but poor propeller, wing and canopy, ....

 

That sounds a little harsh.  Let me give my interpretation of your comments to see if we both mean the same thing. 

 

-  The propeller has a very inaccurate almost paddle blade profile.  It can be carved to something like the right shape but trying to get 3 blades the same is no fun.  A replacement is available from Quickboost.

-  The wing is too broad in chord (by about 2mm at its greatest extent).  It's not as bleedingly obvious an error as, say, the AX Wildcat canopy and, if it troubles you, our very own Tony O'Toole has demonstrated that it can be corrected reasonably easily.

- The spine of the fuselage does not extended under the canopy as it should.  This is a very obvious error but can be corrected simply by sticking a piece of thick plastic card to the back of the cockpit rear bulkhead, filing it to the shape of the bulkhead and then fitting the bulkhead about 2mm further forward.

 

I'm glad Graham can find merit in the new Airfix Hurricance IIc (good shape) because I found it one of the biggest disappointments of the Hornby era: very crude, trenchline panel lines, cannon that look like pipes with ring doughnuts on them.  I once refused a free gift of one of these just so I could honestly say, "I wouldn't have that kit, even as a gift."  Oh, some of the transfers are okay, though. 

 

[Graham Boak]

Re Revell: So the propeller is unusable (the spinner isn't brilliant either), the wing is significantly too broad, and the windscreen of the canopy is wrong (which I was referring to, not the rear), and the weaponry falls short. Did I mention removing the fabric detail on the fuselage?  I guess all this leaves the undercarriage without any problem... Calling this "poor" is being harsh?  Seems fairly restrained to me, but each to their own.

 

Re Airfix Mk.IIc: yes, I admit it, I don't actually like it either but was trying to avoid listing all its faults.  I still think that the key flaw is the nose.  Filling trenches is far, far easier (if tedious on an entire aircraft) than extending a wing chord, which I have done before now and although it may turn out to be less difficult than it sounds it is still a fairly major hack, certainly if you wish to retain any fine surface detail.  And surely getting a good shape (other than the nose, as said) is the first thing to expect of any model?

 

By AX Wildcat canopy do you mean the Airfix or AZ?  I have the AZ Martlet, and the canopy appears to be better than the Airfix one.  

[Seahawk]

3 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

  And surely getting a good shape (other than the nose, as said) is the first thing to expect of any model?

 

Interesting point for discussion, though probably best in a separate thread.  In principle, for me at least, the snap answer is "of course yes" but how many of us would actually choose the old FROG kits (which were by and large pretty good in outline) for a better detailed but marginally less accurate modern kit   (Yes, I know there are some on this site who do and they have my unreserved admiration).  I suppose the Airfix Hurricane IIc may be okay viewed from a distance, where the outline accuracy may be appreciated but the crude detail is not apparent.

 

3 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

By AX Wildcat canopy do you mean the Airfix or AZ?  I have the AZ Martlet, and the canopy appears to be better than the Airfix one.  

 

AX shorthand for Airfix.  I love the Martlet/Wildcat so it will be a long time before I forgive the howlers in the Airfix kit.  It could so easily have consigned all earlier kits to the dustbin of history but missed the open goal.  But I'm wandering back into another thread.

[Troy Smith]

9 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

It means the propeller and the spinner.

 

The Heller Mk.II still looks nice (to me, nostalgic too), but has the too-narrow nose and lacks interiors etc.  The Matchbox was and is awful, with nothing to offer.  (That may be a little unkind as I don't recall what the prop looked like...)  The Revell has a good nose but poor propeller, wing and canopy, also poor fabric effect on the fuselage - best removed.  The bomb fairings are mis-shapen but can be sanded to more of a "canoe" shape, rather than Revell's flat-bottomed "barge" section.  For Mk.IIs there is also the AZ, which requires a better canopy but is otherwise good, and the Hasegawa is generally excellent bar the sunken fuselage (and I'm not sure about the prop/spinner on any of their options, but you should check).  The Airfix Mk.IIc is clunky with a narrow engine (and more difficult to fix because of the thick unbending plastic) but otherwise the shape isn't too bad at all.

 

Rob Taurus do canopies (as do Falcon/Squadron), so I'd recommend one of those with the AZ, or the Hasegawa if you are prepared to work on the fabric.

 

The spinner appears to be a problem on the Mk.II: the Heller has a very attractive "bullet" shape but is it too slim?  The Hasegawa appears a bit bulbous but so do examples on current flying aircraft.  It's a very difficult feature to pin down by staring at photographs - I wonder if there was a change during production, for some reason?

 

The Airfix IIc from 2005 ish is a bang on match for official Hawker drawings, (see threads n drawings) and as such is a pretty much utterly hopeless.

the nose is wrong, tailplanes too small, too hunchbacked, nose too narrow, wings too narrow in chord,  access panels wrong shape,  before we even hit detail , I'm sure there is more, in short it's based on a diecast.

Why are the official Hawker drawings wrong?

from the only reliable set,  here's the notes that accompanied their original publication in Scale Models in 1908

there have been lengthy threads on this before, 

 

The  Revell Mk II has fabric problems that are way to  much work to fix, along with the other problems

 

The Heller has fixable problems,  too narrow nose, to much wing chord, but not at root, and maybe the best fabric  effect,  certainly a very good attempt,  and as such is worth some effort.

 

I don't  have the Matchbox.

 

The hasegawa Mk.I Spitfire Rotol looks OK,  the Mk.II bullet is blinkin' awful.

 

the possibilties of two 'bullet' Rotols looks to be the case, 

Graham Boak has mentioned that there are possibly two types of 'bullet' Rotol.

 

Quote

 

  Quote

The point that there maybe 2 Rotol Hurricane spinners is fascinating. I noticed that the spinner on KW924 does look longer than on KZ320.

Another things to ponder on when going through photos!

 

 

8 hours ago, Andre B said:

What type of Hurricane Mk. I did Douglas Bader fly with during BoB? Was it an metal winged one?

Yes,  metal wing, Spitfire Rotol.

 

 

Edited June 17, 2017 by Troy Smith
add details

[Marvel Onkey]

One more question- and forgive me if I have misunderstood or over-looked some of the detail in the fascinating information above that already answers this question.

 

Are there many apparent differences between a Mk.IIa and a MK.IIb?

 

I'm accepting here that some Mk.II Hurricanes arrived in squadron service before the 31st October cut-off date for the end of the BoB, but they would have been Mk.IIa because the first Mk.IIb weren't completed until October 1940, so unlikely to have been in actual service.

 

If I understand rightly there really aren't that many obvious differences between the Mk.IIa and Mk.IIb with Hispano cannon fitted- visually the two variants seem very similar- longer than a Mk.I because of the longer engine, each would have two cannon in each wing with a bulge for the breaches, kinked tail wheel, probably a Rotol spinner and prop...so to the model maker looking to make a reasonable version of a Mk.IIa I'm thinking a Mk.IIb kit is the answer?

 

Thanks

 

MO

[Graham Boak]

Firstly, forget about the Hispano cannon, that was the Mk.IIc.  The difference between the Mk.IIa and the early Mk.IIb was that the Mk.IIb had 12 guns instead of 8, the outer guns being mounted well outboard.  Later Mk.IIb had a stronger wing with attachments for bombs and droppable tanks.  So in modelling terms you start with a Mk.IIb and remove the outer guns, including panels and exit holes for the cartridges/links.  If the kit comes with underwing stores, then you also have to remove any evidence for those - except the fixed drop tanks, which were an option.  if you want to step away from the BoB and do a Hurribomber, then remember that the bomb carrier took up one of the inboard gun bays and the fairing blocked its exit, so these were 10 gun Hurricanes.

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello MO

I think early Hurricane Mk.IIa were actually of the same length as Mk.I. Both Merlin III and XX had single-stage superchargers and thus did not differ significantly in dimensions. Will check my sources and come back with more information later. Cheers

Jure

[Marvel Onkey]

19 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

 

Firstly, forget about the Hispano cannon, that was the Mk.IIc.  The difference between the Mk.IIa and the early Mk.IIb was that the Mk.IIb had 12 guns instead of 8, the outer guns being mounted well outboard.  Later Mk.IIb had a stronger wing with attachments for bombs and droppable tanks.  So in modelling terms you start with a Mk.IIb and remove the outer guns, including panels and exit holes for the cartridges/links.  If the kit comes with underwing stores, then you also have to remove any evidence for those - except the fixed drop tanks, which were an option.  if you want to step away from the BoB and do a Hurribomber, then remember that the bomb carrier took up one of the inboard gun bays and the fairing blocked its exit, so these were 10 gun Hurricanes.

 

 

Well that seems actually reasonably do-able, even for me- thank you

[Graham Boak]

Both Merlin III and XX have single-stage superchargers but the Merlin XX had a two-speed gearbox which required an extra 4 inches.

 

The precise state of these early Mk.IIs has been confused over the years by a number of different versions of the story told by Francis Mason, doyen of writers on the Hurricane but with a number of blind spots, and this was one of them.  Even fairly late on, he hadn't realised about the greater length of the Merlin XX or the visible greater length of the Mk.II.

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello, Graham

I did find this remark in Mason's book about Hurricane, published by Kookaburra, and it has been also repeated in many other books. Well, live and learn. Cheers

Jure

[Troy Smith]

Jure

Mason is 'best' author on Hurricanes, but as has been discussed here, he makes mistakes...  or just does not know much about certain areas.

The big clunkers are the Mk.IIA series 1 being the same length as a Mk.I,  it  can't be.(see below) and the Sea Hurricane IC being a cannon armed Mk.I with 100 built and saw combat,  all the evidence is that that  maybe 2 were built...

Quote

Mason does say this, but he is wrong. Despite his many merits, he isn't particularly good on Sea Hurricanes generally. Ray Sturtivant could not find a single Mk.Ic in the FAA records. Neither is there any evidence of any on Pedestal, as confirmed by an 880 Sq armourer. Cork is not known to have ever mentioned such, but he did complain about the slowness of the Sea Hurricane trying to catch a Ju88. He'd have been even more vocal with an overweight 4 cannon aircraft. The individual aircraft on Pedestal have been identified, and the only one not a standard Mk.Ib was a converted RAF Hurricane Mk.IIb with a Merlin III. It had been left behind with engine trouble on a ferry to Java, and adapted for carrier use. It was unpopular because it was heavier - had they been able to fix the Mk.XX Merlin it might have done a better job of chasing that Ju88.

801 Sq did not serve on Avenger. 802 and 883 had SH Mk.Ib for PQ18 then re-equipped with Mk.IIB in September. After the November sinking 883 was not reformed (later RCN) and 802 was equipped with Seafires.

What has confused matters is that the suffixes on Sea Hurricanes Mk.Is did not reflect the armament. The a suffix was used for aircraft with catapult spools but no arrester hooks, used on the CAM and Fighter Direction ships. The b was for aircraft with both spools and hook, for the fleet carriers. Both variants had eight guns. I have a piece of paper (dated much later, from a BAe document) which states that the c suffix was for aircraft without spools but with arrester hooks, intended for escort carriers. I've seen nothing to suggest that this was ever used although perhaps here is the root of the confusion over the aircraft on Avenger?

 

 

I have the 1990 edition of Mason's Hawker Hurricane, which has 'drawings' with his name attached which are horrible..  

 

To clarify,  the rear of the Merlin supercharger is hard up against the main wing spar, so when the Merlin XX was used, the nose HAS to be longer.

to pis Mk.I, lower is IID, note position of firewall is the same, the rear engine bearers are longer.

Quote

Here's another demonstration of the fillet (and perhaps other) difference: both from "The Hawker Hurricane" F K Mason 1962

 

drawings

 

from

 

Marvel, regarding the IIB, this walkround is a IIB (or a Canadian XII) 

http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/mark_hayward/hurricane_iia/

 

it says it's a IIA, it not,  BUT it is  marked as a 111 Squadron IIA from the end of the BoB...

 

you know what...I've done this before....   

 

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/64364-hurricane-noses-and-the-hasegawa-172-kits/page-2

The Mk II has a Merlin XX engine, it's 4 inches longer than the Merlin III in the supercharger back gubbins.

The Merlin III already sits against the main spar.

The length is added in the middle of the rear cowling panel.

This drawing was part of Peter Cooke's 'Hurricane Veracity' Article in MAM in 1999. he measured up several Hurricanes, and did this drawing.

Note position of inserted length.

Note also the deeper radiator, which then has almost square section, as opposed to the oval Mk I.

The carb intake is also wider,

  Quote

From all I have read, the cowl length, measured from the panel line immediately aft of the exhausts is the same for all the the Hurricanes.

 

The difference is in the rear engine bearers, they are longer, because the merlin XX is longer. The added length is is in the middle of the panel in front of the cockpit, behind the exhaust panel.
The longer engine bearers need a longer leading edge fillet, it's quite subtle unless you look carefully and it's well lit, due to curves, and the camo lines, remember it's only 4 inches, a quick measure of some drawings show the rear panel on the MkI to be 39", so one a MKII it should be 43", about 10% longer.
Graham nails this point

  Quote

A more obvious comparison is the fairing between the wing leading edge and the nose - this is almost circular on the Mk.I and twice the length and more elliptical on the Mk.II. This is very easy to note when you have the two to compare, of course.

 

These pics while not ideal, I hope show this difference.


Mk I


Mk II


Mk I


Mk II


neat shot of a IIA, this shows the extended root fillet well.

compare to this one again.

these posted by bob show the extended engine bearers, and lengthened root fillet

  On 2011-3-5 at 13:04, gingerbob said:

Here's another demonstration of the fillet (and perhaps other) difference: both from "The Hawker Hurricane" F K Mason 1962

 

Mki Radiator and carb intake

From http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/mark_hayward/hurricane_mk1_l1592/

L1952, with a DH Hurricane prop.

Mk II , also has a circular core added to the radiator. I don't know how original the mesh on the carb intake is.

From http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/mark_hayward/hurricane_iia/

This is infact a IIB, note outer wing guns, but is marked as one of the first Mk IIA's, as used by 111 Squadron in the BoB.

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234966142-hawker-hurricane-iia-in-battle-of-britain-photographs-date-of-introduction/

The Hobbycraft IIC gets the wider carb intake and has the best Rotol bullet spinner in 1/48th, but misses the deeper radiator

Hasegawa get the deeper radiator and moved carb intake, but not the wider carb intake.

Italeri get the deeper radiator, and moved carb intake, but not the wider carb intake.

So, the conversion either requires spares, (for example the Hasegawa 'Croix De Lorraine' kit has both the Mk i and II parts) or copies of these bits.

Later Mk II's have the 'knuckled' tailwheel, and fishtail exhausts. Aeroclub did a white metal Mk II tailwheel.

The Ark kit has an OK Rotol bullet spinner (pic on page 1) and both types of tailwheel.

Or, some modelling skill. Adjusting the rad and carb intake I think will be the tricky bit. I did make a smash mould for a Rotol bullet spinner, it's not to hard a shape to turn from dowel, and you could (probably) use the kit DH backplate combined with the kit Rotol blades.

There is also the business of adjusting the cowl fillet, the conversion will be easier if you have a Hase Mk II to refer to, as they get this right.( I know both Tony and Jonner's have Hase II's about for reference)

Note, the Hase kit upper cowling is bit flat.

So, not actually an 'easy' conversion unless you are good at scratch building and modifications.

This will get you to a IIA, a IIB needs the outer gun bays panels adding.

and the leading edge gun ports.

one bit of info that came up in discussion here, the guns had to be removed through the leading edge panel!

this pic shows what a sod of job that was!

http://www.britmodeller.com/walkarounds/aircraft/hurricane/be505%2032.JPG

useful walkaround here

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/71906-hawker-hurricane-mkii/

so... bit tricky...

For the IIC/IID/IV you need to fill and change the gun bay panel lines....

HTH

T

PS note in the drawing there is a note about the canopy rail being curved, here's a warbird photo which shows this detail well, the canopy flexes down a bit as well when shut.

This is one of the BBMF planes I think, note also the round review mirror used on later Hurricanes as well...this detail change was pointed out to me in correspondence with a veteran pilot!

 

As has been said before on here, the poor old  Hurricane is poorly served in certain areas,  and various  members here try to correct this, the thread linked on Hurricane propeller and spinners is the best reference on the subject I know of ANYWHERE,  when other members added details, like details on the Canadian props,and Graham's observation on the what appears to be 2 kinds of 'bullet' Rotol.

 

Some serious archive digging is called for,  I've been meaning to get to Hendon and the IWM,  just getting a free day to do so.

 

HTH

T

 

Edited June 23, 2017 by Troy Smith
add details

[Marvel Onkey]

I'm going to need a free day just to read and take in all that info!

 

Thank you 

[MDriskill]

One minor additional note on the Hasegawa 1/72 Hurricane kits. They were molded with a separate nose section, which was made in two different lengths--a shorter one for the Mk I, and a longer one for the Mk II.

 

For reasons known only to the Almighty and Mr. Hasegawa, the "Battle of Britain" Mk I issue of the kit, which was the first to be released, has the LONGER nose, i.e., not correct for the Mk I. In full compliance with Murphy's Law, this version seems to be the one most often found.

 

All the other Mk I boxings have the correct shorter nose.

Edited June 24, 2017 by MDriskill

[Graham Boak]

Not quite right: the initial/main issue of the kit has a nose section of the correct length for all Hurricanes.  The fuselage section is the correct length for Mk.II and subsequent variants.  Using the short nose does indeed give you to the correct overall length for a Mk.I but this has incorrect panel lines and the longer nose/wing fairing of the Mk.II on all variants of the kit.  You also require (but don't get) a different radiator for the Mk.I, and the kit comes with the outer guns of the B wing - not fitted to Mk.Is.

 

That this is the option most commonly found isn't Murphy's Law in action: Hasegawa's habit is to first release what becomes the main version of the kit, which becomes the standard and is often re-released.  Subsequent versions appear once and never again. (There may have been exceptions to this, but not I think in their Hurricane releases.)

[tango98]

Following Maevel Onkey's comment: "I'm accepting here that some Mk.II Hurricanes arrived in squadron service before the 31st October cut-off date for the end of the BoB, but they would have been Mk.IIa because the first Mk.IIb weren't completed until October 1940, so unlikely to have been in actual service".

A bit of Mk II & 12-gun wings trivia for those interested:

11 June 1940 was first flight of prototype Hurricane Mk II P3269

By the end of October 1940, 70 Mk IIs  had been delivered : 12 in August, 34 in September and 24 in October.

On 19 April 1940 the AM first agreed to 12 gun wings being produced for the Hurricane Mk II.

During the period 10 to 25 June 1940, Mk II  P3811 fitted with a Rotol prop and metal skinned wings with 12 guns was trialled at Boscombe Down.

The first installation of a twelve gun wing on a production machine took place in March 1941.

 

Cheers

Dave

Edited June 24, 2017 by tango98
Added missing words

[MDriskill]

2 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Not quite right: the initial/main issue of the kit has a nose section of the correct length for all Hurricanes.  The fuselage section is the correct length for Mk.II and subsequent variants.  Using the short nose does indeed give you to the correct overall length for a Mk.I but this has incorrect panel lines and the longer nose/wing fairing of the Mk.II on all variants of the kit.  You also require (but don't get) a different radiator for the Mk.I, and the kit comes with the outer guns of the B wing - not fitted to Mk.Is.

 

That this is the option most commonly found isn't Murphy's Law in action: Hasegawa's habit is to first release what becomes the main version of the kit, which becomes the standard and is often re-released.  Subsequent versions appear once and never again. (There may have been exceptions to this, but not I think in their Hurricane releases.)

 

I think we've had this chat before, LOL!

 

In my opinion, it is the SHORT Hasegawa nose which is closest to the correct dimension, when I've scaled it against Mr. Bentley's drawings, or Mr. Cooke's sketch above. So, I guess we will have to "agree to disagree" on that one, but it's actually besides the point of my original post, which was simply to point out that two different snouts were produced. 

 

Similarly, the "Murphy's Law" crack was just bad humor! I claim no expertise in Hasegawa kit release history.

[Graham Boak]

I entirely agree that the combination of the short nose and long fuselage gives the correct overall length, but not the correct division of nose and fuselage shape.  Reverting to the 1/1 original, in the Mk.II it was the fuselage that was lengthened to accept the longer engine (extended at the rear only), the nose cowling remaining the same length.  On the section between the cowling and the canopy, the length and number of fasteners increased.  Find clear photos of this area so you can count the fasteners, and you'll see one more on the Mk.II.  This was precisely the point of Peter Cooke's research, to establish the correct difference between the Mk.I and the Mk.II.  However, right or wrong about the overall length, the shape of the wing-to-nose fairing is wrong for a Mk.I, being too long (semi-elliptical rather than more circular), but right for a Mk.II.  Again, look at photographs of this area - Troy has published them on this site more than once.  

 

I produced one Mk.I from the basic kit by chopping almost 2mm from the front to the Hasegawa fuselage and reshaping the fairing, but this loses the location point at the front making life more difficult.  If you have the short nose, it will be easier to fill the offending joins and rescribe, then file down the offending fairing and rescribe there.  You presumably need to slightly relocate the exhausts: I don't have one to hand to check.

 

Have you used the original printing of AL Bentley's drawings?    Later printings were "stretched" by the copier, introducing errors.  He has recently made them available directly from himself, and has confirmed to me that the original magazine-printed copies are correct.  

 

There is something murky about the early deliveries of the Mk.II.  They were built at Hawkers to contract B62305/39, the first Z2308  in August 1940.  Eleven of the first 12 went to 111 Sq, but do not seem to have lasted and are not recorded with this unit in Fighter Squadrons of the RAF.  The first significant user appears to have been 421 Flt., used to find and shadow enemy bomber forces approaching the UK. The first conventional squadron to receive Mk.IIAs in significant numbers was 605 Sq, from November 1940 (according to FSR).  Mason has three squadrons by December, 46, 303 and 605.  The first two do not seem to have operated the Mk.IIA at all (according to FSR) and do not appear in the service history of the early aircraft of the this batch.

 

The first MK.IIb was Z2885, which was retained for test purposes.  The next several aircraft went to 242 Sq.  FSR has 242 Sq with the Mk.IIb in February 1940, but of the sample serials, the first four are not Mk.IIb.  The unit continued flying Mk.IIA until April 1941.  (I suspect a simple misunderstanding of this batch.)

 

Re the April 1940 decision to go with the B wing: according to Mason this was a decision to delay the introduction because of a fear of a shortage of Brownings in the forthcoming battle.  Although Mason is looking increasingly dodgy on the development of the Mk.II, I think that this is probably reliable as it explains the delay in introducing this variant.

 

 

 

[tango98]

Graham and anybody else who is interested about 12-gun wings,

From my files, the first mention of 12-gun wings refers to a sketch sent from Hawkers to a Mr.Rowe on 12 January 1940 showing the company proposal for fitting four additional guns in Hurricane metal wings. On 9 February, the AM agreed to the detail design and trial installation of 12-gun wings giving final approval for the go ahead on 19 April. However, some doubt was expressed as to whether the Hurricane at 6,750 lb would be acceptable from the point of view of handling and landing.

The information in the files here thus far suggests that the 12-gun arrangement was never wholly acceptable.

An excerpt from Boscombe’s report following the 12-gun trials concludes,  “…that the inaccessibility of the extra four guns is at present such that they are hardly worth fitting and that it would be much better to retain the standard eight gun installation and to try and find a means of increasing the ammunition supply to at least 600 rounds per gun.”

It was also found that with a normal a.u.w of 6316 lb for the 8-gun wing aircraft and a 6750 lb overload weight for the 12-gun wing aircraft there was no appreciable difference in handling characteristics.

Interestingly, in all of the files I have here on Hurricane armament I have yet to see anything on concerns over a shortage of guns but then, I’ve still an awful lot of papers to go through!

You’re right about Z2885 on 4 April 1941 and fitted with 4 x 20mm and Hispano feed Mk 1 (3^rd aircraft off of contract) it was retained for trials and in June ’41 sent to RAE for gun chamber heating trials.

Cheers

Dave (with apologies for hijacking the original thread content)

Edited June 25, 2017 by tango98
added words

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello

Thank you for a wealth of information about Hurricane length, Troy. One should probably resign to fact that there is no sources one can completely rely on. I should probably make 3D computer model or drawings first, and then proceed with a build from scratch. At least I would know whom to blame after I botch everything up.

Very interesting post, Dave. A quick question: does your notes perhaps include info about 12-gun Typhoons Ia? I read somewhere that in service they were never armed with their full complement of machine guns, as it took too long to service and re-arm them. Cheers

Jure

[Graham Boak]

Dave:  "A Mr. Roe" is probably N.E.Roe of the Royal Aircraft Establishment.  I don't know his official title but he was the consultant on performance matters.  A very significant figure in the British industry/procurement loop.

 

It is interesting to see early doubt expressed over the 12 guns.  Despite being considered highly effective in strafing ground troops the outer guns were often removed in theatre in order to save weight, particularly when up against the highly agile lightweight Oscar.   How much of this was passed back to the Air Ministry/UK is another matter.  As an unavoidable rule, having weight outboard will increase the rolling inertia making the aircraft less agile.  This was more clearly the case with the 4-cannon Hurricane: again, outside the UK one of the guns was often removed from each wing,  On FR Hurricanes this permitted the fitting of a forward-facing camera.  Again, they could be retained for their value strafing, or where enemy bombers were expected (eg night fighters and intruders).

 

Jure:  You can certainly rely upon AL Bentley's plans for the Mk.I.  (And this isn't just my opinion.)  Peter Cooke (and Edgar Brooks) has shown the increase in length for the Mk.II.  The rest is just subtleties of details for a range of propellers and armaments, filters, tailwheels, radiators but nothing relevant to the basic shape.  It would however be good to get a definitive account of the development of the Mk.IIA,B and B fighter-bomber.

[tango98]

Graham,

You're correct, it was sent to N.E.Roe at RAE. On the subject of the development of the IIA & B and the fighter-bomber development, I do have a considerable number of files and documents on the subject, some of which are photocopies of originals

which Edgar acquired for me from over 25 years ago and before we had the luxury of the internet. If there's enough interest I'll figure out an easy way to make them available chronologically.

Interestingly and while still on the subject regarding the 12 gun arrangement, a report from 302 Sqn of 1 May 1941 mentions "...the unglueing of gun patches..." which appears to answer the question of how these patches were applied and also mentions that while eight guns could be re-armed in twelve minutes, re-arming twelve guns took an average of eighteen minutes. A further report states that "The Service is having considerable difficulty with the new 12-gun installation in the Hurricane. The only way to properly clean the additional four guns is to remove them from the wings; the time required to do this for two guns being given as 1 hour and fifteen minutes........Can nothing be done to improve this installation?" Yet another report from 258 Sqn mentions the difficulties encountered with the adjusters when harmonising the No.6 port and No.6 starboard guns. And it goes on.......

 

Jure, Sorry, but I have absolutely nothing regarding the Typhoon but would suggest that Geoff Thomas would be the person to answer your Typhoon questions.

 

Cheers

Dave