Jump to content

Gloster Gauntlets of 74 squadron


deecee

Recommended Posts

I can't believe that every biplane operated by the RAF or FAA in the interwar period, would have to have its upper wing removed to paint the squadron markings. Surely some type of scaffolding or trestle arrangement would have been used, to allow painters access to the upper wing without having to dismantle the aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Hello deecee (if you're till out there somewhere),

I realize this topic goes back somewhat, but I am now starting to build the AZ Gauntlet and am especially interested in what conclusions you reached as far as the interior colors. By the way, your Gaunlet looks excellent. I suppose I should also ask if, in the last year or so, you heard anything more on the top wing markings? Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Bob,

Still here! – and what a surprise to see my model of the Gauntlet turning up again!!

Well now, cockpit colours. I have to say that I don’t actually know what the correct colours should be and I think that at the time I tried to make an educated guess.

I see that all AZ give you is:

i/panel – black

seat, floor and stick – light grey

rudder bar – steel

stick handle and pedals – brown

As I said, I mainly used the Mushroom book for reference and it proved to be quite helpful. There are some interior shots in b/w from the technical manual, but mainly ones from the Finnish preserved example in colour.

These show a brown i/panel, green(what shade?) above the door hinge-line and a sort of mid grey below this. No framework or seat is shown. How much of this is correct I couldn’t say. The text says that this a/c was rebuilt from two scrap airframes between 1976-81.

Looking at my photo of the cockpit I see that I painted the framework black – probably correct - with a wood trim to the top (door hingeline) – not sure about this. The i/p is brown, although dry-brushed and darkened to a rather used effect. I copied a colour photo of the preserved Gladiator cockpit. The foot rests were metal (left them as lead foil) and I put leather straps over the pedals. As for the interior shell, I used aluminium toned down and washed to help show up the framework as I didn’t want it to be too dark in there – I don’t know if this is correct. Not much is seen anyway! I opened the cockpit door to show more and painted the inside of this aluminium with a wash. The seat, which is conspicuous, I covered in BareMetal foil and again washed to take off the brightness, but buffed certain areas to show wear, and finally added belts. The bulkhead behind the seat I simulated wood. I needn’t have bothered with the radio – it isn’t seen. There are colour photos of the RAF museum Bulldog in the book and I used some of these as a guide as the aircraft are of a similar period. Also Gladiator pics as mentioned.

Sorry I can’t be more specific, but I did have a problem getting detailed information at the time.

One point to correct on the AZ kit: the panel line immediately aft of the gun trough is vertical in the kit and it should have a backward slope of about 5 degrees. Easy to correct.

Finally, no I didn’t find out anymore about the wing markings – thank goodness, ‘cos I didn’t want to live with knowing they were wrong!! And too much hassle to alter.

Hope this has helped a bit,

deecee

Gladiator

detail_gladiator_09.jpg

Gauntlet (modified)

Gloster_Gauntlet_OH-XGT_Cockpit_from_left_Kymi_Finnland_20060627.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beautiful Gauntlet!

Deecee,

Great pictures, and thanks for the response. I have the Mushroom book, also, but have been reluctant to rely so much on the Finnish version. Guess I'll have to bite the bullet, and just start. Thanks, again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Very nice model indeed.

Does any one know were these markings applied to the aircraft of fighter squadrons only and did those squadrons apply them at the same time? They seem to be very common for a couple of years until the application of camouflage and presumably they were officially sanctioned?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very nice model indeed.

Does any one know were these markings applied to the aircraft of fighter squadrons only and did those squadrons apply them at the same time? They seem to be very common for a couple of years until the application of camouflage and presumably they were officially sanctioned?

The short answer is Fighters only, However some Harts carried wing markings and these were the London based Hart Sqns (600,601,604) tasked as fighters and they were officially sanctioned.

The FAA wing markings were an entirely different thing.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The short answer is Fighters only, However some Harts carried wing markings and these were the London based Hart Sqns (600,601,604) tasked as fighters and they were officially sanctioned.

The FAA wing markings were an entirely different thing.

John

I have seen a 600 Squadron Demon marked in this way but not a Hart. There is a profile of a Hart in Alex Crawford's excellent book but no photo to support it. Searched quite a bit but still can't find one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi John

I was interested to read your comments.

It never occurred to me how upper wing markings would be applied to bi-planes! Perhaps I just envisaged someone scrabbling across the top wing with a can of paint and a brush and being careful not to put a foot through the canvas!

Seriously though, could this be done without having the wing dismantled? And if so, was some sort of construction of ladders/planks/scaffolding used? I’d be interested to know. You suggest a ‘simple’ bar could be done in situ. How?

Not so sure that I agree that 74sq markings were ‘complicated’ as I think you imply. Surely it’s not that much different to draw out a bar of triangles than a bar consisting of squares as 56sq for example had – (and I note they only had Gauntlets for just over a year.) You are only dividing the series of rectangles with a diagonal line instead of a horizontal one, if you see what I mean.

I was looking through my treasured ‘Fighter Squadrons of the RAF and their aircraft’ by John Rawlings (first pub. 1969 - 40 yrs old!) and was really surprised to find that 22 squadrons were equipped with Gauntlets. There is a very nice photo of a Gauntlet II of 74sq taken at Usworth in 1937. I would like to reproduce it here, but I fear I would be restricted. No upper wing can be seen unfortunately, but the side panels are very clear.

So I decided to check on what actually is marked.

To simplify it I only counted the ‘black’ triangles – 2 in front and 12 behind the roundel in the photograph.

Model Alliance gives 2 in front and only 11 behind. Oh dear!

Mushroom Special shows 3 in front and 13 behind;

Profile no.10 and On Silver Wings have 3 and 12.

Only SAMI is correct with 2 and 12.

As for the top wing bar (if their ever was one), well …..

Mushroom Special – 38 black triangles

On Silver Wings (Keith Woodcock painting) – 28

Model Alliance – 56

Quite a difference!! You really do need photographic evidence if you want to get your model right, but then if there is none – who’s to argue?

Cheers

deecee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deecee,

I decided to just go ahead on the AZ Gauntlet, using what I have available, (and your input) as far as info. Per your post of 16 Nov 2009, let me add a couple minor things. Using your benchmark of the black triangles, the AZ decals have 3 in front (of the roundel) and 13 behind for the side stripe, and 36 for the top wing stripe, for what it's worth. You make reference to your Rawlings book and reluctance to reproduce the photo. I understand that notion, but doesn't that generally have more to do with reproducing/republishing for profit, or without proper credit? In other words, could you not go ahead and scan it to us all? Or, if you are still hesitant could you scan it to me? I ask because l am curious about the layout of the triangles in the apparently one known clear photo of 74 Sqdn markings. For instance, from what I can see of the one photo of your completed model (could we have some more please, sir?), your top wing stripe starts from the left with a yellow triangle, point forward. The cover of "On Silver Wings" shows the starboard side stripe with a black triangle forward, point down, and the (undocumented, of course) top wing stripe starts from the left with a black triangle, point aft. Now, having bought those beautiful Model Alliance decals, I really wanted to use them, but it looks like I could cut the forward 2 triangles (a yellow and a black) from the AZ kit decals, and do the equivalent to the aft end, thus have 2 and 12. (By the way, the "SAMI" you refer to, I assume, is one of their magazines -- can you give the issue #?). I was thinking of using a combination of the Model Alliance and AZ stripes, but is looks like the Model Alliance yellow is clearly more orange-yellow than AZ.

I'll also note that on page 59 of the Mushroom book, there is a photo of a 74 Sqdn line-up, all serial numbers and all triangle stripes obscured, that shows the upper surface of the horizontal stabilizer with a mirror image (?) of the vertical fin marking of a dark color edged in a lighter color. It doesn't seem that any profile I've seen has this reproduced; assuming this is a Sqdn/flt leader, and may be specific to one aircraft, I note that the cover of "On Silver Wings" has a Gauntlet with the dark/edged vertical fin as Serial #K 7863, with no similar marking on the horiz stab. And now that I look at the photo in the Mushroom book, it looks like there is a serial # on the fin just visible eonough to see it is a different font and layout than one would expect. It looks to me like G 5/51325, with C N underneath that.

Comments and ezplanations, please, anyone? Thanks, Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deecee,

I decided to just go ahead on the AZ Gauntlet, using what I have available, (and your input) as far as info. Per your post of 16 Nov 2009, let me add a couple minor things. Using your benchmark of the black triangles, the AZ decals have 3 in front (of the roundel) and 13 behind for the side stripe, and 36 for the top wing stripe, for what it's worth. You make reference to your Rawlings book and reluctance to reproduce the photo. I understand that notion, but doesn't that generally have more to do with reproducing/republishing for profit, or without proper credit? In other words, could you not go ahead and scan it to us all? Or, if you are still hesitant could you scan it to me? I ask because l am curious about the layout of the triangles in the apparently one known clear photo of 74 Sqdn markings. For instance, from what I can see of the one photo of your completed model (could we have some more please, sir?), your top wing stripe starts from the left with a yellow triangle, point forward. The cover of "On Silver Wings" shows the starboard side stripe with a black triangle forward, point down, and the (undocumented, of course) top wing stripe starts from the left with a black triangle, point aft. Now, having bought those beautiful Model Alliance decals, I really wanted to use them, but it looks like I could cut the forward 2 triangles (a yellow and a black) from the AZ kit decals, and do the equivalent to the aft end, thus have 2 and 12. (By the way, the "SAMI" you refer to, I assume, is one of their magazines -- can you give the issue #?). I was thinking of using a combination of the Model Alliance and AZ stripes, but is looks like the Model Alliance yellow is clearly more orange-yellow than AZ.

I'll also note that on page 59 of the Mushroom book, there is a photo of a 74 Sqdn line-up, all serial numbers and all triangle stripes obscured, that shows the upper surface of the horizontal stabilizer with a mirror image (?) of the vertical fin marking of a dark color edged in a lighter color. It doesn't seem that any profile I've seen has this reproduced; assuming this is a Sqdn/flt leader, and may be specific to one aircraft, I note that the cover of "On Silver Wings" has a Gauntlet with the dark/edged vertical fin as Serial #K 7863, with no similar marking on the horiz stab. And now that I look at the photo in the Mushroom book, it looks like there is a serial # on the fin just visible eonough to see it is a different font and layout than one would expect. It looks to me like G 5/51325, with C N underneath that.

Comments and ezplanations, please, anyone? Thanks, Bob

Gloster part numbers on each component followed by the a/c serial. Hawkers used a similar thing. It could be Gloster falling into line with Hawker practice as they were the main company.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gloster part numbers on each component followed by the a/c serial. Hawkers used a similar thing. It could be Gloster falling into line with Hawker practice as they were the main company.

John

Hello, John,

Thanks. Interesting. Since I, at least, have not noticed many aircraft with this format, does this mean that this would have been painted out, probably soon after the picture was taken (given that the photo, although maybe posed, shows what I would assume to be a squadron already operational), and the more usually seen fomat K xxxx, would then be painted on? Or is this photo late enough so that the next step would be camo?

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello, John,

Thanks. Interesting. Since I, at least, have not noticed many aircraft with this format, does this mean that this would have been painted out, probably soon after the picture was taken (given that the photo, although maybe posed, shows what I would assume to be a squadron already operational), and the more usually seen fomat K xxxx, would then be painted on? Or is this photo late enough so that the next step would be camo?

Bob

No this is the rudder part id number and a/c serial number is there to match it to it's parent airframe when it's removed during servicing (ie "remove rudder and check hinge bolt play"). The usual serial on the rudder is hidden by the aircrew in that photo, All the seperate items of the aeroplane have stencilled part numbers, usually only on one side. Even the struts have them usually near the base. Components were often individually "tweaked", eg thin cord/rope would be doped onto trailing edges to act as trim tabs or fixed trim tabs would be bent to suit that particular airframe.

John

Copyofimg354.jpg

Edited by John Aero
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Bob

Reference your post of the 2nd Jan

I haven’t been able to respond sooner having been away, but I’ll try and give you as much as I can. Here goes:

Photo of the Gauntlet that I referred to in Fighter Squadrons of the RAF (John Rawlings)

scan0002a-1.jpg

“Visiting Usworth in 1937, K7817 displays the tigerskin markings of No. 74 Squadron”

(caption under the photo)

Also listed in the book are a selection of Gauntlet IIs in service with 74 sq between Apr’37 and Feb’39.

K5308, K5332, K5355, K5363, K7792, K7817, K7852

Also I do urge you to read what is written on Hannants decal sheet for 74 sq (X72106)

LINK

Select page 4

Reference is made to a photo which is the same as that shown in Mushroom Pub. P59 and which is captioned “Brookie briefing” where pilots are gathered around Sq. Ldr. D S Brooks (C.O. May’36 – Apr’38) by the tailplane of his aircraft. The colours are confirmed as black with yellow border. They go on to suggest from evidence in other photos (supplied by Bob Cossey, 74 sq historian) of a similarly marked aircraft, black fin and tailplane and serial visible as K7863, that the serial of this aircraft is probably K7863, which is the decal option they provide on this sheet. They also go on to say that the profile shown in SAMI (vol.9 issue 9: Sept.’03) and Mushroom Pub. of Gauntlet K7815 with a red fin and accredited to the CO is therefore probably not the CO’s aircraft.

As for the colour illustration on the cover of ‘On Silver Wings’ I would suggest that this is the very same aircraft as detailed above and someone has neglected to show the black tailplane. Perhaps it was missed in the photo which was used for reference. I think it unlikely that the aircraft had just the fin painted first and the tailplane done later, but then again it may have been!

As for my model, I used the decals from Model Alliance. Before doing so I wrote to MA questioning the use of upper wing markings and received a response from Peter Freeman who I am sure won’t mind if I reproduce here.

“Hi David,

My name is Peter Freeman, one of the co-authors of 'Wings of Silver'. Gary Madgwick at The Aviation Workshop Publications Ltd passed on your email to me regarding the 74 Squadron Gauntlets. As you know the decal sheet you worked from on your Gauntlet model, derived from the 'Wings of Silver' book, so I am assuming responsibility for what we produced as the markings for this aircraft. Also apologies for not replying more quickly, but I wanted to consult one or two 'experts'.

The reference I used for the drawing of Gloster Gauntlet II K7862, came from a very small photograph in a book called Royal Air Force Squadrons Partwork by Orbis Publishing. It was one of those weekly publications which you collected to make into a larger volume (hence page number 3815). I have to admit that the photograph was an unsatisfactory angle to see the upper surface of the top wing, however the 'tiger stripes' were quite clear on the fuselage. During this period, it was normal practice for the RAF fighter squadrons to replicate the fuselage marking on the top wing. In fact I would chance to say that virtually all of them, including the Auxilliary Squadrons, had some form of upper wing markings. This point convinced me that the wing marking should be included in the illustration and subsequent decal sheet.”

Thanks Peter.

Elsewhere there has been some query regarding the accuracy of Gauntlet drawings.

John is definitely correct about the fin/rudder in the Caruana (SAMI) drawing being wrong. The ribs are in the wrong place. Compare with the photo on p.116 of Mushroom Pub. where the ribs are clearly visible. Also I have noticed that there should not be a panel line joint on the stbd side of the cowling like the one on the port side p.61 M.P. Caruana shows this. I would suggest that the Mushroom book drawings are the best to date.

Enough for now! Model photos to follow.

deecee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting to see Peter Freemen's comments on the decal sheet. He is of course making an a priori assumption. There is evidence though that several squadrons didn't paint markings on the upper wing, the most famous example being No. 87 Gladiators. Others are listed in 'On Silver Wings'. Having the wing markings does make the scheme much more interesting though. I also note that markings in your photo are not equal triangles but rather black triangles on a yellow background. Somehow that variant looks more attractive to my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John and deecee, thanks for all your invaluable info and photos. Your new photos of the model are great, deecee, Yes, that cowling really shines. I've never tried the foil, and I'm not sure I 'm about to now, but it definitely looks good. And I'm greatful for your posting that photo of K7817. Unfortunately, it shows that all the decals for those tiger markings are not quite right. Notice that the points of the trangles in the photo don't actually touch the wide end of the triangle next to it. Bummer. I even broke out my Aeroclub kit and that is the same. (BTW, Aeroclub had 3 black triangles in front, 12 behind, and 56 on top, for serial K7817. Also gave a serial for K7863). I also found a (smallish) photo of a 74 Sqdn plane in the Ducimus book, p. 108, which shows that black/yellow fin, serial obscured, and side stripe partially obscured.

Also, deecee, how did you manage to get that framework cokpit into that kit? I decided to use the molded-in top rail to sit the instrument panel on, and I've had to reduce the height of the rail, scrape the inside upper fuselage until its almost all the way through, and trim the panel itself until I'm almost hitting the dial circles, and I'm still not sure it will fit.

My original plan was to do the Aeroclub Gauntlet, Aeroclub Woodcock, and Matchbox Siskin. Now I'm beginning to think that if I can finish the Gaunlet, I need to go on to something simple -- Hasegawa FW 160A-5. We'll see.

Anyway, thanks again, John, for answering all my, I guess, pretty basic questions.

And a belated Happy New Year to you all. Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

Hello all,

Still working, slowly, on the AZ Gauntlet. Fuselage together, bottom wing on, and I was going to add the horizontal stabs, which are a butt join. Then I noticed that the cross hatching indicating the gluing position for the pieces seems to not be paralell to the line of flight. Instead, it slants down from aft to front. Review of some photos almost looks like that is correct, but could be optical illusion caused by angle of the photo. The indicated positioin of the part is in a rectangular panel. Should the stabilizer be centered (top and bottom) in this panel, or could the slant be correct for some aeronautical reason? I will try to post a photo to show the issue, but it came out pretty faint on the original photo, so I'm not sure you will be able to see it, but I'm gratefull for ideas. Or, maybe, photo to follow. First time trying to post a query with a photo. Wish me luck.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all,

Still working, slowly, on the AZ Gauntlet. Fuselage together, bottom wing on, and I was going to add the horizontal stabs, which are a butt join. Then I noticed that the cross hatching indicating the gluing position for the pieces seems to not be paralell to the line of flight. Instead, it slants down from aft to front. Review of some photos almost looks like that is correct, but could be optical illusion caused by angle of the photo. The indicated positioin of the part is in a rectangular panel. Should the stabilizer be centered (top and bottom) in this panel, or could the slant be correct for some aeronautical reason? I will try to post a photo to show the issue, but it came out pretty faint on the original photo, so I'm not sure you will be able to see it, but I'm gratefull for ideas. Or, maybe, photo to follow. First time trying to post a query with a photo. Wish me luck.

Bob

2055300440064785832MeJcvD_th.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Bob

Just browsing through Britmodeller Forum "as you do" and noticed my name cropping up! Going back to the Gauntlet thread of 2009! What a surprise!

I hadn't noticed the feature on the fuselage sides with the tiger stripe triangles not meeting, but you're right. Don't think I'll change it on my model though. I may have done at the time because I like to be accurate. However, who knows whether this appeared on all the aircraft. Thankfully mine is 7862 and I haven't a photo of this a/c. My reference was Aviation Workshop's 'Wings of Silver' combined with their decal sheets.

As to the tailplane... it's a pity you haven't got a copy of Mushroom Publications' Bristol Bulldog-Gloster Gauntlet. There are a couple of structural photographs of the tail area which might give an indication as to what is happening. It seems as though the tail surfaces are supported by a rod which passes through the fuselage and in turn is supported by the flying wires going up to and through the fin to the other side. Now I'm not sure, but I think that the tail pivots on this rod and is actuated by the trim controls in the cockpit. So I would say that the model is arranged to have 'trim up', or should it be 'trim down'? The scale drawings in this book show the tailplane on the datum line. Following on from this there should be a cut-out area in the fabric under the tailplanes either side to allow for the movement up and down of these surfaces at the rear. I think that the pivot bar for the elevators, which passes through the fuselage is what moves according to the trim. This is a standard feature for aircraft of this period, and in fact if you look at John's photo of the Hawker you will notice the trim applied, but in this case the front of the tailplane moves up and down.

I stand corrected if this is wrong, I'm in no way an aviation expert!

Finally, I would scan the photos in the book for you, but its probably better if you PM me.

deecee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Deecee!!

I was hoping you would be around. I really appreciate your patience. Looks like you steered me right again. Looking at the Mushroom book photos, especially pgs 109-119 (which I had looked at before -- looked at without seeing, I guess), there is an obvious cut out to the rear of the tailplane. The skelatal photos on pg 109/110 show a bar on an upright bar, clearly designed to raise and lower, in which there is a hole for a cross member -- either for the elevators or for the rear of the horizontal stablizer. I guess I was surprised that this means that the stabilizer assembly pivoted at the rear, instead of the front. That just seemed strange, somehow. But the photos on 115/116 show the leading edge of the stab lower than that stringer (?) line, while the in-flight photo of the same aircraft on 119 shows the stab right on the line. So I can reasonably assume, and depict, the stab angled on the ground, at least.

Now back to the upper wing markings. I got the Xtradecal sheet 72-106, which depicts K 7863, and concludes that this is Sqdn CO Brooks' plane, with the yellow-edged black tail surfaces, and says that of 3 photos of 74 Sqdn where the top wing was visible, none showed the tiger stripes. Now, I realize that they may have been looking at the original photo, but in the Mushroom book photo of "Brookie's Briefing", the upper wing surface is hardly clear, because of the angle and the glare(?). And since the overall effect of the scheme is what drew me to it in the first place, I'm going with your depiction and the eminently sensible words expressed by Dave Fleming a while back "Absence of proof is never proof of absence"!

There is one more oddity in the Xtradecal instructions. Their scheme is silver dope on the wings and rear fuselage, as typical, but then they say "Sky Gray" on the metal panels, including rear cowling, where one would expect polished aluminum. But then they also call for a "polished metal" area on the upper fuselage from the cockpit forward, ending in an oval going up tho the rear of the cowling. Sort of an Anti anti-glare panel? Can anyone comment on this?

I'd also be curious about your efforts with the struts. I've drilled out the dimpled (concave) strut locations, and I was wondering if the struts turned out to be the right length, and strong enough, or if I would be wiser to use a substitute, like the metal Strutz, which I haven't tried before? Many thanks for your response, Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Deecee!!

I was hoping you would be around. I really appreciate your patience. Looks like you steered me right again. Looking at the Mushroom book photos, especially pgs 109-119 (which I had looked at before -- looked at without seeing, I guess), there is an obvious cut out to the rear of the tailplane. The skelatal photos on pg 109/110 show a bar on an upright bar, clearly designed to raise and lower, in which there is a hole for a cross member -- either for the elevators or for the rear of the horizontal stablizer. I guess I was surprised that this means that the stabilizer assembly pivoted at the rear, instead of the front. That just seemed strange, somehow. But the photos on 115/116 show the leading edge of the stab lower than that stringer (?) line, while the in-flight photo of the same aircraft on 119 shows the stab right on the line. So I can reasonably assume, and depict, the stab angled on the ground, at least.

Now back to the upper wing markings. I got the Xtradecal sheet 72-106, which depicts K 7863, and concludes that this is Sqdn CO Brooks' plane, with the yellow-edged black tail surfaces, and says that of 3 photos of 74 Sqdn where the top wing was visible, none showed the tiger stripes. Now, I realize that they may have been looking at the original photo, but in the Mushroom book photo of "Brookie's Briefing", the upper wing surface is hardly clear, because of the angle and the glare(?). And since the overall effect of the scheme is what drew me to it in the first place, I'm going with your depiction and the eminently sensible words expressed by Dave Fleming a while back "Absence of proof is never proof of absence"!

There is one more oddity in the Xtradecal instructions. Their scheme is silver dope on the wings and rear fuselage, as typical, but then they say "Sky Gray" on the metal panels, including rear cowling, where one would expect polished aluminum. But then they also call for a "polished metal" area on the upper fuselage from the cockpit forward, ending in an oval going up tho the rear of the cowling. Sort of an Anti anti-glare panel? Can anyone comment on this?

I'd also be curious about your efforts with the struts. I've drilled out the dimpled (concave) strut locations, and I was wondering if the struts turned out to be the right length, and strong enough, or if I would be wiser to use a substitute, like the metal Strutz, which I haven't tried before? Many thanks for your response, Bob

The Gauntlet tail trim pivots on the front spar and the rear spar moves up and down on a chain driven screw rod. Note the tail/fin bracing goes to the tailplane front spar only (indicating the pivot point). The rear cutout gives an indication of the trim range.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Moving on another 3 years..... :D

I`m in the process of building my 1/48 `Tiger` Gauntlet and as is usual for my 74 builds I came across this thread during research.

First and foremost I`d like to say that your model is excellent and very well done. I can only hope mine turns out as good.

I`d like to add a bit with regards to the upper wing markings and confirm that I`m 99.9% certain that they were not applied to 74`s Gauntlets.

This first picture shows Gauntlet K5337 shortly after delivery to the Sqn.

IMG_2266_zps335aa814.jpg

Now if the information about the factory applying the markings is correct, then you can quite plainly see that there seems to be no dicing on the upper wing. Ok, not a perfect picture, but the black in the dicing would be apparent.

The other thing to note in this picture is the similar colour of the wheels to that of the front engine casing. It would seem they are of the same colour? Red??

Bob Cossey and I had a discussion recently on markings, mainly about the experimental scheme on the Demons at Malta, (which is in itself a bit of a headache), but as mentioned in a previous post, there is no mention in the records of the Gauntlets undergoing any kind of repainting `in the field` so to speak, until the Munich crisis when the Gauntlets went all camo.

It would seem that in this instance the idea of upper wing markings gained attention from Peter Freeman`s 'Wings of Silver` and while I respect his train of thought and understand his reasoning for adding them, in 74`s case, I feel it was incorrect.

By the way, here`s a picture of that `tail briefing` by S/L `Brookie` Brookes you mention....

IMG_2264_zps8ae325aa.jpg

.... very much a posed photo for the press as Brookes commented later on that he would never ever brief the pilots in this way. Also note a young Sailor Milan standing directly behind Brookes.

And another photo of the tail section on K7863 which may or may not help you out.

03_zps1a2ea176.jpg

Edited by tc2324
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...