Hawker Hunter FGA.9/3 inch rockets

[speedy]

I'm building my 1/32 Revell jobbie and its painting time and here's a couple of questions:

1. The rod antennas underneath the around the MLG - what colour would they be?. I've been on the RADFAN site and there is one picture of a guy around the starter cartridges and you can see what looks like a yellow cover; but the one's mounted above the wing are yellow - so is it a cover or are they yellow.

2. 3 inch rockets HE & AP - would they have RBF tags as in all the photo's I've looked at I can't see any when they're loaded up.

3. How are the 3 inch rockets loaded doubled up ie how does the lower one connect to the upper one?

4. 3 inch rocket rails - what is the split end at the front of the rail. Some photo's show it angled upwards and other downwards any ideas?

5. In most of the photo's there is a brown "bag" behind the ejection seat - any ideas what it is?

Loads of questions but hopefully somebody will know.

Steve.

[Wez]

I'm building my 1/32 Revell jobbie and its painting time and here's a couple of questions:

1. The rod antennas underneath the around the MLG - what colour would they be?. I've been on the RADFAN site and there is one picture of a guy around the starter cartridges and you can see what looks like a yellow cover; but the one's mounted above the wing are yellow - so is it a cover or are they yellow.

2. 3 inch rockets HE & AP - would they have RBF tags as in all the photo's I've looked at I can't see any when they're loaded up.

3. How are the 3 inch rockets loaded doubled up ie how does the lower one connect to the upper one?

4. 3 inch rocket rails - what is the split end at the front of the rail. Some photo's show it angled upwards and other downwards any ideas?

5. In most of the photo's there is a brown "bag" behind the ejection seat - any ideas what it is?

Loads of questions but hopefully somebody will know.

Steve.

Don't know about most of your questions but, when I went through trade training in the early eighties there were a large number of buff coloured aerials (as well as light grey and black) - could be what you're seeing. I've not seen a buff coloured aerial since then, as most of the training material came from the sixties/early seventies it would seem fairly reasonable.

What you really need are some ex-Billy Bunter linies to answer your questions.

Wez

[StephenMG]

1. "MLG"???. Sorry, no idea what that means. However I think I know the photo you are referring to and, yes, it is the aerial (painted butff/yellow) and is not a cover of any sort. The VHF aerial on the wing is painted yellow too.

2. I've never seen RBF tags on 3" RPs.

3. These RPs are basically the same device as the wartime equivalent seen on Mosquitos, Typhoons etc. but they mount slightly differently. Tricky to explain but the rail has a fitting at it's front end which engages into a fitting on the top of the RP just behind the head. The RP has another fitting, similar to the one on the rail, mounted on its underside which engages in the top fitting of the RP below...if you see what I mean! There is a similar sort of arrangement at the rear end, but you can never see them in photos because they're between the fins. The front fittings are just visible in the 3rd photo of the 8 Squadron gallery on the Radfan site - the photo of two armourers holding a rocket with a cup of tea balanced on top!.

4. I think its free to rotate. The one part of the 'split end' is the fitting I'm referring to above.

5. The bag is a survival pack - proper name "Survival Pack A" and contained a first aid kit and other goodies. For info, "Survival Pack B" is smaller, square-shaped and was strapped to the starboard cockpit wall.

Cheers,

Mark

[fatalbert]

MLG.....main landing gear

[speedy]

Thanks SteveMG, you've answered my questions and now its all clear.

There is guy at work but he simply couldn't remember

Steve.

[Edgar]

It's a pure guess, but I'd expect the fittings to resemble one of these; I'd always assumed that Hunters used the zero-length rocket launchers.

RBF would be most unlikely, since the "pigtail" connectors were usually left dangling, as a visible sign that they weren't live, and were plugged in at the last moment.

[Wez]

It's a pure guess, but I'd expect the fittings to resemble one of these; I'd always assumed that Hunters used the zero-length rocket launchers.

RBF would be most unlikely, since the "pigtail" connectors were usually left dangling, as a visible sign that they weren't live, and were plugged in at the last moment.

Edgar,

Even if the image you posted was of no use for Hunters it's of immense value elsewhere (I'm thinking Vampire/Venom here) - thank you!

Wez

Edited October 23, 2011 by Wez

[StephenMG]

It's a pure guess, but I'd expect the fittings to resemble one of these;

Not in the case of the Hunter, but a very useful diagram all the same. Thanks for posting.

I'd always assumed that Hunters used the zero-length rocket launchers.

They do really. The 'rails' we've been referring to aren't actually rails at all but rather an adaptor which attaches to the fore and aft wing posts. The RP then mounts on to the adaptor. There was also a pylon adaptor enabling RPs to be hung from the outer pylon without having to remove it.

[Wez]

They do really. The 'rails' we've been referring to aren't actually rails at all but rather an adaptor which attaches to the fore and aft wing posts. The RP then mounts on to the adaptor. There was also a pylon adaptor enabling RPs to be hung from the outer pylon without having to remove it.

Stephen,

I've seen pictures of Hunters with tiered rockets - how did they work or were they not used operationally?

Wez

[Selwyn]

Edgar,

Even if the image you posted was of no use for Hunters it's of immense value elsewhere (I'm thinking Vampire/Venom here) - thank you!

Wez

Wez this image is the same for all aircraft that carried 3" Rockets! Why would they be different for different aircraft? The watchword in the military is standardisation. It would be rediculous if the 3" rockets used on Venoms were not able to be used on Hunters.

Selwyn

[Wez]

Wez this image is the same for all aircraft that carried 3" Rockets! Why would they be different for different aircraft? The watchword in the military is standardisation. It would be rediculous if the 3" rockets used on Venoms were not able to be used on Hunters.

Selwyn

Selwyn,

That's what I thought but Stephen's description made me think otherwise.

Actually the watchword in the military is whatever word you want to use to reinforce your point - I've lost count of the amount of times I heard the phrase "The first rule of warfare is...", followed five minutes later with "The first rule of warfare is..." invariably something completely different.

Wez

[degs]

Have a look at the wiki on SURA-D 81mm rockets.

Nice clear pic links at the bottom of the page

http://www.wikien4.appspot.com/wiki/SNORA_and_SURA-D_rockets

[Selwyn]

Selwyn,

That's what I thought but Stephen's description made me think otherwise.

Actually the watchword in the military is whatever word you want to use to reinforce your point - I've lost count of the amount of times I heard the phrase "The first rule of warfare is...", followed five minutes later with "The first rule of warfare is..." invariably something completely different.

Wez

Im afraid you are wrong,

The only major change in 3" rocket mountings was made when they moved from rail launched (WW2 ish) to zero length in the early 1950's? the standard hanger system remained the same until the 3" was out of use.

Selwyn

[AnonymousAA72]

The RADFAN site is invaluable!! I've been looking at the site - with excellent pic's of 8,43, 208 Sqns,1417 Flight and 1 &54 Sqn Hunters many showiing rockets being loaded.

1. There most certainly ARE rocket rails on the Hunters! Called drain pipes on the site, they are fitted to small stubs.

2. Most photo's show single tiered rockets - these seem to be hooked on to the rails with an attachment from the "drain pipes" hooking into a lug on the rocket, just aft of the warhead. Theres also a lug on some of the rockets on the lower side - pointing forward. There is a photo with a complicated double triangular contraption which looks like its attached to the rocket?

3. The only twin tiered pic I could find had crew members posing in front of them - so you couldn't see how they were attached

4. The rails are not as long as the rails on Venom's shown on the site, though that could be that the attachment pylons (which are broader) are further apart.

5. The rockets all seem to be the same - apart from the warheads- its the attachment points and methods, and the rails that differ.

Thats my interpretation of the photo's on there. I'd suggest you all take a look and decide for yourselves though!!!

EDIT : Just read StephenMG's account above - this is exactly how he describes it.

Edited October 23, 2011 by Bill Clark

[StephenMG]

Im afraid you are wrong,

The only major change in 3" rocket mountings was made when they moved from rail launched (WW2 ish) to zero length in the early 1950's? the standard hanger system remained the same until the 3" was out of use.

Selwyn

Well perhaps you'd like to have a look at the photos here (particularly the 2nd, 3rd and 4th shots) and here (the 8th shot) and tell us what you see Selwyn?

That doesn't look like the "standard hanger system" that Edgar posted to me. As I said, the Hunter didn't use the same zero-length rails as seen on the Tempest, Hornet etc. It used RP adaptors which can very clearly be seen in the photos.

[AnonymousAA72]

...and the Venom's also have rails!!

[StephenMG]

The RADFAN site is invaluable!! I've been looking at the site - with excellent pic's of 8,43, 208 Sqns,1417 Flight and 1 &54 Sqn Hunters many showiing rockets being loaded.

1. There most certainly ARE rocket rails on the Hunters! Called drain pipes on the site, they are fitted to small stubs.

2. Most photo's show single tiered rockets - these seem to be hooked on to the rails with an attachment from the "drain pipes" hooking into a lug on the rocket, just aft of the warhead. Theres also a lug on some of the rockets on the lower side - pointing forward. There is a photo with a complicated double triangular contraption which looks like its attached to the rocket?

3. The only twin tiered pic I could find had crew members posing in front of them - so you couldn't see how they were attached

4. The rails are not as long as the rails on Venom's shown on the site, though that could be that the attachment pylons (which are broader) are further apart.

5. The rockets all seem to be the same - apart from the warheads- its the attachment points and methods, and the rails that differ.

Thats my interpretation of the photo's on there. I'd suggest you all take a look and decide for yourselves though!!!

EDIT : Just read StephenMG's account above - this is exactly how he describes it.

1. Yes, but they're not actually 'rails' in the way that the wartime rails were, i.e. the RP does not slide along it when fired. That's what I was trying to say, although terminology is confusing things here! The tubular device on the Hunter is best described as an RP 'adaptor' rail which is attached to the mounting posts - the "small stubs" you referred to - which pass right through the wing.

2. Exactly. The "lug on some of the rockets on the lower side - pointing forward" is the same as the lug on the rail/adaptor and enables the lower tier rocket to be attached to the rocket above in the same way as the top rocket attaches to the rail/adaptor. The principle is the same as the wartime style hangers Edgar posted, but the fittings in this case are significantly different.

Edited October 23, 2011 by StephenMG

[plimsol]

I'm building my 1/32 Revell jobbie and its painting time and here's a couple of questions:

1. The rod antennas underneath the around the MLG - what colour would they be?. I've been on the RADFAN site and there is one picture of a guy around the starter cartridges and you can see what looks like a yellow cover; but the one's mounted above the wing are yellow - so is it a cover or are they yellow.

2. 3 inch rockets HE & AP - would they have RBF tags as in all the photo's I've looked at I can't see any when they're loaded up.

3. How are the 3 inch rockets loaded doubled up ie how does the lower one connect to the upper one?

4. 3 inch rocket rails - what is the split end at the front of the rail. Some photo's show it angled upwards and other downwards any ideas?

5. In most of the photo's there is a brown "bag" behind the ejection seat - any ideas what it is?

Loads of questions but hopefully somebody will know.

Steve.

have you seen the radfan hunter site that has the muharraq site, an excellent shot of a hunter clealy showing how the rockets were hung

[Selwyn]

Well perhaps you'd like to have a look at the photos here (particularly the 2nd, 3rd and 4th shots) and here (the 8th shot) and tell us what you see Selwyn?

That doesn't look like the "standard hanger system" that Edgar posted to me. As I said, the Hunter didn't use the same zero-length rails as seen on the Tempest, Hornet etc. It used RP adaptors which can very clearly be seen in the photos.

All I can see are pictures of zero length rocket launchers!

A rocket rail is about 10 feet long, just look at a typhoon or Mosquito or Swordfish for pictures.

Edgars images are of the bolt on clamps to allow a rocket to be suspended below another rocket. These are standard fit items used on all UK aircraft of that era. they would not be used if you were only fitting a single rocket to the launcher as the pictures show.

Selwyn

Selwyn

[StephenMG]

All I can see are pictures of zero length rocket launchers!

A rocket rail is about 10 feet long, just look at a typhoon or Mosquito or Swordfish for pictures.

Edgars images are of the bolt on clamps to allow a rocket to be suspended below another rocket. These are standard fit items used on all UK aircraft of that era. they would not be used if you were only fitting a single rocket to the launcher as the pictures show.

Selwyn

Selwyn

Not sure what your point about the rocket rails is. I'm well aware of the rails used on the Typhoon, Mosquito and Swordfish, and the zero-length rails that superceded them, neither of which were a design used on the Hunter under discussion.

As for the clamps not being required when only a single tier was fitted, well that's not correct. With the 'old' style Mk.I and Mk.III rails, e.g used on the Mosquito, the clamps Edgar posted are required no matter how many tiers you have, how else can the top RP mount to the rail?! The same is true of the zero-length rails fitted to the Tempest, Hornet etc..

These photos show a single tier of RPs on zero-length rails under a Firefly to illustrate the point.

However, let's forget that because it's all irrelevant. The Hunter did not use Mk.I, Mk.III or the zero-length rails of the type shown in the Firefly photos above. Instead it used the mounting system we can clearly see in the Radfan photos.

Look at this photo,

Note, 2 tiers of rockets and not one of your clamps in sight. Now look at this one to see a clearer view of the rocket and how it mounts,

Note the forward facing 'prong' on the underside of the rocket just behind the head which does the same job as the 'prong' on the front of the rail and engages with the fitting on the top of the rocket below it when mounted in tiers. Note also the other fitting on the bottom of the rocket between the fins (silouetted by the right hand of the airman at the rear of the rocket) which engages with a corresponding fitting on the top of the rear of the rocket. These are very clearly not the "bolt on clamps" used during and soon after WWII, as illustrated by Edgar's pictures, and which you claim were used on all 3" RP-carrying aircraft.

[AnonymousAA72]

All I can see are pictures of zero length rocket launchers!

Selwyn

Are you looking at different photo's Selwyn?

The rails (or "drainpipes") are pretty clear on the photo's that I'm looking at! No bolt on clamps in sight!

[Selwyn]

Not sure what your point about the rocket rails is. I'm well aware of the rails used on the Typhoon, Mosquito and Swordfish, and the zero-length rails that superceded them, neither of which were a design used on the Hunter under discussion.

As for the clamps not being required when only a single tier was fitted, well that's not correct. With the 'old' style Mk.I and Mk.III rails, e.g used on the Mosquito, the clamps Edgar posted are required no matter how many tiers you have, how else can the top RP mount to the rail?! The same is true of the zero-length rails fitted to the Tempest, Hornet etc..

These photos show a single tier of RPs on zero-length rails under a Firefly to illustrate the point.

However, let's forget that because it's all irrelevant. The Hunter did not use Mk.I, Mk.III or the zero-length rails of the type shown in the Firefly photos above. Instead it used the mounting system we can clearly see in the Radfan photos.

Look at this photo,

Note, 2 tiers of rockets and not one of your clamps in sight. Now look at this one to see a clearer view of the rocket and how it mounts,

Note the forward facing 'prong' on the underside of the rocket just behind the head which does the same job as the 'prong' on the front of the rail and engages with the fitting on the top of the rocket below it when mounted in tiers. Note also the other fitting on the bottom of the rocket between the fins (silouetted by the right hand of the airman at the rear of the rocket) which engages with a corresponding fitting on the top of the rear of the rocket. These are very clearly not the "bolt on clamps" used during and soon after WWII, as illustrated by Edgar's pictures, and which you claim were used on all 3" RP-carrying aircraft.

I can see I am not getting my message through, so I will try again.

The 3” rocket was originally a ground launched rocket developed for the British army as an air defence weapon to suspend long wires in to the air so a low flying enemy aircraft would fly into it and hopefully crash.

The RAF took this rocket motor, fitted a selection of tactical warheads to it and used it as an air launched Rocket Projectile (RP).

Long launch rails were designed for aircraft use (as seen on Typhoons etc) and to allow the rockets to fit a bracket was designed that clamped around the rocket motor that had fittings on it to allow the rockets to be suspended on, and slide down the rail when launched.

Space was limited on most aircraft fits, and allowed a maximum of four rockets on each wing. Someone then had the idea of double tiered rockets in that you hung a second rocket from the first doubling the load of RP’s carried.

There was no way of attaching another rail below the first rocket so a Zero length launch design was adopted for the second rocket. This worked very well, and soon the question was asked if they actually needed the large rail launchers (which caused a lot of drag and were heavy) so the double stub mounting was adopted using the zero length launch attachments.

A new design of rocket mounting bracket was adopted, to fit these zero length launchers; they also had the facility to suspend a second rocket in a second tier. (Edgars Drawing type)

After the war with the introduction of much higher performance jet aircraft, it was found that the existing stub pylon mountings could not take the much higher aerodynamic loads imposed, so they were redesigned to be much stronger. These new launchers looked a bit like a “Towel Rail” (See the Hunter pictures) but were still “zero length,” and were compatible with the rocket suspension bracket type illustrated in Edgar’s pictures.

Sometime in the 50’s the 3” RP was redesigned with the zero length launch brackets built into the motor rather than a separate bolt on bracket, and with smaller fins. (See RP in Hunter pictures) If you were carrying single rockets (again as in Hunter pictures) this was fine, However if you wished to carry further rockets in two or three tiers, you first added a “Half bracket” to the first (top) rocket allow a second tier rocket to be fitted below it, then a “Edgar drawing” type bracket to the second (middle) rocket, which would allow a third rocket to be fitted below that.

My point is that the bracket shown in Edgars drawing was used all the way from the introduction of the Zero length launchers to the end of 3” Rocket use. It was not exclusively used on Hunters, it could be seen on any aircraft equipped to fire 3” RP in multiple tiers.

The reason it is not seen on the Hunter pictures is that they were only single tier RP so did not need the optional bracket for the second tier rocket.

Selwyn

[StephenMG]

Selwyn,

First you said "The only major change in 3" rocket mountings was made when they moved from rail launched (WW2 ish) to zero length in the early 1950's? the standard hanger system remained the same until the 3" was out of use.".

Now you are saying "Sometime in the 50’s the 3” RP was redesigned with the zero length launch brackets built into the motor rather than a separate bolt on bracket, and with smaller fins."

So which is it?

Also, the third photo in my post above shows 2 tiers of rockets on a Hunter. No 'Edgar-posted' bolt-on hangers are evident.

Edited October 24, 2011 by StephenMG

[AnonymousAA72]

Quote 1............."Wez this image is the same for all aircraft that carried 3" Rockets! Why would they be different for different aircraft? The watchword in the military is standardisation. It would be rediculous if the 3" rockets used on Venoms were not able to be used on Hunters.

Selwyn"

Quote 2.............." Im afraid you are wrong, The only major change in 3" rocket mountings was made when they moved from rail launched (WW2 ish) to zero length in the early 1950's? the standard hanger system remained the same until the 3" was out of use.

Selwyn"

Quote 3.............."My point is that the bracket shown in Edgars drawing was used all the way from the introduction of the Zero length launchers to the end of 3” Rocket use. It was not exclusively used on Hunters, it could be seen on any aircraft equipped to fire 3” RP in multiple tiers.

The reason it is not seen on the Hunter pictures is that they were only single tier RP so did not need the optional bracket for the second tier rocket.

Selwyn"

Now, from where I'm looking the arrangement on the Hunter ARE different from the other examples. So no standardisation there.....

They are NOT using the standard hanger system as shown in Edgar's post....

The two tiered arrangement on the Hunter is clearly different....despite your claims Selwyn its pretty clear that the bracket is NOT used! Thats why its not shown in the picture that Stephen has added above......

From the RADFAN site..."The devastating fire-power available from the four 30 mm nose-mounted cannon was retained and a strengthened wing enabled the FGA.9 to carry a multitude of ordnance, including 1,000 lb or 500 lb bombs on the inner drop tank pylons if needed, but the standard fit in the Middle East was for three Mk.12 rocket rails to be fitted under each wing, each capable of accommodating three 3” rockets (known as drainpipes dating back to the second world war)."

Edited October 24, 2011 by Bill Clark

[StephenMG]

Now, from where I'm looking the arrangement on the Hunter ARE different from the other examples. So no standardisation there.....

Actually Bill, I think they may be standardised in as much as the adaptor rail we're seeing on the Hunter were the same as those used on, for example, the Venom. I'm no Venom expert but I think these were also the "towel rail" rails that Selwyn describes.

It's the bolt-on 'hangers' that we seen to be at odds over though as the fittings on the newer rockets certainly appear to be different.