Jump to content

detail is everything

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About detail is everything

  • Birthday 05/29/1966

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Bristol, UK
  • Interests
    British Naval aviation

Recent Profile Visitors

1,290 profile views

detail is everything's Achievements

New Member

New Member (2/9)



  1. I would point you to the following post. The high demarcation line scheme is based on a photo of an overturned machine. Another previously unpublished photo of the same incident confirms the darker shade is simply shadow. The other AZ Models schemes shown above, are probably mis-interpretations of the Temperate Sea Scheme.
  2. @Bill S many thanks for considering this. It would be great if an explanatory/illustrative note could be provided for each of the changes you list above for modelling purposes I'm really interested in the external differences between the -7 and its -5/AU1 cousins. Comparing from an un-cowled point of view would be very interesting too. Especially if you could compare a -7 equivalent of the -5 photo below so you can see how the oil cooler ducting relates to the undernose cowling flap structure (i.e. did the oil cooler sit in front of the cowling flap structure or behind it, and if the latter, how did that interfere with the owling flap structure?, that sort of thing). Personally I love detail (hence my user name) and there are rivet counters out there who would be interested in the super detail for model building purposes too. Thanks in advance Simon
  3. Looking at the noses of a -5 and a -7, the latter's chin inlet is considerably deeper than the cheek inlets of the former. Possibly because the single chin scoop has to allow a similar mass of air to be taken in as that by the two cheek inlets. Even so, it looks as though the under engine ducting to the oil cooler would be outside the original AU-1 under engine nose structure, Giving a flatter under nose profile? Compare http://www.frenchwings.net/navy/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=629&fullsize=1 with http://www.frenchwings.net/navy/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=926&fullsize=1
  4. Tommy Many many thanks (again) for your help Tailspin. This was my previous post on these three closely related variants, which (along with your excellent 'Tailhook Topic' blog on them) helped me and others better understand the differences between the variants, as partly summarised at the beginning of this topic.
  5. @Tailspin Turtle in another topic you have said 'I’m limiting myself to filling around the edges of the many existing (and some excellent) F4U reference works'. I have a question about the F4U-7. Other Corsair experts may have the answer Were the lower nose panels and under nose supporting structure, between the cowling ring and cowl flaps deeper on the -7 than on the -5/AU1? The F4U-5, AU1 and F4U-7 development was meant to minimise re-tooling. The main external nose area changes centred around air inlet arrangements on the cowling ring Nose wise, the F4U-5 and AU-1 were (I believe) the same except the latter had the -5s supercharger ducting removed and the the cheek inlets on the cowl ring smoothed over. The nose shape and cowl flap arrangement remained the same with the space and supporting structure for the superfluous ducting retained to minimise re-tooling. So I'm assuming the nose panels between the cowling ring and cowl flaps are the same for the -5/AU1. Because the ducting was removed, possibly to reduce the glare from the exhaust stacks at night that had been a shortcoming of the -5, the exhaust indentation on the side of the AU-1 fuselage was located lower (encroaching into the removed ducting space) than the F4U-5's which had to sit above the supercharger ducting. The panels immediately behind the cowling flaps would thus be different due to the relocated exhaust indentation. The F4U-7 was basically an AU-1 with an F4U-4 supercharged engine. Whilst the 4 and the 7 both have chin inlets on the cowl ring, they are there for different reasons. The -4s was to feed its supercharger, but the -7s was to feed its oil cooler. This was because the tooling for the wing root intakes had been irretrievable altered, since the AU-1 was the last planned variant, so oil coolers could not go back in the wing root leading-edge intake slots -5 style. On the -7, the wing root intakes fed air to the supercharger and carburettor. On the -5/AU1, the wing root intakes fed air to the oil coolers and carburettor. It was not economically feasible to retool for the limited number of French aircraft being purchased, so room was found for a single oil cooler in the nose, just aft of the second row of engine cylinders fed by the chin inlet. Engine combustion and intercooler air was routed from the leading-edge intake slots. The oil cooler ducting on the 7 went under the engine and I guess what I'm asking is, was the existing AU-1 space below the engine deep enough to accommodate the ducting, without deepening the nose between the cowl ring and cowl flaps i.e. were the lower nose panels interchangeable between the AU1 and -7? Most illustrations of the -7 I see show a deeper fuselage between the cowl ring and cowl flaps, meaning the lower nose panels would not be interchangeable between the AU1 and -7 These illustrations help to illustrate what I mean Many thanks in advance
  6. Paul Lucas says the following in his book.... 'Photographs suggest that the Tropical Sea Scheme was applied to Martlet Is at least as far as BJ513'... 'The first Martlet Is to enter service did so with No. 804 NAS in September 1940. Here the Tropical Sea Scheme upper surfaces did not find favour and they seem to have been overpainted with the Temperate Sea Scheme. However, it is thought 802 NAS, the second FAA unit to receive the Martlet I in November 1940, did for a time at least fly their aircraft in the Tropical Sea Scheme. Looking at AX828 above, it is interesting to note that when 804 repainted their aircraft, they had the correct low demarcation line between upper and lower camouflage colours and Fighter Command identification markings. Some had some or all the cowling panels left in the original US colours I've often wondered why the AX series Martlet Is had such an unusually high demarcation line. Contemporary imported Brewster Buffalos had the low demarcation line as did the original Tropical Sea Schemed Martlets, I wonder if this is Grumman's next attempt at getting the Temperate Sea Scheme right. Perhaps they were conflating the TSS with the earlier S1E scheme or perhaps it was because of the unusually high position of the Martlet wing? Interestingly, when Grumman originally delivered the 10 fixed wing Martlet IIs (AM954 to AM963 later redesignated as Martlet IIIs), these also had a high demarcation line, though this seems lower by the time they ended up on HMS Audacity.
  7. In his 2003 book 'Britain Alone -June 1940 to December 1941' from Aviation Workshop Publications, Paul Lucas suggests the early Martlet Is were erroneously painted in the US interpretation of the 'Tropical Sea Scheme' of Dark Mediterranean Blue, Extra Dark Sea Green (shadow shades Light Mediterranean Blue, Dark Sea Green) and Sky, which was adopted as an official scheme in May 1938, but not used by the RAF/FAA. Apparently, The only reason that it was applied to the early Martlet Mk.I`s was because the wrong Sea Scheme drawing was sent to Grumman in the US. Grumman used US colours based on colours from the Tropical Sea Scheme. The colours found on Yeovilton's Mk. I appeared (to Paul) to be similar to American colours Blue (Flag Colour) 24, Sea Green 28 and Light Blue 27. See the book in question and
  8. Fleet Air Arm 885NAS Seafire Ib K MB345, G (or C) MB360 and IIc (going by the outboard cannon stub) Ø6B (serial not visible - sometimes the serial was presented in v small 2"? font high up on the rear fuselage but I don't even see that) Trops aboard HMS Formidable with destroyer HMS Venomous in the background. Interesting that the IIc has the full ship/squadron/aircraft code presentation, compared to the Ibs simpler aircraft letter presentation. This seems to apply to other IIcs being used by the NAS at the time. Another couple of photos, possibly taken at the same time from the other direction? No serial visible on Ø6B. What colour is behind the serial numbers of the Mk. Ibs? Upper camouflage travels down the side of MB345's filter fairing. The side of Ø6B's filter fairing seems to be Sky. Although there is severe loss of camouflage paint in the engine cover area, there seems to be a clear demarcation line where the under nose panel starts. The previous photo submitted by Claudio in large format. See how the camouflage travels down the side of the filter fairing of the nearest unidentified aircraft (possibly MB360). I'm not so sure about the sky side of the filter fairing on this side of Ø6B, but again, there seems to be a demarcation line where the under nose panel starts.
  9. I can see the images when I look at the topic on my phone, but not on my computer. Shame as your shot of the art work is the best I've seen
  10. Many thanks. Now I know what is under the skin! It doesn't quite answer my question though. My understanding is that where there are three under nose panels, the middle one is actually the bottom of the oil tank. I'm guessing that the size and shape of the oil tank was changed so it sat inside the filter fairing? I'm no Spitfire expert, so happy to be enlightened (again)
  11. out of interest, if the under nose oil tank on a MK.IIc Seafire, was an integral part of the airframe, how did the filter fairing fit over it, whilst remaining flush with the nose?
  12. Thanks, I was going by picture captions and I bow to your local knowledge
  13. MKIIc MB244 6Q 899 NAS There is a current topic looking at Seafire Ibs fitted with Vokes tropical filters and it drew my mind to the subject of IIcs fitted with the same. Back in March 2002, Paul Lucas published a Seafire WWII camouflage article in Scale Aircraft Modelling, accompanied by some artwork to illustrate typical camouflage and markings. In June 2009, he re-visited the subject in Model Aircraft Monthly. In both articles, MKIIc MB244 6Q, the subject of a rare WWII colour photograph of 899 NAS Seafires on HMS Indomitable in March 1943 at Scapa Flow (evidence item 1 in the list below), was depicted with no Vokes filter. Another photo apparently taken shortly afterwards by the same photographer shows other airframes without Vokes filters present on the same flight deck as MB244? goes down on the lift (evidence item 1 in the list below). 6K could be MB198 and 6L is MB200 (see hanger photograph). Note what appears to be artwork below the cockpit of the aircraft on the lift. I let it go the first time, but after the second time, I wrote in, pointing out the photographic evidence. My letter and a revised profile was duly published by the magazine in the MAM August 2009 letters page. Despite the correction, the erroneous profile was repeated in the Aviation Workshop publication 'On Target 5 - Supermarine Seafire Mk. Ib - Mk. 47' by Steve Freeman 2004 (presumably based on Pauls SAM article of 2002) and more recently 'Spitfire Revisited' by Trevor Snowden 2012 (which is a great shame as it is a very detailed analysis of spitfire/seafire camouflage and markings). You couldn't argue that the erroneous profiles of MB244 6Q were as it would have looked like during Operation Husky as the airframe was lost in May when it spun into the Firth of Clyde i.e. before the carrier and its squadrons left the UK. If they had used MB200 6L to illustrate their information, they would have both been fine. It appears that 899NAS had several airframes with Vokes filters (which would have incurred a weight and drag penalty) at Scapa Flow prior to the carrier and its squadrons leaving for the Mediterranean and the invasion of Sicily (Operation Husky). It looks as though by the time of Operation Husky in July, the Vokes filters (or the aircraft fitted with them) were gone or very rare so I assume the squadron was in the process of replacing the filters in March? I wondered if those Indomitable Seafires seen with blue (as opposed to the normal TSS Sky) undernose panels were airframes which had had their Vokes filters removed in the field and replacement panels from RAF stocks used? (would assume the oil tank be in the colour it was originally painted in, within the Vokes filter aerodynamic firing? MKIIc MB195 6S 899 NAS One of the photos I referred to as proof that there were MKIIcs with Vokes filters fitted, present at the time MB244 was photographed, was a photo of two pilots posing by the cockpit of a Seafire with said filter and squadron number 6. It also had a nice bit of artwork under the windscreen (evidence item 2 in the list below). A photograph of the same aircraft with a pilot climbing in to the cockpit, appeared in Modellers Datafile 3 Merlin Seafires (evidence item 3 in the list below). Another from the series is Further photos can be seen in the Fleet Air Arm Legends series No. 1 Supermarine Seafire (evidence item 7 in the list below). However the identity of this particular aircraft would remain a mystery until I happened to be looking at an article about Seafire development on the Armoured Aircraft Carriers web site and I looked at the imbedded Pate Newsreel 'Presenting Seafires 1943’ (evidence item 4 in the list below) which can be viewed on You Tube. Low and behold this footage showed a pilot getting into and out of the cockpit of the very same aircraft (clearly the same aircraft by position and artwork). The serial, squadron number and aircraft letter is shown to be MB195 6S as the pilot walks along the fuselage to climb up into and later, climbs out of the cockpit. https://youtu.be/f-BuAkwB5hI?t=8 and https://youtu.be/f-BuAkwB5hI?t=46 I then noticed a further photograph of this aircraft in From the Cockpit Series No. 13 Seafire (evidence item 6 in the list below), which confirms the serial and code. Furthermore, another photo in an article about Indomitable on the Armoured Aircraft Carriers web site (evidence item 5 in the list below) shows MB195 on Indomitable’s lift confirming the serial and squadron code and extent of upper camouflage on side of the Vokes filter. Evidence table 1 Warpaint Series No. 72 Merlin Seafire – cover June 2009 Model Aircraft Monthly – between p36 and 37 Seafire book by David Brown – cover Colour photo of MB244 –shows clearly the Vokes filter with camouflage running down the side of the filter. Another photo taken a minute or so later by the same photographer shows other unidentified airframes without Vokes filters present on the flight deck as MB244 goes down on the lift 2 From the Cockpit Series No. 13 Seafire –p26 Also Seafire book by David Brown – photo 29 b/w Photograph MB195 - pilots posing by cockpit taken at the same time as the Pate News footage –shows a clear image of the artwork – looks like a black and white cat next to something, possibly a white mouse or cheese? Below is some ones rendition of the artwork 3 Modellers Datafile 3 Merlin Seafires – p37 b/w Photograph MB195 pilot climbing into cockpit, taken at the same time as the Pate News footage was being filmed or possibly a still taken from it 4 Pate News –‘ Presenting Seafires 1943’ also Armoured Carriers website on Seafire development Footage between 7-13 seconds and between 44-51 seconds b/w footage MB195 pilot getting into and out of cockpit. Serial and squadron code shown as pilot walks up to climb up into and later, climb out of the cockpit. 5 Armoured Carriers website Indomitable page b/w Photograph MB195 starboard side profile on lift confirms Serial and squadron code and extent of upper camouflage on side of Vokes filter. 6 From the Cockpit Series No. 13 Seafire –p24/25 b/w Photograph MB195 being pushed forward- confirms Serial and aircraft identifier letter 7 Fleet Air Arm Legends series No. 1 Supermarine Seafire – p28-29 b/w Photograph MB195 - pilots posing by cockpit taken at the same time as the Pate News footage – one photo taken from in front of the wing, though the pilots hide most of the Vokes filter. 8 Photo of blue nose Seafire Colour photo
  14. To this I add my similar query Yet to have an answer about these extended lower fairings. Perhaps linked to the RN catapult (accelerator?) fit?
  • Create New...