detail is everything
-
Posts
202 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Media Demo
Posts posted by detail is everything
-
-
Well...just when I was convinced that the chin scoop of the F4U-7 was for carburetor air, you go and corroborate the oil cooler air statement I mention earlier!
Thanks
-
Thanks all. Mystery solved.
I also note AF953 has an exhaust glare shield, So some night flying was intended?
-
Thanks Bruce
So did the 7 have the AU1's extra armor added for protection from the small arms fire which would be encountered at the lower altitudes where the AU-1 would be working?
Since the 7 would also be down in the mud, I assume the 7 did too, along with the buried oil coolers, but you suggest not. The F4U-4 had the same wing intakes as the 5 (i.e. front facing oil coolers and three guiding vanes to direct air to the intercooler)
Also where did the AU1 get its carburetor air from if not the wing intakes ala F4U-1s (no cowl intakes)?
Just trying to get a handle on the arrangement of things.
Regards
-
Nose length
Some publications are adamant the F4U-7 was the same length as the F4U-4 and others that it was the same length as the F4U-5/AU1.
It is clear that the 7 inherited the AU airframe and its cheek cowling bulges. It is possible that the extra 10” was removed between the wing and cooling flaps but as a minimal change variant, I would think this unlikely, since the panel tooling for the F4U-4 was probably gone by then. In any case the following statement would seem to knock the short nose theory on the head
From Lucien Dejeannot, F4U7 engine mechanic (1958-1961) at Telergma, French Algeria….
"The AU1 and the F4U7 were identical in size. When we use to disassembly the cowl parts, you could see very clearly the framework that was added on the lower sides to "reconstruct" the cheeks allowing the use of F4U5 & AU1 side cowls. We never received a "proper" F4U-7 spare [airframe] part catalogue. We used the AU1 one with some addition (mainly the ducting parts). We received in 1958 (if my memory is correct) a couple of "new" AU1 from the USA and they were (engine apart) VERY identical to the F4U7 we had. In some occasion, we did exchange cowl parts from AU1 to F4U7 without problem. Finally, be careful with museums. A friend of mine visited USA some time ago and he saw there one of our old U7 exposed...with a F4U4 engine and cowl which would maybe explain your confusion."
Leading edge intake slots
These were apparently different for all three variants.
With the separate cheek carburetor air intakes in the nose, each F4U-5 leading edge intake slot (like on the F4U-4) now only supplied air to a front facing oil cooler matrix and, via three turning vanes, the intercooler buried behind the engine.
With the AU-1 there was a blanking panel where the oil cooler used to be and the three turning vanes, formally used to supply air to the now dispensed with intercooler, were now used to feed air to the buried oil coolers and (I assume in absence of cowling intakes) carburetor air as well (am I correct?).
For the F4U-7, the three guiding vanes were larger and spaced out evenly across the entire intake slot. I assume this fed air to the buried oil coolers and re-instated F4U-4 intercooler. I assume that if the extra 10” (not required by the F4U-4)was retained, there was still room for both the re-instated intercooler and the AU-1 style buried oil coolers in the fuselage.
Alternatively (assuming the tooling for the wing root intakes had not been irretrievable altered) were the oil coolers moved back to the F4U-5 leading edge position with the guiding vanes providing a measure of small arms protection?
The above modelling photo (in absence of any detail photos of actual slots) shows the F4U-7 arrangement on the left and AU-1 on the right.
The F4U-7 chin intake
It has been claimed elsewhere that when they stuffed the F4U-4's R-2800-43W into the AU-1 airframe to make the -7, they again needed intercooler space. The tooling for the wing root intakes had been irretrievable altered, since the AU-1 was the last planned variant and 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, under the engine (thus the "chin" scoop was used to feed oil cooler air and engine combustion air was routed from the wing roots.
As I have said above in relation to the 7’s leading edge intake slots, I think the oil coolers would have been either
- retained in the fuselage AU-1 style or
- (assuming the tooling for the wing root intake tooling had not been irretrievable altered) moved back to the leading edge F4U-5 style where they were afforded at a cost of some cooling efficiency some protection from small arms fire by the guiding vanes .
My inclination is (assuming the nose length was as per the 5 and AU1 and therefore there was a spare 10" of space) the oil coolers remained in the fuselage AU1 style and the chin intake was for carburetor air as per the F4U-4.
I assume that the F4U-5 cheek carburetor air scoops were not re-adopted because either the tooling for the cheek intakes had been irretrievable altered, or because the F4U-4s R-2800-43W auxiliaries set up, dictated a chin carburetor air scoop. I would love to know either way.
Simon
-
1
-
I‘ve always assumed Mk. Is were to be found on fleet carriers as fleet fighters of the day and Mk. IIs were later found on escort carriers (having not made it to fleet carriers before more capable types replaced Sea Hurricanes).
However, I’ve been looking at RN escort carrier air groups and found out that some Mk. Is did briefly operate from some escort carriers before they were replaced by Mk.IIs or Martlets.
Whilst there are some well-known front line squadron photographs of Mk.Is on fleet carriers (Indomitable and Victorious) around the time of the Malta convoys in July/August 1942, and of Mk.IIs on escort carriers (Striker and Nairana) in 1944,
In investigating photographic references on the web, I found the following photo of a Mk. I said to be AF953 on HMS Avenger in June 1942. It is a lovely photo which I thought I'd share.
From my references, I make the following observations;
- I’ve looked carefully at the serial number and it definitely says AF953. It is not in the standard font as used for the ‘ROYAL NAVY’ legend, but in a different font something like STENCIL font (AF953) which I’ve also seen used on the odd Seafire and Swordfish.
- It seems that the aircraft has had a re-spray and part of the original colour has been left behind part of the ROYAL NAVY legend and serial number. Until recently I assumed this was S.1.E scheme Sky Grey but other topics have discussed Sea Hurricanes in early high demarcation camouflage schemes. It is commonly believed that some were originally delivered in the S.1.E scheme with high demarcation and Sky Grey side and undersides. However Sky Grey was officially replaced by Sky Type “S” in September 1940, well before the Hurricane appeared in the FAA., but although this apparently took some time to filter through to operational units, there seems no reason to suspect any other colour on aircraft delivered to the FAA after this date. Also this aircraft is hooked, whilst the Sea Hurricanes in early high demarcation camouflage schemes seem not to have been.
- Interesting that the background colour is seen behind only part of the legend and serial number, as if they had been previously applied differently, or perhaps the background colour was in the process of being carefully painted over, after the more general re-spray.
- The aircraft identifier letter is black (roundel confirms not yellow or blue).
- There also appears to be some patching up with patches of darker colour (red oxide dope or fresh application of TSS colours
- Unfortunately, Air Britain’s book on FAA Aircraft 1939-45, doesn’t give any squadron history for this particular airframe.
- This photo can be found on the ‘World War Photos’ web site (http://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/uk/raf/hurricane/). The caption ‘Sea Hurricane AF953 on the flight deck of HMS Avenger June 1942’ seems quite detailed and smacks of a note on the back of the photo or in a photo album.
- HMS Avenger was not used as a deck landing Training carrier, so any Mk.Is would have been on her deck for work up or operational purposes
- However HMS Avenger was delivered in May 1942 and delivery modification work to the flight deck, communications equipment and armament wasn’t completed until July 1942. 802 NAS did visit the ship with Sea Hurricane Mk.Ibs on 13-15th July as part of her pre-operational work up. 883 NAS joined the ship on 16th July and 802 NAS joined the ship on 22nd July, both with Sea Hurricane Mk.Ibs as part of her air group (along with 825 NAS and its Swordfish IIs) for trade protection work. So, is the date wrong or is the ship wrong?
Any comments on my observations and queries would be welcome
Simon
-
2
-
It was I who raised the flat windscreen issue. I hadn't seen the photos seen in this topic at the time and they seem to add fuel to the fire.
The photo of D 112 below is what got me started. The thing that convinces me is the perceived lack of a curved windscreen bottom edge between the vertical windscreen supports. in fact it looks like it goes in a bit. If the windscreen curved out, it seems to me that the light would be reflecting off it. Also, if there was a constant curve around from the windscreen quarter lights to the front windscreen fairing, you would expect the light reflection to gradually change, but in the photos above the light reflection definitely changes at the windscreen supports.
But I agree that it might be an optical illusion with light reflecting off the flat bulletproof glass panel behind the front curved windscreen and in the absence of documentary evidence that F4U-4 type flat windscreens were ever fitted to F4U-1s, it is hard to argue otherwise, unless you can find evidence of an FAA/squadron specific field modification.
Compare
With the following image, it is also hard to see the curved outer windscreen fairing
If you go to the web page http://britishairshows.com/photos-duxford-flying-legends-2015.html and click on the above image, you can zoom right in. I have to say this picture looks as though it also has a flat windscreen, but it hasn't. The next image shows the curved front windscreen. So the light can play tricks.
-
1
-
-
On 24/10/2016 at 8:35 AM, DaveCromie said:
I know that Pavla produce a resin set that provides the enlarged oil cooler and another part (no idea what it is!) and a second set that provides the longer exhaust pipe but other than the RP plate what would I need to do to the lower wing? I can't seem to find a single decent photograph of the area in question!
Cheers
DC
The other part is the rather more flamboyant generator cooling pipes I was talking about in my previous post.
.
If possible check photographs of the intended airframe to see generator cooling pipe arrangement as sometimes one pipe was missing.
The same goes for which exhaust was used.
-
1
-
-
On 20/10/2016 at 9:10 PM, dogsbody said:
The only real difference that' I'm aware of is the Mk.II had a strengthened lower wing fitted with metal skinning, for the fitting of RP launch rails.
Chris
Two features of later production Swordfish were the deepened oil cooler on the starboard side of the forward fuselage and the rather more flamboyant generator cooling pipes on top of the nose.
The RNHF's MK1 appears to sport the later MK2 generator cooling pipes (although they may have been retrofitted to some MK1s). most (all?) MK2s and all MK3s also adopted the more powerful Pegasus XXX engine.
-
From my reference material, this is my understanding ...
France and Belgium ordered an export version of the F4F-3, designated by Grumman as G-36A, powered (because of an export embargo on the P&W engine?) by a Wright Cyclone with a single stage two speed supercharger. These were taken over by Britain when France (who had taken over Belgium's order) fell. It was to have six 7.5 millimetre Darne machine guns, with two in the nose cowling and two in each wings. The French had sought some refinements to the G-36 design: A reflector gunsight was fitted and some armour and fuel tank protection was installed.
In British service, the aircraft were known as the “Martlet Mk I”. The few which had been built before France’s defeat, were retrofitted to RN standards, including switching out the French radio and throttle. The armament was also changed. The engine cowled guns were dropped and two .50cal (12.7mm) MG fitted in each wing, although the gun positions were uniquely different to that in the F4F3 and other two gun winged variants. The remainder would be completed to the RN's modified specification. Otherwise, these Martlets were similar to F4F-3Bs.
However, I can't find an official reference to a F4F-3B variant. I know there's the F4F-3 and F4F-3A. Can someone enlighten me?
Also, any idea why the F4F-4B “Martlet Mk IV” reverted to the Wright Cyclone engine?
Was it an attempt to improve the performance of folding wing, six gun Wildcats, by using a lighter single row engine than the usual two row Pratt & Whitney Twin Wasp? If so, I gather it wasn't entirely successful
In trying to improve performance further, Eastern reverted to four guns in their FM1 development of the six gun F4F-4 and then took it further by also using the Wright Cyclone engine in the FM2.
Thank you in advance
-
Hi
Did you find much on the four blade prop sizes, always an interest to me which types were used. ( dia and type of blade)
cheers
jerry
Sorry for the long wait for a response.
The following is my understanding based on my references. Would welcome any corrections.
Airframe changes
TR33s were derived from FB.VIs.
Whilst Tests proved the feasibility of Mosquito shipboard operations, subsequent deck landing trials recommended it unadvisable to bring the Sea Mosquito into carrier service. This was due to the types handling characteristics (especially on one engine).
TR.33s were subsequently used for trials, training and fleet requirements duties.
Rear fuselage
To accept installation of an arrestor hook, structural modifications were made to the rear fuselage.
- Bulkheads four and five were altered to allow for the fitting of special internal longerons
- Bulkhead six was modified to accept the hook snap gear.
- Additional fuselage bulkhead ( five A) inserted 64” forward of bulkhead six – above the attachment points of the arrester hook.
- Two internal laminated longerons were inserted, stretching from the arrestor hook gear attachment points to the rear wing spar. The hook attachment gear with its external pivot joint was bolted to the longerons and they in turn were bolted to the rear wing spar at its attachment points on Bulkhead three.
- The arrestor hook was a simple Barracuda type ‘Vee’ frame of Fairey design with an RAE supplied hook, bolted to the end.
To withstand the extra loads imposed by carrier deck landings, additional strengthening was incorporated, including;
- Additional longitudinal stiffening strake fitted externally to fuselage port side, running from just forward of bulkhead four to immediately aft of bulkhead five. This was a mirror image of that fitted to the starboard side of production mosquitos .
- Because of the additional strengthening measures, the rear fuselage access hatch was deleted and re-positioned on the under fuselage, immediately aft of bulkhead four (often missed in profiles of TR.33s)
- These or similar strengthening measures were also incorporated in 618 squadron’s ‘Highball’ modified B.IVs, and (presumably) their PR.XVIs, as well as some Royal Navy FB.VIs and PR.XVIs (which could be fitted with arrestor hooks for carrier operations/training), as well as the Australian PR.40 and PR.41s
- There was also some reinforcement in the RATOG attachment area at bulkhead four.
Engines and propellers
The aircraft were fitted with more powerful Merlin 25s with a take-off rating of 1,620 bhp at 3000rpm and uprated 18lb boost. Giving nearly 100hp higher than contemporary marks of mosquito.
Type D/14/445/2 non-feathering 12’6” four-bladed propellers and appropriate Constant Speed Units were fitted. They were large diameter but cropped to avoid them touching the deck when the aircraft pitched forward on being arrested. They gave 5 to 10% greater thrust than the usual three bladed props.
The blades were narrower in width than those of the usual three bladed units and consequently revved up much faster and were quick to respond to throttle movements, vital for carrier operations.
Elevator horns (balance weights)
These were enlarged to improve handling characteristics in the face of the extra weight from the carrier equipment and radar installation.
Canopy
Late fighter canopy with blown side panel on the starboard side.
Carburettor air intakes
It was intended that the TR.33 would be used in the Pacific. So extended intakes, designed to house air filters necessary for operations in tropical conditions, were fitted. These gave a pronounced ‘chin’ appearance to the lower engine cowling. These had ice guards attached at four points on the intake’s upper and lower lips.
Folding wings
The TR.33 inherited the FB.VIs strengthened or ‘basic’ wing, so it could carry stores on underwing hardpoints (mounted outboard at wing rib number eight).
The wings featured manual folding outer wing panels, necessitating a major re-design of the wing structure. The hinge point was immediately outboard of the flap and there were hing fold fairings on the upper surface.
Manual wing folding was employed to save weight and avoid an extensive redesign of the aircraft’s hydraulic system.
The initial thirteen production TR.33s featured non-folding wings.
AN/APS-4 ‘ASH’ (Air to Surface Home) radar
This was installed in the nose and the radome protruded from the nose cone, which was more conical than a standard nose cone.
In order to provide cooling air for the radar equipment, TR.33s incorporated suction louvres on their nose access doors.
The radar pod (ASH bomb) was sometimes removed and the hole capped.
Undercarriage
Lockheed oleo-pneumatic undercarriage legs, replaced the usual rubber-in-compression units to dampen deck landing rebound.
Smaller-diameter main wheels (those used on the Beaufighter) were also fitted.
The initial thirteen production TR.33s featured the original rubber-in-compression undercarriage legs.
Weapon provision
Provision for the carriage of a single 2000lb Mk XV or XVII torpedo, sea mine or bomb under the fuselage. The torpedo was supported by a tubular fitting bolted to the top end of the front wing spar at the point of c.g.. Two drag struts led to number four bulkhead below the pilot and the rear steady points were braced from the rear cannon support members.
Alternatively, like the FB.VI, two 500lb bombs could be carried within the fuselage bomb bay, together with two more under the wings.
Rockets and/or drop tanks were an alternative underwing load.
Provision for two F.52 cameras was provided in the rear fuselage, installed forward of bulkhead five.
RATOG (rocket-assisted take-off gear)
The attachment was the normal three point type and the position on the fuselage for the forward point was just below and behind the flap edge on bulkhead four.
Hookah radar detection and homing device
Normally seen on NF.36s of 23 Squadron RAF, some TR.33s were also seen with this fitted. It is not clear whether they were assisting in its development or it was intended that some TR.33s would also use it operationally.
-
5
-
3
-
John
Apart from the prototype LR387, which uniquely had a black radome, all but one photograph I have seen, show white radomes. The exception (TW241) had an unpainted radome.
-
2
-
-
The TR.33 had the cylindrical ASH pod, as carried on many other types, such as the Firefly and the Avenger, in the nose. This was also seen on a handful(?) of Mosquito Mk.VIs with 100 Group Bomber Command. The two photos above show a variant with a fairing fitted around the pod to blend it with the nose
Some references refer to a later more aerodynamic nose with presumably the conical nose cone extended forward to the radome nose cap (I can’t see the radar pod going backwards as it would end up in the pilots lap! – see cut away drawing of a TR33 in Air International June 1984).
Looking at my photo references I don’t see an extended nose cone. I believe that what you are looking at are standard TR33 noses with the radar pod removed and a nose cap fitted over the hole where the radome protruded from the nose cone (see the photo of TW281/407/CW in post 25 and compare the photos in post 26 above). These caps are usually painted in TSS or silver to match the nose, but are sometimes black. There is a very good close up photo of this revised nose in Stuart Howe’s book, ‘Mosquito Portfolio’. I describe these noses as capped noses.
It stands to reason that the radar equipment was often removed since it wasn’t required for the role in which the aircraft was being employed (fighter direction training, twin conversion etc.).
See my post on the TR33 at http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235005423-sea-mosquito-tr33/ which I erroneously put in the WWII forum
-
1
-
-
Inspired by the recent post on the TR37, I took a good look at my Sea Mosquito TR33 reference material and made the following observations.
I’ll firstly make some general observations, then I’ll point out some widely circulated errors relating to representations of specific airframes.
Camouflage and markings
In ‘Mosquito an Illustrated History Vol. 2’ by Ian Thirsk, there is a photo of mosquitoes lined up fresh from the factory. Three are TR33s TW232, TW229 and TW231. They are in the temperate sea scheme (TSS) of Extra Dark Sea Grey, Dark Slate Grey and Sky (EDSG/DSG/S), have an 8” serial and 4” Royal Navy presentation and type C roundel s and equivalent fin flashes (thin white line) applied. A three figure code behind the roundel and station letters above the fin flash were presumably added by the squadron. See TW256/593/LP below for an example.
In 790NAS and 811NAS, photos show that D type roundels sometimes later replaced the C types (but the fin flashes often remained in the earlier style).
It seems 811NAS presented their station letters as part of their code on the fuselage as per their FBVIs (i.e. FD4L.)
Air Britain’s ‘Fleet Air Arm Fixed wing Aircraft since 1946’ gives several examples for 811NAS TR33s, including TW239/FD4R, TW247/FD4L, and TW250/FD4H. Each airframes code letter was repeated under the nose.
Photos can be seen in Ian Thirsk’s book and Stuart Howe’s Mosquito Portfolio, although presentation of the codes is not clear, there are dark letter/numbers either side of the roundel.
Someone has modelled a TR33 from this squadron, either based on the same assumptions or perhaps on a reference photo I haven’t seen. If it is the latter, it would be good to see or at least its existence confirmed.
Some airframes in 790NAS and 771NAS were later resprayed overall silver (See Ian Thirsk’s book and ‘RNAS Culdrose 1947-2007’ by Geoff Wakeham) with black codes and station letters, silver or black spinners.
Radome colour
Apart from the prototype LR387, which uniquely had a black radome, all but one photograph I have seen, show white radomes. The exception (see comment about TW241 below) had an unpainted radome.
Noses – the ‘improved nose’
Some drawings and profiles depict the TR33 nose as a standard nose cone with a radome sticking out of it. The nose cone is more conical than a standard nose.
Some references refer to a later more aerodynamic nose with presumably the conical nose cone extended forward to the radome nose cap (I can’t see the radar pod going backwards as it would end up in the pilots lap! – see cut away drawing of a TR33 in Air International June 1984).
Looking at my photo references I don’t see an extended nose cone. I believe that what you are looking at are standard TR33 noses with the radar pod removed and a nose cap fitted over the hole where the radome protruded from the nose cone (see the photo of TW281/407/CW below). These caps are usually painted in TSS or silver to match the nose, but are sometimes black. There is a very good close up photo of this revised nose in Stuart Howe’s ‘Mosquito Portfolio’. I describe these noses as capped noses.
It stands to reason that the radar equipment was often removed since it wasn’t required for the role in which the aircraft was being employed (fighter direction training, twin conversion etc.).
Errors in profiles and decals
Warpaint Special No. 3, published by Guideline Publications has profiles for TW256/593/LP, probably the best known and most depicted TR37, and TW270/413/CW.
TW256/593/LP
Numerous photographs (including this one) show that this airframe had the 8” serial it was delivered with.
TW270/413/CW
Publishers, decal providers and conversion kit providers (e.g. Guideline publications, Aeromaster and Alley Cat) appear to have taken a profile for TW270/413/CW as the basis for one of their options. The earliest occurrence of this profile appears to be in Scale Aircraft Modelling July 1995, with a David Howley profile but no reference source photo.
and many modelers have built their models based on their instructions.
However, there are errors which need to be pointed out. This is a case of an error being passed from publication to publication without the source reference material ever being checked, so that the error becomes established truth.
Wrong serial
Firstly it isn’t TW270! Air Britain’s book doesn’t allocate that serial to a TR33 but allocates 413/CW to TW279. Easy to confuse the last digit.
Photographs show that this airframe had an 8” serial (see code colours below)
Wrong upper surface camouflage
it is portrayed as having a monotone EDSG upper camouflage, rather than TSS. TSS is notoriously difficult to see as the tonal value between EDSG and DSG is very small and therefore looks like one colour. However there is a photo of this airframe where the EDSG/DSS is very clearly seen (see code colours below)
Of course the airframe may have had a respray, but I’m yet to be convinced that any TR33 wore a Coastal Command style monotone EDSG upper camouflage.
Wrong colour codes
790NAS used yellow codes and station letters. Several photographs of squadron aircraft in Ian Thirsk’s book, ‘RNAS Culdrose’ by Peter London and Geoff Wakeham’s book all show the use of this colour, not white.
Two photographs of TW279/413/CW (including rear fuselage detail) in Ian Thirsk’s book confirm all the above, very clearly.
Wrong radome colour?
All profiles of this airframe show a radome painted EDSG/S to match the nose. I have not seen a photo of this aircraft which shows the radome, but as I say above, I have only seen white or unpainted radomes in squadron service. Perhaps it was a capped nose or even an empty pod?
Of course, there may be a photo out there which proves that a TR33 wore serial TW270, that it wore white squadron markings, monotone EDSG upper camouflage and a painted radome. If so, I’d like to see it or at least have someone confirm its existence.
Other observations about particular airframes
TW281/407/CW
The photo of this airframe in some publications makes it look as though it has a Coastal Command style monotone EDSG upper camouflage. However EDSG/DSG can just be discerned on the nose area in the same photo in the Aircam book on the mosquito (No. 28) and in deed the above photo. I could be wrong but I’m yet to be convinced that any TR33 wore Coastal Command style monotone EDSG upper camouflage.
It has a capped nose, with the cap painted to match the nose (compare the length of the conical nose cone on TW281 with that of TW256 above, they are the same.
It has the 8” serial and 4” Royal Navy presentation and type C roundel s and equivalent fin flashes it would have been delivered with.
Whilst the code and station letters can’t be seen in the photo, the Air Britain book states that it wore 407/CW when with 790NAS. These would almost certainly been in yellow as per the other aircraft in the squadron (see comments about TW270/413/CW above).
TW241/043/FD
I’ve only seen one photo of a TR33 in 703NAS service and it’s an interesting one. It is in Ian Thirsk’s book.
It has a two tone upper camouflage, but there is a high tonal difference between the two upper camouflage colours, which suggests not TSS. Possibly RAF Day Fighter Scheme (Ocean Grey, Dark Green and Medium Sea Grey)? Could be a filter on the camera though.
It has White codes and stn. Letters with a black 8” serial and 4” Royal Navy presentation.
It unusually appears to have an unpainted radome and has an interesting wing aerial installation with vertical rods above and below a couple of spikes sticking out from the leading edge towards the end of the wing (Probably associated with the Hookah radar detection and homing device).
I’ve seen the same aerial arrangement on another TR33, but I can’t remember the book concerned.
Hope this is useful
-
12
-
1
-
-
Apart from the attempt by Styreno in this topic, I’ve not seen any drawings for the TR37. The only book to attempt good quality profiles of the TR37 is Warpaint Special No. 3, published by Guideline Publications. However I believe there are some errors.
Camouflage
TW240 which was the first TR.33 to have folding wings and improved undercarriage, was officially converted to a TR.37, not built as such.
In Mosquito an Illustrated History Vol. 2 by Ian Thirsk, there is a photo of mosquitos lined up fresh from the factory. Three are TR33s TW232, TW229 and TW231. They are in the temperate sea scheme (TSS) of Extra Dark Sea Grey, Dark Slate Grey and Sky (EDSG/DSG/S), have an 8” serial and 4” Royal Navy presentation and type C roundels and equivalent fin flashes (thin white line) applied.
The modification to TW240 would have primarily concerned the nose. TSS is notoriously difficult to see as the tonal value between Extra Dark Sea Grey and Dark Slate Grey is very small and therefore difficult to see. However, when carefully looked at, photos of this aircraft published in books, in particular the nose area (see post 2 in this topic and Ian Thirsk’s book) show a just discernible two tone (EDSG/DSG) finish.
It is my conclusion that this aircraft probably had EDSG/DSG/S camouflage, despite the profile’s depiction of a one colour EDSG upper surface camouflage.
Of course the airframe may have had a respray. Have a look at photos and decide for yourself. Check the same photos in different publications as the quality of reproduction varies and in some books TSS can’t be discerned and in others it can. This also applies to those TR33’s depicted as having a one colour EDSG upper surface camouflage.
Squadrons – codes and station letters
Air Britain’s Fleet Air Arm Fixed wing Aircraft since 1946 says 26 ordered with the serial allocation of VT724 to 749., 20 cancelled. TR.37 production of 6 aircraft, which would be VT724 to 729, was from March to July 1948.
The variant’s ASV Mk XIII radar was required for operation of the Long Tom rocket . In Air Britain’s book, histories are provided for the first six. They spent their time mainly at Culham RDU, Stretton AHU, or on trials, mainly for the Long Tom rocket, but VT726, VT727 and VT728 also served with 703NAS and TW240 spent most of its life on trials, including Long Tom work, but also served with 771NAS.
With the exception of the photo in post 29, photos of TW240 (prototype ) and VT724 (first prod airframe) that I have seen, show no codes or stn letters. and are in a shiny new condition. They are almost certainly pre delivery publicity shots. The Warpaint profiles depict TW240 as being with 771NAS and VT724 as being with 703NAS
The picture of TW240 in post 29 (I’ve not seen this one before) shows it in a quite shabby condition so may be later, after delivery. Unfortunately you can’t see the fuselage areas where there would be a code and station letters so can’t confirm if it is when it was in squadron service.
Air Britain’s book states that TW240 eventually served in 771NAS but doesn’t record any code and doesn’t record VT724 as having served with 703NAS.
That of course doesn’t mean they didn’t serve in those squadrons or wear codes etc. The absence of proof doesn’t mean the absence of fact.
If you wanted to depict a TR37 with squadron codes and station letters, Air Britain’s book records VT728 as wearing 048/LP, when serving with 703NAS and later as wearing 028/LP.
No photographic evidence but I would have thought the application of these markings would have been similar to the co-located 771NAS, plenty of photos of which are published (for example in Ian Thirsk’s book) showing silver TR33’s at about the same time.
-
1
-
-
A good reference for FAA carrier aircraft from the 50's to 2005 and in particular those carried by Ark Royals (R09) and (R07) is Aviation Workshop's On-Target Special HMS Ark Royal Fifty Years of Flight 1955-2005 by Denis J. Calvert & Gary Madgwick Illustrated by Jon Freeman.
http://www.hyperscale.com/2008/reviews/books/arkroyalbookreviewrk_1.htm
-
1
-
-
I don't think they are either - they seem to have blunter noses and two bay wings. They actually look like Darts or Ripons, but those would surely be too early for camouflage and 'B' roundels?
Time for some book work on what served on Courageous
The Aviation Workshop book, Wings and Waves FAA 1919-39 has a profile of a Dart N9558/05 of 463 Flt, HMS Courageous, 1932, temporarily finished in Nivo with red blue roundels (for night operations) and blue diagonal carrier band and fleet number 05 for fleet manoeuvres in 1932.
A photo of this aircraft in this scheme appears on p78 of the Air Britain book FAA Aircraft, Units and Ships 1920-39, and is probably the reference source.
-
1
-
-
Thanks fopr all the information.
To me the last digit looks like a 6 736 or 786
I have no memory of the source of the pictures. I wonder if they are not from a movie film stock.
Check out the Fundekals' downloadable Corsair decal sheet instructions (Google 'Fundekals corsair'). They provide detail photos and colour drawings for Corsair III JS706 of 1836 NAS, HMS Victorious.
I suspect this is the aircraft concerned.
-
1
-
-
Here is a model that I did of `K' some time ago,.......still not fully sure of the colour of the `Spaghetti camouflage' but it was my interpretation at the time!
Here is one that I did depicting a 73 Sqn Hurri which was shot down before the full camouflage could be added to the nose and leading edges;
So was the base coat silver or light sand or were there two different styles?
I also think that this style of camouflage originated with the Fleet Air Arm on the Fulmar`s from HMS Illustrious and that the RAF copied it for their own Hurricanes. Intention,....well some have said that it was to look like Italian aircraft while at low level,...which they probably did,....but I think that the idea of the scheme was to break up the outline of the aircraft as it approached its target,......the Fulmar was not the fastest of fighters and took some time to catch up to the SM.79 bomber,.....so anything to keep it hidden from view for longer was worth a try.
Tony
Tony
Nice models
V7816 K has been the subject of a previous post http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/27213-hurricane-mk-i-trop-v7816-k-of-803-nas/where advice on the colour of the code 'K' was asked for.
Interestingly another modeller's interpretation of the reference photo (see https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7A5-k3Svfh4C&pg=PT42&lpg=PT42&dq=hurricane+v7816+k&source=bl&ots=NagSKXoR3W&sig=VfHoyD58qf11k64IVrJejbje0hY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiT2q3B2prLAhUM6xQKHUdbADUQ6AEIKjAC#v=onepage&q=hurricane%20v7816%20k&f=false) was the same as you, i.e. Medium Sea Grey (see the end of previous post).
The reference photo was taken using orthochromatic film, so the chrome yellow outermost roundel ring appears black. The code 'K' is barely discernible against the Dark Earth camouflage, but seems not as dark as the yellow. If the code was Medium Sea Grey, surely it wouldn't be effected by the film emulsion and would appear as a pale grey?
I think, looking at the adjacent roundel, that the code might be roundel blue, rather than red.
Also, the "spaghetti" camouflage base colour on the nose and wing leading edges, seems to be too dull to have a silver base colour, except perhaps around the wing root area, where there may be some wear.
The undersurface colour seems dark (even accounting for the deep shadow) so is it likely to be Azure or Light Mediteranian Blue, rather than Light Blue?.
The base colour of the "spaghetti" camouflage base colour on the nose could be pale sand or pale blue?
What do people think. The instigator of the previous post, didn't really get an answer re the colour of the code letter.
-
1
-
-
On 2/21/2016 at 6:34 AM, Mikemx said:
I have a question about the Academy Avenger. Can you make it OOB as a British Avenger and if so what mark would it be? I'm not too up on Avenger's but I know the kit has the domed side windows that some British Avenger's had and my suspicion is that it would be a Mk I if any.
Also, I have the Hasegawa (1/72 of course!) TBM-1C Avenger (Atlantic boxing), would this be the correct type that George Bush snr flew from USS San Jacinto (I have decals for that one). Before anyone says anything political (please don't), I want to model that one as it's the one from Duxford.
thanks
Mike
I add my pennies worth (based on various postings made here and elsewhere) - sorry for the picture distortions. If you click on them, they revert to original size.
FAA AVENGERS (TARPONS until January 1944)
Production details and Exterior/interior colours
Wheel wells, struts and covers were normally the underside colour. The wheel wells on camouflaged TBF/TBMs of the RN were usually either painted to match the undersides Sky or in a few cases bright yellowy-green Zinc Chromate.
US colours used for TSS
Grumman used MAP colours, Eastern used ANA substitutes.
Grumman--Dark Slate Grey (FS 34096), Extra Dark Sea Grey (FS 36118), Sky (FS 34583).
Grumman used equivalent paint shades, ie colours that matched the official British colours and not substitutes ie colours that, while not matching British colours, were officially approved as being acceptable alternatives. The paint used by Grumman throughout the war on camouflaged British aircraft may not have been made in Britain but it was indistinguishable from paint that was.
Eastern-- Olive Drab ANA 613 (FS 34130), Sea Grey ANA 603 (FS 36173), Sky (FS 34504).
Sea Grey ANA 603 was British Extra Dark Sea Grey so wasn't a substitute as such.
Sky Type S Gray ANA 610 was meant to be equivalent to British TSS Sky as well but there was apparently a difference, albeit slight (see below).
.
There was no ANA equivalent for Sky Grey simply because at the time of the ANA consolidation it was not required by any service as a paint colour. 'Sky Type S Gray' (or Grey) was terminology used by Dupont for its Sky equivalent paint 71-021 and is nowhere near FS 36373 in appearance by any measure. British requirements for Sky under surfaces were commonly communicated and specified as 'Duck Egg Blue' rather than as any form of grey. The ANA 610 standard for Sky is close to FS 24424 and was retained until 1949 when it was superseded by FS 34424.
The ANA terminology for Sky was simply 610 Sky. Although the JAC consolidation recommended that "the British Sky Type S Gray be accepted as standard" when the ANA colours were officially listed in Bulletin 157 of 25 September 1943 it was designated simply as "610 Sky". Bulletin 157a of 24 March 1944 listed it as being equivalent to or superseding the British MAP colour standard for Sky. It continued to be listed in subsequent editions of Bulletin 157 as "610 Sky" without further cross reference to the British colour until Bulletin 157d of 11 March 1959 (not 1949 as originally stated) when it was listed simply as "Sky" with the colour standard FS 34424 to be employed to supersede ANA 610.
In the Technical Resources document for FS 595C of 2008 the colour name for FS 34424 is listed as "ANA 610" with no mention of Sky!
In terms of difference Jerry S Smith in his 'ANA Standard Aircraft Colors 1943-1970' (1972) observed that FS 34424 and ANA 610 were "identical". This agreed with Ross Whistler's earlier 'USA(A)F Camouflage 1933-1969' (1969) where the two colours were described as an "exact match". Both were working to FS 595a and June 1943 ANA colour samples. Smith made the important comment that the 595a color chips "are not considered completely accurate by GSA as far as paint production is concerned".
With paint batch variance and weathering the differences between FS 34424, ANA 610 and MAP Sky approach the academic.
Black appears to have been painted over the nose and down the side, sometimes right down the side, back to the leading edge of the wing on some Temperate Sea Scheme /Anti Submarine camouflaged squadrons on North Atlantic/Norway operations (see following photos, p320, 853 NAS Air Britain Publications - Sqdns of the FAA and photo of JZ150 below). Perhaps for night strikes?
Tarpon (Avenger) I: Grumman built
401 TBF-1B (export version of TBF-1) and TBF-1C serialled FN750 to FN949, JZ100 to JZ300. Not clear when switch to TBF-1C occurred. Not until at least after FN908
TBF-1 FN767
TBF – 1 FN908
TBF-1C JZ150
Since Grumman had dealt with the Fleet Air Arm prior to the advent of Lend-Lease for the sales of early Martlet fighters, Grumman-built Avengers used Dupont paints mixed to Fleet Air Arm approved TSS camouflage colours (Extra Dark Sea Grey, Dark Slate Grey and Sky) with a “hard edge” colour demarcation.
The first and second cockpits in Bronze Green, the radioman’s compartment, the turret, and the bomb bay in Interior Green, with the cowling interior in light grey.
Tarpon (Avenger) II: General Motors Eastern Aircraft Division built
226 TBM-1 and TBM-1C (equivalent to TBF-1 and TBF-1C) serialled JZ301 to JZ526. TBM-1C from JZ361
108 TBM-1C serialled JZ527 to JZ634
JZ574
10 TBM-1 and TBM-1C serialled VL401 to VL410 (reconditioned aircraft. Delivered to FAA but none allocated to squadrons)
40 TBM-1, TBM-1C and TBM-3 serialled VL432 to VL461, VL501 to VL510 (reconditioned aircraft. Delivered to FAA but none allocated to squadrons)
6 TBM-1C and TBM-3 serialled VL994 to VL999 (reconditioned aircraft. Delivered to FAA in Australia but none allocated to squadrons)
Eastern Aircraft-built Avengers used US TSS equivalent camouflage colours of Sea Grey, Olive Drab, and Sky Grey, with a more “soft-edge” colour demarcation.
The cockpit, turret and radio compartment in overall Interior Green and the bomb bay and cowling interior in Zinc Chromate.
Avenger III: General Motors Eastern Aircraft Division built.
Initial deliveries of the Mk.III were from TBM-3 production. Most of the JZ635-720 batch were TBM-3E, and it is this batch that saw limited WW2 service. I would not expect a one-to-one relationship with the BuAer serials, however sensible it may seem. The KE batch were TBM-3Es, and went to the UK.
80 TBM-3 / TBM-3E serialled JZ635 to JZ720. US BuAer No.s indicate that the first 16 aircraft were TBM-3s and the final 64 were TBM-3E. (If there had been a one-to-one relationship with the BuAer serials, this would suggest a switch to TBM-3E from JZ651. However, AB picture of JZ654 (see below) shows TBM-3 characteristics – indented lower cowl flaps, stinger gun position extant, MK5 zero length rocket launchers but no underwing rack for an AN/ASP-4 radar pod
Some Mk.III`s were delivered to the UK and were used post war, mostly on trials duties but most went S India and then some on to Australia and would have replaced the Mk.II`s serving aboard the BPF Fleet Carriers if the war had not ended when the bombs were dropped. Suddenly there was no use for all of these Mk.III`s so many were dumped at sea but those units remaining in theatre for any length of time re equipped with Mk.III`s and at least a couple of squadrons went to sea with them. Service records for aircraft of this batch end in 1946, when they were returned or more likely dumped.
50 TBM-3E serialled KE430 to KE479 (only 38 delivered to FAA and none allocated to front line squadrons). Most of those delivered, were used by second line squadrons until the late 40’s. Many of them were reconditioned ex US Navy aircraft and the SBG finish shows definite overpainting of the US Stars and also the previous US Navy sqn/carrier markings on the fin/rudder and upper wings too,....it is something to look out for on the few available photos including the well-known KE461.
KE446
KE436 (see http://www.aviationphotocompany.com/p83129484/h55523C1C#h55523c1c)
However they must have had the FAA mods made prior to delivery (see below re fixture and fittings for 1945/46 TBM-3Es).
Some reconditioned TBM-3s in VL serial range delivered to FAA but none allocated to squadrons (see Tarpon (Avenger) II above). Except for VL994 to 999, which reported to Sydney aboard HMS Reaper 9.45. The last three appear to have been Mk.IIIs. Three others, described as "elderly", were handed over to the FAA at Norfolk "possibly as GI".
Delivered in Sea Blue Gloss with an ant-glare Non-spectacular Sea Blue panel in front of the cockpit. Interior colours as per MKII. With the introduction of Sea Blue Gloss paintwork, the wheel wells were seen to be painted matt black on factory fresh machines. This was done so that any cracks caused through metal fatigue would be more easily noticed during mechanical or pre-flight checks.
These are all the FACTORY APPLIED finishes. Carrier based aircraft were regularly checked for corrosion and touched up, or resprayed with FAA designated paint when returned to land bases in the UK. If the a/c were subsequently re-painted by the FAA, they would use standard colours (FAA formally adopted SBG for US supplied aircraft from August 1944). So you will need the serial to see how the a/c was finished. AB picture of JZ654 with delivery number in Canada and crown picture p82 in Profile 214 and in book ‘The Secret Years - Flight Testing at Boscombe Down 1939-1945’ of JZ635 at A&AEE of TBM-3s in TSS. Photo seen by others of JZ681 (TBM-3E) in SBG so perhaps JZ series TBM-3s delivered in TSS and TBM-3Es in SBG?
Fixtures and fittings
When the FAA adopted the Avenger in WWII, it was to fulfil the TBR mission. The standard TBR crew was a pilot, observer, and the Telegraphist Air Gunner (TAG), who operated the radio equipment and handled rear defence.
The observer was responsible for navigation, gunnery spotting, reconnaissance work, and weapon aiming during an attack (other than dive-bombing mission). To suit the Avenger to this different crew combination, Blackburn Aircraft set up a rework facility in the US to modify airframes into a similar configuration as the original TBF, with a full cockpit behind the pilot for the observer (on USN aircraft this area was used as a rack for radio equipment).
FAA Tarpons/Avengers delivered in WWII had the centre (navigator) cockpit as per the first fifty TBF-1s, with the observers seat placed looking forward immediately behind the pilot. It had rudimentary flight instruments and a stick and pedals. The stick was stored on the fuselage side until needed. There was no provisions for the Norden sight, though the bombing panel was retained.
All had FAA radios, gun sights, Sutton harnesses and oxygen systems.
F24 camera fitted in the TAG’s station (replacing stinger gun?) and ROTAG attachment points added.
Radio mast was hinged so it could be folded over. Was it simply a matter of adding a hinge to whatever mast was on the airframe. Photographic evidence indicates vertical and re-positioned masts as per TBF-1c and TBM-1c were not fitted to FAA MK I and II machines (see below).
Round domed windows replaced flat oval windows on the fuselage side by the TAG’s station.
Though most may have not had a lower rear gun (replaced by a camera), some FAA Tarpons had it installed.
TBF-1 and TBM-1
Had one a single upper right cowl mounted .30 calibre machine gun and associated gun trough.
Radio mast on top of the canopy sloped backwards slightly. Antenna lead in was below the rear canopy.
From late 1944/early 1945, the Stinger gun was removed.
Late production airframes had Westinghouse ASB search radar installed with Yagi aerial arrays toed outwards at 40 attached under each outboard wing. (see photo of FN908 above)
TBF-1C and TBM-1C
Had a .50 calibre machine gun mounted in each wing just outboard of the wing fold. The .30 calibre machine gun and associated gun trough were deleted.
The radio mast on top of the canopy was moved further aft and stood vertically. Antenna lead in was moved to the fuselage side below the turret.
Photographic evidence indicates vertical and re-positioned masts as per TBF-1c and TBM-1c were not fitted to FAA MK I and II machines. Photos of possibleTBF-1C and confirmed (according to Sturtivant and Burrow) TBM-1Cs seen include;
FN912
Scale Aircraft Modelling May 84
TBF-1C?
JZ114
Model Aircraft Monthly Aug 05
TBF-1C?
JZ150
Internet – Britmodeller forum
TBF-1C?
JZ159
Air Britain Squadrons of the FAA
TBF-1C?
JZ229
Air Britain FAA Aircraft 1939-45
TBF-1C?
JZ396
Air Britain FAA Aircraft 1939-45
TBM-1C
JZ401
Aeroplane Monthly Nov 02
TBM-1C
JZ434
Scale Aircraft Modelling Feb 94
TBM-1C
JZ466
Model Aircraft Monthly Aug 05
TBM-1C
JZ496
Scale Aircraft Modelling May 84
TBM-1C
JZ497
Aeroplane Monthly Nov 02
TBM-1C
JZ535
Aeroplane Monthly Nov 02
TBM-1C
JZ541
Air Britain FAA Aircraft 1939-45
TBM-1C
JZ594
Scale Aircraft Modelling May 84
TBM-1C
JZ614
FAA in Camera 1912-96
TBM-1C
Westinghouse ASB search radar installed with Yagi aerial arrays toed outwards at 40 attached under each outboard wing.
Late production airframes had 70 inch MK4 rocket rails and wing racks fitted. Later still, MK5 zero length rocket launchers were fitted. However these were removed in FAA service.
From late 1944/early 1945, the Stinger gun was removed.
Later airframes fitted with propellers of broader chord?
TBM-3
Had an uprated engine which required a redesigned cowling to provide adequate cooling and airflow for the engine’s relocated oil cooler.
Intakes at 12:00 and 6:00 o’clock positions (previous variants had just the one intake at the 12:00 o’clock position).
Four additional cowl flaps down each side of the cowling. The bottom two were indented and the lowest one notched to clear the exhaust stack, which was of a slightly different shape.
MK5 zero length rocket launchers fitted as standard and cockpit instruments re-arranged.
All FAA specific mods as per earlier versions (dome windows, observers station, British equipment etc.) made.
TBM-3E (1945/46)
Lightweight (by nearly a ton)variant of TBM-3.
Engine cowl flaps further refined with the indentation removed from the bottom two flaps.
From my basic research which was done quite a few years ago so my memory might not be correct, I think that the British Mk.III`s were TBM-3E`s from BuAer69140. If there had been a one-to-one relationship with the BuAer serials, this would suggest a switch to TBM-3E from JZ651.
However, Air Britain (AB) picture of JZ654 shows TBM-3 characteristics – indented lower cowl flaps, stinger gun position extant, MK5 zero length rocket launchers but no underwing rack for an AN/ASP-4 radar pod
I have written down that from BuAer86175 the TBM-3E` had external hooks fitted, meaning that the first batch of Mk.III`s serialled JZ635-JZ720 had internal hooks but the second and subsequent batches, beginning with KE430 had external hooks? The available photos that I have seen seem to bear this out.
Stinger gun position and associated windows deleted.
An under-wing rack for an AN/APS-4 radar pod was installed under the starboard wing. Pod used by or at least seen on some operational aircraft.
A larger tail wheel was fitted to some aircraft
Tail and wing de-icing gear was dispensed with.
All presumed to have FAA specific mods as per earlier versions (dome windows, observers station behind pilot, British equipment etc.) made. Photos of KE443 in AB FAA Aircraft since 1946 and KE461 in Eric Brown's Fly Navy, show dome windows and open canopy above observers station.
-
3
-
-
Just to add to the list, the BPF received TBM-3Es with the underwing ASH pods, although not many actually saw service in WW2. I believe that these were pure Lend-Lease aircraft without the interior mods and bulged observer's window, but I can't say that definitely.
See post 11 in http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234989488-grumman-avenger-as-mk-iv-suez/ for a summary of late and post war FAA Avengers
-
1
-
-
Thanks folks.
I'd heard of colourised photos but didn't realise I'd fallen fowl of one.
How are you supposed to tell them from the real deal?
Still, at least the issue has been raised.
-
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.
One issue he looked into was the use of Day fighter Scheme (Dark Green, Ocean Grey and Medium Sea Grey) on some Seafires. The article’s conclusion (based on colour film evidence) was that some if not all Seafires appearing to have Dark Green and Ocean Grey upper camouflage, had Sky (as per the standard Temperate Sea Scheme)rather than DFS Medium Sea Grey. Tony O'Toole has looked at this at length.
For Westlands, the adoption of the correct Temperate Sea Scheme and 4” presentation of the serial, seems to have started from the NN serial range, with airframes in the LR and NF serial ranges appearing to have Dark Green, Ocean Grey upper surface camouflage and 8” presentation of the serial, identifiable by the high contrast between the two colours and the darker tone running through the cockpit.
A photo of Seafire IIIs on HMS Keldive, circa August/September 1944, is often referred to when looking to compare schemes in the same shot (the second aircraft on the left being in TSS and the others in DFS or the DFS/TSS hybrid scheme. Aircraft codes (K for the carrier plus the aircraft letter) are thought to be in Red.
Compare it with the colour version. It immediately becomes clear that the codes are not red, indeed they appear to have been removed or weathered away. Why is this?
The demarcation between the upper and lower surface camouflage on the nose also seems lower on TSS camouflaged Seafires.
-
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 June 1943 at Scapa Flow (evidence item 1 in the list below), was depicted with no Vokes filter.
Another photo taken a minute or so later by the same photographer shows other airframes without Vokes filters present on the flight deck as MB244? goes down on the lift (evidence item 1 in the list below). 6K could be MB198 and 6L is MB200.
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 August 2009 letters page.
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).
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.
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 (can't show photo).
I then noticed a further photograph of this particular aircraft in From the Cockpit Series No. 13 Seafire (evidence item 6 in the list below), which confirms the serial and code.
Why 899NAS should have several airframes with Vokes filters (which would have incurred a weight and drag penalty) at Scapa Flow, is a mystery. I know the carrier and its squadrons were due to leave for the Mediterranean, but why modify some but not all airframes, if that was the intention? 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?
Evidence list
1
Warpaint Series No. 72 Merlin Seafire – cover
June 2009 Model Aircraft Monthly – between p36 and p37
Seafire book by David Brown – cover
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51rTf8q1LCL._SX382_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
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 airframes without Vokes filters present on the flight deck as MB244? goes down on the lift.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7669/16636868203_1a71c96c33_b.jpg
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 shagging a white mouse?
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’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-BuAkwB5hI&feature=player_embedded
also Armoured Aircraft Carriers website on Seafire development http://www.armouredcarriers.com/seafire-development -
b/w footage MB195 between 7-13 seconds and between 44-51 seconds
Pilot getting into and out of cockpit. Serial, squadron number and aircraft letter shown as pilot walks up to climb up into and later, climb out of the cockpit.
None of the Seafires seen taking off and doing flybys have Vokes filters fitted.
5
Armoured Aircraft Carriers website Indomitable page
http://www.armouredcarriers.com/lessons-learned
b/w Photograph MB195 starboard side profile on lift confirms Serial and squadron number 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
-
8
-
-
I've since heard back from Philip Jarret....
The book just published by Pen & Sword is his part of the book originally intended to be published by Flight Recorder Publications. Barry Ketley, who was originally to publish the combined efforts of Jack Meadows and Philip Jarret, never got round to completing the job, before he died. Jack Meadows also subsequently died.
Having retrieved some of his material just in time, Mr Jarret signed a new contract with Pen & Sword, and the book just released is the result.
-
1
-
F4U-5 to 7 Corsair (Long nose) variants – some queries
in Aircraft Cold War
Posted
So...after much research I am still as confused as I was before.
It seems the F4U-7 chin scoop either fed carburetor air as per the F4U-4 or oil cooler air to a uniquely placed oil cooler in the lower fuselage (apparently the extra 10" not needed for the F4U-4 engine arrangement didn't give enough space behind the engine for both an intercooler and one or both oil coolers).
It is also seems that the F4U-7 wing inlets were either the same as the AU1 or unique. Feeding air to the intercooler and either one or more buried oil coolers or to the carburetor, depending on the purpose of the chin scoop.
At least I feel confident that the 7 was the same length as the 5 and AU1...unless someone wants to argue differently.
What I need to do is look at a 100% genuine F4U-7 and ask an engine mechanic
Thanks all for your help though.
Simon