detail is everything

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.

I don't think so. The P&S book appears to be a collection of original documents from the time, where as I thought the Flight Recorder book was new material. (I could be wrong though). Mr Jarret would, of course, know. I've now emailed Pen & Sword to find out....

Does anyone know if 'The Royal Naval Air Service At War' by Philip Jarrett & Jack Meadows was ever published? It was going to be published by Flight Recorder Publications Ltd in 2007, but it seems that although retailers like Amazon and Waterstones generated pages for customers to order it (e.g. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Royal-Naval-Air-Service-War/dp/0955426804), the book never reached the shelves. Has another publisher picked up the rights? Regards Simon

I feel duty bound to point out that the HC3 and HC3As transferred from the RAF, are exactly that. This month's Air Forces Monthly has an article on page 7 which shows a photo of the first HC3i ZJ126 'K' which was delivered to 846 NAS on 14 October. This is the first of seven airframes to receive the interim upgrade and be operational by March 2016. This interim upgrade includes a manually folded main rotor head, new fast roping point (relocating the winch forward, so marines can fast rope with enough clearance to avoid the the starboard sponson on the way down), modified undercarriage for for deck operations (anyone set out the visual differences from the current terrestrial undercarriage?) and new lashing points. The first of 25 fully marinised HC4 (19) and HC4As (6) are due to be delivered from late 2017 onward, starting with nine HC3 upgrades to be operational by February 2020. The remaining 16 airframes will then follow, to be operational by March 2022. The HC4/HC4A upgrade includes the interim upgrade plus an automatically folding main rotor head and tail pylon, as well as a cockpit avionics upgrade to ensure commonality with the Merlin HM2s.

This is what I've picked up from previous discussions... Post war FAA Avengers Late War delivery Avenger III: General Motors Eastern Aircraft Division built. TBM3 / TBM3E TBM3 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 behind pilot, 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 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 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. 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, 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 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. Those Avenger 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 dumped. 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, are of TBM-3s in Temperate Sea Scheme. Photo seen by others is of JZ681 (TBM-3E) in SBG so perhaps JZ series TBM-3s delivered in TSS and TBM-3Es in SBG? 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. However they must have had the FAA mods made prior to delivery (see above re 1945/46 TBM-3Es). 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. Post war delivery Avenger TBM-3E (AS.4, AS.5 and ECM.6) serialled XB296 to XB332, XB355 to XB404 and XB437 to XB479. supplied in 1953 by the US under the MDAP. US BuAer No.s range from 53050 to 91737. Delivered in Sea Blue Gloss with an ant-glare Non-spectacular Sea Blue panel in front of the cockpit. Interior colours as per MKIII [any changes to GM interior colours by 1953?]. Most converted to AS.4, AS.5 and ECM.6 shortly after arrival (see below). TBM-3E (1953) Delivered for anti-submarine role, pending introduction of Fairey Gannet. Initially fitted out by Scottish Aviation with basic British equipment fitted (radios, safety equipment etc. ). No airframe changes made as per previous wartime variants. Most airframes converted to AS.4, AS.5 and AS/ECM.6 variants through installation of different anti-submarine warfare equipment, but some unconverted airframes reached squadrons for type conversion training whilst they awaited converted variants. AS.4 Based on TBM-3S. Fitted out with anti-submarine warfare electronics based around the AN/APS-4 radar pod installed under the starboard wing. Replaced by Gannets by March 1955. Rear gun turret retained. Radar operator station behind pilot? What was the crew station arrangement after conversion? At least two used as ships flight COD aircraft. Guns removed but empty turret remained. AS.5 UK only variant. Fitted out with anti-submarine warfare electronics based around ASV.19A radar pod installed under the starboard wing. Replaced by Gannets by November 1955. RNVR used some until it was disbanded in 1957. Rear gun turret retained. Radar operator station behind pilot? What was the crew station arrangement after conversion? TS.5 Orange Harvest installed in four AS.5 airframes and used for radar jamming trials between April 1956 and October 1957 AS/ECM.6 Six airframes converted from TBM-3E, AS.4 and AS.5, to AS.6 and AS.6B versions. Used for ECM training crews in ECM warfare pending introduction of Gannet ECM.4s Rear gun turret removed and cockpit canopy extended aft. Dustbin radar pod fitted under forward fuselage on port weapon bay door. What was the radar system? There are basically two stations in the back, the one where the turret gunner was (seat facing forwards), then there was also another where the TAG would have sat, another seat facing forwards. both had consuls. Behind the lower seat to the rear of the plane was another rack with more comms/power kit. Equipment station where the observer was in WWII FAA Avenger variants Difference between a late war production and a MDAP delivered TBM-3E? It is an Avenger III TBM-3E (JZ and KE series) if it is no later than 1946/7 (after which they were returned or scrapped), has a FAA style dome side window and observers station behind pilot. JZ635-JZ720 if it has an internal hook or KE430-KE479 if it has an external one. It is a MDAP Avenger TBM-3E (XB series - some unconverted airframes reached squadrons for type conversion training) if it is 1953 or later, flat USN style side window.

I once asked this question within another posting, but no answer was forthcoming. I thought I'd give it another try... It is stated that the F6F-5 introduced a redesigned engine cowling which fitted more tightly around the engine and reduced drag, contributing to the variant’s improved performance. Looking at drawings and photos, I can’t perceive any difference between a late production F6F-3 (minus the lower flap and exhaust fairing) and an F6F-5 cowling. If you were to park the two next to each other, could you tell the difference? It might be that the external shape remained the same but that the internal trunking from the lower cowl inlet was enlarged internally through closer fitting tunnels. This allowed a greater mass of air to enter the cooling system to better cool the more powerful R-2800-10W engine and this might have reduced drag, but I’m only guessing. Can any Hellcat fans help. Ta Simon

they also give reference sources so you can go look at the photos and judge their accuracy for yourself

Hopefully all you and your colleagues good work wont have been in vain and someone picks the projects up. Some of the Airfile book projects originated from the Aviation Workshop franchise. I've seen this before with books and CDs where the publishing rights get passed from publisher to publisher as they fold or are taken over. It would be a shame if not a travesty if the research and art work was never to see the light of day.

I saw that there were some exciting new titles due for 2015 (Air War Over the Western Front, British Experimental, Development and Test Aircraft etc. etc.) but then their web site closed down. Any idea as to what has happened? I wanted to contact them to make sure the RNAS and FAA got a look in (No book on navy trainers, just RAF trainers for example) with regards their WWI series. It always annoys me when the RNAS and FAA get overlooked. Must be worse for the Army Air Corps fans!

To compare dayglo green with day glo yellow Even allowing for washout due to weathering, there is a significant difference. It would be good to try and identify the shade of green seen on the TT20's. How close did Chris' photoshopped photo's capture the lime green tint? He says 'If anything they should be a little greener'.

Thanks Len So, the yellow undersurface colour on Hal Far TT20s was changed from Golden Yellow to the more visible DayGlo Saturn Yellow, with the trainer bands remaining Golden Yellow. Where does the DayGlo Signal Green (is this the same green as that described as the Lime Green seen on TT20s?) come into the equation? Was Saturn Yellow subsequently replaced by Signal Green on Hal Far airframes or was its application the result of an entirely different oporational requirement? WD592/864/HF is noted by Mike Keep as being in the silver with DayGlo green and black stripes scheme with yellow triner bands i.e. similar to other TT20's seen by Chris Thomas at Hurn in October 1969 (although he recollects they had green trainer bands as well). Were those aircraft seen at Hurn by Chris Thomas, ex Hal Far aircraft or was DayGlo green being used on domestically (FRU) based TT20's also. If DayGlo green was also used on domestically based TT20's, was this at entire squadron level or a matter of individual airframes being circulated around squadrons and those which passed through 728 NAS? in Hal Far retained their green undersurfaces when they returned home? Sorry for all the questions, I'm just trying to get my head around what happened and why. Regards Simon

In Scale Aircraft Modelling September 1988, the aircraft in detail is target tugs. Two of the Mike Keep profiles are of FAA Meteor TT20s. The first is of WM292/041 in standard TT colours of the time (silver with golden yellow and black striped undersides). There are a few colour photos of FAA TT20s on the internet (Just Google Meteor TT20 and select images). Two http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor#/media/File:Gloster_Meteor_TT.20_WM159_776_Hurn_15.07.67_edited-3.jpg and http://www.abpic.co.uk/popup.php?q=1439255 are of WM159/040, which is similar to WM292/041. WM159 had a dayglo D on the yellow winch which had black ratainer bands? around it. The other Mike Keep profile is of WD592/864/HF in the silver with Day Glo green and black stripes scheme with yellow triner bands i.e. Similar to other aircraft seen by Chris Thomas at Hurn in October 1969 (they had green trainer bands as well). Until I read this topic, I had assumed this scheme was a one off. There is a colour photo of this aircraft http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Navy/Gloster-Meteor-TT20/2063865/L/ , taken after service at Hal Far, , it was delivered from Biggin to Mojave, CA as N94749 between 18 & 22.6.75 and having been restored in camouflage, is nowadays on display at the Edwards AFFTC Museum. If WD592 was still wearing the Day Glo green scheme at the time it was photographed, it is pretty indiscernible compared to the photos of WM159, which is I asume wearing the golden yellow scheme. So you are relying on written notes to confirm. Chris's experiences with his colour photo's back this up. Len (Grizzly) says "the TT20 Meteors operating from Hal Far had the underside golden yellow replaced with Saturn yellow high vis Day Glo [is this what we see as green or yet another colour?] because the missile operators were having trouble seeing the Mother aircraft when firing at the targets !!! The aircraft bands remained golden yellow but I believe that lease one trialed Day Glo green bands." Were the aircraft seen by Chris at Hurn in October 1969, ex Hal Far aircraft in storage or was the Day Glo Green modification required outside of the Mediterranean area? and if so, why didn't it continue on to the Canberra TT18s? Simon

I recently bought the Air Britain Publications book 'The Harvard File' and this set my mind to understanding the variants used by the Fleet Air Arm. To help with this I also bought the Squadron/Signal ‘in action’ book for the T-6 Texan. I then looked at all my other reference material. I set out my findings below (they were in tables but they didn't survive the posting), which include points for discussion. I would also welcome any corrections. Not including the Harvards used by the RAF and other nations under the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan to provide advanced pilot training for new FAA pilots, there were three variants delivered to the FAA. These were the MK IIB, MK IIA and MK III. References to the rear canopy shape can be seen at http://i373.photobucket.com/albums/oo174/rcaf_100/harvardcanopy.jpg Harvard IIB Equivalent to: AT-6A (NA-77 ) / SNJ-3 (NA-78 ) Built by: Noorduyn Aviation Ltd. Canada Engine: 600 hp R-1340-AN-1-Wasp driving a Hamilton-Standard constant speed metal airscrew Equipment: British equipment such as instrumentation, radios and a circular RAF control column grip. 12 volt electrics. Canopy: The original longer fixed rear canopy end with a curved lower edge Other features: No tall antenna mast and delivered with extended exhaust shroud (which routed warm air into the cockpit) See http://www.aviationphotocompany.com/p390954246/h5ca0364e#h3e49e399 . Presumably cockpit heating wasn’t needed in Ceylon and the longer exhaust shroud was removed? Finish: Delivered in overall trainer yellow (most IIBs stayed in Canada). However the WWII photo of KF494 (see photographic references below) suggests the finish was changed to tropical silver/aluminium finish when in Ceylon and the post war photo of KF549 suggests that disruptive uppers were added to some used in the UK (although KF549 may be a red herring - see discussion section below). Post war photos of MKIIBs tend to be in trainer silver/aluminium with yellow bands and post war roundels. Weapons: Provision was made for a single .30 calibre machine gun in the starboard cowling (was it fitted to FAA aircraft?) Structure: Aluminium metal stressed skin and high alloy steel structure with fabric covered control surfaces. The main gear leg covers are often seen to be removed in post war photos Production: From serial number range: FE267– FH166 Total 11 (FE423, FE460, FE615, FE625, FE677, FE679, FE693, FE697, FE713, FE959 and FH155 - all but FE460 to Ceylon). From serial number range: FS661– FT460 Total 3 (FS685, FS696 and FT190 – all to Ceylon) From serial number range: FX198 – FX497 Total 2 (FX445 and FX447 – both to Ceylon) From serial number range: KF100 – KF999 Total 57 (KF493-KF495, KF499-KF528, KF530-KF537, KF542, KF544-KF546, KF548-KF559 – most to UK) Reference photographs: Air Britain: FAA Aircraft 1939-45 KF494 K7Y 729NAS Katukurunda 1945-46 WWII SEAC silver. No yellow bands evident Air Britain: FAA Aircraft Since 1946 KF500 203/ST 1831NAS Stretton 1951 trainer silver with yellow bands KF516 211/AC 1830NAS Abbotsinch 1949-53 trainer silver with yellow bands KF520 251/BR 1833NAS Bramcote 1952 trainer silver with yellow bands KF549 253/BR 1833NAS Bramcote 1952 trainer camou (TLS/yellow, possibly TSS?) KF537 252/BR 1833NAS Bramcote 1952 trainer silver. No yellow bands evident, but could be there Air Britain: The Harvard File KF558 206/CW 780NAS Culdrose 1949 trainer silver. Probably has yellow bands RNAS Culdrose 1947-2007 KF558 206/CW 780NAS Culdrose 1949 trainer silver. Yellow fuselage band discernible Profiles: Air Britain FAA Aircraft Since 1946 KF542 258/BR 1833NAS Bramcote 1949 trainer silver This erroneously has short MK IIA/III style rear canopy end. Scale Aircraft Modelling August 2005 KF494 K7Y 729NAS Katukurunda 1945-46 SEAC silver This profile has RAF style pale blue/roundel blue markings. I think this is erroneous (see discussion below) Discussion: The photo of KF520, KF549 and KF537 lined up at Bramcote (see above), throws up a couple of interesting questions. KF549 is clearly wearing disruptive camouflage but it seems to be of similar tonal value to the temperate sea scheme wearing Seafire in the background. Given that the aircraft belongs to a RNVR squadron, rather than a training one, could KF549 also be wearing TSS? If not, I assume it would have been in the standard green, brown, yellow trainer scheme? KF537 is in silver/aluminium finish, but has it yellow trainer bands? The placing of the aircraft’s serial number/ code number is further forward than usual (i.e. see KF520 lined up in the same photo) which is usually placed so the code number is within the trainer band, the usual position of which can be seen in the photo of EZ316 -/GJ http://www.aviationphotocompany.com/p390954246/h5ca0364e#h5ca0364e and other post war photos of FAA machines. Interestingly, KF537’s predecessor (MK III, FT965) had its serial number and same code number placed in exactly the same further forward position and that definitely has the trainer band (see reference photos for MK IIIs below). Why would two different aircraft of the same unit and with the same code, have exactly the same unusual serial/code placement? According to Air Britain, FT965 would have left the squadron (1950) by the time the photo was taken (1952), so it can’t be a matter of mistaken identity. The wartime photo of KF494 (see above) gives an impression of a slightly darker centre to the roundel than the fuselage (suggesting the aircraft has RAF style SEAC pale blue/roundel blue markings). However I think this is because the shiny aluminium finish on which the roundel is placed is more reflective than the slightly flatter roundel paint. The fin flash certainly appears to be a standard FAA white/blue one. Harvard IIA Equivalent to: AT-6C / SNJ-4 (NA-88) Built by: North American Engine: 600 hp R-1340-AN-1-Wasp driving a Hamilton-Standard constant speed metal airscrew Equipment: British equipment such as instrumentation, radios and a circular RAF control column grip. 12 volt electrics But 5 SNJ-4s (KE305-KE309) were delivered with American equipment and RN serials. They stayed in the USA. Canopy: Shorter rear canopy end with a straight 45 lower edge. For gunnery trainers, this was attached to the rear cockpit canopy at the bottom front corner, designed to hinge so it would rotate back over the rear occupant’s head and act as a windscreen when the rear cockpit canopy was pushed forward. However I understand the FAA used swordfish for gunnery training, so the short rear canopy end was fixed to the fuselage in FAA machines. Other features: Short exhaust shroud. Finish: Delivered in natural metal finish, directly to Ceylon, S Africa and India. Some later shipped to UK in 1946. Weapons: Provision for a single .30 calibre machine gun in the starboard cowling. Provision for an additional .30 calibre machine gun in the starboard wing, underwing bomb racks (were guns fitted to FAA aircraft?) Structure: Initially aluminium metal stressed skin and high alloy steel structure with fabric covered control surfaces but about halfway through the production run, this variant was redesigned to reduce the use of aluminium alloy and high alloy steel, the short supply of which was feared and therefore its use to be prioritised for combat types. The wings, centre section, fin, rudder, elevators, ailerons, flaps etc. were made of spot welded low alloy steel structures. Side panels of the forward fuselage and the entire rear fuselage and tailplane were covered with three-ply mahogany plywood rear fuselage skinning, as well as wooden bulkheads, floor portions, control columns, stringers and other components, with fabric control surfaces. Production: From serial number range: EX100 – EX846 Total 9 (EX641/EX702 to Ceylon, EX643/EX647/EX683/EX687 to S Africa, EX585, EX609 and EX620 to India). Some (EX620/ EX643/EX647/EX683/EX687 later shipped to UK in 1946 North American SNJ-4 under Acquisition No. BAC/n-1990 for the Royal Navy Serial Numbers: KE305 – KE309 Total 5 (all stayed in the USA) Reference photographs: None Profiles: None Discussion: It is not known whether the FAA airframes were early (all metal) or late (part wooden) examples, since there are no photos of them that I know of. Photos of SNJ-4s show the shorter rear canopy end with a straight 45 lower edge. Harvard III Equivalent to: AT-6D / SNJ-5 (NA-88) Built by: North American Engine: 600 hp R-1340-AN-1-Wasp driving a Hamilton-Standard constant speed metal airscrew Equipment: The majority had British equipment such as instrumentation, radios and a circular RAF control column grip. But 20 AT-6Ds were delivered with American equipment and RN serials. 24 volt electrics. Canopy: Shorter rear canopy end with a straight 45 lower edge. Other features: Short exhaust shroud. Finish: Delivered in silver/natural metal finish. Some re-finished in green/brown/yellow camouflage when in the UK (see photos of EZ400 and EZ447), although some appear to have retained their silver finish throughout their career (see photo of EZ406) – unless painted yellow overall. Post war photos of MKIIIs tend to be in trainer silver/aluminium with yellow bands and post war roundels. The main gear leg covers are often removed in post war photos Weapons: Provision for a single .30 calibre machine gun in the starboard cowling. Provision for an additional .30 calibre machine gun in the starboard wing, underwing bomb racks (were guns fitted to FAA aircraft?) Structure: Early examples had the wooden components of the late production AT-6Cs, but production soon reverted to the metal stressed skin and high alloy steel structure with fabric covered control surfaces of AT-6A/Bs and early production AT-6Cs. Production: From serial number range: EX847 – EZ458 Total 129 (most to UK) Serial Numbers: FT955-FT974 Total 20 (all to the UK) Reference photographs: Air Britain: FAA Aircraft Since 1946 EZ348 911/HF Stn Flt Hal Far 1947-52 WWII trainer silver Air Britain: The Harvard File FT965 252/BR 1833NAS Bramcote 1949 trainer silver EZ316 -/GJ Stn Flt Gosport 1953 trainer silver EZ400 900/CW Stn Flt Culdrose 1947-48 WWII trainer camou EZ406 Y2Z 759NAS Yeovilton 1947 WWII trainer silver or yellow & tall mast EZ447 Y2M 700NAS Yeovilton 1946 WWII trainer camou & tall mast Military Aviation in Malta 1915-1993 – John Hamlin EZ436 913/HF Stn Flt Hal Far 1947-52 silver Culdrose 1947-2007 EZ400 900/CW 790NAS Culdrose 1947 trainer camou - tonal difference between colours is clear so TLS/yellow. No tall mast Profiles: Air Britain: The Harvard File FT965 252/BR 1833NAS Bramcote 1949 trainer silver Erroneously has long MK IIB canopy end Military Aircraft Markings and Profiles – Barry Wheeler EZ316 203/JA “Hatters Castle” 1831NAS Stretton 1947 WII trainer camou Erroneously called a MK IIB of 1832NAS Air Britain: Squadrons of the Fleet Air Arm FT965 252/BR 1833NAS Bramcote 1949 trainer silver Erroneously called a MK IIB Discussion: With regard to the 20 AT-6Ds delivered with American equipment, the batch of 20 airframes FT955-FT974, which were all delivered to the UK, would seem to be the likely candidates. However at least some from serial number range: EX847 – EZ458 (see photos of EZ406, EZ400 and EZ447), had the tall aerial mast as per American aircraft, which implies the fitting of American radios. So perhaps the 20 AT-6Ds came from the earlier batch? The photo of EZ406 and an unidentified airframe in front of it on HMS Vengeance travelling to Malta in 1947, shows an allover light scheme. Probably silver but as previously with 759NAS at Yeovilton, what chance they were re-sprayed all over yellow? Anyone seen a reference photo for EZ316 (203/JA “Hatters Castle”)? NB - Edited to make more readable in absence of table format

I see that Jon Freeman also asumes flat windscreens on clear blown hooded Corsair IVs in his profiles for Paul Lucas' article on BPF aircraft markings found in the August 2005 edition of Model Aircraft Monthly. Comparing the above photo of KD865, with the photo of JT565 found at http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?88114-F4U-Corsairs-RN-Photo-s the windscreen bracing supports seem more or less in the same place, unlike the frames portrayed by Jon and Richard which are more substantial and nearrer the top of the windscreen bow and further forward along the nose (presumably to clear the gun sight etc.). This would suggest either a substantial re-build or completely new windscreen units.

Windscreens Detail and Scale say no F4U-1s were delivered with a flat windscreen as per F4U-4s. However, from photo’s I have seen at the FAA museum and on line, it appears that some FAA Corsair Mark IV’s (FG-1Ds) of No. 1846 Squadron appear to have had flat windscreens. KD696 '111/D' and KD865 ‘112/D’ did but KD750 ‘117/D’ and KD780 ‘122/D’ didn’t (see http://www.thescale.info/news/publish/Corsairs-HMS-Collossus.shtml and http://www.thescale.info/news/publish/Royal-Navy-Corsairs-Capetown.shtml. I’ve seen KE serialled corsairs and they don’t either. Am I imagining things? In his article on Commonwealth Corsairs (Scale Aviation Modeller International August 2000), Richard Caruana thought some Corsairs had the flat windscreens too, although it appears he thought all the airframes with clear blown hoods had them. Tail wheel fairings With the gear down & doors open it was split in two with half on each door. It wouldn't be until the doors were closed that it would look like the one piece. It was only sheet aluminum and it was a fairing behind the exposed wheel to reduce aerodynamic drag. Previously the tail wheel fork was entirely in the fuselage when retracted. But later (because of the extension), part of the fork protruded outside the fuselage when retracted, prompting the aerodynamic fairing to the rear. Not all machines with the taller gear had the fairing and it is difficult to spot the fairings on the tail wheel doors when looking at machines with undercarriage down. Seems linked to a modification which lengthened the tail wheel gear by 6.48 inches to improve visibility. See http://masseyaero.org/projects/corsair/corsairbits.html for detail photos. This can also be seen on late USN and NZ machines. Exact serial of introduction not known but seen on F4U-1A JT505 (see p463 Air Britain FAA Aircraft 1939-45). 'Detail and Scale' say the taller gear was introduced on the F4U-1A from BuNo 50080 (so in batch JT195-JT564) but that the associated fairing was a feature found only on late FG-1Ds. However JT505 is an F4U-1A built by Vought and that has the fairing. The photo of JT565, a F4U-1D built by Vought (see http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?88114-F4U-Corsairs-RN-Photo-s) also clearly has the taller gear and fairing. Anyone throw any more light on these.

mmm...the photo would suggest that this airframe doesn't have the rear windows, although it is hard to be sure with the canopy slid back. This would contradict my posted information. The golden rule is always go with the photographic evidence (taking into account the type of film used and other visual tricks etc etc.). Data out is only as good as the data put in in the first place. I simply used what reference data I have, put it together and cross referenced it as best I could to try and ensure it didn't contradict other reference material. Either Joe's BuNo/serial database or Richard's BuNo for airframe mods information (or my interpretation of them) is wrong or the airframe has the windows but we can't see them or they have been removed/painted over? (clutching at straws). Perhaps photos of other airframes in the same BuNo or serial sequence would help confirm the absence or not of the windows of this particular airframe. As to whether you should build your model with the rear windows or not, go with your instinct, based on the photographic evidence.

Navy Bureau Numbers and aircraft serial match up Now I know there are dangers in assuming a logical BuNo/serial match up, but I thought I’d have a go. I used Joe Baugher's US Navy/US Marine Corps Aircraft Bureau Number database and cross referenced it with the data provided by Sturtivant and Burrow in their book ‘Fleet Air Arm Aircraft 1939 to 1945’, published by Air-Britain Publications. Doing this, I came up with following; Hellcat I Production Grumman F6F-3 Hellcat I Serial Numbers: FN320-FN449 & JV100-JV221 BuNo to serial relationship 04850-04859 = FN320-FN329 04945-04954 = FN330-FN339 08894-08903 = FN340-FN349 08954-08963 = FN350-FN359 09029-09038 = FN360-FN369 25778-25787 = FN370-FN379 25868-25877 = FN380-FN389 25958-25967 = FN390-FN399 26053-26062 = FN400-FN409 26148-26157 = FN410-FN419 65962-65971 = FN420-FN429 66082-66091 = FN430-FN439 66222-66231 = FN440-FN449 40111-40120 = JV100-JV109 40266-40285 = JV110-JV119 40421-40430 = JV120-JV129 40597-40605 = JV130-JV139 40771-40780 = JV140-JV149 40946-40955 = JV150-JV159 41121-41130 = JV160-JV169 41306-41325 = JV170-JV189 41826-41831 = JV190-JV195 42332-42344 = JV196-JV208 42845-42857 = JV209-JV221 I’m not sure why FN420 to FN449 seem to be later build airframes than the JV serialled airframes. Can someone explain this? Hellcat II Production Grumman F6F-5 Hellcat Mk II Serial Numbers JV222-JV324, JW700-JW784, JW857-JW899, JX670-JX964, JX968-JX999, JZ775-JZ821, JZ912-JZ946, JZ960-JZ964, JZ970-JZ978, JZ981-JZ994, KD118-KD152, KE118-KE159, KE180-KE214, KE215-KE229 and KE230-KE265 BuNo to serial relationship 58220-58232 = JV222-JV234 58733-58795 = JV235-JV297 58996-58999 = JV298-JV301 69992-70014 = JV302-JV324 70015-70037 = JW700-JW722 70238-70287 = JW723-JW772 70463-70474 = JW773-JW784 70475-70512 = JW857-JW894 70688-70692 = JW895-JW899 70693-70762 = JX670-JX739 71163-71237 = JX740-JX814 71638-71712 = JX815-JX889 72113-72187 = JX890-JX964 77259-77290 = JX968-JX999 77291-77337 = JZ775-JZ821 77792-77826 = JZ912-JZ946 78446-78450 = JZ960-JZ964 78456-78464 = JZ970- JZ978 78467-78471 = JZ981-JZ985 78422 = JZ986 78473-78480 = JZ987-JZ994 79006-79040 = KD118-KD152 79514-79555 = KE118-KE159 79273-79307 = KE180-KE214 79708-79722 = KE215-KE229 79723-79758 = KE230-KE265 Hellcat II(NF) Production Serial Numbers JX965-JX967, JZ822-JZ827, JZ890-JZ911, JZ947-JZ959, JZ965-JZ969 (possibly), JZ979-JZ980, JZ995-JZ999, KD103-KD117, KD153-KD160, KE160-KE179 BuNo to serial relationship 72989-72991 = JX965-JX967 77338-77343 = JZ822-JZ827 77680-77681 = JZ890-JZ891 77695-77696 = JZ892-JZ893 77705-77706 = JZ894-JZ895 77715-77716 = JZ896-JZ897 77725-77726 = JZ898-JZ899 77745-77746 = JZ900-JZ901 77750-77751 = JZ902-JZ903 77760-77761 = JZ904-JZ905 77765-77766 = JZ906-JZ907 77780-77781 = JZ908-JZ909 77790-77791 = JZ910-JZ911 78365-78366 = JZ947-JZ948 78375 = JZ949 78385-78386 = JZ950-JZ951 78395 = JZ952 78405-78406 = JZ953-JZ954 78414 = JZ955 78425-78426 = JZ956-JZ957 78435 = JZ958 78445 = JZ959 78451-78455 = JZ965-JZ969 78465-78466 = JZ979-JZ980 78890 = JZ995 78891 = JZ996 78895-78896 = JZ997-JZ998 78910 = JZ999 78914-78915 = KD103-KD104 78933 = KD105 78935-78936 = KD106-KD107 78950 = KD108 78955-78956 = KD109-KD110 78970-78971 = KD111-KD112 78984-78986 = KD113-KD115 79000 = KD116 79005 = KD117 ? = KD153 79221 = KD154 79225 = KD155 79231 = KD156 78235 = KD157 79511-79513 = KD158-KD160 79253-79272 = KE160-KE179 Some of these airframes were definitely delivered as Hellcat II(NF)s, whilst others are noted as NFs by Sturtivant but Baugher states that they were delivered as Hellcat IIs. Perhaps they were used by NF units but not converted, or perhaps they were converted in the UK, once they were delivered? Airframe modifications Richard Dann’s F6F Hellcat Walk Around, published by Squadron/Signal Publications, provides specific BuNos in relation to airframe mods. For example on Hellcat Is, the cannon fairings were deleted, slanted radio masts changed to vertical and the lower cowl flap was deleted after BuNo 26195, the exhaust fairing was deleted after BuNo 40235 and provision for HVARs was made from BuNo 42185. Using the above BuNo/serial info, this suggests that; The last 30 FN serialled Hellcat Is FN420 onwards? would have had the above changes and the R-2800-10W engine. The first 10 JV serialled Hellcat Is up to JV109? would have had the exhaust fairing. The last 82 JV serialled Hellcat Is JV140 onwards? would have had the R-2800-10W engine. The last 26 JV serialled Hellcat Is JV196 onwards? would have had provision for HVARs. For Hellcat IIs, the forward spine light was deleted after BuNo 70289 and the small rear windows were deleted after BuNo 71662. This suggests that; The forward spine light was deleted from JW773 onwards The small rear windows were deleted from JX840 onwards. Cowlings It is stated that the F6F-5 introduced a redesigned engine cowling which fitted more tightly around the engine and reduced drag, contributing to the variant’s improved performance. Looking at drawings and photos, I can’t perceive any difference between a late production F6F-3 (minus the lower flap and exhaust fairing) and an F6F-5 cowling. If you were to park the two next to each other, could you tell the difference? Edit - just corrected my maths

Apologies for this monster post! This subject has been touched upon in previous posts, but I thought I’d try to collate everything and add my own research, since this might affect the modelling of specific airframes, for example those within the AE9** and AF9** serial ranges present during operation Pedestal and those airframes which took part in operation Torch. I'm sure there are Hurricane experts out there who will be keen to put me right where I have misunderstood, assumed in error or just plain got it wrong! Where I have a query, I have put a '?' To briefly summarise the Royal Navy classification of UK built Sea Hurricanes... Sea Hurricane Mk.Is : all had Merlin IIIs and DH Hurricane prop/spinners. The latter was required to address aft Centre of Gravity shift issues associated with the carrier equipment fit. They fell into three classes, depending on the accelerator/arrester fit. Mk.Ia - catapult spools but no arrester hooks. These were used on the CAM ships. Mk.Ib - catapult spools and arrester hooks. These were used on the fleet carriers such as Indomitable, Eagle and Victorious. Mk.Ic - no catapult spools but with arrester hooks. The Mk.Ics replaced the standard 8 guns with four cannon and were intended for use on escort carriers, but this didn’t happen. All evidence suggests that only one or two prototype examples were tested, and these reverted to standard armament because of the weight of the weaponry (added to the weight of the naval equipment) eroded performance to unacceptable levels. The lack of one on Pedestal was confirmed by pilots and an armourer from 880 Sq. Sea Hurricane Mk.IIs : all had two stage Merlin XXs and the lighter Rotol Hurricane units were usually fitted as per RAF machines as the longer (extended by 4”) noses provided the required forward C of G shift. They fell into two classes Mk.IIb - with 12 guns (sometimes 8 guns?) Mk.IIc - with four cannon This reflects RAF terminology. However, these aircraft were only used from escort carriers without accelerators, so it is quite possible that they did not possess catapult spools. The Mk.IIb and Mk.IIc didn`t have a pilot`s head rest because this assembly was designed to protect the pilots neck during a catapult launch, so maybe they were not fitted with catapult spools either? Canadian built machines : The Royal Navy didn’t differentiate between Canadian and British manufactured machines, referring to them as Mk. Is or Mk. IIs according to whether they had Merlin IIIs or Merlin XXs (or 28/29s if they were retained?). This is not surprising since I imagine operationally, there wouldn't have been fundamental differences between Canadian and UK built machines, especially when UK Merlin engines were fitted. Some references, for example the Airfile publication on Operation Torch, and the Aviation Workshop book on the Hurricane, refer to Sea Hurricane Mk. Xs and XIIs being used during operation Torch, but I don’t think these were designations recognised by the Royal Navy? Perhaps the last of the Canadian manufactured machines kept their Merlin 28/29s and they kept their canadian designations accordingly? The first production batch of Canadian Hurricanes (P5170 – P5209) were 40 Merlin II or III powered Hurricane Mk.Is. They were not re-designated as Mk. Xs when this designation was introduced. These used engines and Watts or De Havilland propellers imported from the UK. According to sources (see below) The completed airframes were exported to the UK in between march and November 1940 and six airframes (P5180, P5182, P5187, P5203 and P5206) were subsequently operated by the Royal Navy. P5187 as a Sea Hurricane Mk. Ia and the rest as Sea Hurricane Mk. Ibs. Designation for the next Canadian production batch was then switched to the Mk X. The Mk. X, XI and XII designations were used to identify Hurricanes manufactured in Canada. References state that these were manufactured with American manufactured Packard Merlin single-stage, two-speed 28/29 (Merlin XX equivalent) engines. Canadian built Hurricane Xs converted to Sea Hurricane standards were often classified either Mk.Ia or Mk.Ib by the RN depending on the accelerator/arrester fit. Those which were re-engined with merlin XXs were classified as Mk. IIs. This is where the confusion starts…. Most references state that Mk. Xs were manufactured with the single-stage, two-speed Merlin 28. This means that they would have had to have the Mk.II 4" nose extension required to accommodate the single-stage, two-speed Merlin. In which case why did the Royal Navy classify these long nosed airframes as Mk. Is when they classified other long nosed (Merlin XX powered) airframes Mk.IIs? Long and short nosed Sea Hurricane Mk. Is? On the face of it the Sea Hurricane Mk. I designation did not relate to the engine and therefore in theory you could have had both long and short nosed Mk. Is. The only engine which seems to prompt a Mk. II designation was the Merlin XX. But is that really the case? It is conceivable that all Sea Hurricanes sourced from Mk. X airframes did have the Mk. II extended nose. On carriers, where parts storage was limited, you would have thought they would have used the same DH Hurricane prop/spinners used by their short nosed companions, rather than the Rotol set-up usually seen on Mk. IIs? The oil spill ring was on all versions from the Mk.II onwards, but it can also be seen on late Mk.Is. It was certainly on some Sea Hurricane Mk.Is during Pedestal, so this isn’t necessarily an identification clue either. So (unless the Mk. Xs had the later articulated tailwheel) you would be relying on spotting the subtle 4” differences in the nose panels between the cockpit and the exhaust stack to spot the long nosed machines. However, photographic evidence tends to discount long nosed Mk. Is (see below). Long and short nosed Mk. Xs? It is claimed in another posting that the first production batch of Mk. Xs were in fact built with Merlin IIIs and that Hurricane XIIas were all rebuilt aircraft that started out as Merlin III powered RCAF Hurricane Xs or Sea Hurricane conversions of, which were rebuilt to XII standard with Packard Merlin 28s and associated longer noses, but retained the eight gun wings for their lifetime. I assume that early Mk. X Sea Hurricane conversions were therefore delivered to the RN with the Merlin IIIs and short noses they were originally manufactured with, hence the Mk.I classification. If they were delivered with the long nose and then fitted with Merlin IIIs during the Sea Hurricane conversion process, you would have thought they would have retained the long nose (is that possible?) to help address the aft C of G issue? As stated above, the first production batch of Canadian Hurricanes were 40 Merlin II or III powered Hurricane Mk.Is, fitted with engines imported from the UK. They were not referred to as Mk. Xs. Designation for the second Canadian production batch was then switched to the Mk X (Mks. X upwards were allocated to Canadian built machines). I believe that that designation related to the country of manufacture and not necessarily the engine they were built with? First production batch of Mk. Xs Looking at Francis Mason’s book on the Hurricane and the Hurricane production details therein, then cross referencing with Sturtivant’s Air Britain book on FAA aircraft 1939-45, I note the following; Production of the first Mk. X batch was split into three parts. Jackson says the first two parts of the first Mk. X production batch were built as Mk. Is with Merlin 28s and 8 gun wings. Some being subsequently re-fitted with Merlin XXs in the UK and re-designated Mk. IIs. The third part was built as Mk. IIbs with Merlin 28s and mostly shipped to Russia. Part 1 All of the first part (AE958 – AE977) were shipped to the UK in June 1940 before being converted into Sea Hurricane Mk. Ibs in 1941. Four airframes were lost en route and four were initially delivered to 401 sqdn in Sept 1940 before (according to Sturtivant) also being converted to Sea Hurricanes Mk. Ibs in 1941. Part 2 The second part (AF945 - AG344) were shipped to the UK in August 1940. 21 of the first 22 were converted to into Sea Hurricane Mk. Ibs in 1941. The exception was AF961 which was fitted with cannons and used by 43 sqdn RAF. Sturtivant concurs with this, although a couple of airframes (AF958 and AF975) are described as Hurricane Is rather than Sea Hurricanes, despite being delivered to the Royal Navy. Of the remaining airframes from this part, some were converted to Hurricane Mk. IIbs by 13MU Henlow through the fitting of Merlin XXs and some of these (AG292, AG332, AG334, AG335 and AG340) were used by the Royal Navy. AG292, AG334 and AG340 were later converted to Mk. IIcs. Those not converted to either Sea Hurricane Mk. Ibs or Hurricane Mk. IIs , remained classified as Mk. Xs but many had 12 gun or 4 cannon wings fitted. Part 3 The third part (AG665 – AG684) were shipped to the UK in 1941 as Mk. IIb equivalents. The first six frames stayed in the UK, the rest were shipped to Russia. Of those that stayed in the UK, three airframes (AG666, AG667 and AG669) were used by the Royal Navy. Two (AG666 and AG667) were subsequently converted to Mk. IIcs in 1942. Sturtivant refers to the aircraft as Hurricane Mk. IIs and concurs with Jackson. No mention of fitting Merlin XXs is made but that isn’t to say it didn’t happen as per previous UK Mk. X to Mk. II conversions. Discussion Building Hurricanes as Mk. Is but with single-stage, two-speed Merlin 28s, seems to be a contradiction. This would suggest that the first part and at least some of the second part were built and exported as Mk. Is with Merlin IIIs (perhaps those engines leftover from those imported for the first Canadian production batch of hurricane Mk. Is?). Photos of Sea Hurricane Mk. Ibs in the AE958 –AF982 serial range confirm that there were no substantive differences in appearance between them and other UK built Sea Hurricane Mk. Ibs. There are photos of such airframes (AF974 7●D, AF955 7●E and AE966 7●F) taken during or around the time of operation Pedestal. The Squadron/Signal book ‘Fleet Air Arm’ by Ron Mackay has several large photos of Pedestal deck scenes. Graham Boak has studied Pedestal Sea Hurricanes in detail, publishing an article in Scale Aircraft Modelling January 2000 and submitting posts on this forum. He sees only short noses, De Havilland props and 8 gun wings. It might be that all the airframes from the first two parts were manufactured with Merlin IIIs, but that would mean that there were both short nose (parts 1 and 2) and long nose (part3 onwards) Mk.Xs. It has been said in other posts that there were in deed short and long nosed Mk. Xs. Those second part airframes converted in the UK to Mk. IIbs had Merlin XXs fitted so if they were exported as short nose Mk. Xs, they would have needed more than just an engine change. Alternatively they could have started fitting Merlin 28s in long nosed airframes post AF982 (during production of part 2). Photos of unconverted Mk.Xs in the AG101 – AG280 serial range would help confirm if they were exported with short or long noses. Looking at the Air Britain RN Hurricane records, the first of the airframes from the second part to be classified as a Hurricane Mk. II is AG292. This and several of the subsequent part 2 airframes and three from the third part (AG666, AG667 and AG669)) are classified as Hurricane Mk. IIbs even though they were operated by Royal Navy squadrons. This is not unusual since many of the subsequent (UK built) Mk. II airframes used by the RN are referred to by Sturtivant as Hurricanes, rather than Sea Hurricanes. Second production batch of Mk. Xs The two Royal Navy operated airframes (AM277 and AM288) from the second production batch of of Mk. Xs (AM270 – AM369) continue this pattern, being referred to as Hurricane Mk. IIbs. Jackson states that this batch was shipped to the UK in 1941 with Merlin 28s and 8 gun wings before being converted to Hurricane Mk. IIbs by 13MU Henlow in November 1941 through the fitting of Merlin XXs and 12 gun wings. Third production batch of Mk. Xs Interestingly, the three Royal Navy operated airframes (BW841, BW855 and BW856) from the third production batch of Mk. Xs (BW835 – BW884) are referred to by Sturtivant as Sea Hurricane Mk. Ias (BW841, BW855) and a Mk. Ib . Again, these were apparently manufactured with Merlin 28s and 8 gun wings. Most were shipped to Russia with others kept for RCAF service. Perhaps they ‘missed the boat to Russia’ and were impressed into training service by the Royal Navy? But why the short nose Mk. I designation if they were fitted with Merlin 28s? Did Sturtivant or the Royal Navy get it wrong, or were they imported with Merlin IIIs as per early production airframes? Jackson offers no airframe histories for this batch. No mention made of the fitting of Merlin XXs (or Merlin IIIs) in the UK, but that isn’t to say it didn’t happen as per previous UK conversions. Perhaps they retained their Packard Merlin 28s, thus attracting the Mk. I designation. Photos of other airframes from this batch would confirm whether they were built with Merlin IIIs (unless they were subsequently re-built as XIIas as suggested in other posts). First production batch of Mk. XIs (and fourth production batch of Mk. Xs?) References refer to Mk. XIs as similar to Mk. Xs (manufactured with Merlin 28s and 8 gun wings) but with Canadian specific equipment for RCAF use only. However Jackson states that the majority of the batch (BW885 – BX134) were shipped to the UK and onwards to Russia, although a few were retained for RAF use. Another sources states that a batch of fifty (Mk. XIs) were mixed in with Mk IIs (Mk. Xs?) on UK contracts. The latter scenario would seem to resolve the contradiction. Jackson gives airframe histories for three airframes (all RAF) only. Sturtivant identifies 8 Airframes from this batch which were operated by the Royal Navy ( BW886, BW900, BW911, BW921, BW929, BW991, BX126 and BX133). These are described as Sea Hurricane Mk. IIb (BW929, BW991, BX126 and BX133) and Mk. IIcs. No mention of the fitting of Merlin XXs, but that isn’t to say it didn’t happen as per previous UK Mk. II conversions. First production batch of Mk. XIIs (and second production batch of Mk. XIs Serials given are JS219-JS371 and JS374-JS468, no indication is given re the split between Mk. XIs and Mk. XIIs (perhaps first lot Mk. Xs and second lot Mk. XIIs?). Some were manufactured with Merlin 28s (Mk. XIs) and some with Merlin 29s (Mk. XIIs). What’s more, 185 were manufactured with 12 gun wings (Mk. XIbs and Mk. XIIbs) and 63 with four cannon wings (XIIcs). Again, no indication as to which airframes received which wings. Many shipped to Russia but some were retained. Sturtivant lists the following airframes as Sea Hurricane Mk. IIbs. JS265, JS272, JS274, JS297, JS314, JS320, JS324, JS328, JS331, JS336, JS348, JS356, JS357. All but JS314 were converted to Mk. IIcs soon after transfer to the Admaralty in August/September 1942. Other airframes are noted as Sea Hurricane Mk. IIcs from the start (JS222, JS225, JS226, JS231 – JS233, JS235, JS241, JS248, JS253, JS260, JS261, JS269, JS270, JS272, JS273, JS280, JS292, JS304, JS310, JS318, JS319, JS327, JS332, JS333, JS335, JS339, JS345, JS346, JS351, and JS353 – JS355). No mention of the fitting of Merlin XXs on arrival, but that isn’t to say it didn’t happen as per previous UK conversions. Conclusion So in conclusion, the first one and a half (possibly two) parts of first Mk. X production batch was delivered with Merlin IIIs and 8 gun wings. Subsequent airframes from the first and second production batches were delivered to the UK with Merlin 28s and 8 gun wings where many were converted to Hurricane Mk. IIbs through the fitting of Merlin XXs and, in some cases, 12 gun wings. Many were later converted to Mk. IIcs with cannon wings. The third production batch of Mk. Xs don’t fit the pattern since the three Royal Navy operated airframes are referred to as Mk. Is. It might be that; the Sturtivant references are wrong, they were fitted with Merlin IIIs or they were fitted with Merlin 28s and not re-fitted with Merlin XXs and the Royal Navy regarded these as Mk. Is, despite the longer nose. Subsequent Royal navy operated airframes from production batches of Mk. X, XI and XIIs are referred to as Sea Hurricane Mk. IIs by Sturtivant, although it is not noted whether they retained their Packard Merlin 28/29s or were re-fitted with Merlin XXs, once they arrived in the UK. For operation Torch, references tend to refer to cannon armed versions as Mk. Xs and 12 gun versions as Mk. XIIs, but it clearly isn’t that simple since all three versions were probably present with differing armament. .......I'll get my coat

As was said at the beginning of this topic the Air Britain book "The Scimitar File" page 212, general arrangement drawing two spans for the tailplane are given 17 foot 2 1/2" and 15 foot 6 1/2" (pre mod 746). From looking at photos, I'd say IMHO that the chord wasn't increased, but without direct comparison it is hard to tell. You could take a tape measure to Yeovilton and measure the actual thing on XD317. Mod 494 was a change to the fuel flow system? as a result of the unreliability of the tank level float switches on which the original system relied. These would regularly fail depriving you of fuel from the tank in question (see pages 43 and 59 of the Air Britain book). Simon

The Air Britain book "The Scimitar File" mentions the “the large tailplane” a couple of times, although not via the designation 'Mod 746'. The large tailplane is first mentioned (see page 50) in connection with the trials of new forward swept pylons, introduced to resolve the de-stabilising effect of stores carried on the outer pylons, which shifted the centre of gravity backwards and reduced the stick force per g to unacceptable levels where accurate turns at low level were difficult (see page 43) . Pitch up at 40,000 feet also required the full forward stick and the response was slow. The increased tailplane area appears to have been introduced as part of the fix which also included altered (heavier) feel units and longitudinal inertia weights. In October 1959 test pilot reports of recently completed trials, assessed on ADDLs and later Victorious of an Airstream Direction Detector (used to inform an angle of attack indicator) were published. These trials also cleared the Scimitar for maximum weight launches and landings with swept forward pylons and the large tailplane using the Audio Incidence Indicator (see ‘Test Findings’ on page 50). The large tailplane is next mentioned in connection with spinning trials carried out in March 1960 (see Spinning Trials’ on page 51), the purpose of which was to prove the recovery action recommended in a previous report on an aircraft ‘fully modified to carry four external stores’. The aircraft used was XD216 which is described as ‘fully modified with the increased area tailplane, altered feel units and longitudinal inertia weights.’ It was tested clean and then with the new forward swept pylons fitted. It was concluded that neither the introduction of the large tailplane nor the presence of the four swept-forward pylons affected the spin recovery technique. The first aircraft to have the heavier feel units was the second type 560 airframe XD276 (see ‘Type 560’ on page 47) so I assume the large tailplane was part of the type 560 production standard with perhaps some of the older type 544 airframes receiving them as a post production modification. But that is just an assumption. I haven't got the Warpaint book, but neither the Ad Hoc publications 'from the cockpit' Scimitar book or the Dalrymple & Verdun Scimitar book go into as much detail regarding the development trials work and so don't mention the de-stabilising effect of stores carried on the original outer pylons and the fix. Simon

I understand that the FAA mods were not carried out on the production line. Martlet, Avenger, Corsair and Hellcat airframes were delivered to Blackburn Aircraft - at first in the UK but after 1942 in America - at the British Modification Centre where they were `Anglicised' before delivery to FAA.

My understanding is that those MKIIIs delivered in 1944/45 (JZ635 to JZ720, KE430 to KE479 and possibly the re-conditioned examples in part of the VL994 to VL999 range) had the FAA specific mods as per earlier versions (dome windows, observers station, British equipment etc.). A quick look at the photos of JZ691 and KE461 in Eric Brown's Wings of the Navy, shows dome windows which would seem to confirm this. It might be that the VL range MKIIIs might not have received the mods as these were presumable refurbished USN airframes, but there is no reason why Blackburn couldn't have worked on those as well? The 100 serialled XB296 to XB332, XB355 to XB404 and XB437 to XB479. supplied in 1953 by the US under the MDAP, were initially fitted out by Scottish Aviation with basic British equipment fitted (radios, safety equipment etc. ) but no airframe changes made as per previous wartime TBM-3E airframes.

Thanks Tony and Graham My understanding is that those MKIIIs delivered in 1944/45 (JZ635 to JZ720, KE430 to KE479 and possibly the re-conditioned examples in part of the VL994 to VL999 range) had the FAA specific mods as per earlier versions (dome windows, observers station, British equipment etc.). A quick look at the photos of JZ691 and KE461 in Eric Brown's Wings of the Navy, shows dome windows which would seem to confirm this. It might be that the VL range MKIIIs might not have received the mods as these were presumable refurbished USN airframes, but there is no reason why Blackburn couldn't have worked on those as well? The 100 serialled XB296 to XB332, XB355 to XB404 and XB437 to XB479. supplied in 1953 by the US under the MDAP, were initially fitted out by Scottish Aviation with basic British equipment fitted (radios, safety equipment etc. ) but no airframe changes made as per previous wartime TBM-3E airframes.

I make the following humble observation. I welcome any comments and corrections TBF-1 and TBM-1 (FAA MKI) Radio mast on top of the canopy sloped backwards slightly and was positioned on leading edge of cockpit bulkhead. Antenna lead in was below the rear canopy. TBF-1C and TBM-1C (FAA MKII) On American aircraft, 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. Illustrations of FAA MKIIs often show this revised radio mast position. However, photographic evidence seems to indicate that the vertical and re-positioned masts as per TBF-1C and TBM-1C were not fitted to FAA MKII machines. This might be due to the FAA specific crew layout not requiring a change of mast position between the two MKs or it might be that when Blackburn fitted the FAA required folding masts, they fitted them as per MKIs. However MKIIIs seem to have been delivered with re-positioned masts as per the TBF-1C and TBM-1C, so the reason is unclear. Photos of possibleTBF-1C and confirmed (according to Sturtivant and Burrow) TBM-1Cs seen with TBF-1 and TBM-1 masts 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