captnwoxof
Members-
Posts
40 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Profile Information
-
Gender
Male
-
Location
usa
Recent Profile Visitors
311 profile views
captnwoxof's Achievements
Newbie (1/9)
75
Reputation
-
Here's the site: https://www.aviationarchaeology.com>USN_Type_FM
-
Thanks you Geoffrey, Bob, and Chris. I am still absorbing the new info you have provided, and hope to be able to respond in a day or two. I seem to have gotten out of sync with a thread that I started. While others were talking about the carbon monoxide issue, I was looking at serials, and now that serials are being discussed, I'm ready to address carbon monoxide! The US Navy was equally aware of the problem. The following excerpts are from "Final Report of Production Inspection Trials of Model F4F-3 Airplane" (23 December, 1940): Note that the report puts responsibility for corrective action on the contractor. They document only that Grumman corrected the problem to their satisfaction, but say nothing about how. The A&AEE dealt with the matter differently. They conducted trials and inspections of all US types received. All reports pertaining to the Grumman G-36/F4F/FM-1 are grouped together as A&AEE/762, and section 6 contains all of the reports pertaining to cockpit carbon monoxide. They documented everything: The tests, the CO2 levels, the steps taken to correct the problem, and the results. While This thread deals with the Mk V, the reports cover the testing of all Martlet marks. Carbon monoxide levels were found unacceptable for all, and a modification "packeage" was developed and mandated. I say "developed" because initial modifications proved inadequate, and additional steps and revisions proved necessary. The individual modifications were grouped together as "Mod 66-Exclusion of Fumes From the Pilot's Cockpit". By the time the Martlet V was introdued it included: Sealing all openings in the bulkhead behind the pilot's seat Sealing the catapult beam openings Provision of an internal fabric bag to seal the tailwheel and arrestor hook openings Asbestos sealing of gaps around the main fuselage fuel tank 3" extensions welded to the exhaust pipes to prevent gases from entering the undercarriage openings As noted in my first post, testing of a Mk V with these mods found the levels still unacceptble. Further modification of the exhausts was undertaken for all marks. (The FAA museum's AL246 has the 'final" configuration for the Cyclone powered versions.) I'm not a doctor, and my aeromedical concerns are limited to keeping my Class I certificate so that my wife won't have to live in a cardboard box and eat cat food, but the initial report on Martlet I BJ570 indicated the following: As to what steps Grumman took to satisfy the USN, a clue can be found in the A&AAE report on Martlet IV FN111. The airframe of theMartlet IV was based on the F4F-4, and the report makes note of changes in the cockpit ventilation from previous types. The report also mentions that the bulkhead and fuselage openings had been sealed, although apparantly not to the complete satisfaction of the A&AEE. The USN did not make any change to the exhausts, this was probably the biggest difference in their approach to the problem, and as noted, is the primary difference between an FM-1 and a Wildcat V.
-
Thanks to both of you. I don"t consider myself an expert. I am always grateful for input from others, as they often possess information that I don’t have. As for trust, in the interest of objectivity I try to independently verify everything. There is a conflict between the lists you have provided, and I’ve spent the past week researching to determine what is correct. I found that I didn’t know as much as I thought I did! I now have a better understanding of the matter, and while I am reasonably certain that what follows is correct, it may not yet be the last word. All Eastern Aircraft Wildcat production occurred under US Navy Contract 99036. The initial order called for 1800. The US Navy designated them as FM-1s to reflect the change in manufacturer. The Joint Aircraft Committee approved a British request for more Wildcats, and allotted part of the output to them under Lend-Lease. Lend -Lease had been in effect for 17 months when production began, and the process had been somewhat streamlined. Separate contracts were no longer written, instead, aircraft from existing US Service contracts were to be diverted to fulfill Lend-Lease commitments. Aircraft destined for Lend-Lease were taken individually or in small batches spread throughout production, maintaining a ratio of deliveries to all users. All aircraft were manufactured to the US Navy’s requirements and specifications and were identical except for camouflage. This policy expedited production and delivery, but an administrative conundrum arose. Legally, the aircraft belonged to the US Navy, but since the Navy was not taking possession, they were loath to assign them BuNos. How to account for them? A variety of methods had been tried, none was satisfactory, and the question was still pending when FM-1 production began. The British aircraft were built and delivered in order as planned, but they did not receive USN BuNos. The British had reserved a block of their own serials (JV325-JV924), and these were assigned sequentially to the aircraft. (Their construction number would reveal their place in the order of manufacture, but I haven’t found a list of C/Ns.) After 90 airframes (JV325-JV414) had been delivered to the British, policy changed, and it was decreed that henceforth all airframes would receive a US serial, in the appropriate service’s format and sequence. The next airframe destined for Lend-Lease was given BuNo.15402 and British serial JV415. From this point on, all production received a BuNo, presumably in sequence. British Serial BuNo JV325-414 (none assigned) 90 JV415-JV438 15402-15425 24 JV439-JV448 15470-15479 10 JV449-JV468 15520-15539 20 JV469-JV478 15570-15579 10 JV479-JV498 15630-15649 20 JV499-JV518 15680-15699 20 JV519-JV533 15730-15744 15 JV534-JV563 15775-15804 30 JV564-JV593 15825-15854 30 JV594-JV613 15870-15889 20 JV614-JV636 15894-15916 23 312 TOTAL Sources vary as to the number of FM-1/Wildcat Vs produced. BuNos are listed as 14992-15951 and 46738-46837. Assuming that all BuNos were sequentially used, this results in a total of 1060, and some sources quote this. But as noted, the first 90 Martlet Vs (JV325-JV414) did not have BuNos. It is unclear as to whether 90 BuNos were “skipped” or whether 90 additional airframes were produced. Geoffrey Sinclair suggests the latter, making total production 1150. I tend to favor this explanation, largely because of my respect for Geoffrey’s vast knowledge of aircraft serials, but it leaves a question of how to account for 90 additional airframes. If all the listed BuNos were used, they match the number of ordered airframes specified in the contract.. iI cannot find anything calling for a seperate British order of 90 additional airframes. Geoffrey-can you shed any light on this? Joe Baugher’s list claims that JV325-JV414 had BuNos, all from the second group (46738-46837). I very much doubt this is correct. I can find nothing that verifies, and a great deal contradicts it. FM-1s with those BuNos were the last ones produced, not the first. Built alongside FM-2s, their BuNos were assigned out of sequence to avoid having both variants mixing serials together (I’ll say more about all this when I get around to finishing my promised post about the FM-2/Wildcat VI). A search of US Navy accident reports shows that several aircraft that Joe lists as delivered to the British were involved in various “crunches”, all while in USN service. AFAIK none of this group went to the RN. (On the other hand, Joe’s list of BuNos for JV415-JV636 is corroborated by other sources and is spot on.) A copy of Eastern’s Construction List would resolve all this, but I don’t have one. Anybody? While all this is interesting (and ObsessiveMe would like to get it right), its not germain to modeling the Wildcat V. I stand by my observations in my original post, that any variance from the FM-1 occurred post-production. All airframes were the same after the first ten, none of which went to the British. And speaking of the first ten, I found a lot of information, including an answer to gingerbob’s question. Conversion of General Motors Eastern Division automotive plants was a massive undertaking. The facilities were physically unsuited for aircraft production, the workforce had no experience with aircraft components or assembly techniques, and on top of everything else, before production had even begun the company was required to modify the design for a revised armament specification: Four guns v. six. None the less, production got underway on schedule. Not all of Eastern’s sub-contractors were ready, so Grumman provided the parts for the first ten aircraft (BuNos. 14992-15001). These were standard F4F-4 components, including six-gun wings. This had no factor in their designation. The aircraft were assembled by Eastern, so they were FM-1s. From BuNo 15002, all remaining Eastern-built aircraft had the four-gun wings. One of the first ten survives! Google “FM-1 14994”. BuNo. 14994 was the third FM-1 produced. Constructed of Grumman parts, it had F4F-4 wings. It was assigned to VGF-30 aboard USS Wolverine (IX-64), for carrier training duties on Lake Michigan, and was ditched in the lake on 19 December 1942. There it remained, until recovered in 1993. It is now restored and on display at the Valiant Air Command Museum in Titusville, Florida. Searching USN accident reports, I found references to several of the first ten. Most of the incidents were dated in late 1942 or early 1943 and occurred while involved in training duties. It would appear that these aircraft, although brand new, were retained stateside and assigned to second line units where they were quickly used up by ham-fisted “nuggets” on their way to the fleet. I cannot find any record of them being deployed to a combat zone. I’m not sure why. Perhaps someone thought that asking a pilot to go into combat in an airplane that had been put together by an amateurs on the first day on the job was maybe not such a good idea.
-
A thread was running last year in response to a question as to what marks of Martlet could be produced “out of box” from the 1/48 Eduard kits. I won’t revisit the entire thread, you can access it here: https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235127889-eduard-wildcat-kit-to-martlet/&do=findComment&comment=4725611 At the time, Eduard had released only boxings of the F4F-3/3A and -4, but they were developing kits of the FM-1 and FM-2 (which saw FAA service as the (Martlet)/Wildcat V and Wildcat VI). Those kits have now been released. Eduard chose not to do separate boxings for the British variants, but instead they have included markings for at least one Royal Navy aircraft in each kit. This approach is understandable from a business perspective. The RN versions were essentially the same as their USN equivalents. There are, however, some minor points of difference, and some issues worth addressing. Let me begin by heaping praise on Eduard. They have set a new standard for correctly depicting the entire F4F/FM series in /48 scale. We finally have accurate and detailed state-of-the-art moldings of the two General Motors produced variants. I’ll start with the Mk V. Grumman began to transfer the production of the F4F-4 to General Motors Eastern Aircraft Division in 1942. Eastern built the aircraft under Contract #99036 for the US Navy, which designated them as the FM-1. All received US Navy Bureau Numbers (BuNo. 14992-15931 and 46738-4687). Of these, the British received 311 examples (some sources state 312), acquired through Lend-Lease Requisition BSC N-4. The British designated their aircraft as the Martlet V, but a decision was made in January 1944 to adopt the American names of all American types, so they were renamed Wildcats. As the British allotment was interspersed with USN deliveries, the airframes were spread out throughout the production run. They were issued British serials JV-325-JV636. I am unable to find a comprehensive record correlating individual serials to original BuNos. It hardly matters. Only the first ten General Motors aircraft were identical to the F4F-4, retaining its six-gun wing. All of the following airframes featured a revised four-gun wing with increased ammunition capacity. This included all of the British allotment, and as no further external alterations were made during the production run, there is no variation in their appearance as built. All were factory finished in the British Temperate Sea Scheme. (I decline to be drawn into discussion or debate as to whether ANA or MAP standard colors were utilized.) The British made a number of post-delivery alterations to their aircraft. Most of these were internal and cannot be seen on a model, but some can. The British were critical of the American N2A and N3 gunsights of the early Martlets, and replaced them with their own GM2, which they considered far superior. The US Navy agreed with that assessment, and adopted the GM2 for their own use, designated as the Mk 8. FM-1s were delivered with this sight. Whether the British kept the supplied Mk 8 or replaced it with their own GM2 is difficult to say, as they are largely the same, so you can safely use part A23 (although aftermarket sights with improved detail are available). All Martlet/Wildcats in FAA service had their US pattern seatbelts and straps replaced with a Sutton harness. Eduard does not provide one, but numerous aftermarket sources do. A.& A.E.E. at Boscombe Down had tested previous marks of the Martlet, and had found that carbon monoxide levels in the cockpit were unacceptable. A number of modifications were adopted to prevent exhaust gases from being drawn into the fuselage. Fuselage openings and bulkheads were sealed, and the exhaust pipes of Mks I, II, and IV airframes were fitted with 3” extensions (the Mk IIIs, shipped through Gibraltar to the ME without passing through the UK, did not have these). Upon delivery, Martlet V JV336 was sent to the A.& A.E.E. for testing. They reported that when received, the aircraft had not been modified. It was given 3” extensions as per the Martlet II and the fuselage fittings were sealed, but testing revealed that carbon monoxide levels remained unacceptably high. A new pattern of exhaust extension was developed, 8” long at the front, tapering to 5 1/2” at the rear. This design was successful and was adopted. From examination of photos it appears these 8”-5” extensions were fitted to most operational Mk Vs, but exceptions can be found. Both of the Mk Vs depicted in the Eduard kit (JV377 “6/C” 882 NAS and JV? “B” 846 NAS) had them, as did the Mk V depicted in Tamiya’s FM-1 kit (JV579 “F” 846 NAS). Neither manufacturer has provided parts for these extensions. AFAIK there are no aftermarket sources for them either. You will have to scratchbuild. The aircraft were delivered with American radios. An ARC RU-GF receiver and transmitter for both HF/ VHF communications were fitted. The aerials ran from a post on the rudder to an angled mast on the fuselage spine, and then down from the mast to an insulator on the starboard fuselage. Further aft, just behind the fuselage light, was a whip aerial for the IBK IFF. A thin spine aerial for the ZB homing equipment projected down from lower fuselage, between the ventral windows. Variations in antennas and fittings occurred as equipment was added or replaced. Aircraft within a squadron were usually all outfitted the same and so will display a common pattern. The Eduard marking options depict two aircraft in mid 1944, and although both have been modified, each displays the pattern common to their respective squadron. 882 NAS: The fuselage mast and associated aerials were removed. In its place is a second whip antenna (indicating only VHF communication radios were fitted). 846 NAS: A fuselage mast is fitted, but it is vertical, not angled. It may be that FM-2 masts were retrofitted, as appears to be the same. RU-GF aerials are fitted. Other minor notes: 846 NAS aircraft had external mirrors and the large pneumatic tail wheel. 882 NAS aircraft did not have mirrors and were fitted with the small solid tailwheel. There are aftermarket decals available for other Mk Vs. I have not yet researched the aircraft they depict. If you model one you will have to do your own homework, but hopefully this post provides an idea of what to look for. I’ve rattled on long enough for now. I’ll do a separate post for the FM-2/Wildcat VI later.
- 28 replies
-
- 12
-
captnwoxof started following Jaguar T-34 interior instructions
-
Hello I recently acquired two OOP resin accessory sets produced by JAGUAR. They are #63521 "T-34/85 ENGINE COMPARTMENT" and #63524 "T-34/85 INTERIOR". Unfortunately, both are missing the instructions, and I cannot find a source for them online. Would anyone have a copy of the instructions that they can scan and forward to me? Thanks
-
Sorry Graham, but they were in fact requsitioned from the US Navy on March 19, 1941, as a part of the very first use of the newly passed Lend Lease Act (and initially for the UK-not Greece!) I know, I know-everybody says they were "ordered" by the Greeks. This is a misinterpretation of the facts that has been repeated so often that it is just accepted without question. The real story is far more complex and fascinating. It is too long to go into on this forum. If you are interested, I recommend that you access the JSTOR website, do a search and and download "Under Urgent Consideration: American Warplanes for Greece" by G.E. Patrick Murray (sorry, I can't generate a direct link to the article). This is a very complete and clear explanation of what really happened, and goes a long way to resolve many of the inconsistincies generated by the popular mythical version of events.
-
You are correct, although I wouldn't describe them in quite that way. The 30 Mk IIIs in the desert were not "equal to" they were in fact, F4F-3As with USN BuNos, requisitioned under Lend-Lease. The others were the first 10 G-36Bs (Martlet II), fitted with F4F-3 wings because their fuselages were complete but the specified folding wing was not yet ready. At the time of their acceptance they were still designated as Martlet IIs, but the surviving airframes were redesignated as Mk IIIs, as structurally and mechanically (and thus, operationally) they had more in common with that mark than the bulk of the Martlet II order. You have stated their physical characteristics correctly, although if I may simplify: From a modeler's perspective, they are externally identical except the G-36B version had a domed (v. stepped) propeller hub and lacked the forward fuselage side blisters. The OP had asked about what could be done with the Eduard kits. In listing what could be built OOB, I should have stated "Martlet III (ex-USN)". To build a Martlet III (G-36B) would require minimal alteration. Use the F4F-3/3A kit. Follow the instuctions and use the parts to build a -3A, but remove the forward fuselage blisters. (While you're at it carve off the small radio compartment air scoop on the right fuselage, no -3/3A/Martlet III had it). Replace the stepped hub with a domed one, (I'm surprised Eduard did not include this in the moldings. The FM-2 boxing may include it, as some FM-2s used it. Its not hard to fabricate one,just chuck a piece of plastic rod in a motortool and turn it to shape.) And if you can't wait to see if Eduard does a "true" folding wing Martlet II, its not too difficult to build with what is currently available. Use the F4F-4 Early kit (liferaft stowage in fuselage spine). Use cowl ring N34 with cowl pieces N27 and N28. Engine gearcase is N24. No intercoolers, so omit part N21 and use part N12 v. N13. Windscreen part is the one with extra bracing. Most Martlet IIs had the forward fuselage blisters, but a few early airframes did not, so check your reference. The radio compartment air scoop should be carved off. Airframes after AM991 have the kit provided pitot, but earlier ones had a TBF style pitot mast on the upper port wing. Again, not too hard to make. The domed propeller hub is required. Some Martlet IIs were fitted with catapult spools, and an extended centerline fairing is associated with it. Lots of speculation, but nobody seems to know why or to what purpose it served. I'm still researching. If you want to go that route, you're on your own! Happy Martleting!
-
Oops! Somehow I missed that thread . 🤦♂️ Thanks!
-
Hello Hurricane Experts. I did a comparison of the 1/32 scale new tool Revell Hurricane IIB with the Fly Hurricane IIC that was in my stash. The Revell fuselage is shorter than the Fly (not a Mk I vs II issue, the difference is not in the nose but between the rudder post and the rear cockpit bulkhead.) The Revell fuselage keys up almost exactly with the Mushroom plans. The Fly matches the Granger plans. Who is correct? I tend to question Revell's accuracy, they've made a habit of shape and outline errors in what are otherwise beautifully molded kits, but I'm trying to be objective. Anyone have station diagrams?
-
In October 2021 Eduard announced the release of a new line of 1/48 Grumman F4F Wildcat kits on modelforum.cz. (Translated from Czech) “The Wildcat will be from the F4F-3 of various variants to the F4F-4, FM-1 and FM-2 to the Martlets, but they won't be all, as there are about eight of them and some are very marginal.” It seems clear that all of the US Navy fighter variants will be kitted, but if not all of the Martlets, which ones? I will throw my two cents in. It’s just my opinion, based on familiarity with the Wildcat/Martlet. the nature of the hobby industry, and Eduard’s business practice. Eduard has a reputation for doing superb research and getting their subjects right. Their practice is to release multiple boxings of different variants of each subject. The moldings offer multiple parts. While expensive to produce, this allows them to mix and match sprues to provide the correct parts for each release, accurately depicting differences between variants. Their engineering is excellent, and their kits have a reputation for meeting or exceeding the quality of their competitors. The first Wildcat release was No. 82201 F4F-3 1/48. This is marketed in their ProfiPack line which includes photo-etched, paint masks, and a comprehensive decal sheet with multiple markings. F4F-3s were not all alike, changes were introduced during production, and these are reflected in the kit with multiple parts. They provide the parts necessary to build almost any F4F-3, as well as its offshoot, the F4F-3A. There are six marking options (five F4F-3 and one F4F-3A) and the instructions clearly explain which parts to use for each one. Next up was the F4F-4. The initial release was No. 11166 Limited Edition “Midway”, a dual combo that includes two full kits (F4F-3 and F4F-4) boxed together. No. 82202, a ProfiPack edition F4F-4 Wildcat “Early” to followed, and another Limited Edition “Guadalcanal”, a dual combo with two F4F-4 kits. Release of the FM-2 has been announced and is imminent. Release of the FM-1 has not yet been announced. All four fighter variants produced for the US Navy will each be available straight out of the box. (HobbyBoss attempted this but their FM-1 wasn’t entirely correct, and they completely muffed the FM-2.) If Eduard gets it right (and they usually do) we will FINALLY have a long overdue accurate FM-2. We can expect multiple releases of all these variants with different markings, and the option of simpler Weekend editions without photo-etch, and even simpler Overtrees (plastic parts only). What about Martlets? Here is where the company’s statement is a little vague. The only thing I can surmise is that they decided not to do the entire line. I don’t know where they came up with “about eight” Martlet variants. Officially, there were six marks (6 ½ if you consider the Mk IIs that had fixed wings). What does “marginal” mean? It has been suggested in some circles that it implies the number of the actual aircraft built, and that the rarer variants will be omitted. I disagree. When has the quantity of the real thing ever determined the marketability of a replica? I suspect that “marginal” refers to the company’s return on investment (what sales they can expect vs. the cost of retooling molds). They are a business and must stay profitable. Of the six Martlet marks, three of them were Lend-lease allocations from USN stocks, exactly equivalent to a USN variant. They require no alteration of the basic moldings. Martlet Mk III (USN) F4F-3A Martlet Mk V (USN) FM-1 Martlet Mk VI (USN) FM-2 All you need are a Sutton harness, Mk II gunsight, and a new decal sheet. (If Eduard really digs in, they might include the British exhaust extensions on the Mk V.) The remaining three marks were hybrids. Their airframes were a mix of components from various versions of the F4F and they had alternative engine installations. There was no direct equivalent in USN service for any of them. What will Eduard release? Martlet Mk II Likely. This mark combined the fuselage of the F4F-3, an engine that was identical to that of the -3A, and the folding wing of the F4F-4. Between the F4F-3/3A and F4F-4 moldings the basic parts will already be available. It’s just a matter of boxing the required sprues. Some Mk IIs had the TBF style pitot mast, and some were modified with British catapult spools and an extended under fuselage fairing, minor additions that could be easily accommodated on a small new sprue. Martlet Mk IV Maybe. This was an F4F-4 with a Wright R-1820 engine. The wings and fuselage were the same up to the rear bulkhead of the undercarriage bay. Forward of that, everything was different. Eduard has chosen to mold the fuselage halves integrally all the way to the engine bulkhead. The extended forward fuselage of this variant will require entire new fuselage moldings. All new engine, cowl, exhausts, and propeller parts will also be required. Eduard has displayed a willingness to go the extra mile and do this sort of thing, so here’s hoping they will again. Martlet Mk I Unlikely. This variant was conceived while production for the F4F-3 was getting started. The airframe had features of both the XF4F-3 and F4F-3, as well as a completely altered forward fuselage for a Wright R-1820 (different from the Martlet IV installation-each of the Wright powered Martlet variants is unique). In addition to the different engine, cowl and propeller, it had the prototype’s wing and shorter canopy, and so virtually all the major parts would have to be replaced to depict it accurately. If I were making a business decision, I would consider this one “marginal” and I would not produce it. Since I’m rather fond of this variant, I hope I am wrong.
-
Thanks. K6127, shown in the large picture that you posted above, was fitted with the Perseus engine. When I couldn't find any evidence of other Lysanders fitted with the guns I started my build by converting the kit's cowling to the Mk II configuration (shorter chord, no teardrop fairings, revised cowl flaps and carb inlet). I couldn't find a good Perseus in 1/48, so I scratchbuilt one. It all came out beautifully. But having commited the kit parts to the conversion, it turns out that all the other known airframes (and the one 16 Squadron photo) are Mercury powered Mk Is! (sigh...... stupid me.) Rather than buy another kit and starting over, I'm thinking of purchasing the SBS resin cowl and Mercury engine set to get the build back to a Mk I. Online, this looks far superior to the kit parts. Anyone worked with it and able to comment? Thanks again. I had read this in a review, but there was some debate as to whether the error was the location of the attachment points, or if the kit struts were too short. I have the original molding of the kit. According to the plans and photos I have, the attachment points look correct, so it may be the struts. Anyone know for sure? I agree with your suggestion for getting the wing geometry correct first, and fitting the struts after. This may be tricky, as the canopy is for a Mk III and will require some modification or replacement to depict a Mk I. One other note: Several references refer to the guns as Oerlikons. They are clearly not, they are Hispanos.
-
Here in the USA,, in the winter we go south to Florida where we swat moeskitos and hope the weather wont include any hurikanes.. You have to cross the pond to the UK if you want to see a mosskito or a hurrakin fly.! (Or a lankaster, not a lankasster). 🫠
-
I'm looking for information/photos of operational Lysanders fitted with 2 x 20mm Hispano cannons. Several sources show photos of the prototype installation as fitted to Lysander prototype K6127,and it was long thought that the project ended at this point and was not proceded with, but at least one photo has emerged of a Lysander in squadron service fitted with the guns. https://onedrive.live.com/embed?resid=b00f51a614dfdbef!70135&authkey=!AFlCpHTPUg8oovY&width=300&height=497" width="300" height="497" /> The aiicraft is a Mercury engined Mk I and the serial is given as P1684 (can anyone confirm this?) The codes are UG*A (16 Squadron). I cannot find any other photos of this serialed airframe but several profiles and at least one decal sheet depict this combination, all showing an alternative style of fin flash. I don't know if this is an illustration error, or if the cannon armed photo depicts a different airframe with the same codes. None of the profiles depict the cannon installation, but it is my understanding that the guns and external fittings were an "optional" addition, and that they could be fitted in lieu of the the spat "wings" and bomb racks. Internally, a Barr and Stroud reflector sight was fitted in place of the ring and bead, and I rather think that this would have been a more "permanent" alteration. Resources I have are: Camouflage & Markings No.2 (Lucas) 4+ Publications Westland Lysander (Ovcacek & Karel) Aircraft for the Few (Bowyer) Profile No.159 I have not referenced the Valiant Wings Technical Guide, Wapaint No 48, or Haynes Owner's Workshop Manual. Anyone with these resources? Internet, a search of this site turned up a comment from Graham Boak on a Meteor FR5 post, stating that a source (Aeromilitaria?) had a large picture of a 16 Squadron Lysander with 20mm cannons. Is this the same picture, but better quality? I understand that there are no reports of a Lysander ever firing these guns in anger, but the fact that they were fitted and that this versatile, workhorse of an airplane stood ready to do its part if the Germans had come ashore in 1940 is very appealing to me. I hope to replicate an example with the Gavia kit for my 1/48 BoB collection.
-
Claudio is correct. Although there was a proposal to fit .303s in the Martlet I (G-36A), it was decided not to do so and all versions of the Martlet were armed with .50s only. The guns were purchased under seperate contract and furnished to Grumman for fitting in the USA (there is a great deal of correspondance dealing with this in the PRO files). American made ST-1A gunsights were fitted to both the G-36A and G-36B in the USA. This was an "export" version of the N-3/3A sight. The British considered all US gunsights inadequate, and British Barr & Stroud sights were retrofitted.
-
I spoke without checking the sprues carefully enough. No, it does not. My apologies. There are two series of photos of NX26874 that I have seen. The photo I posted above is from a sequence showing the aircraft on the ground. The other sequence shows the aircraft airborne. I assume that it was taken on a different date. It shows the aircraft fitted with the braced windscreen. Although no gun barrels are visible, the wing has the 4-gun "double bay" configuration used on the production F4F-3/3A and G-36B. Flying under a civil registration, I would assume that no armament was installed and the gunports were taped over, but thats just a guess.