Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Gabriele Profeta

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About Gabriele Profeta

  • Rank
  1. Thank you very much FAAWAFU, here are a couple of quotes confirming the precious information that you and Selwyn have provided: "One early problem with ASV Mk.II was that its minimal range was too long. To make a successful attack, the crew had to see the submarine. At night, this could be achieved by dropping flares, but this warned the Germans that an attack was imminent". https://uboat.net/allies/technical/leigh_light.htm "Early air-to-surface radar sets, namely the SV Mk. II, had an inconveniently long minimum detection range. Thus as the aircraft approached the target, it would disappear off the radar at a range that was too great to allow it to be seen by eye at night without some form of illumination. At first, aircraft solved this problem by dropping flares to light up the area, but since the flare only lit up the area directly under the aircraft, a string (a number of flares in succession) would have to be dropped until the submarine was spotted. Once it was spotted the aircraft would have to circle back to attack, the entire process giving the submarine a fair amount of time to dive out of danger". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leigh_Light#Development On a side note, I think I have found the type of flare they used in the ASW role: http://michaelhiske.de/Allierte/USA/OrdnancePamphlets/OP1665/Part01/Chapter19/Figure083.htm
  2. Good to know, thanks. Do you have any remark on the (speculative) marking I adopted for my model?
  3. Interesting topic! If I get you correctly, flame float's main use was marking a position. Could they be used as well for illuminating an area at night (in WWII's early ASV radar era), or should I conclude that for that task flares were preferred?
  4. Yes as far as I could understand from the few sources I found online, flame floats were used in numbers both by FAA and CC, so I am a bit surprised that there is so little information and pictorial documentation about them. The following confidential information on Leigh Lights, documents flame float's usage against German U-boats on RAF patrol craft : I have also found three Wikipedia articles mentioning flame floats: "[Aboard Short S.26 flying boats] there was internal stowage for 20 reconnaissance flares, 28 flame floats and 8 smoke floats. Air to Surface Vessel (ASV) radar was fitted, plus armour plating for the internal fuel tanks and the crew stations". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_S.26#Design_and_development) "[Westland Wasp] Armament Naval: 2 x Mk 44 or 1 x Mk 46 torpedo or 2 x Mk 44 depth charges or WE.177 600lb Nuclear Depth Bomb.[28][29][30] Attack: 4 x SS.11 replaced by 2 x AS.12 missiles. General: GPMG, 4.5 Flares, Smoke/flame floats". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Wasp#Specifications_(Wasp_HAS.1)) "Behind [Short Stirling's] rest area, the uninterrupted deck ran across the full length of the bomb cells to the location in which the retractable ventral turret was installed upon early production aircraft; the internal area aft of this position were used to store flame floats and reconnaissance flares, as well as an escape hatch, lavatory, rear turret position, and the crew entry door on the port side." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Stirling#Crew_accommodation) So, apparently, on Yes, indeed you are right; right after posting my question I thought the same! Anyway, since the last time we talked, I updated a bit my model. Changes include a remodelled nose, better paint work and, addition of markings on the main body. The model should represent a Flame Float Mk II ready for dropping. What do you guys think about it?
  5. Okay, so those floats were loaded on racks as regular bombs? Call me silly, but having not seen any suspension lug, I was under the impression that they were dropped manually.
  6. Thank you for your answers Selwyn, your remarks make perfect sense to me. Can you confirm that the nose would have been painted in red as well as the body? I ask because that part was normally covered by the protecting cap (not portrayed in my model) and likely uncovered just before dropping the flame float itself. What do you think that my decision to keep the punch sleeve (on the top of the tail cone) unpainted? Talking about markings, have you noticed that arrow pointing to the side opening (to the side of the tail cone in one) on one the above drawings? It had to connect the opening with an handling warning, but in the drawing the lettering is not visible. That pamphlet is on my HD and it has already been mentioned in this thread, but thank you anyway Chris!
  7. Thank you for your reply fubar57! The document you have linked is among the ones already in my archive. Somehow it got clearer illustrations than other similar pamphlets but, other than a few letters and digits, I still can't make head or tails of the markings it portrays: I would be grateful if someone more knowledgeable than me would be so kind to decipher them.
  8. Hi fellow Britmodeller members, I am an amateur 3D modeller and a new member of your community. Due to my interest for WWII-related topics, in the past I have often dug this forum looking for information on British WWII weapons, but this is my first post here. As the title says, I am looking for information relative to the Flame Float Mk II, an ammo piece that was commonly used aboard CC patrol aircraft (and probably on FAA scout planes) to help locating and marking targets at night. Unfortunately I couldn't find any picture of the real thing, and all the information I currently have is from OP1665 (http://michaelhiske.de/Allierte/USA/OrdnancePamphlets/OP1665/Part01/Chapter20/Figure091.htm) and other unclassified documents now available online. My unanswered questions are two: In the 'colour and markings' section of the said documents is written: "Body, strut supports, strut, and protecting cap painted red; tail cone painted yellow". Nothing is said about the cylindrical inner container that gets released on water impact together with the tail cone , nor about the nose, though I suspect that they might have left them unpainted. All the ordnance pamphlets that I have consulted have b/w drawings with markings painted on them, but being in most cases digitalized photocopies, their quality is too poor for making those markings intelligible. Has anyone here better informations than I do on the above topics? By the way, this is a quick preview of what my model looks so far. I hope it is okay posting it here:
  • Create New...