mdesaxe

The Historic Naval Ships Association's website has the US Navy-issued booklet of general plans for HMS Battler available for download here: http://www.hnsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/acv6.pdf This illustrates many of the differences you mention, especially as the site also has the corresponding booklet for HMS Puncher from the later Ruler class: http://www.hnsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/cve53-d79.pdf The booklet, by the way, explicitly states that Battler carried two 4-inch guns. Maurice

Mine (bought about a month ago from Amazon UK) cost 38.48 including international shipping to Provence. A P.S. for Thorfinn: My older daughter is an undergraduate at Goucher College. Maurice

On the topic of two batteries, a situation from the 1950s might be the basis for an explanation. Austin Healey 3000 two-seater roadsters (Model BN7) used a 12-volt electrical system but were fitted with two 6-volt batteries in series behind the seats to provide the necessary 12 volts. Did these Bugattis use 12 volt or 6 volt systems? If the former, perhaps that's why they seem to have needed two batteries. Maurice

Thank you all for your input. I have managed to locate the builder's drawings for the trawler before its conversion. The box turns out to be one of the fish hold hatch covers. The hold was converted into accommodation space for the much enlarged crew. The hatches before and abaft the one in the photos were converted into companionways. The vent was installed to improve ventilation. The odd circular covers on the top and side were there so that the trawler crew could load fish without opening the entire hatch at sea and risking swamping the hold. There actually were four covers originally; the foremost also was retained unchanged. Thanks again, Maurice

Trying again with photos Success!!

Can anyone identify the "box" behind the sailors in these two photographs (taken aboard HMT Bedfordshire 1941-1942)? The box was on the port side roughly amidships on the deck that was fitted over what had been the fish hold. http://s1192.photobucket.com/user/mdesaxe/media/Z940-11.jpg.html http://s1192.photobucket.com/user/mdesaxe/media/Z940-9.jpg.html Thank you, Maurice

I recently came across this amazing WIP while looking for detail information to help a friend of mine who is scratch-building a Royal Navy armed trawler from the 1941-1942 period. I must admit I am most impressed by the workmanship this WIP exhibits and the detail the GLS sets provide. I must also confess I was taken aback by Mr. Parkins’ dismissal of olympic1911’s suggestion that the bottom boards the GLS set provides for the dinghy were incorrect. He argued that he’d been “doing it since 1976” and that the “Late Great John Lambert” had run his eye over them (I had the pleasure of meeting John Lambert and having several conversations with him about Royal Navy small craft, so I have the greatest respect for him and his accomplishments) and presented what I’m afraid to say is a totally incorrect explanation for the fact that his product, in this case only, is actually a “negative” of the real thing. Bottom boards in small wooden boats are present to keep people’s boots OFF the bottom of the boat so that they don’t become wet when it leaks, as small wooden boats tend to do. They are wide with narrow gaps between them so that water does not accumulate on top of them. The arrangement in the GLS set would be positively dangerous – having a boot trapped between the thin slats could cause a fall if the boat lurched, which could well result in injury, breaking or twisting an ankle, or falling overboard. The correct arrangement is shown in this scan from the AoS for HMCS Agassiz, by John McKay and John Harland, both of whom are very well respected researchers and draughtsmen. I must also note that I do have very solid practical experience to back up these assertions. I paid for my undergraduate studies at university by working in a boatyard on the Thames (a few years before Mr. Parkins began photoetching) where I mainly built lapstrake dinghies very much like the boat on this corvette and also have enjoyed a career as a maritime museum curator for well over twenty years, during which time, among my other duties, I have supervised a large working boatshop that conducted small craft restoration work for the museum itself and multiple other museums that did not have the advantage of such a facility. In the interests of full disclose, I must add that John Harland is a good friend of mine.

Again according to the Blackburn documents, the Idlewild facility handled virtually all modifications from early 1943. Much of the necessary material was sourced locally with the exception of specific British equipment, such as radios and seatbelts. By this time the use of "equivalent paints" (for want of a better expression) was pretty much standardised for US types destined for the FAA (Wildcats and Avengers from Eastern, Corsairs from Vought and, later, Goodyear). Given that most external modifications were minimally invasive (small scoops on Corsairs, for example) and the major external changes - like clipped Corsair wing tips and domed observer windows on Avengers - were incorporated on the manufacturers' production lines, I would image that Blackburn simply used US-sourced matching shades for any necessary external touch-up after making changes rather than repainting entire airframes. I did not find any information, however, on paint procurements in the Brough archives. Maurice

According to the considerable documentation held at BAe Brough in Blackburn's archive there, Blackburn set up a modification centre at Idlewild (now JFK International Airport) on Long Island and undertook the conversions there for issue to squadrons forming or reforming in the USA and for distribution overseas as replacements (a task often assigned to new escort carriers as they commissioned and left for their designated areas of operation). Not all components required modification - the outer wing panels with clipped tips were delivered to Vought direct by subcontractors for fitting to airframes destined for delivery to the FAA. Replacement aircraft for operations in the Pacific were delivered direct, not via the UK. By the time they reached the Pacific Fleet they were not necessarily immaculate - for example, the diary of 1841 NAS (held at the FAA Museum) mentions that their replacement Corsair IV's were filthy and required major cleaning before they were fit for service. Maurice

A long term project of mine is a large-scale Seafire 17. I'm aware of the enlarged rudder and its shape but did the Seafire 17 have the enlarged fin of the Spitfire XIV (and later) types or the original Spitfire fin? Maurice

I am building Sea Gladiator N5519 (G6A) from 802 Sq. and Swordfish P3992 (G5K) from 825 Sq., both about June 1939 when they seem to have served together. There are colour profiles for both in Sturtivant's 1920-1939 book and Lloyd's Fleet Air Arm camouflage book. The profiles in each book seem to derive from the same photographs. My problem is that Sturtivant shows N5519 with a black fin and black wheel disks, while Lloyd show the same machine with unpainted wheel disks. (I've also seen a profile of N5519 with a yellow fin.) Sturtivant shows P3992 with a yellow fin, Lloyd with a black fin. Are these differences based on different documentation or are they the result of different interpretations of black-and-white images? Maurice

I may well have missed this but can anyone tell me what the photo-etched items that Trumpeter supplies to lie flat on top of the lower wings represent? I can't see anything in photographs of the real thing (but I'm getting older and my eyesight may be less sharp than it used to be). Maurice

The original order to introduce the Light Gull Gray/Glossy Insignia White scheme was MilSpec MIL-C-18263(Aer), dated February 23, 1955. It was very slightly modified by MilSpec MIL-C-18263A(Aer) on July 16, 1956, and became MANDATORY for all front-line aircraft by July 1, 1957. What this means in practice is that most new-production aircraft were delivered in the new scheme, while older aircraft were re-painted on an rather adhoc basis. If you want an example of just how diverse the schemes were during these years, look only at the aircraft of ATG-181, which was the air group embarked aboard Forrestal for its first (shakedown) cruise, January 24-March 31, 1956. The FJ-3 and F2H-3 machines of VF-21 and VF-41 were in the new scheme, the AD-6's of VA-42 were a mixture of old and new, the AJ-2's of VAH-7 were in Glossy Sea Blue, and at least some of the F7U-3M's of VA-86 were in the experimental natural metal scheme.

Seahawk, The reason the over-water camouflage was applied was that 805 Squadron was tasked primarily with convoy protection duties from mid-March 1942, especially to provide cover for a series of efforts to get supplies through to Malta, but also for coastal convoys. As this coincided with the squadron's aircraft going in for major overhauls, I assume the opportunity was taken to repaint them for their new assignment. Maurice

Seahawk, The photograph must have been taken between August and October 1942, the period 805 Squadron was in East Africa. Nairn specifically dates the application of the "over-water camouflage design" to late March or early April - at least four months earlier. Maurice

The ex-Greek F4F-3A aircraft were taken on charge by the Royal Navy at the very end of April 1941 and most seem to have been issued to 805 Squadron in June (after re-assembly). The change to AX serials from the original Bureau numbers appears to have taken place in August 1941. Nairn dates the application of the camouflage scheme he specified to the very end of March or very early April 1942 (it apparently depended upon when aircraft had to undergo major overhauls). 805 Squadron went to East Africa in August 1942 and exchanged its Martlet III aircraft for Martlet IV machines (Nairn specifically notes that these had Wright Cyclones and folding wings) in October 1942. Therefore, 805 Squadron operated Martlet III's for 14-15 months at the very most. If the recollections of Mr. Walsh's grandfather, cited by Mr. Eisenmann, are accurate, these Martlets were still Light Gray in January 1942, meaning that any change in camouflage to a desert scheme before the application of the new finish Nairn described took place during a 2-3 month envelope at the beginning of 1942. Maurice

The scheme - whatever is is - was applied at the end of March 1942 and used before 805 Squadron went to East Africa. This does not invalidate your conclusion that it "is a bit late to go applying experimental pre-war schemes." Nairn's description quite clearly excludes any type of desert scheme and we would be hard pressed to imagine that he could confuse "sea green and blue" with any brown hues, so I doubt that only a single colour was applied over a previous overall upper surface desert shade. I do have one question - what is "MAM"? I'd really like to see that article! Maurice

I am hoping someone can help me by providing images of the following: The port side of the cockpit of the Shuttleworth Collection's Sea Hurricane (which is where the arrester hook release should be) The arrangement of the seatbelts on the FAA Museum's Martlet I I'd get these myself but I'm not geographically able to do so, so I'm hoping someone has these photos already. Thank you for any and all assistance. Maurice

I take your point regarding my memory (I hope in the spirit in which it was given). Nevertheless, Nairn was describing his "personal" machine, of which it is very clear he was extremely proud, especially as it was "K" (for Kiwi - he was a New Zealander). It was more than "government issue" to him, from his writing on the topic. Nairn included a few shots of 805 Squadron's Martlets, at least two from his personal album. This one, probably taken in January 1942, shows the squadron's Martlets still in overall US Navy Light Gray, as far as I can tell from his description. Note how difficult it is to be certain exactly what the colour(s) may be from this black-and-white photograph taken in harsh sunlight, especially in a scanned image. This one was taken in April 1942, after "K" received its camouflage. Again, note how washed out the colours are in these light conditions (scanning does't help). It is, however, possible to discern two different upper surface shades in the original. Finally, this shot may be from a source other than Nairn's own album. It shows six of 805 Squadron's Martlets in East Africa. Nairn's "K" is in the #2 position in the nearer flight. This shot also clearly shows that the camouflage was applied in a different pattern on each aircraft, supporting Stuart Lloyd's statement that it was field-applied. Finally, I do not think that the four different camouflage schemes I listed were applied in succession. I believe that only one scheme was applied to these Martlets other than the delivery scheme of overall Light Gray, and Nairn's evidence seems to indicate that it was most probably the Temperate Sea Scheme, or just possibly a non-standard application of one of the prewar experimental Tropical Sea Schemes. Maurice

I am still working through various aspects of my current obsession with Martlets, and especially with the F4F-3A’s that became the Royal Navy’s Martlet III’s. Their configuration, fortunately, seems to be a straightforward matter, since they were standard US Navy types and, apparently, unaltered structurally after their acquisition. (Though did they have Sutton seat belts instead of the US Navy’s equipment of lap belts only at that time?) Their camouflage is a different matter entirely. There seems to be no continuing disagreement that, when received by the Royal Navy’s 805 Squadron, these aircraft were finished in the contemporary US Navy scheme of overall nonspecular Light Gray (some British authors like to call this “Neutrality Gray” but not the Bureau of Aeronautics' documentation). Subsequently, they received one or more other camouflage scheme, but what these were has been the subject of considerable speculation: • Upper surfaces overall Middle Stone, retaining the Light Gray undersurfaces • Upper surfaces overall Middle Stone, with Azure Blue undersurfaces • Upper surfaces in a disruptive desert scheme of Middle Stone and Dark Earth, with Azure Blue undersurfaces • Temperate Sea Scheme (Extra Dark Sea Grey and Dark Slate Grey with Sky undersurfaces) Photographs of 805 Squadron Martlets in North Africa generally are not very helpful, because harsh sunlight simultaneously creates very dark shadows and “washes out” upper surfaces. Photographs of the same aircraft in East Africa display a scheme that Stuart Lloyd describes as “a two-tone upper-surface camouflage that, in black and white pictures, might equally well be interpreted as a unit-level application of the Temperate Sea Scheme, or as a desert camouflage.” (p.139) In this context, I recently was able to replace my copy of Don Nairn’s Gold Wings and Webbed Feet (Invercargill, New Zealand: 1996) that someone had “borrowed” from my office. Nairn served with 805 Squadron from December 1941 until January 1943 in both North and East Africa. His autobiography was published more than 50 years after the events he was describing, so we have to be at least a little cautious about the details of his recollections. In his support, though, his memories of technical details are borne out by the facts. I also personally vividly remember the colours of my first three cars from 40 or more years ago – a battleship grey Rover 2000 with medium grey leather upholstery, a baby blue Triumph TR2 with bright red upholstery, and an Austin Healey 3000 Mk.II in metallic light blue (with cream coves) and dark blue upholstery piped in white – so I’m not quite as quick as I used to be to condemn veterans’ memories of 50-year-old colour schemes. Cutting to the chase, Nairn states that, from mid-March 1942, 805 Squadron was tasked primarily with convoy protection. Consequently, during a major overhaul at the end of the month (the aircraft received, amongst other things, new engines and “improved” self-sealing fuel lines that had to be removed because they caused fuel flow problems) “the maintenance boys had also spruced up the sandblasted paintwork with a new over-water camouflage design – a mixture of sea green and blue patterns.” (p.78) What was this scheme? Was it Nairn’s interpretation, 50 years later, of Dark Slate Grey and Extra Dark Sea Grey, or was it the application of one of the Tropical Sea Schemes? Any additional information will be much appreciated. Maurice

Thank you very much to everyone for all the information. Now all I have to do is start seriously cutting plastic - mine's 1/32 scale. Maurice

Can anyone help me with the following information, specifically about the Phantom in Royal Navy service: 1. What were the differences between the cockpits of the Royal Navy Phantom FG.1 and the US Navy F-4J? 2. What ejector seat did the RN FG.1 use? Was is the same as the USN F-4J or the USAF F-4E? 3. What tyres did they use - same as USN or different? 4. What did the FOD covers look like? Thank you all in advance for any and all assistance. Maurice

Thank you very much Edgar Maurice

Are the underwing radiators on the Seafire 15 and 17 the same (in size) as those on the Spitfire IX or are they deeper (like, I've been told, those on a Spitfire XIV)? Any assistance with this information much appreciated. Thank you, Maurice

Documents I've gone over in Blackburn's archive specifically state that both Corsair IV and Hellcat I and II aircraft were fitted with what the papers term "Q type seat belts" when they underwent modifications at Blackburn's facility on Long Island before delivery to FAA units. I think this may justify adding these types to Edgar's list. Maurice