Hawker Typhoon MN819/MR.? 245Sqn RAF

[Wez]

Hi all,

I'm thinking of doing this Typhoon for the D-Day GB, it was based at Holmsley South in the New Forest around D-Day and was flown by the CO Sqn Ldr "Jack" Collins.

The question is what was the colour of the spinner and how was it divided up?

In Squadron Signal's Typhoon/Tempest In Action the spinner is shown as being medium blue and sky with the nose cap (forward half) of the spinner in blue.

In the Warpaint volume on the Typhoon, the same colours are used but the division is in a Luftwaffe type spiral.

The only picture I can find of this aircraft is in Chris Thomas & Chris Shores book on the Typhoon and Tempest. The aircraft is taxying at Holmsley South but the spinner is in shadow and it's difficult to make things out.

Does anybody know for sure what things should be or where there's a good photo of this beast? I've tried googling but so far drawn a blank (although that could just be down to my search criteria).

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

TIA

Wez

[Wez]

Anybody got any poop on this one?

The Eagle Strike Decals show it with the spiral, MDC for their 1/32nd scale beauty show it with the forward part of the spinner. Who's right?

Wez

[Test Graham]

Here's a hint. The Luftwaffe used spirals on their spinners for identification. Are the RAF going to adopt this?

[AnonymousA667]

Here's a hint. The Luftwaffe used spirals on their spinners for identification. Are the RAF going to adopt this?

Er, don't know about ID but there is a photo of Wing Cmdr Peter Brooker's Tiffie with what looks like a spiral marking, so there is certainly precedence for it.

peebeep

[Test Graham]

Perhaps a relevant question is wartime or postwar? Some of the more colourful markings seen on Typhoons only appeared after the fighting had ceased.

[AnonymousA667]

Perhaps a relevant question is wartime or postwar? Some of the more colourful markings seen on Typhoons only appeared after the fighting had ceased.

Well it's wearing invasion stripes actually. Brooker was killed before the war ended.

peebeep

[Wez]

Graham,

Spirals - generally associated with the Luftwaffe yes, but given the nature of the RP Tiffie operations and the rumour that the spiral might put off the flak gunners aim you could reasonably expect the spiral to be adopted especially by a Sqn CO.

On the other hand, it's just so un-RAF until you consider Brookers personal markings which provide the precedence and the possibilty that senior pilots may have discussed things like markings and there's that well known attitude within the RAF for promoting esprit d'corps.

Oh, and there's the other thing that stops it being a post-war marking - those pesky invasion stripes, their use just nails it down to a particular period that just happens to be pre-VE Day by a long chalk. The photo I'm talking about clearly shows FULL D-Day stripes and is claimed to have been taken at Holmesly South which places it firmly and squarely around D-Day!

Can you offer any more information?

Best Regards

Wez

Edited November 9, 2008 by Wez

[AnonymousA667]

Sorry Wez, but my references are pretty much the same as yours and the Osprey book I have doesn't throw any light on it apart from the picture of Brooker's A/C. Personally I'd go with the Warpaint data, if nothing else it is different! I was thinking about doing that scheme for my Airfix build, but the red cannon and spinner of the 266 Sqdn machine won the day. I still have couple of Academy Tiffie's in store so I might give it a go with one of them.

peebeep

[AnonymousFO98]

Go with it Wez

Firstly it sounds really cool

Secondly- if conclusive evidence subsequently turns up that there was no spiral, it won't take much to paint it out

sounds like a no brainer to me- but then again, i am a bit of a no brainer myself

[Wez]

Go with it Wez

Firstly it sounds really cool

Secondly- if conclusive evidence subsequently turns up that there was no spiral, it won't take much to paint it out

sounds like a no brainer to me- but then again, i am a bit of a no brainer myself

Yeah - you're right, I'll go with that then. The other problem I have at the moment is establishing whether it should be a 3 or 4 bladed prop but as the Academy kit comes with both I could just paint them both up and swap as required.

Wez - fellow no brainer.

Edited November 9, 2008 by Wez

[Test Graham]

Yes, D-Day stripes does rule out postwar.

To me, a late MN serial is a 4-blader, but this is from memory and is close to the changeover. However, the propellors were not interchangeable, they went with different engines and different tails. The wide "Tempest" tail came in before the 4-blade prop, and was required fitting for the 4-blader. The kit only gives the small tail, hence can only be 3-blader without buying the extra bits. A fair (but not definitive) guide is whether the unit was rocket or bomb trained, as the bomber units had priority for the big tails, as this helped with the carriage of the 1000lb bombs. Again, not entirely definitive, but other than for the specific examples quoted by Chris Thomas, I wouldn't put the big bombs on a small tailplane aircraft. However, the smaller bombs are no problem.

[Wez]

Yes, D-Day stripes does rule out postwar.

To me, a late MN serial is a 4-blader, but this is from memory and is close to the changeover. However, the propellors were not interchangeable, they went with different engines and different tails. The wide "Tempest" tail came in before the 4-blade prop, and was required fitting for the 4-blader. The kit only gives the small tail, hence can only be 3-blader without buying the extra bits. A fair (but not definitive) guide is whether the unit was rocket or bomb trained, as the bomber units had priority for the big tails, as this helped with the carriage of the 1000lb bombs. Again, not entirely definitive, but other than for the specific examples quoted by Chris Thomas, I wouldn't put the big bombs on a small tailplane aircraft. However, the smaller bombs are no problem.

Chris Thomas published some research in MAM 4 years ago on Tiffie mod's, from his information MN819 would have had a large tailplane however it is not automatic that the aircraft had a 4-bladed prop. You're right when you say the large tailplanes came in before the 4-bladed props - IIRC there were problems with the seals in the governer for the propellor constant speed unit, if these went the propellor ran-away and wrecked the engine, this was difficult to detect in time with the Sabre as its cruise rpm were very close to its maximum and so it was very easy to wreck the engine!

From stuff that Chris Thomas has written I understand that if an aircraft has a 4 bladed prop it will have the large tailplanes - the were apparently stability problems if this wasn't done.

Having re-read the MAM article, Chris Thomas states that 4-blade props were the norm by MN601 but that aircraft could could come off the line after that with 3-blade props to fill gaps in 4-blade prop availability. It's interesting to note that late in the war/immediate post war period some Tiffie's were seen with 3 blade props.

I now think a 4 blade prop is most likely for MN819 - I would still like to see a decent photo of this aircraft to confirm the spinner markings.

Regards

Wez

[Test Graham]

I've also seen a quote of around MN200 for the Tempest tail.

Yes, there would still be older Typhoons around. Losses were such that there was a big effort late in 1944 to gather all the Typhoons they could from the MUs, OTUs etc . They were reworked to later build standards, bubble canopy etc, but these were not converted to the wide tail so would have retained the 3-blade prop. By this stage, with wider use of the 1000lb bomb, I believe that these would have gone preferentially to the rocket units. It would be interesting to see if this is confirmed in the photos and loss reports, but most photos simply don't give a good clue to the tail fitted.

Presumably there were also spare Sabres with the appropriate spline fitting for these props. I believe I've seen it said that the Sabre IIB had the splines for the 4-blade prop, and this it was otherwise the same as the Sabre IIA. Differences between the early and late Sabres were more a matter of internal modifications for reliability than Mark number changes. This matter is confused by reports of the Sabre IIC on Typhoons.

[Wez]

I've also seen a quote of around MN200 for the Tempest tail.

Yes, there would still be older Typhoons around. Losses were such that there was a big effort late in 1944 to gather all the Typhoons they could from the MUs, OTUs etc . They were reworked to later build standards, bubble canopy etc, but these were not converted to the wide tail so would have retained the 3-blade prop. By this stage, with wider use of the 1000lb bomb, I believe that these would have gone preferentially to the rocket units. It would be interesting to see if this is confirmed in the photos and loss reports, but most photos simply don't give a good clue to the tail fitted.

Presumably there were also spare Sabres with the appropriate spline fitting for these props. I believe I've seen it said that the Sabre IIB had the splines for the 4-blade prop, and this it was otherwise the same as the Sabre IIA. Differences between the early and late Sabres were more a matter of internal modifications for reliability than Mark number changes. This matter is confused by reports of the Sabre IIC on Typhoons.

Thomas quotes the change over to the Tempest tail as being around MN309 - he based this on the fact that the latest serialled aircraft that appears in a photo with the small tail is MN304 whilst the earliest photo'd with the big tail is MN311. Also he quotes a Gloster Test Pilot's log book entry which remarked upon having flown MN309 with a Tempest tailplane.

The Warpaint book has a few photo's showing Typhoons with the large tailplane and three bladed props -

p19, bottom photo, MB582 HH-A of 175 Sqn - large tail (you can see it encroaching on the sky band), 3 blade prop.

p20, bottom photo, MB658 I8-E of 440 Sqn - large tail (if you study the photo you can see where the tailplane L/E reaches the fish-plates), bent 3 bladed prop resting in the snow.

p24, bottom photo again, RB195 XM-K of 182 Sqn post war - late production batch with large tail and three bladed propellor.

I don't know whether MN200 was the prototype aircraft for the Tempest tail?

As for changing the engine to accept a different prop - my understanding is that the Sabre had a pretty low time between overhaul so I guess it could be the excuse for three bladed props appearing on large tailed aircraft.

Anyhow, I'm happy with my plans for MN819 now.

Regards

Wez

[Chris Thomas]

Sorry to be a bit late in entering this debate - no doubt your model is in the showcase by now Wes. But there were a few points to which I felt I ought to respond.

MN819 certainly had a large tailplane and almost certainly a 4-blader. The sky band would have been moved forward so that it was not overlapped by the large tailplane (which it was on MN582 HH-A as noted by Wes). The spinner 'spiral' ... certainly existed. Despite Graham's comment, markings sometimes flew in the face of reason eg. Beamont's yellow-nosed Typhoon at a time when the Channel-coast Lw fighters had yellow noses! My informant was Geoff Murphy who had joined 245 Sqn before the invasion and stayed with it through to the end of the war. Geoff was one of those rare pilots who actually remembered markings and he recalled Sqn Ldr Collin's marking his new Typhoon (MN819 MR-?) with a "Luftwaffe style spiral, but not in black and white" We discussed this on several occasions but although adamant it was not black and white he could not recall with certainty the colours; after running through all the possibilities he came to conclusion that blue on top of the existing Sky was the most likely option. The half blue/half white alternative sometimes shown stems from on of Mike Keep's drawings in SAM, copied by others; nothing to indicate it is other than guesswork. The very small photo that we have shows something unusual on the whirling spinner - the profile in Vol 1 of "2nd TAF" was by best effort at interpretation.

I have studied the film of Brooker's Typhoon taking off on D-Day, frame by frame. Again the results are not too conclusive but there is some unusual form of marking evident. There is proof that such markings existed. In Vol.4 of "2ndTAF" we have published a photo of a Tempest in a canvas hangar, Dec 44, possibly Volkel, and it has a very clearly painted spiral on the spinner. Unfortunately no markings can be seen so it remains unidentified. I had hoped it might be Brooker's - as he took over the Tempest wing at Volkel, although not until January 45 - so at present the link seems unlikely.

Tailplanes! I don't know where the 'MN200' came from; I have checked the record for this aircraft - which indicates nothing other than service with 181 Sqn. It also appears in a formation photo with that unit and it can be seen it had a standard tailplane. I also checked all the shots I could find that showed the tailplane fit clearly - between MN178 and MN309. I found 19 and all had the small tailplane. Since I last wrote about this topic in MAM another photo has come to light which shows MN306 had the small tailplane. All from MN309 onwards had the large tailplane.

The reason that there were so may 3-bladed Typhoons around in the last months of the war and in the summer of 1945, was that Gloster's production line (also commited to Meteors) could not keep up with the number of replacements required and repaired or rebuilt aircraft (many early aircraft had simply been stored due the Sabre shortages) with three-bladers were issued, even to bomber units.

[Wez]

Sorry to be a bit late in entering this debate - no doubt your model is in the showcase by now Wes. But there were a few points to which I felt I ought to respond.

MN819 certainly had a large tailplane and almost certainly a 4-blader. The sky band would have been moved forward so that it was not overlapped by the large tailplane (which it was on MN582 HH-A as noted by Wes). The spinner 'spiral' ... certainly existed. Despite Graham's comment, markings sometimes flew in the face of reason eg. Beamont's yellow-nosed Typhoon at a time when the Channel-coast Lw fighters had yellow noses! My informant was Geoff Murphy who had joined 245 Sqn before the invasion and stayed with it through to the end of the war. Geoff was one of those rare pilots who actually remembered markings and he recalled Sqn Ldr Collin's marking his new Typhoon (MN819 MR-?) with a "Luftwaffe style spiral, but not in black and white" We discussed this on several occasions but although adamant it was not black and white he could not recall with certainty the colours; after running through all the possibilities he came to conclusion that blue on top of the existing Sky was the most likely option. The half blue/half white alternative sometimes shown stems from on of Mike Keep's drawings in SAM, copied by others; nothing to indicate it is other than guesswork. The very small photo that we have shows something unusual on the whirling spinner - the profile in Vol 1 of "2nd TAF" was by best effort at interpretation.

I have studied the film of Brooker's Typhoon taking off on D-Day, frame by frame. Again the results are not too conclusive but there is some unusual form of marking evident. There is proof that such markings existed. In Vol.4 of "2ndTAF" we have published a photo of a Tempest in a canvas hangar, Dec 44, possibly Volkel, and it has a very clearly painted spiral on the spinner. Unfortunately no markings can be seen so it remains unidentified. I had hoped it might be Brooker's - as he took over the Tempest wing at Volkel, although not until January 45 - so at present the link seems unlikely.

Tailplanes! I don't know where the 'MN200' came from; I have checked the record for this aircraft - which indicates nothing other than service with 181 Sqn. It also appears in a formation photo with that unit and it can be seen it had a standard tailplane. I also checked all the shots I could find that showed the tailplane fit clearly - between MN178 and MN309. I found 19 and all had the small tailplane. Since I last wrote about this topic in MAM another photo has come to light which shows MN306 had the small tailplane. All from MN309 onwards had the large tailplane.

The reason that there were so may 3-bladed Typhoons around in the last months of the war and in the summer of 1945, was that Gloster's production line (also commited to Meteors) could not keep up with the number of replacements required and repaired or rebuilt aircraft (many early aircraft had simply been stored due the Sabre shortages) with three-bladers were issued, even to bomber units.

Chris,

Thanks very much for your informative reply - very helpful.

As things stand the model isn't started yet due to the pressure of work not giving me any time for modelling. Hopefully that'll change soon.

Thanks again,

Best regards

Wez