All the Hurricane questions you want to ask here

[Troy Smith]

Troy, thank you for your reply. I've read the suggested thread before and know of the glitches. But there is no alternative boxing for an MK.IIa in 1/48 atm. Now i've to make a decision, sell the MK.I or use her for kit bashing.

Track down a Hasegawa IIB. The hase kit either had a basic B or C wing, despite what they might claim on the box.

Or Convert a Mk I. Bit of a pain as it needs the deeper mk II radiator, but even that's not really that hard to do.

Or just convert the Mk IIC, the gun access panels are wrong on the Italeri kits, so convert the C wing to a A gun wing just needs some filling and rescribing, and some new ejector ports and get some resin gun inserts, I think Quickboost do some Cheaper than trashing two kits, and you'd get accurate gun access panels too

Looking at the Italeri IIC wing, it's easier in that you have less lines to to fill before a rescribe.

Can provide info/scans if you need.

Tip - thin metal tube can be used to re-do the circular fasteners, I got the tip of graphics pencil many years ago to this.

cheers

T

[MIkeMaben]

Stumped ?? Speculation ??

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234963507-all-the-hurricane-questions-you-want-to-ask-here/?p=1814293

[Troy Smith]

What do these numbers on the bottom of the exhaust represent ?

Stumped ?? Speculation ??

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234963507-all-the-hurricane-questions-you-want-to-ask-here/?p=1814293

Speculation Mike?

Part numbers? they look painted on, and thus would burn off. Exhausts alos burn out in time, So maybe these are newly fitted before use?

But this is a guess.

[Edgar]

This might have absolutely nothing to do with it, in which case I apologise, but, on the Spitfire IX, they suffered a spate of windscreens misting over during turns at height, and this was put down to exhaust particles freezing onto the glass, being a mixture of a longer nose, and disturbed airflow due to the odd bumps on the upper cowling.

Deflector plates, above and behind the exhausts (similar to those used for combatting glare in 1940) cured the problem, but seem to have been rejected (more blockage to view, perhaps?) since they were never fitted, but I have read that exhausts were angled downwards slightly, maybe to cure the problem.

If the Hurricane had the same trouble with the Mk.II nose, and also needed its exhausts angled, there would have been a need for separate items (and part numbers) for the port and starboard sides.

Edited December 25, 2014 by Edgar

[MIkeMaben]

Speculation meaning, 'anyone like to take a stab/guess ?'

I've seen them here and there, but only on this type exhaust and was simply curious as to what they

were there for. No matter really. Thanks for taking a stab

[johnnyboy]

I have a question for the experts on here. I have spent the last few days searching both my own books(Not that many on the Hurricane) and on line looking for pictures of Hurricane's based at North Weald and RAF Stapleford during the Battle itself(not that many that can be dated as being used). What I have noticed is that there are as many with rear view mirrors as there are without and there also seems to as many variations of shapes fitted ranging from oval to oblong etc. So my question is when did the factory's start fitting them as standard?

John

[Edgar]

Without a modification ledger, like Vickers' item for the Spitfire, it's impossible to say exactly; the mirror addition was modification 179, and 177 was around November 1940. Supermarine began fitting one to the Spitfire on 24-9-40.

[johnnyboy]

Without a modification ledger, like Vickers' item for the Spitfire, it's impossible to say exactly; the mirror addition was modification 179, and 177 was around November 1940. Supermarine began fitting one to the Spitfire on 24-9-40.

Thanks Edgar I thought you would know if anyone would.

John

[Sean_M]

I note the prop blades DONT have that silver "peeled" paint that is becoming the latest fad

[Graham Boak]

Given that those ones were wooden with a plasticised cover, they wouldn't show wear in the same way as a metal blade. One point to bear in mind with showing "shiny bits" is that most of the wear is on what might appear to be the rear of the blade, which is actually the part that meets the air as the blade goes around.

[Work In Progress]

Absolutely. That's where all the dead flies build up, and if you are going to pick up stone chips they are either directly on the sharp leading edge, or on the rear face of the blade. The only thing that you tend to get on the front face of prop blades is hangar damage.

[StevSmar]

Oops, I see this was covered in subsequent responses, please ignore my response below.

Btw and also FWIW the rear cover of that book has a GA drawing of the Hurricane IIC that appears to be to 1/72 scale (although not annotated as such) and matches the new and much-maligned Airfix kit almost perfectly. The only differences are seriously undersized propeller blades in the kit and a fin leading edge which is not sufficiently curved. The same drawing reproduced inside the book identifies it to be "an authentic (i.e. not redrawn) 3-view GA of the Hurricane Mk2C taken from Hawker Aircraft Ltd Technical Publication Department archives"

Nick

I would be careful with using any Hawker 3 views, the definitive 3 views are Arthur Bentleys. Three views made by Hawkers were to reference the correct general arrangement drawings to be used for that Mk of Hurricane, not to be accurate. Arthur Bently tried using the Hurricane section drawings (sectional side view) and they didn't match the dimensions from the general arrangement drawings. Whether this was due to wartime pressure or reproduction 'errors' he didn't say. Edited January 4, 2015 by StevSmar

[Nick Millman]

Oops, I see this was covered in subsequent responses, please ignore my response below.

I would be careful with using any Hawker 3 views, the definitive 3 views are Arthur Bentleys. Three views made by Hawkers were to reference the correct general arrangement drawings to be used for that Mk of Hurricane, not to be accurate. Arthur Bently tried using the Hurricane section drawings (sectional side view) and they didn't match the dimensions from the general arrangement drawings. Whether this was due to wartime pressure or reproduction 'errors' he didn't say.

I was not seeking to defend the Airfix Hurricane shape or to suggest that plan is accurate but merely to suggest that Airfix had probably used that particular plan! That point seemed to get lost in subsequent denouncements of the plan.

[johnd]

Were the triple ejector exhausts fitted to Hurricane Mk Is the same as those fitted to early Mk IIs? I mean the second production ones, not the fish tail type. I have some Valiant Wings ones I'd like to use on a Mk I.

Thanks,

John.

[Troy Smith]

Were the triple ejector exhausts fitted to Hurricane Mk Is the same as those fitted to early Mk IIs? I mean the second production ones, not the fish tail type. I have some Valiant Wings ones I'd like to use on a Mk I.

Thanks,

John.

there are 3 types fitted to the Mk I, kidney, and two types of triple ejector.

the last type fitted to the Mk I is the type fitted to early mk II's.

worth a read

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?74918-Hurricane-amp-early-Spitfire-Exhaust

the Valiant Wings site lists 3 types for mk II Hurricane, which did you mean?

http://www.valiant-wings.co.uk/172-resin---raf-32-c.asp

[johnd]

Thanks Troy, I wasn't aware there were two types of ejector exhaust.

The set I have is this one: http://www.valiant-wings.co.uk/172-hawker-hurricane-mk-iic-detailing-set-27-p.asp

John.

[Stew Dapple]

Were the triple ejector exhausts fitted to Hurricane Mk Is the same as those fitted to early Mk IIs? I mean the second production ones, not the fish tail type. I have some Valiant Wings ones I'd like to use on a Mk I.

Thanks,

John.

John, if you mean these those are fine.

Cheers,

Stew

Edit: took too long typing, those aren't the ones - but the left hand ones in your picture would be okay.

Cheers,

Stew

[johnd]

They're the ones.

Thanks Stew.

[johnd]

Actually, looking at Troy's link to the Valiant Wings product list, they do two tubular exhausts, one for a Mk I the other for a Mk II Sea Hurricane. The pictures look very similar to me but if the two exhausts were the same they wouldn't have two separate products. As mine was in a IIc upgrade pack it's likely to be a Sea Hurricane one. So, to revise my question, what's the difference between a nozzle outlet exhaust fitted to a Mk I and that on a Sea Hurricane IIc?

Thanks,

John.

[Stew Dapple]

Hi John, I think that both represent the same kind of exhaust, the difference being that one is intended for the Airfix Mk.I kit and the other for the Airfix IIc... for practical purposes they ought to be identical, the recipient kit is, I believe, the difference.

Cheers,

Stew

[StevSmar]

Interesting thread, I'm pleased to have stumbled upon it while trawling for Hurricane answers, it's very satisfying to have my armoured radiator and PR questions answered in one thread!!!

In SAM's Hurricane modeller datafile there are some diagrams showing the Meteorological fittings (p99). Has anyone come across photos of these for either the Hurricane or other aircraft (they're likely the same for Hurricane, Spitfire etc.)?

[barneybolac]

I have a question in regards to French Hurricane's & more specifically with the tail art of the Vulture holding a machine gun as it is coming out of an egg.

Here is a profile of this type of tail art but who ever did it did not know what it was painted back there.

Here is the same aircraft on display in Paris just after WWII.

This photo gives some clue of what the tail art looked like although still not very clear.

I found this French link that has another aircraft with the same tail artwork & makes reference to the Vulture/egg/machine gun after its translated.

http://avions-de-la-guerre-d-algerie.over-blog.com/article-128-les-hawker-hurricane-iic-fran-ais-115698212.html

So back to the question has anyone any photos of this artwork & any other info on these planes.

Thanks: Rodney.

Edited January 12, 2015 by barneybolac

[barneybolac]

If this profile is correct not much of a Vulture with a machine gun.

http://www.amv83.fr/Sigaero/Fiche%20Image/Hawker%20Hurricane%20Mk.IIc.jpg

[gingerbob]

In SAM's Hurricane modeller datafile there are some diagrams showing the Meteorological fittings (p99). Has anyone come across photos of these for either the Hurricane or other aircraft (they're likely the same for Hurricane, Spitfire etc.)?

I don't know if this is directly relevant, but there was a thread here about Meteorological Gladiator that may show something of what you're after.

[Troy Smith]

I have a question in regards to French Hurricane's & more specifically with the tail art of the Vulture holding a machine gun as it is coming out of an egg.

Here is a profile of this type of tail art but who ever did it did not know what it was painted back there.

Here is the same aircraft on display in Paris just after WWII.

This photo gives some clue of what the tail art looked like although still not very clear.

I found this French link that has another aircraft with the same tail artwork & makes reference to the Vulture/egg/machine gun after its translated.

http://avions-de-la-guerre-d-algerie.over-blog.com/article-128-les-hawker-hurricane-iic-fran-ais-115698212.html

So back to the question has anyone any photos of this artwork & any other info on these planes.

Thanks: Rodney.

If this profile is correct not much of a Vulture with a machine gun.

http://www.amv83.fr/Sigaero/Fiche%20Image/Hawker%20Hurricane%20Mk.IIc.jpg

HI Rodney

Interesting question.

I'd say neither profile is any good.

The Polish one makes the assumption that as this is in Naval markings, it's a Sea Hurricane. the 2nd photo you post you can just see there is no cut-out for the hook.

The other profiles assumes that this is Day Fighter Scheme.

The option not explored is that as this is tropical plane it's actually in the Desert Scheme.

Note in the 2nd photo of the starboard side, the ground looks wet. If the plane is wet that will play havoc with perceived colour, note in the port shot the lighter upper colour runs the through the cockpit, as middle stone usually does in the Desert scheme.

the 3 different versions of the starboard side suggest to me that this was a print offered for sale as souvenir, and a better print may well be out there.

Finally, a wild card. As this is on display at in the centre of Paris, perhaps this has been repainted in French colours for display.

There are colour photos of P-40's in North Africa in 1943 repainted into French colours, like this,

eg

and it may explain what looks a like a non standard upper surface scheme, still visible in the best scan.

here's a Caudron C714 wing in original French paint, note the scheme

compare

No idea about the tail markings though.