All the Hurricane questions you want to ask here

[Jeff Wilson]

Cheers Troy. I can't think of a single reason now to suspect it was anything other than a 12 gun IIB, so that's how I'll build it.

 

Best, Jeff

[KRK4m]

Perhaps it's a stupid question, but is there any chance to find a BoB (July/October '40) Hurricane featuring Sky and Black (or Sky, White and Black) undersides?

I understand that black port wing underside has been introduced together with Sky spinner and fuselage band in November, but were there any early production aircraft (thus Black and White or Black, Silver and White from the factory) repainted PARTIALLY in Sky (on fuselage and tail) before the end of October?

And BTW were there any metal-winged Hurricanes flown during BoB with Black and White undersides or was this scheme restricted only to the fabric-covered aircraft? My suspects are batches: L1547-L2146, N2318-N2729, P2751-P3984, R2680-R2689, R4074-R4200 and V6533-V7862,

Cheers

Michael   

 

[Graham Boak]

There were no Hurricanes flown in the Battle of Britain with black/white undersides because they would all have been repainted with Sky in June.  Obviously this did not happen overnight, but a month is a long time. 

 

As the BoB is defined as ending in October, and the black port wing wasn't introduced until November, this combination of time and scheme couldn't have been seen.

 

Earlier, the b/w undersides applied to all Fighter Command aircraft.

 

 

 

 

 

[dogsbody]

From Scale Aircraft Modelling Colours: Combat Colours 2.

 

 

 

 

Chris

[KRK4m]

@Graham Boak do you mean Ian Gleed's P2798 and few others from No.87 Sq. (namely LK*E of Ken Tait and LK*T of Francois de Spirlet) too? You know - regulations are regulations and life is life...

@dogsbody thank you for the picture - I know the regulations, but what I like most is looking for the exceptions :)

Cheers

Michael

[Graham Boak]

Re 87 Sq. - sorry, but I don't know what you are getting at.  It would be normal to delay any repaint if the correct new paint was not available, and senior staff would not pop around everyday to chase up regulations, but such changes did normally occur rapidly.  Not least because any aircraft seen in the old scheme could be mistaken for the enemy trying to pull a trick. but not up-to-date.  It does seem to have been something of an obsession within the RAF despite the lack of any clear evidence that such occurred.

 

Yes, exceptions are always interesting.  However in cases like this it might be best to first check that the suggested date was correct.

 

The b/w scheme was experimented with on 50 Hurricanes before being generally adopted, but I haven't seen any suggestion that anything similar was done with the Sky/black scheme.

[SeaVenom]

Seeing as I didn't get any response in the thread I started I'll put my question here.................

 

 

I'm finishing off this BOF aircraft (D)

 

 

 

and I want to check the correct colour of the top of the dashboard.   I can't seem to find any decent reference.

[KRK4m]

13 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Re 87 Sq. - sorry, but I don't know what you are getting at.  It would be normal to delay any repaint if the correct new paint was not available, and senior staff would not pop around everyday to chase up regulations, but such changes did normally occur rapidly.  Not least because any aircraft seen in the old scheme could be mistaken for the enemy trying to pull a trick. but not up-to-date.  It does seem to have been something of an obsession within the RAF despite the lack of any clear evidence that such occurred.

 

There's a widely published photo of four No. 87 Sq. Hurricanes led by Flt Lt I. R. Gleed somewhere over Britain in September 1940.

Of four aircraft visible three are sporting dark (Night Black perhaps) port undersides (not only wing, but also radiator side and rear underfuselage forward of tailwheel) while the remaining one (LK*Z of Sgt. Francis Howell) has light radiator sidewall and lower fuselage rearwards of wing trailing edge already. 

 

 

Of course Gleed's P2798 features well-known red spinner and forward cowling "lips" plus the oversized A1 fuselage roundel. F/O Kenneth Tait's (a New Zealander) LK*E spinner is also far from being black, but the fuselage roundel is of standard size. Then there's P/O Francois de Spirlet (Belgian) LK*T with standard roundel and black spinner and abovementioned LK*Z with standard roundel, black spinner and Sky Type S undersides. All four planes feature max-size (covering whole fin area) fin flash.

So - as the picture is dated September 1940 (3 months after instruction to overpaint the BoF-style black/white undersiddes with "duck egg blue" and 2 months before introduction of black-painted port wing on otherwise Sky Type S-painted undersides) - what should be the colour of starboard wing underside? White or Sky Type S/eau-de-Nil/Sky Blue/duck egg blue/duck egg green (whatever we call it) ? Was it still left in BEF/AASF scheme (No.87 Sq. fought heavily over France) or could it be the experiment before introducing the new (November 1940) DF scheme?

Cheers

Michael

 

 

Edited September 23, 2018 by KRK4m
purely cosmetics

[Troy Smith]

29 minutes ago, KRK4m said:

Of four aircraft visible three are sporting dark (Night Black perhaps) port undersides (not only wing, but also radiator side and rear underfuselage forward of tailwheel)

look at the shadow cast by the tailplanes on the fuselage, the undersides are in shadow, from bright sunlight from above and to the rear

 

 

To answer your original point,  it's possible some planes retained the B/W underside later,  I remember reading a description of someone seeing the occasional plane still like this into July, but it would be a rarity,  and then you have the fact that photos are very rare,  and as @Graham Boak pointed out, the RAF was noted for implementing changes to camo and markings fast, plus there maye have been paranoia given the amount of Hurricanes left behind in France.

So, getting a documented example, well good luck, let me know if you find one

 

 

[Graham Boak]

Looks like shadow to me.  Look at the light area under the tailplane and on the ventral fairing.  Plus the radiator on Z and the rear of the radiator on A.  See how the shadow runs forward and down the fuselage from the tailplane.

 

Most of 87's Hurricanes that went to France will have been left there or passed back to secondary units on return.  It seems very unlikely to me that a random formation of four Hurricanes from the unit will have all been veterans of the French campaign, and surely not by August?   Although all four have the early version of the fin flash,  only A's suggest that the yellow ring has been added to an existing one.  Which doesn't place the aircraft in France, although the serial makes it possible.  (Aircraft delivered during the fighting could have had the smaller roundel - perhaps.)  Equally, having a formation of four all with the early fin flash seems a bit unlikely at this time, though less so.

 

I don't know of any experiment with black on Sky, but although possible it is an invention. Had it happened, it wouldn't have  been until some time after the introduction on the Sky undersides (and personally I'd stick with Sky unless evidence to the contrary is produced), by which time the entire fleet would have been repainted.  Although individual markings did vary, at times quite considerably, the underlying camouflage schemes were kept up to date.  At least, in the UK.

 

It seems plausible to me that the Observer Corps complained that the light undersides made the aircraft difficult to identify and track - after all that was the main purpose of the b&w markings anyway.  In which case some form of trial could have been made, but in wartime this would have been carried out at Boscombe on a single aircraft rather than interfering with a front-line squadron at the height of the Battle.

[Phantome]

That's not a shadow. The aircraft are all angled identically. The shadow cast on the horizontal stabilizer is identical in all 4 aircraft which means the shadow on the radiator should follow a similar pattern. It is literally impossible for the sun shining on that radiator for Z (which would suggest the sun being more in the direction of the camera) while casting that shadow on the stabilizer (the sun being behind the aircraft)

Edited September 23, 2018 by Phantome

[KRK4m]

Troy and Graham - thank you for your interest. I must say that for me at first it also looked like shadow, but the doubts appeared. If four aircraft fly in parallel the shading generated by the sun should be the same - even if the distance between them is 50 meters it's still nothing compared to 150 million kms from the sun. Moreover it's the LK*T that has port wing elevated above the starboard and LK*E that has opposite (starboard above port) - other two fly with wings exactly levelled (wingtip level with spinner lower edge). Thus why the ventral radiator box wall appears dark on three of them and light on the fourth one? Which part of aircraft generates the shading that totally changes the colour of tailwheel fairing from very bright (behind the wheel fork) to much darker (forward of it)?  

Phantome - I'm glad that somebody follows my path

Cheers

Michael

Edited September 28, 2018 by KRK4m

[Troy Smith]

16 minutes ago, Phantome said:

The aircraft are all angled identically. The shadow cast on the horizontal stabilizer is identical in all 4 aircraft which means the shadow on the radiator should follow a similar pattern.

look at the pic, the shadows vary, as the planes are not at the same angle. 

 

another from the sequence

 

 

Oh, look, the wing is black underside, and it's not a shadow....

 

in particular note the planes in the background, there are the port sides of 3 Hurricanes visible, all with light UC legs and underwing.  

 

These 'points' come up here every so often.

 

The RAF was not the Luftwaffe, or USAAF , except for the well documented oddities, camo and markings were changed when ordered, note the use of yellow rings and fin flashes in May 1940 in France, when you'd have thought ground crew might well have been rather busy.

 

12 minutes ago, KRK4m said:

Which part of aircraft generates the shading that totally changes the colour of tailwheel fairing from very bright (behind the wheel fork) to much darker (forward of it)?  

 

Mud? (note the grass airfield) Oil? (Merlins leak, a lot)  a replacement part? the underside is two removable panels.  Again,  why would an RAF Sq in August 1940 have dark port undersides? 

All the other markings are regulation, apart from Gleed's red spinner.

 

Try an experiment with a model and a bright torch.

 

While oddities and quirks make for interesting models, what little data we have shows an amazing amount of compliance with the specified camouflage and markings, variations occurring when these were not given strict guidelines, hence different code letter sizes and code sequence, and presentation of fin flashes,  but these are detail points,  the important point is the basic orders having been obeyed.

 

 

[JackG]

12 hours ago, SeaVenom said:

Seeing as I didn't get any response in the thread I started I'll put my question here.................

 

 

I'm finishing off this BOF aircraft (D)

 

 

 

 

and I want to check the correct colour of the top of the dashboard.   I can't seem to find any decent reference.

 

Going by this Finnish owned Hurricane, looks like the area directly behind the front windshield is the exterior aircraft colour:

 

 

regards,

Jack

 

Edited September 23, 2018 by JackG

[JackG]

Regarding the discussion centered on the photo of four Hurricanes flying in September 1940 with possible night undersides, what was the protocol about painting the pitot tube and it's base  - they clearly are light coloured in that example.

 

regards,

Jack

[Graham Boak]

The light patch under the tailplane on all four aircraft is caused by the change in fuselage section at this point as it narrows down towards the rudder.  The sun is almost directly behind the flight. so it catches this rearward-facing angle.  It is clearly on the port side of the formation else the entire fuselage would be in shadow.  This has nothing to do with any underside colour.   Sky, Night or PRU pink, they would all appear dark in shadow at this sun angle.

 

The apparent angles of the wings are caused by the position of the aircraft from which the photograph was taken.   It is Z's wing being very slightly up that causes the sun to catch the lower part of the radiator.

 

 

[KRK4m]

5 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

The apparent angles of the wings are caused by the position of the aircraft from which the photograph was taken.   It is Z's wing being very slightly up that causes the sun to catch the lower part of the radiator.

 

 

No, Graham - it is T that has the port wing elevated most and the radiator box apeears dark on this plane. Wings of Z and A are totally levelled and radiator is light on Z and dark on A.

Have a look at this topic there https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/ian-gleeds-hurricane-again.31494/

There are the 1940 pictures of the aircraft just leaving the production line with black and white wings plus silver forward and rearmost fuselage undersides. Moreover there are also the pictures of the BoF crashed Hurricane and the N2319 on the airfield where everybody can clearly see that the rearmost underfuselage part (between tailwheel and rudder post) is an unpainted NMF fairing. It apllies to all Hurricanes before the introduction of Sky Type S undersides and this is the reason that 3 aircraft of No.87 Sq. feature this part lighter (almost shining) than the rest of fuselage underside.

Troy - I don't neglect the fact that there were several Hurricanes with Sky Type S undersides in No .87 Sq, in September 1940 when the photo of Gleed's plane starboard side was taken. There's even one such a plane (LK*Z) on the photo I have put above. My opinion is that there were ALSO others with B/W undersides - like the other trio. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

JackG - the pitot tubes were left in NMF (or painted silver) and this is clearly visible on the photos from the link above.

Cheers

Michael 

[JackG]

It's a toss up, I suppose the other side of the discussion will now have shadow in their favour and say the pitot tube only appears dark, but is not painted black:

 

 

regards,

Jack

 

[Graham Boak]

38 minutes ago, KRK4m said:

No, Graham - it is T that has the port wing elevated most and the radiator box apeears dark on this plane. Wings of Z and A are totally levelled and radiator is light on Z and dark on A.

Have a look at this topic there https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/ian-gleeds-hurricane-again.31494/

There are the 1940 pictures of the aircraft just leaving the production line with black and white wings plus silver forward and rearmost fuselage undersides. Moreover there are also the pictures of the BoF crashed Hurricane and the N2319 on the airfield where everybody can clearly see that the rearmost underfuselage part (between tailwheel and rudder post) is an unpainted NMF fairing. It apllies to all Hurricanes before the introduction of Sky Type S undersides and this is the reason that 3 aircraft of No.87 Sq. feature this part lighter (almost shining) than the rest of fuselage underside.

 

No Michael, T does not have the port wing elevated most, it is above the aircraft taking the photo.  Z is below the aircraft taking the picture yet has the wing elevated more than the more adjacent E.  The radiator on Z does not appear completely light but has the visible shadow line from the wing at an angle.  Given your comments on the rear fairing behind the tailwheel  (very interesting, I hadn't noticed that before on any Hurricane) then why is the radiator of Z light at all, for it also has the light appearance of this rear fairing?  It is not 3 Hurricanes in this flight with this feature but all four.

 

Why mention the early examples of the three-colour undersurfaces?  It's irrelevant.

 

No-one has seen a pink tiger with red spots, but absence of evidence there actually probably is evidence of absence.  You are pressing the suggestion that a particular camouflage scheme has been retained on multiple aircraft for two months in the face of direct instructions otherwise,  instructions made at the request of operational pilots in the interests of tactical advantage.  Your argument is based on one highly debatable (as the above proves!) interpretation of a fairly poor quality photograph.  

 

Remember that every flight at that time would have been observed.  The Observer Corps would have reported examples of fighters in obsolete camouflage, word would have been passed around and some response would have been made.  (I'm tempted to suggest that Bowyer would have reported it in Fighting Colours!)  Two days possible, two weeks unlikely, but two months?

[Troy Smith]

2 hours ago, KRK4m said:

Moreover there are also the pictures of the BoF crashed Hurricane and the N2319 on the airfield where everybody can clearly see that the rearmost underfuselage part (between tailwheel and rudder post) is an unpainted NMF fairing. It apllies to all Hurricanes before the introduction of Sky Type S undersides and this is the reason that 3 aircraft of No.87 Sq. feature this part lighter (almost shining) than the rest of fuselage underside.

 

No, it's not, it's wood.

 

 

the underside scheme before sky had the rear underside in aluminium paint.  

 

As @Graham Boak points out,  why would they have retained an countermanded colour scheme? 

 

[JWM]

18 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

 

 

BTW - how deeply weathered the wing roundel is on above photo! What colour came from beneeth? No one is brave enough to do soemthing like that on the model...

J-W

 

[224 Peter]

I wonder if the roundel was painted directly on the the wing, without a proper primer, so the blue has peeled off?

The Roundel on "A-LK" looks fine. 

. 

 

[Graham Boak]

9 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

 

No, it's not, it's wood.

 

 

the underside scheme before sky had the rear underside in aluminium paint.  

 

As @Graham Boak points out,  why would they have retained an countermanded colour scheme? 

 

There's still something odd about that light patch, which is not just on the fairing below the fuselage.  I wonder if there has been some mod to the bottom corner of the fuselage frame or rudder post, and we are seeing a cover for this repair?  Normally this could be expected to be fabric, so would see either primer or covered with camouflage.  Obviously neither here, so maybe it is a metal patch?  Why it is still unrepainted from May to September, in more than one unit?  Which to my mind casts more doubt upon the date of the photograph (regardless of the undersides).

[gingerbob]

13 hours ago, KRK4m said:

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

JackG - the pitot tubes were left in NMF (or painted silver) and this is clearly visible on the photos from the link above.

 

True (the first bit), but willful misinterpretation of evidence is not proof of a contrary explanation.  Especially suspect when someone goes in seeking an exception to the norm.

The pitot tube itself MAY have been unpainted, particularly a heated pitot head (which I think these are?), but the mast most definitely would have been painted the underside color.  Then again, black can appear "white" or "silver" in the right angle of strong light 😉

[rob Lyttle]

I'll pass on the tail underside debate.... But the roundel on the wing of the camera plane is something else, isn't it?

In fact I'd say the "absence of a roundel".

That's way more than weathered or a bit worn.... That looks to be deliberately removed and obliterated, like someone was trying to enhance the camouflage effect from above and remove the "targets" on the wings.

I understood the camo and roundel paint work was done on the wings before they were even attached to the fuselage on the assembly line.