All the Hurricane questions you want to ask here

[FZ6]

I have a question about fabric wing Hurricane L1768 as shown on Xtradecal sheet X72193

Pictures borrowed from this thread........

 

When comparing the photo below with the decals and illustration below it looks different. The letters look a bit skinnier on the decal sheet and I can't see a serial number painted on the side of the fuselage and the roundel is different. I'm guessing that the decal sheet represents the aircraft later in its career when the roundel was repainted to the small red and blue one.

 

 

 

 

I'm thinking of making some masks to make the letters more like the photo but before I do that, I was wondering if they could have been repainted to look more like the picture above.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Mark

 

 

[Troy Smith]

7 hours ago, FZ6 said:

I was wondering if they could have been repainted to look more like the picture above.

 

Sloppy work by Xtradecal, again!

I'd be very surprised if there was another photo.   My brief experience with adding to decal research required me having to add lines to a photo to make the designer understand a specific point.

The serials were often overpainted, and the one on the profile is the wrong style anyway, the early L**** and N**** batches having a very distinctive 6 inch type.

Note said sheet has Sammy Allard's plane as fabric winged, while the only photo shows it to be metal winged.

 

My sig line is there for a reason....

[FZ6]

Thanks Troy,

 

I think I will continue making masks for the letters so they match the photo and will ignore the serial numbers.

 

I'll probably try and make it look like the roundel has been over painted with the red and blue one. Looking at the photo it looks like the code letters might be partially covering the area where the yellow on the roundel has been painted out.

 

Regards,

 

Mark

[Dave Fleming]

3 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

 

I'd be very surprised if there was another photo.   My brief experience with adding to decal research required me having to add lines to a photo to make the designer understand a specific point.

 

Been there, done that! 🙂

[GrzeM]

10 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

 My brief experience with adding to decal research required me having to add lines to a photo to make the designer understand a specific point. 

Same here - preparing the painting schemes and decals for ArmaHobby kits I've learned: never trust the profiles, always check the photos!

[DaveWilko]

A question from me(based on my observations).

 

It seems that some Hurricanes have a step(stirrup type)under the port wing root,some don't appear to have.

Was this a fixed or pull down by hand fitting?,did it retract with the undercarriage "Up" selection by the pilot?

Did the manufacturers eventually delete it?(simplicity of manufacture/aerodynamic reasons)

 

As I say,some photographs of parked aircraft show it fitted in the "down"position,some don't have it visible/not fitted at all.

 

I do realise that there were also two spring loaded "kick-in" type handhold/steps on the port fuselage to help

an individual "scale" their way up and into the cockpit(nothing like the terms of "scaling" on an F4U though).

 

DW

[dogsbody]

It was a retractable step that I think was operated from the lower handhold.

 

This is from the SAM Modelers Datafile book.

 

 

 

Chris

[Troy Smith]

38 minutes ago, DaveWilko said:

It seems that some Hurricanes have a step(stirrup type)under the port wing root,some don't appear to have.

Was this a fixed or pull down by hand fitting?,did it retract with the undercarriage "Up" selection by the pilot?

Did the manufacturers eventually delete it?(simplicity of manufacture/aerodynamic reasons)

 

As I say,some photographs of parked aircraft show it fitted in the "down"position,some don't have it visible/not fitted at all.

 

I do realise that there were also two spring loaded "kick-in" type handhold/steps on the port fuselage to help

as Chris says, the top one is operated when the step is pulled down,

as seen here from our great walkround of the Shuttleworth collection Sea Hurricane

the loop at the bottom of the step is the handle to pull step down, note stencil about this above handhold

 

step up, hand hold shut, handle just visible under the '7'

 

the one in the metal panel under the cockpit is a sprung kick in panel.

 

 

HTH

T

[DaveWilko]

Thank you Chris and Troy.

 

So as I see it,air/ground crew needing to access the cockpit would A/ Pull down the footstep, B/ thus opening the hand hold above the

triangular panel.

Once "aboard" the wing root,the hand hold flap would be closed thus retracting the step.

 

Of course,our returning top button opened victorious and very excited Hurricane pilot wouldn't bother with this rigmarole once

parked up at dispersal after a combat,one would imagine he'd jump down from the wing root to pat other returning "types" and

to gesticulate wildly about how he'd "bagged a 109/110/111/88" or WHY,hence photographs of aircraft with the step retracted

and the hand hold closed.

 

Upon inspection of the lovely Sea Hurri photograph,one can see where the "kick in  step" is located,the paint is worn away

from where it's been "kicked in".

 

Incidentally,I remember having my photograph taken beside this very Sea Hurri in one of Old Warden's hangar during a visit

there possibly around 1971/2,this of course was well before it's restoration to flight and the lovely condition we see it in now.

I believe it is the only genuine Sea Hurricane "in captivity".

 

Once again many thanks chaps.

 

DW

Edited January 21, 2019 by DaveWilko

[Troy Smith]

1 hour ago, DaveWilko said:

Once "aboard" the wing root,the hand hold flap would be closed thus retracting the step.

I think the step is pushed up, and that closes the handhold.

 

1 hour ago, DaveWilko said:

Of course,our returning top button opened victorious and very excited Hurricane pilot wouldn't bother with this rigmarole once

parked up at dispersal after a combat,one would imagine he'd jump down from the wing root to pat other returning "types" and

to gesticulate wildly about how he'd "bagged a 109/110/111/88" or WHY,hence photographs of aircraft with the step retracted

and the hand hold closed.

the only time I got to climb on a Hurricane, the pilot told me to sit down and slide down off the wing... worked a treat

 

[FZ6]

The Hurricane I  I'm currently building is going to be a night fighter so I'll be painting it night.

 

I plan to build Hurricane P3119 using the Aviaeology decals to paint it as VY X from 85 Squadron. Aviaeology show the codes as red also it's hard to make out a serial number.

 

The photo from  the thread below posted by @Troy Smith and some other profiles makes me think that the codes could be medium sea grey, the canopy also looks to be a lighter colour and I don't know what's going on under the tail plane maybe original camouflage? Looks like I'll have to replace the exhausts with six stub ones as well. Aviaeology also advise you to use the glare shields that were fitted to the fuel tank but I can't see evidence of them in the photo below.

 

 

 

 

My question is.  Were the codes repainted red at some point and if not, should I go with red or grey for the codes?

 

Thanks,

Mark

 

[Troy Smith]

9 hours ago, FZ6 said:

makes me think that the codes could be medium sea grey,

the specified colour was Sky Grey but Med Sea Grey is possible

see last two  pages here

https://boxartden.com/reference/gallery/index.php/Modeling-References/Camoflage-Markings/03-Hawker-Hurricane

also see the monographs on the Defiant and Beaufighter for more on NF camo

9 hours ago, FZ6 said:

 

the canopy also looks to be a lighter colour and I don't know what's going on under the tail plane maybe original camouflage?

Canopy may well be original Dark Green, there is a panel under the tail, though as the fuselage angles in here, it maybe a trick of the light.

[Dave Fleming]

10 minutes ago, Troy Smith said:

 there is a panel under the tail, though as the fuselage angles in here, it maybe a trick of the light.

 

I think it is, in that strange way that very matt finishes reflect light at an angle

[Graham Boak]

The inside of the radiator housing is also lit - photographer's tricks, I feel.

[Warbird78]

Hello,

 

I'm looking for photos of Hurricane Mk IIc JX-W Z3899 (1st squadron, Tangmere). I could only find the below image, which is a screenshot of a movie. Nothing else in my references.

I'm more specifically interested in a photo of this machine engine off as I'd like to identify the propeller type.

Many thanks for your help!

 

[Graham Boak]

It's a Rotol spinner.  Mk.IIs and later had no other propeller type.

[Troy Smith]

38 minutes ago, Warbird78 said:

I'm looking for photos of Hurricane Mk IIc JX-W Z3899 (1st squadron, Tangmere). I could only find the below image, which is a screenshot of a movie. Nothing else in my references.

I'm more specifically interested in a photo of this machine engine off as I'd like to identify the propeller type.

The video is up on youtube

 

 

at 0.04 you can see the prop type fitted clearly, as @Graham Boak says, the Hurricane Rotol unit

Hurricane 1sq Pathe 1941 w nose clover

Note the clover emblem with the Ulster hand superimposed.  (note the same plane as in your still, but same prop)

 

for more on Hurricane props and spinners

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234980181-hawker-hurricane-propellers-and-spinners-a-modellers-guide/&

 

AFAIK, the best guide on the subject available anywhere.  

 

 

[Warbird78]

Thanks for your answers. Actually, I've identified I think 3-4 different propellers that goes with this spinner and I wanted to be sure which one is on JXW.

But Indeed the odds that the propeller is the same as on Z3897 are high.

 

 

[Graham Boak]

I know that there were a number of different propellers applied, going on the Rotol Type list as in Mason's books, but I haven't been able to identify them individually.  It does seem likely that a broader blade would go with the later engines, perhaps on the Mk.IV with its more powerful engine, although perhaps seen here on a  Mk.IIc.  The pointier tip with the straighter leading edge (rather than a more circular look) appears very similar to that on the Spitfire Mk.IX, which may also point to a date later than the first of the Rotol props, but this is countered by its appearance on the 1 Sq example.  However in view of the difficulties in identifying what may be the same prop but seen from different pitch angles, I'd hate to have to choose between them for most examples.  For example, are there three or only two different examples in your photos?

 

PS I think it would be a good idea to go through Mason's list (in the original Macdonald book I believe) trying to match the Rotol numbers to the production batches and hence serials, then looking for photos where both serial and prop can be seen/known, in order to attempt to match prop shape with identity and hence what to expect on any Mk.II.  I still expect that Mk.IVs will turn out to be different, but it is impossible to be 100% certain of this.  Or, for that matter, that prop variant changes will actually be visible anyway.

Edited January 24, 2019 by Graham Boak

[rob Lyttle]

55 minutes ago, Troy Smith said:

Note the clover emblem with the Ulster hand superimposed

 

For sure it's a shamrock.

It's a popular sort of symbol in "Norrn Irne "!

 

Clover is pretty useless for luck unless it's got four leaves

[Dave Fleming]

Shamrock is a type (or types, opinions vary!) of clover, so both are right!

[rob Lyttle]

" I see...... "... (said like a psychiatrist looking over spectacles

I'd love to know who the pilot was, of the" Irish " plane..

Any information??

[viscount806x]

17 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

I know that there were a number of different propellers applied, going on the Rotol Type list as in Mason's books, but I haven't been able to identify them individually.  It does seem likely that a broader blade would go with the later engines, perhaps on the Mk.IV with its more powerful engine, although perhaps seen here on a  Mk.IIc.  The pointier tip with the straighter leading edge (rather than a more circular look) appears very similar to that on the Spitfire Mk.IX, which may also point to a date later than the first of the Rotol props, but this is countered by its appearance on the 1 Sq example.  However in view of the difficulties in identifying what may be the same prop but seen from different pitch angles, I'd hate to have to choose between them for most examples.  For example, are there three or only two different examples in your photos?

 

PS I think it would be a good idea to go through Mason's list (in the original Macdonald book I believe) trying to match the Rotol numbers to the production batches and hence serials, then looking for photos where both serial and prop can be seen/known, in order to attempt to match prop shape with identity and hence what to expect on any Mk.II.  I still expect that Mk.IVs will turn out to be different, but it is impossible to be 100% certain of this.  Or, for that matter, that prop variant changes will actually be visible anyway.

Troy did a bit on that here:

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234980181-hawker-hurricane-propellers-and-spinners-a-modellers-guide/

 

[Dave Fleming]

Which aircraft carried the 5 spoke wheels, and how long were they in use? (And are the CMK ones the only 1/72 one So?)

[dogsbody]

1 hour ago, Dave Fleming said:

Which aircraft carried the 5 spoke wheels, and how long were they in use? (And are the CMK ones the only 1/72 one So?)

Freightdog did a pair, too, but he seems to be out of stock right now. The CMK wheels are okay, but the Freightdog wheels are made to fit on the Airfix axle stubs while the CMK have circular holes for regular round axles.

 

CMK on the left. Freightdog on the right.

 

 

 

Chris