All the Hurricane questions you want to ask here

[StevSmar]

1 hour ago, Troy Smith said:

...yes, but photo looks to have been taken with a flash, and KZ191 was on a dump for years...

 

But, yes, some close up photos would really help!

Rear fuselage of KZ191:

(It looks like the black on the Stbd side was overspray from something.)
Is this closer to silver or the grey green?
Whatever it is, it's heavily weathered.

I have a piece of AM274 (manufactured in Canada) which has paint that was covered by a fitting, I'll take a photo and post it.

 

(Nice picture of KZ191! Thanks.)

Edited September 15, 2020 by StevSmar
(Thanking Troy for picture of KZ191)

[StevSmar]

Regarding the Silver colour of the fuselage and center section framework.

Here's a photo of a piece of tubing from the center section stbd outer girder, bottom rear chord.

 

The above piece of airplane junk is from AM274, which was built in Canada, shot down in Russia where it remained on the Russian step's for around 70 years before it was recovered:

 

 

It looks like this tube was covered by the center section aluminium cladding, so it was not exposed to direct sunlight. There were two fittings on this tube which were unbolted, so it seems that the original paint colour is likely similar to this area. Interestingly, the clear anodized aluminium that I placed the piece of airplane junk on to photograph it appears a very close match. The photo was taken in indirect sunlight without a flash.

 

My guess is that the fuselage framework colour is "Clear Aluminium"...

Edited September 18, 2020 by StevSmar
poor grammar, lack of intelligence

[Troy Smith]

14 hours ago, StevSmar said:

"Clear Aluminium"...

 

Aluminum dope is clear resin/binder with fine grain aluminium powder added.  

 

As for the ongoing discussion on interior colours, and the switch, these KX*** serial planes, which came up in a google image search

 

this painting, by Elsie Dalton Hewland,  "Assembling a Hawker Hurricane"  if you look closely (or enlarge image) the rear fuselage tube work is Grey Green,  and this lady had an excellent eye for both detail and colour, almost photographic. 

Note the serials under the cockpit canopy, masking tape on the canopies,  and much more if you. 

 

further examples

Assembling Hawker Hurricane Aircraft: Swinging the Compasses and Making Test Flights,  note the primer only on the wing joint strips detail. 

 

and, notice on the Typhoon, aluminium wheel wells, 

 

for comparison

Hawker Typhoon. by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

 

I'll put a @Chris Thomas in on the off chance he has not seen the painting of the Typhoon.

 

[Chris Thomas]

Thanks  Troy. The paintings are new to me; they look like Langley. Both the Typhoons shown have markings applied in service and therefore are probably there for mods and/or repairs. Will do a bit of digging and report back.

[StevSmar]

On 9/19/2020 at 7:52 AM, Troy Smith said:

As for the ongoing discussion on interior colours, and the switch, these KX*** serial planes...

 

...this painting, by Elsie Dalton Hewland,  "Assembling a Hawker Hurricane"  if you look closely (or enlarge image) the rear fuselage tube work is Grey Green...

 

...and, notice on the Typhoon, aluminium wheel wells...

Nice paintings, I’ve seen the Hurricane construction one, but not the others.

 

B&W photograph’s are very difficult to ascertain colours from, especially with older technologies where you can see things like red showing up a black etc. A whole series of colours will appear exactly the same.

 

I know very little about paintings, yet it seems that paintings will often use contrast to highlight differences. Detail is not widely used to represent contrast because the medium of painting makes it so difficult to do so. That leaves colour, and it seems it would be very likely that the colours of objects are changed by the artist to produce contrast. This is what I think the artists have done so that the Hurricane fuselage framework or the Typhoons wheel wells are visible.

 

(If the Typhoons wheel wells are silver, why would grey-green be used for the Hurricanes fuselage? Hawkers wouldn’t do this unless there was a very compelling reason. It could be expected that the interior colour of metal structures would be the same throughout all aircraft produced by that manufacturer?)

 

I don’t think Hawker ever changed from “silver” to “grey green” for interior metalwork colour.

AM274 and KZ191 both point to interior metalwork being silver. Hawker restorations also uses silver.

Likely the only way a relatively subtle change in colour like this can be definitely shown is if there is an aircraft fragment or colour photograph that shows it.

Edited September 20, 2020 by StevSmar
Revising sentence structures that might give the impression of a grumpy older man

[Troy Smith]

4 hours ago, StevSmar said:

If the Typhoons wheel wells are silver, why would grey-green be used for the Hurricanes fuselage? Hawkers wouldn’t do this unless there was a very compelling reason. It could be expected that the interior colour of metal structures would be the same throughout all aircraft produced by that manufacturer?

Apart from 15 Typhoons,. all the rest were built by Gloster, NOT Hawker.

 

As far as can be ascertained, UNTIL the 8th Hawker batch, the internals were all aluminium paint apart from the cockpit sides and bulkhead.  After that they switched to Grey Green. 

 

Hawker built Tempests at Langley, and they were Grey Green internally.

 

There was a switch from mostly aluminium paint internals to all grey green on Spitfires as well,  in 43/44.

 

I can find you threads here on Typhoon, Tempest and Spitfire internals if you want more info on this.

 

The Typhoons in the paintings, and Chris Thomas writes the books on Typhoons BTW.

13 hours ago, Chris Thomas said:

they look like Langley. Both the Typhoons shown have markings applied in service and therefore are probably there for mods and/or repairs.

I included them to show the accuracy of the paintings, not in reference to internal colour,  I mentioned the internals colour as AFAIK, Typhoons did retain aluminium internal framework and wheel wells.

Another plus on the painting accuracy of colour,  every known colour detail is as expected.  Again, framework, either aluminium or grey green are the options,  painting shows grey green.

 

5 hours ago, StevSmar said:

I don’t think Hawker ever changed from “silver” to “grey green” for interior metalwork colour.

 

5 hours ago, StevSmar said:

AM274

Canadian built.  Not relevant to a change at Hawker's. AFAIK  all Canadian Hurricanes used aluminium paint.

5 hours ago, StevSmar said:

and KZ191 both point to interior metalwork being silver.

KZ191,  no.  I don't think so.  Photos i posted show parts to be be green-ish.  AFAIK, Alumium paint does not go green with age.  and it spent years outside, on a dump, in  the middle east.  

 

5 hours ago, StevSmar said:

Hawker restorations also uses silver.

The only late Hurricane they did was KZ321.   Everything else would have had aluminium originally.

5 hours ago, StevSmar said:

Likely the only way a relatively subtle change in colour like this can be definitely shown is if there is an aircraft fragment or colour photograph that shows it.

 

KZ295. Good photo.  Grey Green internals, wheel wells exterior colour.  

And, colour painting, by an artist who is spot on in detail in every other aspect, and she paints  Green tubing

On 14/09/2020 at 23:27, Troy Smith said:

no.

From the 8th Hawker batch on, seems Grey Green came in.  I need to shut down and sleep now, but 

again, as I posted all these earlier.   

 

note the pics of the Hurricane IId at the VVS test centre,

 

Grey Green, this is a KX*** serial

compare

image from Mk.II pilots notes,  which shows alu tubing, grey green walls for comparison.

 

IN the image below,  compare the rectangular aluminium tank under the header tank,  and compare to the cowling framework, engine bearers and wing framework.

On 14/09/2020 at 23:27, Troy Smith said:

 

and KZ295 on the production line, 

Grey Green

 

from late war production, either the KZ*** above,  series, or form the MW*** ones

 Grey Green,  aluminium paint has a shiny sheen

regarding Langley, and Tempests interior in Grey Green,  note Tempest wing in the background.

 

On 14/09/2020 at 23:27, Troy Smith said:

probably this series

note non shiny interior visible, in particular again, rear bulkhead,  aluminium tank compared to frames,  and landing light bay.

 

On 14/09/2020 at 23:27, Troy Smith said:

 

 

 

LB611

 

 

More later

note wheel hub is aluminium, frames are matt and not the same tone.

 

5 hours ago, StevSmar said:

B&W photograph’s are very difficult to ascertain colours from, especially with older technologies where you can see things like red showing up a black etc. A whole series of colours will appear exactly the same.

Yes.  But Aluminum dope pretty much always shows up with a shiny sheen, whatever the film. Grey Green looks matt. 

as seen on the image you posted here, and various others.  We are merely trying to distinguish between Aluminium paint and Grey Green, and they photograph differently in B/W

 

Reasonably early Hurricane, fabric wing, DH prop, wrecked in France, this a German ebay photo, posted up on the defunct LEMB.

 

see here for more wrecks in France in May/June 1940

 

Funny thing is,  until fairly recently (last 10 years) the answer would have been that the insides were Grey Green.... the Gloster Hurricane thread was started in 2010....

 

 

[StevSmar]

That was an interesting comment by Edgar @Troy Smith in the thread you provided the link for.

From Edgar's post (#7):

"Specification F.7/30, 1-10-31 for the "Single Seater Day and Night Fighter" prototype designated that the cockpit should be "painted internally with an approved grey-green paint," and some Hawker biplanes had green in (parts of) their interiors. The S6 seaplanes had green interiors, as did the Gladiator, so it was early 30s. I'd hazard a guess that the reason was simply pilot comfort; green has always been viewed as a restful colour.

Remember that the Hurricane was basically a structure of metal tubes, with everything built on to it; like the Spitfire, Hawker might have viewed it as internal structure, so it was painted silver. The Pilot's Notes, for the Hurricane II, show the tubes as much lighter than the main part of the cockpit, so it appears to have been general.

Edgar"

 

I'd sure love to see a copy of that specification!!!!

[Troy Smith]

@StevSmar

re internals, and a changeover

this is KX829, in faux desert scheme, in Birmingham

 

note the Grey Green in the landing light well.

KX829 saw squadron use as well.....  

Air Britain

KX 829 137/286/1606 Flt/639/595/631/ To Loughbourough College 8.3.46

 

PS if you google up Hurricane KX829 there are 60'a B/W photos in what look like overall silver  at LOUGHBOROUGH COLLEGE (see image in link, we can't post Air Britain pics)

https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/view/1458899

So, after service, went to a technical college uintil at least 1960, then went to museum, gets a new coat of paint, so given that it was  always stored inside, the internal paint at this point is original,  which ties in with my 'switch to grey green' interiors'

 

HTH

 

PS

In bits, presumably to get the BoB paint job, 

 

note the dull paint on wing framework, no shine like aluminium paint.

 

[alt-92]

What would be the best way to ameliorate the 'starved cattle' look on the stringers of the Hasegawa 1/48 Hurricane fuselage?

 

[Graham Boak]

You could try applying a series of coats of Mr Surfacer 500 to the valleys.  I did try diluted Milliput but this ended up messy and not overly successful, but ought to work in principle.  For a more convincing appearance flatten the lot and add microstrip where the longerons should be, rubbing down the result.

 

This is from 1/72 experience, but I assume that the same techniques would work for 1/48.

[FinnAndersen]

8 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

You could try applying a series of coats of Mr Surfacer 500 to the valleys.  I did try diluted Milliput but this ended up messy and not overly successful, but ought to work in principle....

I did Mr Surface trick on a 1/72 Hasegawa Hurricane. Quite messy. 

 

The problem is that what you should aim for, is a kind of multi faceted surface, like a diamond. The fabric was stretched very tight over the stringers and the stringers are very close, unlike the spars on a wing.

 

So apply Mr Surfacer, preferably one "trench" at a time , sand very lightly, apply again and so on.

 

good luck

Finn

 

[Troy Smith]

1 hour ago, alt-92 said:

What would be the best way to ameliorate the 'starved cattle' look on the stringers of the Hasegawa 1/48 Hurricane fuselage?

 

If only it was that problem

 

You will need to dig out your kit and then have a read of this,  as I have selected photos that illustrate the issues, and suggest fixes.  

 

It's two fold,  the stringers are too deep, except where they are not, which is around the fabric covered panels, which have false edges, and there is no seam between the fabric and the doghouse, which is plywood covered in fabric.

The tropical vents may need removing depending on your chosen subject.

Here's the Hase fuselage

 

Note how the stringer lines continue through the fabric panels, going to the edges, with no flat bits.

 

from

which has lots of very useful images for getting a very good idea of how the airframe looks. 

 

 

 

I have a fuselage I was not unhappy with the mods I made, not sure where the photos are, and if they show the results adequately.

 

I made a curved scraper from some brass strip,  of similar width to the gaps between stringers, scraped the 'edges' back so they matched the rest. This is tricky , as they are next to metal panels. suggest masking off the metal panels to avoid damage.

 

Then using a technique from John Adams of Aeroclub, here as @John Aero,  used a curved blade between the stringers to sharpen the stringer lines.

Then sprayed with a coat of Halfords plastic primer, and then this was rubbed back with cloth and iso propypl alcohol.

see here

and the next page.  

 

It does work.   I got a Hase fuselage looking decent with this technique.    And, if you can do that....

 

some other tips on the Hase kit.

 

Find someone who has built the new tool Airfix kit as a Sea Hurricane, and get the alternate lower fuselage, and use this to replace the hase underside.  This neatly deals with that awful join, and allows another correction.

The hase fuselage is too flat where is joins the wing, cuts in the rear wing fillet will allow you to bend the lower fuselage in, and then it will match the new Airfix belly panel.

if you look at this, note how the lower fuselage curves in at lower section of the roundel, if you cut at the point where the wing fillet meets the walk way strip, you can then curve the lower fuselage in to meet the new belly.

 

The wing tips are wrong,  being curved,  they are flat when seen head on, even in this small image, you can see this, they are like very thin triangles, 

 

now look at this, as can be seen, the tip is flat,  look at the rivet lines,  a compariaon with the kit, and other photos in the link will show what i mean.  It's an easy fix,  file flat,  you will need to adjust the wing tip light as well

the hase upper cowling is too flat

 

easy fix, bend the upper cowling line up gently, it will flex up as it quite thin, to match the above.  It will make a small gap in the top,  but that's a simple filling job.

This applies to both Mk.I and II kits.

 

The Mk.II has the wrong carb intake, same as the Mk.II,  the Mk.II is wider and has a rear faring.   the trop filter is fine.

 

the wheel hubs are too small, drill out with a 1/4 inch, or 6 mm drill bit, and replace with Eduard Spitfire IX leftovers.

 

The 'bullet' Rotol unit in the kit is closest to the CM/1 unit fitted,  the plane above has the ES/9 unit.

 

Their Mk.I kits have either the De Havilland Hurricane or the blunt ES/6 Rotol 'Spitfire' props.

 

If you are prepared to fix the awful fabric, which is tricky, none of the other tweaks are hard  in comparison, and If you do the above. you will get a really well shaped model, as mostly Hase got it right.

 

If too much bother,  sell the Hase kit,  and wait for the forthcoming Arma Hobby kit, as their 72nd kit is really really good,  a few small niggles for the truly obsessed,  and noting how they improved their Mk.IIc from their Mk.I kit,   it will be hard to beat.

 

The new tool Airfix Mk.I,  while very good overall, has some glitches that are a right pain to fix, it lacks the curve where the wing meets the fuselage,  the trailing edge is too thick, which would be fine, except for the one piece ailerons, and the rear fuselage is slightly too long.

 

HTH

T

[alt-92]

Lucky me

I have a few AFX Mk.Is, so I can steal most of the improvements from those  - I like your plans wrt scraping to the edge of the panels. 

Incidentally: the overlapping wing root panels on the AFX could be dealt with by applying foil & blending - similar to what @Basilisk did.

 

The goal is a Trop Mk.IIb in ML-KNIL markings.

Yes, the Arma II would likely be better, just that the Hase is already here and it took me some serious hunting to find a Trop Mk.I/II box and we don't know if Arma will do that instead of the IIc. 
 

[Smithy]

I made the 1/48 Hasegawa Hurricane back in 2006ish (  https://www.arcair.com/Gal7/6801-6900/gal6812-Hurricane-Smith/00.shtm  )  and although it builds nicely and in typical "good" Hasegawa kit fashion the fuselage effect is grossly overdone. They also for some utterly ridiculous reason decided to make the lower wing to fuselage join right smack bang in the middle of the fabric effect!

 

I've currently got the old mould Airfix 1/48 Hurri on the go at the moment and even though it's a 40+ year old kit it's blatantly obvious how much better the fabric effect is on this older kit. I've got the new mould Airfix kit in the stash but TBH I'm quite smitten with the old Airfix kit, shape-wise it appears spot on too.

Edited October 3, 2020 by Smithy
Spelling

[Troy Smith]

5 minutes ago, alt-92 said:

Incidentally: the overlapping wing root panels on the AFX could be dealt with by applying foil & blending - similar to what @Basilisk did.

for those curious, here's @Basilisk  build,  which deals with the mentioned problems

 

7 minutes ago, alt-92 said:

The goal is a Trop Mk.IIb in ML-KNIL markings.

Not sure if you are aware, but the MK-KNIL markings, and if they were applied, have been discussed here in the past....  lets see what my google fu can find.... ah, this is the one.

I never got Peter's book,  as I don't know how much info on Hurricanes was in it, and that would be my main interest from it.

 

7 minutes ago, alt-92 said:

Yes, the Arma II would likely be better, just that the Hase is already here and it took me some serious hunting to find a Trop Mk.I/II box and we don't know if Arma will do that instead of the IIc. 

Arma are not stupid, they have just done a IIb in 72nd.

 

A IIb is the next logical kit to do,  as with a IIc and IIb kits, any modeller who can fill and rescribe a few panel lines has the basis for any Mk.II and with a few tweaks, a Mk.IV.

If they go for using a separate rear fuselage under panel, a Sea Hurricane is easy, even if they don't do a Sea Hurricane , there are loads of Airifx spares about, and it will still need an Arma base kit  

 

They may leave doing a Mk.I for a while, but a fabric wing would be a good idea, especially now that hard evidence of BoB P**** and V**** fabric wing Hurricanes is available, and that the Airfix kit does have issues.

I'd not care a jot if those issues were easy fixes,  but, like the Hase fuselage fix, they are not.  

 

21 minutes ago, Smithy said:

I'm quite smitten with the old Airfix kit, shape-wise it appears spot on too.

it look the part overall, and makes a fine 3 foot model as it does get the shapes,  but'd rate the new tool over it in every way except areas mentioned, though it has the right size tyres, which the new tool Airfix doesn't...

And the fuselage panel does curve out, though the panel line is too high.  

One big flaw, i think the wing is little too thin head on.  Only noticeable head on, but...   And, in 1/48th the raised panel lines are just to much, and the wheel well has that awful split panel line.  All fixable, but if you are going to bother then start with something better....

Hence it being a great shelf model.   

 

I still have one I started rescribing back in 1983 along with a load of other tweaks,  but I know an awful lot more now.  

 

It should be noted, Hobbycraft copied the Airfix old tool for the Mk.IIc kit, the parts are interchangeable...

Also, the Ark  Hurricane kit is based on the old tool Airfix, and it would be a useful kit except for it's 3 piece lower wing, which is again, too thin, and the same awful wheel well. 

does have 3 props, and Sea Hurricane and also a PR pack,  and was cheap at one point.  

 

I know, I know, moaning on, and should be building and documenting these flippin' things....  Though I am doing a 72nd Arma right now, and a slightly stalled new tool Airfix Mk.I to IIa conversion.... stupid as i have done the hard bit....

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235077619-airfix-hurricane-iia-in-148th-gaffa-tape-here-we-come/

One final point on 1/48th Hurricanes,  apart from the very old Monogram kit, all of them are actually pretty good on their basic shapes,  unlike many of the 72nd kits which have all sorts of issues.

 

cheers

T

 

 

[alt-92]

34 minutes ago, Troy Smith said:

I know, I know, moaning on, and should be building and documenting these flippin' things.... 

Don't get me wrong, your knowledge is invaluable, just that it's sometimes slightly demotivational if you start listing all that is not right with a kit

 

[Smithy]

1 hour ago, Troy Smith said:

it look the part overall, and makes a fine 3 foot model as it does get the shapes,  but'd rate the new tool over it in every way except areas mentioned, though it has the right size tyres, which the new tool Airfix doesn't...

And the fuselage panel does curve out, though the panel line is too high.  

One big flaw, i think the wing is little too thin head on.  Only noticeable head on, but...   And, in 1/48th the raised panel lines are just to much, and the wheel well has that awful split panel line.  All fixable, but if you are going to bother then start with something better....

Hence it being a great shelf model.   

 

I still have one I started rescribing back in 1983 along with a load of other tweaks,  but I know an awful lot more now.  

 

Hi Troy,

 

My comment above wasn't meant to mean that the old mould is better than the new, rather that the old mould is quite lovely in shape and its rendering of the fabric effect, at least to my eyes. I have the new mould planned for down the line as a 32 Sqn one and the kit looks beautiful, but in the meantime I've been enjoying the old mould. Part of that is probably nostalgia but also, I'm no longer obsessed with 110% accuracy anymore. I'm hardly a master modeller at the best of times so my foibles and lack of ability will always be more noticeable than slight inaccuracies of the kit concerned!

[Max Headroom]

@Troy Smith great info from you as always on the Hurricane. There is also the Pegasus easy build MK.I which if memory serves, is ‘inspired’ by the Hasegawa kit. Never seen it in the flesh but would be interested in your thoughts on it eg fabric effect. As a cheap canvas for BoB bird could it be worth considering? I believe it was about £6-7 when it appeared and there must be a few out there unbuilt.

 

Trevor

[Troy Smith]

1 hour ago, Max Headroom said:

There is also the Pegasus easy build MK.I which if memory serves, is ‘inspired’ by the Hasegawa kit. Never seen it in the flesh but would be interested in your thoughts on it eg fabric effect.

It's all coming back to me... both Pegasus and Classic Airframes copied Hasegawa, so both have those edges to the fabric panels.

Yes, it's a simplified copy of the Hase, so the UC legs are moulded with the doors,  and they copy the faults....

Pegasus 1/48th kits AFAIK are all copied 'based' upon existing kits, faults and all, from sprue host, their Spitfire is based on the 1978 Revell kit, so lack the gull wing.  Not sure about the others ones 'origin' kits.

1 hour ago, Max Headroom said:

As a cheap canvas for BoB bird could it be worth considering?

Absolutely.

If you are not some rivet counting stringer counting joyless hurricane nazi,  who wants a easy build to put some interesting markings on it's ideal.

Sadly not very cheap anymore though.

 

@alt-92 and @Smithy  

I  try to give accurate assessments,  the less negative comments, the better the kit.   I do also try to give fixes, but what anyone chooses to do with the information is up to them.

 

I have an unfortunate negative feedback loop, as I try to document the fixes, this adds another layer to actually building the flipping things.... so don't always do until I can be bothered to document , and so they don't get done.

Or some other stupid reason..

At the moment I'm trying to remember where i put the talc, I filled some small holes in a window frame with superglue/talc mix.... with my modelling talc and have put it 'somewhere'

Look like it worked on the window frame though  

cheers

T

[alt-92]

5 minutes ago, Troy Smith said:

I  try to give accurate assessments,  the less negative comments, the better the kit.   I do also try to give fixes, but what anyone chooses to do with the information is up to them.

As said, invaluable  

I would guess most of us read your assessments and fixes as 'here's how you can make it better'  - and almost always with examples given. 

 

5 minutes ago, Troy Smith said:

 

I have an unfortunate negative feedback loop, as I try to document the fixes, this adds another layer to actually building the flipping things.... so don't always do until I can be bothered to document , and so they don't get done.

Or some other stupid reason..

Perhaps picking one kit, build it and use that as a documented 'here's how to improve $kit' thread?

That would allow you to document and gather the necessary bits all in one  
Just planting some seeds here

 

[Smithy]

27 minutes ago, Troy Smith said:

It's all coming back to me... both Pegasus and Classic Airframes copied Hasegawa, so both have those edges to the fabric panels.

Yes, it's a simplified copy of the Hase, so the UC legs are moulded with the doors,  and they copy the faults....

Pegasus 1/48th kits AFAIK are all copied 'based' upon existing kits, faults and all, from sprue host, their Spitfire is based on the 1978 Revell kit, so lack the gull wing.  Not sure about the others ones 'origin' kits.

Absolutely.

If you are not some rivet counting stringer counting joyless hurricane nazi,  who wants a easy build to put some interesting markings on it's ideal.

Sadly not very cheap anymore though.

 

@alt-92 and @Smithy  

I  try to give accurate assessments,  the less negative comments, the better the kit.   I do also try to give fixes, but what anyone chooses to do with the information is up to them.

 

I have an unfortunate negative feedback loop, as I try to document the fixes, this adds another layer to actually building the flipping things.... so don't always do until I can be bothered to document , and so they don't get done.

Or some other stupid reason..

At the moment I'm trying to remember where i put the talc, I filled some small holes in a window frame with superglue/talc mix.... with my modelling talc and have put it 'somewhere'

Look like it worked on the window frame though  

cheers

T

 

Troy, one of the things I love about visiting BM is your exhaustive knowledge and passion for the Hurricane, one of my favourite aircraft, so I love your highly detailed explanatory posts and photos exploring the minutiae about all things Hurricane.

 

Such knowledge and information is invaluable to modellers and especially those really skilled modellers who can utilise this information and translate it to their builds. For that reason your information and continued pursuit of all the little bits and pieces about Hurricanes is priceless.

 

As I mentioned above, for a less skilled modeller such as myself I've come to terms with the fact that striving for ultimate down to the rivet accuracy is a pointless undertaking because my deficiencies in modelling skill will always be more obvious than any tiny inaccuracies in the kit itself.

 

Saying that, I love all these discussions about detail and find it fascinating, even if it's beyond what I'm going to put into my model making.

[k5054nz]

I have a question: what happened to K5083? The most I can find, from ThisDayInAviation, is:

In May 1939 Hawker Monoplane F.36/34 K5083 was classified as a ground instruction airframe, with serial number 1112M. Reportedly, it remained in airworthy condition until 1942. Its status after that is not known.

On another forum someone said it was acquired for use in the film Test Pilot but then returned to Hawker as it was too different to production examples.

 

We know for certain the fate of K5054, it’s sad that the same can’t be said of the first Hurricane.

[JackG]

Question about the blast tubes - the green portion  coloured in the diagram below, is that what is visible in the photo, or is part of the blast tube cover (door), or is it a separate piece that connects one to the other?

 

 

 

 

Also a couple diagrams of the gun,  it seems muzzle flash was standard for inside the blast tubes?

 

 

 

regards,

Jack

Edited October 7, 2020 by JackG

[Troy Smith]

Interesting question.

 

17 hours ago, JackG said:

Question about the blast tubes - the green portion  coloured in the diagram below, is that what is visible in the photo, or is part of the blast tube cover (door), or is it a separate piece that connects one to the other?

first,  the manual drawings is for a IIb, but the photo is an early fabric wing.

The fabric wing does differ in many ways, and really you want a metal wing.  

This wreck photo does show the tubes, but not the inside of the doors, I have seen one which shows a similar shot with the blast tubes part pulled out of the wing.

 

 

18 hours ago, JackG said:

Also a couple diagrams of the gun,  it seems muzzle flash was standard for inside the blast tubes?

This is the photo that came to mind,  the muzzle flash was used on the outer 0.303's on the B wing, as shown on the drawing.

I can't see why they would be fitted,  and they are not shown on the drawing.

captioned

"Maintenance of 274 Sqn RAF Hurricane Gerawala 1941"

I assume that someone know the identity of the Hurricane above,  as it has "Alma Barat(?) Malaya, painted on it.

I'll @Graham Boak  as IIRC he has a book on presentation aircraft.

 

Note all the worn off paint on the rear of the prop blades, and either work paint in the leading edge or one of those Hurricanes with leading edge camo.

 

I'll see if I can turn up any more maintenance images with the gun covers off.

[Graham Boak]

Almost certainly "Alma Baker, Malaya", one of four Hurricanes named for Charles Alma Baker, a wealthy New Zealander with multiple estates in Malays, Australia and New Zealand.  He donated £30,000 for Spitfires but the names were given to Hurricanes.  He had also previously been the founder of the Australian and Malayan Battleplane Squadron, which donated 94 aircraft in WW1.

 

Oh yes, V7780.

 

Source: Air Britain's "Gifts of War" by Henry Boot and Ray Sturtivant.  It is subtitled "Spitfires", and in much smaller text  "and other Presentation Aircraft in Two World Wars".  Which gives you some idea of the bias of the contents - and the donations.

 

The blast muzzles were originally fitted to the guns on Spitfire Mk.Is, but removed before the war.  I don't see why they would have been retained on Hurricanes, and suspect they were on the drawing because the person who did the drawing was just copying a standard drawing of the gun.