Graham Boak Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 Re learning from fellow modeller and enthusiasts on Britmodeller- I can only agree. Just one example but relevant - despite staring at photos of BD771 over the years I hadn't noticed that it had no catapult spools. Looking at the deck photo, I think the deck equipment looks like a trolley for manoeuvring the aircraft around by the tailwheel. This would be clearly useful but I don't recall seeing it in other photos.
tempestfan Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 A Mk.I because of that all-important engine change, but with a long nose, Rotol propeller and an oddball armament (assuming that they kept all twelve guns). Are/were the engine bearers for the Merlin II and XX identical ? Having no ideas about the weights of the two variants, would a bit of ballast be required in the "empty" space of the longer nose ?
Graham Boak Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 (edited) The pick-up points on the engine were the same. Apart from being redesigned for mass production by Ford and some improvements, the Merlin Mk.XX was basically a Mk.III with an additional gearbox on the rear. As for the cg, the Hurricane Mk.I suffered throughout its design life from the cg being too far aft, which presented problems with the introduction of the rear armour. Because of this, the Sea Hurricanes Mk.I were limited to using the heavier DH prop rather than the Rotol - at least, those with the arrester hooks. This was cured by moving the engine forward on the Mk.II. There would have been no need for any ballast, and certainly not in front of the cg, because the forward movement of the engine produce a much larger moment than the absence of the second gearbox. Plus of course additional small structural weight on the aircraft. An interesting (and probably unanswerable) question is how they linked the carburettor intake from the Mk.II position forward to that of a Merlin III. Just a bit of ducting, fairly easy to make in a carrier workshop, but at the risk of reducing its efficiency by introducing bends. Perhaps a question for the rebuilders on the Flypast site, not that they've ever tried this particular change but they might have insight. PS Question so posed. Edited August 14, 2014 by Graham Boak
gingerbob Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 An interesting (and probably unanswerable) question is how they linked the carburettor intake from the Mk.II position forward to that of a Merlin III. Seems like the obvious thing to do is use the standard Merlin III intake, with the usual geometry relative to the engine, and do whatever cutting and/or filling necessary to the cowling. But perhaps I've misunderstood the difficulty you perceive. (Hurri I lower cowl panel, with a 4" longer "tail" or after panel? bob
Graham Boak Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 There may not be a problem, and I suspect that's the case. It depends where the duct meets the engine on the two variants, which were both single-stage. BD771 retained the tropical intake.
tempestfan Posted August 14, 2014 Posted August 14, 2014 Thanks for the illuminating details, Graham.
Greenshirt Posted August 16, 2014 Posted August 16, 2014 Okay, did some searching (even with Google) and cannot find my answer...question: How much to move the landing light on a Mk I fabric wing (inches or mm, actual or scale) to enable making a metal wing. I'm starting with the Airfix 1/72 fabric wing Mk I. NB: I know I need to re-scribe the gun panels and "fix" the fabric effect...is there anything else? Regards, Tim
Lazlo Woodbine Posted August 17, 2014 Posted August 17, 2014 Hi Can anyone help with this photo from Hurricanes Over The Arakan? The serial is BD73? And it should possibly be a Hurricane IIb but only appears to have 8 guns and a yellow leading edge. The photo is supposedly from Feni where 607 sqn were based from December 1942 to January 1943. Any thoughts on colours etc. if the photo is copyrighted I'll remove it. Thanks for any help Gary
Graham Boak Posted August 17, 2014 Posted August 17, 2014 I have it as BD735. The colour scheme will be Dark Earth and Dark Green over Sky Blue (or Sky if you happen to believe that). It was quite common for the four outer guns to be removed on Mk.IIBs, especially when required to dogfight with more agile aircraft. 1
ClaudioN Posted August 17, 2014 Posted August 17, 2014 And it should possibly be a Hurricane IIb but only appears to have 8 guns and a yellow leading edge. The photo is supposedly from Feni where 607 sqn were based from December 1942 to January 1943. Any thoughts on colours etc. if the photo is copyrighted I'll remove it. Thanks for any help Gary The (seemingly/possibly) yellow leading edge is interesting. There is another Hurricane photo (IWM, Hurricane IID HW861, see link) where I suspect there might be a yellow leading edge, but I have never read anything about such kind of marking. http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205212852 Claudio
Basilisk Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 Okay, did some searching (even with Google) and cannot find my answer...question: How much to move the landing light on a Mk I fabric wing (inches or mm, actual or scale) to enable making a metal wing. I'm starting with the Airfix 1/72 fabric wing Mk I. NB: I know I need to re-scribe the gun panels and "fix" the fabric effect...is there anything else? Regards, Tim According to the Bentley drawing, you have to move the landing light 4.5mm (for 1/72 scale) further out (away from the fuselage). In addition, you should also fill the square opening between the outer shell ejector openings on each wing as these are only on the fabric covered wing. Cheers, Peter
mhaselden Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 I have it as BD735. The colour scheme will be Dark Earth and Dark Green over Sky Blue (or Sky if you happen to believe that). It was quite common for the four outer guns to be removed on Mk.IIBs, especially when required to dogfight with more agile aircraft. I'd agree with you, Graham. Possibly also Sky Blue code letters (they're very light-toned)?
mhaselden Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 The (seemingly/possibly) yellow leading edge is interesting. There is another Hurricane photo (IWM, Hurricane IID HW861, see link) where I suspect there might be a yellow leading edge, but I have never read anything about such kind of marking. http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205212852 Claudio Yellow outer leading edges and wingtips were seen on Mohawks to help identification (Mohawks were the only Allied radial single-engined fighter in India until the advent of the Thunderbolt) but I can't recall any mention of yellow leading edges on Hurricanes. I'm not sure the IWM pic shows yellow leading edges. It's possible but I'm not convinced. If they are present, they seem far shorter than the pic of BD735 in Post #108. I also wondered what the guy is doing near the wingtip - looks like he's kissing the wing! Maybe he was just pleased to see "his" aircraft again???
Graham Boak Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 I agree that such leading edge stripes are at best rare, but as both leading edges of BD735 appear to be the same it does seem likely to be some kind of identification feature. Given that the Japanese used inboard yellow stripes as their identification marker, it does seem a rather odd choice of colour.
Greenshirt Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 According to the Bentley drawing, you have to move the landing light 4.5mm (for 1/72 scale) further out (away from the fuselage). In addition, you should also fill the square opening between the outer shell ejector openings on each wing as these are only on the fabric covered wing. Cheers, Peter Brilliant! Thanks, Peter. Tim
tempestfan Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 I agree that such leading edge stripes are at best rare, but as both leading edges of BD735 appear to be the same it does seem likely to be some kind of identification feature. Given that the Japanese used inboard yellow stripes as their identification marker, it does seem a rather odd choice of colour. Could it be only a "wrap around" of the underside wing colour ? The leading edge appears to be rather worn and scuffed, so the colour may actually be lighter than the roundel ring. The patch around the gun orifices would also appear to be the undersurface colour, unusually (?). And the surround of the landing light, would it be some kind of sealant ? Probably a trick of the light only, but the fuselage rear (tail strake) looks dark (to me).
Graham Boak Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 The demarcation between upper and lower camouflage on the inner wing is lower than that of the outer wing, if this was taken to be a wrap-around. However, judging from the wheel doors, nose and the inner wing, the outer wing leading edge is darker than the underside. I think the patch around the guns is also slightly darker than the underside, but it's close. Could it be bare metal where an entire patch has come off? Dunno. I suspect bare metal around the lights, or perhaps filler around a poor fit - no, that's just my modelling! Looking at the tail strake, I'd say the rear part is probably shadow but where's the front part? I think that you could argue that the underside of the rear fuselage is dark, too, up to the rear of the A. Fresh fabric still in primer? Over-analysis? maybe...
Nick Millman Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 The starboard tailplane appears to have the same - or similar - light painted outer leading edge. Nick
tempestfan Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 However, judging from the wheel doors, nose and the inner wing, the outer wing leading edge is darker than the underside. The upper part of the u/c doors which is in shadow (like the outer wing leading edge) looks comparable in brightness. I'm not making any case, but if others also see the rear fuselage underside as dark, then there may be more (probably explainable) anomalities.
Edgar Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 (edited) Something is awry with that photo; 607 Squadron used the IIB from July 1941 - March 1942, while in the U.K., then sailed to India where it arrived in May, and re-equipped with the IIC, which were used until February 1943. It then reverted to the IIB, for the rest of the year (This comes from Rawlings' book on fighter Squadrons.)There's also the consideration that the fuselage roundel and fin flash pre-date April 1942, when the thin white stripes/C1 roundel appeared.There is, of course, the possibility that they had a redundant IIB, donated by another Squadron, or hauled out to India with them*, which was used as a hack/trainer, and could explain the general condition and lack of covers for the Brownings. * That could help to explain the yellow leading edge, too. Edited August 19, 2014 by Edgar
Graham Boak Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 Sorry Edgar, but I've studied 607 Sq in some detail, and Rawlings' book is incorrect on this point. Better coverage can be found in Normal Frank's Hurricanes over the Arakan, which is where this photo comes from. In accordance with other Hurricane squadrons in SEAC, 607 operated mainly from forward airfields with the Mk.IIB, with only a few examples of the Mk.IIC (I've garnered 12 serials but not all confirmed - or even Hurricanes of any kind). They were not a fighter-bomber unit, which they had indeed been in Europe, but a conventional fighter squadron. It has been suggested that these Hurricane units operated with the lighter and more agile Mk.IIB (eight guns rather than 12) when forward during the campaigning season, and re-equipped with the heavier Mk.IIC when withdrawn to the Calcutta area during the monsoon season, but the small number of Mk.IIC that served with 607 doesn't support this idea, and Franks' account does mention at least one Mk.IIC in combat at the front. The aircraft that they had in Europe were 10-gun fighter-bombers with BExxx serials, and these were handed over (together with a core of pilots) to the newly-formed 174 Sq. and can be seen in Fighter Squadrons of the RAF lined up with just the squadron codes overpainted. Neatly enough, but the serials are a give-away. One of the two aircraft most visible is RW Brookes' XP.G ex AF.G: I have copies of the appropriate pages from his log book. This aircraft is represented in the RAF Museum. BD735 is actually listed by Air Britain as with 67 Sq, "Hit a car on take-off, Alipore, 6.6.42". The markings show it in 607's possession, 607 did operate from Alipore from May 1942, and your comment on the early markings links to the date: some delays can be expected in the updating of aircraft in distant theatres. 67 did not reform until June 1942, also at Alipore - which makes its crash in 67's hands an outside possibility rather than just a typo. Frank's book also has a photo of AF.S.
Lazlo Woodbine Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 Thanks for all of the information so far, could it be a possibility that the yellow leading edges were left on when repainted in India or applied in the UK in error. There was a profile of a Spitfire VIII in Military Aircraft Modelling a few years ago in their series on Far East Spitfires which showed a 607 Sqn Spitfire with yellow leading edges. Have found another photo of the same Hurricane in RAF Fighter Pilots Over Burma by Norman Franks again if there is any problems over copywright I'll remove it. Gary
Graham Boak Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 (edited) It may be possible but until more photos turn up we can't be sure whether it is just a one-off or something more general. Distrust profiles - where's the photo? The Osprey book covering SEAC Spitfires has a profile of Wilf Gould's Mk.VIII at Imphal with the later white bands - they weren't carried then. Edited August 19, 2014 by Graham Boak
modelfreak Posted August 21, 2014 Posted August 21, 2014 Ok! Here is my stupid question, was the prop used on the mk1 the same as the prop used on the Spit Mk1a
Graham Boak Posted August 21, 2014 Posted August 21, 2014 Which prop? Two-bladers, no. DH prop yes, but with different spinners, except the Spitfire spinner was also used on some Hurricanes. Rotol prop yes, except that the first Spitfire squadron with Rotol props had a different variant. Sorry you asked? It would have helped if you'd been a bit more precise about just what you wanted. Do you have a particular subject in mind?.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now