All the Hurricane questions you want to ask here

[rob Lyttle]

explain HOW sliding hood changed during operation on the real thing?

 

@HKR i think it's that the rails narrow slightly to the rear fitted to the fuselage, and the canopy is pulled in as it slides back.

There's only one dimension that it can change, really.

It is a small amount of movement, especially in a scale of 1/72 or 48!

And when you look at the thickness of the styrene parts etc, that we work with, they are so out of scale, it's impossible to model.

Let's see what is said....

[Graham Boak]

  If the base is narrowed then the top will rise, and hence clear the hump behind.  I agree that this is impossible to model in 1/72 or any of out regular modelling scales, especially with the rigid plastic used for canopies.  Any attempt to do so will end up looking odd, somewhere.

Edited January 10, 2019 by Graham Boak

[Troy Smith]

23 hours ago, HKR said:

But how it was in reality? Asking about real plane.

in a plan view the canopy rails are curved, and narrow at the front and back,   also helping to 'lock' the canopy in place when fully open and closed

see top left of this plan

 

 

here's a warbird shot, but it shows the curve and change of canopy shape due to curved rails

 

the canopy is thin metal and perspex, and thus bends easily.  so changes changes shape as it is moved along the curved rails.   

23 hours ago, HKR said:

In the AH model, closed part has narrower front cross section and wider rear, open part is even more wider in front and slightly narrower in rear. I would expect closed rear and front open should be the same, but due to specific design in that model they differ. But how it was in reality? Asking about real plane.

Imagein pushing back the canopy above, and you can see how it then get wider at the front and narrower at the back.

 

Arma hobby did as good a job as could be done with an injected canopy,  the only better option would be carefully done vacform replacement.  

PS open from the rear 

 

from

lots more more details shots.

 

[Grey Beema]

Not sure if it is of interest but I did a Spitfire flight a couple of years ago.  As part of the escape drill you are instructed that if the canopy will not wind back, if you hit it with both elbows on either side at the same time (not difficult in the tight confines) this is enough to flex the canopy out and off the runners the canopy which will then be ripped away by the slipstream.

 

 Needless to say I didn't have to try it...

[HKR]

Gentlemen - thank you for wide explanation about canopy, very nice shot of the warbird.
My assumption is, that only bottom part (to be precise: bottom corners) of the hood changed wideness, and top (curved part above two horizontal bars) of the hood stay unchanged during operation. Is that correct?
On the Hawker factory plan of the rails, dimensions are shown, but they are obviously not the same as a hood dimensions. Drawing of the hood show it in a neutral position, i.e. with parallel bottom edges. Do you have knowledge about hood external dimensions when atached in place?

 

According to the plastic models, I agree it is very hard to produce that shape in the plastic, hovewer I believe it is not impossible. It just require very good tooling and clever design. Anyway, we can always change canopy to vac formed and that solves most (if not all) of the problems.

[Troy Smith]

21 minutes ago, HKR said:

My assumption is, that only bottom part (to be precise: bottom corners) of the hood changed wideness, and top (curved part above two horizontal bars) of the hood stay unchanged during operation. Is that correct?

the whole canopy flexes, more at the bottom.   I'm sure buried on on youtube there is some film showing the opening and closing of the canopy.

 

23 minutes ago, HKR said:

On the Hawker factory plan of the rails, dimensions are shown, but they are obviously not the same as a hood dimensions. Drawing of the hood show it in a neutral position, i.e. with parallel bottom edges. Do you have knowledge about hood external dimensions when atached in place?

 

be aware of the problems with Hawker factory plans,  

an accurate vac canopy would be great.

 

If you go here

http://spitfirespares.co.uk/canopy.html

and scroll down, there are a load of photos of an original canopy, including a shot upsdie down, note how thin it is

 

 

at the bottom left you can see on of the wheels that goes in the rails makes the hood slide.

this is better

 

there are more in the link.

 

HTH

[Dave Fleming]

Peter Cook did an article in SAM that covered this (and the differences between the radiator/air intakes on mk I/II) that is quite interesting too (I think it was October 1999, need to find that issue!)

[Graham Boak]

post 1353 above.

[Dave Fleming]

Did the underside cartridge casing ejector ports change between the fabric and metal wings? Airfix have the outer most one further forward than the second one, whereas Arma have them in pairs (Photo below shows what i mean) - the Airfix kit seems to match L1592, and I suspect the Arma one is wrong, but can't find a decent pic!

 

[Dave Fleming]

10 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

post 1353 above.

 

Ah! the image wasn't showing here for some reason until I refreshed!

[rob Lyttle]

15 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

mistaken entry

[DominikS]

I have a question, but I think this has been asked already. Unfortunately, uncle google doesn't co-operate with me at all (probably I'm old fashioned and modern tech doesn't like me). 

What squadron did Hurricane Z4189 seeved in? So far I found three answers - 73,274 and RNFS. Which is correct? 

[Troy Smith]

6 hours ago, Dave Fleming said:

Did the underside cartridge casing ejector ports change between the fabric and metal wings? A

Yes, and the Arma Hobby looks correct, the spacing is uneven.   I will try to find an image later.

EDIT Shuttleworth Sea Hurricane

 

from here

 

[HKR]

10 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

the whole canopy flexes, more at the bottom.   I'm sure buried on on youtube there is some film showing the opening and closing of the canopy.

 

be aware of the problems with Hawker factory plan[...]

 

If you go here

http://spitfirespares.co.uk/canopy.html

and scroll down, there are a load of photos of an original canopy, including a shot upsdie down, note how thin it is

at the bottom left you can see on of the wheels that goes in the rails makes the hood slide.

this is better

 

 

Ok, I read that Bentley text and I find it very important, moreover it is universal, IMHO all factory plans should be treaten carefully with distrust to some extent. BUT. Considering only that part we're speaking, it is on the one drawing and lays very good on the plane pictures when compared. I think it can be enough to modeller's consideration, but I am not finding there answers to my questions, that's why asking here. So let's put Hawker plan aside.

 

digression #1 - Arma Hobby is proud with fact their model has been designed on Hawker plans basis. Considering Bentley text citated above, does that means AH is incorrect in shape? (I don't believe so)
digression #2 - Bentley plan show that sliding hood with parallel edges when closed, so incorrect in that area? (I don't believe so too)

 

Great pics on the spitfirespares. Thanks for pointing SAM Article (and drawings posted above)
My observations are similar, but I am still unsure about the rail/hood shape. SAM article (and drawings) state rails were narrower in front, and stright and parallel in mid/rear. This does not correspond with pictures I've seen and Hawker plan (and Arma Hobby kit too ) - in reality I see that the rail is narrower in front, wide behind pilot and again narrower in rear.
As mentioned earlier, and if I am not mistaken, Bentley plan show sliding hood when closed stright, or even narrow in rear (instead wider as seen on warbird pic posted above in this thread, so wrong?). On his plan, rails are narrow in rear section (correct in my opinion), not sure about front (straight-incorrect?).
At the end, most of the sources/plans totally omit that part and show slidig hood with stright/parallel bottom edges.

 

Looking at original hood pictures (on spitfirespares site), I would rather disagree it was thin and flexy. Of course it was relatively thin, comparing to the other airframe parts. But considering hood alone, it should be rather stiff waffle (metal/perspex/metal - any ideas about frame thickness?) and secondly, look at the front: there is L-shaped reinforcement and I hardly believe that part could change it's shape easily. In this area only "free" part would be corner, since L-reinforcement isn't attached to the whole cross-section. On the rear indeed, hood can be "compressed or expanded" by the rollers in the rail - as there is no real reinforcement.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, it is mystery for me and I am looking for the truth.
Any thoughts?

[Dave Fleming]

6 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

Yes, and the Arma Hobby looks correct, the spacing is uneven.   I will try to find an image later.

EDIT Shuttleworth Sea Hurricane

 

from here

 

 

Thanks Troy! (Now back to trying to remove the incorrect fabric areas from Airfix!)

Edited January 11, 2019 by Dave Fleming

[Troy Smith]

53 minutes ago, HKR said:

On the rear indeed, hood can be "compressed or expanded" by the rollers in the rail - as there is no real reinforcement.

I've just spent quite some time trying to find a film clip of the canopy being opened or shut, and while I saw some neat footage, take off and landing seem to often be done with the canopy open.

  I added this pic in in an edit, 

the canopy is relatively thin,  this enough to bend, especially when in in the rails, i think this shows it better, and shows the canopy thinness in comparison other airframe parts, and the hood doesn't need to flex much, as  the curve is not that great.

 

Someone may know of some footage showing the canopy being shut or opened.   

I want to link the footage of the IIcs  in Italy now...

[Seahawk]

Time to break into all those lovely Arma Hurricane I overtrees.  And what more deserving subject could there be than a Royal Navy Hurricane I Trop in desert camouflage?  I'm thinking of Z4370 J of 806 Squadron, taken on FAA charge in August 1941 and eventually returned to the RAF in March 42.  Unfortunately my photo shows the aircraft in a partly disassembled state and the prop is out of shot.  Could someone please venture an opinion as to which of the Arma prop/spinner options is most likely to be applicable to this aircraft?

 

Thanks in advance.

[Troy Smith]

23 minutes ago, Seahawk said:

Could someone please venture an opinion as to which of the Arma prop/spinner options is most likely to be applicable to this aircraft?

I'd go for the De Havilland unit, as this seems to be the standard fitting on Mk.I trops from photos.  

[Graham Boak]

On 1/11/2019 at 2:46 PM, DominikS said:

I have a question, but I think this has been asked already. Unfortunately, uncle google doesn't co-operate with me at all (probably I'm old fashioned and modern tech doesn't like me). 

What squadron did Hurricane Z4189 seeved in? So far I found three answers - 73,274 and RNFS. Which is correct? 

 

 

By combining the Air Britain serial book, their FAA Aircraft, and Fighter Squadrons of the RAF:   I have it as going to the RN at Donibristle 10.5.41, then to Malta 6.41  It then went to the Western Desert, as it is recorded with an engine failure, forced landing wheels down,, overturned near Shandur 12.10/41 (WCdr DW Haine RAF ok).  At this time it was probably in the hands of 274 Sq.    It then became aircraft D in 8O6 Sq (otherwise the RNFS)  in 11.41.  Flown by S/L P Fell, he gained a G.50 probable 23.11.41 and an He111 on 15.41.  Nothing after that.

 

I suspect that it was at Donibristle to join a carrier ferrying aircraft to the Middle East rather than joining the FAA.  Its spell with the FAA will have come about after repairs from overturning, and likely it returned to an RAF MU when its time came for major servicing, and then wasn't used again by a frontline unit.  Or just possibly it went to 73 Sq (where did you get that piece of information from?): the ME records of the movements of the older Hurricanes are full of gaps at this time.  It may have been lost in some other incident when with 806 Sq - being an RAF aircraft its fate may have been overlooked in FAA records.

[Graham Boak]

I've sent that said, and also comments relating it to the CS prop, manufacturer unstated.  Hurricanes received the Rotol  prop from at least the end of April, perhaps two months before the DH CS variant.  It's a little surprising that more aren't seen with it earlier.  Or for that matter, why it was necessary on the later Rotol, which did not overlap the fuselage.  That it was linked to the overlap of the Spitfire Rotol spinner would at least explain why it wasn't seen on Spitfires.

[viscount806x]

Just being a bit oblique here on the prop question - I'm sure I have read somewhere that DH props bestowed a small advantage on low speed performance, enough to improve getting an a/c off a small carrier for ferry purposes or whatever. I think they might have retrofitted some Spits and Hurricanes for the relief of Malta in this way for e.g.

[michael_hase]

As far as I understand having done some considerable research work on the Malta aircraft, this was done only once with Spitfires Mk. V - no mentioning of Hurricanes delivered and diverted to Malta

 

Best regards

 

Michael

[Graham Boak]

8 minutes ago, michael_hase said:

As far as I understand having done some considerable research work on the Malta aircraft, this was done only once with Spitfires Mk. V - no mentioning of Hurricanes delivered and diverted to Malta

 

Best regards

 

Michael

This wasn't the original DH prop but the Hydromatic which allowed a wider range of pitch movement, and in late summer 1942.  Unfortunately the Hydromatic prop had a habit of freezing up at altitude. It was not recommended for PR but a lot were seen.  Sadly it was also on the Mk.Vs sent to Australia and caused considerable problems.

[DominikS]

17 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

 

 

By combining the Air Britain serial book, their FAA Aircraft, and Fighter Squadrons of the RAF:   I have it as going to the RN at Donibristle 10.5.41, then to Malta 6.41  It then went to the Western Desert, as it is recorded with an engine failure, forced landing wheels down,, overturned near Shandur 12.10/41 (WCdr DW Haine RAF ok).  At this time it was probably in the hands of 274 Sq.    It then became aircraft D in 8O6 Sq (otherwise the RNFS)  in 11.41.  Flown by S/L P Fell, he gained a G.50 probable 23.11.41 and an He111 on 15.41.  Nothing after that.

 

I suspect that it was at Donibristle to join a carrier ferrying aircraft to the Middle East rather than joining the FAA.  Its spell with the FAA will have come about after repairs from overturning, and likely it returned to an RAF MU when its time came for major servicing, and then wasn't used again by a frontline unit.  Or just possibly it went to 73 Sq (where did you get that piece of information from?): the ME records of the movements of the older Hurricanes are full of gaps at this time.  It may have been lost in some other incident when with 806 Sq - being an RAF aircraft its fate may have been overlooked in FAA records.

Graham, 

Thank you for the information. It's very helpful. Now I'm wondering if the famous photo of this Hurri (with winged dagger nad individual letter L) shows the plane from Malta or North Africa. 

 

The information about No 73 squadron can be found in Don Minterne's history of this unit. 

[Graham Boak]

It may not have stayed on Malta but flown straight on. 73 was not on Malta,  one flight of 274 were briefly but had gone before this one arrived.  A winged dagger doesn't suggest either.

 

I suspect that all the late 1942 Spitfire deliveries to Malta will have had the Hydromatic, not just the one.