All the Hurricane questions you want to ask here

[Troy Smith]

10 minutes ago, 72modeler said:

does anybody know what the seria/codes might have been?

serial MW367,  note last two visible, note name by canopy, note sutre what is says,  looks like a name beginning with a curly J

sticking Hurricane MW367 into google gets hits its says 'Jessie' and coded B,  see quoted post below.

 

MW visible here (actually maybe another plane... note a faint D chalked on? ) 

there are 4 photos on the asisbiz page,  one is correctly captioned.   Famous shots, from the iWM archive

 

see 

 

 

this is particularity useful

  

On 17/10/2017 at 14:18, Seahawk said:

That's an aircraft of 1697 Flight alias the Air Despatch Letter Service, one of whose aircraft (Hurricane MW340) was the first Allied aircraft to land in France on D-Day (Strip B-3 Ste Croix-sur-Mer) and then return.  The unit's aircraft carried armament (but no ammunition) and 90 gall overload tanks, with the starboard one sometimes being used for mail carriage.

 

Other Hurricanes operated by 1697 Flt were LF770, LF773, LF774, MW335, MW336, MW338, MW339, MW340, MW359, MW360, MW367, PG546. 

 

MW367 was a Hurricane IIc, coded B and carried the name "Jessie" in script just forward of the port windscreen (Troy's 2nd photo).  Bowyer identifies the aircraft in Troy's 3rd photo as aircraft F (top just visible) but gives no serial.  NB it has a white starboard tank which the other one does not. 

 

Squadron code was DR.  Revell provided 1/72 markings for one of these aircraft (DR-L, IIRC) in a Revell "dogfight double", paired, I think with an Fw 190A.

 

All info from Bowyer: Aircraft For The Many, pp. 140-2.

 

 

 

Now I'm wondering if there any pics of MW340 or the even the code letter !   I need to look at those pics again more carefully.  but later...

[StevSmar]

On 1/8/2020 at 12:25 PM, 72modeler said:

.... Note the straight rails the canopy slides along...

The canopy rails are curved on all Hurricanes. It’s subtle, so you’d have to look at a top view.

[JackG]

Any guesses to the under wing roundel size? Photo captions have this as sometime in August 1940, so that means the marking was quite possibly applied at squadron level when the order reinstated them on the 11th of that month.

 

 

Obviously can't make a direct comparison with the fuselage roundel since the under wing is closer to the camera.   To me, the fuselage marking looks to have originally been 35", with the yellow added in a non-standard size.   The roundel outline placed over the wing area is the same one as on the fuselage.   A 40" roundel would fit the location, but a 35" might better conform to the aspect of it appearing larger?

 

regards,

Jack

[dogsbody]

1 hour ago, JackG said:

Any guesses to the under wing roundel size? Photo captions have this as sometime in August 1940, so that means the marking was quite possibly applied at squadron level when the order reinstated them on the 11th of that month.

Obviously can't make a direct comparison with the fuselage roundel since the under wing is closer to the camera.   To me, the fuselage marking looks to have originally been 35", with the yellow added in a non-standard size.   The roundel outline placed over the wing area is the same one as on the fuselage.   A 40" roundel would fit the location, but a 35" might better conform to the aspect of it appearing larger?

 

regards,

Jack

 

The upper right in this?

 

 

 

 

Chris

[Troy Smith]

1 hour ago, JackG said:

Any guesses to the under wing roundel size? Photo captions have this as sometime in August 1940, so that means the marking was quite possibly applied at squadron level when the order reinstated them on the 11th of that month.

 

 

Obviously can't make a direct comparison with the fuselage roundel since the under wing is closer to the camera.   To me, the fuselage marking looks to have originally been 35", with the yellow added in a non-standard size.   The roundel outline placed over the wing area is the same one as on the fuselage.   A 40" roundel would fit the location, but a 35" might better conform to the aspect of it appearing larger?

 

regards,

Jack

Almost certainly unit applied,  as the plane in question originally had a plain 35 inch roundel on fuselage, which was the standard,  and when built looked like this

 

with Night/White wings and aluminium under nose and tail, no roundels.  

 

Yellow rings and fin flash added after May 1940, they Sky undersides.  

For the underwing, try holding a model at the same angle as the pic and sketch on the roundel, then measure the model.  

a good spread of underwing roundel sizes is seen here, the centre plane of the 2nd vic looks factory standard,  note that the size fills the wing width, smaller is further out. 

 

Pic is 85 Sq Hurricane in October 1940, part of a famous sequence.

 

HTH

[JackG]

Thank you Chris and Troy - yes there does appear to be a few 'standard' diameters to choose from (30", 45", and 50").  The SAM Modelers Datafile no.2 illustrates the same sizes, along with 35" and 40".  

 

So what I did was cut out some Tamiya tape discs by way of a circle compass cutter.   After some observations, visually it looks like 35" worked best, but to test with some math calculations I found this:       https://sizecalc.com/

 

 

 

Basically I took the premise that both fuselage and under wing had 35" roundels.  Working in 1/72 scale, I was able to determine how much to shrink the Hurricane photo, so that fuselage marking was the scaled diameter of  10.374mm, while that under the wing is the actual decal size of 12.347mm.  The result was close enough to say 35" is the way to go.

 

regards,

Jack

[mack]

Hello,

 

For long I was wandering how the "prismatic hood" on Hurricane prototype was matching the curved (or multi faceted) transversal section of the fuselage spine. While browsing the latest issue of Aeroplane Monthly (March 2020 - Issue 563, pages 36, 37) I've noticed an in-flight photo (that I personally never seen before) of the prototype, taken from above, that seems to indicate a flat surface on top of the spine. While the S-curve of the spine (as seen from the side) is mentioned in most of the published works treating the topic, I personally never seen a remark regarding the different top spine (transversal) section. Is it only my ignorance on the matter?

 

NB - as I do not have the rights, I cannot attach the above mentioned image to my post but I assume It will be in easy reach to fellow forum members.  

 

Best regards,

Iulian M.              

[PhantomBigStu]

Finnish Hurricanes. Doing the one on the xtradecal fabric sheet with the black/green camouflage, sheet says underside is fs36222 which I assume is a substitute for the fs36559 IPMS Stockholm recommend, however I’ve also heard Finnish hurricanes had aluminium undersides, so which is it?

[Troy Smith]

3 minutes ago, PhantomBigStu said:

however I’ve also heard Finnish hurricanes had aluminium undersides,

No, they had the RAF factory scheme of Night/White wings with the rest aluminium.  If the lasted long enough, they got the Finnish warpaint,  and the undersides were then done in pale blue.

as seen here

Finnish underside blue is basically RLM 65. the Finns called it Dornier blue, as they saw it on their Do-17's.

the  FS numbers are quoted as 'near matches' ONLY.

 

HC-451, the plane on the sheet.

 

underside are not Night/White/Alu, so they are pale blue.   

Note you need a Spitfire De Havilland prop,  and the standard type Hurricane windscreen.

[PhantomBigStu]

1 hour ago, Troy Smith said:

No, they had the RAF factory scheme of Night/White wings with the rest aluminium.  If the lasted long enough, they got the Finnish warpaint,  and the undersides were then done in pale blue.

as seen here

 

Finnish underside blue is basically RLM 65. the Finns called it Dornier blue, as they saw it on their Do-17's.

the  FS numbers are quoted as 'near matches' ONLY.

 

HC-451, the plane on the sheet.

 

 

underside are not Night/White/Alu, so they are pale blue.   

Note you need a Spitfire De Havilland prop,  and the standard type Hurricane windscreen.

Thanks very much Troy, I assume the windscreen is one of the two in the airfix kit?

Edited February 14, 2020 by PhantomBigStu

[dogsbody]

6 hours ago, PhantomBigStu said:

Thanks very much Troy, I assume the windscreen is one of the two in the airfix kit?

 

If you're talking the 1/72 fabric-wing kit, then no. Both of those are the early windscreen without the small horizontal frame to the front pane.

 

 

 

Chris

[PhantomBigStu]

2 hours ago, dogsbody said:

 

If you're talking the 1/72 fabric-wing kit, then no. Both of those are the early windscreen without the small horizontal frame to the front pane.

 

 

 

Chris

You mean I have to buy an arma kit? Oh that’s a shame  

[Troy Smith]

13 hours ago, PhantomBigStu said:

I assume the windscreen is one of the two in the airfix kit?

As Chris says, no.  Getting the Arma kit won't give you a spare though. 

I suspect a vac for the Hase or Revell kits is the way forward, as these have the right windscreen, and are the  right height, Airfix is too high.

[PhantomBigStu]

On 2/15/2020 at 12:28 AM, Troy Smith said:

As Chris says, no.  Getting the Arma kit won't give you a spare though. 

I suspect a vac for the Hase or Revell kits is the way forward, as these have the right windscreen, and are the  right height, Airfix is too high.

ok, as it’s wrong anyway I’ll live with the kit parts, life’s too short.

[Smithy]

The Airfix new tool 1/72 canopy is absolutely horrific IMHO. The framing is wrong and the shape, the angle of the front windscreen doesn't look right either. I built the kit last year (the 85 Sqn Battle of France boxing) and replaced it with an old mould Airfix canopy which looks a million times better.

 

Maybe it's just me but it's so wrong that it makes the complete model look off.

 

The rest of the kit is lovely, although the undercarriage assembly is a little fiddly so watch for that.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Smithy
Typo

[PLC1966]

11 minutes ago, Smithy said:

The Airfix new tool 1/72 canopy is absolutely horrific IMHO. 

Horrific !!!

 

Blimey, that's a serious word for a bot of clear plastic.

[Smithy]

5 minutes ago, PLC1966 said:

Horrific !!!

 

Blimey, that's a serious word for a bot of clear plastic.

 

It's not good and throws off the whole look of the model, at least for me. Lots of people are different though and probably won't care.

 

But it was too obvious for me and I was very happy to replace it.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Smithy

[PLC1966]

3 hours ago, Smithy said:

 

It's not good and throws off the whole look of the model, at least for me. Lots of people are different though and probably won't care.

 

But it was too obvious for me and I was very happy to replace it.

I get it mate.  A cockpit is one of the first things you really note,  if it tweaks your button you have to do something.

[Ray_W]

Question for the Hurricane experts - if you were to buy one exceptional technical tome on the Hurricane, that is still good for modeller's requirements, which one would you choose?

 

This is to supplement my research as I want to do two Hurricane builds in 1/48. Firstly, a BoB Mk 1 for the 80th Anniversary Group Build for later this year and secondly, a D-Day stripes Hurricane as a nice complement to my other similarly marked Hawker aircraft that are completed on the shelf - the Typhoon and Tempest. My interest in the D-Day build being sparked by your earlier posts of the MW??? aircraft. The first will be the Airfix Sea Hurricane boxing as it is readily available and has the bits in the box for the BoB build - a fairly straight forward build. The D-Day machine will be the challenge and , for me, the most fun. Corrected Italeri, cross-kit or goodness knows what. A really strong reference is mandatory.

 

Any help appreciated.

 

Ray. 

[StevSmar]

On 2/14/2020 at 12:24 AM, mack said:

...how the "prismatic hood" on Hurricane prototype was matching the curved (or multi faceted) transversal section of the fuselage spine.... in-flight photo... of the prototype, taken from above, that seems to indicate a flat surface on top of the spine...Is it only my ignorance on the matter?

...Iulian M.              

Hi Julian,

 

Thanks for alerting me to the latest Aeroplane magazine having articles on Hawker Aircraft.

 

Since I don’t have a copy of the magazine yet, I’m somewhat guessing on your question:

- The canopy “squashes in” at the front in the closed position and as a result it is made slightly higher, because the canopy rails are parallel to the thrust line from the side and curved from the top. So the canopy from the side is “tilted up” a tiny bit at the front. Don’t know if this applies to the prototype. Don’t know if this is discernible in side view photo’s of non-prototype Hurricanes.

- There is a noticeable difference in curvature of the top part of the canopy between the prototype and production models. In the production models the top of the canopy is pretty much a constant radius. In the prototype it’s more of a “squashed U” shape. There is a nice photo of the prototype Henley and Hurricane next to each other which shows this quite clearly (R Franks Hawker Hurricane a comprehensive guide p11)

- In a side view there is an “S” curve as you’ve noted. The side view of the prototype however, appears to have a convex curve in the cockpit decking (dog-house) right behind the canopy, likely to provide a nicer transition from the canopy to the rear decking in front of the fin? It seems likely this cockpit decking’s convex curve was deleted once the Hurricane went into production for ease of manufacture?

-In the top view, the front of the fin is offset a little to port. This means that there is a slight “S” curve here too. This is likely present in the prototype also?

 

We’re all a bit ignorant on the exact difference and it’s only by careful reference to photo’s, like you’re doing, that teases out the differences. Thanks for the interesting question, once I get the magazine I’ll look at the top view more closely. 

Edited February 17, 2020 by StevSmar

[viscount806x]

On 2/15/2020 at 12:28 AM, Troy Smith said:

As Chris says, no.  Getting the Arma kit won't give you a spare though. 

I suspect a vac for the Hase or Revell kits is the way forward, as these have the right windscreen, and are the  right height, Airfix is too high.

Troy, as our esteemed Hurri Guru, any chance of enlarging on the windsceen variations please? I've looked at lots of photos just now and become a little confused. I can see an extra little cross member on K5083's windscreen but none on  the later ones. The Mk.I early and later and Mk.II etc. look remarkably similar so I imagine that I'm missing quite a subtle detail here. I won't even broach the subject of scale plans either bearing in mind the accuracy issues except to say that the ones I have are all of little help on this 'screen query.

[Troy Smith]

7 hours ago, Ray_W said:

Question for the Hurricane experts - if you were to buy one exceptional technical tome on the Hurricane, that is still good for modeller's requirements, which one would you choose?

I don't think there is one.  There is more on here for the modeller than any existing book.   There are books on the technical side of the Hurricane, but dealing with restored examples.  

@Graham Boak and @Work In Progress  may have suggestions. 

Despite threads like this, Hurricanes are mostly simple, about 90% of the airframe is common in all marks excepting the fabric wing. 

the difference between a standard production Mk.I and a Mk.II are the nose length, radiator and carb intake, and the different wing armament options. The Mk.IV has some added armour.

 Props are only really confusing area.  There is this for that

which also details Mk.I vs Mk.II

 

as for books, Hurricane at War 1 and 2 are great for large clear period photos though.

 

7 hours ago, Ray_W said:

The D-Day machine will be the challenge and , for me, the most fun. Corrected Italeri, cross-kit or goodness knows what.

Hasegawa IIc with some work is the best bet. I don't think it's available at the mo,  but easy enough to find, it's the commonest version.

Revell of germany reboxed it as well.  

 

The Italeri kit just riddled with errors.   The D-Day ones are just late Mk.IIc, nothing exotic or difficult.   The white Sea Hurricanes I think got D-Day stripes

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234967709-white-sea-hurricanes-with-d-day-stripes-again/

discussed here, but  I don't think is photo with full stripes.

I mention the Sea Hurricane as you can use the spare rear Sea Hurricane  underfuselage from the Airfix Mk.I on a Hase IIC to make a Sea Hurricane  

 

THE build of the Airfix Mk.I is @Basilisk  here

I suspect this may generate more questions though...

[Troy Smith]

49 minutes ago, viscount806x said:

any chance of enlarging on the windsceen variations please? I've looked at lots of photos just now and become a little confused. I can see an extra little cross member on K5083's windscreen but none on  the later ones. The Mk.I early and later and Mk.II etc. look remarkably similar so I imagine that I'm missing quite a subtle detail here.

The prototype canopy question has been discussed in depth.  The prototype differs in so many ways it's really not relevant to the main body of your question.

 

there are basically 2 windscreens,  the very early one with the curved lower edge, with or without armour glass, and then the standard screen after that, the only quirk is the Mk.Iv may well have had some added armour strips or beefed up frame.

earliest, no armour glass

 

early with armour

 

these are the two types in the Airfix fabric wing kit

 

the standard screen fitted to most Mk.I's and all Mk.II's, early one did not have mirrors, and there are variations in the Bob era, the above looks the standard factory type, 

the IId may have the added armour, the IV does. Just about visible below 

 

 

a close up of a IIc

Hurricane HW189 head armour by losethekibble, on Flickr

you can see the thicker internal armour glass front.

 

late Mk.II's get a circular mirror fitted as factory standard.

a detail pointed out to me by the late Wing Commander Tim Elkington

 

AFAIK, that's about it.  corrections and detail additions will be great.

[viscount806x]

Thanks for above Troy. I can see the curved edges of the SIDE screen but what are the differences between, say, an Airfix old tool 1/72 and an Airfix new tool 1/72 (fabric wing) which, (ref an earlier posting), the earlier kit's part would be better on a later Mk.I model by virtue of an 'extra glazing bar', putting aside the poorer dimensions of the later kit's canopy?  Why wouldn't an Arma Hobby canopy solve the issue? Or is this last comment simply because that leaves said Arma Hobby without a canopy?

Dogsbody said this:

'iIf you're talking the 1/72 fabric-wing kit, then no. Both of those are the early windscreen without the small horizontal frame to the front pane.'

Or perhaps I'm still missing something or more likely, overthinking it (not unusual). I just cannot see the elusive 'extra glazing bar'.

You know, it occurs to me that what I need is a sequence of line drawings of canopies along the lines of your long ago posting of Hurricane props and spinners.

The prototype and production sliding canopy parts I fully understand by the way, so no confusion in that area.

 

[StevSmar]

On 2/14/2020 at 12:24 AM, mack said:

.....While browsing the latest issue of Aeroplane Monthly (March 2020 - Issue 563, pages 36, 37) I've noticed an in-flight photo (that I personally never seen before) of the prototype, taken from above, that seems to indicate a flat surface on top of the spine....

That “flat spot” is really quite pronounced in the photo, I don’t think I’ve paid much attention to that before. I doubt it’s actually flat, it just looks like that in the photo. You can really notice the offset of the front of the fin to port in this image, the “flat spot” highlights it. The canopy rails are curved similar to the production Hurricanes, though not as pronounced to my eyes.

 

What has always intrigued me about this photo is what the “tube” on the stbd wing is for? My guess is that it’s for measuring the angle of attack. I do know that the fittings (fuselage spools) that attach the wing to the fuselage result in a difference in angle between the fuselage longeron and wing center section longeron, that suggests there was a wing angle of attack adjustment. It wouldn’t make sense to redesign the fuselage to adjust for the new angle with war clouds looming. Just my guess though. The Sea Hurricane has different fuselage spools to other Marks, which I suspect is for strengthening rather than geometry. I wonder if the MkIV with its higher operating weight also had different spools and if they did was the geometry changed?

 

Like I’ve said before, the Hurricane doesn’t give up its secrets easily.