All the Hurricane questions you want to ask here

[Troy Smith]

5 minutes ago, viscount806x said:

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) 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?

 

the fabric wing kit only has the early curved lower edge type, with and without frontal armour. . 

Plenty of fabric wing Mk'is have the standard screen as well, so the use a standard canopy is a good fix for the kit. As with everything, work from a photo.   

 

all the other Airfix Hurricanes have the standard screen. 

 

Hmm.  This is one of those things that will require a photo trawl, but the screen style changeover happens early on,  only L**** planes, first production batch, have the curved screen.

 

Does that answer the question? 

 

I have just noticed this oddity both in markings and screen style

 

possibly a very early hood with external armour?

This maybe worth a separate thread.   

 

 

 

 

[Graham Boak]

22 minutes ago, StevSmar said:

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 doubt that, it is too far aft to be of any use for seeing AoA.  It'll only see flow parallel to the wing, and it is likely to be well in the boundary layer.   To be honest it looks more like a lifting bar that someone forgot to remove, but I doubt they'd do that...

 

I used to get confused about the difference between incidence and angle of attack when I was younger, but if you are setting up the fixed angle of the wing to the fuselage than this is incidence.  The angle of attack is the difference between the wing and the airflow.  Yes they do refer to "incidence gauges" on instrument panels so I don't think I'm the only one.

 

[mack]

47 minutes ago, StevSmar said:

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...

What I wanted to say was... not flat as a planar surface, but straight in transversal section; the width of the top line - just behind canopy - being fractionally smaller than the top flat panel of the sliding segment and then gradually decreasing and disappearing towards the fin leading edge.

 

Overall, the transversal section of the rear fuselage top deck should have been (on the prototype) more or less trapezoidal, at least for the first 30-40% of the length; and so significantly different from the one seen on the latter airframes (which is more or less ogival).

 

I personally consider it would have made more sense to treat the section in that way considering the geometry of the sliding hood of the prototype. Moreover, the polygonal segment that lies under the hood and links towards the pilot seat would have been a straight forward geometry.

 

For sure, it is only my educated guess.

 

Regards,

Iulian M.

[dogsbody]

1 hour ago, StevSmar said:

What has always intrigued me about this photo is what the “tube” on the stbd wing is for? 

 

I know my eyesight isn't what it used to be, but what " tube " are you talking about? I see no " tube " on any starboard wing.

 

 

 

Chris

[Ray_W]

3 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

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.

 

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, thanks for the great advice as always. It has given me some excellent guidance. Even building the Mk IIc from an Airfix Mk I seems a relatively simple modification and, for me, would be a very interesting build. I do not see many of the Hasegawa kits around. The Italeri, yes - but my current Italeri Stuka build, while challenging and interesting, has turned me off Italeri for the time being if there is a viable alternative.

[viscount806x]

2 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

 

the fabric wing kit only has the early curved lower edge type, with and without frontal armour. . 

Plenty of fabric wing Mk'is have the standard screen as well, so the use a standard canopy is a good fix for the kit. As with everything, work from a photo.   

 

all the other Airfix Hurricanes have the standard screen. 

 

Hmm.  This is one of those things that will require a photo trawl, but the screen style changeover happens early on,  only L**** planes, first production batch, have the curved screen.

 

Does that answer the question? 

 

I have just noticed this oddity both in markings and screen style

 

possibly a very early hood with external armour?

This maybe worth a separate thread.   

 

 

 

 

Thanks now what about an equally clear photo so that you can point out this additional glazing bar on later windscreens.  Additionally,  I can see the difference on the side screen lower edges but all the front screen lower edges all look curved to me, armoured or not, I'm still not getting it totally unfortunately. Probably unimportant I suppose.

[stevehnz]

Unless I'm missing something, & maybe have been for a long time, the extra glazing bar under discussion is the one on the side front panel at about the height of the side framing of the sliding part of the canopy. Early canopies don't have it, later ones do.

Steve.

[Troy Smith]

20 minutes ago, viscount806x said:

all the front screen lower edges all look curved to me, armoured or not,

 

they are!  has to as they sit on a curved cowling!

 

as I said, there are the two basic types.

 

I think that the early type has curved sides, which is why the base is a curve. 

more here of the Science museum Hurricane L1592

http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/mark_hayward/hurricane_mk1_l1592/

 

 

  the later type has flat sides

 

from here

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/76586-hawker-sea-hurricane/

 

looking at the two, I suspect the later type is both easier to make and stronger, and perhaps gives better visibility as well? 

[Smithy]

3 hours ago, viscount806x said:

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?

 

As I mentioned earlier in the thread I replaced the new mould Airfix glasshouse with that from an old mould Airfix. I was building the kit as the 85 Sqn airframe that there exist several photos of. For me, apart from the fact that the kit part wasn't right for the aircraft I was attempting to model, the new mould canopy is inherently flawed which (to my eyes anyway) throws the whole look of the model off. The problems as I see them are the framing is very wrong, the side framing is just far too high which throws the look completely out. I haven't measured it but the angle of the front windscreen also looks off, to me it looks too steep and without enough rake for the real thing.

 

Here's my RFI thread for my Hurri if you want to have a look. Straight off the bat, I'm nowhere near BM's most gifted modeller but I was far happier with the old Airfix canopy and at the end of the day it just looks more Hurri-ish than the newer one - well to me anyway.

 

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235061746-airfix-172-hurricane-i-fabric-wing/

 

Oh and BTW it was very easy to fit the old one on the new mould kit, tiny bit of sanding was all that was required.

Edited February 17, 2020 by Smithy

[Troy Smith]

37 minutes ago, Smithy said:

the new mould canopy is inherently flawed which (to my eyes anyway) throws the whole look of the model off. The problems as I see them are the framing is very wrong, the side framing is just far too high which throws the look completely out. I haven't measured it but the angle of the front windscreen also looks off, to me it looks too steep and without enough rake for the real thing.

 

see here, and the two linked threads for more on the canopy problem.

before any asks, it seems the Rob Taurus vac ones don't correct the error...

 

[Smithy]

1 minute ago, Troy Smith said:

 

see here, and the two linked threads for more on the canopy problem.

before any asks, it seems the Rob Taurus vac ones don't correct the error...

 

 

The framing is so ridiculously high you wonder how on earth they made such a balls up of it. Just out of interest Troy, is the front windscreen actually too steep? Maybe it's an optical illusion caused by other problems with the canopy but looking at it again and at other built models on the internet it just doesn't look to have the proper rake to the windscreen. it just doesn't look at all right.

[Troy Smith]

7 minutes ago, Smithy said:

Just out of interest Troy, is the front windscreen actually too steep? Maybe it's an optical illusion caused by other problems with the canopy but looking at it again and at other built models on the internet it just doesn't look to have the proper rake to the windscreen. it just doesn't look at all right.

 

Because it's too high, and this has stretched it out, but with the correct angles,  making it too skinny side on, making the side 'triangle'  the wrong shape.

 

50620678 by losethekibble, on Flickr

 

 

[Smithy]

Thanks for that Troy, I knew I wasn't imagining it!

 

Talking old and new mould Airfix. I have the old mould Airfix 1/48 Hurricane I which I just started this evening (after dropping my Roden 1/72 Fokker and couldn't face the jigsaw puzzle of putting it back together).

 

I'll start a WIP thread for it in the next day or so for it. Actually for an old kit it's lovely and the shape it very nice. The fabric effect is also much better than the Hasegawa 1/48 I made a few years back.

[viscount806x]

Thanks Troy et al for taking time to answer my queries.

Nige B

[StevSmar]

On 2/17/2020 at 12:20 PM, dogsbody said:

 

I know my eyesight isn't what it used to be, but what " tube " are you talking about? I see no " tube " on any starboard wing....

Hi Chris,

 

This is the tube I was referring to (hope it was ok to take a screen grab of the magazine...):

[StevSmar]

On 2/17/2020 at 11:10 AM, Graham Boak said:

.... It'll only see flow parallel to the wing, and it is likely to be well in the boundary layer.... 

.... I used to get confused about the difference between incidence and angle of attack....

 

Good point, it's unlikely to see much change in airflow. Unless the wing is about to stall? Maybe a stall warning gauge? Anyway, I'm intrigued about the purpose of the lifting bar that forgot to be taken off...LOL.

Thanks for the correction, yes I should have said incidence, not angle of attack.

[StevSmar]

On 2/17/2020 at 11:45 AM, mack said:

... Overall, the transversal section of the rear fuselage top deck should have been (on the prototype) more or less trapezoidal, at least for the first 30-40% of the length; and so significantly different from the one seen on the latter airframes (which is more or less ogival)....

Here's a cross section of the rear fairing for the Hurricane that's located about 1' back from the rear edge of the cockpit decking (say about 2' back from the rear edge of the cockpit). When you put the side rear fairings on, yes it's ogival like. I could see them just flattening the top part on the prototype.

All very interesting and lost to History now. Wouldn't it have been neat if the prototype survived!

By the way, I've never been able to work out who drew this cross section and how accurate it is. My belief is that it was stretched somewhat when it was scanned.

[StevSmar]

Does anyone know why this Hurricane has exhausts like this?

(Imperial War Museum MH 4936)

 

Mason's book said deliveries of aircraft in this series commenced 14-1-41 and ended 28-7-41 and that Z2515 was damaged and repaired by David Rosenfields Ltd in 1942. Maybe this picture was taken after it was repaired? Maybe they tried taking off the ejector exhausts to see how much effect it made, which is why it had a Hawker Aircraft record photo taken of it?

[dogsbody]

11 minutes ago, StevSmar said:

Does anyone know why this Hurricane has exhausts like this?

(Imperial War Museum MH 4936)

 

Mason's book said deliveries of aircraft in this series commenced 14-1-41 and ended 28-7-41 and that Z2515 was damaged and repaired by David Rosenfields Ltd in 1942. Maybe this picture was taken after it was repaired? Maybe they tried taking off the ejector exhausts to see how much effect it made, which is why it had a Hawker Aircraft record photo taken of it?

 

Maybe for the same reason this Belgian Hurricane has 6 exhaust pipes.

 

 

 

 

 

Chris

[Grey Beema]

I need a little guidance please?

 

I am building Hawker Hurricane I (Trop.) W9327 OL*W using the Airfix 1/48 Hurricane I (Trop.) kit.  The aircraft was part of the Royal Navy Desert Fighter Flight and was flown by Lt P N Charlton to destroy 3 Ju87s on 20.11.41, Charlton was subsequently Shot down by a 'friendly' tomahawk and later awarded DFC by RAF.  The aircraft wore the desert scheme of Light Stone, Dark Earth and Azure Blue.

 

Should the aircraft have the camouflage pattern as per the illustration below but with the Green replaced with light Stone, or is there an ‘opposite’ pattern (A or B scheme) which it should be in, was the A/B scheme dropped by then?  If the opposite scheme does anyone have a drawing of the pattern?

 

 

Thanks in advance..

 

 

 

[Graham Boak]

When it comes to desert Hurricanes it is best to rely upon photographic evidence, for many of these were incorrectly painted with the Dark Earth where the darker shade is shown in this plan, and the Middle Stone for the lighter colour.  This is the opposite of the intention: Hurricanes can be seen with the colours exchanged.  It is worth saying that the Temperate Land Scheme remained in use well into 1941, although November is perhaps a little late, particularly for a unit employed in the Western Desert.

 

Most photos of the RN Fighter Flight show the aircraft carrying only their individual codes.

 

Otherwise: note that Z2515 is a Mk.II with both the early tailwheel and a DH propeller.

 

[mack]

14 hours ago, StevSmar said:

Here's a cross section of the rear fairing for the Hurricane that's located about 1' back from the rear edge of the cockpit decking (say about 2' back from the rear edge of the cockpit). When you put the side rear fairings on, yes it's ogival like. I could see them just flattening the top part on the prototype.

All very interesting and lost to History now. Wouldn't it have been neat if the prototype survived!

By the way, I've never been able to work out who drew this cross section and how accurate it is. My belief is that it was stretched somewhat when it was scanned.

lovely drawing, thank you very much for sharing it. I think we all agree (that) the prototype could not have used the same shape for the former.

[StevSmar]

20 hours ago, dogsbody said:

 

Maybe for the same reason this Belgian Hurricane has 6 exhaust pipes....

Maybe, however the Belgian Hurricane is an early MkI, whereas the IWM image is of a MkIIa and the advantage of the ejector exhausts was well known by then?

 

Its got me intrigued.

Edited February 23, 2020 by StevSmar

[Work In Progress]

7 hours ago, StevSmar said:

Maybe, however the Belgian Hurricane is an early MkI, whereas the IWM image is of a MkIIa and the advantage of the ejector exhausts was well known by then?

 

Its got me intrigued.

What was known is not really relevant. Neither of those aeroplanes came out of the factory like that.  All production Hurricanes were built and supplied to the customer with the various exhausts we know. Both of those are local bodges, likely the result of inadequate spares availability. 

 

People do all sorts of weird sub-optimal things to keep aeroplanes flying. 

Edited February 23, 2020 by Work In Progress

[ClaudioN]

1 hour ago, Work In Progress said:

People do all sorts of weird sub-optimal things to keep aeroplanes flying. 

IWM MH 4633 to MH 4649 are a set of photographs of Hawker aircaft taken, I suppose, somewhere at Hawkers. Not all of them are available on line but those I can look at, all appear to be factory photos. No unit markings, plain standard finish, etc. To me, Z2515 doesn't look at all as an operational machine.

I'm simply assuming it was pictured while ejector exhausts had been left off for some reason like maintenance, or the like. It's boring, I know.

Edited February 23, 2020 by ClaudioN