Jump to content

All the Hurricane questions you want to ask here


Recommended Posts

I would go with numbers under both wings, as was the standard. 

 

An example, care of Iliad Decals:

 

 

50182997032_b294a5f5c3_o.jpg

 

 

 

Chris

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much, Chris, for the information and this diagram.  I was not familiar with Iliad Decals so I book marked it.  I'm sorting through my decals to see what may be suitable.

George

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dogsbody said:

I would go with numbers under both wings, as was the standard. 

An example, care of Iliad Decals:

Hello Chris,

maybe I am wrong, but from the photos you posted 313 did have numbers under both wings, 315 seemingly under one only. Perhaps a trick of light, I do not know.

I would also think that underwing serials were not in the standard RCAF style, like in the Iliad decals example you show above, but in the style used by Hawkers. The peculiar shape of the '5', in particular, suggests this to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎03‎/‎08‎/‎2020 at 01:18, Carl V said:

Concerning early RCAF Hurricane serial numbers.

I don’t know if I have been responsible for any confusion here – if so I apologize – but here is the story as I see it.

On the Canadian government’s inquiry concerning Hurricanes, the British Air Ministry agreed to relinquish  positions on the Hawker production line that had been previously allocated to RAF aircraft. At that point the Air Ministry passed out of the picture and had nothing whatsoever to do with these aircraft.

...

Therefore, it follows that, in light of these contracts, the data plates would show the Canadian serial. Furthermore, it is obvious from later events that the British never assumed that these RCAF/ex-RCAF Hurricanes had ever been allotted RAF serials.

As far as the relevant RAF serials are concerned, there is no doubt that they were never allotted to RAF aircraft. Whether rightly or wrongly, in my airframe histories, I have quoted them as “intended” both to satisfy my penchant for including even ephemerally relevant information and also to indicate their positions on the production line relative to RAF aircraft. Probably I should have used a more watered-down expression than “intended.”

Doubt you are responsible for any confusion.

 

The RAF Documentation, First contract card notes serials L1547 to L2146, 600 aircraft.
Contract summary card, Requisition 26/36 Contract 527112/36 for 520 mark I plus 80 for other governments.  All 80 for other governments were allocated an RAF serial and have entries in the contract cards and delivery logs against the relevant serial noting which country they were sold to.  The 80 include the following contract as far as the RAF is concerned.  Requisition 215/38 Contract 966177/38 for 20 mark I purchased for Canada.   So the RAF was noting where the aircraft were going to and using the RAF serial for its record keeping, rather than allocating it to another aircraft.

 

I do not see anything wrong with intended as a description, similar for the Hurricanes from the order sold to other countries.  They all had RAF serials allocated, I have no information what serial was painted on each at roll out or put on the data plate, but there is a good chance it was the purchaser's, not the RAF one, given the data plate for RCAF 323 and that other Hurricanes in the order were sold to South Africa and Turkey as ex RAF aircraft, not contract diversions/deletions.  It probably depended if the purchaser let Hawker know early enough.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some more from Carl:

 

The great majority of the photos in my collection depicting these aircraft show them with serials under both wings. As far as 315 is concerned, if forced to do so I would come up with some sort of wishy-washy comment such as “several photographs indicate that Hurricane 315 at one time may have carried only a single underwing serial.”

            The attached photo of 316 is probably the best that I have that shows the placement and style of the underwing serials on a single aircraft.

            I find Claudio’s comments on the style of the serials of interest. Alas, I am not sufficiently qualified to make any statement. However, I can say that documentary evidence indicates that the RCAF was supposed to supply the stenciling for the serials as, apparently, it was a different style than that used by the RAF. Whether the RCAF did not follow through so the RAF-style was used, whether they did follow through but Hawker used the RAF-style anyway, or whether the RCAF style was actually applied on some/all are possibilities.

Carl

 

 

50184910168_f595fffc2a_b.jpg

 

 

 

I've been through all the images that I have and those from websites I can access and I' know it it difficult to see both serials at the same time. Sometimes you can only see the starboard underwing serial and sometimes only the port side. To my mind, that says that both were painted on, but as the underside is usually in shadow, it makes the serial difficult to see. Also, there are very few photos taken from the front, so we're S.O.L. in that regard.

 

 

 

Chris

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My only comment on 315 is that I've always been confused what is going on in the photo Jack posted.  It looks like it is being taped up to paint the leading edge of the wing.  I wonder if it is possible that the wing on 315 got dinged at some point and was replaced?  And when replaced, they added the serial?  This is total hypothesis on my part based on no evidence.

 

Jim

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and I like the use of "intended" for the RAF serials.  But then I would never disagree with Carl V!

 

Jim

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Was just checking my notes on RCAF Hurricanes collated over the years.  and had a note about an Avro font.   Nothing found online, but ended up on a page where the author created a downloadable font for RCAF interwar years called Camp Borden,  and it's not part of his larger set of fonts from WW2:

http://aircraft-in-focus.com/early-canadian-military-aircraft-font-by-august-horvath/

 

It doesn't have the characteristic angle on the upper vertical arm of the number five as seen in some photo examples (referring back to the images on the Silverhawk link).

 

 

regards,

Jack

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, airjiml2 said:

It looks like it is being taped up to paint the leading edge of the wing.  

 

I just noticed that today, as I was going through my RCAF Hurc pics.

 

 

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Hurricane paint question.

 

Were the undercarriage doors painted the same on the outside as the inside? 

 

I have this photo that seems ( to me ) that there was a slight difference. Is it just a trick of the light? Different reflection?

 

49884870562_bee178becc_o.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JackG said:

It does seem the particular photo of 315 on the previous page had only one underside wing serial, but may more photos show the starboard side with a forward facing serial:

 

http://silverhawkauthor.com/canadian-warplanes-3-the-second-world-war-and-postwar-hawker-hurricane_686.html

 

Hawker-Hurricane-Mk--I--RCAF--Serial-No-

 

regards,

Jack

Thank you JackG for this link

 

Thank you all for this wonderful discussion and for the photos and drawing particularly provided by Chris.  I'm clarifying my mind on where I'm taking these two Arma models.  I have delayed my decision on the identity on the earliest one until I can go through all the information and photos provided here.  I have settled on the identity of the second one, it is Battle of Britain YO-N (V6605) used by RCAF 1 squadron.  There is no particular reason for this aircraft except I have some clear photographs of it and the availability of decals in my collection and I trust everything else is consistent with the Arma kit.  My reading indicated that RCAF 1 squadron wasn't re-number to 401 until March 1941 and the early Hurricanes  would have been gone by then so my earlier plan to do a 401 sqd aircraft was incorrect .      

 

I'm new here, and I need to look into how I can insert pictures to this site.  

 

Thanks again

George

Link to post
Share on other sites

This one:

 

50186700357_0e3b7e8714_b.jpg

 

 

This is from a Carl Vincent article.

 

 

 

Chris

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Chris

That is one that I used.  For me, it certainly clarified the type of fin flash and the lack of the the sky fuselage band.  My copy was in Carl Vincent's magazine (High Flight, Sept/Oct 1982, pg.176) that he published for awhile in the early 1980s. He did a history of RCAF sqd 1/401 over a number of issues. I was a subscriber and there was a lot of good Canadian content in them. 

 

The Arma kit has a large number of stencils but they have not been evident on the early Hurricanes based on my review of photographs so far.  I nay case, they would show up well on the bottom of the silver wing and I should look more carefully on the photographs provided here to see if there are any evidence of them here.  Any comments?  I added a number to the BoB version so far.

 

Also the tip of the spinner is a different colour, perhaps red, but I do not know where I got that idea, does anybody know?

 

Thanks again

George     

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, George W. said:

Thanks Chris

That is one that I used.  For me, it certainly clarified the type of fin flash and the lack of the the sky fuselage band.  

 

 

Two weeks (well 12 days) before the Sky band was introduced

Edited by Dave Fleming
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Dave, I did not know that.

I just glanced at my Vincent photos again and noticed that the fin flash evolved from full vert stabilizer covering (as I used), to a smaller one slightly cropped by the leading edge (various variations on this), to a much smaller one that fits well within the vert fin, and then one that has a much narrower white bar.  

George 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thin white band was in combination with the similarly different roundels, aimed at reducing the visibility of the the earlier design.  From A to C, to use the common postwar (but unofficial) terminology.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to say like a bad penny I am back to ask some more questions. These might have been explained in earlier posts, but I may have not read it correctly so I really just would like clarification.

 

It looks like I am going to build the Hurricane VY/Q of Sqn Ldr P Townsend having markings on Xtradecal sheet 72225 which is also help by a certain web site. Now the side view shows the aircraft as being P3166 (number supplied on sheet), whilst the top/bottom view shows it as being P3854 ( number not supplied on sheet). Having read some of the earlier post he did fly both aircraft, and am I correct in saying that P3854 was a fabric winged aircraft. The main question I have is was P3166 a fabric wing aircraft as yet again I think I read that he preferred these type of Hurricane? Also from what I read P3166 was shot down in Aug1940ish(?), so was P3854 his replacement for this aircraft? I do think that from looking at the underside pictures of P3854 the roundels are not quite correct, but I will have to use what is supplied.

 

I have managed to find a rotol prop for the model that I am building, plus a set of 5 spoke wheels which I think is correct.

 

I hope that what I am asking is not too confusing for you as it seems to be for me and any help will be gratefully received.

 

The side views.

resized_32747657-d74f-47d8-beb0-ace4e6b9

 

The top/bottom views.

resized_f8cbc386-662e-41d1-9270-f81be76c

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jabba said:

The main question I have is was P3166 a fabric wing aircraft as yet again I think I read that he preferred these type of Hurricane? Also from what I read P3166 was shot down in Aug1940ish(?), so was P3854 his replacement for this aircraft? I do think that from looking at the underside pictures of P3854 the roundels are not quite correct, but I will have to use what is supplied.

Fabric-winged Hurricanes only came from the Hawker production line at Brooklands. P3166 was a Gloster-built Hurricane.

Looking again into the book by Bruce Robertson on British Aircraft Serilas, from where I took the list of serials of Hurricanes produced with fabric-covered wings, P3854 is not reported among them either. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jabba said:

It looks like I am going to build the Hurricane VY/Q of Sqn Ldr P Townsend having markings on Xtradecal sheet 72225 which is also help by a certain web site. Now the side view shows the aircraft as being P3166 (number supplied on sheet), whilst the top/bottom view shows it as being P3854 ( number not supplied on sheet). Having read some of the earlier post he did fly both aircraft, and am I correct in saying that P3854 was a fabric winged aircraft. The main question I have is was P3166 a fabric wing aircraft as yet again I think I read that he preferred these type of Hurricane? Also from what I read P3166 was shot down in Aug1940ish(?),

 

 

Quote

 

so was P3854 his replacement for this aircraft?

P3854 for his plane when 85 Squadron was sent to Church Fenton in Yorkshire after being in the front line.  Townsend got shot down in P3166 and was wounded. 

See here for a history of P3166

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234914438-85-squadron-royal-air-force-hurricanes/

the photos of P3854 were taken in the 7 October 1940. (as stated in above link)

Quote

 

I do think that from looking at the underside pictures of P3854 the roundels are not quite correct, but I will have to use what is supplied.

P3166 is metal winged, and as depicted on the sheet, did not have underwing roundels.

If the sheet says P3854 is a printing error.   P3854 has a different 'Q' rounded corners, P3166 has squared corners.

46968276104_341852e7c8_b.jpg85 Squadron 46 by Сергей Кривицкий, on Flickr

And, while I was doing this MORE decal design stuff up on VY-Q/P3166

 

33880446618_f7ccc48958_b.jpg85 Squadron 51 by Сергей Кривицкий, on Flickr

the codes on the starboard side read VY-Q, not as the instructions, Q-VY

The fin flash is wrong. the stripes are too wide.  And the upperwing roundel placement is wrong,  slightly too far out.

resized_32747657-d74f-47d8-beb0-ace4e6b9

 

Note,  when this sheet was being designed,  there was a consultation thread on here (now gone, don't know why) but I can assure you that it did require several corrections,  I know I had to draw lines on a photo to convince the designer that the 'F' on the UF-S scheme port side had a longer stroke than the 'U'

Oh, and the "thanks" on the decal sheet is all we got

 

there are more shots of P3166 here BTW

https://www.flickr.com/photos/144949377@N05/albums/72157704898371932

 

 

For comparison, Q is the last plane with the hexagon.

CH1503_2c.jpg&key=9598839fd0a2126a86a989

YOU CANNOT BUILD P3854 from the Xtradecal sheet accurately.  If you are not fussed about the different Q shape,  and can find the right serial numbers, you can.

 

Quote

I have managed to find a rotol prop for the model that I am building, plus a set of 5 spoke wheels which I think is correct.

You do not  need 5 spoke wheel for either P3166 or P3854.

 5 spoke wheels are seen on Hurricanes from the first two Hawker batches, serials starting L or N.

If you are building P3166, you need a metal winged Hurricane kit, which should have the Rotol prop.

 

If, reading between the lines, you are trying to use the Airfix fabric wing kit,  you cannot build P3854 from the box. 

You need a new windscreen and the add the rectangular fabric hatch to the starboard side.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, ClaudioN said:

P3854 is not reported among them either. 

but as there are a series of photos clearly showing the underwing, this shows P3854 to have a fabric wing.

 

50037883012_f4bd632f87_b.jpgHurricanes-Is-RAF-85Sqn-in-group- crop enlarge by losethekibble, on Flickr

If you need, click the image,  you can see the 5 ejector slots and perhaps clearer in comparison with the other planes, the landing light is a bay inboard.

 

P3854 is in a list of later aircraft built with fabric supplied by @Geoffrey Sinclair  from production records.

It also confirmed that two other aircraft that have been discussed here on occasion,  were built with fabric wings, and they retained them in service.

P3886

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235005804-hurricane-p3886-uniqe-fabric-wing/

V7203

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235049865-fabric-wing-hurricane-v7203/

 

note that this is mislabelled on the sheet as P3010 (which may have been LE-T as well)

Hawker-Hurricane-I-RAF-242Sqn-LET-SubLt-

 

That this was noticed and confirmed to have a fabric wing is a recent discovery.

 

Hurricanes.  Really simple, until they are not.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

The thin white band was in combination with the similarly different roundels, aimed at reducing the visibility of the the earlier design.  From A to C, to use the common postwar (but unofficial) terminology.

Thanks Graham

There was a logical explanation behind my rather general comment in any case.

George  

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

as there are a series of photos clearly showing the underwing, this shows P3854 to have a fabric wing.

Troy,

no doubt it is a fabric-wing Hurricane, but I can't read the serial on that photo, nor the individual letter. I assume you know from other photos in the series that it is definitely P3854 and 'Q'.

Possibly, this one?

15 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

For comparison, Q is the last plane with the hexagon.

CH1503_2c.jpg&key=9598839fd0a2126a86a989

 

14 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

P3854 is in a list of later aircraft built with fabric supplied by @Geoffrey Sinclair  from production records.

The question I had about P3854 is because, according to Bruce Robertson, a range of 50 Hurricanes built by Hawker at Brooklands, P3854 to P3903, included 31 fabric-winged Hurricanes. Their serials were given as P3858-P3869, P3872-P3875, P3882-P3889, P3897-P3903.

I know @Geoffrey Sinclair has extensive original documentation, delivery logs, etc. Maybe he can explain the discrepancy?

 

15 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

It also confirmed that two other aircraft that have been discussed here on occasion,  were built with fabric wings, and they retained them in service.

P3886

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235005804-hurricane-p3886-uniqe-fabric-wing/

V7203

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235049865-fabric-wing-hurricane-v7203/

You may see I am among the posters in the two threads you have linked. Those serials do match with the list of fabric-wing Hurricanes provided by Bruce Robertson in his books on RAF Serials.

 

Thank you

 

Claudio

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ClaudioN said:

I assume you know from other photos in the series that it is definitely P3854 and 'Q'.

Possibly, this one?

yes.

I linked to a photo series,  maybe lost in the post.

I will admit to taking that P3854 IS VY-Q as being correct.   It is always stated as being this.  I have taken this as being correct.

Air Britain P3854 - 7OTU/85/ 257/56 OTU. 

 

But, correct serial or not, the lead aircraft in the photos is Q,  and does have fabric wings.  

 

1 hour ago, ClaudioN said:

You may see I am among the posters in the two threads you have linked.

Indeed.  You started the V7203 thread, for which I am grateful.    I have found the threads and discussions on here have greatly added to my knowledge Hurricanes,  so  added in the links as I find cross linking helpful,  and it's a public forum, so  and makes it easier for others to follow up other threads and information.

 

cheers

T

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

 

 

50037883012_f4bd632f87_b.jpg

 

Complete thread drift, but i always smile when I see that image in the titles of the Big Bang Theory TV show!

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...