All the Hurricane questions you want to ask here

[viscount806x]

17 hours ago, dogsbody said:

That is a venturi that supplied vacuum force to some cockpit instruments. After a vacuum pump was added to the engine, it was no longer needed.

 

https://www.cfinotebook.net/notebook/operation-of-aircraft-systems/gyroscopic-systems

 

 

 

 

 

Chris

Specifically, to run gyroscopic instruments, Turn & Slip, Horizon.

[StevSmar]

Does anyone have an idea on when upward firing flares stopped being fitted to Hurricanes? 
 

Finding a picture of this installation is on my list of Hurricane mysteries…

 

The following drawing excerpt was just posted on FB, which gives a hint:

 

[Dave Fleming]

Just picked up the new Zvezda mk IIc kit. (was interested to see how it compared ot the Arma one) and one thing I notice is it has the early cannon with the coils nearest the wing leading edge - does anyone know when production switched to the cannon with the coils half way down the barrel?

[Troy Smith]

1 hour ago, Dave Fleming said:

Just picked up the new Zvezda mk IIc kit. (was interested to see how it compared ot the Arma one)

it doesn't.   Been discussed here and on Farcebook Hurricane groups,  biggest glitch, its too short, basically a Mk.I, and in a few other factors, wrong carb intake, spinner like warbird, poor prop blades,  nose wing/fuselage panel flare and it's only advantage is it's cheaper and easier to build.  

1 hour ago, Dave Fleming said:

and one thing I notice is it has the early cannon with the coils nearest the wing leading edge - does anyone know when production switched to the cannon with the coils half way down the barrel?

I suspect this is into the CM/1 vs ES/9 spinner business,  no real rhyme or reason, both do the job and depends what's available,  but one tends to be an earlier fit,  (CM/1) and the other later (ES/9)  but both are seen throughout the production. 

It is one of my "questions"  and I have been meaning to go on a photo trawl, and  maybe there is a switch over point, so I may well be wrong about them being around in later batches......

 

Time to hit the books and sites.....

 

  

[Dave Fleming]

13 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

it doesn't.   Been discussed here and on Farcebook Hurricane groups,  biggest glitch, its too short, basically a Mk.I, and in a few other factors, wrong carb intake, spinner like warbird, poor prop blades,  nose wing/fuselage panel flare and it's only advantage is it's cheaper and easier to build.  

 

 

The nose is slightly longer than Arma mk I, but only in the bit before the spinner. Maybe time to build the 4 cannon Sea Hurricane I!

[Troy Smith]

2 minutes ago, Dave Fleming said:

 

The nose is slightly longer than Arma mk I, but only in the bit before the spinner.

I didn't check against the Arma kit. what came up, I think you may have commented, in Frank Campey's build over on Farcebook, was the length of the panel between cockpit and engine,  using measurements given in Hurricane Veracity,  it came up 2mm short. 

The Mk.I panel is 41 inches, the mk.II is 45 inches.

 

2 minutes ago, Dave Fleming said:

Maybe time to build the 4 cannon Sea Hurricane I!

 

That would be interesting, you could use the spare Arma DH prop. Where would you get the hook?  

Note, the only photographed Sea Hurricane IC, V6741,  has the mid barrel round spring type...

 

odd detail the tailwheel has been put into the grass in the above photo. 

 

I had a look at Asisbiz and Worldwarphotos briefly last night, re the cannon types,  not that many images where both cannon barrels and serial are visible.

The rear flat spring is the initial type, the mid round spring comes in later. 

Now, I had a look at the manual, and it talks about MkI and M.II cannon, so that may have some relevance? 

this, from the Spitfire manual

http://spitfiresite.com/uploaded_images/hispano-ii-spitfire-vc.jpg

 

shows the recoil spring is external, and perhaps has no bearing on the model in question.  

 

I'll @Selwyn  who has been a font of much detail about armaments that I've not seen posted by anyone else one here.  Selwyn, this is regarding the two types of recoil spring seen on the Hurricane, as asked a couple of post up. 

 

I'll also @dogsbody as Chris has all sorts of images filed, and may know the difference.

 

Again, my suspicion is like the spinners, the mid barrel spring was overall better, and became the preferred fitment.

BY the spinners, and preference, my guess, the  CM/1 has a single slot which requires a specialist key,  while the ES/9 has 6 screw heads,  and my guess is that just makes for more work attaching, but an overall easier method without need of a specialist tool, and possibly a more complex system to lock, and harder to fix if it does.  (another of my Hurricane questions) 

 

Gosh, aren't Hurricanes fun! 

[Selwyn]

1 hour ago, Troy Smith said:

I didn't check against the Arma kit. what came up, I think you may have commented, in Frank Campey's build over on Farcebook, was the length of the panel between cockpit and engine,  using measurements given in Hurricane Veracity,  it came up 2mm short. 

The Mk.I panel is 41 inches, the mk.II is 45 inches.

 

 

That would be interesting, you could use the spare Arma DH prop. Where would you get the hook?  

Note, the only photographed Sea Hurricane IC, V6741,  has the mid barrel round spring type...

 

odd detail the tailwheel has been put into the grass in the above photo. 

 

I had a look at Asisbiz and Worldwarphotos briefly last night, re the cannon types,  not that many images where both cannon barrels and serial are visible.

The rear flat spring is the initial type, the mid round spring comes in later. 

Now, I had a look at the manual, and it talks about MkI and M.II cannon, so that may have some relevance? 

this, from the Spitfire manual

http://spitfiresite.com/uploaded_images/hispano-ii-spitfire-vc.jpg

 

shows the recoil spring is external, and perhaps has no bearing on the model in question.  

 

I'll @Selwyn  who has been a font of much detail about armaments that I've not seen posted by anyone else one here.  Selwyn, this is regarding the two types of recoil spring seen on the Hurricane, as asked a couple of post up. 

 

I'll also @dogsbody as Chris has all sorts of images filed, and may know the difference.

 

Again, my suspicion is like the spinners, the mid barrel spring was overall better, and became the preferred fitment.

BY the spinners, and preference, my guess, the  CM/1 has a single slot which requires a specialist key,  while the ES/9 has 6 screw heads,  and my guess is that just makes for more work attaching, but an overall easier method without need of a specialist tool, and possibly a more complex system to lock, and harder to fix if it does.  (another of my Hurricane questions) 

 

Gosh, aren't Hurricanes fun! 

The basic difference between the MK I and MkII was that te Mk1 was  manufactured at the BMARC factory a wholly owned subsiduary company belonging to  Hispano Suiza in Grantham  specifically to produce  the cannons for the RAF in UK. These guns were to HS drawings and to metric dimensions and used a 60 round ammo drum.  It soon became clear that production at grantham would not be sufficient for RAF needs so  several other factories were set up under BSA management . These produced an anglicised version of the cannon which  used imperial dimensions, this was the MkII gun. This  gun featured a belt feed system. Both guns used a flat recoil spring.

The round coil spring was a feature of the MkV Hispano a much changed design which was 12" shorter than the MkI/II gun and designed to be largely enclosed in the wing/aircraft structure. This gun was only seen in late 44/45 initially on tempests, this gun was standard  until the mid 50's  on Meteors and Vampires  until superceded in the RAF by the ADEN Gun.

 

Selwyn

[Troy Smith]

1 hour ago, Selwyn said:

Both guns used a flat recoil spring.

The round coil spring was a feature of the MkV Hispano a much changed design which was 12" shorter

Thanks @Selwyn

 

But Hurricanes use two spring types, 

 

flat spring, initial type

 

 

round spring, later type

 

I presume both are Mk.II Hispano,  the questions is about the different springs. Any ideas? 

 

 

Both are ES/9 spinners BTW

[dogsbody]

I haven't got anything to add. I did do some searching last night but couldn't find much of interest.

 

 

 

Chris

[Dave Fleming]

5 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

I didn't check against the Arma kit. what came up, I think you may have commented, in Frank Campey's build over on Farcebook, was the length of the panel between cockpit and engine,  using measurements given in Hurricane Veracity,  it came up 2mm short. 

The Mk.I panel is 41 inches, the mk.II is 45 inches.

 

The panels on the Arma mk I and Zvesda kits are the same size, so it's definitely a mk I fuselage

 

5 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

That would be interesting, you could use the spare Arma DH prop. Where would you get the hook?  

 

Mk I hook is different from the mk II hook in the olde Revell kit I assume?

 

5 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

Gosh, aren't Hurricanes fun! 

Yes, that's why we love them!

[Selwyn]

3 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

Thanks @Selwyn

 

But Hurricanes use two spring types, 

 

flat spring, initial type

 

 

round spring, later type

 

I presume both are Mk.II Hispano,  the questions is about the different springs. Any ideas? 

 

 

Both are ES/9 spinners BTW

No they are both pictures of  flat section springs  If you look at the top (first)  ring on the second picture it is flat on the top. Probably the first image is a MkI and the Second image a Mk II   although both generally flat in section  they were not the same items one being metric standard and one imperial standard. In  the first picture the coils lie flat , the second picture they are set at an angle.  it appears that there was some redesign in the mk II, certainly it had a faster rate of fire than the mk I.  There are also more coils on the second image. Note that the  first picture the wing fairing is covering part of the spring the second picture it isn't.  The Mk V spring had greater space between the coils and was distinctly round in section it was also covered by aa fairing...

 

Selwyn

[Troy Smith]

1 hour ago, Dave Fleming said:

Mk I hook is different from the mk II hook in the olde Revell kit I assume?

I know of no reason why the hook would be different. 

Perhaps a bit stronger for the  Mk.II?   They look the same in photos, and the vast majority of Hurricane bits are the same between Mk.I and Mk.II, I was sent a list by @tango98 a while back, and it was about 85%  between a mid/late Mk.I and a Mk.II,  Hawker didn't change things unless they needed too.

Just had a look at the manual, which has Centre of Gravity diagrams, and, in the section, on Sea Hurricanes talk about 'Hooked Hurricanes' a IIB or IIC with a hook, and hook display, but other wise RAF standard and a Sea Hurricane as the same but  being equipped with a naval radio set up and equipped with a signal pistol and flares.

 

Which bring up the question, what was a hooked Hurricane for?  

 

[Troy Smith]

2 hours ago, Selwyn said:

No they are both pictures of  flat section springs  If you look at the top (first)  ring on the second picture it is flat on the top. Probably the first image is a MkI and the Second image a Mk II   although both generally flat in section  they were not the same items one being metric standard and one imperial standard. In  the first picture the coils lie flat , the second picture they are set at an angle.  it appears that there was some redesign in the mk II, certainly it had a faster rate of fire than the mk I.  There are also more coils on the second image. Note that the  first picture the wing fairing is covering part of the spring the second picture it isn't.  The Mk V spring had greater space between the coils and was distinctly round in section..

 

Selwyn

 

Hmm,  the 2nd mid spring does not look flat, even if set at an angle

just to add to the confusion, this is  LF686, at the NASM.   Maybe not relevant as a museum aircraft, but  NASM are noted for careful restorations.

 

this is the one in preservation 

http://armahobbynews.pl/wp-content/uploads/hurricane-iic-walkaround-17.jpg

 

 

wartime, these do catch the light the way a flat piece metal would not,  so round springs?  [added correction] 

 

 

 

 

 

this is the same as the Arma walkround, 

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-detail-of-second-world-war-hawker-hurricane-ii-two-wing-mounted-20-86267251.html

 

 

 

[FinnAndersen]

1 hour ago, Troy Smith said:

... Hmm,  the 2nd mid spring does not look flat, even if set at an angle ...

... wartime, these do catch the light the way a flat spring ...

 

Beg to differ, all of them looks round to me. Can anyone second that?

 

/Finn

[Troy Smith]

8 minutes ago, FinnAndersen said:

Beg to differ, all of them looks round to me. Can anyone second that?

 

/Finn

Poor proof reading on my part, I meant  it does look round.   I shall correct it.  Wrapped in searching up images. Thanks for spotting my mistake!

[gingerbob]

8 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

Which bring up the question, what was a hooked Hurricane for?

 

Non-operational use, i.e. training.

[ClaudioN]

I beg to disagree, at least in part.

Carrier-capable Hurricanes were always in short supply. Whereas 'hooked Spitfires' were training machines, Operation Torch Mk. IIs were much-needed front-line types. They might be considered 'hooked Hurricanes' but were normally called Sea Hurricanes too.

From 1943 on, with the exception of those Mk. IIc that went aboard some of the escort carriers (mainly the British-built ones), other 'hooked' Hurricanes were indeed used for training. However, this included No. 768 Sqn., a deck-landing training squadron whose Sea Hurricanes appear in several photos abourd Argus.

[Dave Fleming]

11 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

I know of no reason why the hook would be different. 

 

I was just thinking of the law of sod!

 

11 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

Perhaps a bit stronger for the  Mk.II?   They look the same in photos, and the vast majority of Hurricane bits are the same between Mk.I and Mk.II, I was sent a list by @tango98 a while back, and it was about 85%  between a mid/late Mk.I and a Mk.II,  Hawker didn't change things unless they needed too.

Just had a look at the manual, which has Centre of Gravity diagrams, and, in the section, on Sea Hurricanes talk about 'Hooked Hurricanes' a IIB or IIC with a hook, and hook display, but other wise RAF standard and a Sea Hurricane as the same but  being equipped with a naval radio set up and equipped with a signal pistol and flares.

 

Which bring up the question, what was a hooked Hurricane for?  

 

 

That rings a slight bell that Hooked Hurricane was used to describe aircraft built as mk IIB/C and converted for naval use, whereas Sea Hurricane was used for those build as naval from scratch

[Dave Fleming]

I found one source that described the early spring as the MK I and the later (mid barrel) one as the mk II. But not a primary source, so to be treated with a pinch of salt

 

[Graham Boak]

I did see a much later BAe document claiming that the Sea Hurricane Mk.I came in three variants.

Mk.Ia  accelerator (catapult) spools and pick up points, no hook, for the CAM ships.

Mk.Ib spools, pick,up points and arrester gear for the Fleet carriers

Mk.Ic  No spools, no pick-up points, but arrester gear for the escort carriers.  These could perhaps be referred to as  "Hooked Hurricanes", with qualifications below.

 

I have not seen any other documentation of any kind mentioning the Mk.Ic, other than the false references to the cannon-armed variant.  Mason does however claim 100 production examples of these, so this does lead to a question about these particular aircraft, if they can be attached to any particular production examples (which I doubt).  However, there might well be other details on the conversions that made a difference between a permanently land-based aircraft and one intended to go to sea.  The replacement of magnesium-based parts, for example.  Or different radio fits.

 

The FAA certainly used a lot of land-only aircraft for training, as they required a considerable expansion in personnel and had a comparatively low priority for dedicated aircraft,  The two, of course, are  inter-connected.

[Troy Smith]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

Or different radio fits.

 

this is the difference in the Mk.II manual

"

15 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

Just had a look at the manual, which has Centre of Gravity diagrams, and, in the section, on Sea Hurricanes talk about 'Hooked Hurricanes' a IIB or IIC with a hook, and hook display, but other wise RAF standard and a Sea Hurricane as the same but  being equipped with a naval radio set up and equipped with a signal pistol and flares.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

This is late in the naval Hurricane story but the Admiralty aircraft stocks report for 26 September 1943 has, Hurricane I, Sea Hurricane, Sea Hurricane Ia, Sea Hurricane Ib, Hurricane IIb (hooked), Hurricane IIc, Hurricane IIc (hooked).  The 30 October report adds Hurricane IIb.  Note the lack of Ic and the wide variety of official versions.

 

There were only Sea Hurricane I built in Canada, most stayed there and became Sea Hurricane XII, there were 60 Sea Hurricane IIc built in Britain, which seem to have become Hurricane IIc (hooked) in the inventory reports.  Apart from these 110 aircraft the RAF thinks 378 Hurricanes were converted to Sea Hurricanes, you would expect all from mark I, there were 479 mark I converted to other marks.

[PhantomBigStu]

All been agreed that the new Zvezda kits nose is way too short (and I’ve just confirmed it for myself using the Airfix mk1 /Revell mkii) any idea where best to cut to lengthen it? 

[Troy Smith]

12 minutes ago, PhantomBigStu said:

All been agreed that the new Zvezda kits nose is way too short (and I’ve just confirmed it for myself using the Airfix mk1 /Revell mkii) any idea where best to cut to lengthen it? 

here. By 2mm,  much easier to do with pre cut strip.   This is 1/48th.  Note this then means reshaping the wing fillets.   

 

Take dimensions from this, note this is where the stretch was done on the real aircraft 

 

see here for more on making a Mk.I into a Mk.II

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235077619-airfix-hurricane-iia-in-148th-gaffa-tape-here-we-come

 

Looking for something else, I ran across this, which shows the aerodynamic fairing at the rear of the wider carb intake.

 

 

one of the BBMF flight, 

 

note the flat triangle formed by the engine bearers leading from the main spare to the rear of the engine framework.  One of the few glitches in the Arma kit BTW, this gets missed.    More pics and detail in the link above. 

 

The carb intake could be sourced from an Arma  IIC/IIB built as a version with the Tropical filter.  

 

Though,  if this sort of thing bothers you,  I can't really see the point of getting the Zvezda kit,  as it's not the only problem, and one you start messing about like this,  it negates it's apparent 'cheapness'

 

HTH

PS, I don't know when the 3 ID/signal lights came, seems to a late modification though.  

[PhantomBigStu]

Thanks, should say for the record the nose is too short for a mk1 as well assuming the Airfix kit is accurate.