Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Patrik

Hawker Nimrod II – the port side panel lines

Recommended Posts

Has it been discussed before?

While preparing for my next project, I came across the following enigma. Whereas more or less all scale drawings/side views/colour profiles, ranging from the SAM articles from the early 80’s till the quite recent Mushroom Fury/Nimrod book (2007), show the large port side panel under the cockpit in metal:

1_scale_drawings.jpg

All the photos I was able to find show the same panel quite clearly as fabric covered. See below K4620 from late 30’s and recent photo of K3661:

2_photos.jpg

Is it just typical example of an error, copied over the years in order to become THE TRUTH? Or is there some “late mark” modification that I am missing and that justifies the scale plans etc. published over the years?

Even the CMR kit (I am preparing for) is rather schizophrenic regarding this issue, the box presenting the panel in metal, whilst the scale drawings in the kit and the kit itself having it correctly fabric covered.

3_CMR.jpg

Edited by Patrik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every period NImrod and NImrod II photo I have shows that as fabric - I suspect the drawings have just copied the starboard side, where that panel does appear to be metal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably the best drawings of the Nimrod are those drawn in 1968 by Tage Larsen from Danish sources. He also gives the the overall length at a, (in my opinion) more realistic 26'.11.75" and not the 26'.6" seen elsewhere. correctly he does not show the port side as a metal panel. I posit that the Fury I OAL (correct length 26'.8.75", not 26'. 8") was not measured over the rudder mounted tail light, but the Nimrod was (as shown in Larsen's drawings). this would account for some of the length difference.. Could the correct Fury length also account for the Fury II length being shown as 26'.9" in some records?

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just carried out a light board exercise with the Westburg Fury structural drawing and the Larsen Nimrod structural drawing, both of which are traced straight from Hawker originals and both scaled to the dimensions shown on the original drawings. eg, Fury I OAL shown as 26'.8.75" (no tail light) and the Nimrod shown as 26'.11.75" OAL (over tail light) and allowing for tiny discrepancies the entire length difference is taken up by the projecting tail light on the Nimrod tail. I dropped a number of verticals on the scanned computer drawings at various 'common points such as the rear of the cockpit, rudder post and prop backplate etc, and again allowing for tiny differences of drawing line and style all of these 'verticals' were spot on. The rudder outlines were the same.

I'm convinced that the two fuselage structures, apart from material and equipment specs, are the same. I would appear to me that there are a number of erroneous overall length dimensions quoted in different sources and I'm convinced that the Nimrod was never 26'.6" long.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me John if I am preaching to the converted........

Have you seen these photos of the TFC Nimrod at Duxford ???

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y200/penpusher/13%202015/01%20Duxford/209.jpg~original

It looks like its fabric....

More.....

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y200/penpusher/13%202015/01%20Duxford/194.jpg~original

Ken

Edited by Flankerman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ken

Yes the port side is fabric, which is why I mentioned that Larsen had not drawn it as metal in Post 3, where many other drawings show it as metal. I have a load of walk rounds of the Nimrod I and II. I also took time to point out some dimensional discrepancies.. There is a drawing around which shows the Mk.I as fabric and the Mk.II as metal which is wrong.

Regards

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've found that the drawing the metal paneling appears on, is the Mike Keep drawings which were done for AV news/SAM. Granger has it correct and has the Nimrod length as 26'.11.75" and when overlaid seems to be pretty good.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am happy my question was accepted with such an interest. Many thanks to all of you and especially to John for the correct answer.

So now with the culprit found (though most probably without the drawing pen still wet with ink), we can turn our eyes to other Nimrod mysteries.

I admit the length belongs to such a mystery. I did a research on all written references in my possession. The vast majority of them, no matter what age or language, uses 26’6.5’’ or quite similar figure in meters. I found just two exceptions. The Granger Danish Nimrod drawings (mentioned by John above) and the Putnam book on British Naval Aircraft by Owen Thetford both say 26’11.75’’. By the way this is the only Putnam book doing so, other Putnam books containing Nimrod are firmly on the 26’6.5’’ side. And then SAM Ian Huntley Column “The other Nimrod” lists the length as 30’2’’ which must be a typing error as the article as such is partly about options to convert Fury kits into Nimrod and it says that the dimensions table shows the subtle measurement difference between both Hawker airplanes. And as the table lists 26’8.75’’ for Fury I believe the author would not have used the word “subtle” for more than 10% difference in length.

And then there is the horizontal tailplanes span question for Nimrod II. The CMR kit contains two horizontal tail surfaces. One is some 10’1” wide, the other one 11’2’’. The kit instructions assign (in my opinion quite wrongly) the wider tail to the Danish version. Several references say that “…late series Nimrods featured slightly enlarged tail surfaces” (Putnam book on Hawker), “The Nimrod II had sweptback upper wing and larger tailplanes” (Mushroom) or “Later, a production Mk.II version appeared…. It also had an increase in tailplane span” (The Ian Huntley Column mentioned above). Among the scale drawings I have, only the ones from the Mushroom book and the ones from the Ian Huntley Column feature the wider tailplanes in Nimrod (II) plan views. So was the increased span a reality? And when was it introduced in the Nimrod II production line? Ian Huntley says also that the later Mk.II tailplane was “retro-fit to some Mk.Is”.

Patrik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some years ago, I worked alongside an engineer whose father had flown Nimrods. He stated that the description of the Mk.II as having a sweptback wing was wrong. I've certainly never seen any photograph showing one - and I'm pretty sure I've seen photos of Nimrods with Mk.II serials and a straight upper wing. Looking at it in engineering terms, there'd be no need for any change without a significant increase in mass behind the wing. The only obvious candidate is the arrester gear, but that was on the Mk.I already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Nimrod Mk.II certainly had the swept wing and to quote the pilot with experience of both Mk.i and Mk.II, Charlie Brown, who said the the sweep back of the Mk.II seemed to make no difference with the exception that "he had not been required to be in an inverted spin in an Nimrod fitted with floats" (the reason the sweep back was introduced).

The Fury type tail tail plane has a half bay between ribs 4 and 5 and the wide tail plane has a full bay between the 4th and 5th ribs. The photo in the MM book of an uncovered Danish tail plane (MK.II) has the half bay construction. but the structural drawings by Larsen show the full bay type.

My surmise on this is that the short Fury type tail was fitted to all 'as built' Nimrods but some of both types were later retro fitted with the larger span type. Remember that the Nimrod had a greater wing area than the Fury, with, I'm certain, the same moment arm and so a larger tail plane would be advantageous for stability, control loads and trim at higher power settings.

Sydney Camm went out of his way to ensure that there was as much commonality as possible between the RAF and Naval Fury/Norn variants and I am convinced that the Fury and Nimrod fuselages are the same in most respects and dimensions. Please see my thoughts in posts 3 and 4 above.

John

Note that the sketch shows the half bay tail but the drawing shows the full bay.

img225%20-%20Copy_zpsugbsackn.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent info that last drawing is going to be perfect for building up the internal framework for my ongoing Nimrod I build, in fact it is just what was needed to rekindle the modelling mojo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot for the convincing reference John. I knew I could count on you :-)

OK, so I am out now, counting the ribs on K4620 tail.

Patrik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

The larger horizontal stabilizers of Nimrod - where they really applied somwhere besided the float version? I have an article from SAFO with story on Danish airplanes with plans to Nimrod Mk II - and they are presented the same as Fury's one ("4.5 ribs" version) . On photos they look also rather narrow. The flying Nimrod II http://www.airplane-pictures.net/registration.php?p=G-BURZ has also four and half ribs tail.

BTW - the majority if not all profiles show only green top of upper wing for Danish Nimrod II whereas in interesting paper on Danish airplanes http://www.ole-nikolajsen.com/history%20acft%20dk.pdf, on page 9, there is a photo of Nimrod II with number "179" having without doubts two colours on upper wing. I am doing now Nimrod II and I am a bit puzzled about those colours...

Best regards

Jerzy-Wojtek

EDIT - No 170 has a single colour, No 179 has two on upper wing. So no puzzle here.

Edited by JWM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike Keep admitted many years ago in SAM, that he deliberately incorporated an error in his drawings. He was annoyed that his work was plagiarised, so he had proof his work had been lifted. It could be the panel was his 'deliberate mistake'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As did the late Gordon Stevens of Rareplanes. It's amazing what you can put in a line of rivets with Morse Code. :shutup:

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7-5-2015 at 23:27, dogsbody said:

Ik heb dit:

Nim% 20001.jpg

Hi Chris,

 

First of all: a happy New year.

I want to built a RC model of the Nimrod.

I would like to have the three view of A. Granger, bud I can't find the drawing.

Can you help me, maybe with a good copy of yours.

It is the best three view I could find.

 

Bert

On 7-5-2015 at 23:27, dogsbody said:

Chris

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bert,

The drawings were published in Planes No. 6 (Winter 1982/83) and later also in Wingspan No. 100 (June 1993). Both can be found e.g. on eBay, checked a minute ago.

Wingspan magazine evolved from Planes as far as I remember.

Patrik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the full page of my previous posting.

 

49312086611_424ee1b23f_b.jpg

 

 

If you should need a larger drawing, I could sent it to you through Gmail.

 

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7-5-2015 at 23:27, dogsbody said:

Ik heb dit:

Nim% 20001.jpg

Hi Chris,

 

First of all: a happy New year.

I want to built a RC model of the Nimrod.

I would like to have the three view of A. Granger, bud I can't find the drawing.

Can you help me, maybe with a good copy of yours.

It is the best three view I could find.

 

Bert

Quote

Chris

Will you please sent me the large copy of the drawing by email.

I could not find the original on the Web.

Thanks,

Bert

 

Chris

Will you please sent me the large copy of the drawing by email.

I could not find the original on the Web.

Thanks,

 

Bert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, Bert. Just PM me your email address.

 

 

 

Chris

Share this post


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...