A Flight of Fanciful Fairey Fireflies: FR.1 & TT.4

[Navy Bird]

On 9/7/2015 at 03:33, NAVY870 said:

Gentlemen Gentlemen

Have I not rubbed it in frequently and without remorse that I have a unsullied and superb example of

Fairey's finest in my care?

If wing fold details is what you seek then wing fold details you shall have.

Do you prefer happy snap or schematics from the manual?

 

Schematics or exploded view drawings that show the hinge mechanism would be the ticket. The following photo, which is borrowed from the BM walkaround section, shows what I believe to be the hinge on the fixed portion of the wing:

 

 

The axis of the hinge, if I understand this correctly, is set at a compound angle with the bottom both farther aft and outboard. An exploded view or assembly drawing - that would help me understand how this works.

 

On 9/7/2015 at 10:53, hacker said:

Bill l have the in action book and the warpaint one both in pdf if you need it. As for the above won't mind a set of schematics from the manual if l am so bold to ask

 

Thanks for the offer, but I have those two in hard copy as well as Paul Bradley's new book. Details on the wing fold are notoriously difficult to see in most of the photos since it is hidden from most camera viewpoints.

 

PC - your reply came in while I was typing this. Yes, the plan would be to fold the wings just on the TT.4 (so you can see those lovely stripes on the bottom of the wings).

 

Cheers,

Bill

[fatalbert]

And the Sea Vixen (knocks the cr*p out of that Javelin thing); the Sopwith Triplane; the Pup; the Firefly (especially the elegant nose of the Mk 4 onwards); the Swordfish (obsolete in 1939, yet still being built and doing invaluable work 6 years later when there were front line jets...)... and that's before we cross the pond and factor in F4 (yes, I know the RAF & USAF eventually flew it, but it was a Naval jet originally), the F14...

Besides, I'll see your Scimtar and call you with the Swift - a piece of junk so egregious that it took 6 marks before anyone managed to do anything useful with it!

"OI" leave the Swift alone,one of my favourite a/c,though I also like the Attacker and Firebrand so I must be a bit twisted lol.

[Miggers]

'Ellow,'ellow.

Missed this Billy and just read through the lot.

I see the usual mob have waded in which'll make it all even more interesting.

You say about your mojo going for a burton,mine's vanished at the mo.

I still have a Sea Vamp.22 at about 87%,a Seafire 46(Airfix 22 conv.)at about 90%and a Seafire.47('nother Airfix 22 conv.)

at about 75%.

What with turning the spare room into a tiny English wartime aircrew local pub and scurrying off down to the farm and blast away

at the local wood pigeon population with No.1 son(phone rings,it's Pete our farmer " Can you and Rob get down here quick?there's about a 100

woodies on the field we've just combined")to try and keep 'em off local farmer's crops,modelling seems to have taken a

seat way down the back of the bus of late.

Like the idea of folded and stowed with the.4.

[Col.]

Nice work on those 'pits Bill. You keep this up and I'll be tempted to drag the unfinished Airfix monstrosity out from under the bench again.

...with lots of flying at 250' and a fair amount at 100' through the Scottish and Welsh Hills...

Was that 100' above sea level? Because, to butcher an old joke about our Puma pilots in N.I., the only reason they made the Jaguar undercarriage retractable was so you buggers could fly lower.

Anyway, all this is banter - the reality is that the two services have way more in common than the propaganda would have you think; the FAA & the RAF are very different... but only in ways that actually don't matter in the slightest. Taking the p*ss out of Cr*bs is deeply ingrained in all WAFUs, and vice versa. Whenever we actually worked together, there was nothing but mutual respect.

But Navy aircraft are way cooler. That's just a fact!

Good to see the inter-service rivalry is alive and well. All I can add to that is the army point of view; The air force is high above and the navy far away, along with most of the bloody officers.

Athough as the son of a FAA pilot I'm naturally biased to Navy aircraft.

Thread drift Alert!

RIGHT!

Let's see now....

Blackburn Skua

Blackburn Roc

Fairey Fulmar

Fairey Barracuda (oh dear gods)

Blackburn Firebrand

Westland Wyvern

Supermarine Attacker

Fairey Gannet

Supermarine Scimitar

I could go on....

I'll give you Hawker Sea Fury (even if it is only a 'hooked' Tempest II), Hawker Sea Hawk (but the Hunter was better) and Backburn Buccaneer.

Not really a great track record Crisp.

Sorry Bill!

First i'll say 'hansome is as hansome does' and see your list with Fairey Battle and Boulton Paul Defiant then raise you Sea Harrier

Ahem, so anyway, yes to folding the TT.4 wings Bill. That sounds cool and not a horrendous amount of work at all

[Fritag]

Was that 100' above sea level? Because, to butcher an old joke about our Puma pilots in N.I., the only reason they made the Jaguar undercarriage retractable was so you buggers could fly lower.

First i'll say 'hansome is as hansome does' and see your list with Fairey Battle and Boulton Paul Defiant then raise you Sea Harrier

Them was the authorised limits Col. Like 70mph on a motorway.........

I have been reticent about entering the whole who had the coolest aircraft thing (not least cos the F18 was just about my favourite aircraft in the 80's) - but I feel the need to say only one word on the topic.

Lightning.

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

Them was the authorised limits Col. Like 70mph on a motorway.........

I have been reticent about entering the whole who had the coolest aircraft thing (not least cos the F18 was just about my favourite aircraft in the 80's) - but I feel the need to say only one word on the topic.

Lightning.

Fair point.

(Though not conclusive, obviously!)

For some reason long lost in the mists of 1960s boyhood, the Crabair machine I always thought was coolest of all was the Victor. Monstrous payload, elegant wing, huge range, transonic, evil looking nose - everyone raved about the Vulcan, and having been raised near Waddington I can see that it was / is a mighty machine. But for me it was always the Victor that won the coolness stakes, Crabwise.

Buccaneer, however - born a generation earlier, I'd gave given my eye teeth to fly Buccaneers off a carrier. S2s, please; Gyron Juniors were definitely NOT cool!

Edited September 7, 2015 by Ex-FAAWAFU

[Ascoteer]

I feel the need to say only one word on the topic.

Lightning.

I'm not saying a word...

[Lightningboy2000]

Hi Bill, hope my photos of the ARC Fairey Firefly are of help as seen in the Walkaround section. https://www.flickr.com/photos/data70/sets/72157623931948544/

I was going to attempt the same as you with the Special Hobby kit a few years ago but have bottled out. That was the main reason for taking the pics at Duxford.

Having a look in the Aircraft Restoration Company work shed at Duxford the other day I could see a wing from the Swedish Firefly under restoration. Hopefully I'll be able to get some more pics in the near future, and hopefully it will be a return to flight. I was once told that despite the exterior state, it is in pretty good working condition.

But I might have to take reference from your build first if you're going to build one folded. Looks like it would be a very intricate job especially inserting the fuselage centre recesses.

Martin

[Navy Bird]

On 9/7/2015 at 19:00, Fritag said:

- but I feel the need to say only one word on the topic.

Lightning.

 

P-38? Ar 234? J7W? P.1? YF-22? F-35?

 

On 9/7/2015 at 19:08, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

For some reason long lost in the mists of 1960s boyhood, the Crabair machine I always thought was coolest of all was the Victor. Monstrous payload, elegant wing, huge range, transonic, evil looking nose - everyone raved about the Vulcan, and having been raised near Waddington I can see that it was / is a mighty machine. But for me it was always the Victor that won the coolness stakes, Crabwise.

 

+1 for the Victor. The head-on view is just so British. Ya gotta love it.

 

On 9/7/2015 at 20:25, Lightningboy2000 said:

Hi Bill, hope my photos of the ARC Fairey Firefly are of help as seen in the Walkaround section. https://www.flickr.com/photos/data70/sets/72157623931948544/

I was going to attempt the same as you with the Special Hobby kit a few years ago but have bottled out. That was the main reason for taking the pics at Duxford.

Having a look in the Aircraft Restoration Company work shed at Duxford the other day I could see a wing from the Swedish Firefly under restoration. Hopefully I'll be able to get some more pics in the near future, and hopefully it will be a return to flight. I was once told that despite the exterior state, it is in pretty good working condition.

But I might have to take reference from your build first if you're going to build one folded. Looks like it would be a very intricate job especially inserting the fuselage centre recesses.

Martin

 

Thanks for the link, Martin! I hope you don't mind my borrowing your photo above. I think you are right about the fuselage centre recesses, but at least your photo set includes views of both the port and starboard sides. It's hard at first to decipher what you're looking at, but I think I've figured it out. Are you close to Duxford?

 

This project may take longer than I first thought. But tackle it I must, because, well, who wants to sit around and count rivets all day?

 

Cheers,

Bill

[NAVY870]

Thread drift Alert!

RIGHT!

Let's see now....

Blackburn Skua

Blackburn Roc

Fairey Fulmar

Fairey Barracuda (oh dear gods)

Blackburn Firebrand

Westland Wyvern

Supermarine Attacker

Fairey Gannet

Supermarine Scimitar

I could go on....

I'll give you Hawker Sea Fury (even if it is only a 'hooked' Tempest II), Hawker Sea Hawk (but the Hunter was better) and Backburn Buccaneer.

Not really a great track record Crisp.

Sorry Bill!

Two points of order:

1. The Sea Fury is not a "Hooked Tempest" it is in fact a development of the light weight Tempest named the Fury that

Crabs knocked back. (Probably had a bit too much poke for the poor pets)

Point 2. The Gannet is a thing of unique beauty and a more than adequate sub killer, any one who says other wise will be asked to step outside

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

God, what have I done? One throwaway piece of self-evident banter and we have on-line fights!

I note Debs didn't mention the truly cool aircraft. You know, things like the Seamew & Sturgeon.

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

And the Wasp

[NAVY870]

Sea Balliol anyone?

[moaning dolphin]

Glad to see you're going for at least one wing fold Bill. It will be interesting to see how it goes, best of luck with that! I have seen the Airwaves wingfold set but not actually used it, I'm not sure it would be a wise investment as Plasticard may work better but I am happy to be put straight if anyone has used it and would like to say different. My experience with Airwaves etch has not been too successful.

And while we are at it:

Blackburn Blackburn, so good they named it twice!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Blackburn

Just remember beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

Bob

[heloman1]

Hi Bill, how could I have missed one of your builds, I'm now playing catch-up... I've two of these kits so I'l be paying attention.

Colin

[NAVY870]

These are for the AS.6 but is the same for all the variants

I'll keep the manual beside my desk in case there are any more questions.

[Navy Bird]

On 9/9/2015 at 02:30, NAVY870 said:

These are for the AS.6 but is the same for all the variants

<snip>

I'll keep the manual beside my desk in case there are any more questions.

 

Great stuff, Steve! Thank you so much for posting this, and for keeping the manual ready just in case.

 

The hinge itself is fixed in position, and the complex movement of the wing (folding back while rotating) is accomplished solely by the compound angle of the fixed hinge. Rather clever engineering - the Fairey engineers, er, the engineers from Fairey, thought in 3-D without the need for computers and CAD software. Just some log and trig tables, a couple of slide rules, and there you go. Brilliant!

 

The wing fold on the Grumman F4F, F6F, and TBF is a similar concept, except that it folds with the top of the wing facing outward. On the Firefly it's the bottom of the wing.

 

Now the wing and flap fold on the Barracuda - that's a crazy one.

 

Cheers,

Bill

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

Look at the Fulmar build elsewhere on this very site at the moment and you will detect the grandfather of the Barracuda wing fold. Same idea, but the Barra's Fairey-Youngman flaps made it more complex.

[moaning dolphin]

Look at the Fulmar build elsewhere on this very site at the moment and you will detect the grandfather of the Barracuda wing fold. Same idea, but the Barra's Fairey-Youngman flaps made it more complex.

Not sure what came first, Fulmar or Barra? A bit like the chicken and egg, I couldn't believe they would go from the graceful Fulmar to the pig ugly Barra!

[Navy Bird]

On 9/9/2015 at 13:51, moaning dolphin said:

Not sure what came first, Fulmar or Barra? A bit like the chicken and egg, I couldn't believe they would go from the graceful Fulmar to the pig ugly Barra!

 

First flight of the Fulmar was on 4 January 1940, the Barracuda 7 December 1940. The Firefly, for comparison, was on 22 December 1941. Lots of concurrent projects going on at Fairey! But then there was a war on...

 

The Barracuda was pig ugly? I suppose you're going to say the same thing about the Gannet!

 

Cheers,

Bill

[Navy Bird]

Back to the Firefly...

 

I decided to glue the wheel wells into the FR.1 wing, and being a short run kit, there are no locators of any kind. I eyeballed them as best I could, taped them in and adjusted as necessary. Once I had them taped into the position I wanted, I added some styrene strips to butt the resin wells up against.

 

 

Now it was easy to place the resin pieces against the strips and use CA glue to secure them in place. I think they look pretty nice from the oily side:

 

 

Now for some work on the TT.4...

 

The resin wheel wells for the TT.4 also incorporate the radiators that were mounted in the leading edge of the wing. Special Hobby thought they were doing me a favour by also casting the vanes that are inside the air intakes. I think they tried to cast them at scale thickness, which resulted in them being paper-thin. Needless to say, they didn't survive shipment or my handling as can be seen:

 

 

I'll remove the stubs that are left and replace with thin card stock. Next up is my trusty old razor saw so I can remove the pour blocks from the TT wheel wells. Done! You don't need to see photos of that again, do you?

 

I've also identified what I think are the correct panel lines to use when cutting the outer wing sections off. This will be a tricky cut, due to the need to keep the entire flap on the bottom with the outer wing section - this means that I'll be removing a section of the underside of the fuselage. The inboard edge of the flap is almost on aircraft centreline. Yikes!

 

Cheers,

Bill

[pivokrevnik]

Bill, btw, the underslung radar pod is made by Aires in resin. I dunno how the plastic one included with the kit looks like, so this info might or might not be useful for you...

[moaning dolphin]

First flight of the Fulmar was on 4 January 1940, the Barracuda 7 December 1940. The Firefly, for comparison, was on 22 December 1941. Lots of concurrent projects going on at Fairey! But then there was a war on...

The Barracuda was pig ugly? I suppose you're going to say the same thing about the Gannet!

Cheers,

Bill

The Gannet is a thing of beauty IMHO so could never say that about it! Also some pigs are ugly but look cute and aesthetically pleasing in some bizarre way!

Great progress by the way, and good luck with that wing fold cut, measure thrice cut once!

Bob

[Navy Bird]

Hi mates,

 

The TT.4 cockpit modules are assembled and waiting to be installed in the fuselage. Here is the rear pit:

 

 

I really wish black cockpits didn't photograph so, well, black!

 

I also read somewhere (Paul's book I think) that the shoulder harnesses for the guy in the back seat were anchored to the canopy sill. I will add those towards the end of the builds with some photoetch generic British WWII harnesses that I have in my Magic Box of Fiddly Bits.

 

One glaring omission in the 1:72 Special Hobby FR.4/5 and derivative kits, like the TT.4, is the lack of the carburettor intake below the spinner. I know that some have opened this area up, thereby creating the intake, but there is not a lot of room. To demonstrate, I marked the plastic to be removed with a black marker:

 

 

The real carburettor intake looks to be a bit larger than the available plastic in the kit, though (cool photo!):

 

 

I thought of a few options. One way is to open up a hole in the area that I highlighted in black and leave it at that. That would make a nice "smile" shaped intake opening. Or, I could cut a piece of black decal to form the "smile" and use that instead of opening it up. The problems with both of these methods is that I will lose any representation of the inside top of the intake. And, I think the smile will be too small.

 

So how about this: I sand the fuselage plastic down so that it better conforms to the spinner, especially on the underside of the nose. I will remove a lot of the plastic in this area, but I believe it's thick enough to hold up. Then, I use styrene card to scab an intake onto the bottom of the fuselage. It would seem that this is similar to real life, as evidenced by the panel laying on the floor in this photo taken at the Canadian Warplane Heritage (the panel with the "G" on it). Ten points if you can identify the aircraft starboard of the Firefly:

 

 

If I scab on an intake panel, I wouldn't want the profile of the lower area of the nose to depart from reality. The modeller has already done that, and that is enough! This photo shows the profile of the lower nose area on the model:

 

 

Does the bottom profile look like it curves up too much towards the nose? It seems that way, ever so slightly, when compared to the profile illustrations by Srecko Bradic in Paul's book. It has to, if the area for the intake is too small. Once I start sanding away on the underside of the nose it will look that way even more so.

 

I guess I'll need to get some reliable scale drawings that I can compare the kit to. Any suggestions? And what do you all think of my idea to scab on the intake? Have the last tendrils of my mind been lost? Should I take the easy way out and just use a decal?

 

Cheers,

Bill

[Navy Bird]

A quick mashup of the scab idea...I painted the "inside" of the new intake flat black, and taped things together. Obviously, there would be a lot of putty fairing all this together into a smooth surface.

 

 

From the side:

 

 

I think the intake opening is too large in this mashup, but this would be rectified by the sanding of the current lower nose surface which, in the scab idea, actually becomes the top surface inside the intake. Did that make sense? I tend to foam at the fingertips sometime.

 

I think the idea has some merit, but I need to sleep on it some more. Or maybe drink on it some more - Memsahib, more Fullers!

 

Cheers,

Bill