pivokrevnik Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Where exactly was the dinghy fairing on Roc fuselage? I know where it is on Skua, but on Roc there is that retractable hunch at the same place. I would like to model those pulling cords on the fuselage surface. There were two lines - one leading to the tail parachute (I am already reasonably sure about its placement) and other leading to the dinghy. The dinghy one was apparently thinner as its less visible on photos and I can't make out its exact route and also its way of attachment to the fuselage. Any detail photos or drawings would be appreciated. The MMP book doesn't deal with this issue, sadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iang Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Here are the diagrams from the Roc Air Publication: 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pivokrevnik Posted October 20, 2015 Author Share Posted October 20, 2015 thank you very much!! the drawings also depict other things I didn't even ask for - like the catapult spools or vent pipe access door. Btw, on the SH kit, there is an angular prominent fairing just in front of the parachute stowage. there is no such thing on this drawing though? However as for the dinghy release cable, I am even more confused now. on the drawing description the cable seems to go completely elsewhere than to the dinghy position?! if you have more of such drawings, I will greatly appreciate them. Or if you point me out where to find them online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iang Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 The drawings are from Air Publication 1571, which provides construction/maintenance details of every aspect of the aircraft. I copied it at the FAA Museum (along with Skua, Osprey, Walrus, Seafox). There is too much in it to copy and post on-line I'm afraid, but there are no other diagrams that are relevant to the dinghy stowage. Sometimes these are available from sellers on eBay (either quite cheap as digital versions, or as very expensive period documents). I've bought a few others in digital form, but you don't see the very early war aircraft Air Publications very often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyot Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 I have a feeling that both cables travelled along the fuselage together. Here is a ref picture that I used for my models; And both SH 48th models in case these are of use; Good luck, Tony 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 The photo looks to have two cables (open/shut or release?) presumably for the parachute plus an additional higher single cable - for the dinghy housing? There was also an external lanyard housing on the Barracuda - doesn't impress me with Admiralty thinking on aircraft drag. I know this is down the back end of the aircraft so less important, but really! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyot Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Hiya Graham, Yes that is why I included the photo, to show that both cables for the dinghy and parachute appear to have run together,....it makes sense really. Other aircraft like the Beaufighter (rear cupola to wing) and Hudson (astrodome to door) also had a dinghy release cable running along the outside of the fuselage as well as the Roc and Barracuda. The Hudson set up appears to be an extra modification as earlier aircraft didn`t have it. Cheers Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) I think we're crossing lines (cables?) somewhere, Tony. I see three cables, two running together, and another running separately. I think the separate higher one is for the dinghy housing. So they don't run together to different positions - unless there's another use for the top cable? The one shown on your model is actually a twin (not a criticism of the model). I did look back just in case the appearance of a twin was just shadow, but not judging from the fittings or a lack of a shadow on the upper cable. Talking of which, it runs from the forward cockpit to a pull ring where a single through cable would seem more appropriate. Is this the original fitting from the original Skua re-routed around the turret fairing and extended? Edited October 22, 2015 by Graham Boak 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyverns4 Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Interesting thread, great pictures and some lovely models! Tony can you give the background to the second model with the black, (Night?), undersurface? Also, why have a parachute sitting in the tail? The mind boggles... Christian, exiled where the sun dont shine, well today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 The design started as a dive bomber, so this could be some emergency recovery feature. The usual reason for a tail parachute is for carriage during spin trials, so it could (but probably doesn't) indicate some awful spin characteristics. I say "probably not" because I don't recall reading about any such, and having the fin ahead of the tailplane is a good anti-spin feature (see Arado aircraft and the MB326 as particular examples). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pivokrevnik Posted October 22, 2015 Author Share Posted October 22, 2015 The usual reason for a tail parachute is for carriage during spin trials, so it could (but probably doesn't) indicate some awful spin characteristics. I say "probably not" because I don't recall reading about any such, Both Skua and Roc had awful longitudinal (?) stability, at least according to what I have read, so you are probably right. It's not like Roc had such a high landing speed (or ANY speed ) to facilitate a need for a tail parachute (which would be the only other plausible reason). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Also, why have a parachute sitting in the tail? The mind boggles... To stop the Roc going supersonic. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Poor longitudinal stability would mean nodding up and down, and hence difficulty in weapon aiming, which is not desirable in a dive bomber. Given the success of the Skua, clearly this wasn't terribly significant. It could however be at least part of the reason why the production aircraft had the engine moved further forward, if the prototype suffered from this. The Roc has a large turret effectively adding side area behind the cg, which would normally add stability. However there would be vortices shedding alternatively from each side of from the large circular turret introducing vibration/judder. The turret will have moved the cg aft, not generally a good idea, so the Roc may well have suffered additional instabilities in both longitudinal and directional axes. Not having been a stability and control man, I'm pushing the limits of my knowledge so shall say no more. Being heavier than the Skua, the Roc will have had a faster landing speed, but no not that much. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyverns4 Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) Cheers guys! Edited October 22, 2015 by wyverns4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyot Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 (edited) Hiya Folks, First of all my apologies Graham,......to be honest I had not even clocked the upper cable,...hence my confusion,.....dohh!! Christian- Glad you like the models mate, they both appeared in an article that I wrote some time ago for Model Aircraft Monthly which also featured a historical article on the type including a number of photos depicting Skua`s and Rocs with black undersides and toned down roundels. My understanding was that these aircraft were used in conjunction with British MTB`s in the nocturnal war fought in the Channel and North Sea against E-Boats by acting as flare droppers. They were based at Eastleigh, probably with 759 NAS. The S1E camouflaged Roc was used to carry out a dive bombing attack against gun batteries on the French coast during the withdrawal of the BEF. Tail parachute- my understanding is that it was an anti spin device,.....apparently the turret made the Roc even harder than a Skua to pull out of a spin? Cheers Tony Edited October 23, 2015 by tonyot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martian Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Thanks for those pictures Tony, they will come n handy when I eventually do my 1/48 floatplane conversion (on hold due to lack of beaching gear). Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyot Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 (edited) Thanks for those pictures Tony, they will come n handy when I eventually do my 1/48 floatplane conversion (on hold due to lack of beaching gear). Martin No worries Martin, glad they are of use. Have you tried asking on BM whether anybody has a set of beaching gear left over from their Tamiya Swordfish floatplane? Cheers Tony PS- I meant to say that I used longer prop blades on my Skua`s and Rocs,........I used converted blades from the Tamiya Mosquito of all things! Edited October 23, 2015 by tonyot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex-FAAWAFU Posted October 24, 2015 Share Posted October 24, 2015 Thanks for those pictures Tony, they will come n handy when I eventually do my 1/48 floatplane conversion (on hold due to lack of beaching gear). Martin Is that a Roc floatplane conversion? Holy Oddities, Batman! I know there was at least one, because I have seen a (possibly the only) photo. It must have been so slow that the Earth's rotation made it fly backwards - but a great subject for a model. I am tempted to build the (projected, but never actually built) Albacore floatplane one day. Mind you, at my present rate of finishing, I'm going to have to live to be about 150 to get round to it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now