Avenger kit difference

[NZKIWI]

I have been looking at the Airfix and Academy 1/72 Grumman Avenger kits and I am curious as to why there is 6mm difference in the length of the main undercarriage bay between these two kits ? Airfix has this as about 32mm while Academy is about 26mm . Both kits have main undercarriage legs of approximately 25mm and the wheel diametres are 12mm for the Airfix and 10mm for the Academy .

[Work In Progress]

No idea, but given the enormous age of the Airfix kit and Academy's rather cavalier approach to accuracy in the kits if was producing around that time I wouldn't have enormous confidence in either being correct. What I would be inclined to accept is the relevant measurement off a 1/48 Accurate Miniatures one, adjusted for scale. Hopefully someone here has one and can measure it for us...

[tempestfan]

The Academy kit is in fact almost of the same age as the Airfix as it is a "refined" (engraved panel lines) copy of the Frog kit (that's why the observation blisters of Frog's FAA version are still included in the Aca kit). I can't give any definitive answer re the u/c well differences, but I'd tend to think that a carrier aircraft would have a long stroke u/c. Some aircraft compress the struts on retraction, but if a long stroke u/c is not compressed, it may well lead to a longer bay being required, even if the leg on the ground under load is much shorter.

The wheel size difference may be explained by the Frog kit representing a TBF-1C (or similar), while the Airfix is a TBM-3, which may have had a larger wheel.

[72modeler]

I second the comments made by Tempestfan and WIP...both kits have shape and dimension issues, and if you lay a fuselage half from the Airfix kit against its opposite from the Academy kit, you will see what they mean! IIRC, the Hasegawa TBF/TBM kits are the best in 1/72 scale, but are probably not in the current catalog and/or would pretty pricey, I would think, on your side of the pond.You might go to Hobbylink Japan's website to see if the Hasegawa kit is still available- they would also probably have the best price. If you want to enhance the Hasegawa kits, you could look for resin detail sets from CMK or KMC for the interior and bomb bay, as well as etched sets from Airwaves and Eduard. I seem to remember some discussion when the boxing of the TBF-1C in FAA markings came out, that it really couldn't be built OOB, but needed some minor enhancements...the obseration windows needed to be replaced by bubbles? Sorry, it's been a long time ago that I examined the kits from all three makers, but I am confident somebody more current or more well-versed in the Avenger can help. It sure is a pretty bird in the Atlantic search or TSS scheme!

Mike

[Denford]

A clear case for a 'state of art' Avenger kit (with folding wings) from.....

[72modeler]

Go on, you can say it.....Airfix!

Mike

Whew! I'm feeling much better,now!

[Wez]

With options for -1, -3 and -3E, greenhouse (e.g. non-turret) canopy...

One thing to watch when comparing the current Airfix and Academy kits is that the former is a -3 whilst the latter is a -1 and have different fuselage shapes

[dalea]

Length of the Academy fuselage matches (near enough) the Hasegawa and the Hi-planes conversion

[Troy Smith]

With options for -1, -3 and -3E, greenhouse (e.g. non-turret) canopy...

One thing to watch when comparing the current Airfix and Academy kits is that the former is a -3 whilst the latter is a -1 and have different fuselage shapes

not really, they have a different exhaust and cowl flaps and a different front cowling, and a different prop.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1291426583

AFAIK the basic Avenger airframe stayed the same through all the variations.

For question on US types, I suggest Hyperscale, as they have more Americans and a better knowledge base on US types.

eg

http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1159530450

http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1125938952

Nothing really conclusive

in this thread

http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1312146770

Iain Wyllie (noted aviation artist, he's done a few Osprey covers) mentions

I have 8 books on the Avenger and ....... August 1 2011, 4:07 PM

the best drawings are in the WWP book, Avenger TBF/TBM in Detail. As well as the 1/72 drawings in the book, it comes with a fold-out 1/48 drawing.

HTH

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

I have a question about the Academy Avenger. Can you make it OOB as a British Avenger and if so what mark would it be? I'm not too up on Avenger's but I know the kit has the domed side windows that some British Avenger's had and my suspicion is that it would be a Mk I if any.

Also, I have the Hasegawa (1/72 of course!) TBM-1C Avenger (Atlantic boxing), would this be the correct type that George Bush snr flew from USS San Jacinto (I have decals for that one). Before anyone says anything political (please don't), I want to model that one as it's the one from Duxford.

thanks

Mike

[Troy Smith]

I have a question about the Academy Avenger. Can you make it OOB as a British Avenger and if so what mark would it be? I'm not too up on Avenger's but I know the kit has the domed side windows that some British Avenger's had and my suspicion is that it would be a Mk I if any.

Also, I have the Hasegawa (1/72 of course!) TBM-1C Avenger (Atlantic boxing), would this be the correct type that George Bush snr flew from USS San Jacinto (I have decals for that one). Before anyone says anything political (please don't), I want to model that one as it's the one from Duxford.

thanks

Mike

Hi Mike

confusingly the FAA define a Mk I as Grumman built plane, while a Mk II is an Eastern built plane, not related to the US subtype.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1334181611

TBF =Grumman, TBM =General Motors

The -1 of both went to a '-1C' which changed the forward-firing armament to two .50 cal wing guns, up from one .30 cal cowl guns. Some minor fuselage window changes in the early, early TBF-1

Somewhere in there came the ASB radar, the visual evidence of which was the underwing yagi antennas.

The -3 (TBM only) got an engine upgrade (different cowl, and exhaust, new prop) and eventually:

Underwing rocket rails followed by stubs (the rails may have been on late -1s)

Underwing center section wing racks, with a 58 gal drop tank.

Later -3s and the night variants dropped the ventral gun and added either a leading edge radome or an underwing radar pod. These radars replaced the ASB.

FAA planes also had some cockpit differences, and who built them affects the paint. Grumman used MAP specified, GM/Eastern used US 'equivalents'.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1187302409

Here is a quick primer on FAA Avengers.

Tarpon/Avenger I: All Grumman built TBF-1b and TBF-1c.

the TBF-1b is an expor version of the TBF-1.

Tarpon/Avenger II: All Eastern Built TBM-1 and TBM-1c

Avenger III: All Eastern built TBM-3

All were delivered with the second cockpit similar to the TBF/M-1, but with British radios. All were delivered with the bubble observers windows on the fuselage sides.

As for colors, all MK.I a/c were delivered in shades of EDSG, DSG, and sky which matched the MAP shades.All had Bronze green cockpits and tinted zinc chromate crew areas. The remainder of the interior was probably in "Grumman Grey", esp the cowl.

All Mk.II were delivered in US colors of Olive Drab, Sea Grey ( close to Neutral grey) and USN Non-Specular Lt. Grey. The entire cockpit was in interior green. The remainder of the interior of the airframe was in tinted zinc chromate or yellow Zinc chromate primer.

All Mk.III were delivered in Glossy Sea Blue.The remainder or the paint was as the Mk.II

So what you need is the serial number to see

1- Who built the a/c

2- was it a -1 or a -1c?

I hope this helps!

Bruce

this is a -1, note cowl gun

this is a -1C cowl

this is a -3 cowl, note lower intake, different flaps(more of them) exhaust and wider prop blades, same type of prop on a later -1 Corsair IIRC

EDIT - I used this pic because it showed the cowl, but the F4U-4 in the background puzzled me.

Photo is from March 1946, Operation Frostbite, on USS Midway

more shots here - http://www.midwaysailor.com/midway1940/frostbite.html

HTH

[Graham Boak]

Just to add to the list, the BPF received TBM-3Es with the underwing ASH pods, although not many actually saw service in WW2. I believe that these were pure Lend-Lease aircraft without the interior mods and bulged observer's window, but I can't say that definitely.

[Seawinder]

No idea, but given the enormous age of the Airfix kit and Academy's rather cavalier approach to accuracy in the kits if was producing around that time I wouldn't have enormous confidence in either being correct. What I would be inclined to accept is the relevant measurement off a 1/48 Accurate Miniatures one, adjusted for scale. Hopefully someone here has one and can measure it for us...

I happen to be working on an A.M. 1/48 kit.

Not exactly sure what's the actual inner edge of the bay, so here are two measurements:

From pink line to green line is 51 mm. From blue line to green line is 47 mm.

[Work In Progress]

Good info, thanks.

[Tailspin Turtle]

Wheel wells are one of those features for which good, dimensioned manufacturer's drawings don't usually exist. If an actual article is not available to measure, kiit designers usually have to guess from side views, pictures, etc. For what it's worth, the TBM-1 tire was 34" in diameter, which equates to 12mm in 1/72 scale. Scaling two different pretty good Grumman drawings, I estimate that the wheel well (equivalent to Seawinder's pink to green lines) was about 31mm. That suggests that the Airfix kit is the more accurate.

[dalea]

Academy wing is about 1/8 is shorter (on each side) than either Airfix or Hasegawa. Hasegawa & Academy wheels are 7/16 th ins; Airfix 1/2 in.

Now that I look, of more concern is the geometry of the well itself. Hasegawa's inner edge runs fore and aft which will result in the main gear cover doing the same. Academy's and Airfix's will form an angle like the blue line above. Now, where's me old photos?

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

I've just read a review that states the Academy kit is accurate (more or less!) for a TBM-3 not a TBF-1 that it is labelled as. It certainly does not have a cowl gun like early Avengers. The only real issue (for those not bothered about 100% accuracy) is the domes for the side windows (which are for British Avengers.

My other Avenger kit is a Hasegawa TBM-1C (Atlantic camouflage), so here's my initial thought, I'll make the Academy kit as a USN TBM-3 but leave off the domes and make the side windows flat. I'll make the Hasegawa kit into a Royal Navy Avenger Mk II, using the domes from the Academy kit. Does this sound like an Ok plan to Avenger experts?

thanks

Mike

[Tailspin Turtle]

Academy wing is about 1/8 is shorter (on each side) than either Airfix or Hasegawa. Hasegawa & Academy wheels are 7/16 th ins; Airfix 1/2 in.

Now that I look, of more concern is the geometry of the well itself. Hasegawa's inner edge runs fore and aft which will result in the main gear cover doing the same. Academy's and Airfix's will form an angle like the blue line above. Now, where's me old photos?

Angled is correct.

[detail is everything]

Just to add to the list, the BPF received TBM-3Es with the underwing ASH pods, although not many actually saw service in WW2. I believe that these were pure Lend-Lease aircraft without the interior mods and bulged observer's window, but I can't say that definitely.

See post 11 in http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234989488-grumman-avenger-as-mk-iv-suez/ for a summary of late and post war FAA Avengers

[detail is everything]

On 2/21/2016 at 6:34 AM, Mikemx said:

I have a question about the Academy Avenger. Can you make it OOB as a British Avenger and if so what mark would it be? I'm not too up on Avenger's but I know the kit has the domed side windows that some British Avenger's had and my suspicion is that it would be a Mk I if any.

Also, I have the Hasegawa (1/72 of course!) TBM-1C Avenger (Atlantic boxing), would this be the correct type that George Bush snr flew from USS San Jacinto (I have decals for that one). Before anyone says anything political (please don't), I want to model that one as it's the one from Duxford.

thanks

Mike

I add my pennies worth (based on various postings made here and elsewhere) - sorry for the picture distortions. If you click on them, they revert to original size.

FAA AVENGERS (TARPONS until January 1944)

Production details and Exterior/interior colours

Wheel wells, struts and covers were normally the underside colour. The wheel wells on camouflaged TBF/TBMs of the RN were usually either painted to match the undersides Sky or in a few cases bright yellowy-green Zinc Chromate.

US colours used for TSS

Grumman used MAP colours, Eastern used ANA substitutes.

Grumman--Dark Slate Grey (FS 34096), Extra Dark Sea Grey (FS 36118), Sky (FS 34583).

Grumman used equivalent paint shades, ie colours that matched the official British colours and not substitutes ie colours that, while not matching British colours, were officially approved as being acceptable alternatives. The paint used by Grumman throughout the war on camouflaged British aircraft may not have been made in Britain but it was indistinguishable from paint that was.

Eastern-- Olive Drab ANA 613 (FS 34130), Sea Grey ANA 603 (FS 36173), Sky (FS 34504).

Sea Grey ANA 603 was British Extra Dark Sea Grey so wasn't a substitute as such.

Sky Type S Gray ANA 610 was meant to be equivalent to British TSS Sky as well but there was apparently a difference, albeit slight (see below).

.

There was no ANA equivalent for Sky Grey simply because at the time of the ANA consolidation it was not required by any service as a paint colour. 'Sky Type S Gray' (or Grey) was terminology used by Dupont for its Sky equivalent paint 71-021 and is nowhere near FS 36373 in appearance by any measure. British requirements for Sky under surfaces were commonly communicated and specified as 'Duck Egg Blue' rather than as any form of grey. The ANA 610 standard for Sky is close to FS 24424 and was retained until 1949 when it was superseded by FS 34424.

 

The ANA terminology for Sky was simply 610 Sky. Although the JAC consolidation recommended that "the British Sky Type S Gray be accepted as standard" when the ANA colours were officially listed in Bulletin 157 of 25 September 1943 it was designated simply as "610 Sky". Bulletin 157a of 24 March 1944 listed it as being equivalent to or superseding the British MAP colour standard for Sky. It continued to be listed in subsequent editions of Bulletin 157 as "610 Sky" without further cross reference to the British colour until Bulletin 157d of 11 March 1959 (not 1949 as originally stated) when it was listed simply as "Sky" with the colour standard FS 34424 to be employed to supersede ANA 610.

 

In the Technical Resources document for FS 595C of 2008 the colour name for FS 34424 is listed as "ANA 610" with no mention of Sky!

 

In terms of difference Jerry S Smith in his 'ANA Standard Aircraft Colors 1943-1970' (1972) observed that FS 34424 and ANA 610 were "identical". This agreed with Ross Whistler's earlier 'USA(A)F Camouflage 1933-1969' (1969) where the two colours were described as an "exact match". Both were working to FS 595a and June 1943 ANA colour samples. Smith made the important comment that the 595a color chips "are not considered completely accurate by GSA as far as paint production is concerned".  

 

With paint batch variance and weathering the differences between FS 34424,  ANA 610 and MAP Sky approach the academic.

 

Black appears to have been painted over the nose and down the side, sometimes right down the side, back to the leading edge of the wing on some Temperate Sea Scheme /Anti Submarine camouflaged squadrons on North Atlantic/Norway operations (see following photos, p320, 853 NAS Air Britain Publications - Sqdns of the FAA and photo of JZ150 below). Perhaps for night strikes?

Tarpon (Avenger) I: Grumman built

401 TBF-1B (export version of TBF-1) and TBF-1C serialled FN750 to FN949, JZ100 to JZ300. Not clear when switch to TBF-1C occurred. Not until at least after FN908

TBF-1 FN767

TBF – 1 FN908

TBF-1C JZ150

Since Grumman had dealt with the Fleet Air Arm prior to the advent of Lend-Lease for the sales of early Martlet fighters, Grumman-built Avengers used Dupont paints mixed to Fleet Air Arm approved TSS camouflage colours (Extra Dark Sea Grey, Dark Slate Grey and Sky) with a “hard edge” colour demarcation.

The first and second cockpits in Bronze Green, the radioman’s compartment, the turret, and the bomb bay in Interior Green, with the cowling interior in light grey.

Tarpon (Avenger) II: General Motors Eastern Aircraft Division built

226 TBM-1 and TBM-1C (equivalent to TBF-1 and TBF-1C) serialled JZ301 to JZ526. TBM-1C from JZ361

108 TBM-1C serialled JZ527 to JZ634

JZ574

10 TBM-1 and TBM-1C serialled VL401 to VL410 (reconditioned aircraft. Delivered to FAA but none allocated to squadrons)

40 TBM-1, TBM-1C and TBM-3 serialled VL432 to VL461, VL501 to VL510 (reconditioned aircraft. Delivered to FAA but none allocated to squadrons)

6 TBM-1C and TBM-3 serialled VL994 to VL999 (reconditioned aircraft. Delivered to FAA in Australia but none allocated to squadrons)

Eastern Aircraft-built Avengers used US TSS equivalent camouflage colours of Sea Grey, Olive Drab, and Sky Grey, with a more “soft-edge” colour demarcation.

The cockpit, turret and radio compartment in overall Interior Green and the bomb bay and cowling interior in Zinc Chromate.

Avenger III: General Motors Eastern Aircraft Division built.

Initial deliveries of the Mk.III were from TBM-3 production. Most of the JZ635-720 batch were TBM-3E, and it is this batch that saw limited WW2 service. I would not expect a one-to-one relationship with the BuAer serials, however sensible it may seem. The KE batch were TBM-3Es, and went to the UK.

80 TBM-3 / TBM-3E serialled JZ635 to JZ720. US BuAer No.s indicate that the first 16 aircraft were TBM-3s and the final 64 were TBM-3E. (If there had been a one-to-one relationship with the BuAer serials, this would suggest a switch to TBM-3E from JZ651. However, AB picture of JZ654 (see below) shows TBM-3 characteristics – indented lower cowl flaps, stinger gun position extant, MK5 zero length rocket launchers but no underwing rack for an AN/ASP-4 radar pod

Some Mk.III`s were delivered to the UK and were used post war, mostly on trials duties but most went S India and then some on to Australia and would have replaced the Mk.II`s serving aboard the BPF Fleet Carriers if the war had not ended when the bombs were dropped. Suddenly there was no use for all of these Mk.III`s so many were dumped at sea but those units remaining in theatre for any length of time re equipped with Mk.III`s and at least a couple of squadrons went to sea with them. Service records for aircraft of this batch end in 1946, when they were returned or more likely dumped.

50 TBM-3E serialled KE430 to KE479 (only 38 delivered to FAA and none allocated to front line squadrons). Most of those delivered, were used by second line squadrons until the late 40’s. Many of them were reconditioned ex US Navy aircraft and the SBG finish shows definite overpainting of the US Stars and also the previous US Navy sqn/carrier markings on the fin/rudder and upper wings too,....it is something to look out for on the few available photos including the well-known KE461.

KE446

KE436 (see http://www.aviationphotocompany.com/p83129484/h55523C1C#h55523c1c)

However they must have had the FAA mods made prior to delivery (see below re fixture and fittings for 1945/46 TBM-3Es).

Some reconditioned TBM-3s in VL serial range delivered to FAA but none allocated to squadrons (see Tarpon (Avenger) II above). Except for VL994 to 999, which reported to Sydney aboard HMS Reaper 9.45. The last three appear to have been Mk.IIIs. Three others, described as "elderly", were handed over to the FAA at Norfolk "possibly as GI".

Delivered in Sea Blue Gloss with an ant-glare Non-spectacular Sea Blue panel in front of the cockpit. Interior colours as per MKII. With the introduction of Sea Blue Gloss paintwork, the wheel wells were seen to be painted matt black on factory fresh machines. This was done so that any cracks caused through metal fatigue would be more easily noticed during mechanical or pre-flight checks.

These are all the FACTORY APPLIED finishes. Carrier based aircraft were regularly checked for corrosion and touched up, or resprayed with FAA designated paint when returned to land bases in the UK. If the a/c were subsequently re-painted by the FAA, they would use standard colours (FAA formally adopted SBG for US supplied aircraft from August 1944). So you will need the serial to see how the a/c was finished. AB picture of JZ654 with delivery number in Canada and crown picture p82 in Profile 214 and in book ‘The Secret Years - Flight Testing at Boscombe Down 1939-1945’ of JZ635 at A&AEE of TBM-3s in TSS. Photo seen by others of JZ681 (TBM-3E) in SBG so perhaps JZ series TBM-3s delivered in TSS and TBM-3Es in SBG?

Fixtures and fittings

When the FAA adopted the Avenger in WWII, it was to fulfil the TBR mission. The standard TBR crew was a pilot, observer, and the Telegraphist Air Gunner (TAG), who operated the radio equipment and handled rear defence.

The observer was responsible for navigation, gunnery spotting, reconnaissance work, and weapon aiming during an attack (other than dive-bombing mission). To suit the Avenger to this different crew combination, Blackburn Aircraft set up a rework facility in the US to modify airframes into a similar configuration as the original TBF, with a full cockpit behind the pilot for the observer (on USN aircraft this area was used as a rack for radio equipment).

FAA Tarpons/Avengers delivered in WWII had the centre (navigator) cockpit as per the first fifty TBF-1s, with the observers seat placed looking forward immediately behind the pilot. It had rudimentary flight instruments and a stick and pedals. The stick was stored on the fuselage side until needed. There was no provisions for the Norden sight, though the bombing panel was retained.

All had FAA radios, gun sights, Sutton harnesses and oxygen systems.

F24 camera fitted in the TAG’s station (replacing stinger gun?) and ROTAG attachment points added.

Radio mast was hinged so it could be folded over. Was it simply a matter of adding a hinge to whatever mast was on the airframe. Photographic evidence indicates vertical and re-positioned masts as per TBF-1c and TBM-1c were not fitted to FAA MK I and II machines (see below).

Round domed windows replaced flat oval windows on the fuselage side by the TAG’s station.

Though most may have not had a lower rear gun (replaced by a camera), some FAA Tarpons had it installed.

TBF-1 and TBM-1

Had one a single upper right cowl mounted .30 calibre machine gun and associated gun trough.

Radio mast on top of the canopy sloped backwards slightly. Antenna lead in was below the rear canopy.

From late 1944/early 1945, the Stinger gun was removed.

Late production airframes had Westinghouse ASB search radar installed with Yagi aerial arrays toed outwards at 40 attached under each outboard wing. (see photo of FN908 above)

TBF-1C and TBM-1C

Had a .50 calibre machine gun mounted in each wing just outboard of the wing fold. The .30 calibre machine gun and associated gun trough were deleted.

The radio mast on top of the canopy was moved further aft and stood vertically. Antenna lead in was moved to the fuselage side below the turret.

Photographic evidence indicates vertical and re-positioned masts as per TBF-1c and TBM-1c were not fitted to FAA MK I and II machines. Photos of possibleTBF-1C and confirmed (according to Sturtivant and Burrow) TBM-1Cs seen include;

FN912

Scale Aircraft Modelling May 84

TBF-1C?

JZ114

Model Aircraft Monthly Aug 05

TBF-1C?

JZ150

Internet – Britmodeller forum

TBF-1C?

JZ159

Air Britain Squadrons of the FAA

TBF-1C?

JZ229

Air Britain FAA Aircraft 1939-45

TBF-1C?

JZ396

Air Britain FAA Aircraft 1939-45

TBM-1C

JZ401

Aeroplane Monthly Nov 02

TBM-1C

JZ434

Scale Aircraft Modelling Feb 94

TBM-1C

JZ466

Model Aircraft Monthly Aug 05

TBM-1C

JZ496

Scale Aircraft Modelling May 84

TBM-1C

JZ497

Aeroplane Monthly Nov 02

TBM-1C

JZ535

Aeroplane Monthly Nov 02

TBM-1C

JZ541

Air Britain FAA Aircraft 1939-45

TBM-1C

JZ594

Scale Aircraft Modelling May 84

TBM-1C

JZ614

FAA in Camera 1912-96

TBM-1C

Westinghouse ASB search radar installed with Yagi aerial arrays toed outwards at 40 attached under each outboard wing.

Late production airframes had 70 inch MK4 rocket rails and wing racks fitted. Later still, MK5 zero length rocket launchers were fitted. However these were removed in FAA service.

From late 1944/early 1945, the Stinger gun was removed.

Later airframes fitted with propellers of broader chord?

TBM-3

Had an uprated engine which required a redesigned cowling to provide adequate cooling and airflow for the engine’s relocated oil cooler.

Intakes at 12:00 and 6:00 o’clock positions (previous variants had just the one intake at the 12:00 o’clock position).

Four additional cowl flaps down each side of the cowling. The bottom two were indented and the lowest one notched to clear the exhaust stack, which was of a slightly different shape.

MK5 zero length rocket launchers fitted as standard and cockpit instruments re-arranged.

All FAA specific mods as per earlier versions (dome windows, observers station, British equipment etc.) made.

TBM-3E (1945/46)

Lightweight (by nearly a ton)variant of TBM-3.

Engine cowl flaps further refined with the indentation removed from the bottom two flaps.

From my basic research which was done quite a few years ago so my memory might not be correct, I think that the British Mk.III`s were TBM-3E`s from BuAer69140. If there had been a one-to-one relationship with the BuAer serials, this would suggest a switch to TBM-3E from JZ651.

However, Air Britain (AB) picture of JZ654 shows TBM-3 characteristics – indented lower cowl flaps, stinger gun position extant, MK5 zero length rocket launchers but no underwing rack for an AN/ASP-4 radar pod

I have written down that from BuAer86175 the TBM-3E` had external hooks fitted, meaning that the first batch of Mk.III`s serialled JZ635-JZ720 had internal hooks but the second and subsequent batches, beginning with KE430 had external hooks? The available photos that I have seen seem to bear this out.

Stinger gun position and associated windows deleted.

An under-wing rack for an AN/APS-4 radar pod was installed under the starboard wing. Pod used by or at least seen on some operational aircraft.

A larger tail wheel was fitted to some aircraft

Tail and wing de-icing gear was dispensed with.

All presumed to have FAA specific mods as per earlier versions (dome windows, observers station behind pilot, British equipment etc.) made. Photos of KE443 in AB FAA Aircraft since 1946 and KE461 in Eric Brown's Fly Navy, show dome windows and open canopy above observers station.

Edited October 3, 2017 by detail is everything

[Graham Boak]

I'd just pick out one comment from your excellent piece. Although the British selected the Avenger for the TBR mission, as you say, they refused the US torpedo because of its (then) unreliability. However the Avenger was unable to carry the longer British torpedo nor could it carry out true dive-bomber missions because of the internal carriage without trapeze. Therefore the FAA retained the Barracuda for the TBR role, and introduced the Avenger in the ASW mission. With the disappearance (i.e. sinking) of the enemy fleets, it was decided to cancel training for the torpedo mission, and true dive-bombing was no longer quite so desirable. Given the lack of power of the Barracuda in tropical conditions and the perceived lack of need for their capabilities, they were withdrawn and the Avenger took over the bomber role on the Fleet carriers, using shallow dive-angle "glide bomb" techniques. The carriers of the BPF carried a small stock of the US torpedo just in case.

If the FAA's supply of Griffons had been diverted earlier to the Barracuda instead of the Firefly, history could have been different. (OK, I like the Firefly as an aircraft, but let's face it, it wouldn't have been missed.) And the Griffon Barracuda was even uglier.

Edited February 22, 2016 by Graham Boak

[Nick Millman]

There was no ANA equivalent for Sky simply because at the time of the ANA consolidation it was not required by any service as a paint colour. 'Sky Type S Gray' (or Grey) was terminology used by Dupont for its Sky equivalent paint 71-021 and is nowhere near FS 36373 in appearance by any measure. British requirements for Sky under surfaces were commonly communicated and specified as 'Duck Egg Blue' rather than as any form of grey. The ANA 610 standard for Sky is close to FS 24424 and was retained until 1949 when it was superseded by FS 34424.

That seems slightly contradictory. The ANA equivalent for Sky was ANA 610 and was just called Sky from the outset. At the time it was introduced as an ANA paint colour standard it was required as the under surface colour on aircraft destined for delivery to the British Fleet Air Arm which were to be finished in the Temperate Sea scheme.

The standard for ANA 610 is slightly darker and more saturated than the standard for MAP Sky but both are Munsell Green Yellow (GY) hues of similar appearance.

It is probable that the applied paints varied from standard and it is doubtful that it would be consistently possible to tell ANA 610 apart from MAP Sky, especially on aircraft in service.

Nick

[Seahawk]

I've just read a review that states the Academy kit is accurate (more or less!) for a TBM-3 not a TBF-1 that it is labelled as. It certainly does not have a cowl gun like early Avengers. The only real issue (for those not bothered about 100% accuracy) is the domes for the side windows (which are for British Avengers.

My other Avenger kit is a Hasegawa TBM-1C (Atlantic camouflage), so here's my initial thought, I'll make the Academy kit as a USN TBM-3 but leave off the domes and make the side windows flat. I'll make the Hasegawa kit into a Royal Navy Avenger Mk II, using the domes from the Academy kit. Does this sound like an Ok plan to Avenger experts?

thanks

Mike

Fair enough. But for other readers the Academy FAA windows are just solid hemispheres that are difficult to attach and don't look that convincing. I wouldn't go out of my way to buy an Academy Acenger just to source the windows. One of several openings for aftermarket Avenger bits?

[Denford]

Fair enough. But for other readers the Academy FAA windows are just solid hemispheres that are difficult to attach and don't look that convincing. I wouldn't go out of my way to buy an Academy Acenger just to source the windows. One of several openings for aftermarket Avenger bits?

Or better still included on the clear sprue of a new Avenger.....

[Greenshirt]

Grumman used MAP colours, Eastern used ANA substitutes.

Grumman--Dark Slate Grey (FS 34096), Extra Dark Sea Grey (FS 36118), Sky (FS 34583).

Grumman used equivalent paint shades, ie colours that matched the official British colours and not substitutes ie colours that, while not matching British colours, were officially approved as being acceptable alternatives. The paint used by Grumman throughout the war on camouflaged British aircraft may not have been made in Britain but it was indistinguishable from paint that was.

Eastern-- Olive Drab ANA 613 (FS 34130), Sea Grey ANA 603 (FS 36173), Sky (FS 34504).

Sea Grey ANA 603 was British Extra Dark Sea Grey so wasn't a substitute as such.

Sky Type S Gray ANA 610 was meant to be equivalent to British TSS Sky as well bu there was apparently a difference.

There was no ANA equivalent for Sky simply because at the time of the ANA consolidation it was not required by any service as a paint colour. 'Sky Type S Gray' (or Grey) was terminology used by Dupont for its Sky equivalent paint 71-021 and is nowhere near FS 36373 in appearance by any measure. British requirements for Sky under surfaces were commonly communicated and specified as 'Duck Egg Blue' rather than as any form of grey. The ANA 610 standard for Sky is close to FS 24424 and was retained until 1949 when it was superseded by FS 34424.

Just to be clear, for this is a great post, the FS values did not exist during the war, these FS values being quoted are the closest match to the actual colors.

Tim