JWM Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Hi, I would like to ask about the size of tail (horizontal stabilizers) in Nimrod II produced in Denmark. The CMR kit has "5 ribs" version (wider) tail - but is there any proof for this on photos? I was not able to count ribs in photos which I have. I have doubts, bacause in drawings published in an article in SAFO magazine in 1990 the tail is standard - so "4.5" ribs version. Can any expert judge it? regards Jerzy-Wojtek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWM Posted June 5, 2016 Author Share Posted June 5, 2016 (edited) If one will compare two those photos: What do you think? I have feelings that at least vertical tail is in larger version in Dannish Nimrod LBV than in Fury. But horizontal? - for me is the same. That would mean, that both drawings in SAFO article from 1990 and CMR kit are wrong in this part.... Cheers J-W EDIT: I looked again to photos in SAFO article and there is a photo of "178" made right from the side - and the vartical tail is for sure of smaller version. So I decided to follow drawings from the SAFO article entirly... - so the answer for my question is "the tail of Nimrod II in Denmark (LB V) is a small tail " Edited June 5, 2016 by JWM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRK4m Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 Go on! Looking at these photos both vertical and horizontal tail of Nimrod and Fury look identical. But mention that this is a straight-winged Nimrod - maybe the tail surfaces were enlarged when the swept wings were introduced? Cheers Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWM Posted June 5, 2016 Author Share Posted June 5, 2016 OK, I will! BTW - "175" is always presented as swept-wing one... Cheers J-W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRK4m Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 So now you know why I'm always so careful following the "artist's" profiles Cheers Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Aero Posted June 9, 2016 Share Posted June 9, 2016 IMO 175 is a swept wing Nimrod II and in that photo the angle from behind makes it appear to be the earlier straight wing and fitted with the small tailplane. The swept wing was introduced to assist pilots of the Nimrod when the a/c was fitted with floats to get out of an inverted spin. It's purely my guess but sweeping the wing would have the effect of making the a/c nose heavy and I think that the larger tailplane was introduced later to give more elevator authority to aid recovery. Perhaps the handling benefits of the larger tail caused the larger tail to be retrofitted to other Nimrods even without floats. Certainly the Danes had the drawings for the larger tailplane as it appears in Tage Larsens drawings, which were done from archived material. John Edit.. I have noticed that a number of Nimrod II drawings have the larger tail shown, but, the rib spacing is wrong. I am beginning to suspect that very few Nimrods were fitted with the larger tail. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWM Posted June 10, 2016 Author Share Posted June 10, 2016 John, many, many thanks! I had hope that you will tell it, since without any doubts for me you are a most important expert on Silver Wing Era Britts ....It means for me that small horizontal tail is really likely to be - as it is on drawings in SAFO (April 1990, vol. 14 No 2) by Thomas Krog-Soerensen following research by Thorkild Wiehe. Best regards Jerzy-Wojtek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRK4m Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 (edited) Frankly speaking there's something totally unclear with the wings of Danish Nimrods. You can see the same machines fitted once with swept wings and with straight ones at the other time. And there's no common rule, as one a/c could have swept wings while being silver-doped (so up to the mid-30s I think) and straight wings in 1939, while another plane features wing sweep change the other way round. Does anybody have any idea on this subject? British-built #170 has straight wings both as silver (with wheel spats) and as camouflaged (winter 39/40) with fuselage roundels and skis, but in April 1940 the wings are swept. Also British-built #171 (silver-doped) has straight wings, while Danish 1934-built #173 and 174 feature wing sweep while silver-doped already. Danish (1935-built) #175 in camouflage (plain green top wing) has straight wing and so has her sibling #176 (although here the upper wing has two-colour camo). But in 1940 (fuselage roundels added) #175 has swept wings fitted. As to the another duo of 1935 production (#177 and 178) both have swept wings while silver-doped already.Of the 1936 Danish production (#179, 180 and 181) all feature swept wings when silver-doped, but when camouflaged both #179 (upper wing in two colours) and #181 have straight wings. I understand, that wing sweep has been introduced for CG reasons when operating with floats, but Danish Nimrods never used floats. Could it be this way that the swept wings were introduced on Danish production machines and then - during the overhaul - the user gave up and reverted to the straight ones? But why some a/c depicted as straight-winged up to 1939 feature swept wings in April 1940? Or maybe the photos on pp. 121-123 there http://www.ole-nikolajsen.com/album%20dk.pdf are wrongly dated...Cheers Michael Edited June 12, 2016 by KRK4m 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Aero Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 Mike and JWM Having studied the photos and some others in MMP and other books I'm under the impression that all Danish Nimrods had swept wings and I include 170 and 171. Look carefully at the pictures (especially the centre one) of 170 on page 91 of the MMP book.. The problem with the swept top wing in photos is that at certain angles both from the front and rear there is an optical illusion in that wing appears flat and has no discernible sweepback. The clue is this flattening of the wing. I think a 'red herring' is . K. Mason's misleading remark in the Putnam book that 170 and 171 (which as you state correctly were British built) that "these two aircraft were"essentially Mk. 1's". This is probably because they had the lower rated 450hp Kestrel IIIs and not the 680hp Kestrel VFP. As for the colours then I suggest that they were all silver, all with swept wings and and on mobilization these same wings were camouflaged. John Edit, missing word, not the 680hp 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWM Posted June 12, 2016 Author Share Posted June 12, 2016 The photos from link in Mike post # 8 are really a great set! - thank you for sharing . BTW - have a look there - the No 177 has different nose - with oil cooler! This whole Dannish Nimrod story looks like a pile of mysteries... John - thank you for your comment. I have to tell that I quit with own research.... In fact I am finishing the model, hope to show it soon on RFI. I decided to do No 170 on ski and camouflaged - following the profile published in SAFO (1990, full reference in my previous link). I have also doubts about the all-green upper wing.... But as I told - I quit with attempts to do own research on this Best regards and many thanks again for help Jerzy-Wojtek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Aero Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 I've had further thoughts on why some Danish Nimrods may have been retro fitted with the larger tail. I believe that this may have to do with the way the Danes used the Nimrod. Part of their remit was dive bombing and thus better elevator control might have been a factor. Danish Nimrods initially had the oil cooler combined with the belly radiator bath but this was later changed to a similar arrangement to the FAA Nimrods. John I'd forgotten that I had the SAFO's (Small Air Forces Observer) on my book shelves. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWM Posted June 14, 2016 Author Share Posted June 14, 2016 I just posted model on RFI - http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235004089-nimrod-and-persian-fury-scratch-conversions/ many thanks John and Mike for help! Cheers J-W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tempestfan Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 Hi, I would like to ask about the size of tail (horizontal stabilizers) in Nimrod II produced in Denmark. I don't think the Nimrod was fitted with horizontal stabilizers at all - it had a tailplane (sorry, couldn't resist...) Seriously, do the Granger drawings give any clue ? I know they are old and may be based on someone else's work, but then you never know. Also, I have a very dim feeling the Danish Nimrod was covered in one of Stoppel's DanMil books from the early 70s, but then it's about 20 years that I last looked into any of my DanMil's (and frankly I have no idea in which box they hide). Perhaps someone having them could confirm or otherwise. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Aero Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 No the Granger Danish Nimrod drawings show only the small tailplane. To throw in another 'wobbley', just because the Danes had the large tailplane drawings in their surviving archive it does not necessarily mean they actually ever built any. The Larsen drawings show the FAA Nimrod 1 with the small tail and the Danish Nimrod II with the large tailplane. It's only on very clear original photos from the correct angles will it be possible to ascertain positively which tailplane is fitted to what. John If the Nimrod drawings did appear in Dan-Mil I'd be interested to see them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogsbody Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 Here is the Granger drawing: Chris 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWM Posted June 16, 2016 Author Share Posted June 16, 2016 Thanks Gents - the problem was that CMR kit looks like have a "5 ribs" TAILPLANE ( ) whereas the two different drawings which I had showed the "4.5" ones.- I presumed, that there was some reasons to do larger tail in CMR kit so I wanted to provoke this discussion and hear oppinions on this... Anyway - many thanks for discussion and especially Chris for third set of drawings.. .I hope you like the model (not by CMR but scratch conversion of A-model Fury). Cheers J-W 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tempestfan Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 (edited) DanMil 7 has a short feature on the Danish Nimrods (so I wasn't completely off the mark), but no drawings, and none of the pics from angles allowing any conclusions re the tailpane. It has a pic of 170 which is Hawker Siddeley © and captioned as being taken on pre-delivery tests, and this would relatively clearly suggest it was built with the swept wings. Edited July 4, 2016 by tempestfan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Aero Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 Yes 170 was built with swept wings and I'm of the opinion that no Danish Nimrods ever had the straight wing. As to the tail plane mods I've yet to see convincing evidence but given my conjecture about the Danish dive bombing requirement and the loss of a couple of aircraft in this role as well as the large tail plane drawings in the archive may suggest that the larger tail plane was retrofitted at a later date. John 1 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